The delays are more the result of the US military's caution with regard to civilian casualties and not the actual quality of the Iraqi resistance.
There has been very little "fierce" about Iraqi resistance. Their best tactics have been cowardly and deceitful ones so far.
It doesn't meet my rubric of "fierce". Just a semantic thing, I suppose. Just because they don't surrender I don't take it as "fierce". To me the vast majority of the resistance has been token resistance.
Groverat, I guess it's down to the news sources we look at then: this is a tricky one!
Depending on the economic theory you subscribe to, you can argue that any given president could do everything possible right or everything possible wrong and you wouldn't see the resultant change in trends in the economy until a good 3-4 years later. You could quite possibly do nothing at all and see a shift from recession to growth or vice versa over time (just make sure no major institutions collapse from various external circumstances over that time). The economy has its own inherent cycle as well that is futile to attempt to alter with mere policy, you realize. One thing's for sure, waffling on a major world event for another 1 year or 2 or 12 with the UN can certainly stagnate the exuberance of the market. To that effect, you simply cannot assume the alternative to war would suddenly affect the market in a positive way. It's a specious argument, at best- more suited to firing off a "business saavy" tagline than any functional good. At the least, staving off the proliferation of terrorism elements is a valid strategy toward enabling a "stronger economy" (conversely, the uncertainty introduced by unchecked terrorism elements discourages the formation of a stronger economy).
Given enough bananas a monkey could do better. The things he's done ( and not done ) are pretty simple.
" economy until a good 3-4 years later "
if this were true world events wouldn't be taken into account in the stock market.
Delayed effect is in a roundabout way true here. George is running up a big tab that we'll probably be paying on for the rest of my life ( not just money ether ).
Given enough bananas a monkey could do better. The things he's done ( and not done ) are pretty simple.
Yes, whether they are directly attributable to the outcomes you are citing is up to great interpretation. Since it is clear that you find Bush to be the cause of all your problems, your objectivity on the subject really comes to question.
Quote:
" economy until a good 3-4 years later "
if this were true world events wouldn't be taken into account in the stock market.
Yes, world events may or may not have lasting effects. It's also all too easy to point at daily jumps, but that is still no indication that a wide-sweeping, prolonged trend has been set underway. Economic policies generally don't have such immediate effects- thus the 3-4 years later bit. Since you feel that Bush could be doing something specific to boost the economy rather than waging a war, you have to consider that the "policy" isn't suddenly going to make your world leap into the black like you wish.
Quote:
Delayed effect is in a roundabout way true here. George is running up a big tab that we'll probably be paying on for the rest of my life ( not just money ether ).
Similarly, you can hypothetically credit Clinton for where we are now. (Not saying you should, but turnaround is fair game) You could also argue that Bush has paved the way for an economy that can spin-up for a big growth period to come, which will make it all the bit easier to pay for that war, make your life better, and whatever else you care to attribute to "good times". (Not saying that is necessarily true, either, but it certainly is as good a possibility that you have been coming up with.)
The movement of the economy is FAR too complex to just point a finger at one man as the cause and effect. So watching someone do just that, is more comical than believable. It just shows that they have some sort of ax to grind and they will find any and all reasons to lay onto that person.
[B]Yes, whether they are directly attributable to the outcomes you are citing is up to great interpretation. Since it is clear that you find Bush to be the cause of all your problems, your objectivity on the subject really comes to question.
[B]
Yes, world events may or may not have lasting effects. It's also all too easy to point at daily jumps, but that is still no indication that a wide-sweeping, prolonged trend has been set underway. Economic policies generally don't have such immediate effects- thus the 3-4 years later bit. Since you feel that Bush could be doing something specific to boost the economy rather than waging a war, you have to consider that the "policy" isn't suddenly going to make your world leap into the black like you wish.
Similarly, you can hypothetically credit Clinton for where we are now. (Not saying you should, but turnaround is fair game) You could also argue that Bush has paved the way for an economy that can spin-up for a big growth period to come, which will make it all the bit easier to pay for that war, make your life better, and whatever else you care to attribute to "good times". (Not saying that is necessarily true, either, but it certainly is as good a possibility that you have been coming up with.)
The movement of the economy is FAR too complex to just point a finger at one man as the cause and effect. So watching someone do just that, is more comical than believable. It just shows that they have some sort of ax to grind and they will find any and all reasons to lay onto that person.
Well you are posturing also. So I wouldn't call you an objective source ether.
The bottom line is that things were better under Clinton. Much better. For a long time ( 8yrs. ). Which according to your own argument ( 3 to 4 years ) is just too long for coincedence. You can spin doctor it all you want but that's really all anyone needs to know.
And please don't start with the sex scandal crap again. Conservatives don't want you to remember there was another president 30 years ago that lied to the american people about something much worse. That would be his illegal actions to help him get reelected.
Posturing??? That is your own observation. No where do you see me going "rah-rah" about any particular president or party. That's just not my style. All I said was to cut the guy some slack, already. You have fixated that Bush is the direct cause of all that is bad in your life, and your posts clearly show that. If one were to assume that you weren't at least being a bit "tongue and cheek" when you say all of that, one could say you sound 1-step away from raving lunatic. That just isn't healthy for the mind.
As for Clinton, yeah he could just have been in the right place at the right time, too. Point is, you shouldn't place so much emphasis on good times vs. bad times correlated to who's in office at the time. 8 years is actually very close to a natural interval for an economic growth period punctuated by down periods at its ends.
Posturing??? That is your own observation. No where do you see me going "rah-rah" about any particular president or party. That's just not my style. All I said was to cut the guy some slack, already. You have fixated that Bush is the direct cause of all that is bad in your life, and your posts clearly show that. If one were to assume that you weren't at least being a bit "tongue and cheek" when you say all of that, one could say you sound 1-step away from raving lunatic. That just isn't healthy for the mind.
As for Clinton, yeah he could just have been in the right place at the right time, too. Point is, you shouldn't place so much emphasis on good times vs. bad times correlated to who's in office at the time. 8 years is actually very close to a natural interval for an economic growth period punctuated by down periods at its ends.
Man this is laughable at best. Is everyone who disagrees with you one step away from a raving luniatic?
" 8 years is actually very close to a natural interval for an economic growth period punctuated by down periods at its ends. "
Funny the 70's weren't like that. The 80's weren't liike that. Were you even alive then?
And yes you've been posturing all over the place. you can't come up with a plausible argument so you attack the other guy's character ( I think someone else has noticed this about you ).
I don't think Bush is the source of all my troubles. I just think he's a really bad choice for president. Got that?
I can see why the other's have lost their cool with you. So stop with the adolecent smugness and the armchair psychotherapy and grow up already.
Man this is laughable at best. Is everyone who disagrees with you one step away from a raving luniatic?
Is everyone who disagrees with you posturing?
I say you are one step away from a raving lunatic because that is the way your posts read, not because you disagree with me. Get that straight. Consider it a "wake-up call".
Quote:
Funny the 70's weren't like that. The 80's weren't liike that. Were you even alive then?
Now you question when I was born? If you want to disregard the existence of a natural 7-year cycle, go ahead. I only offered it as an explanation. Lots of things work in cycles. I'm not saying that a 7 year cycle rules all. There're many cycles at work all at once.
Quote:
And yes you've been posturing all over the place. you can't come up with a plausible argument so you attack the other guy's character ( I think someone else has noticed this about you ).
Yes, anyone who disagrees with jimmac must be posturing. Why don't you worry about how you conduct yourself for a start.
Quote:
I don't think Bush is the source of all my troubles. I just think he's a really bad choice for president. Got that?
I guess we can count on a change in the way your posts are worded in the future. Sounds great.
Quote:
I can see why the other's have lost their cool with you. So stop with the adolecent smugness and the armchair psychotherapy and grow up already.
You should talk. Do you think no one ever notices your practice of doing hit-n-runs in various topics with simplistic, rhetoric-friendly quips? You bring the aire of "adolescent smugness" entirely unto yourself. You and others who pull similar stunts like this "lose your cool" because someone like me will see that and pound you into the ground for it. Don't like it? Too bad! Don't post stupid $hit on the Internet then- ****DISCUSS****. Seems fair enough? That will be all.
I say you are one step away from a raving lunatic because that is the way your posts read, not because you disagree with me. Get that straight. Consider it a "wake-up call".
[B]
Now you question when I was born? If you want to disregard the existence of a natural 7-year cycle, go ahead. I only offered it as an explanation. Lots of things work in cycles. I'm not saying that a 7 year cycle rules all. There're many cycles at work all at once.
[B]
Yes, anyone who disagrees with jimmac must be posturing. Why don't you worry about how you conduct yourself for a start.
[B]
I guess we can count on a change in the way your posts are worded in the future. Sounds great.
You should talk. Do you think no one ever notices your practice of doing hit-n-runs in various topics with simplistic, rhetoric-friendly quips? You bring the aire of "adolescent smugness" entirely unto yourself. You and others who pull similar stunts like this "lose your cool" because someone like me will see that and pound you into the ground for it. Don't like it? Too bad! Don't post stupid $hit on the Internet then- ****DISCUSS****. Seems fair enough? That will be all.
Pound me into the ground? Ha! I haven't heard that one since junior high ( I think you guys call it middle school now ). That was a good 35 years ago!
Man I'm not getting sucked into one of those name calling tit for tat things you've been doing on other threads. Go blow your hot air on someone else. Since that's all you can do and this isn't a discussion anymore I leave you to do that by yourself. Rant all you want the bait didn't work. See ya!
Actually, depending on how you measure the US economy at least, it does work on a 5-10 year cycle (averaging about 7). Track only one end of the economic situation in the US, a good or bad economy, and this parrtern emerges since the depression of 1893. The past cycle was unusually long. the Great Depression was also, so there are aberrations.
This isn't meant to take blame away from George Bush as much as it is meant to take credit away from Bill Clinton. Presidents have a limited impact on economies, though I think war is a strong exception. Presidents impact economies in the very long-term (which tends to diffuse their impact) or in the very short term (which tends to have little impact in the long run).
Actually, depending on how you measure the US economy at least, it does work on a 5-10 year cycle (averaging about 7). Track only one end of the economic situation in the US, a good or bad economy, and this parrtern emerges since the depression of 1893. The past cycle was unusually long. the Great Depression was also, so there are aberrations.
This isn't meant to take blame away from George Bush as much as it is meant to take credit away from Bill Clinton. Presidents have a limited impact on economies, though I think war is a strong exception. Presidents impact economies in the very long-term (which tends to diffuse their impact) or in the very short term (which tends to have little impact in the long run).
War isn't the only thing that they can do to impact an economy. When they deregulate or change the way things are run ( or run up a huge debt ) that can have a big impact. For years.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
The delays are more the result of the US military's caution with regard to civilian casualties and not the actual quality of the Iraqi resistance.
There has been very little "fierce" about Iraqi resistance. Their best tactics have been cowardly and deceitful ones so far.
It doesn't meet my rubric of "fierce". Just a semantic thing, I suppose. Just because they don't surrender I don't take it as "fierce". To me the vast majority of the resistance has been token resistance.
Groverat, I guess it's down to the news sources we look at then: this is a tricky one!
Disinformation from the European media.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Depending on the economic theory you subscribe to, you can argue that any given president could do everything possible right or everything possible wrong and you wouldn't see the resultant change in trends in the economy until a good 3-4 years later. You could quite possibly do nothing at all and see a shift from recession to growth or vice versa over time (just make sure no major institutions collapse from various external circumstances over that time). The economy has its own inherent cycle as well that is futile to attempt to alter with mere policy, you realize. One thing's for sure, waffling on a major world event for another 1 year or 2 or 12 with the UN can certainly stagnate the exuberance of the market. To that effect, you simply cannot assume the alternative to war would suddenly affect the market in a positive way. It's a specious argument, at best- more suited to firing off a "business saavy" tagline than any functional good. At the least, staving off the proliferation of terrorism elements is a valid strategy toward enabling a "stronger economy" (conversely, the uncertainty introduced by unchecked terrorism elements discourages the formation of a stronger economy).
Given enough bananas a monkey could do better. The things he's done ( and not done ) are pretty simple.
" economy until a good 3-4 years later "
if this were true world events wouldn't be taken into account in the stock market.
Delayed effect is in a roundabout way true here. George is running up a big tab that we'll probably be paying on for the rest of my life ( not just money ether ).
Pssst, look into using paragraphs.
Originally posted by jimmac
Given enough bananas a monkey could do better. The things he's done ( and not done ) are pretty simple.
Yes, whether they are directly attributable to the outcomes you are citing is up to great interpretation. Since it is clear that you find Bush to be the cause of all your problems, your objectivity on the subject really comes to question.
Quote:
" economy until a good 3-4 years later "
if this were true world events wouldn't be taken into account in the stock market.
Yes, world events may or may not have lasting effects. It's also all too easy to point at daily jumps, but that is still no indication that a wide-sweeping, prolonged trend has been set underway. Economic policies generally don't have such immediate effects- thus the 3-4 years later bit. Since you feel that Bush could be doing something specific to boost the economy rather than waging a war, you have to consider that the "policy" isn't suddenly going to make your world leap into the black like you wish.
Quote:
Delayed effect is in a roundabout way true here. George is running up a big tab that we'll probably be paying on for the rest of my life ( not just money ether ).
Similarly, you can hypothetically credit Clinton for where we are now. (Not saying you should, but turnaround is fair game) You could also argue that Bush has paved the way for an economy that can spin-up for a big growth period to come, which will make it all the bit easier to pay for that war, make your life better, and whatever else you care to attribute to "good times". (Not saying that is necessarily true, either, but it certainly is as good a possibility that you have been coming up with.)
The movement of the economy is FAR too complex to just point a finger at one man as the cause and effect. So watching someone do just that, is more comical than believable. It just shows that they have some sort of ax to grind and they will find any and all reasons to lay onto that person.
Originally posted by Randycat99
[B]Yes, whether they are directly attributable to the outcomes you are citing is up to great interpretation. Since it is clear that you find Bush to be the cause of all your problems, your objectivity on the subject really comes to question.
[B]
Yes, world events may or may not have lasting effects. It's also all too easy to point at daily jumps, but that is still no indication that a wide-sweeping, prolonged trend has been set underway. Economic policies generally don't have such immediate effects- thus the 3-4 years later bit. Since you feel that Bush could be doing something specific to boost the economy rather than waging a war, you have to consider that the "policy" isn't suddenly going to make your world leap into the black like you wish.
Similarly, you can hypothetically credit Clinton for where we are now. (Not saying you should, but turnaround is fair game) You could also argue that Bush has paved the way for an economy that can spin-up for a big growth period to come, which will make it all the bit easier to pay for that war, make your life better, and whatever else you care to attribute to "good times". (Not saying that is necessarily true, either, but it certainly is as good a possibility that you have been coming up with.)
The movement of the economy is FAR too complex to just point a finger at one man as the cause and effect. So watching someone do just that, is more comical than believable. It just shows that they have some sort of ax to grind and they will find any and all reasons to lay onto that person.
Well you are posturing also. So I wouldn't call you an objective source ether.
The bottom line is that things were better under Clinton. Much better. For a long time ( 8yrs. ). Which according to your own argument ( 3 to 4 years ) is just too long for coincedence. You can spin doctor it all you want but that's really all anyone needs to know.
And please don't start with the sex scandal crap again. Conservatives don't want you to remember there was another president 30 years ago that lied to the american people about something much worse. That would be his illegal actions to help him get reelected.
As for Clinton, yeah he could just have been in the right place at the right time, too. Point is, you shouldn't place so much emphasis on good times vs. bad times correlated to who's in office at the time. 8 years is actually very close to a natural interval for an economic growth period punctuated by down periods at its ends.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Posturing??? That is your own observation. No where do you see me going "rah-rah" about any particular president or party. That's just not my style. All I said was to cut the guy some slack, already. You have fixated that Bush is the direct cause of all that is bad in your life, and your posts clearly show that. If one were to assume that you weren't at least being a bit "tongue and cheek" when you say all of that, one could say you sound 1-step away from raving lunatic. That just isn't healthy for the mind.
As for Clinton, yeah he could just have been in the right place at the right time, too. Point is, you shouldn't place so much emphasis on good times vs. bad times correlated to who's in office at the time. 8 years is actually very close to a natural interval for an economic growth period punctuated by down periods at its ends.
Man this is laughable at best. Is everyone who disagrees with you one step away from a raving luniatic?
" 8 years is actually very close to a natural interval for an economic growth period punctuated by down periods at its ends. "
Funny the 70's weren't like that. The 80's weren't liike that. Were you even alive then?
And yes you've been posturing all over the place. you can't come up with a plausible argument so you attack the other guy's character ( I think someone else has noticed this about you ).
I don't think Bush is the source of all my troubles. I just think he's a really bad choice for president. Got that?
I can see why the other's have lost their cool with you. So stop with the adolecent smugness and the armchair psychotherapy and grow up already.
Originally posted by jimmac
Man this is laughable at best. Is everyone who disagrees with you one step away from a raving luniatic?
Is everyone who disagrees with you posturing?
I say you are one step away from a raving lunatic because that is the way your posts read, not because you disagree with me. Get that straight. Consider it a "wake-up call".
Quote:
Funny the 70's weren't like that. The 80's weren't liike that. Were you even alive then?
Now you question when I was born? If you want to disregard the existence of a natural 7-year cycle, go ahead. I only offered it as an explanation. Lots of things work in cycles. I'm not saying that a 7 year cycle rules all. There're many cycles at work all at once.
Quote:
And yes you've been posturing all over the place. you can't come up with a plausible argument so you attack the other guy's character ( I think someone else has noticed this about you ).
Yes, anyone who disagrees with jimmac must be posturing.
Quote:
I don't think Bush is the source of all my troubles. I just think he's a really bad choice for president. Got that?
I guess we can count on a change in the way your posts are worded in the future. Sounds great.
Quote:
I can see why the other's have lost their cool with you. So stop with the adolecent smugness and the armchair psychotherapy and grow up already.
You should talk.
Originally posted by Randycat99
[B]Is everyone who disagrees with you posturing?
I say you are one step away from a raving lunatic because that is the way your posts read, not because you disagree with me. Get that straight. Consider it a "wake-up call".
[B]
Now you question when I was born? If you want to disregard the existence of a natural 7-year cycle, go ahead. I only offered it as an explanation. Lots of things work in cycles. I'm not saying that a 7 year cycle rules all. There're many cycles at work all at once.
[B]
Yes, anyone who disagrees with jimmac must be posturing.
[B]
I guess we can count on a change in the way your posts are worded in the future. Sounds great.
You should talk.
Pound me into the ground? Ha! I haven't heard that one since junior high ( I think you guys call it middle school now ). That was a good 35 years ago!
Man I'm not getting sucked into one of those name calling tit for tat things you've been doing on other threads. Go blow your hot air on someone else. Since that's all you can do and this isn't a discussion anymore I leave you to do that by yourself. Rant all you want the bait didn't work. See ya!
This isn't meant to take blame away from George Bush as much as it is meant to take credit away from Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Actually, depending on how you measure the US economy at least, it does work on a 5-10 year cycle (averaging about 7). Track only one end of the economic situation in the US, a good or bad economy, and this parrtern emerges since the depression of 1893. The past cycle was unusually long. the Great Depression was also, so there are aberrations.
This isn't meant to take blame away from George Bush as much as it is meant to take credit away from Bill Clinton.
War isn't the only thing that they can do to impact an economy. When they deregulate or change the way things are run ( or run up a huge debt ) that can have a big impact. For years.