Truth about Clinton starting to leak out.

[QTPie]

I'm gonna get a pretzel!

 

[etech]

Please don't use Clinton and "leak out' in the same sentence. It brings up a bad image for this early in the morning.


<< <sound of crickets> >>

crickets chirping here.

 

[Moonbeam]

But it seems to capture so nicely the essence of Republican concerns.

 

[Mrburns2007]

<< intellectually awake Americans >>



That's just code for bed wetting foaming at the mouth liberal and the fact that they didn't rate Reagan is clear indication of their bias!


Clinton has no major programs to his name, he was weak, at least kennedy dared NASA to go to the moon.

 

[MrBond]

<< Yep. guess who is going to be writing the history books. Some professor sitting in Ithaca NY, or New Haven CT, or Cambridge MA, or even at Berkeley CA. If conservatives want to get their word in, better start majoring in history. >>

"I shall tell you of a man named William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heros..."

 

[Moonbeam]

Geez guys, does any body read. I did this from memory off the radio. Regan got 4% I think. The poll will be in the 1/21/02 issue of the conservative US news and World Reports, as I remember. Maybe the radio program summary is up and I can find it for sure.

And the reason the story kept changing earlier was that the radio program kept giving updated info.

 

[WilsonTung]

I'm no GW Bush fan, but US News "Rankings" and reports are full of sh!t. Just look at their college ranking process... a subjective disgrace.

:|

 

[busmaster11]

<< Get ready to be flamed by all the cattle screwing, redneck conservatives on here. >>



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BigNeko]

I do remember Carter doing a lot as far as peace in the Middle East and trying to open relations with China. And I do remember Clinton going into office with a mandate to bring Federal spending under control. (That's pretty much all the Democratic candidates talked about) Deficit spending got bad under Reagan and went crazy under Bush Sr.
Clinton cannot take credit for the economic expansion we had while he was in office for eight years, but Carter can take credit for the economic woes we had while he was in office for four years??
I thought only liberals wanted it both ways?????

 

[HappyFace]

<< Truth about Clinton starting to leak out. >>

The truth is already out. Clinton's accomplishments during office were as follows:
1. Screwed a fat ugly intern during an economic boom, and then lied about it while under oath.
2. Claimed that He was responsible for the "great economy," when in fact the economy was on the brink of resession.
3. Did everything in his power to avoid being pinned for other various scandals.

 

[josphII]

<< Yep. guess who is going to be writing the history books. Some professor sitting in Ithaca NY, or New Haven CT, or Cambridge MA, or even at Berkeley CA. If conservatives want to get their word in, better start majoring in history. >>



well thats the problem. conservatives are too smart to select a major like history that will get you nowhere in life

 

[josphII]

<<

<< Get ready to be flamed by all the cattle screwing, redneck conservatives on here. >>



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>



i dont understand what is so funny about that. i guess you have to be dumb and a libral to understand the punch line. i just dont understand why 3rd grade humor is, well, humor. its just dumb if you ask me.

 

[Mani]

Yes, Clinton has been overcredited with the good economy. We had a tech boom, the rise of the internet, and tons of investment capital being spent on both to help stimulate things. We also had Greenspan and Rubin.

But it seems to me that it's not so much what Clinton did, it's what he didn't do. He DIDN'T follow a retarded policy like trickle-down economics for one. He DIDN'T believe in corporate handouts or huge concessions to the upper class (which does little to stimulate the economy) and instead targetted the middle/working class for help (whose spending DOES power an economy). He also DIDN'T push us into a deficit with reckless spending. Then again maybe the republican congress deserve some of that credit too. But Clinton definitely had more of a role than sitting pretty while all was well.

I'm no expert on this stuff and these are just my observations-- if anyone has anything to add or correct me on, please do (constructively please).

 

[Optimus]

<< WTF? You're from Europe, right? Didn't you guys patent cattle-screwing? >>



They prefer sheep.


Anyway, Clinton, Bush... who cares? Everyone knows that the country is really run by "The Patriots", a covert group of 12... oh crap! I mentioned them online! Arsenal Gear's GW program is gonna delete this thread for sure now!

I need scissors! 61!

 

[busmaster11]

-snip-

 

[josphII]

<< Yes, Clinton has been overcredited with the good economy. We had a tech boom, the rise of the internet, and tons of investment capital being spent on both to help stimulate things. We also had Greenspan and Rubin.

But it seems to me that it's not so much what Clinton did, it's what he didn't do. He DIDN'T follow a retarded policy like trickle-down economics for one. He DIDN'T believe in corporate handouts or huge concessions to the upper class (which does little to stimulate the economy) and instead targetted the middle/working class for help (whose spending DOES power an economy). He also DIDN'T push us into a deficit with reckless spending. Then again maybe the republican congress deserve some of that credit too. But Clinton definitely had more of a role than sitting pretty while all was well.

I'm no expert on this stuff and these are just my observations-- if anyone has anything to add or correct me on, please do (constructively please). >>



you write so much but say so little. Clinton did nothing, period. Actually he didnt do nothing, he did a lot. He RAISED taxes and INCREASED spending. Yup, and HE'S responsible for the economic boom. *cough* bullshlt *cough* The only thing he did was f*ck everything up. He attacked big buisness (which powers the economy) and screwed the energy infrastructure. Arguably the two most powerful peices of the economy. But you are right about one thing, Clinton didnt sit pretty, he did the opposite and f*cked everything up. As for the "retarded" policy of trickly down economics, well thats exactly what lead to the economic growth. More money to people that make the decisions leads to more jobs which leads to spending. The policies of Reagan and even Bush Sr. lead to the economic up swing and the tax happy, spend happy reclessness of Clinton lead to its fall.

 

[Russ]

<< <<Highest interest rates in recorded US history>> >>

Interest rates dont matter to the population because "the economy was good." >>



Uh, iamwiz82, I guess you weren't around during the Carter years. The economy was terrible. They even coined a new word to describe it, stagflation.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Mani]

<< you write so much but say so little. Clinton did nothing, period. Actually he didnt do nothing, he did a lot. He RAISED taxes and INCREASED spending. Yup, and HE'S responsible for the economic boom. *cough* bullshlt *cough* The only thing he did was f*ck everything up. He attacked big buisness (which powers the economy) and screwed the energy infrastructure. Arguably the two most powerful peices of the economy. But you are right about one thing, Clinton didnt sit pretty, he did the opposite and f*cked everything up. As for the "retarded" policy of trickly down economics, well thats exactly what lead to the economic growth. More money to people that make the decisions leads to more jobs which leads to spending. The policies of Reagan and even Bush Sr. lead to the economic up swing and the tax happy, spend happy reclessness of Clinton lead to its fall. >>



Your point is lost in your apparent blind hatred for the guy. Let me try to make sense of this-- we had unprecedented growth when according to you, our president did all the wrong things. He apparently attacked THE two most powerful drivers of a great economy and yet we still had one of the most prosperous economic periods in history DESPITE this. riiiight.

And if trickle-down economics is such a great policy, why did we have a recession under Bush Sr., whose platform (along with Reagan's) revolved around it? True, healthy businesses often signal a good economy, but the policy ineitably leads to problems. A huge tax cut to the wealthy and big business causes a deficit, which requires in turn a tax increase and a recession. Perhaps if it was done with a genuine downsizing in government it might work, but it hasn't and isn't so the immediate gratification ends up pushing the pain off till later and then it hurts even more.

If you want to correct me with a real argument, maybe backed up with facts or at least logical thought, please do. But your post lacked any grounding whatsoever.

 

[busmaster11]

<<

<< you write so much but say so little. Clinton did nothing, period. Actually he didnt do nothing, he did a lot. He RAISED taxes and INCREASED spending. Yup, and HE'S responsible for the economic boom. *cough* bullshlt *cough* The only thing he did was f*ck everything up. He attacked big buisness (which powers the economy) and screwed the energy infrastructure. Arguably the two most powerful peices of the economy. But you are right about one thing, Clinton didnt sit pretty, he did the opposite and f*cked everything up. As for the "retarded" policy of trickly down economics, well thats exactly what lead to the economic growth. More money to people that make the decisions leads to more jobs which leads to spending. The policies of Reagan and even Bush Sr. lead to the economic up swing and the tax happy, spend happy reclessness of Clinton lead to its fall. >>



Your point is lost in your apparent blind hatred for the guy. Let me try to make sense of this-- we had unprecedented growth when according to you, our president did all the wrong things. He apparently attacked THE two most powerful drivers of a great economy and yet we still had one of the most prosperous economic periods in history DESPITE this. riiiight.

And if trickle-down economics is such a great policy, why did we have a recession under Bush Sr., whose platform (along with Reagan's) revolved around it? True, healthy businesses often signal a good economy, but the policy ineitably leads to problems. A huge tax cut to the wealthy and big business causes a deficit, which requires in turn a tax increase and a recession. Perhaps if it was done with a genuine downsizing in government it might work, but it hasn't and isn't so the immediate gratification ends up pushing the pain off till later and then it hurts even more.

If you want to correct me with a real argument, maybe backed up with facts or at least logical thought, please do. But your post lacked any grounding whatsoever. >>



I wouldn't waste my breath on this guy Mani... He's apparently one of those cattle screwing, redneck conservatives Skyclad mentioned... He just doesn't know it because he's blinded by his own venom.... Not to mention a low post count troll with PMs turned off...

 

[DrPepper]

i guess you have to be dumb and a libral


lol

 

[Dually]

I have no idea what is going to happen in 2004. What I do know is that people allways believe those polls.

1)Remember Wilson was President for 8 years and he was a Harvard History Professor when he ran.

2)Remember the Dewey beats Truman newspaper, polls wrong again.

3)Remember the Flordia 2000 callins, polls wrong again.

and so on and so forth.

 

[burnedout]

<< <<Highest interest rates in recorded US history>> >>

Interest rates dont matter to the population because "the economy was good." >>

Uh, iamwiz82, I guess you weren't around during the Carter years. The economy was terrible. They even coined a new word to describe it, stagflation.

Russ, NCNE

Yeah, I was around back then also Russ. Very, very painful. Car dealerships that had been around for fifty years were closing up shop because the interest rates on new car loans were so expensive.