ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics
-
FN and QL cannot reason and debate, need to turn to personal attacks again.
cheers -
what did QL attack you in the last few posts? Prove it!!Originally posted by Mat Toro:FN and QL cannot reason and debate, need to turn to personal attacks again.
cheers -
Come back after you've got your GCSE pass in English.Originally posted by Mat Toro:I already did, you need to go and read.
Wrong. If anything, North Korea shows you the regime could still have survived. And obviously, Reagan winning the Cold War against the communists is nothing more than a romantic notion of idiots like you.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Thats right, change or die. They just can't keep up with Reagan's arms spending anymore. Thats how Reagam won the cold war against communists like you.
He was no more influential than I (or millions of others who directly/indirectly injected cash into the American coffers) who spent money on McDonald's or Coca-Cola, who in turn contributed to the American reserves through taxes.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union and set millions free.
If you even get my drift, that is.
Of course you don't. That's why you aren't running the DPRK.Originally posted by Mat Toro:If that pot bellied dog eating dictator is so good, why noot you go to NK?
I don't see anything succesful or great about running a dictatroship while starving millions.
You needn't see anything great - that's not necessary. I'm sure you're an integral reason as to why this regime is so desperate to woo locals who have emigrated (or are believed to be potential emigrants) and making a comfortable living elsewhere. After all, with more gnomes like you around with neither the basic ability to comprehend simple logic nor the coherent ability to reason and analyse rationally, what hope is there counting on you to sustain this regime? -
I think he cannot prove again.Originally posted by qlqq9:what did QL attack you in the last few posts? Prove it!! -
Originally posted by walesa:Of course you don't. That's why you aren't running the DPRK.
You needn't see anything great - that's not necessary. I'm sure you're an integral reason as to why this regime is so desperate to woo locals who have emigrated (or are believed to be potential emigrants) and making a comfortable living elsewhere. After all, with more gnomes like you around with neither the basic ability to comprehend simple logic nor the coherent ability to reason and analyse rationally, what hope is there counting on you to sustain this regime? -
He is just here to attract attention.Originally posted by maurizio13:I think he cannot prove again. -
wow, great reponse from walsea!Originally posted by walesa:Of course you don't. That's why you aren't running the DPRK.
You needn't see anything great - that's not necessary. I'm sure you're an integral reason as to why this regime is so desperate to woo locals who have emigrated (or are believed to be potential emigrants) and making a comfortable living elsewhere. After all, with more gnomes like you around with neither the basic ability to comprehend simple logic nor the coherent ability to reason and analyse rationally, what hope is there counting on you to sustain this regime? -
This is what Mat Toro is essentially trying to say:
I did not service my car for decades, then suddenly it breaks down.
Mat Toro comes along and claims he's responsible for causing it to break down. -
Ahahahahah............. two goons teaming up to focus on insulting me.
cheers -
Think you are arithmetically challenged too. At last count, there are definitely more than 5 forumers against your ridiculous logic.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Ahahahahah............. two goons teaming up to focus on insulting me.
cheers -
[quote]Originally posted by Mat Toro:
[b]
Again you showed your ignorance so openly. Turnaround of the US economy took place right under Reagan's policies of tax cuts.
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
Now yu really showed you dunno US economics and politics.
The very Clinton policies were proven to be destructive as it resulted in a recession that was turned around soon after Bush jr. did his tax cuts. The taxes were the killer of the economy.
Errr.....sorry to disturb you. Mate,I think you are mistaken that US President do not actually run the US economical policies. As a matter of fact, US economic policies is basically run by the FED (Federal Reserve) which is the Central Bank. The FED is an independent federal government agency.
During Reagan years, the FED was headed by Mr Paul Volcker (1979-1987). He was nominated, by President Carter, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s by limiting the growth of the money supply, abandoning the previous policy of targeting interest rates. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983 and has remained low ever since. The change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression. And of course, he is also partly responsible for the 1987 market Crash.
After Volcker, then came my idol Mr Alan Greenspan . He was norminated in 1987 by President Reagan. Mr Alan Greenspan hold his ofice from Aug 1987 - Jan 2006. During his period at the FED, Mr Alan Greenspan never publicly commented what algorithms or inflation and unemployment targets the fed uses in setting the interest rate. Yet, over the years he built credibility in the financial markets that he was willing to fight inflation. The flexibility permitted him to affect the economy by, say, lowering interest rates in order to fight a recession while his credibility made it possible to do this without shocking the bond market.
These are the 2 person that had direct influence on the US economy then and not so much of the Presidents. ( Reagan, Snr Bush, Clinton, Jnr Bush )
-
Wow that nice. You are just one of those goons. I collect goons like you.Originally posted by maurizio13:Think you are arithmetically challenged too. At last count, there are definitely more than 5 forumers against your ridiculous logic.
cheers -
So says the idiot who riddles his arguments in numerous threads with so many fallacious arguments, has the audacity to proclaim what he says as gospel truth, and so on.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Wow that nice. You are just one of those goons. I collect goons like you.
cheers
Go cry at one corner for being a disgrace to whatever university or school or country you come from. -
So says the arrogant forumner who can't debate, is intolerant of others, uses big words and look down on local graduates, then focus on insults once he lost a debate.
cheers -
Maybe I watch too much History channel. But here's a quote from Brookings Insitution. As quoted.Originally posted by walesa:That's just what your warped notion of history's alleged role. It's only split in your view - as split as I'm certain as to your gender.
Historians and scholars with the benefit of time and a measure of detachment will provide the authoritative judgments concerning what Mr. Clinton has accomplished, what was left undone
another pcs of sentence i thought it would be of your interest.
It's clear that the president's supporters and his detractors are hard at work seeking to shape the way historians will remember him, as is the president himself. In some ways, one of the defining characteristics of Mr. Clinton's legacy may be the self-consciousness of its pursuit
Even as an observer it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to read and learned the different perspective its all over the net.
You r interested in my gender?
And i would not put down former chairman of Fed Allan Greenspan over Bill seriously. -
Originally posted by walesa:
[/b]
[b]What you've just posted is more than sufficient to debunk your initial drivel about your seemingly flippant stance on "the future foreign policy that needs attention will be coming out from Africa and the middle east".
No. this is your conclusion. My perspective to Africa and middle east stand from the current situation in resources, political, and threat assesment.
So what would you rather have and which side of the fence would you rather be on now that you've done your belated research on the Clinton administration's efforts in Africa and the Middle East? Instead of conceding the Clinton administration actually not having done anything for Africa, you're now saying they just haven't [b]done enough, eh?[/b]
I choose to quote the speech from Fullbright a friendly neutral critics of Bill. But the point is even with a friendly environment the remarks that describe Bill remain unchanged he make no impact. But for show case. I am not sitting on any side, but simply to say that I would not put Bill on High note. And would certainly HOLD ON putting him beside FDR. (The person that i quote wrote a biography of FDR)
So is Hillary's efforts still hindered by her association with a President who did more than any previous administrations since the second world war for a region you regard to be important as far as the next administration's foreign policy goes? Or are you unable to make up your mind and need further research to ascertain millions of Americans' fixation on a President who left office with the third highest approval ratings in history?
aiyoo Who is having a fixation on Bill.... I am not the one that is defending him
I still believe that Hiliary campaign will be affected, if she win the primary washington politics will creep up. All other topics on accomplishment on Bill as said it is still debatable.
While his foreign policies were, broadly speaking, extensively all-encompassing, the degrees of his successes were invariably different. It's not rocket science it wouldn't be realistic every foreign policy endeavour he pursued would have resulted in success on the scale of the [b]Good Friday Agreement he had in Northern Ireland, would it? Or is it too complex for you to understand, by the law of averages, policies would invariably yield different measures of success? Or is your world blinded by the excessive monochromes that you can't actually look past success and failure in absolute terms, and perhaps understand that policies that aren't totally successful are hardly abject failures?[/b]
listen you don't have to bring up his accomplishment one at a time, He was in the office for 8 years, the most powerful jobs on this planet got to do something useful. The thing isn';t about saying success in absolute term, the point is there is no impact on the issue he work on. -
I do look down on some local graduates, such as yourself, who don't use his brain.Originally posted by Mat Toro:So says the arrogant forumner who can't debate, is intolerant of others, uses big words and look down on local graduates, then focus on insults once he lost a debate.
cheers
So yes, I am arrogant, and intolerant of fools and I am loathe to suffer them. And you, I have come to regard, as a fool. Someone to be despised and loathed and would be happy to send you to the gulags if not for the fact I wasn't Stalin.
And no, you used insults first, and I held back for a long while till it became clear you were back pedalling and refusing to back up your statements with balanced articles.
And yes, just where are those self-proclaimed polls you made? We have been waiting for them for pages upon pages ago. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
I beat you in debate many times over, does that mean you have no brain?
I do look down on some local graduates, such as yourself, who don't use his brain.
I just proved that foreign grads can be brainless according to FN's logic.
I knew it. all leftists and liberals are like that. They cry about freedom of speech yet are intolerant and don't believe in giving others freedom to speak. Want to jail me in communist gulag some more. Aiyah so sad dik.
So yes, I am arrogant, and intolerant of fools and I am loathe to suffer them. And you, I have come to regard, as a fool. Someone to be despised and loathed and would be happy to send you to the gulags if not for the fact I wasn't Stalin..
Not me sir, its you who started it once you realise you were debunked.
