Conservatives: You now have nobody else to blame.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
I agree with chess9.

I see 4 years coming up with no significant changes. Definately nothing radical. Which is good for America.

Actually the ideal situation perhaps. Gore would also have been a lameduck of sorts.....but now we got a Bush to make fun of over the next four years.:D

Bob Kerrey in 2004!

 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Can you spell G-R-I-D-L-O-C-K ?

Great news for wall street.


Nasdaq tanked on news of an upset.Tech companies don't like what they see.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
chess9,

The idiot politicians have already spent 40% of the surplus, according to McCain. Nobody will get fillet mignon for dinner but instead the tuna sandwiches they're accustomed to.

And you're right, the media keep talking about how Bush wouldn't have an obvious "mandate" to govern for the next 4 years. I'm not terribly sure how that will matter in the long run but spinmeisters are working overtime to tell us how important it'll be in the coming weeks.

Tripleshot,

<< Can you spell G-R-I-D-L-O-C-K ? >>

Apparently you can! :)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,291
126
tagej, it's amazing how you can describe the blame game in such negative terms and turn around and play it in the same post. Unbebebebeleivable. :D
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81


<< Date Posted: Nov/08/2000 5:21 PM

Millenium: STOP THE FSCKING LIES ALREADY!!!

FACT: Gore was set to spend TWICE as much as bushlite in his budgetin crease for the military=100 billion vs 50 billion.

Bush flew a fscking desk and was AWOL for a year. Gore went to Viet Nam.
A$$hole.
>>



Show me where Gore was going to spend more. We have already proven that Gore would lie to anyone about anything just to get an edge. Also Bush actually did something that required military skill. Carrying a typewritter or a camera doesn't mean that you were in &quot;Vietnam&quot;. I would say that Gore was a REMF who only came up when a area was clear or sporadically hot. I have a book written partially by a reporter who was covering Khe Sanh. Unlike most of the other reporters, he actually was at Khe Sanh. He was there not only at the beginning and at the end, but also during the middle. He was there the whole fricking time. Whenever a medevac or supply craft landed he was always asked if he wished to leave. He had the chances to leave with almost every medevac. He would be allowed to board over all but the most serious casualities. Even a reporter in the field was given special treatment. Don't tell me that Gore was in &quot;Vietnam.&quot; He might have walked around with a security escort, or processed wire reports at the back. Either way he didn't crawl on the ground through a jungle, or almost sh!t himself the first time he heard mortars. He didn't face live fire his first day in country. He never landed on a hot LZ and had half his platoon shot up in the first 90 seconds. Gore was a simple reporter. He was not there to fight, he was there to report. Learn some history, quit your liberal bitching and then come talk to me. Oh, I love how you call me an asshole just because I disagree with you. I will not stoop to your level. My candidate will win. Yours will end up working on his next invention.
 

Entity

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
10,090
0
0


<< Do I think it was rigged? Well that would take a lot of balls for someone to try that and frankly I don't think Old man George, Lonesome George and Jeb have two pair between the 3 of them. >>


LMAO and agreed. :)

Rob
 

DanC

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2000
5,553
0
0
I wonder what the story would be were the situation reversed.

&quot;Oh - there must have been some mistake&quot;
&quot;It's not fair&quot;
&quot;Somebody oughta make a LAW&quot;

Give me a break.
Deal with it. - and wait for the outcome like everyone else.

The supervisors are Bi-partisan -

This of course won't prevent the liberal whiners from crying &quot;FOUL!&quot;
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Bush hasn't even been declared the winner and the democrat liberal whining begins... lets just hope the market doesn't go through another down cycle during the next four years, or hillary may be the prez next time around.
 

DanC

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2000
5,553
0
0
Red -
Have I mentioned that I have TROUT?
Or - that Russ likes chocolate pudding?

BTW
&quot;Discrepancy&quot;
and
&quot;Sneaks&quot;
 

Thorn

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,665
0
0
New definition for Webster's Dictionary

Irony \i-ro-ne\ n : The people whom Clinton and Gore have been shafting for 8 years. The people who will be casting the deciding votes for the 2000 Presidential election. synonym: The Military
 

MrBond

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
9,911
0
76
Ahhh, I'm beginning to believe this forums is heavily populated by sore-loser liberals. I honestly wouldn't be bitching this much if (when?) Bush lost (loses?) the race for the presidency.

And that &quot;RepublicKlans&quot; comment IS sickening. You make a generalized statement like that, and you're no better then the KKK members you chastise. Hyopcrite.

Thats all I'm saying...don't expect a reply from ME on this subject. Take all the shots you want, you won't get a reaction from me.
 

SJ

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,151
0
0
Bush wont have an easy ride. Only way anything will get passed in the next two years IF either one is elected, will be if they can bring each side together. Could of happened if it wasn't a close race, but both canidate are SOL, period.
 

Cknyc

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,321
0
0
I thinks Bush's plan of giving the surplus away via cutting taxes is spending it all away. Bush says he wants to do so much, rebuild the army, Fix SS &amp; mediacare. How does he expect to do this when he is goign to cut taxes. All three of those programs will require a lot of money. Money that he wont have after he cuts taxes. Whats going to happen is the economy is goign to slow. Taxes will be cut, the govt revenues will fall, bush will begin deficit spending. Rates will rise, unemployment will soon follow. He may wisen up after and raise taxes.



Bush's tax policy and SS policy will not work. Privatizing SS will require lots of money to switch the system (even if only a small degree).

I am with Im Typing, Since Bush has republicans in both the house and senate maybe he can prove us wrong and do something good for the country. I hope so, but Im very skeptical.

Its too bad that bush had to be the Republicac candidate. I was looking forward to voting for Mc Cain. IMHO much better than Bush and Gore.
 

Thorn

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,665
0
0


<< It's going to be a lot tougher on him now because he's starting out with more than half the country pissed off at him. >>

Big deal Red, MORE than half of us on this BBS stay pissed off at you but that doesn't keep you from functioning. :D
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Red better be careful or folks are going to start thinking he's a flaming liberal. Of coure we all know better than that. He's told us otherwise so many times before.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Red, I believe, is a liberal born into a conservative's body who lived his formative years in a small, predominantly libertarian town in Texas surrounded by socialist peers.
 

dl

Banned
Oct 29, 1999
1,633
0
0
I totally disagree with ya...

yes, the nation was on the fasttracks...but now it seems the clinton administration screwed up again and we are once again on the decline...just you watch. Who do have to blame for this??? The democrats...

last night I was thinking about this and I was actually rooting for Borg because I wanted him to win so he can clean up what his pimps trashed...

instead..the republicans will be placed in charge...

If you look at history...Bush Sr. was the one that got the nation's economics going...clinton was a lucky SOB, he took over and made it better..that does not mean that Bush would not have done the same thing...

now that it seems everything is going to h3ll again, it'll be up to Bush Jr. to step in and cleanhouse again...

It's sad that people can't see this....

I agree with you on this point...1 thing that's scary though is that the republicans now control the WH, House, and Senate...it'll be interesting to see what evil plans they'll bring to the table...(this point btw was brought up last night, but the blind mods locked my thread and then apologized later...at which point I could care less to make the point again on my own...:D thanks for bringing this up again)

in either case, we're all screwed :(

edit for grammatical errors
 

I'm Typing

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,208
0
0


<< If you look at history...Bush Sr. was the one that got the nation's economics going...clinton was a lucky SOB,
he took over and made it better..that does not mean that Bush would not have done the same thing...

now that it seems everything is going to h3ll again, it'll be up to Bush Jr. to step in and cleanhouse again...

It's sad that people can't see this....
>>



When Bush Sr. stole the presidency, unemployment was at about 5.8%, inflation was at 4.9%, and the economy was in fairly good shape overall. People were voting their pocketbooks. When Bush lost the presidency, unemployment was at 7.8%, inflation was at 8%, and the market was reeling. Clinton's plan to revitalize the nation's economy and pay down the debt was slammed by republicans as a &quot;dangerous economic policy&quot;...and look where we are now?unemployment is at the lowest level since before Raygun took office, inflation is below 5%, the economy is booming.

It amazes me how conservatives give Raygun all the credit when the economy was soaring in the '80's, and then give Clinton none of it when it soared in the '90's. Using the same philosophy as outlined above, you would have to give CARTER the credit for the &quot;good times&quot; during the Raygun years!!!! Do you plan to do that? No...which means that you are spouting more BS, and already trying to put spin on any failure of the bushlite administration.

I am not saying the country is going to go in the crapper. I really hope not, and will do what I can to succeed. But if it does, don't you dare try to point your finger at ME?I did not vote for your boy.

YOU DID.
 

fdiskboy

Golden Member
Sep 21, 2000
1,328
0
0
You guys give the President (whoever he is) way too much credit for the economy.

Was Clinton responsible for the technology boom? I don't think so.
Was it Bush's fault we had a recession? Probably not.

Let's be real. Recessions and expansions are part of the NATURAL ECONOMIC cycle.

Anyone who believes in 200 year uninterrupted economic expansion is self-deluded.

Better wake up, we will have a recession sooner rather than later.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY