Quote:
Originally Posted by wvpeach
No you cork it you liar. You presented yourself to this forum as a open minded person. When in reality your nothing but a idiotic neo con sheep like Sean Hannity.
Reganomics history proves does not work. I voted for that bad man his first term because my pastor told us he was the godly candidate. Bull crap and I told the pastor that exactly. Godly men do not ignore history and advocate trickle down economics because 1700 years of recorded history of man kind and a 100 years of history in the US proves that trickle down economics just ends up with a whole lot of people in poverty and a very few who own everything and have a lot of money.
People don't even have to read a history book the bible would tell them this. Read the story of Joesph in the bible sometime Soho why don't you?
Its people like you Soho who have mindlessly voted for this crap for the last 20 plus years that are responsible when this countries economy comes tumbling down. Traitors and idiots is what I call people like you.
If the world lasts a while longer deregulators, free market pushers and trickle down reagonomics pushers like you will be shown in the history books of this once great nation to be the idiots and traitors to this country you are.
|
Read the bible, twice. You really need to update you morality sweetie. Thinking that a 2,000-2,5000 year old book has great practical implications in the 21st century is fruity. Or is slavery and butchering your neighbors really okay (bible seems fine with it).
And as for applying 1700 years of economic history. Are you insane (sorry that has already been proven). Modern economy is NOTHING like the economy 100 years ago, let alone 1700 years ago. That you think it DOES have something to say shows how little you understand economics. Supply side HAS worked far better than Demand side this century. That is a simple fact. Demand side ended up with a depression and a major recession, Supply side has lead to 27 years of pretty decent economic growth (here's a hint peachie, Clinton was a supply sider). Now in economics things are always more complex that a simple "this is better", and some demand side is needed, but in aggregate what you are saying is stupid. The only problem is that you don't understand how stupid it is.
Furthermore you stupid silly fruitcake, I pointed out that there were plenty of issues for which one can attack Bush on, the problem is that you are too stupid to figure those out. Instead you have to run around like a crazy person screaming that the "end of time" is coming. Not surprising given the credence you give to a silly 2,000 year old book, but hardly an argument that will attract anyone but equally stupid people.