Hello, RTRimmel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, feel free to leave me a message on my talk/chat page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages to help you. The left column contains tutorials and introductory pages while the right shows ways to help out Wikipedia.
|
|
Additional Tips:
You may have a point there. The Bush Dinasty may produce a new Heir to The American Throne and he maybe worsest than Bush. But I do not know, if anyway can be as bad as him, even his offsprings..:) Igor Berger ( talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You had no right to take what I said off of the talk page for George W. Bush. You probably did it just because you are a democrat. I am not pushing an opinion, I am pushing to put what really happened on the main page. Democrats go really negative on Republicans because there are lots of people out there like you. Go back, read, and do research about the war in Iraq. The WMD was not the only given reason. In fact, it was not one of the reasons. Democrats lied and framed it on Bush because they are so mad at him because of how popular he was. Don't defend the democrats here, they will say or do anything in order to get elected. 216.93.231.149 ( talk) 22:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you did not go back and read state of the union addresses or concerns that had nothing to do with WMD. Stop making up nonsense such as me owning magical unicorns. You really need to go back and read about the war. The WMD was not the only given reason. You probably don't believe because Bush is not a good speaker. True, I can admit to that. Bush is not a good speaker and he doesn't explain things well. He still was not the one who manipulated a WMD threat.
Politicians go negative because it works. It works because there are lots of people out there like you. Take WMD. 1. Degraded chemical weapons were found that were leftover from the Iran-Iraq War. 2. There is photographic evidence that Saddam Hussein shipped something into Syria before the 2003 invasion. The CIA might know what it was, but they can't tell us. It probably was not WMD, since it was proven after the invasion that Saddam did not have any WMD at the time. 3. WMD was not the only given reason for going to war. Like I already said, go back and read the 2002 and 2003 state of the union addresses. Look for other reasons for war. 4. The political ploy is called "framing the discussion". It works well. Some people will say and do anything to win. 216.93.231.149 ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Read this. [ [1]] Also, go to www.saveamericans.com. Who was exaggerating that there were WMD? 216.93.231.149 ( talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
From wiki answers:
"The Democratic quotes below are taken from two points in history, first just prior to December 17, 1999 concerning UNSCR 1284 which Created - "the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM)." Everyone in Congress demanded Saddam allow weapons inspectors in, and he did but, Saddam limited their access.
The second set of Democratic quotes are from around the time of the second UN Security Consol referendum Friday, November 8, 2002: "The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution that demanded unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." This time everyone in Congress demanded Saddam allow weapons inspectors and not limit their access and he did despite claims to the contrary.
Moreover, the second set of Democratic quotes, around the November 2002 date, were based on the intelligence as presented to them by the Bush Administration who omitted the fact that our own CIA as well as German Intelligence did not believe curveball when they submitted the case for war to the US Congress and curveball was one sole source of mobile weapons laboratories and without any corroborate. Congress was not told the whole truth. "
I find it odd given all of the quotes that are available from republicans that none are posted. Its like it was a blatant partisan attack designed to confuse the sheep. It even says that in the article. But continue believing poorly researched points, the republicans are counting on you not having a faint clue come november.
Yep. It's called context. I don't get to decide what is relevant or not, the reliable sources do. "Obama smoking" on Google, gets 10,900,000 hits, while "Bush shoe throwing" gets about 1,200,000. So, you say tomatoes, and I say reddish, roundish, fruit-like, veggie. Oh, and for the record, I am not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor, but I do my best to ensure that the articles reflect NPOV. That's all that's required. Newguy34 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in the political reasoning. However, by definition and by the Consititution that is not correct. That still does not mean that Roosevelt could declare war. No President by Article II and I of the Consitution can declare war, only Congress. President's can, through the power of CinC and the War Powers Act, move troops at their discretion. However, the funding and allowance comes only from Congress after a period of time. Thus the statement that Bush declared war is incorrect. All you have to do is read the Constitution and the War Powers Act to understand. Congress still has an obligation and power to move troops if need be. 76.177.224.238 ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Also go to the current administration page at the White House. Look at the defense agenda. Seems pretty hawkish for an administration that felt Bush was too hawkish. 76.177.224.238 ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I know you don't like Bush, but there was no reason for you to revert my edit. I added AFTER-TAX median household income DATA and you changed it to PRE-TAX one. Don't pretend that you fail to understand the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually Bush lowered taxes not only for upper classes. Here's a quote from the source I gave:"While the Bush tax plan is often demonized as being just for the rich, it also includes substantial benefits for folks in the lowest tax brackets. For example, the low bracket marginal income tax rate was cut from 15% to 10% , the personal exemption allowance has been increased from $2,900 in 2000 to $3,300 in 2006, and the standard deduction has been increased from $10,200 in 2000 to $13,000 in 2006 (for joint filing married couples)." So what you say is just populism. And, finally, I can't understand why this data makes you so nervous. Sasha best ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You should read this article up to the end. [2] Maybe then your opinion about tax cuts will change. Sasha best ( talk) 09:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you didn't even bother to read it. Well,do as you wish. You ask me: what happened? I will answer: crisis of consumption system happened. Crisis of banks that gave money to people who couldn't pay it back for the sake of short-term profits. Crisis of people that took these money without clear understanding of their financial position. Tax cuts don't have anything to do with it. In fact, in many countries situation's now worse without them. Sasha best ( talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
By saying "Crisis of people that took these money without clear understanding of their financial position." I meant bank credits to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Don't blame crisis on tax cuts. They are not the reason of it. Sasha best ( talk) 11:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Your determination to blame tax cuts for crisis seems strange to me. What do they have to do with bank regulation? Sasha best ( talk) 12:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you know that a lion share of money on infrastructure won't be spent until 2010? It's naive to think that spending money on infrastructure will help the economy. Sasha best ( talk) 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Every time? Don't make me laugh. Examples? Sasha best ( talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
New Deal? Yes, it required significant government regulation. But, with all my respect to FDR, I don't believe that New Deal helped our economy significantly. Moreover, spending during FDR years was much less than it is now. I think it's silly to increase it even more. Sasha best ( talk) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What numbers were good during New Deal? Do you really think any numbers were good then? And, anyway, Obama program involves much more spending. Sasha best ( talk) 11:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. "All of the numbers that sucked during Bush's tenure were pretty good to very good during the new deal" No numbers were good during New Deal. If you think otherwise quote numbers that were better in 1930's than they are now. Sasha best ( talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you think I have nothing more to do? Sasha best ( talk) 10:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Look you $#@%&! I am a "him" too, but I wasn't sure about you so I didn't want to offend! [please note that all the previous comments are an attempt at humor; no seriousness implied]. In all seriousness, I know you don't take a kind view to the former president (you say your view is "fair" , I say it's "unkind"), but your willingness to discuss this matter re: Bush's ANG service from a neutral viewpoint is appreciated. I don't have time to make a fancy Barnstar for you, so just a plain ol' thanks. Now, back to disagreeing with just about everything you have to say ;) QueenofBattle ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to have a passing interest in GWBush, your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration, under the section 'Biasness'. I attempted to diffuse an edit war, but have no real knowledge on the subject matter. It seems to be a sourcing issue, so you might have some insight. Thanks, -- auburnpilot talk 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I knew I shouldn't have kept feeding him when he went off the deep end.-- Louiedog ( talk) 15:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
But, leave it to a liberal elitist to take my quote out of context. Some kids never learn. QueenofBattle ( talk) 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, RTRimmel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QueenofBattle ( talk) 07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hello, RTRimmel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, feel free to leave me a message on my talk/chat page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages to help you. The left column contains tutorials and introductory pages while the right shows ways to help out Wikipedia.
|
|
Additional Tips:
You may have a point there. The Bush Dinasty may produce a new Heir to The American Throne and he maybe worsest than Bush. But I do not know, if anyway can be as bad as him, even his offsprings..:) Igor Berger ( talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You had no right to take what I said off of the talk page for George W. Bush. You probably did it just because you are a democrat. I am not pushing an opinion, I am pushing to put what really happened on the main page. Democrats go really negative on Republicans because there are lots of people out there like you. Go back, read, and do research about the war in Iraq. The WMD was not the only given reason. In fact, it was not one of the reasons. Democrats lied and framed it on Bush because they are so mad at him because of how popular he was. Don't defend the democrats here, they will say or do anything in order to get elected. 216.93.231.149 ( talk) 22:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you did not go back and read state of the union addresses or concerns that had nothing to do with WMD. Stop making up nonsense such as me owning magical unicorns. You really need to go back and read about the war. The WMD was not the only given reason. You probably don't believe because Bush is not a good speaker. True, I can admit to that. Bush is not a good speaker and he doesn't explain things well. He still was not the one who manipulated a WMD threat.
Politicians go negative because it works. It works because there are lots of people out there like you. Take WMD. 1. Degraded chemical weapons were found that were leftover from the Iran-Iraq War. 2. There is photographic evidence that Saddam Hussein shipped something into Syria before the 2003 invasion. The CIA might know what it was, but they can't tell us. It probably was not WMD, since it was proven after the invasion that Saddam did not have any WMD at the time. 3. WMD was not the only given reason for going to war. Like I already said, go back and read the 2002 and 2003 state of the union addresses. Look for other reasons for war. 4. The political ploy is called "framing the discussion". It works well. Some people will say and do anything to win. 216.93.231.149 ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Read this. [ [1]] Also, go to www.saveamericans.com. Who was exaggerating that there were WMD? 216.93.231.149 ( talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
From wiki answers:
"The Democratic quotes below are taken from two points in history, first just prior to December 17, 1999 concerning UNSCR 1284 which Created - "the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM)." Everyone in Congress demanded Saddam allow weapons inspectors in, and he did but, Saddam limited their access.
The second set of Democratic quotes are from around the time of the second UN Security Consol referendum Friday, November 8, 2002: "The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution that demanded unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." This time everyone in Congress demanded Saddam allow weapons inspectors and not limit their access and he did despite claims to the contrary.
