you ask would Bill Clinton be going to war. My answer is no, he was too smart to get in a battle that doesn't have a winning scenario under any circumstances. He was also smart enough to infiltrate Al-Qaeda and keep them down until your boy Bush got in office and decided that whatever Clinton did, he would do the opposite.

Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson point the finger at gays, lesbians and long haired hippies for 9-11. I point the finger at George Bush, too stupid to realize that his fellow religious (muslim) fanatics were more dangerous than the helpless targets of the republican Drug War and Culture War.

They dropped the ball on international politics because it makes better copy in the NY Times to put pornographers and 'drug lords' in jail, and to be 'tough on crime'. Too fucking hard dealing with other countries who have their own ideas on how the world should be ordered, they gotta go for the sound bites and the headlines.

Colin, I think it is becoming clear we are not ever going to agree on this issue. You continue to accuse me of being blinded by my politics, which I might be, but you are so blinded that you can't admit Bush bears some responsibility. You seem intelligent and I have enjoyed the debate but at this point the subject is getting redundant, so I will agree to disagree and move on. I'm sure we will be at it again on another topic. :thumbsup

You are a better man than I, Colin ... I'd rather be called a "lilly livered commie pinko faggot that doesn't make enough money to piss with me and is probably a cheater to boot" by 12clucks all day than be called Pat Buchannan.

You are correct ... blaming the economy on Bush is like crediting the economy to Clinton when he was in office.

HOWEVER ... economic policies that involve cutting governmental revenues while increasing spending for the military, for civil defense (there is something annoyingly Teutonic about Homeland Security), and adding in welfare to churches (oh, I'm sorry - "faith based initiatives") is Voodoo Economics II - With a Vengence. Maybe - just maybe - the first tax cut was necessary to stimulate the economy. The second tax cut reeks of following a predetermined agenda without regard to common sense or reality.

let's not forget he's SIMULTANEOUSLY cutting taxes and increasing spending. A real brainiac.

it's a gamble

not sure what the odds on it are

i see. i am stupid because i cant read, so therefore you dont need to explain a simple inflamatory remark that dates back to pre-history that though is less true than any point in the history of the world while contining to become less true everyday... it is somehow still a springboard for over-dramatic, half socialist, mathematically/economically challenged individuals who prefer to think that the economy is a zero sum system and that wealth is not attainable unless someone is willing to steal it directly from the pocket of someone who is "less fortuneate"?

I'm not in favor of Bush's tax cuts, PD. I think you know that from other boards. ?? I think you know by now not to assume I am categorically defending any politician because of what party they are in.

The question at hand is the state of the current economy of which I would say it is average and improving at present. Will it continue? Don't know. Maybe. That is where it is now. GDP growing faster this year, unemployment lower this quarter, the majority of economic indicators are positive.

Will the debt get larger? Yes, I agree with you there. Do I like it? No.

I'm leaving for Orlando in a few hours for some meetings. Back in a few days to play with y'all .. keep the fire burning.

yeah for sure!

I knew this day would come. The first time Jammy and I have ever agreed.

The way he talked on Cnn the other day made it sound like he would be going to war now too, but Clinton is a known liar so that doesn't really mean anything.

This is my British point of view, Clinton was the best President the USA has had for a long time its a pity the American people focused on what he did with his dick more that what he achieved for the country.

No one is perfect but Clinton has a presents when he talks that seems to exude authority
He doesn't stutter or fuck up his speech and he really seemed to know what he was talking about. My feeling is that had he still been in power America would be in a much better position than it is now.

We had the Iron lady Maggie Thatcher who was again in my opinion the best British Priminister the UK has ever seen. But she got fucked, metaphorically speaking by her own party and the country suffered because of it.
Just my :2 cents:

US Unemployment levels are at record highs. Not because of structural or seasonal unemployment reasons, but because of cyclical ones. Real GDP is reported on a quarterly level, and expanded into a hypothetical yearly report. Posting on the forum that real GDP went up for a quarter doesnt signify jack shit. The recessionary board decided we were in a recession, and I am sure they know a shitload more than you.

And tax cuts do NOT stimulate the economy as much as government expenditure neither in the SHORT run or the LONG run. Before try and flaunt your superficial knowledge, ill explain why. The average american's propensity to consume is about .9, so for every dollar they get, they will spend 90 cents. If the government gives a tax cut of x amount of dollars, it will only stimulate the economy by a value proportional to .9x in the short run as opposed to a value proportional to x if the government spent that money. In the long run, it simply crowds out consumption spending and investment spending.

this day will go down in infamy

How can I take you seriously? You can't even get the simplest of facts straight.

Real GDP has gone up for FIVE STRAIGHT quarters. NOT one. The STANDARD DEFINITION of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. We are clearly not in a recession as we have had 5 consecutive quarterly increases in GDP. There was a two quarter recession that ended over a year ago and it was one of the mildest recessions in US history.

Unemployment rates are NOWHERE NEAR record highs.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Good point about the mild recession, it was also a planned one.
Remember the last 18 months or so of Clinton's presidency? Greenspan raised rates every time the fed had a meeting, he said the economy was growing too fast, it was going to cause inflation, and he wanted to slow the growth down.
He was going for a "soft landing" where growth would slow to almost nothing without actually putting us in a recession. He barely missed the mark, and that coupled with the accounting scandals and the record bankruptcy filings that caused the stock market to do a massive correction gave us a couple of bad quarters.

I disagree with Bush on about 80-90% of his policies, but the recession we had wasn't his fault (nor was it the fault of his predecessor)