Wes Clark is the man.
Don't really understand how the whole oil things works do you?sergeriver wrote:
Well, it took you less than a minute to see the 9 minutes video and to visit the site below. You are damn quick.King_County_Downy wrote:
Oil?
Oil, crude oil or petroleum, hydrocarbons?? The thing you put in the car to make it work?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The concept of waging war for resources is age-old, though our goals are a bit broader than that.
seeing as you're a "confused pothead" maybe you should read your history a little more. Clinton's success in the economy was related to one thing: HE DID NOTHING WITH IT. Clinton was smart enough to realize that no one really cared a whole lot more than their material wealth and the strength of the economy. The reason the economy was rolling under clinton's reign had nothign to do with clinton's decisions. The beauty of the american economic system is the fact that the government has very little control over it, and as a result policies and changes in it's governing system take a very long time (read: years, administrations) to react. It was the policies, tax changes, and other factors from Reagens presidency that led to the economic boom of the mid to late 90s, and the success that the economy had then. The fact that the Economic turned downward before the elections in 2000 and also major investros in 1999 and 2000 were all warning of a massive drop has great significance. It was the Clinton did nothing to teh economy reaction. there was no accountability (read: ENRON, TYCO, ETC) to the companies, and there were no restraints when teh market became massively overpriced. It took 8 years for the economy to come out of a recession, boom, fold, and turn back into one. Funny that, given Clinton's time in power was 8 years. Also, if you're going to credit Bush with the economic downturn BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED, then you need to give him credit for the economy's rebound which is a RECORD. In terms of loss, teh market lost more than it did in october 1929, and the drop in 1929 was followed by massive unemployment, and it took 15 years for it to turn around, and then it was bouyed by a massive global war. This time, it took less than 2 years, with little upheaval, and the unemployment rate never went above 7%, and 5% is considered full employment. The media painted a very different picture than what was going on in the economy during the early years of 2000. True economic fashion is never related to teh president in power at the time, but typically many years afterward. We have yet to see the cost of Bush's economic planningBertster7 wrote:
Clinton has the best economic record of any president I can think of. Under Clinton there were record budget surpluses, under Bush there are record deficits, in fact one of the recent budget deficits broke Bush's own record that he set a couple of years earlier. No other countries have suffered such a sudden turnaround as a result of 9/11. It is the fact that Bush's economic policies do not make sense. He has cut taxes and increased spending drastically. Which to be honest, does not look good for the American economy - hence the decreasing value of the dollar.ncc6206 wrote:
OMG. Yall really believe ole slick willy was better than Bush. Lets talk about jobless rates and national security. During Ole Billy's term we missed a chance to take out Osama yo mama. Do you think Bill could have taken us out of the economic catastrophe we endured after 9/11. Not Bloody Likely! Facts not fantasty gentlemen. If you prefer a socialist president then I totally understand. By the way, this is always a fun topic!
Clinton managed the economy well - he has a well proven track record. Whereas Bush has completely fucked it up. He doesn't seem to understand you can't cut taxes and increase spending.
LOL, how flawed. another blind REAGAN DESERVES CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING GOOD UNDER CLINTON AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME FOR PROBLEMS UNDER W BUSH. If you honestly believe that, more power to you.jarhedch wrote:
seeing as you're a "confused pothead" maybe you should read your history a little more. Clinton's success in the economy was related to one thing: HE DID NOTHING WITH IT. Clinton was smart enough to realize that no one really cared a whole lot more than their material wealth and the strength of the economy. The reason the economy was rolling under clinton's reign had nothign to do with clinton's decisions. The beauty of the american economic system is the fact that the government has very little control over it, and as a result policies and changes in it's governing system take a very long time (read: years, administrations) to react. It was the policies, tax changes, and other factors from Reagens presidency that led to the economic boom of the mid to late 90s, and the success that the economy had then. The fact that the Economic turned downward before the elections in 2000 and also major investros in 1999 and 2000 were all warning of a massive drop has great significance. It was the Clinton did nothing to teh economy reaction. there was no accountability (read: ENRON, TYCO, ETC) to the companies, and there were no restraints when teh market became massively overpriced. It took 8 years for the economy to come out of a recession, boom, fold, and turn back into one. Funny that, given Clinton's time in power was 8 years. Also, if you're going to credit Bush with the economic downturn BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED, then you need to give him credit for the economy's rebound which is a RECORD. In terms of loss, teh market lost more than it did in october 1929, and the drop in 1929 was followed by massive unemployment, and it took 15 years for it to turn around, and then it was bouyed by a massive global war. This time, it took less than 2 years, with little upheaval, and the unemployment rate never went above 7%, and 5% is considered full employment. The media painted a very different picture than what was going on in the economy during the early years of 2000. True economic fashion is never related to teh president in power at the time, but typically many years afterward. We have yet to see the cost of Bush's economic planningBertster7 wrote:
Clinton has the best economic record of any president I can think of. Under Clinton there were record budget surpluses, under Bush there are record deficits, in fact one of the recent budget deficits broke Bush's own record that he set a couple of years earlier. No other countries have suffered such a sudden turnaround as a result of 9/11. It is the fact that Bush's economic policies do not make sense. He has cut taxes and increased spending drastically. Which to be honest, does not look good for the American economy - hence the decreasing value of the dollar.ncc6206 wrote:
OMG. Yall really believe ole slick willy was better than Bush. Lets talk about jobless rates and national security. During Ole Billy's term we missed a chance to take out Osama yo mama. Do you think Bill could have taken us out of the economic catastrophe we endured after 9/11. Not Bloody Likely! Facts not fantasty gentlemen. If you prefer a socialist president then I totally understand. By the way, this is always a fun topic!
Clinton managed the economy well - he has a well proven track record. Whereas Bush has completely fucked it up. He doesn't seem to understand you can't cut taxes and increase spending.
And a rebound to a position below the status quo isn't really something to brag about. That's like a kid going "Well Mom and Dad, I was getting Bs, but then I got Fs, but we're back up to C-! Aren't you proud of me?"
umm, dude, that's economic FACT. The Economy came out of the crapper in 92, before the elections even happened, and gained power under clinton. Reaganomics took effect and the economy grew. The economy tanked before the 2000 elections, indicating that Whether Bush or Gore was elected the economy was going to falter. I don't credit bush with the rebound in the economy, i credit greenspan, and yes it is a rebound, we are booming. The dow is almost to 2000 levels, and this time the market is not OVERPRICED, as it was in 2000 when it was above 12,000, unemployment is low. The last time the market dropped and lost over 25% of it's value it took almost 2 DECADES, this time it has taken 2 years. Go to a few good financial websites and do some research. The answers may surpirse you.
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart. … t1=Refresh
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart. … d_compind=
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/20/markets … /index.htm
PS I used CNN so no one would complain that i was using a right wing conspirator news site.
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart. … t1=Refresh
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart. … d_compind=
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/20/markets … /index.htm
PS I used CNN so no one would complain that i was using a right wing conspirator news site.
It would be flawed to deny that Clinton went with the flow in some rather Republican decisions. Besides, Presidents are given way too much blame or credit for things mostly beyond their control. Goes with the job, I guess.
Ask the Oil Companies, which had the biggest profits in years since the Iraq invasion three years ago.King_County_Downy wrote:
I saw the show when it was on TV...I just can't believe some people think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were over oil. Why do I pay $3/gallon if we were there to take their oil?sergeriver wrote:
Well, it took you less than a minute to see the 9 minutes video and to visit the site below. You are damn quick.King_County_Downy wrote:
Oil?
Oil, crude oil or petroleum, hydrocarbons?? The thing you put in the car to make it work?
Don't blame Clinton for that. Since Clinton foreign policies were a little more moderate than Bush ones, then he was no responsible for that, and Bush is. Don't come with the he was at the office for a short time when that happened, Al-Qaeda knew exactly how Bush administration thought and they attacked him not Clinton.ATG wrote:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If he had done his job the Trade centers would likely still be standing.
He was a pathetic disgrace of a president.
Tell us why Clinton was a disgrace. Tell us what bad things he did, don't come up with the blow job affair pls.
Here you have what the guy did with the economy of US:
From wikipedia (this can't be edited by any democrat).
The economy
Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union. After numerous reports revealed that the federal budget deficit would be far greater than expected, President Clinton quickly made cutting the deficit a high priority. Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
What did GWB do so far?
From wikipedia (this can't be edited by any democrat).
The economy
Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union. After numerous reports revealed that the federal budget deficit would be far greater than expected, President Clinton quickly made cutting the deficit a high priority. Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
What did GWB do so far?
The numbers speak for themselves. Clinton had record surpluses, Bush has record deficits. Alan Greenspan was a legend, but he's gone now. He has criticised Bush's policies and made statements that if the budget deficits are not immediately addressed there will be 'severe consequences' for the US economy. The dollar has been falling under Bush and it's not undervalued, it's just weak. The G8 have asked Bush to exercise fiscal constraint for the sake of the global economy and many experts predict the US economy is headed for a recession, despite recent growth.jarhedch wrote:
umm, dude, that's economic FACT. The Economy came out of the crapper in 92, before the elections even happened, and gained power under clinton. Reaganomics took effect and the economy grew. The economy tanked before the 2000 elections, indicating that Whether Bush or Gore was elected the economy was going to falter. I don't credit bush with the rebound in the economy, i credit greenspan, and yes it is a rebound, we are booming. The dow is almost to 2000 levels, and this time the market is not OVERPRICED, as it was in 2000 when it was above 12,000, unemployment is low. The last time the market dropped and lost over 25% of it's value it took almost 2 DECADES, this time it has taken 2 years. Go to a few good financial websites and do some research. The answers may surpirse you.
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart. … t1=Refresh
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart. … d_compind=
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/20/markets … /index.htm
PS I used CNN so no one would complain that i was using a right wing conspirator news site.
Clinton made reactive changes to the budget to solve looming problems of potential deficits and changed them into surpluses. That is the sort of economic leadership the US needs. Not an idiot who can't seem to balance his books.
yeah basically he did a whole lot of nothing, and spent most of his time sweeping what did happen under the rug, hoping we would forget about it, like Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia etc. He's still out everyday trying to convince everyone that there was a clinton legacy, at least one other than appeasement, sex scandal, money laundering, tactical follies, and economical placebos. Don't forget he's the one that gave lil Kim heavy water reactor tech and china long range missile tech.ATG wrote:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If he had done his job the Trade centers would likely still be standing.
He was a pathetic disgrace of a president.
edit:
again i posted before reading page 2, clintons eco boom was a short term spike based heavily on the internet related explosion of investments and industry, and when they starting tanking they tanked big time, it wasn't so much related to his economic policies as it was just the developement of commercial technologies. As for what good Bush has done, go to the bureau of labor statistics and run any of their graphs on a timescale from about 1992 to 2006 ( the way they have it set up I can't direct link each graph), you will see vast improvements over the clinton era, the most obvious being the unemployment sector, Bush's average being about the same as clinton's lowest. So many people are falling into the trap of beleiving that fed deficit = economy, related yes, but they are not the same. Clinton's great strategy for saving the deficit was simply not to spend any money to undesirable results, try not investing any money into your house or car for 8 years and see what happens.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-09-20 14:12:58)
You can't prove this, don't even argue about it.IRONCHEF wrote:
Kennedy would have been productive after his terms no doubt.
As a side discussion, I hope you appreciate the original Iron Chef. That American ripoff is crap compared to the original.
Thanks for counting. I don't trust polls, never have, and probably never will. If you asked every person in America, and tallied the results, I would believe you, and also bow down before you.BMW330i wrote:
There are apparently 59 million people like you in your country.
I'm pretty sure no other countries had one of the chief institutions of their financial sector taken out on 9/11 either. (I think your sig quote is hilarious, btw)Bertster7 wrote:
No other countries have suffered such a sudden turnaround as a result of 9/11.
Thanks, I could use it.Ikarti wrote:
LOL, how flawed. another blind REAGAN DESERVES CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING GOOD UNDER CLINTON AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME FOR PROBLEMS UNDER W BUSH. If you honestly believe that, more power to you.
Why fix something that works? Presidents from both parties hold on to stuff that works. If they're smart. I have no idea what GWB held over, and that might be part of his problem.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It would be flawed to deny that Clinton went with the flow in some rather Republican decisions.
I totally agree, I've been saying this for years. Presidents make a lot of decisions, but they have hundreds of people to account for and get input from, and when the aides screw up, only one person looks bad.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Besides, Presidents are given way too much blame or credit for things mostly beyond their control. Goes with the job, I guess.
I'll answer this with your own response. "Clinton foreign policies were a little more moderate than Bush ones" Why would they attack a country that's letting them do what they want?sergeriver wrote:
Since Clinton foreign policies were a little more moderate than Bush ones, then he was no responsible for that, and Bush is. Don't come with the he was at the office for a short time when that happened, Al-Qaeda knew exactly how Bush administration thought and they attacked him not Clinton.
Last edited by dstock9 (2006-09-20 14:39:59)
Well, let's see... It's a FACT that Clinton left office with a surplus..first time in many presidents. And the current president has not only squandered that but put is in the billions (half a trillion or so) of debt.
NOW....if Reagonomics is what had the economy humming during Clinton's terms, then what's the excuse for Bush's economic record? If Clinton didn't do ANYTHING to the economic forecast, then why is Bush fucking it up?
Oh, it must be Carter then? lol Thanks Mr. Melhman, now go get some new and more confusing talking points.
NOW....if Reagonomics is what had the economy humming during Clinton's terms, then what's the excuse for Bush's economic record? If Clinton didn't do ANYTHING to the economic forecast, then why is Bush fucking it up?
Oh, it must be Carter then? lol Thanks Mr. Melhman, now go get some new and more confusing talking points.
Yup And he wont even speak to you unless he gets PAID. He also Had Osama In his sights, i mean within inches, SIX times, But chose to NOT pull the trigger for fear of what the world would think. Look where that got us. Now instead of A sex crazed Wussbag Liberal, we have a Guy who got thrust into the shit grinder and cant save his ass if he wanted to. He picked the WRONG people for the job, and hes now paying for it. We were No better off then and were no better off now. God help us in 2008 if that Thing gets elected. Shes done NOTHING for my state yet, and she wont do shit for a whole country.sergeriver wrote:
Visit these links and then tell me the guy sucks. I don't understand why people criticize him. Do you think GWB would do something like this? Don't tell he's supporting his wife for 2008. While GWB is destroying thousands of lifes for oil, this guy does charity. And this is not propaganda, this is a real fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr29Lx8dUpg
http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ … ;srcid=346
Clintons way to save money was to close Hundreds of Military bases. Its that simple. Mainly the Airforce bases. You Know, Ones that could have had F-16,s respond Alot quicker on 9/11 had they not been closed. He cut spending in so many vital areas it left us with shortages that we are feeling now for sure.kr@cker wrote:
yeah basically he did a whole lot of nothing, and spent most of his time sweeping what did happen under the rug, hoping we would forget about it, like Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia etc. He's still out everyday trying to convince everyone that there was a clinton legacy, at least one other than appeasement, sex scandal, money laundering, tactical follies, and economical placebos. Don't forget he's the one that gave lil Kim heavy water reactor tech and china long range missile tech.ATG wrote:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If he had done his job the Trade centers would likely still be standing.
He was a pathetic disgrace of a president.
edit:
again i posted before reading page 2, clintons eco boom was a short term spike based heavily on the internet related explosion of investments and industry, and when they starting tanking they tanked big time, it wasn't so much related to his economic policies as it was just the developement of commercial technologies. As for what good Bush has done, go to the bureau of labor statistics and run any of their graphs on a timescale from about 1992 to 2006 ( the way they have it set up I can't direct link each graph), you will see vast improvements over the clinton era, the most obvious being the unemployment sector, Bush's average being about the same as clinton's lowest. So many people are falling into the trap of beleiving that fed deficit = economy, related yes, but they are not the same. Clinton's great strategy for saving the deficit was simply not to spend any money to undesirable results, try not investing any money into your house or car for 8 years and see what happens.
Its funny how people dont look at the economy as a whole, they just type the word defecit and state it as gospel of a bad economy. Lets not bother to look at the Housing growth, Job grouth, Drop in Unemployment, Wallstreet at all time highs. NAH, lets not look at those things.
Oh, Cheney hasn't closed any military bases? lol DURING WAR? yeah, that makes sense. As for responding on 9/11 with jets, the entire blame for that goes to "the devil" (thanks Hugo!) for sitting on his ass for 7 minutes after being told we're under attack. Those jets lost 7 minutes..and countless other minutes while that coward decided to visit nebraska and some other states before getting a grip and taking over. And the jets that were minutes away from the 9/11 suicide jets were in fact scrambled just fine...just a little late. So I fail to see how Clinton closing bases had to do with anything.
You don't have to look at the economy as a whole. All people care about is that some jackass has been making it worse for 5 years now, that gas is killing any free money we should be having since no tax increases haven't happened yet should, and that their overseas investments are tanking, the dollar is tanking, the deficit is diving/spiraling....I mean honestly..5 years is more than enough to shape the economy..it took the events of 9/11 to tank the economy breifly and it rebounded. How about the economy on the whole? not a chance.
You don't have to look at the economy as a whole. All people care about is that some jackass has been making it worse for 5 years now, that gas is killing any free money we should be having since no tax increases haven't happened yet should, and that their overseas investments are tanking, the dollar is tanking, the deficit is diving/spiraling....I mean honestly..5 years is more than enough to shape the economy..it took the events of 9/11 to tank the economy breifly and it rebounded. How about the economy on the whole? not a chance.
Are you for real?
Do you think the pilots sat in their planes waiting for a call personally from the president?
Abfuckingsurdest point of the week.
Do you think the pilots sat in their planes waiting for a call personally from the president?
Abfuckingsurdest point of the week.
No, this jackass president actually lowered security in this aspect (sending jets to intercept domestic attacks) since he took office. Maybe if he actually gave a shit about national security, those pilots might have been in their seats as soon as the first FAA call went to NORAD and maybe that second plane might not have been captured on TV hitting that tower...or is Clinton to blame for that?ATG wrote:
Are you for real?
Do you think the pilots sat in their planes waiting for a call personally from the president?
Abfuckingsurdest point of the week.
You're the one smoking pal. Seriously, you've got no grasp of reality...you hate waaaay too much.
Oh, and yes. They are not to attack unless the president authorizes it. See the 9/11 commission and even the made for republican tv mini-series 'drama' "Path to 9/11." It shows the pilots waiting on the president for the official order...but of course they were just minutes too late.ATG wrote:
Are you for real?
Do you think the pilots sat in their planes waiting for a call personally from the president?
Abfuckingsurdest point of the week.
I don't believe there are so many people that support GWB when the man is doing nothing and you criticize Clinton for having the job done (both of em).
Yay! A website created by a bunch of college interns and Hillary staff members....... Yay!
And those of you saying all Bush is about is oil:
Well back in 1998, some (most) of you were just kids, I was on the Kuwait / Iraq border facing Saddam's tanks and troops. Clinton ordered us there. Why? We were ready to attack but Saddam backed down.
So why would have it been ok for Clinton to attack but not Bush?
Well back in 1998, some (most) of you were just kids, I was on the Kuwait / Iraq border facing Saddam's tanks and troops. Clinton ordered us there. Why? We were ready to attack but Saddam backed down.
So why would have it been ok for Clinton to attack but not Bush?
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2006-09-20 17:09:00)
Maybe because Clinton though he would get drawn into a guerrilla war which they couldn't win after the ousted Saddam. Maybe he thought Saddam brutal dictatorship was holding together and keeping in line 3 religious factions. Maybe he foreseen American troops being placed in the middle of a simmering and potentially explosive civil war. Maybe he thought it would stir up religious tensions and make the USA even more of a target for world terrorists. Maybe he thought Saddam's buddies the CIA could sort it out. Maybe he thought Diplomats could sort it out. Maybe he thought screw it, I want to get head from Monica.usmarine2005 wrote:
And those of you saying all Bush is about is oil:
Well back in 1998, some (most) of you were just kids, I was on the Kuwait / Iraq border facing Saddam's tanks and troops. Clinton ordered us there. Why? We were ready to attack but Saddam backed down.
So why would have it been ok for Clinton to attack but not Bush?
So why did he move us all to the border? If he didn't want to get involved, why fake it?JahManRed wrote:
Maybe because Clinton though he would get drawn into a guerrilla war which they couldn't win after the ousted Saddam. Maybe he thought Saddam brutal dictatorship was holding together and keeping in line 3 religious factions. Maybe he foreseen American troops being placed in the middle of a simmering and potentially explosive civil war. Maybe he thought it would stir up religious tensions and make the USA even more of a target for world terrorists. Maybe he thought Saddam's buddies the CIA could sort it out. Maybe he thought Diplomats could sort it out. Maybe he thought screw it, I want to get head from Monica.usmarine2005 wrote:
And those of you saying all Bush is about is oil:
Well back in 1998, some (most) of you were just kids, I was on the Kuwait / Iraq border facing Saddam's tanks and troops. Clinton ordered us there. Why? We were ready to attack but Saddam backed down.
So why would have it been ok for Clinton to attack but not Bush?
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2006-09-20 17:19:35)