BF2S Forums Don't you miss this Guy?

oug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

How can you compare Clinton, an excellent president, with this guy, called to be one of the worse presidents in America history.

Clinton wasn't such an excellent president, and he too had some wars going...  Yugoslavia ring a bell? or is that way back for you guys to remember? Of course, all this stuff is essentially played down due to the severity of current events but lets not wipe them completely...


and here's something to play with (I know its old but now its way more satisfying )

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

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).

Could you explain What "Both of em" Means. Because i sure hope it doesnt mean Terrorism. Because your so far off base its not even on radar bud.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

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.
Oil, crude oil or petroleum, hydrocarbons??  The thing you put in the car to make it work?

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?

$3 a galloon and you're moaning?  Here, where i live in the UK; it costs £3.40 a gallon (or $6.46).  It makes me sick when hear Americans whine over how "expensive" petrol, sorry 'gas' is becoming.  You've been riding that gravy train for far too long and even at £3 a gallon, which is still probably amongst the cheapest in the World, you complain.

jarhedch wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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 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.

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.

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 planning

IRONCHEF wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

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.
Oil, crude oil or petroleum, hydrocarbons??  The thing you put in the car to make it work?

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?

Are you suggesting the main reason for destroying the middle east isn't because of oil?  Just because Bush has completely screwed everything up with Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't mean it's not for the oil.  And why would you think the price of gas has anything to do with why we're slaughtering people in the middle east?  Even if Bush completed his reign of terror and got those pipelines running from the caspian sea, through afghanistan, through Iran, and to the persian gulf (which is what is going on if you didn't pay attention)..and even if he succeeded in installing slave governments in those countries, why would you think the gas price would go down?  If you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't exactly in it for his people.  He doesn't pay for gas, never will.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

Its called perjury genius.  The man is the Chief Executive Officer and he commits perjury.  It is maybe the most hypocritical act I have ever witnessed.

I assume you understand the responsibilites of the Chief Executive Officer.

He should have been thrown in jail.

Do you really believe that he didnt understand the a blow-job was a "sexual relation?"

So what?  He had the balls to admit he lied.  Why don't you ask GWB to do the same?

Uh. . .yeah, he admitted it. . .AFTER he got caught and impeached.  I'm sure GWB would own up to his lies under the same circumstances.  Presidents can lie all they want. . .just not to a Grand Jury.  Bill thought he was above the law and he became only the second (I think that's right) President in history to be impeached.

If Dubya had the speaking ability and charm of Clinton I guaran-freaking-tee you that his approval rating right now would be 70-80% even with Iraq and gas prices and everything else.  Bush just happens to be an idiot when it comes to public speaking and so he consistently looks like an ass which hurts him in the polls.  Clinton was able to put on a fake smile, use his silver tounge, and everything was hunky-dorey.  Until now when all of the stuff he messed up starts popping up.  I.E. the economy, not killing Osama, etc.  But what does he care?  He gets to write a best selling book for all his mindless drones and gets a library or whatever named after him.  God help us if his Socialist wife ever makes it into the Big Chair.

GATOR591957 wrote:

jarhedch wrote:

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 planning

While I don't agree on your veiew of President Clinton, you are the first person I've read thusfar that has the correct account of the reason for the economic boom in the 90's.

sergeriver wrote:

GWB is not after oil for American people, but is after oil for daddy and Dick, and their friends in the major oil companies, which gave him a lot of money in both Bush campaigns.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-23 18:11:10)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Sources:
http://www.oilempire.us/iraqoil.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0111-01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-24.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n … 354269.stm
And thousands more, why don't you post any source where it says the opposite thing?

While those are wonderful sources, they ALL fail to address where this oil is going and account for it with any valid numbers at all.  It's all conjecture by so called "experts" and Hans Blix.  So once again I'll ask, where is a source SHOWING where this oil is going(which you claim GWB is bringing back to America or sometihng else I'm confused with where you think the oil is going). 

Conjecture, propaganda, conspiracies.  Even if one of your sources were true, it still doesn't account for where this mystery oil is or is going.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

While those are wonderful sources, they ALL fail to address where this oil is going and account for it with any valid numbers at all.  It's all conjecture by so called "experts" and Hans Blix.  So once again I'll ask, where is a source SHOWING where this oil is going(which you claim GWB is bringing back to America or sometihng else I'm confused with where you think the oil is going). 

Conjecture, propaganda, conspiracies.  Even if one of your sources were true, it still doesn't account for where this mystery oil is or is going.

To be honest I don't know yet where the oil is going, but they went after it.
I ask you a non bias source where you can prove they didn't go after oil.

Sure I'll agree that they WANTED to go for oil, I'm not disputing that, but WHERE IS IT?!??!!? DID those things conjectured in those sources ACTUALLY happen? I think not.  I have no need to provide sources as the burden of proof is on your side of the arguement.  You are trying to contend that a LARGE amount of oil was stolen from the Iraqi people.  Where is it? Not my question to prove, yours.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-09-23 19:01:36)

sergeriver wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

To be honest I don't know yet where the oil is going, but they went after it.
I ask you a non bias source where you can prove they didn't go after oil.

Sure I'll agree that they WANTED to go for oil, I'm not disputing that, but WHERE IS IT?!??!!? DID those things conjectured in those sources ACTUALLY happen? I think not.  I have no need to provide sources as the burden of proof is on your side of the arguement.  You are trying to contend that a LARGE amount of oil was stolen from the Iraqi people.  Where is it? Not my question to prove, yours.

I'm getting into the politician suit, and I have to say I don't have any comments on that subject.