<p>Does anyone feel as if McCain might possibly have Alzheimer's?</p>
<p>StopThinkVote.com:</a> Early warning signs of Alzheimer's disease</p>
<p>I think he's displayed significant signs of memory loss, as he apparently forgets everything he used to stand for.</p>
<p>Fasho Fasho!</p>
<p>Reagan had the same thing and he was incredibly effective. Not so much on the financial side, but he solved many more problems than any other president I can think of.</p>
<p>Which problems did he solve exactly? He fell into a financial expansion that was without a doubt going to occur whether Jimmy or himself had it. It's just the means of how you use your resources to take advantage of that looming expansion and in a sense exploit it to the nation's advantage.</p>
<p>Iran hostage? Sure.</p>
<p>Unemployment hit double digits in late 83. </p>
<p>He increased military spending and cut taxes, which left his successor eating his own words.</p>
<p>Breaking the USSR? A systematic collapse within itself doesn't mean that Reagan owed up to it. If Democrats had owned the 80s, you'd be using this same logic against me.</p>
<p>Yes, I have wondered whether McCain's forgetfulness reflects a loss of memory due to some kind of dementia.</p>
<p>Smug if ya didn't realize, unemployment was solved by Reagan, as was Inflation from the days of Carter.</p>
<p>Isn't it possible that McCain may have some form of dementia pugilistica from his PoW beatings?</p>
<p>Unemployment is resolved by the economy. In his state, it took a lot longer than it really had to because he emphasized that the businesses knew what they were doing. Newsflash...it's all about profits for them.</p>
<p>In addition, while many argue this, the inflation rate seems to be positively correlated with the unemployment rate. The fact that unemployment took so long to go down doesn't mean much for inflation as well. If I recall correctly, poverty increased as well.</p>
<p>your right it is solved by the economy, but not when there is govt regulation. Regulation destroys and makes markets meaningless. So again Carter, High regulation. Reagan low regulation. </p>
<p>I am for 0 govt intervention in the economy.</p>
<p>I insist that presidents don't really do dink except sign bills into law and appoint supreme court justices. The president is a figurehead. Perfect job for a lawyer. Or an actor.</p>
<p>America's golden age was a period of Government interference.</p>
<p>Our government, today, is built upon years upon years of regular ordinary citizens asking for government regulation against big business. Big business integrated politics a lot harder and stronger as of the last quarter century. We continue to have this pull to rely on the government, but its not doing us anything better.</p>
<p>In Dr. Horse's mindset, he is fine with the idea of being treated maliciously and letting the economy work itself. I'm not quoting him, but I am inferring his mindset. He wouldn't fight until he felt the plight against him. Relativism, another trait strongly defined to conservative methodology.</p>
<p>Our economy is too swung up in economics now a days. As Ben Franklin put it, in not so many words, we have to give up liberty for security. I say we have to give up the society for the economy and vice versa. I'm quite content with what we've achieved today aside from medicinal efforts. We need to return to society, but conservatives, mainly, are quite happy with the money they're pulling in.</p>
<p>Maybe one day, Dr. Horse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
America's golden age was a period of Government interference.</p>
<p>Our government, today, is built upon years upon years of regular ordinary citizens asking for government regulation against big business. Big business integrated politics a lot harder and stronger as of the last quarter century. We continue to have this pull to rely on the government, but its not doing us anything better.</p>
<p>In Dr. Horse's mindset, he is fine with the idea of being treated maliciously and letting the economy work itself. I'm not quoting him, but I am inferring his mindset. He wouldn't fight until he felt the plight against him. Relativism, another trait strongly defined to conservative methodology.</p>
<p>Our economy is too swung up in economics now a days. As Ben Franklin put it, in not so many words, we have to give up liberty for security. I say we have to give up the society for the economy and vice versa. I'm quite content with what we've achieved today aside from medicinal efforts. We need to return to society, but conservatives, mainly, are quite happy with the money they're pulling in.</p>
<p>Maybe one day, Dr. Horse.
[/quote]
you need a history lesson smug. Americans golden age was when government didn't do ****.</p>
<p>and hereis the proper quote from Franklin, opposite of what you said
[quote]
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The golden era consisted of Keynesian politics. Outside forces, mainly the later 70s, consisted of an era of when people lost faith and hopped the band wagon. The unprecedented growth during the 90s was our reversal. Today's economy is an outcome of your preposterous ideology.</p>
<p>Franklin's quote regarding liberty and security extend farther than one quote. </p>
<p>What do you believe today's government is of?</p>
<p>If McCain suffers from Alzheimer's Disease, it might show up quickly enough for public confidence to fall (if elected).</p>
<p>There is a very practical reason economic conservatism doesn't exist in the contemporary modern world on a scale of more than a few million people per unit; economic conservatism denies large-scale social structural expenditure and hence magnificent projects, which have traditionally been prized in our concept of civilization. (For better or worse, "good" civilization is historically tied to good government programmes.) (I'm thinking of China and France.)</p>
<p>That and the fact that so few people want a hands-off economy. I'm on the verge of repeating my argument for high taxes.</p>
<p>That which follows has nothing at all to do with the thread topic.
[quote]
In Dr. Horse's mindset, he is fine with the idea of being treated maliciously and letting the economy work itself. I'm not quoting him, but I am inferring his mindset. He wouldn't fight until he felt the plight against him.
[/quote]
- Notwithstanding my own concord or diametric opposition or something else regarding certain people's opinions, * This kind of argument against Dr. Horse is not nice in the faintest of ways, and it is not productive. We know you're using hyperbole, but that line disrespects the intentions of the contributor. Let us please refrain from confidently telling people what (we think) they think. As a side observation, assumptions about what people think constitute a recurring theme in the squabbles that electrocute failed marriages.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The golden era consisted of Keynesian politics. Outside forces, mainly the later 70s, consisted of an era of when people lost faith and hopped the band wagon. The unprecedented growth during the 90s was our reversal. Today's economy is an outcome of your preposterous ideology.</p>
<p>Franklin's quote regarding liberty and security extend farther than one quote.</p>
<p>What do you believe today's government is of?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When do you consider the golden era? id love to hear it. It was way before the income tax and way before the Federal Reserve. If you are considering it was during Clinton, i can only laugh. Recession, gutted military and surveillance, high unemployment and inflation, terrorist attacks, Booms and Busts. Far from stable economically. He did add 1.54 Trillion to the deficit. Give me a break. I suppose FDR was a great president also. Even though he extended the depressions effect by almost 15 years. Regulation is the cause, not the cure for economic troubles. Inflation and high unemployment are monetary policy's, we choose them. </p>
<p>Franklins quote pretty much sums up his position quite well on foreign policy and leviathan. You used the quote completely backwards.</p>
<p>Clinton gave us a surplus. Maybe you're thinking of the national debt?</p>
<p>Keynesian economics lol.</p>
<p>He did give us a annual budget surplus, but still added 1.54 trillion to the national debt. I would considuer his surplus real if after 8 years, he had our national debt positive. If Bush cut spending for the 2009 Budget, we could end with a surplus. That's the same thing Clinton did, Spend for the 1st 7 years and the cut on the last. Anybody can do that.</p>
<p>But Clinton didn't have absolute control over the budget with the Republicans running congress. Presidents don't do anything.</p>
<p>But they do. It's crucial that we elect someone that won't just visit any rogue leader without preconditions, a president that is ready to veto any wasteful legislation, a president that had the wisdom to see that the surge was going to be successful enough to drive violence down 90%, rather than leaving the situation as a mess.</p>
<p>If you want to talk about health, how about Barry's smoking? It's completely stupid to accuse McCain of being senile when it's Barack that stammers and stutters, takes vacation as if he know he has the election in his pocket, and someone that repeatedly says the most hilarious things (57 states, next President Biden, "I beat Palin's experience because my campaign beat Hillary".</p>