And no, you used insults first, and I held back for a long while till it became clear you were back pedalling and refusing to back up your statements with balanced articles.
What polls?
And yes, just where are those self-proclaimed polls you made? We have been waiting for them for pages upon pages ago. -
Perhaps you can tell me what this logic is because you have not described the cause and effect here. Moreover, I have yet to understand what I have said can be used for anything.Originally posted by Mat Toro:I beat you in debate many times over, does that mean you have no brain?
I just proved that foreign grads can be brainless according to FN's logic.
And it also proves to me, that you are a local graduate, and you cannot possibly be working in the United States as an analyst. It is near impossible for one to be working in the US on a local degree, more so when it comes to even advising local politicians. Simply put, you are a liar and a PAP hack.I knew it. all leftists and liberals are like that. They cry about freedom of speech yet are intolerant and don't believe in giving others freedom to speak. Want to jail me in communist gulag some more. Aiyah so sad dik.
Don't you dare call me a liberal. I despise extreme left liberals, those damn hippies.
And also you, are using the shield of freedom of speech to cover your stupidity which has become an eyesore on this forum, and I am not the only one to have found it asinine. Only idiots cry "freedom of speech" to protect their sorry asses.Not me sir, its you who started it once you realise you were debunked.
Debunked? Where? All I see is more strawman arguments, more cherrypicking, and a reluctance to bring up real articles, instead of wikipedia, which is an alliance of fools and I have been reluctant to use that as a source. The fact that you broke the key tenets of debate from the start means it was gloves off.What polls?
Why, what short memory you have. Further reinforcing my belief that you aren't an analyst after all. -
neither did i understand what you said. where is you cause and effect to back up your claim my fren?
Perhaps you can tell me what this logic is because you have not described the cause and effect here. Moreover, I have yet to understand what I have said can be used for anything.
I am a local grad. I also found out that many foreign universities are not as disciplined as local unis. Not only that, the professors use their classes for political indoctrination. Thats why they produced so many lousy grads like you. Thats why US import so many foreign grads into their country.
And it also proves to me, that you are a local graduate, and you cannot possibly be working in the United States as an analyst. It is near impossible for one to be working in the US on a local degree, more so when it comes to even advising local politicians. Simply put, you are a liar and a PAP hack.
I did work in the US before but not anymore.
I didn't say i am an analyst working in the US, I said I am working with an associate that does consultancy work for politicians. You see how poor your comprehension is? How can you possibly be a quality grad?
I seriously doubt your boast that you are consultant grade in some MNC. You honestly do not fit the mold. Either that or your employers are fools.
You certainly behave like one. You just don't realise it. I am serious.
Don't you dare call me a liberal. I despise extreme left liberals, those damn hippies.
Even stupid people are entitled to freedom of speech.
And also you, are using the shield of freedom of speech to cover your stupidity which has become an eyesore on this forum, and I am not the only one to have found it asinine. Only idiots cry "freedom of speech" to protect their sorry asses.
The issue now is, you are intolerant of people with different views from yours and try to shut others up. You need to open up my fren and learn to accept and respect others.
Aren't these the tactics you have been using? Keep your comments for yourself sir.
Debunked? Where? All I see is more strawman arguments, more cherrypicking, and a reluctance to bring up real articles, instead of wikipedia, which is an alliance of fools and I have been reluctant to use that as a source. The fact that you broke the key tenets of debate from the start means it was gloves off.
BTW, I graduated from NUS. which foreign university did you graduate from? -
In your obvious failure to comprehend the metaphorical comparison I'd drawn with regard to your view, resulting in a misguided interpretation that I'd been remotely interested in your gender or its innuendoes, it surely is remarkable that you could even remotely make sense of what, if your riposte is anything to go by, is effectively senseless.Originally posted by Arapahoe:You r interested in my gender?Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Nevertheless, on to the merits of your argument. So what does that prove? That there are actually opinions are as diverse as the depths of the ocean with some offering more credibility than the rest?
Maybe I watch too much History channel. But here's a quote from Brookings Insitution. As quoted.
[b]Historians and scholars with the benefit of time and a measure of detachment will provide the authoritative judgments concerning what Mr. Clinton has accomplished, what was left undone
another pcs of sentence i thought it would be of your interest.
It's clear that the president's supporters and his detractors are hard at work seeking to shape the way historians will remember him, as is the president himself. In some ways, one of the defining characteristics of Mr. Clinton's legacy may be the self-consciousness of its pursuit
Even as an observer it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to read and learned the different perspective its all over the net.
And i would not put down former chairman of Fed Allan Greenspan over Bill seriously.
[/b]
So what is it you're disputing? Is there a particular source of "historians and scholars" whose views will some day be viewed as the irrefutable gospel truth on the successes and failures of the Clinton administration (or anything else for that matter)?
If anything, it's a failure on your part that as a mere "observer", you're unable to accept the fact that there're people who have more valid reasons than yours to hold a view opposing yours. Then again, in an over-zealous attempt to drive home your point and having exercised an obvious negligence in your analysis of Hillary's credentials through her association with a President who had been more active in Africa than any in the last 50 years, it's hardly rocket science to figure the source of your seemingly inexplicable flippancy.
And it certainly wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure I'm not alone in crediting the Clinton administration for the longest economic boom in US history. -
Huh???Originally posted by Mat Toro:BTW, I graduated from NUS. which foreign university did you graduate from?
Nowadays NUS confer degrees on bachelor of management (wc)? -
This still doesn't address your argument that Hillary's 2008 chances, compared to Obama's, are jeopardised because of your seemingly inexplicable belief (well, besides the shallow fact that the latter's an African-American) that Obama has the capacity to do more for Africa which you regard to be important for US foreign policy. All that from someone who obviously knew little about Clinton's efforts in Tanzania - well, only to revert your stance by insinuating that Clinton had not done enough (instead of suggesting he had done nothing) when your misguided allegations were challenged.Originally posted by Arapahoe:No. this is your conclusion. My perspective to Africa and middle east stand from the current situation in resources, political, and threat assesment.
I suppose initiatives that fall short of meeting its initial objectives are all deemed failures, eh?Originally posted by Arapahoe:I choose to quote the speech from Fullbright a friendly neutral critics of Bill. But the point is even with a friendly environment the remarks that describe Bill remain unchanged he make no impact. But for show case. I am not sitting on any side, but simply to say that I would not put Bill on High note. And would certainly HOLD ON putting him beside FDR. (The person that i quote wrote a biography of FDR)
Maybe he had not made any impact on the scale you would like. Perhaps, your partiality has gotten the better of you in assessing this through tinted-glasses. After all, it's not rocket science that folks who genuinely believe Clinton to have done something for Africans (which I suppose, narrow-minded individuals would conveniently dismiss as being negligible) are aplenty. If you need a neutral source (and there're plenty others around, although I suppose someone with as misguided a mindset as yours might just overlook them), here's one whose plethora of views has generated a rather interesting debate. At the very least, it should prove that I'm not in the minority of one to believe there're indeed people out there who think Clinton has done something for Africa (in fact, had done more than any other administration in the last 50 years).
I suppose you've got problems with comprehending basic sentences in English as well? You can certainly count on Mat Toro for company if you plan to attend some English classes.Originally posted by Arapahoe:I am not sitting on any side, but simply to say that I would not put Bill on High note. And would certainly HOLD ON putting him beside FDR. (The person that i quote wrote a biography of FDR)
I'm pretty certain I said I'd put Clinton as the second finest President of the 20th Century behind FDR and not putting him beside FDR.
Obviously, you're in dire need of English lessons. In a valiant effort to divert attention from an obvious ignorance about the issue at hand (so have you figured if you're actually contending the fact that Clinton had actually done nothing or not done enough for his African initiative?), I see you've made a desperate effort to misinterpret what is a rigorous defense of a sound argument to be a fixation.Originally posted by Arapahoe:aiyoo Who is having a fixation on Bill.... I am not the one that is defending him
Any chance you might regard trial lawyers defending their clients to possess a disposition towards having a fixation with criminals? Perhaps, it's psychiatric help you need and you certainly wouldn't look out of place in an asylum.
It is. Who ever said it wasn't? That said, it's one thing disputing opinions and quite another matter debating facts. I'm not sure if someone possessing a suspect mental capacity would be sufficiently equipped to understand that though.Originally posted by Arapahoe:I still believe that Hiliary campaign will be affected, if she win the primary washington politics will creep up. All other topics on accomplishment on Bill as said it is still debatable.
I don't and it's obvious Clinton doesn't need me to boost his CV. It wouldn't do much to self-contradicting idiots, anyway.Originally posted by Arapahoe:listen you don't have to bring up his accomplishment one at a time, He was in the office for 8 years, the most powerful jobs on this planet got to do something useful. The thing isn';t about saying success in absolute term, the point is there is no impact on the issue he work on.
Apparently, self-contradiction doesn't seem far removed from the intellects of those with suspicious mental competence. If success cannot be measured in absolute terms, how do you quantitatively define "no impact"? To top that off, all that's coming from someone who advocates an "absolute" stance on Clinton's initiatives in Africa. -
Mind, that's the quality of drivel espoused by someone who has an associate working as a consultant for both parties...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Why, what short memory you have. Further reinforcing my belief that you aren't an analyst after all. -
What did you university confer you? WC?Originally posted by maurizio13:Huh???
Nowadays NUS confer degrees on bachelor of management (wc)?