PDA

View Full Version : Economy Growing...GW's Fault?



pooltchr
02-27-2006, 07:58 AM
I guess since he gets the blame for everything, he should get the blame for economic growth too...

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
Mon Feb 27, 12:16 AM ET



WASHINGTON - The economy ended 2005 like a lamb and is roaring back like a lion, a resounding rebound that economists say will lead the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in the months ahead.


The fresh forecast from the National Association for Business Economics has gross domestic product growing at a robust 4.5 percent annual rate from January through March.

The group earlier had predicted a 3.4 percent rate. If the revised forecast proves accurate, it would mark the best showing since the July-through-September period in 2003, when the economy expanded at a blistering 7.2 percent pace.

The government in April will release the GDP figure for the first three months of this year. GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within this country and is the broadest gauge of economic performance.

Growth slowed to a crawl over the final quarter of 2005. The 1.1 percent pace was the most sluggish in three years. Blamed for the slowdown were the lingering fallout from the Gulf Coast hurricanes and belt tightening by consumers and businesses.

"Our forecasters expect the economy to shake off the effects of last year's hurricanes and surging oil prices," said the association's president, Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group.

The forecasters predict this robust growth will lead the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and his central bank colleagues to raise interest rates at least twice more this year.

Bernanke will preside over his first interest-rate meeting on March 27-28.

For nearly two years, the Fed has tightened credit to keep the economy and inflation on an even keel. The most recent rate increase came on Jan. 31, at Alan Greenspan's last meeting as Fed chairman.

A key interest rate controlled by the Fed now stands at 4.50 percent, the highest in nearly five years.

Economists, including some who had been uncertain about the future direction of rates, now say this rate will climb to at least 5 percent this year. After that, analysts say, the Fed probably will take a break and leave rates alone for a while.

In 2007, however, the forecasters predict the Fed gradually will start lowering this rate.

For all of 2006, the forecasters expect the economy to grow by 3.3 percent. That would be a solid performance, but slightly below the 3.5 percent increase in GDP in 2005. Economic growth in the first half of this year is expected to be better than the second half.

The economy should expand by a respectable but slower 3.1 percent in 2007 as the toll of higher borrowing costs, a slowing housing market and elevated energy prices is felt, according to the association.

In terms of risks to the economy, forecasters rank rising energy prices as the biggest potential wrench. Rising interest rates and falling home prices were other potential risks.

Long-term interest rates, such as mortgages, have stayed at relatively low levels in the United States even as the Fed has boosted short-term rates.

If these long-term rates were to jump sharply or if housing prices, which have risen rapidly, were to fall, it could spell trouble for the housing market, overextended homeowners and the overall economy.

On energy prices, the forecasters expect a barrel of crude oil to trade at nearly $59 at the end of this year. That is higher than an earlier estimate of $53 a barrel, but below the current level of about $63 a barrel.

The economists see inflation calming this year, with consumer prices expected to increase by 2.9 percent this year and 2.4 percent next year. That would be an improvement from last year's 3.4 percent jump, the biggest in five years.

On the jobs front, solid economic growth should help lower the unemployment rate this year. The unemployment rate, which averaged 5.1 percent last year, should drop to 4.8 percent this year, the association said. The jobless rate should edge up to 4.9 percent in 2007, according to the forecast.

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 08:15 AM
What difference does it make when he pays for his tax cuts by borrowing money from China?????

He'll leave us in the same mess Reagan left us in. It's just a numbers game, and he still falls way short of Clinton,... huge surplus, many many more jobs, 23 million, Welfare Reform, Huge gains in new small business, investment friendly stock market, .....compare that to Bush, huge deficit, dangerous trade deficit, sliding wages, weak job creation, and more people on welfare.

Just keep on fooling yourself, it's a republican thing.

"If you're going to lower taxes, you shouldn't be borrowing the tax cut." Alan Greenspan

eg8r
02-27-2006, 09:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He'll leave us in the same mess Reagan left us in. It's just a numbers game, and he still falls way short of Clinton,... huge surplus, many many more jobs, 23 million, Welfare Reform, Huge gains in new small business, investment friendly stock market, ..... <hr /></blockquote> Wow, what a job he did. You forgot to mention him stealing from SS. Someone had to pay for all that? Oh and did you not think it was all just a numbers game when your man was in office?

eg8r

DebraLiStarr
02-27-2006, 10:08 AM
<font color="red"> Clinton's numbers are no better than anyone else's. In fact, NAFTA did not follow through on its promises, all it did was create the outsourcing problems - creating jobs in Mexico and skyrocketing plant closures and unemployment rates on the US - Mexico border. I find that difficult to ignore. As a financial analyst, its easy to see that Greenspan manipulated the numbers on the way out. That is nothing new - those that came before him have done the same thing. Bennanke will be no different - I found this article this morning -</font color>

Bernanke: Low Inflation Fosters Jobs
AP Online via NewsEdge Corporation :

WASHINGTON_Ben Bernanke, in his first public speech as Federal Reserve chairman, laid out a scholarly case Friday that keeping inflation low and stable tends to foster economic growth and jobs.
<font color="red"> That is just common sense. Interpreted - the fluctuation is controllable by what he does or doesnt do - that is no mystery, but many people dont realize that. </font color>

This sensibility _ now largely a consensus view _ marked an evolution in economic thinking, Bernanke said in prepared remarks at Princeton University in New Jersey.

<font color="red">Now he invented it - complete BS. This insults my intelligence. </font color>

"Central bankers, economists and other knowledgeable observers around the world agree that price stability contributes importantly to the economy's growth and employment prospects," he said. "But that view did not always command the support it does today."

<font color="red">What this means is that it hasnt worked in the past, they know it doesnt work, it has received NO support whatsoever because it does not work, but they plan on continuing this assinine way of controlling us because they have outside interests that come before our economy. Sad but true. </font color>

Bernanke spent 17 years teaching economics at Princeton. A copy of his remarks was distributed in Washington.


<font color="red">And no matter wat his experience is, how smart he is, he's still at the mercy of those that are more powerful than he, yet he's the figurehead out front slinging the manure. Those educated in the field are not impressed by any of this rhetoric. </font color>

During the 1960s and 1970s, some policy-makers believed there were trade-offs between the goals of keeping both inflation and unemployment low, and that one goal had to come at the expense of the other.

<font color="red">And sice then nothing has changed, and everything has gotten worse. It shows that it doesnt work. Duhhhhh. </font color>

"Some influential voices of the time argued that by accepting higher inflation, policy-makers could bring about a permanently lower rate of unemployment," Bernanke said.

<font color="red">He is talking about Paul Volcker, who replaced G. William Miller as Federal Reserve Chairman - who succeeded Arthur Burns (IMO, responsible for this mess).
The inflation caused interest rates to rise to unprecedented levels (above 12 percent per year). The rapid change in rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the Savings and Loan crisis. Investments in fixed income (both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. Volcker took actions (raising interest rates even further) to slow down the economy and bring down inflation, which he considered his mandate. He succeeded, but only by first going through a very unpleasant phase where the economy slowed down, causing a rise in unemployment, prior to any relief from the inflation. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called stagflation, an unprecedented situation in American economics.
Reagan inherited Volcker. Reagan understood that there was no way of ending inflation without monetary restraint and a temporary recession. During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988, the economy added 16,753,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 7.5% to 5.3% (although it increased at one point peaking near 10%). In addition, the poverty rate fell from 14% to 12.8%. Now the deficit is another story...
</font color>

"Clearly, though, the theory that a long-run trade-off exists between inflation and unemployment had sprung a serious leak," he said, citing economic data from the past.

<font color="red">Unemployment does not cause inflation - they already know this. THEY CONTROL INFLATION.</font color>

One of the things Bernanke would like to see the Fed do is numerically spell out acceptable bounds for inflation. Former chairman Alan Greenspan, who retired Jan. 31, didn't like that approach, contending it could crimp the Fed's flexibility.

<font color="red">They are saying they can control it like the volume on the radio. LOL. </font color>

Bernanke, who took helm Feb. 1, has said he would discuss this idea with his Fed colleagues and wouldn't rush to implement such a policy.

<font color="red">Hopefully they have him take a look back at the mess Volcker left us in. </font color>

In terms of setting interest rates, an inflation target wouldn't make much practical difference because the Fed's preferred range of inflation under Greenspan _ which wasn't publicly announced _ was 1 percent to 2 percent, excluding food and energy prices. That's the same range favored by Bernanke.

<font color="red">This sounds nice and fluffy - but its a friggin mess right now. All this means is that we'll continue in the same direction and start implementing liberal methods so we can blame it all on the Democrats in 2012. This seems to be the current strategy. Rotflmao!!!</font color>

When prices are stable, businesses, consumers and investors don't have to worry that inflation will eat away at their investments and paychecks. They also can feel more confident about longer-term financial planning.

<font color="red"> This is crap too. Of course we dont have to worry about inflation eating away at our investments - we should worry about Bernanke the same way we were worried about Greenspan raising and lowering interest rates whenever he felt like it. Invest long term - that way when you get screwed short term you'll forget about all that when I'm dead and buried and your broke. Thanks alot Mr. Bernanke.</font color>

Bernanke, in his prepared text, did not discuss the future course of interest rates.

<font color="red">LOL!!! Read my last paragraph.</font color>

For nearly two years, the Federal Reserve under Greenspan has been boosting interest rates to keep the economy and inflation on an even keel. That has left a key interest rate controlled by the Fed at 4.50 percent, the highest in almost five years.

<font color="red">And some of us have paid dearly for that. Interest rates only scratch the surface as to some of the goofy things Greenspan has done over the years - Bernanke will be no different - he's just a puppet. </font color>

Bernanke's first meeting to examine interest rates is March 27-28. Many economists believe rates will go up again at that time.

<font color="red"> Of course!!! What else? Its a game. It doesnt create more jobs, it doesnt create more money - just more taxes. Once again - duhhhhhhh.

This is not a partisan issue at all. It is an issue of playing a shell game and shifting the blame from one administration to another. Reagan's policies were effective at trying to fix the horror of the Carter Administration - but at what cost? This mess is no different. Where did it all start?

HERE (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/iii/8698.htm)

All the president says to the Fed is: "make me look good when it counts - ok?"

They all play the same game. Every 4 years they toss us a bone in exchange for a vote. Welcome to America 2006.
</font color>

wolfdancer
02-27-2006, 10:33 AM
Steve, bring this back up near the end of this year...and we'll see
how the numbers add up.......then we'll be only too glad to kiss his ring.
My niece just lost her job, the whole section was shut down,
something to do with the Nuclear energy regulatory board. Probably outsourced that to UAE????
But she can probably make $9 an hour as a T.A. for WalMart???

wolfdancer
02-27-2006, 10:39 AM
Debra, good post, interesting reading.

pooltchr
02-27-2006, 11:04 AM
It just kills you to think that something good might happen to the country while GW is in office, doesn't it???
And you call republicans closed minded!
Steve

eg8r
02-27-2006, 12:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My niece just lost her job, the whole section was shut down,
something to do with the Nuclear energy regulatory board. Probably outsourced that to UAE????
<hr /></blockquote> If you need someone to blame, I hear W has broad shoulders. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Hopefully your niece will not spend too much time following in your footsteps by blaming Bush (for all that is wrong in this otherwise perfect world), instead she will land on her feet and find another good job. There are plenty out there.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-27-2006, 12:35 PM
Ed, she has the requisite skills, experience, etc....but the market is tight right now.
You read me wrong on blaming Bush. I think the job outsourcing started before the Bush admin, and remains unchecked. I think it hurts america, as each job, especially each high paying, skilled job lost...reduces the income tax revenue, in addition to putting economic pressure on the people that have lost their job.
There are many things i don't like about GWB's admin/policies.....but I'm not an economist....I doubt if he has created, nor lost jobs???
debra has a much better grasp on this topic
I still reserve the right to blame Bush for everything else, including the "sheep led over the cliff" mentality of GWB's ardent followers.
As Rousseau, for all of his insanity, once wisely said: "One is misled not by what he does not know but by what he believes he knows." (I stole that from another site)

DickLeonard
02-27-2006, 01:20 PM
Wolfdancer you can get 20 years in prison for stealing an idea. Especially one that makes sense.####

Sid_Vicious
02-27-2006, 01:50 PM
"There are many things i don't like about GWB's admin/policies.....but I'm not an economist....I doubt if he has created, nor lost jobs???"

The fact that every advisor Bush had on his economic staff after his first election was displaced, voluntarily or whatever, tells me this 90 IQ'd prez wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when it came to actually listening to bonefide smart people. I do feel he's cost jobs with this sorry game plan for the American economy. I'll believe the boom in the economy when My $4.50 tech stocks actually moves more than half a buck, and doesn't sink back to, or below it's starting point. I ain't looking for any bubble, just a good beginning to feel good about...sid

eg8r
02-27-2006, 02:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You read me wrong on blaming Bush. I think the job outsourcing started before the Bush admin, and remains unchecked. <hr /></blockquote> You are right, I did misread you. I agree the situation started long before.
[ QUOTE ]
I think it hurts america, as each job, especially each high paying, skilled job lost...reduces the income tax revenue, in addition to putting economic pressure on the people that have lost their job.
<hr /></blockquote> You would be a fine advocate of the Fairtax plan. You might want to check it out. Fairtax (http://www.fairtax.org/)

[ QUOTE ]
As Rousseau, for all of his insanity, once wisely said: "One is misled not by what he does not know but by what he believes he knows." (I stole that from another site) <hr /></blockquote> It is nice to know that while you are a lib and that is bad enough, you refuse to be a plagiarist. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 02:59 PM
How can it kill me when there isn't anything good happening to the country? NOTHING GOOD!!!!! ALL BAD!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!

When you weigh it all out, eventually you will have to admit that Bush has been a total disaster for this country, and it just kills you to have to admit that, doesn't it?

I don't take seriously anyone who thinks it is fine for a country with long term ties to terrorists, connections to 9/11, and bin Laden, to operate our ports. Guess that means you.

Gayle in Md.

DebraLiStarr
02-27-2006, 05:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> How can it kill me when there isn't anything good happening to the country? NOTHING GOOD!!!!! ALL BAD!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!

<font color="red">The same thing can be said of previous administrations from the democratic party. Weak spots in Clinton's foreign policy made it possible for a lot of the current situation to occur. Domestically, he was preoccupied and lacked focus on social issues. His administration wasn't all bad, but it wasnt all good either. The same with GWB. If you are completely closed-minded and opposed to anything that represents the GOP, Then you will not be able to make an accurate statement regarding any of these issues. Objectivity is necessary when trying o determine the root cause of any problem. Bind loyalty will never solve anything. All it does is keep things the way that they are. </font color>

When you weigh it all out, eventually you will have to admit that Bush has been a total disaster for this country, and it just kills you to have to admit that, doesn't it?

<font color="red"> It killed me to have a president that was on record as saying he "loathed the military". I was able to see past that however and realize that the position should respected, no matter how you feel about the person. </font color>

I don't take seriously anyone who thinks it is fine for a country with long term ties to terrorists, connections to 9/11, and bin Laden, to operate our ports. Guess that means you.

<font color="red">Its hard to take you seriously when you keep switching the subject. We were talking about economics and you hijacked it into a Bush bashing party. If you take a look at the link I provided you can see where the problems started, how they got worse, what was done to rectify them, how that made it worse, and why we are where we are today. The current problems have snowballed since as far back as the Johnson administration. Nobody is going to be able to fix it overnight. Clinton didnt do much with it either - what could he do? Same thing with GWB. This will be a mess for a long time down the road. You sound as if you actually believe that things would have been different if Kerry or Gore were elected. The same thing would have happened with the economy and 9/11. Saying that it is all the fault of one president is way off base and a very uneducated and uninformed statement.

Debra
</font color>

Gayle in Md.


<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
02-27-2006, 06:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> weak job creation, <hr /></blockquote>

I refuse to fall into your ways of throwing out a dozen different things to hide the facts. That's why I am quoting 3 words of yours.
If there aren't more jobs, even though the population continues to grow, how is it that forcasters are predicting that jobless rates will drop .3% this year?

Every time someone posts something about the government on here, you come out with your bag full of bs about everything under the sun, most of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It must be a sad life to be so bitter all the time. No, things aren't perfect in Washington, but things are not 100% down the tank either! You are just pi$$ed because someone licked the candy off your apple 6 years ago when GW was elected (YES, I SAID ELECTED!!!) and then 2 years ago when he was ELECTED again!
Your hatred has overpowered any judgement you might have had. The only thing you believe is that Bush is evil, and everything he does must be wrong. You are letting your emotions rule, rather than making fact based decisions.

Here are some facts for you. Everything the Clintons did in office was not bad. Everything the Clintons did in office was not good. Everything Bush has done in office was not bad. Everything Bush has done in office was not good.
Think about it.
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 08:05 PM
Everything the Clinton's did was not good, I agree, but nothing they did was as bad as what Bush has done. Republicans have irritated me ever since I watched their witch hunt over a man's personal sex life. At that time, I didn't consider myself loyal to either party, I was an independent, registered as such, and never voted party lines, but I believe they crossed the line, and wasted a tremendous amount of money, over an issue which, at that time, 97 % of Americans didn't care about, according to the polls.

I have listed many times all the ill conceived policies which this administration has failed at, and the many situations which they have worsened, and since 61 % of the American people think as I do regarding Bush, his incompetence, the mistake of going into this war, the deciet he used to launch it, and his failed overall performance, I certainly don't give a good **** about your opinions of me, or my opinions. Your opinions of Bush fall right in line with the minority of people in this country, so I don't think I need you to educate me on the facts. Bush has us in such deep debt to foreign countries, they sure as hell don't want to invest in our stocks and bonds, lol, so he is now selling off our infrastucture. What's left? And you think the economy is going well, LMAO!

If you can't handle reading my posts, again, I suggest you stop reading them.

Gayle in Md.





Now, into the sixth year of observing this corrupt, lying bunch, and their destructive incompetence, along with their total deception, I am completely against Republicans, but the important thing is that I have never observed such blatant illegal activities going on in Washington. John Dean is right, this bunch IS worse than Watergate.

Drop1
02-27-2006, 08:37 PM
Right were on the way up.Wake up and smell the B.S. Today L.A. Times government announces cuts for thousands of Vets,by 2008 I guess thats because the economy is improving??? Largest back log of unsold homes in twelve years,because the economy is improving? Lowest savings rate by the American people since the Great Depression,because the economy is improving? Borrowing seven hundred fifty million dollars a day,because the economy is improving. No Bush did not start all the problems that exist,and I don't care who started them,because the problems are Global in scope,and we are screwing around saying things are going to be better here,while the rest of the World supports our consumer driven economy. Things are better because of Bush? HA AH HO HE HE I gotta love ya dude.

DebraLiStarr
02-27-2006, 09:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Everything the Clinton's did was not good, I agree, but nothing they did was as bad as what Bush has done. Republicans have irritated me ever since I watched their witch hunt over a man's personal sex life. At that time, I didn't consider myself loyal to either party, I was an independent, registered as such, and never voted party lines, but I believe they crossed the line, and wasted a tremendous amount of money, over an issue which, at that time, 97 % of Americans didn't care about, according to the polls.

<font color="red">So these rants are all rooted in the fact that Bill Clinton got a BJ in the oval office? Nobody cared about that, they cared that he lied under oath - he has since admitted doing so, he wasnt impeached - he has since turned his life around - Al Gore was not elected - get over it. Kerry was not elected either. I beleve Bob Dole would have made an excellent President, but he wasnt elected and life rolled on. I wasnt bitter about it. The people spoke and Clinton was still president. </font color>

I have listed many times all the ill conceived policies which this administration has failed at, and the many situations which they have worsened, and since 61 % of the American people think as I do regarding Bush, his incompetence, the mistake of going into this war, the deciet he used to launch it, and his failed overall performance, I certainly don't give a good **** about your opinions of me, or my opinions. Your opinions of Bush fall right in line with the minority of people in this country, so I don't think I need you to educate me on the facts.

<font color="red">You seem to be blinded from the facts by your emotions. The economy has been in a shambles for a very very long time... here is a look back in history -
</font color>
<font color="blue">In 1963, President John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Resene System and ordered the U.S. governmcnt to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy's order and the Federal Resene won another round. </font color>
The Federal Reserve Bank (http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij2.html)

<font color="red">So this is nothing new... it has been an ongoing problem since its inception in 1913 by president Woodrow Wilson. Almost 100 years later we are paying for those mistakes.

I am much like you, I could care less about party lines. I do care about the facts and base my opinions on the facts, not my emotions. It is imperative that when forming an opinion you try to collect all of the historical data that pertains to the subject matter. Our country is in this situation due to a long list of reasons that date back before 2000 when GWB was elected president.
</font color>


If you can't handle reading my posts, again, I suggest you stop reading them.

Gayle in Md.

<font color="red"> As far as not reading your posts, that can be taken in one of 2 ways...
a) you have no respect for others opinions - and if you dont care if we read them, then why write them? lol
or
b) you have no respect for the facts and your opinion is not penetrable with the truth because you refuse to look at the problem from all angles - and when you do that - your arguments lack substance and effectiveness. I think it has more to do with not wanting to hear the responses you receive, rather than not having us read what you write on these issues.

It is possible to get along with people that do not share your political or philosophical views. It takes exercising respect for the other person and having respect for ALL OF THE FACTS, not just the facts you choose to accept and recognize.
</font color>



Now, into the sixth year of observing this corrupt, lying bunch, and their destructive incompetence, along with their total deception, I am completely against Republicans, but the important thing is that I have never observed such blatant illegal activities going on in Washington.

<font color="red">Well... a lot of people died mysteriously during the Clinton Administration - I'm sure you heard all about that. Some people died abruptly. I could write a small book about that if you'd like, but I doubt you'd want to listen to any of it. I'm sure if we dug deep enough into any administration we would find just as much, perhaps more corruption than what we have presently. At least we can agree that this is not what our forefathers envisioned for our brave new world when the constitution was penned. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 09:05 PM
LOL, When you think we had the biggest surplus ever when Bush took office, and all the warnings, from everywhere, about every smitake and miscalculation he has made, ....even Greenspan warned him....

You don't cut taxes when you are waging war....

You gotta wonder, ya think the whole house of cards he has built will come crashing down on him before he get's out of office, or will the kool aid last long enough for him to maintain his hocus pocus?

Drop1
02-27-2006, 09:21 PM
The House is crashing,and we are living on Foreign Aid from the Chinese. I wanna go over that crack down part again. I can just here the Chinese leaders " You want us to do what"?

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 09:54 PM
LMAO....that was a riot, huh?

Gayle

eg8r
02-28-2006, 04:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So these rants are all rooted in the fact that Bill Clinton got a BJ in the oval office? Nobody cared about that, they cared that he lied under oath <hr /></blockquote> This is exactly what the Dems like to cover up. They cannot handle the truth of the situation and they blow smoke over what happened. They come here time and time again talking about all these lies about Bush, when they they hypocritically turned their eyes when it was their guy doing all the lying. They turn their eyes when their guy gave the Chinese all the nuclear secrets. They turn their eyes when their guy sold out SS. The list could go on and on but they don't care to listen.

eg8r

Qtec
02-28-2006, 05:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
They come here time and time again talking about all these lies about Bush, when they they hypocritically turned their eyes when it was their guy doing all the lying. <hr /></blockquote>

Is it normal for a gentleman to talk in public about his relationship with a young lady? That would be bad manners in my book.
Was C's sexual adventure with an intern a matter of Nat Security?
Dont think so.
Was it a case of a few fanatics trying to bring down a Pres who was the legally elected choice of the Nation- YES.
When GW went before the 9/11 commision, was HE under oath?
He couldnt even give testimony without Dick C holding his hand. LOL
Has he EVER given testimony under oath?
Do you remember during one of the Pres debates when GW was asked about OBL and Kerry reffered to GW,s statement that 'he doesnt concern me' and 'he is not important'? He denied ever saying this and said this was another of Kerry's imagination?
Its on tape. He said it. There is no doubt that he lied. Does that bother you.
Didnt think so. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r logic. The bank robber who only shoots one person is better than the bank robber who shoots six people!!!!!!!
A guy who lies about a sexual affair is just as bad as a guy who CONS a whole country into backing a war against an IMAGINARY threat that doesnt exist, which has so far cost 2400 lives and 1000,s of injured.
After 4 years of US escapades in the ME, the Islamic world has never been so hostile to the west and Iraq is on the verge of civil war with UNFORSEEN consequences.
Freedom fries and WMDs.
What is a WMD?
I think there is a dif between an atomic bomb and a hand grenade but according to GW, they are the same!
How very convenient.

Rant over. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Q.....wake up eg8r..........try google....its a wonderful thing......

moblsv
02-28-2006, 06:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I was an independent, registered as such, and never voted party lines, but I believe they crossed the line<hr /></blockquote>

ditto, however, I actually went so far as to register Democrat a few years ago. There will need to be some major changes before I would consider voting for anybody willing to attach their name to this corrupt, lying, abusive, unethical Republican Party again. As far as I'm concerned anybody who attaches their name to the Republican Party these days is either too unaware of what's going on to trust, or knows what is going on and is part of the problem.

Gayle in MD
02-28-2006, 06:58 AM
Tap Tap Tap....
The Clintons were the most investigated people to ever occupy the White House, and all the Neocons could come up with was a BJ, LOL. They were accused of everthing one could imagine, including murder. It was ridiculous, and the behavior of the right during his administration was the worst kind of cheap political behavior this country has ever seen. But that is what the right is known for, they take the term Dirty Politics, to a whole new level devoid of any dignity or reality.

I guess Ed thinks that China needs the United States to educate them, lol, He has overblown that whole situation on here for years. And Clinton's surplus, all came out of Social Security money, LMAO!

Not since our Nixonian years have we seen the abuse of presidential powers we have witnessed with Bush. Even Francis Fukuyama, one of the leading architects of Neo-Conservatism has written a book, "America At The Crossroads" where he writes that the Neoconservatives, Bush in particular, .....

Neoconservatism has failed America, and needs to be replaced by a more realistic Foriegn Policy Agenda"

He is known as the virtual creator of the Neocon Doctrine. He contributes the frustration of Americans to the " Overestimatation of American Power, lacking realism, and failure of Planning on the part of the administration.

This is certainly evidenced by the administrations predictions that by the end of the first summer we would only need 25,000 troops. That the Iraqis would be throwing flowers in the streets to our troops, and that a country, can go with bombs and missiles and tanks and guns a force Democracy on a mixed bag of religious fanatics, who have been at one another's throats for two thousand years!

Since there is absolutely NO comparison between Bush and Clinton, I shouldn't compare them myself, and regret doing so here, however, most people I know do not think this country is headed in the right direction, and obviously, the majority in this country do not.

I think it's humorous when a righty gets on here touting a great Economy, when wages are falling, foriegn countries are buying our infrastructure, $17,000 a second to fight a war we had no business starting, raging deficits, National, and Trade, and a president who appoints people like Harriet Myers, Chertoff, Brown, and oversteps his powers regularly, eliminating any oversight by using fear, terrorism and "Classified Information" as a cover up and as a blanket excuse for breaking our laws, while at the same time, he neglects to see that the implementation of safe gaurds, already identified by the 9/11 commission, are put into place, and in fact, get's a F. for his performance, and the performance of his appointees.

If we were concerned about National Security, we would Never approve this deal" LMAO, he said a mouthful, Poor George, he was born with a silver FOOT in his mouth! Anne, sure hit the nail on the nose with that one, but we didn't know it was hereditary!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-28-2006, 07:05 AM
You are absolutely right. I have been working for the Democrats ever since the Supreme Court over ruled the counting of every vote. I am a registered Democrat now, also, and there are many many more like us, who will vote to rid this country of the republican corruption which is now more blatant than ever. Bush, while I would rather not have had to watched the horror of his illegal, incompetence for the last five years, has insured the next election will produce a long needed "House Cleaning" from the Congress, to the Senate, to the White House. Too bad so many have had to die, thanks to Bush, Cheney and Rice, the axis of EVIL.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
02-28-2006, 08:21 AM
Debra Pres. Eisenhower in his goodbye speech warned the Country of the Military-Industrial Complex. That from a former General. It works best when someone is dying.

I think Napolean said it best "the scraps of silk for which men willingly die for". The idolatrous obedience to leaders speaking in Gods Name.