Moreover, the second set of Democratic quotes, around the November 2002 date, were based on the intelligence as presented to them by the Bush Administration who omitted the fact that our own CIA as well as German Intelligence did not believe curveball when they submitted the case for war to the US Congress and curveball was one sole source of mobile weapons laboratories and without any corroborate. Congress was not told the whole truth. "
I find it odd given all of the quotes that are available from republicans that none are posted. Its like it was a blatant partisan attack designed to confuse the sheep. It even says that in the article. But continue believing poorly researched points, the republicans are counting on you not having a faint clue come november.
Yep. It's called context. I don't get to decide what is relevant or not, the reliable sources do. "Obama smoking" on Google, gets 10,900,000 hits, while "Bush shoe throwing" gets about 1,200,000. So, you say tomatoes, and I say reddish, roundish, fruit-like, veggie. Oh, and for the record, I am not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor, but I do my best to ensure that the articles reflect NPOV. That's all that's required. Newguy34 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in the political reasoning. However, by definition and by the Consititution that is not correct. That still does not mean that Roosevelt could declare war. No President by Article II and I of the Consitution can declare war, only Congress. President's can, through the power of CinC and the War Powers Act, move troops at their discretion. However, the funding and allowance comes only from Congress after a period of time. Thus the statement that Bush declared war is incorrect. All you have to do is read the Constitution and the War Powers Act to understand. Congress still has an obligation and power to move troops if need be. 76.177.224.238 ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Also go to the current administration page at the White House. Look at the defense agenda. Seems pretty hawkish for an administration that felt Bush was too hawkish. 76.177.224.238 ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I know you don't like Bush, but there was no reason for you to revert my edit. I added AFTER-TAX median household income DATA and you changed it to PRE-TAX one. Don't pretend that you fail to understand the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually Bush lowered taxes not only for upper classes. Here's a quote from the source I gave:"While the Bush tax plan is often demonized as being just for the rich, it also includes substantial benefits for folks in the lowest tax brackets. For example, the low bracket marginal income tax rate was cut from 15% to 10% , the personal exemption allowance has been increased from $2,900 in 2000 to $3,300 in 2006, and the standard deduction has been increased from $10,200 in 2000 to $13,000 in 2006 (for joint filing married couples)." So what you say is just populism. And, finally, I can't understand why this data makes you so nervous. Sasha best ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You should read this article up to the end. [2] Maybe then your opinion about tax cuts will change. Sasha best ( talk) 09:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you didn't even bother to read it. Well,do as you wish. You ask me: what happened? I will answer: crisis of consumption system happened. Crisis of banks that gave money to people who couldn't pay it back for the sake of short-term profits. Crisis of people that took these money without clear understanding of their financial position. Tax cuts don't have anything to do with it. In fact, in many countries situation's now worse without them. Sasha best ( talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
By saying "Crisis of people that took these money without clear understanding of their financial position." I meant bank credits to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Don't blame crisis on tax cuts. They are not the reason of it. Sasha best ( talk) 11:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Your determination to blame tax cuts for crisis seems strange to me. What do they have to do with bank regulation? Sasha best ( talk) 12:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you know that a lion share of money on infrastructure won't be spent until 2010? It's naive to think that spending money on infrastructure will help the economy. Sasha best ( talk) 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Every time? Don't make me laugh. Examples? Sasha best ( talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
New Deal? Yes, it required significant government regulation. But, with all my respect to FDR, I don't believe that New Deal helped our economy significantly. Moreover, spending during FDR years was much less than it is now. I think it's silly to increase it even more. Sasha best ( talk) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What numbers were good during New Deal? Do you really think any numbers were good then? And, anyway, Obama program involves much more spending. Sasha best ( talk) 11:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. "All of the numbers that sucked during Bush's tenure were pretty good to very good during the new deal" No numbers were good during New Deal. If you think otherwise quote numbers that were better in 1930's than they are now. Sasha best ( talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you think I have nothing more to do? Sasha best ( talk) 10:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Look you $#@%&! I am a "him" too, but I wasn't sure about you so I didn't want to offend! [please note that all the previous comments are an attempt at humor; no seriousness implied]. In all seriousness, I know you don't take a kind view to the former president (you say your view is "fair" , I say it's "unkind"), but your willingness to discuss this matter re: Bush's ANG service from a neutral viewpoint is appreciated. I don't have time to make a fancy Barnstar for you, so just a plain ol' thanks. Now, back to disagreeing with just about everything you have to say ;) QueenofBattle ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to have a passing interest in GWBush, your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration, under the section 'Biasness'. I attempted to diffuse an edit war, but have no real knowledge on the subject matter. It seems to be a sourcing issue, so you might have some insight. Thanks, -- auburnpilot talk 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I knew I shouldn't have kept feeding him when he went off the deep end.-- Louiedog ( talk) 15:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
But, leave it to a liberal elitist to take my quote out of context. Some kids never learn. QueenofBattle ( talk) 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, RTRimmel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QueenofBattle ( talk) 07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)