under Reagan, more taxes were colledcted and the government spending grew larger than ever before, and government grew more than it had in the previous twenty years(republican/conservative)

Under George Bush (the elder) the USA government spending grew larger than ever before, and our deficit soared into unheard of numbers (republican/consevative)

Under Bill Clinton, the federal budget was BALANCED, government spending was CUT, the deficit was ERASED leaving a surplus of several Billion dollars.
(democrat/liberal)

Under Preznit Dubya (the younger) government spending has almost doubled what reagan spent, the surplus DISAPPEARED overnight, taxes are higher than ever for reguilar people (90% of us) and lower for rich people (the top 10%) our deficit is in the fucking stratosphere, and our governemt, instead o shrinking as republicans always claim, and always LIE about, has increased to new records of beaurocracy and fucking WASTE. (republican/democrat)



don;t believe the lies about liberals and conservatives. look at the RESULTS

i don't care, i don't like any of them.

I agree

mmm
i master the democrat VS republican
but yr version of "liberal" lost me
i think the American intermretation of "liberal" is different to what it is here in La France
Over here "liberal" means "meany right-wing economics"
that's i can't seem to be able to assimilate Obamama (he he) to a liberal

sorry

no offence but Bush son was elected by only a few people because most of the others thought they wouldn't vote because they hated both contenders and the whole world ended up saying Americans are stoopid: they elected Bush!" (+ look what he's done..). Go for the least bad, instead of the worst (just because you reject both per se)

like i said my vision is that of a foreigner
just sayin'
just cruisin'

I'm all for liberals, but I think federal budget is a non-issue. Government spending matters, like what it goes to (education instead of war, etc.) but when people say, "The federal budget is down", it basically means, "Hey, look over here!" Clinton was good (not great, good), but not because of the budget. It was mostly because everyone around him were such pricks. The fact that he balanced it in less than 8 years proves that it's not a big problem.

Here, liberal is associated with the left. It means progressive, change-oriented, and usually implies pro-majority, like social issues (pro gay marriage and abortion, etc.) and an attempt to distribute wealth.

thanx for the updating
that's what i thought
exactly the contrary

interesting
i should have known this
but hey nobody's perfect

see here liberal refers to "libérer" ie. free the economy of everything remotely associated with communism, socialism, and thus do anything you want in a laissez-faire way that means the rich get richer and the poor can rot in dust and shit.

I think we call it liberal because our initial stance when we became a country was "freedom", so now liberalism is "freedom from", or the movement away from dangerous elements of laissez-faire. But I could be wrong.

see. it's just two different implications of what "freedom>> liberty" should be. Laissez-faire or not? Right wing or left-wing.
interesting.
like i said, i'm daft. i should have known this.

Nah. I had no idea the term was different elsewhere, either.

of course it is not as easy as saying, "aizoh!" [chin up!]


but, that is the absolute FIRST step. and of course, you already know I dont believe in change in America, I am moving to Ethiopia, but none-the-less, if the Americans here do not believe in change, then it will never happen.

you still believe in American presidential elections after 1959? jesus where have you been, living in a propaganda machine?

you technical bastard, England would be across the ocean, the English and dutch and french who came to the Americas, were functioning americans, and we my friend, live in their inheritance.

Um.

my argument sounded funny? Well it is. See, you have to believe in change, and I believe in change, however it is in Ethiopia, so to Ethiopia I must go. As Jesus said, where your treasure is your heart will there be, and my treasure is in Ethiopia, and like the vultures to the corpse, I am coming running!

but, if Americans want to change America, they have to believe in that shit like I believe in Ethiopia.

Belief in Ethiopia is fine, but you told me yourself that making a change without believing in the cause is impossible. You're trying to evoke condfidence in a country you don't believe in. I still hold to the idea that you can evoke change in something you don't believe in, but your logic is hard to follow, and saying you don't believe in America just kinda disassembled the point you were making.

How so? My point is that if Americans do not believe in change, it will never happen. That can be true aside from my own personal beliefs in America. In otherwords, I dont believe in the America that most americans believe in [the american dream] however, I do believe that if Americans change their minds, and believe in positive change, rather then apathy, then change can happen in America, so I do not believe in the America of right now, further I believe stronger in Ethiopia so I must go there, even if I did believe in the America of now. If I wanted to stay and change america, I am telling you I would believe in that change, but since I am leaving I dont have the time.

Gotcha. I thought when you said you don't believe in American, you meant you don't believe America is capable of change. What you said makes more sense. Thanks for explaining.

semantics are a bitch over the internet sometimes.