Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Romeo Delight
    Join Date
    05.18.02
    Age
    41
    Location
    stuck in Nebraska
    Posts
    46
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    uh?....Humans Being?(tough question)
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Gore was in the white house running the country at this very time?

  2. #2
    Atomic Punk FH's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.12.02
    Age
    50
    Location
    Bass Ackwards, NC
    Posts
    12,432
    Last Online

    10.22.09 @ 11:47 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post


    Donor

    I can sum up Gore's would-be reign: [img]graemlins/sleep.gif[/img]

    I've wondered several times what he would've done post 9/11 and I think he'd still be picking his toenails if he were in the White House.

  3. #3
    Romeo Delight
    Join Date
    05.18.02
    Age
    41
    Location
    stuck in Nebraska
    Posts
    46
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    uh?....Humans Being?(tough question)
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    I'd say a little bit of this [img]graemlins/drunk.gif[/img] and a whole lot of this !!!

  4. #4
    Sinner's Swing! el_jalepeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.26.02
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    3,266
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot for Teacher
    Last Online

    10.28.15 @ 05:22 PM
    Likes
    8
    Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts


    Donor

    Considering the economic climate with the Dems in office, I would have to say that we would have avoided instigating any possible wars (Iraq, N Korea, Osama especially...) and we would be more focused on the prosperity of the economy. Bush in the Whitehouse is almost solely responsible for Osama and 9/11 because of the actions from the Republicans when in office back in the day with Kuwait. Yes, it is all about oil, but how many of us truly do anything about it? Osama has actually mentioned papa bush in one of his few comments... So, yea, if Gore were in the Whitehouse, on 9/11 he probably would have been picking his toes because there is a good possibility that the US wouldn't have been attacked in the first place. Keep in mind that the first attacks on the World Trade center occured when papa Bush was in office back in 1993. And with the exception of domestic terrorism (McVeigh, Unabomber), there were no foreign attacks in the United States. Yes, there were attacks outside of the country, but again, there were no attacks within the country while the Dems were in office for two terms.

    [ February 07, 2003, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: el_jalepeno ]

  5. #5
    5150 MANYBOZOS's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.07.01
    Posts
    610
    Last Online

    02.27.05 @ 06:56 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Donor

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Considering the economic climate with the Dems in office, I would have to say that we would have avoided instigating any possible wars (Iraq, N Korea, Osama especially...) and we would be more focused on the prosperity of the economy. Bush in the Whitehouse is almost solely responsible for Osama and 9/11 because of the actions from the Republicans when in office back in the day with Kuwait. Yes, it is all about oil, but how many of us truly do anything about it? Osama has actually mentioned papa bush in one of his few comments... So, yea, if Gore were in the Whitehouse, on 9/11 he probably would have been picking his toes because there is a good possibility that the US wouldn't have been attacked in the first place. Keep in mind that the first attacks on the World Trade center occured when papa Bush was in office back in 1993. And with the exception of domestic terrorism (McVeigh, Unabomber), there were no foreign attacks in the United States. Yes, there were attacks outside of the country, but again, there were no attacks within the country while the Dems were in office for two terms.
    Do you realize the economy was taking a nose-dive long before Clinton left office???

    [ February 07, 2003, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: MANYBOZOS ]

  6. #6
    Watch the hair!!!
    Join Date
    03.23.02
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Posts
    1,673
    Favorite VH Album

    VH/Fair Warning/5150/F.U.C.K.
    Favorite VH Song

    R.Delight/Unchain./5150/C.Wabo
    Last Online

    07.22.09 @ 11:11 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Considering the economic climate with the Dems in office, I would have to say that we would have avoided instigating any possible wars (Iraq, N Korea, Osama especially...) and we would be more focused on the prosperity of the economy.
    This whole post is so absurd that I don’t even know where to begin.

    Anyway, the FACTS are that we were at the tail end of the latest business cycle in 2000, as the economy was on a slope downwards well before the 2000 election, and obviously well before Bush even introduced –- much less implemented -– any of his economic policies. Plus, I believe that you’ve stated in the past on this board that you are about to earn your MBA, right?!? You HAD to learn something about the cyclical nature of the U.S. economy in the several economics courses that you undoubtedly took.

    We had a dot-com-fueled bubble that began to burst at the end of the naturally occurring economic cycle in early 2000 and are now suffering the aftermath of that, which had very little to do with the actions or non-actions of either political party. Plus, how can anyone seriously say that Bush isn’t “focused on the prosperity of the economy”?!? We can debate the merits of his tax-cutting policies, as there are valid points on both sides of the argument, but he’s already helped to push through one tax cut and has proposed another, in only two years in office. These actions alone show that he’s been “focused on the prosperity of the economy,” despite dealing with some heady foreign policy issues that were either ignored -– or the most difficult decisions delayed –- during the eight years prior to him taking office. On the other hand, Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut during the 1992 presidential campaign and we never saw it (instead we saw tax increases).

    It’s hard to argue with the economic results of the Clinton years when the White House was held by a Democrat and Congress was controlled by the Republicans, but there is no doubting that Clinton broke that tax-cut promise and inherited an already recovering economy from the first President Bush. These criticisms of the current President Bush not paying attention to the economy are just critics repeating the same lines that were uttered about Bush’s father (who somewhat deserved the criticism) over a decade ago. I really wish the Left would come up with some new material instead of these golden oldies.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Bush in the Whitehouse is almost solely responsible for Osama and 9/11 because of the actions from the Republicans when in office back in the day with Kuwait.
    So now terrorists plan their attacks around who is in the Oval Office?!? Is this supposed to be a criticism of the first Bush Administration for forcing Iraq out of Kuwait back in 1991?!? So I guess it’s your opinion that we should’ve let Saddam hold onto Kuwait then march on into Saudi Arabia next so he could kill countless people and corner something like 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

    Yes, Osama was mad that our troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, his home nation, as we were there with the approval of the Saudi Royal Family protecting the country from Saddam and protecting our oil interests (BTW, Clinton correctly left those U.S. troops there throughout his entire administration). But to actually try to imply that we shouldn’t have had troops there for fear of pissing off bin Laden is an appeasement stance that I would expect from the French, not a fellow American.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Yes, it is all about oil, but how many of us truly do anything about it? Osama has actually mentioned papa bush in one of his few comments... So, yea, if Gore were in the Whitehouse, on 9/11 he probably would have been picking his toes because there is a good possibility that the US wouldn't have been attacked in the first place. Keep in mind that the first attacks on the World Trade center occured when papa Bush was in office back in 1993. And with the exception of domestic terrorism (McVeigh, Unabomber), there were no foreign attacks in the United States. Yes, there were attacks outside of the country, but again, there were no attacks within the country while the Dems were in office for two terms.
    Get your facts straight. Clinton was in office for about a month -– and the Democrats controlled Congress -– when the first attack took place on the WTC in 1993. If this attack had succeeded in taking down one or both of the towers at that time, which was the goal of the terrorists, it would’ve killed somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 people. How did the Clinton Administration react to this?!? They treated it as a legal matter and not a national security matter. Did this perhaps embolden people like al-Qaeda who are willing to die for their cause?!? We do know through communications obtained by the Wall Street Journal, which procured a computer used by al-Qaeda in Kabul in 2001, that bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar certainly didn’t expect the widespread military action by the U.S. in Afghanistan after 9/11. They thought of the U.S. as a “paper tiger” due to its lack of resolve over recent years, which included weak retaliation for other terrorist attacks against Americans on foreign soil. Does this mean that the Clinton Administration deserves much of the blame?!? Maybe not “much of the blame” but there are at least as culpable for 9/11 as are the current Bush Administration and the Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses over the past decade.

    That doesn’t mean that I blame the Democrats at all for the first WTC bombing occurring because I don’t, but if you’re going to try to point the finger of blame at the other party for 9/11, you need to see that the FACTS don’t show that any criticism for failures to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism should be broken down on party lines. Both sides do it, however, including you, and it’s unbecoming of a serious debate meant to prevent these incidents from occurring. You want to see the way partisan politics work?!? Putting on my partisan Republican hat and following the evidence above obtained by the Wall Street Journal, I could say that the possibility of 9/11 occurring was made easier because nothing had been done for eight years to take on al-Qaeda, other than a couple of cruise missiles lobbed at aspirin factories and empty tents. But where exactly do these ridiculous comments demonizing the opposing side get us exactly?!? Both parties ultimately deserve blame for 9/11, but you are apparently trying to blame it on just Republicans. I guess it’s the same old myopic partisan view that if something good happens, MY political party deserves the credit, but when something bad happens, it’s THEIR political party’s fault. Both sides do this to score political points, but it’s intellectually dishonest on many occasions.

    I like how you’re trying to protect the Democrats from criticism for the terrorist attacks against Americans on foreign soil between Jan. 1993 and Jan. 2001. That doesn’t change the fact that the attacks on U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenyan in 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 when a Democrat was in the Oval Office and Republicans controlled Congress didn’t occur and kill Americans, does it?!? You’re also ignoring the U.S.’s failed military mission in Somalia in late 1993 when Clinton was in office and Democrats controlled Congress. Osama had armed many of the Somali militia that were there fighting – and killing – our troops, who were placed there by the first President Bush to try to feed the starving Somali people. I would imagine that hostile U.S. troops on the land of that Muslim country didn’t exactly make bin Laden happy either.

    The FACTS show that the attacks on 9/11 were being planned well before Bush even took office and would’ve taken place even if Gore were in office. To ignore these FACTS only shows your partisanship. I can hear bin Laden now: “Well, Republican Bush is in office so let’s go ahead with the attack. If Democrat Gore were in office, we would’ve had to cancel this mission for martyrdom.” No matter who was president, the intelligence failures show that 9/11 wouldn’t have been prevented no matter which party held the Oval Office, as they’ve taken place with both parties in power, both on our soil and on foreign soil. Maybe if you weren’t so biased, you’d also see this.
    "Seems the old folks who come up short were the pretty little kids who didn't want it, no." - Van Halen (1979)

    "Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall." - Confucius

    "The possibility that we may fail in the struggle should not deter us from supporting a cause we believe to be just." - Abraham Lincoln

  7. #7
    Sinner's Swing! el_jalepeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.26.02
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    3,266
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot for Teacher
    Last Online

    10.28.15 @ 05:22 PM
    Likes
    8
    Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts


    Donor

    Originally posted by Delighted Romeo:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Considering the economic climate with the Dems in office, I would have to say that we would have avoided instigating any possible wars (Iraq, N Korea, Osama especially...) and we would be more focused on the prosperity of the economy.
    This whole post is so absurd that I don’t even know where to begin.

    Anyway, the FACTS are that we were at the tail end of the latest business cycle in 2000, as the economy was on a slope downwards well before the 2000 election, and obviously well before Bush even introduced –- much less implemented -– any of his economic policies. Plus, I believe that you’ve stated in the past on this board that you are about to earn your MBA, right?!? You HAD to learn something about the cyclical nature of the U.S. economy in the several economics courses that you undoubtedly took.

    We had a dot-com-fueled bubble that began to burst at the end of the naturally occurring economic cycle in early 2000 and are now suffering the aftermath of that, which had very little to do with the actions or non-actions of either political party. Plus, how can anyone seriously say that Bush isn’t “focused on the prosperity of the economy”?!? We can debate the merits of his tax-cutting policies, as there are valid points on both sides of the argument, but he’s already helped to push through one tax cut and has proposed another, in only two years in office. These actions alone show that he’s been “focused on the prosperity of the economy,” despite dealing with some heady foreign policy issues that were either ignored -– or the most difficult decisions delayed –- during the eight years prior to him taking office. On the other hand, Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut during the 1992 presidential campaign and we never saw it (instead we saw tax increases).

    It’s hard to argue with the economic results of the Clinton years when the White House was held by a Democrat and Congress was controlled by the Republicans, but there is no doubting that Clinton broke that tax-cut promise and inherited an already recovering economy from the first President Bush. These criticisms of the current President Bush not paying attention to the economy are just critics repeating the same lines that were uttered about Bush’s father (who somewhat deserved the criticism) over a decade ago. I really wish the Left would come up with some new material instead of these golden oldies.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Bush in the Whitehouse is almost solely responsible for Osama and 9/11 because of the actions from the Republicans when in office back in the day with Kuwait.
    So now terrorists plan their attacks around who is in the Oval Office?!? Is this supposed to be a criticism of the first Bush Administration for forcing Iraq out of Kuwait back in 1991?!? So I guess it’s your opinion that we should’ve let Saddam hold onto Kuwait then march on into Saudi Arabia next so he could kill countless people and corner something like 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

    Yes, Osama was mad that our troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, his home nation, as we were there with the approval of the Saudi Royal Family protecting the country from Saddam and protecting our oil interests (BTW, Clinton correctly left those U.S. troops there throughout his entire administration). But to actually try to imply that we shouldn’t have had troops there for fear of pissing off bin Laden is an appeasement stance that I would expect from the French, not a fellow American.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Yes, it is all about oil, but how many of us truly do anything about it? Osama has actually mentioned papa bush in one of his few comments... So, yea, if Gore were in the Whitehouse, on 9/11 he probably would have been picking his toes because there is a good possibility that the US wouldn't have been attacked in the first place. Keep in mind that the first attacks on the World Trade center occured when papa Bush was in office back in 1993. And with the exception of domestic terrorism (McVeigh, Unabomber), there were no foreign attacks in the United States. Yes, there were attacks outside of the country, but again, there were no attacks within the country while the Dems were in office for two terms.
    Get your facts straight. Clinton was in office for about a month -– and the Democrats controlled Congress -– when the first attack took place on the WTC in 1993. If this attack had succeeded in taking down one or both of the towers at that time, which was the goal of the terrorists, it would’ve killed somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 people. How did the Clinton Administration react to this?!? They treated it as a legal matter and not a national security matter. Did this perhaps embolden people like al-Qaeda who are willing to die for their cause?!? We do know through communications obtained by the Wall Street Journal, which procured a computer used by al-Qaeda in Kabul in 2001, that bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar certainly didn’t expect the widespread military action by the U.S. in Afghanistan after 9/11. They thought of the U.S. as a “paper tiger” due to its lack of resolve over recent years, which included weak retaliation for other terrorist attacks against Americans on foreign soil. Does this mean that the Clinton Administration deserves much of the blame?!? Maybe not “much of the blame” but there are at least as culpable for 9/11 as are the current Bush Administration and the Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses over the past decade.

    That doesn’t mean that I blame the Democrats at all for the first WTC bombing occurring because I don’t, but if you’re going to try to point the finger of blame at the other party for 9/11, you need to see that the FACTS don’t show that any criticism for failures to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism should be broken down on party lines. Both sides do it, however, including you, and it’s unbecoming of a serious debate meant to prevent these incidents from occurring. You want to see the way partisan politics work?!? Putting on my partisan Republican hat and following the evidence above obtained by the Wall Street Journal, I could say that the possibility of 9/11 occurring was made easier because nothing had been done for eight years to take on al-Qaeda, other than a couple of cruise missiles lobbed at aspirin factories and empty tents. But where exactly do these ridiculous comments demonizing the opposing side get us exactly?!? Both parties ultimately deserve blame for 9/11, but you are apparently trying to blame it on just Republicans. I guess it’s the same old myopic partisan view that if something good happens, MY political party deserves the credit, but when something bad happens, it’s THEIR political party’s fault. Both sides do this to score political points, but it’s intellectually dishonest on many occasions.

    I like how you’re trying to protect the Democrats from criticism for the terrorist attacks against Americans on foreign soil between Jan. 1993 and Jan. 2001. That doesn’t change the fact that the attacks on U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenyan in 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 when a Democrat was in the Oval Office and Republicans controlled Congress didn’t occur and kill Americans, does it?!? You’re also ignoring the U.S.’s failed military mission in Somalia in late 1993 when Clinton was in office and Democrats controlled Congress. Osama had armed many of the Somali militia that were there fighting – and killing – our troops, who were placed there by the first President Bush to try to feed the starving Somali people. I would imagine that hostile U.S. troops on the land of that Muslim country didn’t exactly make bin Laden happy either.

    The FACTS show that the attacks on 9/11 were being planned well before Bush even took office and would’ve taken place even if Gore were in office. To ignore these FACTS only shows your partisanship. I can hear bin Laden now: “Well, Republican Bush is in office so let’s go ahead with the attack. If Democrat Gore were in office, we would’ve had to cancel this mission for martyrdom.” No matter who was president, the intelligence failures show that 9/11 wouldn’t have been prevented no matter which party held the Oval Office, as they’ve taken place with both parties in power, both on our soil and on foreign soil. Maybe if you weren’t so biased, you’d also see this.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Holy fucking age Christ... I thought I had way too much time on my hands, but judging by your post you beat me by a landslide. And let me add that thanks to Bush and his control of the economy, I just found I received one hell of a refund on last years taxes, and honestly I believe someone else may be more deserving [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img] Thanks to Bush, I refinanced my home for an obscenly low interest rate. But I am sure there are more deserving out there than myself. Fuck'em. I have no issues against Bush or for Gore, as you might imply. Consider the following:
    FACT: Republicans are even now questioning Bush's prescription drug plan.
    FACT: 2 million jobs lost since Bush came into office. Bush admits that his policies are not moving as quickly as he had planned.
    Fact: Both sides have referred to the tax cuts as trickle down economics.
    FACT: Natinal Debt quadrupled during the Reagan years and into the Bush term with the implementation of tax plans not dissimilar to current Bush.
    FACT: Interest rates skyrocketed during the Republicans heyday as well as unemployment skyrocketed.

    Please, I implore you, mellow out on your bullshit of partianship. There is such a blur between Democrats and Republicans this past couple of generations, that you no longer can claim to be true Republican or Democrat if you actually know the originating differences. Too many issues to address, and the world is alot smaller now than when our grandfathers were around. But I really don't dislike one over the other

    The FACT still remains that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of the Persian Gulf issue handling by the Republicans.

    FACT is that the US did not know how to handle captured Al-Qaeda. You state that Clinton handled things much differently the first time the WTC was attacked, however you failed to acknowledge (or know about) the whirlwind of conflict over how to treat the Al-Qaeda: POW's, War Criminals, Enemies against the State, Terrorists? And in the end, so many of them were eventually released.

    FACT: There is a huge amount of resources to draw an educated opinion, not just a subscription to the Journal. Honestly, you should try reading more resources to get up to speed with the "FACTS" as you know them.

    Talk about myopic, re-read your post for Christ's sake. [img]graemlins/sssh.gif[/img]

  8. #8
    Watch the hair!!!
    Join Date
    03.23.02
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Posts
    1,673
    Favorite VH Album

    VH/Fair Warning/5150/F.U.C.K.
    Favorite VH Song

    R.Delight/Unchain./5150/C.Wabo
    Last Online

    07.22.09 @ 11:11 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Holy fucking age Christ... I thought I had way too much time on my hands, but judging by your post you beat me by a landslide.
    Pal, if you’re going to resort to trite criticisms like that, when that whole post took me about 15 minutes to compose, then don’t bother responding. Talk about a pedestrian retort. You really put me in my place, Mr. 6+ Posts A Day.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    And let me add that thanks to Bush and his control of the economy, I just found I received one hell of a refund on last years taxes, and honestly I believe someone else may be more deserving [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img] Thanks to Bush, I refinanced my home for an obscenly low interest rate. But I am sure there are more deserving out there than myself. Fuck'em.
    I’m incredulous that this post, which is based on completely incorrect, misguided economic theory and facts, is coming from someone who has gone through an MBA program. You simply don’t support –- or understand -- free-market capitalism, as tax cuts and low-interest rates (and low inflation) are exactly what are needed to get our economy growing consistently again so that the people that you’ve anointed “more deserving” will benefit with higher-paying jobs and more disposable income. Don’t forget that the tax refund you received was YOUR MONEY, not the government’s. If you feel guilty for keeping more of the money you earned, then that’s your problem. But you know you can always donate/give it to some of those you consider “more deserving.” Nothing is stopping you. I hoped you’ve showed the courage of your convictions and done this. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

    As for your mortgage refinancing, didn’t that result in you having a lower home payment each month, which, all things being equal, provided you with more disposable income to put back into the economy?!? If you don’t understand that these are mostly positive for not only yourself but the economy, then I don’t know why you wasted the time and effort it takes to earn a business degree.

    (I am, however, concerned that low-interest rates are causing too much money in the economy to go into the real estate sector instead of other sectors where it’s needed to spur sustained economic growth that will lead to stronger job creation. That’s why I was against the latest lowering of the Federal Funds Rate by the Federal Reserve, as I didn’t think that short-term interest rates needed to go any lower.)

    BTW, don’t you remember learning in your economics and financial management classes that the Federal Reserve is the government entity that deals with monetary policy, including the manipulation of short-term interest rates, which impacts long-term interest rates like home mortgages?!? Yes, there are other entities that have an impact on long-term (mortgage) interest rates, including the President and Congress, but their impact is indirect and significantly less than the Fed’s impact. Nonetheless, I keep hearing the Left stating that Bush’s fiscal policies are increasing deficits, which will eventually raise interest rates, not lower them. Of course, there is no evidence of deficits causing significant -– if any -- interest-rate increases (and there have been a rash of studies on this topic).

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    I have no issues against Bush or for Gore, as you might imply. Consider the following:
    FACT: Republicans are even now questioning Bush's prescription drug plan.
    Your point?!? Since Bush’s not a dictator, free and open debate is welcome -– especially on such an important plan like the prescription drug plan where so many self-interests collide. To imply that this is somehow unusual in Washington is ludicrous. Both parties have questioned a President from their own party on many contentious issues (ex. Democrats fought Clinton on welfare reform and NAFTA).

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    FACT: 2 million jobs lost since Bush came into office. Bush admits that his policies are not moving as quickly as he had planned.
    Your inability to understand economics and get beyond partisanship is astounding. Go take a look at the GDP numbers for 2000 –- less than 2 percent for the last two quarters of 2000 -– which show the economy coming to a grinding halt BEFORE Bush took office. In addition, the recession officially started several months before Bush’s first economic policies (the across-the-board tax cuts) were even passed by Congress and signed by Bush. If anything, though uneven, the economic growth in the form of GDP has increased the past five quarters after Bush’s economic policies took hold. Job creation is still slow, as unemployment is at 5.7 percent, but the economy is not currently in recession despite the three major hits the economy took before and after Bush took office: 1) economic recession/slowdown, 2) corporate accounting scandals/plummeting stock market, 3) 9/11.

    It is true that around 2 million jobs have been lost since the beginning of 2001. But to attribute these job losses solely to Bush (or Clinton) is ridiculous. Once again, it was just part of the regular business/economic cycle, including the “dot-com bust,” plus the impact of the “three major hits” I listed above. You do know that Bush’s fiscal policies weren’t even in place until mid-2001, when hundreds of thousands of jobs were already lost, don’t you?!? It’s absurd to think that a $10.5 trillion economy stopped on a dime the moment Bush took office like you’re implying, but that’s what you’re saying by blaming Bush personally for the loss of all these jobs since he took office.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Fact: Both sides have referred to the tax cuts as trickle down economics.
    Who cares what people are calling them?!? We heard these putdowns throughout the 1980s when the economy was humming along, after Reagan’s tax cuts were enacted, which dropped all marginal rates, including the top marginal rate from a destructive 70% to 28%. Whatever it’s called, even “trickle-down economics,” it has been proven to grow the economy with relatively low inflation, especially when the economy needs a kick-start from the doldrums, like in 1981 and 2001.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    FACT: Natinal Debt quadrupled during the Reagan years and into the Bush term with the implementation of tax plans not dissimilar to current Bush.
    Yes, the National Debt did quadruple during the Reagan and Bush years but it had nothing to do with the tax cuts. Since tax receipts to the federal government went up by a real (i.e. inflation adjusted) rate of about 25 percent from 1983-89 after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts took hold, I don’t see how the deficits can be blamed on the tax cuts. It’s become a liberal mantra but it’s not based on truth. Increased spending by both parties and a necessary period of deflation in the early 1980s (due to monetary policies instituted by Paul Volcker, who preceded Alan Greenspan as Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors) after the inflationary and “stagflation” years of Carter, were the primary causes.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    FACT: Interest rates skyrocketed during the Republicans heyday as well as unemployment skyrocketed.
    As for “unemployment skyrocketing” during the Republicans heyday, that’s a bunch of bullshit that the Left spouts incorrectly all the time. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6%. In the recession of 1981-82, when the inflation from the Carter years was being squeezed out of the economy through tighter monetary policies by the Fed, that rate peaked at 9.7%. But then it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office in 1989, the unemployment rate was 5.5%.

    As for the interest rates, Reagan inherited rising interest rates from Carter as the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage rose to a ridiculously high 18.9%, the highest rate ever, soon after he took office in 1981. However, the prime rate then steadily fell over the next six years to a low of 8.2% in 1987. Those are FACTS. Look them up for yourself.

    And don’t try to drag the performance of the first Bush Administration into the “heyday.” George H.W. Bush broke his “No news taxes” pledge and changed the country’s economic course, which combined with that end of the business cycle in 1990-91, caused a recession that resulted in him being swept out of the White House.
    "Seems the old folks who come up short were the pretty little kids who didn't want it, no." - Van Halen (1979)

    "Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall." - Confucius

    "The possibility that we may fail in the struggle should not deter us from supporting a cause we believe to be just." - Abraham Lincoln

  9. #9
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    12.28.01
    Age
    51
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    1,743
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Mean Street
    Last Online

    05.17.09 @ 06:50 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Donor

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Bush in the Whitehouse is almost solely responsible for Osama and 9/11 because of the actions from the Republicans when in office back in the day with Kuwait.
    El, I am not sure how you can blame any american person or party for the actions of Osama. They are sick twisted individuals that loath our freedom and that's the bottom line.

    In case we have forgotten, thousands of people were killed for no other reason than the fact they are free. You may have some good points in your statement here dude but to say Bush or anyone from our country is "responsible" for that act is a fucking outrage [img]graemlins/irked.gif[/img]

  10. #10
    Watch the hair!!!
    Join Date
    03.23.02
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Posts
    1,673
    Favorite VH Album

    VH/Fair Warning/5150/F.U.C.K.
    Favorite VH Song

    R.Delight/Unchain./5150/C.Wabo
    Last Online

    07.22.09 @ 11:11 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Please, I implore you, mellow out on your bullshit of partianship. There is such a blur between Democrats and Republicans this past couple of generations, that you no longer can claim to be true Republican or Democrat if you actually know the originating differences. Too many issues to address, and the world is alot smaller now than when our grandfathers were around. But I really don't dislike one over the other
    Who started the partisan attacks in this thread?!? Anyone reading your post can see the irrational partisanship dripping all over it. But if you want to hurt your credibility by blurring FACTS with purely partisan spin and statements without supporting evidence like I’ve provided, then feel free. All you seem to be doing is blaming the Republicans for everything even if it means ignoring the FACTS, which show that both sides are to blame for many of our problems. This commonly happens when you and your ilk draw your conclusions without any empirical evidence, THEN try to justify your opinions by grasping onto straws, falsified “facts” and Paul Begala soundbytes. I don’t really care if you’re Democrat, but your opinions in this thread are certainly something only a liberal would spout.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    The FACT still remains that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of the Persian Gulf issue handling by the Republicans.
    I agree that expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was part of the reason for al-Qaeda’s actions, as U.S. troops were on the ground in Saudi Arabia, which is bin Laden’s home nation, during and after the Gulf War. This is what supposedly pissed off bin Laden the most about the U.S. Nonetheless, I just don’t see how you can criticize the act of expelling Iraq from Kuwait under George H.W. Bush’s leadership, whether it was done by a Republican or Democrat President. Is that what you’re saying?!? That we shouldn’t have waged war against Iraq back in 1991?!?

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    FACT is that the US did not know how to handle captured Al-Qaeda. You state that Clinton handled things much differently the first time the WTC was attacked, however you failed to acknowledge (or know about) the whirlwind of conflict over how to treat the Al-Qaeda: POW's, War Criminals, Enemies against the State, Terrorists? And in the end, so many of them were eventually released.
    It’s funny how when a Republican is President, he’s personally responsible for everything that happens in the nation. But when it happens while Clinton is President, it’s because “the U.S. did not know how to handle” the situation. It would seem to me that using your expressed faulty logic that the President is responsible for everything that happens while they are in office, that you’d blame Clinton for allowing so many al-Qaeda to be “eventually released.” If you can’t see the blatant bias in your logic, then you have a screw loose.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    FACT: There is a huge amount of resources to draw an educated opinion, not just a subscription to the Journal. Honestly, you should try reading more resources to get up to speed with the "FACTS" as you know them.
    Why don’t you go screw yourself with this pompous response?!? I mentioned the Wall Street Journal because they were the ones who broke that story about bin Laden and Omar and you then assume it’s the ONLY publication I read regularly. Well, it isn’t. From your incorrect understanding of economics and the historical performance of the U.S. economy, maybe YOU should have read more of your graduate textbooks. You are the only making yourself look like a fool by quoting incorrect information and stating outright lies as truth. For example, you stated that the first President Bush was in office when the ’93 WTC bombing attack took place, which is FALSE. I noticed you didn’t correct yourself after that completely incorrect section of your first post. You’re a real stand up guy.

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    Talk about myopic, re-read your post for Christ's sake. [img]graemlins/sssh.gif[/img]
    My response to your original post in this thread was well thought out, as balanced as could be considering my strong conservative opinions, and much more based on FACTS than yours was. Try all you want, I’m not going to apologize for taking apart your original post. Nor am I going to pester you for ignoring many of the specific points in my post and instead reciting the trite liberal anti-Reagan/Bush mantras. You are the one who is unable to provide evidence refuting my post on specific points. YOU are myopic and you’ve only proven it again with your most recent inane post. As long as you keep posting non-sequiturs as FACTS, I’m going to be all over your ass refuting and exposing your fraudulent claims. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

    [ February 13, 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Delighted Romeo ]
    "Seems the old folks who come up short were the pretty little kids who didn't want it, no." - Van Halen (1979)

    "Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall." - Confucius

    "The possibility that we may fail in the struggle should not deter us from supporting a cause we believe to be just." - Abraham Lincoln

  11. #11
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    12.25.01
    Age
    53
    Location
    Carmel, Ca
    Posts
    7,954
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    You\'re Kidding,right?
    Last Online

    05.31.14 @ 08:17 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    The people to blame for the attacks on 9/11 are the members and leadership of Al Caida, not the White House nor the Houses of Congress.

    Anybody who thinks otherwise is an asshole.

    I can tell you that nobody war-gamed the attacks of 9/11, not the FBI, CIA or JSOC. They never saw it coming, therefore noby in either the Clinton Admn or the Bush Admn did either.

    Anybody who thinks otherwise is a stupid,partisan asshole.

    If you think Al Gore would be doing anything different in reguards to DHD you are mistaken, the only difference might be that we'd already be in Bagdahd. Hell, he might even have had the French Priminister blow the German President at gunpoint.

    This thread is stupid, you might as well contemplate what the world would be like if it were ruled by damn dirty apes.
    "Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is." - B. Banzai


    My Blog:

    http://axxman300tool.blogspot.com/

    http://www.myspace.com/axxman300

  12. #12
    Sinner's Swing! chewbaccamonkeylunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.06.01
    Location
    Weatherford, TX
    Posts
    3,839
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning and Balance (Tie)
    Favorite VH Song

    Summer Nights (LWAN)
    Last Online

    02.16.16 @ 06:50 AM
    Likes
    15
    Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts


    Donor

    I would be moving to France
    The trashman was my hero.......
    -Seenbad

  13. #13
    Top Of The World
    Join Date
    01.09.02
    Location
    Stalag 13, Deutschland
    Posts
    209
    Favorite VH Album

    Fraulines und Kinder First
    Favorite VH Song

    Somebody Get Me A Panzer
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    I think it's pretty simple. Bin Laden would have OK'd the attack regardless of who was in office because either way he knew the response was most likely to be an all-out counter-attack, which Bin Laden could spin as an attack against the Muslim world in general. Crackpots like Bin Laden really only think about themselves and Bin Laden knew he had to start his worldwide Jihad at some point while he was alive. They tried to take down the World Trade Center in 1993. Sorry, but if Gore were in office we'd be in pretty much the same situation, battling terrorists in some way (albiet scaled back somewhat). It's no accident that so many of the 19 highjackers were Saudi, because Bin Laden wanted to create as much of a rift between Rhiad and Washington as he could.

    Sure, he bases some of it on US forces being in Saudi Arabia starting in 1990 (when Bush was in office) but it's highly probable that US forces would have been in Saudi Arabia in 1990 if Dukakis had been the President.

    But Bin Laden's pretext for his Jihad goes back centuries, as does most other terrorist-theocrats' justification for their actions. The goal is an Iran-like theocratic state (see 'Taliban') in every Muslim dominated nation based on a perverted view of the Koran.
    Musical equipment I own dat legitimizes mein post. Tuba, clarinet, und electric glockenspiel.<br />Der Lord liebt einen beschäftigten Mann. Nicht vertrauen whitey. Sehen ein Doktor und erhalten gereinigt es.<br /><br />"You're a towel!" - Towelie

  14. #14
    Romeo Delight
    Join Date
    05.18.02
    Age
    41
    Location
    stuck in Nebraska
    Posts
    46
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    uh?....Humans Being?(tough question)
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by Axxman300:

    This thread is stupid, you might as well contemplate what the world would be like if it were ruled by damn dirty apes.
    What do you mean? It's not? Soon the Jack Bunnies will be coming from soil in the center of Mongolia. Only to take over the world, and eat pomerainans. They cannot be stopped by anything, EXCEPT........ The phat phucken pingunes from Pluto. May God have mercy.

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •