Voting day in US, will Dems lose the Senate?

[jugzilla]

Is that why it has citations? Because it's an "opinion"?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not the one dismissing things I don't like. You've now been given two sources that you are unable to combat, so you pretend they're invalid.

Let's have you dismiss another.

Finally....you linked something that might not just be an op ed. Unfortunately It had nothing to do with Reagan. lol

Im sorry Ruk you are just so damn lazy. I could go to right wing sites all over the place and post articles. Thats what your doing.

Please though, I did actually read your links, even though you likely didn't. If I missed some fact damning Reagan please set me right

[Rukentuts]

Finally....you linked something that might not just be an op ed. Unfortunately It had nothing to do with Reagan. lol

Didn't click on the citations inside the article I see. The basic tenants of Reaganomics are outlined.

[Dch48]

This is just flat-out false. The earliest records we have of human civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia and Sumer before it, detail marriage that was legal in nature, not religious. Marriage has been secular for most of the span of human history. It wasn't even a Christian sacrament before about 1200 CE, for that matter.

Wrong. Just because religious ceremonies were not performed does not mean that what determined if people were married was not based on religion. Joseph and Mary never had a ceremony or license for example and neither did anyone else at that time. However, they were deemed to be married by Hebrew law which was completely based on religious principles. If you read the Bible carefully, you understand that moving in together and having relations meant that you were married. You were also expected to be committed to the first sexual partner you had and were considered married to that person. Any other sexual activity was adultery or fornication depending on your marital status. What we call shacking up is actually deemed to be a marriage in the eyes of God. Saying that that standard is secular is completely wrong. All other civilizations, even the Pagan ones, worked pretty much the same way. The license and ceremony came much later and were invented by governments and churches as a tax and a way for the church to be more involved in the lives of it's followers but even without those, marriage was governed by religious principle. It was only then that the biblical definition of marriage began to be ignored in favor of the "legal" one.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I guess this would sort of make sense, if Reaganomics were were put in place during the Carter admin. Again, 1980, and 90s America was booming. If you want to blame Reagan on things that happened 20 years after he left office, I think there needs to be a better explanation than what you had here.

I'm going to illustrate this further. The 80s was a decade where the doors were blown open on social mobility. You could drop out of college, start a computer store in your garage, and become Bill Gates. An extreme example to be sure, but that happened all over this country in varying degrees. And if you weren't an entrepeneur, you could still work your factory job and make good money. Low unemployment leads to companies competing for labor, and yes there were unions. But there were was money to spread around

And then Nafta, and every other free trade agreement that incentivized shipping jobs overseas. If you think the Democrats aren't complicent in this your dreaming.

You do realize most people's success and indeed, most of the US's success, was due to the fact that we were borrowing far more money than we ever had before? When that debt catches up to the nation and spending slows down, yeah, that's the fault of Reaganomics. Deficit and debt spending doesn't last forever, and it's going to take awhile to see the effects.

Unless you honestly believe that debt and deficit spending by the populace is something that can be kept up indefinitely, then I'm going to have to ROFL at you and urfe you to go back and learn some economic basics rather than listening to Reagan worship.

[Rukentuts]

Im sorry Ruk you are just so damn lazy.

Coming from a guy that has provided zero evidence? :P

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize most people's success and indeed, most of the US's success, was due to the fact that we were borrowing far more money than we ever had before? When that debt catches up to the nation and spending slows down, yeah, that's the fault of Reaganomics. Deficit and debt spending doesn't last forever, and it's going to take awhile to see the effects.

This was actually in the links he dismissed, it cites the housing bubble as an explicit example.

[jugzilla]

Didn't click on the citations inside the article I see. The basic tenants of Reaganomics are outlined.

Oh yes. And the data the cited was from 2007-2009. Wasn't exactly reagonomics in those days.

You do realize most people's success and indeed, most of the US's success, was due to the fact that we were borrowing far more money than we ever had before? When that debt catches up to the nation and spending slows down, yeah, that's the fault of Reaganomics. Deficit and debt spending doesn't last forever, and it's going to take awhile to see the effects.

Borrowing money from ourselves. Oh the humanity.

That was only one part of Reagonomics. See, Obama has done pretty good on the borrowing part. Really, what is the difference between Obama and Reagan? Obama cares about the deficit now?

Didn't click on the citations inside the article I see. The basic tenants of Reaganomics are outlined.

I know reaganomics. Your job was FIRST to prove the the economy is bad, and second to blame it on Reagan. You have done neither, sir.

[Rukentuts]

You are aware that we've been under more or less a version of Reaganomics since he left office, and went into overdrive under Bush II, right?

And that the trends of "a shrinking middle class" as one example have continued since then? :P

[Dch48]

There is always room for improvement, but I don't think you've been paying attention if you think anyone comes close to the shitstorm Bush left us with.

That being said, historically speaking the 6th year of a president usually sees his opposition make gains, so I'm sure Republicans will pick up a number of seats. But as for if they'll take the senate, it's going to be close. Historically speaking it should be easy peasy, but there're so many races that are too close to call. It's the Republican's game to lose and they're not doing so hot.

We would be much better off today if term limits did not exist and Bush was still President.

[Endus]

This thread took a dark turn overnight and devolved into political bashing rather than discussion. Locking this.