Michael Flynn is totally nuts.

[DANC]

I'm guessing you're speaking with someone who doesn't even know that The Gingrich Revolution included a guy like Joe Scarborough...

I'm guessing, by this post, you don't know how to do anything but cut-and-paste.

 

[Spartans9312]

This recent increase in the broad use of the word "socialism" (and its forms) in the last few years drives me nuts.

I've always understood that Great Britain has a "socialist" government. Churchill was supposed to be a "socialist." But the political organizations of both Hitler and Stalin both used the word "socialist." The three usages have nothing in common. The three leaders opposed and/or fought each other if not hated each other. Eugene Debs claimed to be a "socialist." And Bernie Sanders claims to be a "socialist" too. They seem totally unlike Hitler or Stalin or even white, mega-privileged Winston Spencer Churchill.

Does anyone think calling someone a "socialist" today conveys any meaning whatsoever more precise than saying, " you suck!"? Maybe the following is what "socialist" has really become:

You guys should talk very softly about trumped up bogeymen:
-Western World is run by White Supremacists
-fascists are everywhere planning an imminent takeover of governments by fascists in collusion with Putin
-AGW will end the world in 10 years

 

[hoot1]

TANF was created in 1997.

DANC, good catch

Meant to type 1996.

 

[DANC]

DANC, good catch

Meant to type 1996.

I had to look it up. I knew 1966 couldn't be right and figured it was a typo.

 

[cosmickid]

I'm guessing, by this post, you don't know how to do anything but cut-and-paste.

This doesn't even make sense. Joe Scarborough was a very CONSERVATIVE young guy who represented one of the most CONSERVATIVE districts (Fl panhandle) within the entire country for 3 terms. He was a NATIONAL politician and ally of Newt long before he ever became Morning Joe...

I've never agreed with him politically, but the first time I watched his show I discovered that he appreciated great music. I don't need to "cut and paste" articles to be able to discuss his politics at length because as a reasonably intelligent person who has lived over 60 yrs and who has always been a poly sci/history nerd I have followed his career since he was elected as part of the Contract With America...

I have MEMORIES involving Scarborough because he was someone I considered on the opposing end of the political spectrum from me. He was a heavy Bushie, and being from FL was a political ally of Jeb, even after retiring from Congress himself.

I still remember his appearance on NBC's election night coverage during 2004 when despite late evening leads for Kerry in both OH and FL he kept mentioning that his sources were telling him how Evangelicals in deep-red counties in both those states were flocking to the polls in order to get in line and were determined to stand in line until they were able in a huge push to rescue Bush...

In short, he kept cheerleading for Bush, and he was correct. I even remember him predicting early on that Trump would win the GOP nomination, and being a lot more optimistic than anyone else on his show about what that meant.

He and Trump had a falling out, and he's now anti-Trump to the point where he left the GOP and registered as an Independent, but he's never been a "liberal". Yet someone whose interest in politics extends no further than Trump being a "non-politician" and relies on Fox or Newsmax for their worldview likely assumes that he's some sort of "liberal"...

I don't get the vibe that you have much of a broad interest in either history/poly sci, and that your interests/degree are in other fields. So my aside to goat about you likely not knowing Scarborough's history was a comment reflecting my belief that you're one of those "conservatives" who wasn't interested in politics all your life, and don't know how many people that are long time conservatives are abhorred by Trump.

Maybe I was wrong, but my opinion is based on the brief history of your posts on this site. I mean you post in support of nonsense like the Clinton body bag theory and the Big Lie, and Sidney Powell's own defense claimed that "reasonable people would not accept such claims as fact"...

Yet you come on here and suggest that you feel exactly that way? Hugo Chavez? Bamboo within ballots?

Chavez died in 2013 while BO was enjoying re-election, and one of Chavez's last acts was to label Obama a fool. So your common sense doesn't scream that somethings off-kilter when folks claim wild conspiracy theories that Chavez engineered events (like pre-programming voting machines) 7 yrs after his death to somehow help the party he despised at the time of his death to cheat to stay in power?

 

[DANC]

This doesn't even make sense. Joe Scarborough was a very CONSERVATIVE young guy who represented one of the most CONSERVATIVE districts (Fl panhandle) within the entire country for 3 terms. He was a NATIONAL politician and ally of Newt long before he ever became Morning Joe...

I've never agreed with him politically, but the first time I watched his show I discovered that he appreciated great music. I don't need to "cut and paste" articles to be able to discuss his politics at length because as a reasonably intelligent person who has lived over 60 yrs and who has always been a poly sci/history nerd I have followed his career since he was elected as part of the Contract With America...

I have MEMORIES involving Scarborough because he was someone I considered on the opposing end of the political spectrum from me. He was a heavy Bushie, and being from FL was a political ally of Jeb, even after retiring from Congress himself.

I still remember his appearance on NBC's election night coverage during 2004 when despite late evening leads for Kerry in both OH and FL he kept mentioning that his sources were telling him how Evangelicals in deep-red counties in both those states were flocking to the polls in order to get in line and were determined to stand in line until they were able in a huge push to rescue Bush...

In short, he kept cheerleading for Bush, and he was correct. I even remember him predicting early on that Trump would win the GOP nomination, and being a lot more optimistic than anyone else on his show about what that meant.

He and Trump had a falling out, and he's now anti-Trump to the point where he left the GOP and registered as an Independent, but he's never been a "liberal". Yet someone whose interest in politics extends no further than Trump being a "non-politician" and relies on Fox or Newsmax for their worldview likely assumes that he's some sort of "liberal"...

I don't get the vibe that you have much of a broad interest in either history/poly sci, and that your interests/degree are in other fields. So my aside to goat about you likely not knowing Scarborough's history was a comment reflecting my belief that you're one of those "conservatives" who wasn't interested in politics all your life, and don't know how many people that are long time conservatives are abhorred by Trump.

Maybe I was wrong, but my opinion is based on the brief history of your posts on this site. I mean you post in support of nonsense like the Clinton body bag theory and the Big Lie, and Sidney Powell's own defense claimed that "reasonable people would not accept such claims as fact"...

Yet you come on here and suggest that you feel exactly that way? Hugo Chavez? Bamboo within ballots?

Chavez died in 2013 while BO was enjoying re-election, and one of Chavez's last acts was to label Obama a fool. So your common sense doesn't scream that somethings off-kilter when folks claim wild conspiracy theories that Chavez engineered events (like pre-programming voting machines) 7 yrs after his death to somehow help the party he despised at the time of his death to cheat to stay in power?

Who gives a shit about Morning Joe? You're the one who brought him up.

Then you write a book in reply about about...... what? Jeezus you're a whacko.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Where did I mention 1990-1993? My discussion was around Gingrich and his balancing the budget. He wasn't Speaker until 1992.

The link you shared that was supposed to explain your point was specifically about 1990-1993.

 

[DANC]

The link you shared that was supposed to explain your point was specifically about 1990-1993.

I think you read it wrong.

Here is the pertinent passage:

"The result of years of cuts in government spending was that, as a percent of GDP, federal spending on programs [as distinct from interest on the federal debt] fell from a high of 17.5 percent in 1992-93 to 11.3 percent in 2000-01."

Here is the link to the article.

"https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/08/us_federal_budg.html

If you read the part on domestic spending, you'll see that they talked about Gingrish as Speaker and a Republican Congress. This happened after 1993.

"Domestic spending: the dog that didn’t bark. With the Republican Congressional victories in the November 1994 elections, Republicans took over both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Newt Gingrich, as the Speaker of the House, pushed hard for restraint in the growth of domestic spending. He got it. Domestic spending (which I define here as overall federal spending minus national defense minus international affairs minus net interest) fell very slightly from 13.0% of GDP to 12.9% of GDP."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you read it wrong.

Here is the pertinent passage:

"The result of years of cuts in government spending was that, as a percent of GDP, federal spending on programs [as distinct from interest on the federal debt] fell from a high of 17.5 percent in 1992-93 to 11.3 percent in 2000-01."

Here is the link to the article.

"https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/08/us_federal_budg.html

If you read the part on domestic spending, you'll see that they talked about Gingrish as Speaker and a Republican Congress. This happened after 1993.

"Domestic spending: the dog that didn’t bark. With the Republican Congressional victories in the November 1994 elections, Republicans took over both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Newt Gingrich, as the Speaker of the House, pushed hard for restraint in the growth of domestic spending. He got it. Domestic spending (which I define here as overall federal spending minus national defense minus international affairs minus net interest) fell very slightly from 13.0% of GDP to 12.9% of GDP."

You're right, I did read it wrong. Please disregard virtually everything I've posted in this thread.

 

[Crayfish57]

You're right, I did read it wrong. Please disregard virtually everything I've posted in this forum.

Fixed it . I know you must be busy so wanted to help out.