User talk:Isra1337/archive8

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


I don’t what you mean by a “divided government”. Are you talking about Bill Clinton’s presidency? According to Wikipedia, Bill Clinton’s budget reform bill was opposed by every Republican in congress (which, since the Republicans controlled the congress then, was a majority). I still don’t understand how he got it through (nor did Bill O’Reilly when AL Franken pointed out that every Republican senator voted against the bill). What do you mean then? Weri long wang 09:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The budget reform and tax increase you refer to occurred during the first two years of the Clinton presidency, when there was a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, but that bill is only a small contributing part of why there was actually a surplus. A larger part of the surplus has to do with the fact that once the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 they fought Clinton on almost every spending increase he proposed. These battles even resulted in the famous government shutdown, when Clinton vetoed Republican spending bills he found to be inadequate. The surplus is also due in part to NAFTA and welfare reform, programs that Clinton certainly deserves credit for, but which passed Congress only because they were overwhelmingly supported by the majority Republicans.
Mainly, however, the problem you run into hanging your article on the budget surplus is that Democrats as a whole are not now, and haven't especially been in the past, a party that is particularly interested in cutting budget defecits. In fact they have largely supported even greater spending than the current crop of deficit-spending Republicans. Ultimately it is your article, which you took the time to actually salvage, so write what you want. But after reading similar phrases in two of your articles I thought I'd comment. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims that these budget reforms reduced spending by $255 billion. I don’t know too much about the American system of government, but my understanding was that the federal budget was drawn up by the president and approved (or rejected) by congress and adjusted accordingly and that Clinton had to fight tooth and nail to get the propose budget (roughly) approved. It is also worth noting that President Bush, a Republican, has drawn up a federal budget for 2007 which is $1 trillion higher than Clinton’s last proposed budget; hardly a reduced budget. As for Clinton’s overall of economic performance I think the best place to look is Forbes magazine: [1].
It wouldn’t be too important if we made mistakes like this on Wikipedia, but Uncyclopedia is a serious encyclopedic website and facts must be checked thoroughly. Weri long wang 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Your understanding of the American political system is incorrect. Legislation is proposed, sponsored, vetted, ammended and passed by the Congress. The President may then either enact it or veto it in its entirety. The President has only as much power as any other citizen to propose legislation, though he has a powerful bullypulpit to propose it from.
Though the legislation you refer to did indeed reduce the deficit by cutting some spending and raising taxes, it is overshadowed by the much larger political changes that defined American political culture in the 90s. In 1994 there was a sea-change event called the Republican Revolution in which a wave of new Republicans came to power with the goal of reducing the size of government. Clinton and the Democrats universally supported more government spending than the Republican majority would allow. In an attempt to get his way, Clinton refused to sign legislation appropriating less money than he would have liked. Republicans refused to pass a new bill with greater expenditures and this led to a temporary shut-down of the Federal Government.
I say these things not to nitpick, but because I believe they reflect the common memory of politics that most Americans have. My comment about "Divided Government" — which is when the Congress and Presidency are controlled by different parties — is one of the most common observations about the period; and divided government preventing both Republicans and Democrats from achieving their goals, not any sustained desire by the Democrats to reduce the deficit, is the prevailing explaination cited as the reason for the surplus. Democrats are certainly do point out the hypocracy of the current Republican spending spree, but few if any would actually support a lesser degree of spending.
Like I said, write what you want. But I think that your humor value is substantially decreased by being so out of sink with America's collective memory of a fairly recent period. --

-QuillRev. Isra (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that the United States achieved its longest period of economic growth when neither party could achieve their aims. It certainly tells you something about those two parties doesn’t it! Since all Republicans claim that Reagan won the cold war because he was president when the Soviet Union collapsed, I’m going to say that the period of growth was due to solely to Clinton, whether that’s true or not.(although I think its unfair to assume that the Democrats would not attempt to reduce spending now.) Weri long wang 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey, why was that deleted? Spelling is important. -- 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it was not being used. If you find a page that needs spelling help, either go through it yourself or list it on Stuff to do. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

why did you delete template Template:LProtected? -- mowgli 05:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

because it was either a single use template (i.e. there is no reason for it to exist) or it was a tag pretending to be a maintenance tag. If you want me to restore it and copy the text of it into Sri Lanka I am fine with that, but I have been cleaning house of templates we don't want being used. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • great. please copy the code to the page and restore it. i agree it is a single use template (until it doesn't come to be used by others).
  • speaking about single use templates, i have (but i'm not alone) created single use templates, i.e., country infoboxes for India, Bangladesh etc...because the generic infobox template (used in Afghanistan for example) is badly written and inadequate. now i know that one should now go and edit the parent infobox template but a side-effect of that would be that all articles using the parent template would get screwed - who fixes that?? -- mowgli 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
If you need to use an infobox and the current one isn't working, either copy the code to the page and alter it, or if the modifications you make will be useful many times, you can make a new template. I am now heading off to restore the code to Sri Lanka. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to re-sub-in the {{{1}}} variable. Sorry about that. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
no problem. but thanks for the effort. yes i see what you are saying. i think i'll create a parallel {{Infobox Country}} because upto 6 or more pages (all south asian nations) are using single use templates of the same basic format and then delete all the single use ones. sounds good? -- mowgli 06:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
sounds very good.---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Steven Thorpe

Can I ask which policies did i violate? User:Jimmybob15

It looks like the page you posted is about a local high school teacher. We generally don't allow pages about non-notable people, and we are especially cautious about pages that have anything to do with schools, students or teachers. What to do with them is a judgement call, but no pictures or full names are allowed.--QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
so, if i take the pic off and rename it Mr. Thorpe - is that okay? User:Jimmybob15
Even having Thorpe is usually too much. And unfortunately for you there is already a Mr. T. Also you need to remove the location. Plus we have recently cracked down on this sort of stuff (see here). I am going to move it to your userspace. If you want to revise it and put it back in the main namespace, you can, but I won't promise another admin won't delete it. sorry. :( ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It is now here. --QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Soo... It is alright as it is on my userspace? And if I take the pic off it can be put back on main? --User: Jimmybob15

It is alright as is on your usespace. It is not alright as is on the main. If you remove all full names, all locations, and all pictures, I won't delete it. Someone else might. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot - this is the first time i've tried stuff like this anyway. I want it to stay on cos' i did it on wikipedia, an they got rid of it and he got really dissappointed, so i thought i'd try here. --user: Jimmybob15

Yeah. Sorry. That happens a decent amount. But we have very similar policies as wikipedia as far as what is allowed. --QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


I have a top secret mission for you. Reply on my talk page and get on IRC. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Leetman, are you back yet? We misses you. --KATIE!! 05:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Don't put anything for Project Cwir on Uncyc itself. And try to keep communications to the other place as well. —rc (t) 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It will be tough to test things that way. As for communication, STM told me to reply on his page. I guess I will just test things in preview and save them to my machine.
And wow. Been gone long enough I forget to sign my posts. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools