Republican Manifesto

Things you have to believe to be a US Republican

a. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary.

b. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

c. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

d. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iran.

e. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

f. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

g. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

h. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

i. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

j. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

k. A president lying about an extra-marital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

l. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

m. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving and military records are none of our business.

n. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

o. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '60s is irrelevant.

I think Jon Stewart would applaud you for that post!

lol. i like this American politics thread. all true.

They might as well rethink their stance on gays, seeing as a lot of them seem to be of that inclination

Taboo # 7 wrote: They might as well rethink their stance on gays, seeing as a lot of them seem to be of that inclination

It's called "youth counseling."

spot on, campbell. spot on.

Sorry , I should have said, it's not a Campbell original, I robbed it from spikedhumor.com, a cow-orker pointed it out to me last night.

And I posted it cos I thought....SPOT ON and all ;)

I was going to make a politely pedantic post asking if comments regarding the current political "do" in the States could be kept to just one thread.

But, then, all this Republican bashing is SO FUCKING FUNNY!!!!!

Not to mention heartily deserved

I agree on your points there, Cambo.

Calling me out Cambo?

EdelBrock wrote: Calling me out Cambo?

No way you're a trained soldier and I'm a pot-head,

But as far as I can tell, every word of it is accurate, indisputably so in fact.

The hits just keep on coming:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_us/rnc_chairman

Rummy, Mehlman...they're all jumping ship, it seems

Taboo # 7 wrote: The hits just keep on coming:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_us/rnc_chairman

Rummy, Mehlman...they're all jumping ship, it seems

Actually, this is common in the end of the second term of a president and becoming a 'lame duck'.

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Calling me out Cambo?

No way you're a trained soldier and I'm a pot-head,

But as far as I can tell, every word of it is accurate, indisputably so in fact.

I'll talk on one I know personally:

"f. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay."

When it comes to military pay: When Clinton was in office, he cut military pay; pay considered to be in poverty. Also the numbers of those that could reenlist was seriously reduced. Since Bush, we have had pay raises every year and put military members closer to the pay in civilian coutpart positions.

EdelBrock wrote:

I'll talk on one I know personally:

"f. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay."

When it comes to military pay: When Clinton was in office, he cut military pay; pay considered to be in poverty...

This is so unbelievable-- that pay would not only be stagnant, but would actually be reduced-- that I decided to take a look. And of course, your assertion is not correct.

According to the Department of Defense-- hardly a bastion of left-wing propaganda-- Clinton increased military pay with a 3.7% raise in 2001.

Now, this article claims that Clinton's 1994 budget requested a pay freeze, which the Republican-led Congress ignored. In 1995, Clinton proposed a 1.6% pay increase, while Congress authorized a 2.6% pay increase. In 2000, Clinton signed a defense appropriations bill that provided a 4.8% pay increase.

If you'd like, I can find data for every budget year, but surely you must realize that your game is up?

You know Comrade, you don't have to cut pay by giving a reduction in the paycheck...you simply don't keep make advancements in pay as inflation happens.

regardless, you also need to understand how the pay works, as it is different than civilian pay.

First; there is basic pay. It is what the military member makes as annual income. This is what is increased with the percentage you noted (not any other benefit listed below).

A four year Sgt would have made $1314 a month (before taxes)in 1994

Second: There is BAH (or BAQ as called in the 90s). This is housing allowance. Pay for those not living in the barracks. It is suppose to cover rent and utilities. (this is nontaxable)

Unfortunately I can't find any data, though I gave an honest search. But trust me when I say it did not come anywhere near the price of rent (let alone utilities) in 1994. Also pay raises never touched this, and the BAQ rates did not icrease that often.

With these in place, in the 80's the goverment kept military pay 13% lower than like-educucated-civilian pay. However a large gap increased in the 90's to 25% lower than like-educated-civilian pay. During Clinton's administration there were a few years that had pay increase, but since he was drastically downsizing the military there was no need to increase pay to civilian standards (as he didn't need the incentive to keep people enlisted).

Since Bush took office, we have had at least one pay raise per year (most within 2.6-4.1% increase), and our BAH is definately substantial enough to rent decent housing. Most of this plan was made by Bush BEFORE 9/11. It was mainly to restore the military to a larger level than during the Clinton administration.

EdelBrock wrote: You know Comrade, you don't have to cut pay by giving a reduction in the paycheck...you simply don't keep make advancements in pay as inflation happens.

I think it's patently dishonest to characterize that as a "pay cut" when you know full well that the rate of your pay wasn't cut.

But if you want to use that standard, then you would certainly agree that I could analyze any administration's economic policiess by the same measure; i.e., if it turns out that my pay hasn't kept pace with inflation, under the standard of analysis you are adhering to, I could with all honesty claim that under the Bush administration (or any other relevant administration), my pay was cut every year.

Is that the standard of analysis you want to use?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: You know Comrade, you don't have to cut pay by giving a reduction in the paycheck...you simply don't keep make advancements in pay as inflation happens.

I think it's patently dishonest to characterize that as a "pay cut" when you know full well that the rate of your pay wasn't cut.

But if you want to use that standard, then you would certainly agree that I could analyze any administration's economic policiess by the same measure; i.e., if it turns out that my pay hasn't kept pace with inflation, under the standard of analysis you are adhering to, I could with all honesty claim that under the Bush administration (or any other relevant administration), my pay was cut every year.

Is that the standard of analysis you want to use?

Not really, considering I get paid DIRECTLY from the government, whereas yours would be blamed upon your employer.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: You know Comrade, you don't have to cut pay by giving a reduction in the paycheck...you simply don't keep make advancements in pay as inflation happens.

I think it's patently dishonest to characterize that as a "pay cut" when you know full well that the rate of your pay wasn't cut.

But if you want to use that standard, then you would certainly agree that I could analyze any administration's economic policiess by the same measure; i.e., if it turns out that my pay hasn't kept pace with inflation, under the standard of analysis you are adhering to, I could with all honesty claim that under the Bush administration (or any other relevant administration), my pay was cut every year.

Is that the standard of analysis you want to use?

Not really, considering I get paid DIRECTLY from the government, whereas yours would be blamed upon your employer.

"Under Administration X, the economy was so bad that my pay was cut every year President X was in office."

EdelBrock wrote: Since Bush took office, we have had at least one pay raise per year (most within 2.6-4.1% increase)

Which is smaller than the 4.8% increase you received in 2000, when Clinton was President-- a year in which you claim your pay was cut.

racists, those who say that science is stupid, those who love to be vocally anti-gay (what goes behind the scenes is another story), fundamentalist christains, rednecks, and white trash, plain women who smoke cigarettes, guys with stupid mustaches (who are not openly gay)... all these people love the Republicans for the most part. it's not just the country club crowd stereotype but the poor whites. demographics do tend to tell a story.

It's really the lowest common denominator... that was Karl Rove's genius... make the rich upper 10% happy and get the white lowest common denominator to back it with the election vote, even when it is against their own self interest

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Since Bush took office, we have had at least one pay raise per year (most within 2.6-4.1% increase)

Which is smaller than the 4.8% increase you received in 2000, when Clinton was President-- a year in which you claim your pay was cut.

Oh, I'm sorry...you're so much more knowledgable than me when it comes to this. Considering I had to survive on the pay that you are discussing, I think I have a bit better of an understanding than your google methods.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Since Bush took office, we have had at least one pay raise per year (most within 2.6-4.1% increase)

Which is smaller than the 4.8% increase you received in 2000, when Clinton was President-- a year in which you claim your pay was cut.

Oh, I'm sorry...you're so much more knowledgable than me when it comes to this. Considering I had to survive on the pay that you are discussing, I think I have a bit better of an understanding than your google methods.

Dude.

Do the math. The fact that you serve in the military doesn't give you some "special understanding" of basic math. If the highest raise you've received under Bush is 4.1%, and you received a 4.8% raise under Clinton, and you characterize that higher pay raise under Clinton as a "pay cut," and that lower pay raise under Bush as a "pay raise," then your math is suspect.

No matter how many years you've put in.

not my opinion someone else's:

SCWB Douche Squad

Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 1292

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: i hate you fucking anti american bastards.

oooooh america this america that.

of course america has plenty of room to improve, and I mean plenty.

of course we have a shittty administration (minus rumsfield ) of course my dicks big. of course we're western imperialist bastards. of course we enslaved black people. etc.

but regardless, there's a reason why we're all here. america is simply the greatest county on earth. everyone else is a lame o or a bastard. america is the land of opportunity.

i know lotsa indian people who came here with college degrees that don't amount to shit, worked for low ass salaries in convenient stores and eventually started investing and now are living wealthy. america is the titties.

so stop sucking uncircumsized (reactionary islamists) and small (north korean) dick. us fucking people over isn't the only reason why terrorists hate us, it's because they are fuckheads and religious. so suck my dick, you can hate bush all you want, i'm down with that shit, but america is america and always stay that way as long as fuckin dickhole circumsized ass bitches don't fuck it in the ass.

and you hippy assholes stop protesting badass shit like nukes and guns.

stellar wrote: not my opinion someone else's [a load of wank]

Did you have anything useful to add?

:finger:

http://www.saddle-creek.com/webboard/viewtopic.php?t=79309

NOT TODAY.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Since Bush took office, we have had at least one pay raise per year (most within 2.6-4.1% increase)

Which is smaller than the 4.8% increase you received in 2000, when Clinton was President-- a year in which you claim your pay was cut.

Oh, I'm sorry...you're so much more knowledgable than me when it comes to this. Considering I had to survive on the pay that you are discussing, I think I have a bit better of an understanding than your google methods.

Dude.

Do the math. The fact that you serve in the military doesn't give you some "special understanding" of basic math. If the highest raise you've received under Bush is 4.1%, and you received a 4.8% raise under Clinton, and you characterize that higher pay raise under Clinton as a "pay cut," and that lower pay raise under Bush as a "pay raise," then your math is suspect.

No matter how many years you've put in.

You are talking about ONE pay raise that Clinton made, to ONE Bush made. In Clinton's term, I believe there were a total of five payraises (and they weren't all across the board payraises). Bush has made so many payraises in his term, i don't know off the top of my head, every 01 Jan there is an across the board payraise, and inbetween there are payraise to specific groups of ranks.... so if we do the math...........

EdelBrock wrote: You are talking about ONE pay raise that Clinton made, to ONE Bush made. In Clinton's term, I believe there were a total of five payraises (and they weren't all across the board payraises). Bush has made so many payraises in his term, i don't know off the top of my head, every 01 Jan there is an across the board payraise, and inbetween there are payraise to specific groups of ranks.... so if we do the math...........

You are the one who made the blanket assertion that your pay was cut every year under Clinton, and raised every year under Bush. And now there's a nasty little fact to bury: You had a higher pay raise under Clinton than you did under Bush.

The fact that we're speaking about one year is irrelevant. If you wanted to do a year-by-year comparison, we could do that. Maybe Clinton comes out ahead, maybe Bush does, maybe it all evens out. It doesn't matter. Your blanket assertion is dead wrong.

stellar wrote: :finger:

http://www.saddle-creek.com/webboard/viewtopic.php?t=79309

NOT TODAY.

Or any day.

applauses, then bows.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: You are the one who made the blanket assertion that your pay was cut every year under Clinton, and raised every year under Bush.

You better read past posts a little better, you're adding words in my mouth.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: You are the one who made the blanket assertion that your pay was cut every year under Clinton, and raised every year under Bush.

You better read past posts a little better, you're adding words in my mouth.

Yes, I see now that what you actually said was that your pay was cut when Clinton was President, and you've had pay increases every year under Bush.

pumped full of drugs wrote: racists, those who say that science is stupid, those who love to be vocally anti-gay (what goes behind the scenes is another story), fundamentalist christains, rednecks, and white trash, plain women who smoke cigarettes, guys with stupid mustaches (who are not openly gay)... all these people.....

Post on nool(?)

do I win a Gonk?

wasn't this just supposed be a joke