While the Industrial Complex reaps great rewards for supplying the dazed men with weapons inferior enough to keep having to replace them. Who failed to put the armor on the Humvee. It was not my job Boss.

They venture nothing but fatten their bellys while we bury our dead with a check for $25,000. Seems hardly fair and if you check their families history you will find no one near the battle front.####

DickLeonard
02-28-2006, 08:33 AM
Pooltchr divide 200,into 2 trillion and see how many houses that would build. This country would be humming with all the jobs that would have created. That debt is being spent in a foreign country if we wanted to spent it here the uproar would be deafening. We are willing to go into hock to chase a lunatics dream of Being Annointed by God to What. Today is in search of Weapons of Mass Destruction,Now it is bring Democrazy to a Foreign Country, When we have a Crazy Man who thinks He is above our laws.
This makes absolutely no sense.####

eg8r
02-28-2006, 10:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Is it normal for a gentleman to talk in public about his relationship with a young lady? That would be bad manners in my book.
Was C's sexual adventure with an intern a matter of Nat Security?
<hr /></blockquote> First of all, who cares what you think are bad manners. Do you think Clinton cared about manners when he was raping Juanita? No, so let it rest, you sound foolish. Now, as far as National Security is concerned, yes it was a matter of National Security we are just lucky nothing more happened. While he was lying to his wife and daughter and treating them like dirt, he was doing the same to the entire US by allowing the Chinese to sleep in Lincoln's room and walk out of the country with our nuclear secrets.

eg8r

eg8r
02-28-2006, 10:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Clintons were the most investigated people to ever occupy the White House, <hr /></blockquote> And they were also proven liars every time someone took the time to investigate. Hey, has anyone seen those Rose documents lately?

The clintons were only brought up because of the hypocritical mentality that what Bush does is the worse ever, when your guy practically invented this stuff.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-28-2006, 10:56 AM
Ed, you're so full of it it's a wonder you can reach your hands to the keyboard. If they had lied about everything, why weren't they convicted on anything? They only thing they got the Clinton's on was his little romp with Monica. Bush has lied about everything from war, to wire taps, to torture to his sneaky Arab deals. His ass would be in jail if he didn't have a Hill full of crooks to protect him from special prosecutors with their majority agreement to cover up all his lawbreaking. He can't put two sentences together without lying, and neither can you. NO wonder you are jioned at the hip.

Yeah, the Chinese are so dumb, Clinton had to educate them with all our secrets, LMAO! They're so dumb, yeah right, that's why they own us.

When are you enlisting, anyway, oh can't go now, too busy figuring out how you're going to get those freebe hand outs to pay for your kids college, HUH?

Good Luck......moocher!

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
02-28-2006, 12:26 PM
Wasn't it Barbara Bush,GWB's mom who said, "no man that has had a BJ would ever forget it" If it wasn't Barbara,was it Hiliary? There seems to be some type of oral fixation, in one of the Political Parties. The economy improved,and the DOW dropped one hundred points today. Consumer confidence took a dive. Gee,with all the good news from the indicators,how can the patient be getting worse. Is it possible people are checking their wallets?

DebraLiStarr
02-28-2006, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Ed, you're so full of it it's a wonder you can reach your hands to the keyboard. If they had lied about everything, why weren't they convicted on anything? They only thing they got the Clinton's on was his little romp with Monica. Bush has lied about everything from war, to wire taps, to torture to his sneaky Arab deals. His ass would be in jail if he didn't have a Hill full of crooks to protect him from special prosecutors with their majority agreement to cover up all his lawbreaking. He can't put two sentences together without lying, and neither can you. NO wonder you are jioned at the hip.

Yeah, the Chinese are so dumb, Clinton had to educate them with all our secrets, LMAO! They're so dumb, yeah right, that's why they own us.

When are you enlisting, anyway, oh can't go now, too busy figuring out how you're going to get those freebe hand outs to pay for your kids college, HUH?

Good Luck......moocher!

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Glad to see you still "sticking to the topic", Gayle. The fact that you have ignored everything I said is one of the highest compliments you could have given me. Best of luck in 2008. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

pooltchr
02-28-2006, 03:29 PM
Debra, It's a typical ploy of people who don't know what they are talking about...change the subject, try to divert attention....Gayle is the MASTER!!!!
Just don't try to get her to stick to the facts of a topic...she has proven time and time again she just can't do it.
Steve

eg8r
03-01-2006, 05:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, you're so full of it it's a wonder you can reach your hands to the keyboard. If they had lied about everything, why weren't they convicted on anything? <hr /></blockquote> You keep asking these asinine questions if they help you. Was OJ convicted in criminal court? Would someone be dumb enough to use your ridiculous logic and believe he was innocent. NO, so once you have something with some actual thought behind it, bring it.

[ QUOTE ]
They only thing they got the Clinton's on was his little romp with Monica. <hr /></blockquote> The cat has Bill's tongue on his raping of Juanita. I guess by your ridiculous logic above, since Bill refuses to deny he raped her, then he cannot be accused of it. LOL, priceless. That is the failed logic of the left, just because you were not convicted gives you a free ride. This might be why you guys continue to lose in the elections.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush has lied about everything from war, to wire taps, to torture to his sneaky Arab deals. His ass would be in jail if he didn't have a Hill full of crooks to protect him from special prosecutors with their majority agreement to cover up all his lawbreaking. <hr /></blockquote> Yeah right, Bush is the only one with a little help. Clinton was squeaky clean. You are such a hypocrite on these issues it is not even funny. You cannot even face the simple fact that what you accuse W of doing, all your buddies have been doing year in and year out. I am in no way saying this gives W free reign to do whatever he wants but you should at least be honest with yourself and everyone else here when Clinton is mentioned. The man is not the saint you blindly believe he was. He treated women as a whole as complete dirt. On top of all the lies and poor things he did while he was the President (though not everything was horrible), Clinton was a rapist and cheater. I would have thought the die hard feminist in you would at least accept that.

[ QUOTE ]
When are you enlisting, anyway, oh can't go now, too busy figuring out how you're going to get those freebe hand outs to pay for your kids college, HUH?
<hr /></blockquote> What a stupid question, I guess maybe I will think about it when you get your butt off the computer and begin running for President. I can't wait to hear your slogans, "Vote for me, I have read all the books from the Angry Left and they are the truth. I don't care about facts, just what the Angry Left says, that is the truth". I bet that has you LYAO. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Your are nothing more than a bullhorn with a fine memory for lies regurgitated by the flailing left.

Should your reply to me be considered proof of the lie you told a few months back? Does it make the statement you made a few months back a lie? If you are going to make statements like, "I am no longer replying to your posts", at least be honest with yourself and live up to it. If you can live with yourself, I enjoy seeing your responses. Your anger is too much for you to hide and if you can just keep perpetuating the lies of the left it just might help you keep your anger under control. Ultimately this cannot be healthy but don't worry, all your friends at Walter Reid (misspelled just the way you like it) should be able to help. There has to be a shrink somewhere in the building. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~hopes his children work hard in school and earn the freebe handouts Gayle is so jealous about

eg8r
03-01-2006, 05:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Debra, It's a typical ploy of people who don't know what they are talking about...change the subject, try to divert attention....Gayle is the MASTER!!!!
Just don't try to get her to stick to the facts of a topic...she has proven time and time again she just can't do it.
Steve <hr /></blockquote> Steve, you better watch yourself. You are walking on thin ice. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Gayle might find something catchy to call you like, Post Police. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

DickLeonard
03-01-2006, 06:17 AM
Eg8r I will quote Jesse 'The Body" Ventura on Dan Duetch show. Martha Stewart didn't go to jail for insider trading she went to jail for lying under oath. When someone lies to the government they go to jail When the Gov lies to us We go to War. eg phony intelligence,wmd.

As for Bill Clintons lying I think that the Bible says man should only try to procreate that would eliminate anything but that as having sex. Until women get a uterous in her stomach, I would have to agree with his interpretation of not having sex with that women.####.

Gayle in MD
03-01-2006, 06:46 AM
AH HA HA HA HA...Dick, you made my day. Too funny! Clinton is the first man to get into trouble for not having intercourse, lol. The stomach part though, I think it all ended up on the dress!

Personally, I think it's just awful what Clinton did to that poor little innocent, unsuspecting virgin, lol. Bush Sr. had a mistress right here in Washington for years, everybody knew it, but since he had to climb in bed with George Washington everynight, we gave himn a bye, LOL.

Love ya Dick,

Gayle

pooltchr
03-01-2006, 06:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> she went to jail for lying under oath. When someone lies to the government they go to jail
<font color="red"> Bill lied under oath, and he didn't go to jail. Hillery lied about the records she "didn't have" and she didn't go to jail. </font color>
I would have to agree with his interpretation of not having sex with that women.####.
<font color="red"> I would bet there are a lot of wives out there who wouldn't agree...particularly if it was their husband getting a bj from another woman. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
03-01-2006, 07:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Thursday, February 25, 1999; Page A15

Juanita Broaddrick told her story to a national television audience last night, saying she did not tell authorities 21 years ago of her contention that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her because "I just don't think anyone would have believed me."

In a gripping account punctuated by sobs, the Arkansas woman told "Dateline NBC" that in her Little Rock hotel room, Clinton suddenly "turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.' . . . He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. . . . And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.' . . . He wouldn't listen to me."

But Broaddrick could not remember the date, even the month, of the alleged 1978 incident. And NBC's Lisa Myers reported that Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's first gubernatorial campaign, attended a Clinton fund-raiser three weeks later. "I think I was still in denial," Broaddrick said. "I still felt very guilty at that time, that it was my fault. By letting him come to the room, I had given him the wrong idea."

Asked about Broaddrick's allegation at a news conference earlier in the day, President Clinton said: "Well, my counsel has made a statement about the . . . issue, and I have nothing to add to it." Attorney David E. Kendall's statement called the charge "absolutely false."

The nursing home operator, previously known as Jane Doe No. 5, told Myers that she felt "violated" but finally stopped resisting Clinton's sexual advances because "it was a real panicky situation." She said that "he was just a vicious, awful person."

Pressed by Myers as to whether she was raped, Broaddrick said she had been. "It was not consensual," she insisted. As for her feelings now toward the president, Broaddrick said: "My hatred for him is overwhelming.
<hr /></blockquote>

Unsubstantiated allegations are now FACTS according to you?
Its amazing - Clinton is a serial rapist who has also had 20-30 people killed to save his own skin but somehow he got away with it because there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the allegations?
LMAO

If you have ANY evidence to back-up your claims, lets hear it. If you want to gossip, try Free republic.com /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q..............

Gayle in MD
03-01-2006, 07:22 AM
Again, I'll ask once again, Steve, What difference does it make when he pays for his tax cuts by borrowing from China???? Overall, a few optimistic predictions from economists, or a few points gain here and there, do not cancel out the tremendous debt that this President, and the Republican Majority continues to build.

You NEVER answer MY questions, nor does Ed, and neither of you adhere to staying on the subject. No one who posts here stays on the subject all the time.

Also, you seem to forget that I was originally behind this President's decision to go into Iraq until I found out that he decieved all of us, intentionally. After that, like other flip floppers, (Read John Kerry, and the many other Democrats who believed him) I became suspect of everything he said and did. Over the last five years, he has proven that his overall M. O. is to lie, break the law, and find ways to go around the law, as he, and his majority on the Hill, block investigations into his lies (9/11 investigation, still never completed, FISA debockle, republicans blocked the swearing in of those involved to protect them from future legal problems, etc. etc.) and law breaking. Hence, people like John Dean, and many others, George Will, a righty, William F. Buckley, and I could go on, and on, are calling Bush incompetent, and unrealistic.

I submit, it is you who hate the left, and people like me who are outraged by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their on-going lies, and refusal to abide by our laws, and Constitutional system of Checks and Balances.

If it makes you feel better to believe that I am some bitter, miserable soul full of hate, LOL, hey, whatever you NEED to think. I assure you, that as I sit here in my lovely home, with a bright retirement future, beautiful healthy little Grand Daughter, a Daughter who has made me more than proud her whole life, and is my best girl friend, a son- in- law whom I love as a son, who is wonderful husband, wonderful father, and continue to enjoy my wonderful husband, as fine as man as my own Dad was in his life, and share with him the fruits of our labor together through forty-three years of hard work, good health and happiness, your picture of who I am is really funny!

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Have a nice day....friend

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
03-01-2006, 07:53 AM
Bush,
" Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those ex-a-gger-ations.

Of course, two years ago he said exactly that:

I donít know where he is. Nor ó you know, I just donít spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.

from GW's lips (http://political.moveon.org/content/video/debatefinal.mov)


Basically he called Kerry a liar during a Pres Debate. I guess he must now be impeached. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

Gayle in MD
03-01-2006, 08:36 AM
It's incredible too, that this example you provide for us of just ONE of Bush's lies, we can also find many others, not only by him, but also by Cheney, and Rice. Each of them caught, dead to rights, lying about what they said previously. I think perhaps their greatest failure has been to underestimate the intelligence of Americans, well, approx. 60% of us, anyway, lol.

Gayle... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
03-01-2006, 10:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You NEVER answer MY questions, nor does Ed, and neither of you adhere to staying on the subject. No one who posts here stays on the subject all the time.
<hr /></blockquote> No need to answer a question from you if it goes off topic. Bring them up in your own thread instead of trying change the subject. Q is legendary for this, you are just a poor mimic. You are right, no one stays on topic all the time, however you NEVER do.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you seem to forget that I was originally behind this President's decision to go into Iraq until I found out that he decieved all of us, intentionally. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, now you sound like John Kerry. Just to clue you in, that was a miserable failure of his to point out, and you don't seem to learn from history.

[ QUOTE ]
After that, like other flip floppers, (Read John Kerry, and the many other Democrats who believed him) I became suspect of everything he said and did. <hr /></blockquote> You are unlike John Kerry in the fact that John Kerry then stated, "If I had to do it all over again, knowing what I know now, I would still vote to go to war". He was making up his own mind (and looking like a fool doing it), you on the other hand are like a sheep, falling hook line and sinker for anything anyone says that opposes Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
I submit, it is you who hate the left, and people like me who are outraged by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their on-going lies, and refusal to abide by our laws, and Constitutional system of Checks and Balances.
<hr /></blockquote> What a hypocrite, someone does not believe your slant and you say they hate, however if you don't believe theirs, you are just "enraged". 9 times out of 10, you come across as hate yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
If it makes you feel better to believe that I am some bitter, miserable soul full of hate, LOL, hey, whatever you NEED to think. I assure you, that as I sit here in my lovely home, with a bright retirement future, beautiful healthy little Grand Daughter, a Daughter who has made me more than proud her whole life, and is my best girl friend, a son- in- law whom I love as a son, who is wonderful husband, wonderful father, and continue to enjoy my wonderful husband, as fine as man as my own Dad was in his life, and share with him the fruits of our labor together through forty-three years of hard work, good health and happiness, your picture of who I am is really funny!
<hr /></blockquote> Sounds like your real life and your life here on the internet is best described as a schizophrenic. This must be the little girl filled with hate that comes on the board and posts and then she goes away and the fun loving grandma shows up when family arrives. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-01-2006, 10:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
AH HA HA HA HA...Dick, you made my day. Too funny! Clinton is the first man to get into trouble for not having intercourse, lol. <hr /></blockquote> Wrong once again, either your mouth speaks before you mind, or this is just stupidity. He did not get in trouble for not having intercourse, he got into trouble for not having the ability to tell the truth. Your favorite little rapist was a liar and that was the final nail.

eg8r

eg8r
03-01-2006, 10:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
21 years ago <hr /></blockquote> This is the part you bolded, so what. Because he raped her 21 years ago he should be expunged from it? Sorry, it just makes him the rapist that got away. How sad of a human you are to even try and defend his actions when even Bill would not defend himself. Bill knew he raped her and he chose not to deny or admit. Believe me, if he felt he was wrongly accused he would have fought it. Even on things he thought he could get away with he lied about, WHY NOT JUANITA?. What a waste it is to even discuss this with you. He is a rapist, he knows it, and who cares if you accept it.

eg8r

eg8r
03-01-2006, 10:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Basically he called Kerry a liar during a Pres Debate. I guess he must now be impeached. <hr /></blockquote> More stupidity from the left. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You are unable to tell the difference between a Presidential Debate and the court system. Do you think before you post?

eg8r

eg8r
03-01-2006, 10:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It's incredible too, that this example you provide for us of just ONE of Bush's lies, we can also find many others, not only by him, but also by Cheney, and Rice. Each of them caught, dead to rights, lying about what they said previously. I think perhaps their greatest failure has been to underestimate the intelligence of Americans, well, approx. 60% of us, anyway, lol.
<hr /></blockquote> You are right, they have all said lies, maybe they spoke too soon, surely YOU could understand that. However, what is this mention of intelligence of 60% and somehow including yourself. Catching them in these lies has nothing to do with your intelligence, rather it only speaks of the person that actuall went through all the footage to catch it. They don't underestimate your intelligence, LOL, they prey on the lack of it. If you were so intelligent you would have a President pushing your agenda, a Congress pushing your agenda, a Supreme Court pushing your agenda, etc. Yet, with all that intelligence, all you have is a backseat. Judging by the actions of your favorite rapist I believe that is exactly where you are comfortable.

eg8r

Deeman3
03-01-2006, 01:04 PM
They don't underestimate your intelligence, LOL, they prey on the lack of it. If you were so intelligent you would have a President pushing your agenda, a Congress pushing your agenda, a Supreme Court pushing your agenda, etc. Yet, with all that intelligence, all you have is a backseat. Judging by the actions of your favorite rapist I believe that is exactly where you are comfortable.

eg8r

<font color="blue"> Ed,

Talk about the truth, truer words then these have never been spoken and they can't no matter their rantings, get away from that. Too smart to get their people elected, too smart to know what to even do in response to it. LOL</font color>


Deeman

Sid_Vicious
03-01-2006, 02:46 PM
I relate the so called growing economy to my pool gambling. If I'm playing way over my head, lost $5000 and then for the next couple of sets make $50-100-200 up out of the $5000 stuck situation, then I don't call that growing. Bush has F'd the economy up to such a condition, it doesn't take but a glimmer of a movement for the righties to jump up and down with pride. You guys are dim in the wits, and I'll wager that if the situation with the gambling and the monster player confronts you, you'll without doubt say, "Let's keep playing, I'm booming with this cue!" This country needs a Bush-irectomy, NOW! sid

eg8r
03-02-2006, 05:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm playing way over my head, lost $5000 and then for the next couple of sets make $50-100-200 up out of the $5000 stuck situation, then I don't call that growing. <hr /></blockquote> No, you would call that luck. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you were playing above your head and still lost 5k, then there would be no chance for you to earn the money back playing at your normal skill level. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-02-2006, 10:48 AM
Ed, Sid was using gambling on pool as a metaphor for GWB playing over his head in anything but reading funnies to kindergarden kids....or explaing his thoughts on economics to them.....and going along with the analogy, I'll agree with you it's just blind luck that the economy has made a small recovery in the last few months....we call it a dead cat bounce, in the stock market.
But I have to admit we do have some growth industries....the military, and the penal system...thanks in part to the justice system catching up with all these influential friends of politicians...

Gayle in MD
03-02-2006, 11:16 AM
He can't read. He never gets anyone's meaning, they don't want to understand that over 60% of the people in this country think the war was a mistake, that Bush is a liar, and that he is doing a lousy job. All they can harp on is two stolen elections, DIEBOLD in Ohio, and Katherine Harris's purge list in Florida, which excluded over 20,000 votes right there, some say more, add to that ObL's threats to Americans just before the election. All that going for them, and still they couldn't gwet the popular vote the first time, and the narrowest margin in history the second time. Who cares, what they think, they can't read. FOX News, not Fact News.

The Republicans are going down the tubes anyway. Just look at today's headlines, Civil War in Iraq, Illegal Redistricting in Texas, Illegal Wire Taps, Illegal Awarding of the UAE contract without the required legal 45 day Congressional Oversight, Cunningham's Bribery schedule/bill on Senate stationary, Libbey's fake defense, Cheney trying to cover up his drunken hunting accident, Bush's lies about Katrina exposed, hey, we shouldn't wast our time writing to any of them. Too bad we can't exercise freedon of speech on here without having to put up with a bunch of rude, overbearing, uninformed, right wingers.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md. The news is

eg8r
03-02-2006, 12:48 PM
Wow, you don't say.

eg8r

DebraLiStarr
03-02-2006, 12:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> He can't read. He never gets anyone's meaning, they don't want to understand that over 60% of the people in this country think the war was a mistake, that Bush is a liar, and that he is doing a lousy job. All they can harp on is two stolen elections, DIEBOLD in Ohio, and Katherine Harris's purge list in Florida, which excluded over 20,000 votes right there, some say more, add to that ObL's threats to Americans just before the election. All that going for them, and still they couldn't gwet the popular vote the first time, and the narrowest margin in history the second time. Who cares, what they think, they can't read. FOX News, not Fact News.

The Republicans are going down the tubes anyway. Just look at today's headlines, Civil War in Iraq, Illegal Redistricting in Texas, Illegal Wire Taps, Illegal Awarding of the UAE contract without the required legal 45 day Congressional Oversight, Cunningham's Bribery schedule/bill on Senate stationary, Libbey's fake defense, Cheney trying to cover up his drunken hunting accident, Bush's lies about Katrina exposed, hey, we shouldn't wast our time writing to any of them. Too bad we can't exercise freedon of speech on here without having to put up with a bunch of rude, overbearing, uninformed, right wingers.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md. The news is <hr /></blockquote>

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oh give it a break. Your opinions are some of the most laughable, uneducated and ridiculously reasoned posts I have ever read on these subjects. Its one thing to be loyal to your party and to base that loyalty on convictions and principles. Your entire platform is that everything that is wrong with the world is because of GWB. Sorry, but that isn't an accurate assessment and if I'm honest - I have money riding on the fact that whoever gets into the White House in 2008 will have the same problems. By then, your excuse will be "its because GWB left it messed up for us" and that's not a very effective argument - especially when we are talking about economics - which is the topic of this thread - and obviously something you know very very little about (seeing that you avoid it by bringing up Katrina, Iraq, and other issues that serve no purpose in this particular discussion) - the dollar is extremely weak against the united power of the Euromark. We have continually allowed the unionized workers in this country to increase their power and leverage with their constant lobbying - and look what it has done to the Auto industry. Globally, our products do not measure up against high quality - non-union made foreign products. To whom do we assess that blame? GWB? The "industrialists" have taken advantage of NAFTA and relocated their plants across the border because it easier to pay Pablo in Tijuana $8 a day to turn screws than it is to pay John or Jeff in Detroit $15 and hour to do the same thing half assed. These are problems that have grown worse over time. It dates back to Eisenhower and Truman who started this industrialization suicide pact with post war Japan. As a nation we can keep pointing fingers, but we have slashed our own throats on more than one occasion - NAFTA was spearheaded by Perot, who muddied the water enough to sway votes away from GHWB, and that's how Clinton was elected in 1992 (This affectionately known as the Greed Compact). Am I supposed to be so stupid to believe that its a coincidence that Perot has financially benefited from NAFTA and other Clinton era legislation? Am I supposed to ignore the fact that people mysteriously died dring Clinton's administration? They wrote them all off as suicides... I guess that is a right wing conspiracy.

Clinton Administration Body Count (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/clintbodycnt.html)

Knowing you, Gayle, you won't even click on the link - because it is filled with true occurrences during the last democratic presidency which was marred by scandal after scandal - and I'm not talking about cigars and BJ's. The truth is that they killed people on a regular basis to ...
HIDE THE TRUTH.

pooltchr
03-02-2006, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> they don't want to understand that over 60% of the people in this country think the war was a mistake, that Bush is a liar, and that he is doing a lousy job. <hr /></blockquote>

If 60% of the people that post here think you are full of it, does that mean we get to vote for someone else to be the designated ranter???????
just wondering......

What you don't seem to grasp is that GW is going to do what he thinks is right and damn public opinion. It seems to work....the American Public has ELECTED HIM TWICE IN A ROW!!!!!!!!
Steve

Deeman3
03-02-2006, 03:30 PM
But Debra, Gayle read a book once..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
03-02-2006, 09:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Am I supposed to ignore the fact that people mysteriously died dring Clinton's administration? They wrote them all off as suicides... I guess that is a right wing conspiracy.

Clinton Administration Body Count

Knowing you, Gayle, you won't even click on the link - because it is filled with true occurrences during the last democratic presidency which was marred by scandal after scandal - and I'm not talking about cigars and BJ's. The truth is that they killed people on a regular basis to ...
HIDE THE TRUTH.
<hr /></blockquote>

OMG!
From YOUR link.
[ QUOTE ]
On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson died when the airplane she was flying in crashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77 was reportedly piloted by a suicidal terrorist whose cohorts also crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York city and in Pennsylvania. Barbara served as the Republican chief counsel for the congressional committeee investigating the Clintons' involvement in Travelgate and Filegate. She also authored two books, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton," a scathing expose of Hillary Clinton, and "The Final Days: A Behind the Scenes Look at the Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House." <hr /></blockquote>

Are you insane? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Was the timing coincidence or do you want me to believe that BC had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and used them as a cover in order to kill this woman by crashing her plane into the pentagon and killing 60+ innocents at the same time?


[ QUOTE ]
In July 1997, during the pre-trial publicity surrounding the Paula Jones lawsuit, and mere days after Newsweek's Mike Isikoff had dropped hints that a "former White House staffer" was about to go public with her story of sexual harassement at 1600 Pennsylvania, <font color="blue"> Problem is, only the initial was mentioned , not the name. We now know that the 'M' was for Monica, not Mary! LMAO. </font color> gunmen entered the Starbuck's Coffee shop in Georgetown while the crew was cleaning up. Mary Mahoney, a 25 year old former White House Intern for Bill Clinton, was working as the Assistant Manager. Mary's two associates, Aaron Goodrich, 18 and Emory Evans, 25, were taken to a room and shot. Mary herself had five bullets in her, from at least two different guns, most likely with silencers. A total of ten shots were fired; none of them heard by neighbors in the densely populated Georgetown section. Mary was shot in the chest, her face, and in the back of the head. No money was taken
<hr /></blockquote>

Clinton again?
Or should I say 'Don Clinton'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif [or maybe 'Bill the Knife'or 'Babyface Bill". LOL]

If Bill Clinton is so ruthless, why didnt he kill Monica? He knew she was going to spill the beans.


Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

DebraLiStarr
03-02-2006, 10:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

If Bill Clinton is so ruthless, why didnt he kill Monica? He knew she was going to spill the beans.


Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for ignoring the most obvious points of that web page ...

I guess he didnt kill Monica because she gave a damn good Lewinsky.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
03-02-2006, 10:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for ignoring the most obvious points of that web page ... <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> .......and they were? [ Its a big page, you will have to be more specific.]

I see you TOTALLY ignored MY points! No comment at all?</font color>

Q

lukeinva
03-02-2006, 10:29 PM
Will you Republican and Democrats shut up! You are both trying to change each others opinions no matter how you look at. Both of you think you have the facts and both are trying to change each other and understand. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN why because you have already made up your minds which way you will go. Therefor you minds are now closed and all you can do is spat about bush this or clinton that. Go to a POLITICAL FORUM and you guys can rant and rave all you want about each others facts!

eg8r
03-03-2006, 06:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Will you Republican and Democrats shut up! You are both trying to change each others opinions no matter how you look at. Both of you think you have the facts and both are trying to change each other and understand. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN why because you have already made up your minds which way you will go. Therefor you minds are now closed and all you can do is spat about bush this or clinton that. Go to a POLITICAL FORUM and you guys can rant and rave all you want about each others facts! <hr /></blockquote> Luke, I would politely ask you to shut up, but I am sure after this post you also have made your mind up. I am sure you might have something to reply but it does not matter, you will never tell me where to post and it have any meaning. If you don't understand what Non-pool related means, all you have to do is ask. Telling people to shut up and don't post here will get your nowhere.

eg8r

eg8r
03-03-2006, 06:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
.......and they were? [ Its a big page, you will have to be more specific.]

I see you TOTALLY ignored MY points! No comment at all? <hr /></blockquote> Isn't this classic Q. At least this time you admit to the fact that you missed the point and are open to someone explaining it to you.
eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-03-2006, 06:34 AM
Again, now that we have been drug all the way back to the turn of the century on this thread, by geniuses who think that Bill Clinton was a mass murderrer, LMAO, I am still asking the same question. What differenct does it make WHAT the econimic numbers and projections are when Bush is paying for tax cuts by borrowing more money from China? And, of the "NEW JOBS quoted here, 68 % are jobs filled by people who had to take jobs that paid less money, as American Wages continue to decline. Your title indicates that you think GWB is doing a good job with the economy, LMAO.....and you think these numbers prove that???? HA HA HA HA HA. Dream on brother.

Gayle in Md.

lukeinva
03-03-2006, 07:36 AM
Egg Head,

I know what NPR is but you guys are just going on and on. About the same stuff clinton this bush that. You could probably get more for your words if you went to a political forum, None of you have a point youre just bashing each other well the dems did this well the reps did this. Its pointless! At least have a point to all of this!!! None of you people have a point your just trying to state your facts and that is it. This conversation will never end why because none of you can see the others point of view, well thier would be one if any of you have a point to start with!

DickLeonard
03-03-2006, 07:56 AM
Pooltchr I was just poking fun at the Crazy Religious Right including the Annointed One. Sent by God to do What God only knows. He cannot be encumbered by laws of man, he can only take orders from God.

That was my interpretation of the Bible in Bill's Case. Now I consider George a mass murderer for his bombing of innocent people in Iraq. No different that OBL only he killed thousands more. He didn't turn the other cheek according to my interpretation of the Bible.

Funny George Steinbreener cured of being a Yankee fan now George Bush cured me beleiving in the Bible.

And the Cartoonist cured me of the Koran.####

DickLeonard
03-03-2006, 08:03 AM
Debra I read the link that is a strong case for gun control.####

Gayle in MD
03-03-2006, 08:51 AM
Deeman, what a Brillian statement coming from a man who voted for George Bush. The fact that George Bush is in office is ceratinly not the issue which concerns those of us who are against his policies. The fact that Bush and the Republican Majority have blocked the precedures in government which hold our representatives accountable for their failures and falsehoods is the issue, and it is an issue which all Americans sould be concerned about. The quest of this administration for unchecked presidential power, and the refusal to abide by laws in place to ensure our constitutional gaurentees against totalitarian dictatorships, should be a concern for each of us. It is completely ridiculous to conclude that those of us who do not support Bush's policies, or do not choose to ignore the devastating results of them, originate simply from supposed sour grapes, if you will, over loosing an election, or that Democrats are incapable of winning one, is just a lot of rhetoric, designed to annoy anyone here who is not in support of the present policies. Not all elections have been won by republicans, after all. Also every American should be concerned that our elections be performed under fail safe circumstances, regardless of the outcome of any particular election. The fact that the past two elections have been questioned as to their accuracy may not be poof that you would youself accept as reason for concern, but certainly, all Americans should have concern that our elections are lawful and accurate.

I hardly think, given all the serious issues of the day, that anyone one is focussed on how or why George Bush got into the White House. Just dealing with the serious implications which hang like a cloud over our future, and the future of our country, would certainly preclude any obsession over the issue of whether or not "Our guy won"

Trying to rub dirt into nonexistant, imaginary wounds from loosing two elections, is aggitative, off the subject, simplistic, and silly. I vote for the person who I think will do the least amount of damage. It is rare, in recent times, to have any opportunity to cast a Presidential vote for any candidate who hints of greatness, unfortunately. Our time would be far better spent learning why our system of Government, elections, and campaigning, precludes the opportunity for men and women of potential greatness, regardless of their personal wealth, from having equal opportunity to serve their country. This ceratinly isn't a partisan concern.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
03-03-2006, 10:07 AM
Very funny, coming from someone who has complained on numerous occasions of this forum about how Bush was "appointed" rather than "elected".
I guess it's ok for you to bring it up, but not for anyone else.
sj

wolfdancer
03-03-2006, 10:46 AM
Gayle, I read somewhere, here? that many of the new jobs were
in the food/beverage industry...waitresses,etc
Now, nothing wrong with these fields, but as a replacement for hi-tech jobs, it's both sad and alarming.
I see a microcosm of the coming national scene, in my home town. What was once a good wage earning city, deteriorated badly when the industry...steel, autos, grain mills, left.
It's now a city with a high unemployment rate, crime filled, unsafe, etc.
I do a Yahoo R.E. search every so often.....find homes at an
almost unbelievable bargain, in what once were prime neighborhoods....then when I ask a relative....that area is no longer safe.Industry left years ago...it wasn't a political thing....steel, autos could be produced cheaper elsewhere.
I've been trying to find something for my sister, where I could put up the down payment, and she could handle the monthly.
I found the perfect place the other day...two story house for $650....the down payment was $25, and the monthly was $3....I figured i could even handle the monthly for her.....but it turned out, it was mislisted...it was a rental. $40k and under though will get you a 2 family home.
Anyway, as unemployment, or low paying employment sweeps the nation, crime will increase.....these folks here that are so smug about their economic status, might not feel so safe.
People used to have this dream of retiring to some poor country, like Mexico, having a nice Villa, and employing servants for a couple of bucks a day.....the Republicans want that here, and are doing a very good job of creating a 2 class system.

DebraLiStarr
03-03-2006, 01:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Again, now that we have been drug all the way back to the turn of the century on this thread, by geniuses who think that Bill Clinton was a mass murderrer, LMAO, I am still asking the same question. What differenct does it make WHAT the econimic numbers and projections are when Bush is paying for tax cuts by borrowing more money from China? And, of the "NEW JOBS quoted here, 68 % are jobs filled by people who had to take jobs that paid less money, as American Wages continue to decline. Your title indicates that you think GWB is doing a good job with the economy, LMAO.....and you think these numbers prove that???? HA HA HA HA HA. Dream on brother.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, are you for real?

i mean come on. According to you, everything was fine until Novemeber of 2000. The world did not start oin November of 2000. Some of the current economical problems are the result of an accumulative rash of poor legislation that dates back to the 1900's. You may find that ridiculous, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true.

FTR, I never called Clinton a mass murderer. I supplied that thread in response to some of the ridiculous claims you have made against Bush.

FTR... I would not vote for Bush ever again.. thank God I don't have to make that choice. I won't vote for Cheney either. That being said, I would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton based on her warped social ideals that resemble the closest thing we have to modern day Marxism. Its nothing personal towards you, but I'll vote for the candidate that is best qualified regardless of their party affiliation. Many people make the error of voting without having a clear understanding of the social, economical and political issues that are at stake. Many women voted for John Edwards because he was nice looking. People voted for Clinton because he looked cool blowing the sax on Arsenio Hall (more than the sax was blown in the Oval Office)...
I apologize if you think my historical references are ridiculous, but I find it difficult to ignore historical data.

This problem is not about Democrats or Republicans. Screw all of them. Think about our country, Its about us, not the friggin politicians. We can go back and forth on who you like and dont like, it solves very little. If you think that my posts are "genius" - they aren't. They are just historical FACTS about how we got into this situation. If you cant respect that or realize that, then why even post a comment?
/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You seem to firmly closedminded to the facts. Note that I am not here saying that GWB is the greatest - he isnt. Neither was Slick Willie. All presidential administrations have their good and bad points.

Qtec
03-03-2006, 01:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
.......and they were? [ Its a big page, you will have to be more specific.]

I see you TOTALLY ignored MY points! No comment at all? <hr /></blockquote> Isn't this classic Q. At least this time you admit to the fact that you missed the point and are open to someone explaining it to you.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I see you TOTALLY ignored MY points as well! [Classic eg8r- head in the sand. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif]
How come? Cant answer or dont want to.? Rather change the subject?
Thought so. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Its a whacko idea and you know it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
The fact that Debra believes it is revealing tho. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif ........BTW, there is no point or points made on that page- apart from the point that some people will believe anything when it suits them. Did you read the guy's homepage?

Qtec
03-03-2006, 01:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
FTR, I never called Clinton a mass murderer. I supplied that thread in response to some of the ridiculous claims you have made against Bush. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Am I supposed to be so stupid to believe that its a coincidence that Perot has financially benefited from NAFTA and other Clinton era legislation? <font color="blue">? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif </font color> Am I supposed to ignore the fact that people mysteriously died dring Clinton's administration? They wrote them all off as suicides... I guess that is a right wing conspiracy.

Clinton Administration Body Count

Knowing you, Gayle, you won't even click on the link - because it is filled with true occurrences during the last democratic presidency which was marred by scandal after scandal - and I'm not talking about cigars and BJ's. The truth is that they killed people on a regular basis to ...
HIDE THE TRUTH.
<hr /></blockquote>

If BC brought down flight 77, that would make him a mass murderer- wouldnt it?



Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

DebraLiStarr
03-03-2006, 02:05 PM
qtec... like I said, it was just as ridiculous as some of the garbage that has been posted about Bush. I could care less about Bush, I never said I believed it - I believe some it is very suspicious, it raises questions,but you are reacting as if I authored the web page - I DIDN'T!!!

I find it interesting that when confronted with factual data, some members of this forum flip the channel on the issues. Gayle is infamous for that, I respect a lot of what you have to share, I hope you are not in the same category. I fail to understand partisan voting. It is what keeps this country where it is at. I will be the first person to point out problems with the Bush Administration, but I will do it by collecting facts and data that is based upon evidence, not my emotions towards the subject matter. Emotionalizing the subject matter is a tell tale sign of a weak debator. So is switching the topic back to comments or data that is not pertinent to the subect matter. That's the difference between having a "topical discussion" and just pissing, bitching and moaning about everything down at the local tavern.

Gayle in MD
03-04-2006, 09:10 AM
FYI, I don't tell people what to post. I don't give a good **** about what happened in the past two elections. My mind in too taxed on a daily bases trying to keep up with George Bush and the way he is selling out our Jobs, ports safety and security, and out troops.

FLASH

It's too damn late to change the elections. Also, Bill Clinton is not my hero. No presidetn is perfect, and all administrations a F up in their own special ways. I just don't happen to think that Bill Clinton waged the total assault on America that this president has, nor do I think that lying a country into going to war can be topped by anything I have see any President do wrong in my adult life, nor do I think any reasonable person would try to compare a lie about their sex life, to lies that led to a pre-emptive attack against a country that had never attacked us, and to lie about anything involving 9/11 is IMO, the worst of the worst.

I find the policies of George Bush to be consistantly disasterous for our country, economically, militarily, and in each and every policy dicision, America comes last behind Foreign interests, and his penchant to sell out this country to the highest bidder. Nothing has ever been written here as humourous as this title of you post, given that his policies on immigration, and international trade, are shoving the middle classs in this country into poverty levels. Their wages are dropping, and here you are talking about JOBS???? What good are jobs that no longer pay enough for middle class families to live on?

His most recent genius idea, trading nuclear rods for mangos? This administration is so overflowing with idiots, and his decisions are so completely UNAMERICAN, and damaging to this country, you're damn right I am mad.

Economy Growing my A$$, anybody who think this economy is going in the right direction is an idiot!

Gayle in Md.

DebraLiStarr
03-05-2006, 11:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I just don't happen to think that Bill Clinton waged the total assault on America that this president has, nor do I think that lying a country into going to war can be topped by anything I have see any President do wrong in my adult life, nor do I think any reasonable person would try to compare a lie about their sex life, to lies that led to a pre-emptive attack against a country that had never attacked us, and to lie about anything involving 9/11 is IMO, the worst of the worst.


Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

I waited a few days before responding to this Gayle because I tend to disagree with you entirely on this statement. You claim that Iraq has never attacked our country... nor do you believe they ever had weapons of mass destruction. What I am about to say is about as real as it gets.

The person I love most in the world is suffering the effects of chemical and biological warfare that has yet to be recognized by our government. Those that have met David can attest that his wounds are just as severe as any battlefield wound, and yes... he recieved this "poisoning" on a battefield in Iraq, yet he will not receive a purple heart or any kind of medal, he will not get any assistance from the country he fought for, and instead of a commendation, they give him condemnation - while statements like yours nullify his sacrifice to being non-existent.

The policies that are in place for Gulf War Veterans and soldiers that are suffering from Gulf War related illnesses were set in place by Bill Clinton - who "loathed" the military. He could have cared less about the soldiers that fought in the first Gulf War, and the numbers of deaths from these soldiers from rare illnesses is staggering - yet the biased media will refuse to let you know anything about it. In plain English, Clinton didn't give a $hit. I have no choice but to give a $hit... I go to sleep and wake up with someone that is suffering the effects of this warfare every day and every night. We have good days, we have bad days. I only get to see it - he gets to live with the fact that he will die before the goverment does anything to admit the fact that troops were poisoned by Saddam Hussei - and that they knew all about it. It wasnt until 1998 when Clinton had no choice but to do something about it... so far its been 8 years of studies, which recommended more studies. Meanhwile, our veterans are dying - and you won't hear about it on the news or on television- because its more important to BS about whether or not we should be there. At this point, who cares? Lets get the job done (instead of all this political posturing and BS game that is just a waste of time) - Instead lets take care of the troops and then lets take care of the veterans.

You can try to paint Saddam Hussein as this innocent little bunny rabbit, but someday I am going to suffer the loss of someone I love, a loss caused by the sadistic hands of Saddam Hussein and his reckless terror. You won't hear about it on the news. You won't read about it in the newspaper,you won't hear the president comment about it. It'll happen, and besides his close family and friends, nobody will really care. His death won't send shockwaves throughout the House and Senate - but it will turn my life completely upside down.

It is so easy to comment about things when you don't see or refuse to see the entire picture or the perspective of people that live with this every day. I believe that the mere fact that we went over there and pulled Saddam's ass out of his rat-hole and tossed him in a cage - that at least gives justice to the men and women that are suffering the effects of his biological agents. It gives justice to all of the people that he murdered and poisoned and tortured. Did we go about it the right way? I'm not to judge that. We elected the president and empowered him to make those decisions. The sanctions and inspections were a shell game and he was laughing at us. The sanctions effected only his people - while Saddam lived in luxurious castles. Right, wrong or indifferent, remember that there are reasons why we are there. You may not agree with them, but the reasons still exist. There are enough logical links between Hussein and 9/11 to make me skeptical, our war is not only against Iraq, its against terrorism - and sorry, but Hussein is an admitted terrorist - and he's damn proud of it.

Our government is designed to where the president is at the mercy of the house and senate, so they are equally responsible for this mess also. Individually and collectively. The troops that are over there will more than likely receive the same treatment when they get back. If they end up sick, suffering with symptoms that cannot be logically explained (because the doctors have never seen anything like it before) they will be treated as hypochondriacs, treated for depression and sent on their way, tossed aside like garbage, all for defending their country in an unpopular war for an unpopular cause. Eventually they will die of their mysetrious symptoms with little or no recongnition from any of the leaders of this country. Its much like what the Viet Nam war vets went through with Agent Orange. By the time the gov't admitted that Agent Orange existed, 3/4 of the soldiers were either dead, or almost dead.

So don't say that we are at war with a country that has never attacked us. Don't refer to Iraq or Saddam Hussein as a fish in a bucket that we decided to shoot for $hits an giggles. That is simply not true. Even John Kerry said that Saddam was a threat. He has since removed any reference to that statement from his website, but you can find it archived in copies of his speeches. Visit a VA hospital and talk to the men and women that have fought in any of the wars. My grandpa fought in WWII on the Japanese side. He is now 88 years old and lives in Daytona Beach, Florida. He told me that fighting for your country (for whatever reason) is not a matter of choice, its not about whther or not you agree with the politics, it is an honor and a duty for all that wish to uphold our way of life, and our freedoms. This bull of "we are imposing our values on the Iraqi people" is simply that - BULL. They had no values to start with. Saddam Hussein stripped them of everything including their identity and their values. Of course there are more important causes domestically that could have used the funding for that has financed this war, but now that we're there, what good does it do to bitch about it? Lets just get the job done instead of tossing rotten eggs at the politicians. Use the energy to support the troops.

Gulf War Illnesses (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/)

eg8r
03-06-2006, 07:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I see you TOTALLY ignored MY points as well! [Classic eg8r- head in the sand. ]
How come? Cant answer or dont want to.? Rather change the subject?
Thought so. <hr /></blockquote> You did not think, so take back the last sentence. I did not ignore your point. Here is the text you typed in the thread I responded to... [ QUOTE ]
.......and they were? [ Its a big page, you will have to be more specific.]

I see you TOTALLY ignored MY points! No comment at all? <hr /></blockquote> So, your only point is that you were ignored. I responded directly to that point. Why be hypocritical of someone doing the very thing you have made infamous?

eg8r

Qtec
03-06-2006, 07:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I only get to see it - he gets to live with the fact that he will die before the goverment does anything to admit the fact that troops were poisoned by Saddam Hussein - and that they knew all about it. <font color="blue"> Why would they cover this up? </font color>

You can try to paint Saddam Hussein as this innocent little bunny rabbit <font color="blue"> Nodody on this board has ever painted Saddam as innocent. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Q

DebraLiStarr
03-06-2006, 08:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
I only get to see it - he gets to live with the fact that he will die before the goverment does anything to admit the fact that troops were poisoned by Saddam Hussein - and that they knew all about it. <font color="blue"> Why would they cover this up? </font color>

<font color="purple"> Qtec, click on the link I provided and you will see ineffectiveness of the gov't's handling of this situation. The Clinton Administration understood the risks that GHWB had recklessly exposed the troops to back in 1991, yet he sat upon initiating any help for the soldiers that came down with these symptoms. Many Gulf War Vets have died of these unexplained illnesses. The gov't did the same thing with the Viet Nam vets and agent orange. This not a new News story. </font color>

You can try to paint Saddam Hussein as this innocent little bunny rabbit <font color="blue"> Nodody on this board has ever painted Saddam as innocent. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="purple">My response was to something Gayle wrote, not you. Gayle avoids responding to anything that I say - I'm ok with that. I didnt write that to bash Gayle, but to show another perspective as to why we are there in the first place. There are more important things that we can do besides debating whether or not we should be there - WE ARE THERE - get over it - lets work together to find a solution, not to bash the curent administration. This is where the liberal media, the liberal politicians (Kerry in particular) lose me. All this posturing and bickering and fingerpointing is a waste of time, energy, resources, and taxpayer money. These people are elected to solve these problems by working together, not against each other. Its like a giant pissing contest day in and day out. If that happened in my office, my superiors would replace me eventually. Its not just the president - its people like Hillary, that do nothing but try to stir the emotions of American people - stir the friggin pot and come up with a solution. That's what you were elected for, not to critique those they were elected or appointed to offices higher than your own. This is more like a prom queen campaign than it is governing a country. If Bush was wrong, then put all of your educated liberal brains together and come up with a solution - not a cool sound bite on the 6 o'clock news.

Somewhere along the line these people have forgotten that they are elected to perform a job. In my job, my superiors have expectations. I must meet and exceed those expectations on a daily basis. Why? I am accountable for my performance. My performance is rated against other Management Accountants and Financial Analysts that perform similar tasks. I am held to a high standard. If I fail to meet that standard, I hear about it - probably from more than one superior. If my performace is subpar because of someone else that works in my office, it is my responsibility to deal with it. If I don't, my butt goes back to the firing line. If I went in there and played the blame game, I would be fired in a heartbeat.

The problem is that people do not hold these elected officials accountable for this. Its easier to blame their superiors, but they all screwed up on this one. I couldn't imagine me walking into the offices of the CFO for Disney and saying, "Dammit, Robert Iger lied to me about that. This is detestable. Let's tell everyone it was Iger's fault." They would call security and escort my butt out the door. No matter who is to blame, it would be my responsibility to fix it and to be part of the solution, and not the problem.

The problem is that our "elected officials" don't act like "elected officials", they act like politicians. The ratio of that 90/10 IMO. 90% politician, and 10 % elected official. That is on both sides of the arguments. If I reacted that way in response to my responsibilities, I wouldn't have a job anymore. We need to start electing candidates that care more about the people and less about their own aspirations. Right now, we don't have a gov't, we have a cage full of monkeys, each of them fighting to get more attention than the other monkeys.

Debra
</font color>
Q <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
03-06-2006, 09:12 AM
Debra,
Very good post and summary of the problems with our government today. It seems like the elected officials feel like their job is to support the party and make sure they get re-elected. I guess they forgot that their real job is to represent the people who voted for them.
Steve

Qtec
03-06-2006, 09:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My response was to something Gayle wrote, not you. <font color="blue"> I only asked a simple question.</font color> Gayle avoids responding to anything that I say - I'm ok with that. I didnt write that to bash Gayle, but to show another perspective as to why we are there in the first place. <font color="blue"> Isnt that exactly what I am doing? ie another perspective? </font color> There are more important things that we can do besides debating whether or not we should be there - WE ARE THERE - get over it - lets work together to find a solution, not to bash the curent administration. <hr /></blockquote>

By all means, lets have a debate, but if you make wild accusations I will ask for some kind of evidence. So far you claim that Clinton is behind multiple assassinatins and Saddam used WMD,s on US troops and the Govt is covering it up. Again, why would they do that?

You say you are for political accountability.
"The problem is that people do not hold these elected officials accountable for this"

But you also say,
"WE ARE THERE - get over it - lets work together to find a solution, not to bash the curent administration."

?
This is hardly holding the present Govt to be accountable or responsible for the present situation.
Why shouldnt we bash the Admin?
Lets say you download an personal e-mail at work [ and you are not allowed to do that] and it contains a virus. The whole system goes down. Should your boss say, forget it, lets look forward. Wouldnt you expect to get your ass kicked?
Why should the Govt be any different?

Q

Qtec
03-06-2006, 09:33 AM
OK Ed, I give up. I havent got a clue what you are talking about! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Put me out of my misery- tell me the points I missed. Enlighten me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q..not holding my breath. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DebraLiStarr
03-06-2006, 10:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
My response was to something Gayle wrote, not you. <font color="blue"> I only asked a simple question.</font color> Gayle avoids responding to anything that I say - I'm ok with that. I didnt write that to bash Gayle, but to show another perspective as to why we are there in the first place. <font color="blue"> Isnt that exactly what I am doing? ie another perspective? </font color> There are more important things that we can do besides debating whether or not we should be there - WE ARE THERE - get over it - lets work together to find a solution, not to bash the curent administration. <hr /></blockquote>

By all means, lets have a debate, but if you make wild accusations I will ask for some kind of evidence. So far you claim that Clinton is behind multiple assassinatins and Saddam used WMD,s on US troops and the Govt is covering it up. Again, why would they do that?

You say you are for political accountability.
"The problem is that people do not hold these elected officials accountable for this"

But you also say,
"WE ARE THERE - get over it - lets work together to find a solution, not to bash the curent administration."

?
This is hardly holding the present Govt to be accountable or responsible for the present situation.
Why shouldnt we bash the Admin?
Lets say you download an personal e-mail at work [ and you are not allowed to do that] and it contains a virus. The whole system goes down. Should your boss say, forget it, lets look forward. Wouldnt you expect to get your ass kicked?
Why should the Govt be any different?

Q


<hr /></blockquote>

A debate? What the hell will that solve? Waste your own energy by avoiding dealing with the problem. What a joke. Comparing our current situation to an e-mail virus misses the target with me. I dont see a viable comparison.

For the um-teenth time, I posted that link because it was ridiculous, much like the links to your liberally slanted ideological nonsense. Let's have a debate! That'll solve everything. That's the problem with both parties, its about who is right and who is wrong - its not about who is going to get off their ass and solve the problem.

You can twist what I said all you want, it still doesnt address SOLVING the problem. Debating is time wasted. Someone needs to take ACTION. Too much time is being spent trying to pick apart stuff that should be done in an after action report... the problem is, no action is taking place, just a alot of senseless, useless discussion. My message to all of the politicians, left and right and in between - Unless you have any solutions to deal with the problem, get your butt and do something about it or get the hell out of office. That's my stance, what's yours? Complaining? That won't solve anything.

My point, is look at the title of this thread, and look at where the conversation is at now... who dragged it there? Me? No... It was initially about the economy, which is now linked to the war, 9/11, Iraq, and whatever other smoke screen you and Gayle can come up with to steer away from the facts that led up to our current deficit. Oh.wait... I'm too educated on the subject... so lets change the topic... I see right through all of that. What I can do - is link the surplus clai to presidential/polical honesty. The problem is that there is no easy way around the fact that Clinton's deficit increase is comparable to GWB, but we all seem to forget about Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc... all of those actions added to the deficit. Let's get back to this supposed surplus that was brought up... was it real, or was it a conditional projection over the next 15 years (2000-2015)? White House analysts made the decision of making their surplus estimates over 15 years, rather than the more conventional five or ten. The longer time period magnified the effects of good economic news (thats all it was in - &amp; it was in an election year- Imagine THAT!)- but it also compounded the effects of even tiny errors in their ridiculously flawed forecasting. The Clinton White House admitted that if it had overestimated just one variable (JUST ONE) - productivity growth, or the increase in what one worker can produce in one hour - by a mere half a percentage point over that 15-year period, that would wipe out the surplus altogether. Well damn... look at the results of that. Outsourcing, look at eth auto industry mess - So much for the supposed budget surplus. It was election year bull$hit and nothing more.

Anyone with half a brain could realize that the only way an institution as mammoth as the Federal Government could go from deficits to surpluses, was by employing dubious accounting methods. Along with the statistics that support the PR hype that "we were in the middle of a boom" because some people had made profits from the stock market bubble, it is conventional wisdom that the "wise" men running the country had inflation under control too (Alan Greenspan - he controlled inflation and unemployment by fluctuating rates in the government's favor - not yours or mine). The reality is that there was NO BOOM, that there was NO SURPLUS,- that reality is as lost as the truth about Bill Clinton's honesty. Even Leon Panetta, who was Clinton's Chief of Staff, and his budget director was on reord as saying, "Believe me, we were stretching it when we did five-year projections. Any time you get out beyond a few years, you're in never-never land." Wow, it took a genius to figure that out. What else did they lie about on the way out the door? Imagine that, Bill Clinton did something that created a distorted picture!Big surprise.

Remeber that lie the next time you are accusing Bush (who lies just as much Clinton did). The fact is, we're in a mess and teh only way we are going to get out of it is by spending more time worrying about fixing OUR country, not someone elses. Right now, Billions are being spent on rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan (like they really give a crap) when we should be rebuilding our own economy. This is insanity, and believe it or not, the world didnt start in January 2001. Cliton did the same exact thing - he ignored domestic and social issues that mattered, while at the same time he spent more money on the campaigns mentioned earlier. You may not want to look at that, but I can cross reference you to the proof by looking at the numbers, not a right-slanted ideological web site.

Bash the administration all you want, its a waste of time and energy. Let your voice be heard on election day. Call your senator or congressman. Hold him to his campaign promises... hold them accountable for their voting record. I refuse to vote for any candidate that is following the party line. Thats a waste of time, and we shouldnt pay them or reward them for succumbing to peer pressure.

eg8r
03-06-2006, 11:06 AM
Don't give up, quitter. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Go back and actually look at what I responded to. I never responded to your original post so I had not reason to mention it. I responded to your next post which chastised someone for not addressing your post in its entirety. I just mentioned that you made that infamous.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-06-2006, 11:46 AM
Q, here's a suggestion....get you an 8 1/2 by 11 piece of paaper, an draw a line down the middle. now copy what ed wrote on the first half and...wait, I skipped a step...make headings for the two columns....one would be "What Ed Wrote"
the other "What he probably meant to say"
Wish i had that great book i used to have on communications.
It states how we all interpret info a little differently.
Tell a story to one person, and when they repeat it to another... by the time the tenth person tells the story back to you...it might not be recognizable.
Well from Ed's mind to Ed's typing....it's like skipping them 10 people.
He might not even recognize what he wrote????

nAz
03-06-2006, 11:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
Well from Ed's mind to Ed's typing....it's like skipping them 10 people.
He might not even recognize what he wrote???? <hr /></blockquote>

Bwahahahaha

Sorry Ed but that was funny as hell! LOL

Gayle in MD
03-06-2006, 12:22 PM
AH HA HA HA...Well, my theory is that he has to change, twist, misinterpret, direct or otherwise dictate... aka, F.UP what you actually said, in order to create an excuse to argue for no good reason, with anyone he can, for as long as he can, about absolutely nothing~!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle

eg8r
03-06-2006, 02:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Ed but that was funny as hell! LOL <hr /></blockquote> No need to be sorry. If someone says something is funny, let them know it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
03-06-2006, 08:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]

A debate? What the hell will that solve? Waste your own energy by avoiding dealing with the problem. What a joke. <font color="blue"> What do you think we do here?[ on the NPR ] </font color> Comparing our current situation to an e-mail virus misses the target with me. I dont see a viable comparison. <font color="blue"> As an employee, you are held responsible and accountable for your actions. Politicians are also employees and should also be held responsible and accountable for what they do. </font color>

For the um-teenth time, I posted that link because it was ridiculous, much like the links to your liberally slanted ideological nonsense. <font color="blue"> Give me an example. </font color> Let's have a debate! That'll solve everything. That's the problem with both parties, its about who is right and who is wrong - its not about who is going to get off their ass and solve the problem. <font color="blue"> If you are going to do something, it would be better to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing. </font color>

You can twist what I said all you want, <font color="blue"> I havent twisted anything. </font color> it still doesnt address SOLVING the problem. Debating is time wasted. Someone needs to take ACTION. Too much time is being spent trying to pick apart stuff that should be done in an after action report... the problem is, no action is taking place, just a alot of senseless, useless discussion. My message to all of the politicians, left and right and in between - Unless you have any solutions to deal with the problem, get your butt and do something about it or get the hell out of office. That's my stance, what's yours? Complaining? That won't solve anything.

My point, is look at the title of this thread, and look at where the conversation is at now... who dragged it there? Me? No... It was initially about the economy, which is now linked to the war, 9/11, Iraq, and whatever other smoke screen you and Gayle can come up with to steer away from the facts that led up to our current deficit. Oh.wait... I'm too educated on the subject... so lets change the topic... I see right through all of that. What I can do - is link the surplus clai to presidential/polical honesty. The problem is that there is no easy way around the fact that Clinton's deficit increase is comparable to GWB, but we all seem to forget about Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc... all of those actions added to the deficit. Let's get back to this supposed surplus that was brought up... was it real, or was it a conditional projection over the next 15 years (2000-2015)? <hr /></blockquote>


This is a DISCUSSION board. We are not here to change the world. We are here to TALK about changing the world. There is a difference! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Complaining? That won't solve anything. <hr /></blockquote>

Sounds to me that in this post you are the one complaining! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

DebraLiStarr
03-06-2006, 11:33 PM
Qtec... your condescending attitude is only matched in annoyance by your inability to stay on topic. You can't stick to the topic because you would rather take what I have posted or written and twist into what you want it to mean, instead of what it actually was intended to say. It is my experience that there is no reward in trying to communicate with someone with your attitude. You seem very broke up about that link I posted, and if your reaction to being offended by that link is all you can add to the conversation, so be it. Complaining about your complaining... I guess that fits.

All of that still doesnt explain why you and others have ignored the points I have made about the economy - the original topic. You would rather take it into a bash-fest against the President, which may work down at the local bar, but when you speak with people that have studied the history of these issues - the "blame game" kind of loses its effectiveness against the facts. Gayle has kind of made fun of the fact that I went back to the early 1900's to outline how we got into this mess in the first place, but that IS where all of this began. Think of that every time the Fed raises or lowers the numbers.

Who is trying to change the world? I disputed the claim of a budget surplus made by the Clinton/Gore Administration. How is that changing the world? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Saying that there was a surplus during the Clinton Administration might fool someone that doesn't know any better, but its hilarious to those of us that do know better. If you know something I don't, please provide that information. I'll save you the trouble... there was no surplus - even Clinton's advisors have laughed about that claim once they were out of the White House. It NEVER occurred. I have provided the deficit numbers from beginning to the end of Clinton's term... the deficit grew. It was unavoidable. Reagan and GHWB had left a 12 year mess... In 8 years Clinton was unable to do very much with the deficit, he did pass the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1993... this was a great plan (the best ever), but the republicans have crapped all over it, bastardized it - so now you can blame all of the outsourcing and lost jobs on this Act... not that Clinton was responsible for that - that was not his intention- it was just a smart thing for corporations to do in order to avoid the legislation that was being threatened by health care reform, higher taxation, ... remember that? We're payng for all of that now... you see..I'll explain something...

When legislation is passed (economic,tax,social,budget legislation, etc), it takes a while to the effects of that legislation to be accuratey measured ... you wont see a change in 6 months, a year, or even 3 years.... sometimes it might take 5 or 6 years to see the effects of good or bad policy before it shows up in your neighborhood. The liberal media doesnt understand that - but thats the truth. Some (not all) of the problems Bush is facing is the result of bad legislation passed when Clinton was in office. Clinton had the same problem with overspill from the Reagan/Bush era. With the partisan games being played in Washington, it makes transitions extremely difficult. Many elected officials have loyalties to lobbyists and not their constituants. This is why nothing is getting done.

Its real easy to sit back and just blame one person, but as I said, it is the responsibility of all of the elected officials in Washington, not just the President. Of course he'll get hit ass torched for it, but that's the nature of the beast, isnt it? I'm not saying Bush is great, he's not sharpest knife in the drawer by any stretch of the imagination. He has made inexcusable errors in judgment and policy. In my lifetime I have seen all of the Presidents do that. He's just a little bit worse than everybody else, someone has to be the pinnacle of idiocy - too bad he's our President.

I have no problem debating with someone that has opposing data to what I have provided in any of my posts. I have provided the ACTUAL data (in regards to economical topics) to avoid debate, and I am not getting my views or opinions from a left or right wing slanted web site... I am simply looking at documented history as it relates to these issues. Unless you have anything that disputes that in relation to the original topic, there is nothing to debate. If bringing up that stupid link its the best you can do to dispute what I have said /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif, then I wave the white flag to end this thread if you refuse to stay on topic.

Qtec
03-07-2006, 08:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I disputed the claim of a budget surplus made by the Clinton/Gore Administration. How is that changing the world? Saying that there was a surplus during the Clinton Administration might fool someone that doesn't know any better, <font color="blue"> condescending? </font color> but its hilarious to those of us that do know better. <font color="blue"> LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> If you know something I don't, please provide that information. I'll save you the trouble... there was no surplus - even Clinton's advisors have laughed about that claim once they were out of the White House. It NEVER occurred. I have provided the deficit numbers from beginning to the end of Clinton's term... the deficit grew. <hr /></blockquote>

You havent provided any numbers! The Federal Treasury and the CBO both say that Clinton had a surplus, as well as every reliable source that I can find. Even GW used those figures to push for tax cuts.
You havent proved anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Well... a lot of people died mysteriously during the Clinton Administration - I'm sure you heard all about that. Some people died abruptly. I could write a small book about that if you'd like, but I doubt you'd want to listen to any of it. I'm sure if we dug deep enough into any administration we would find just as much, perhaps more corruption than what we have presently <hr /></blockquote>
Was this also sarcasm?
Do you still contend that Saddam used chemical weapons against US troops and the Govt is covering it up?
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep making outlandish claims like this?

Q

DebraLiStarr
03-07-2006, 08:52 AM
Like I said, if you have access to information, then by all means, please provide it. I'm not talking about statements from politicians. Show me evidence of a "projected surplus" which never occurred. LOL. Thanks for staying on topic...

I'l be calmly awaiting for your numbers, figures and proof of a budget surplus that was "projected" yet never materialized... that is same as me saying... next year I will save X amount of dollars by doing this, that, and other stuff... then I say, if I follow this budget, I will be at point X with my debts in 2021... its nothing more than a projected budget, and I cannot claim success for my "surplus" in 2021 while we are still in 2006. Its foolish to say otherwise. The fact is, that the surplus would only materialize if the budget was followed to a tee- but... it did not factor in something like 9/11, the war, Katrina, etc... so forget about the budget surplus. It got washed away with the tide and IT NEVER HAPPENED.

As far as Iraq not using chemical weapons against our troops, thanks for not looking at the gov't studies I provided in a previous link. I won't go into any of that in this discussion - unless you have information that disputes that, you're just disagreeing with me for sport.

I am pretty sure I have provided the deficit numbers for GWB, GHWB, and Clinton in a post in this thread or the other one. I know I made a post on the history of the deficit and I covered all the key points that led to the massive debt, as well as the legislation that made it all possible. If you would like I can post it for you again,(it seems a bit redundant for me to do so, but hey, whatever it takes, right?) You can find it on your own just as easily on this forum by looking at my previous posts - that is - if you are interested in seeing the truth, not an opinion of a slanted journalist. I'm curiously waiting to see your proof of the budget surplus.
lol

Debra

Gayle in MD
03-07-2006, 09:37 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
HA HA HA....Well, how about people who wait for days to respond, (BASH) to you over something in your post, and then want to argue with you about something that you never said in the first place, LMAO!

I never said Saddam "Never" had weapons, biological or otherwise, just that he didn't have them when Bush was making a case that he did. I said Iraq never attacked us, and they never did. I've never said that Clinton was perfect, nor have I ever said that this country never had any problems before 9/11, or before Bush. This is the same kind of twisting of my words that Ed lover to do so much. Some folks just like to argue....

Anyway....Clinton never had a surplus, lol, was a mass murderrer, and the National Debt is all Roosevelts fault, LMAO.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

When it comes to some people, TOTAL IGNORE, is the only way to go.....

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
03-07-2006, 10:18 AM
CBO budget data.

Revenue Expenditure
1999 1,827.6 1,702.0 + 1.9
2000 2,025.5 1,789.2 + 86.4

As you can see, in 1999 and 2000 the Govt had a budget surplus.


December 21, 2005
Shoveling some Snow
Posted 2:29 pm | Printer Friendly
I can appreciate the awkwardness the administration must feel when it comes to their enormous, record-breaking budget deficits.
The president ran in 2000 on a platform that not only called for a balanced-budget amendment to the constitution, but insisted that deficits were "dangerous" for the economy. Once in office, inheriting the largest-ever surplus from his predecessor, Bush vowed to pay down "an unprecedented amount of our national debt."
That was then. As the nation now knows, of course, the president is easily the most fiscally irresponsible person to ever occupy the Oval Office.
So, yes, I can understand a certain sense of embarrassment, but there's just no reason for administration officials to humiliate themselves by spouting transparent nonsense.

President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. So who deserves more credit for fighting red ink?

No question, says Treasury Secretary John Snow: It's his boss, Bush. Sipping a latte at a Starbucks coffee shop with reporters in Washington two days ago, he said that "the president's legacy will be one of having significantly reduced the deficit in his time," and said Clinton's budget was a "mirage" and "wasn't a real surplus."

Snow said the Clinton surplus was inflated by a stock-price bubble and that Bush will be remembered for cutting the gap from a record $412 billion in the 2004 fiscal year.

I couldn't make this up if I tried. According to the Treasury Secretary, the president with the best record in American history on improving the nation's finances deserves no credit, while the president with the worst record in history deserves praise. It's like I'm stuck in a Twilight Zone episode. As the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann said, "Snow's comment would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically and obviously inaccurate."
If I understand Snow's "bubble" argument, the idea is that stock market growth in the late 1990s helped fill the Treasury by way of capital gains taxes. So, when the budget was over $100 billion in the black, it wasn't a figure that could be expected to last, especially if capital gains rates were going to be reduced significantly.
That's fine, as far as it goes, but if Clinton's surplus "wasn't a real surplus," why did the Bush administration cut taxes by $2 trillion based on the forecasted surpluses that they assumed would continue?
As for Snow's point that Bush's deficits will be "the president's legacy," on this, I completely agree."

I will be back.

Q

eg8r
03-07-2006, 10:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to some people, TOTAL IGNORE, is the only way to go..... <hr /></blockquote> It is just too sad you don't have the self-control to do it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-07-2006, 10:37 AM
Hmmmm.....wonder how much money they paid Snow to say that? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Gayle in Md.

DebraLiStarr
03-07-2006, 03:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
HA HA HA....Well, how about people who wait for days to respond, (BASH) to you over something in your post, and then want to argue with you about something that you never said in the first place, LMAO!

<font color="red"> You show your inability to deal with anything by not responding to me. It exposes how much you really know about the subject matter.</font color>

I never said Saddam "Never" had weapons, biological or otherwise, just that he didn't have them when Bush was making a case that he did. I said Iraq never attacked us, and they never did. I've never said that Clinton was perfect, nor have I ever said that this country never had any problems before 9/11, or before Bush. This is the same kind of twisting of my words that Ed lover to do so much. Some folks just like to argue....

<font color="red"> No, you are arguing. I'm just expressing myself and presenting facts. Your laughing may impress your friends, but to me, it shows a lack of intellect. </font color>

Anyway....Clinton never had a surplus, lol, was a mass murderrer, and the National Debt is all Roosevelts fault, LMAO.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<font color="red">Yes, Perhaps, and Yes. You may not look back at history, nor do I believe you have an understanding about how history and policy shapes this country, but then again, what else should I expect from you? You are closed minded and ignorant to the facts and always will be. Laughing at me because I presented facts about FDR, LBJ and Woodrow Wilson may sound cute, but I just pointed out there contributions and accomplshments. The Debt is not completely FDR's fault, it was Reagan that increased it 300%. You would have known that if you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote in my post. Its a nice try to throw me into a group and classify me with Ed - that's so high school. "Let's label her... that'll make her unpopular and the rest of us can be cool." Grow up. IMO, Ed and I would probably kill each other. We have a long standing record to where we have never agreed on anything in almost 4 years (at least not publicly). Nice try though. </font color>

When it comes to some people, TOTAL IGNORE, is the only way to go.....

<font color="red">Wait a second, you finally said something intelligent - almost. Ignoring leads to ignorance. You can ignore facts all you want... it just makes you ignorant - intentionally.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

In closing, I'll say that out of everyone that posts on these subjects, you posts carry the least amount of substance. You come across like someone with a 9th grade education that believes that they are intelligent because they believe the slanted news media crap they hear all day. NEWSFLASH - those arent facts Gayle - its opinionated BS and it shows that you are susceptible to having the media shape your view of the world for you instead of doing your own research to forumulate your own opinions. You have yet to present any factual information to show that I am wrong... I'm just funny to you and wrong because of... I guess you dont have an articulable reason - I'm just funny because I don't agree with your thinking. That's extremely childish, but then again who cares as long as you "fit in", right? Most of your posts in response to what I wrote are you laughing about them with your buddies, but you never say why they are wrong. Its just wrong and funny to you and its easier to laugh at it then to do some research to see if its true. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

DebraLiStarr
03-07-2006, 03:57 PM
I posted this in the National Debt thread... obviouly you dont want to believe the actual numbers for Clinton's term in office. The fact is that Clinton DID do more than most. He did it at the expense of losing support in the house and senate. He did not however have a better spending record than Bush, and it was unavoidable.

---------------------------------------------------------
The National Debt is an accumulative accomplishment of EVERY Presidential Administration since 1900. Blaming it on Bush can be very easy since it sits on his lap at the moment, but it won't get any smaller when the gov't picks up the tab for programs that need not exist (see LBJ) - Clinton couldn't do much with it at all, and believe me - he tried - yet in 1998 alone he spent over 2 TRILLION dollars. It boggles the mind. That's just Govt spending. You cannot blame it only on the President - the blame goes to all of our elected officials that are tasked with finding a solution -BUT- they always decide to put the debt on the shoulders of the tax payers. Taxation with represntation has turned out to be just as bad as taxation without representation.

Will it ever end? I think Kennedy had the right idea by doing away with the Federal Reserve Act (passed on December 23, 1913 - an early Christmas present from then President Woodrow Wilson (A Democrat)- Wilson also pushed the 16th Amendment through to establish a federal income tax to go along with the federal reserve bank - which was initially designed to be a "central bank" for the United States of America. It consist of 12 banks, which IMHO, shouldnt have anything in them anymore. LOL. Anyway - all it did was establish a way to pass the debt along to the taxpayers - supposedly easing the burden on the Gov't to pay their debts. In other words... they estalished the federal reserve bank (their own bottomless money pit) and wrote checks with yet uncollected tax money. This is how this mess got started. Thank you Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson also brought forth the Espionage Act of 1917, as well as the Sedition Act of 1918... study up and see how this would affect something going on in the political arena today.

In 1900 the United States was basically debt free, approximatley 2 billion dollars which is an inconsequential figure, even in those days. In 1929 the debt was 16.9 billion and when the Depression began and World War II occurred the United States under Franklin Delano Roosevelt (another democrat) began true deficit spending. All of those New Deal programs were paid for with money we did not really have. The debt in 1940 ran to 42.9 billion and mushroomed to 258 billion as the nation fought World War II. Thank you FDR.

From 1945 through 1961 the debt grew minimally, increasing to only 296 billion in 1961. When one factors in inflation this means the value of the debt declined significantly. Even through the 1960s and 70s which included Vietnam, the space race and the arms race the debt only grew modestly increasing to 789 billion in 1979. This was still a relatively low and manageable amount factoring inflation and growing GNP. Our real debt problems began during the Ronald Reagan administration. In 1981 Reagan passed the Emergency Recovery Tax Act that lowered taxes but increased spending, especially on the military. This basically created an enormous debt. Thank you Ronald Reagan.

Under the Reagan administration the debt grew from 930 billion in 1980 to 2.6 trillion dollars in 1988. This means the debt grew 300% in eight years after only growing about 150% from 1950 to 1979. In 1997 our national debt reached 5.4 trillion and only during the economic boom during the Clinton administration did it slow. It did gradually increase every year of Clinton's presidency - and by 2000, the national debt almost doubled from
$3,665,303,351,697.03 as of 09/30/91
increasing to
$5,674,178,209,886.86 as of 09/30/00
and increase of $2,008,874,858,189.83
(see attached link - these are the actual numbers)

GWB's Numbers are not very good at all... in fact he has surpassed Clinton's numbers in less time:
$5,674,178,209,886.86 as of 09/30/00
$7,932,709,661,723.50 as of 09/30/05
An increase of $2,258,531,451,836.64
(factors are the War in Iraq, 9/11 legislation for Nat'l security - and senseless BS spending that every administration is guilty of)

In 1998 the debt was 5.5 trillion, in 1999 it was 5.6 trillion and was the same in 2000. Since the election of George Bush the debt has begun to rise again. In the four years the Bush has been in office, and again cutting taxes while increasing spending, the debt has risen from 5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current high of over 7 trillion dollars. (all figures available at-

National Debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history))

Now in the other thread I cited other factors within the LBJ administration and the Nixon and Carter adminstrations that dropped the ball on establishing a balanced budget - case in point - JFK had passed legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve - LBJ squashed that - and implemented Welfare programs and Social Security programs with money that was not there. This trickled into the administrations of those that came after him - hindered by stubborn partisan politicking and bickering - nothing was accomplished. That bickering and political posturing still exists today. Hence we have a National Debt of over 7 Trillion dollars.

jtlabs
03-07-2006, 04:15 PM
Well, the fact that the Federal Reserve is raising the interest rate has less to do with how well the economy is doing in relation to jobs and more to do with inflation. When interest rates rise, that means that we have to pay back atleast that much interest on any new mortgages or bank loans. This is how housing bubbles are popped.

The article you refer too makes the assumption that the feds are raising the interest rates because of a decrease in unemployment, even though most of these jobs would not cover the expense to pay a monthly loan(would you like a bag?). The truth of the matter is the federal reserve raises and lowers interest rates to slow down the inevitable inflation process of the US dollar, that is all.

What role does our current president have in all this? One can argue that President Bush was more of a obstacle then an ally to the feds goal to slow down the inflation process. I say this because of the extraordinary deficit he created. The more foreign money that is circulation in our economy the weaker our dollar gets. When the dollar crashes, which it will unfortuantely, their will be a world wide depression and the people with a commodity(such as gold) will thrive.

pooltchr
03-07-2006, 06:59 PM
If you read the facts that Debra posted above, you can see that the Fed has been a problem to our economy for quite some time. Raising and lowering interest rates is all designed to control the rate of inflation. It creates an illusion that isn't a true reflection of the economy.

As for the debt, GW did not create it...and he has not single handedly increased it. It has been growing during every administration in my lifetime and before (Yes, even during the Clinton administration, the debt actually increased, although at a slower rate than many) None of us alive today has ever seen a budget "surplus".
A president does not make the budget, and a president can't spend money not approved by congress. The only spending bills are originated in the House of Representatives. That means, if anyone feels the need to place blame, it would be more accurately aimed at 435 people in Washington, rather than just one.

I agree that the economic policies of this administration fall short of what I would like to see, but it's not much different than it has been for years. We continue to spend more than we have, we've done it for years, and unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Congress is too concerned with political posturing, following the party lines, fighting with the other side, and getting themselves re-elected, and not at all concerned with doing the job they were elected to do. They just try to spend money that will help them get elected again. And too many voters tend to vote for the guy that gets the money spent on them. It's called Pork, and it buys votes. That is the problem we need to deal with.
Steve

Qtec
03-07-2006, 09:10 PM
Can you stay on topic? The subject of the Nat Debt is another thread![ yes I did read it]
According to the CBO, Clinton had a BUDGET surplus. Your figures dont even mention the BUDGET.

quote,
"there was no surplus - even Clinton's advisors have laughed about that claim once they were out of the White House. It NEVER occurred. I have provided the deficit numbers from beginning to the end of Clinton's term... the deficit grew.

With a BUDGET you can have a surplus, a defecit or you can break-even.
With a Nat Debt, you have one or you dont!

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Qtec
03-07-2006, 10:32 PM
You just cant help yourself, can you?

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway....Clinton never had a surplus, lol, was a mass murderrer, and the National Debt is all Roosevelts fault, LMAO....

Yes, Perhaps, <font color="blue"> Clinton was 'perhaps'a mass murderer? Is this another flip-flop? </font color> and Yes. You may not look back at history, nor do I believe you have an understanding about how history and policy shapes this country, but then again, what else should I expect from you? You are closed minded and ignorant to the facts and always will be <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> And you accuse ME of being condescending? </font color>


Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

onepocketfanatic
03-07-2006, 10:57 PM
I like to look at things simply. I have a monthly budget. I begin to live beyond my means and start spending more money than I have coming in (budget deficit). Since I don't have enough money to pay for all the thing I bought, the credit card comes out. The credit card company charges interest, so the more I charge, the larger my interest payment becomes, plus the added charges also add to my debt.
One day the light comes on, and I realize I am digging a hole for myself. I cut up the card, and decide to start saving some money. Spending goes down, I begin to put cash in my savings account, but the debt on the card is still kicking my a$$ becuase it is accumulating interest, so my debt continues to climb even though I am actually spending less than I have coming in (budget surplus).
I have reversed the role from budget deficit to a budget surplus, but I continue to add to my debt by nothing more than the interest accumulated on my credit card, even though I stopped charging things on it.
Clinton had a budget surplus because the government spent LESS money than it had coming in. Yes the national debt went up because if someone wasn't making the interest payments, the interest would be kicking some serious A$$ at the figure of the national debt!

nAz
03-07-2006, 11:10 PM
Gayle I confered with Karl Rove or like he likes to call himself "The Hatchet" and now I am beginning to believe that you put a curse on W. everything that is going wrong past and present is all your fault not his! Shame on you! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif


/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
03-08-2006, 06:10 AM
LOL....no doubt! I also jinxed Nixon, Bush Sr., Carter, Reagan, and Clinton. See, I said I wasn't a party line person!

I'm not worried about the deficit though, we just need to keep selling off America, and eating our mangoes, everything is great! It must be,... Bush just spent forty thousand dollars to fly to Texas to vote! His oh so competent staff, forgot to mail in his absentee ballot, lol....or, maybe he needed an excuse to fly in and stand up for his crook buddy, Delay????

OMG, we're going to get lynched, we're off the subject! Let's see now, what was the subject, oh yeah, Roosevelt, ah, no, think it was blow jobs, uh, no, Murder, yeah, that's it...murder!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Qtec
03-08-2006, 08:28 AM
I agree but in order to pay off the Nat Debt, the country needs to make a profit/surplus. Clinton inherited the Nat Debt, as do all new Presidents. By the time GW is thru, he will have almost doubled it.

As for Budget deficits, BC clearly had a surplus.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/election_budget/deficits_gdp.gif

Q

DebraLiStarr
03-08-2006, 10:34 AM
That's BS. Clinton increased it by 1.6 trillion. I provided you with the actual numbers and your graph is misleading. Bush's debt increase is ridiculous. I have never argued that. My argument is that the debt rose steadily during Clinton's term because of the power shift in the HOR in 1994 - not because of anything that BC did. It was due to what Steve pointed out about the other 435 boneheads in Washington. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was the best legislation ever passed to turn our economy in the right direction. Clinton was unable to get it supported by the republicans, and Algore had to cast the deciding vote ...(I'm pretty sure that's how it went - it came down to Mitchell and Gore's votes)

Summary of OBRA-93 (http://www.realestateagent.com/glossary/real-estate-glossary-show-term-5408-omnibus-budget-reconciliation-act-of-1993.html)

Senate roll call vote on Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&amp;session=1&amp;vote =00247)

House Roll Call Vote for Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll406.xml)

- from Wikipedia article
The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s. The theory holds that federal budget deficits increase both inflation and interest rates. These two phenomenon are widely known to cause economic stagnation. Indeed, when inflation increases, often the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates to contain the inflation.

The Republicans were vehemently opposed to this bill, not one of them voted for it, and they used it as a platform to take countrol of both houses in 1994, stating that Clinton was raising the taxes of teh rich, which would eventually trickle down to middle and upper middle class families. That was BS.

Hence, the Houses increased spending every chance they got in an attempt to manipulate the numbers and worsen our Economic woes under the Clinton Presidency. This charge was lead by Newt Gingrich - and with George Mitchell out and Daschle in as Senate Majority leader - polarization between the two parties stagnated progress. This is the only reason Clinton's legislation did not work as well as expected. Despite all the poilitical posturing, the years 1994-2000 witnessed the emergence of what many called a technology-driven "new economy," and relatively high increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below five percent. Clinton's economic policies are the only economic successes in legislation in almost a century. Considering all of the smoke screens set up with the Lewinsky trash - and despite polarization in the house and senate - here are his accomplishments:

More than 22 million new jobs
Homeownership rate increase from 64.0% to 67.5%
Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years
Higher incomes at all levels
Largest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus of over $200 billion
Lowest government spending as a percentage of GDP since 1974
Higher stock ownership by families than ever before
220% increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, 300% increase in the Nasdaq from 1993 to 2001

From another article:
Along with strong backing from traditional Democrats and liberals, Clinton was able to garner the support of moderates who appreciated his centrist "New Democrat" policies, which steered away from the expansion of government services of the New Deal and Great Society and allowed him to "triangulate", taking away many of the Republicans' top issues. Examples of such compromises were a welfare reform legislation signed into law in 1996, which required welfare recipients to work as a condition of benefits and imposed limits on how long individuals may receive payments. Clinton also pursued tough federal anti-crime measures, steering more federal dollars toward the war on drugs, and calling for the hiring of 100,000 new police officers. By the end of his administration, the federal government was running at a near Budget Surplus for the first time in thirty years.

As far as the debt, it continued to increase due to house legislation, not Clinton legislation -Gingrich did that with a smirk on his face.

<font color="red">09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
</font color>
It increased every single year that he was in office.

This is the piss poor record of GWB...
<font color="red">
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 </font color>

Bush has No Economic Sense Whatsoever and it shows.

His tax cut policies sparked the recession in 2002, but he continus to blame that on 9/11, not his legislation.

Despite all of Clinton's economic successes, the Budget Surplus was not a realization, but it would have occurred if Gore had been elected and kept the economy moving in the same direction as Clinton, but I still believe 9/11 would have happened [regardless of who was in office], but not the Bush Tax cuts. The cuts were distributed disproportionally to higher income taxpayers (through a decrease in the maximum tax rates), complexity was increased with new categories of income taxed at different rates and new deductions and credits, and the number of individuals subject to the alternative minimum tax increased since the AMT did not keep pace with the changes. In other words, we cant afford all of the cuts- not in 1997 - not now - not any time in the near future. All of his legislation goes completely against OBRA-93, and we are in an economic tailspin at the moment, due to Bush's economic imcompetence. With economic growth at a low 1.1% (and declining)- its going to be a tough climb for whomever succeeds Bush in 2008.