Giant always thinks his sources are impartial and unbiased. He has no ability to be critical of something that confirms his predetermined point of view. When this is demonstrated to be false he has nothing to fall back on.
OK obviously none of you have a clue. Get a clue. That is what is really happening inside the White House. (humor people)
I don't think anyone here has the full story actually. It will probably takes months to be revealed. But it looks like it won't be pretty. SDW you can not change this by trolling at AppleInsider. We'll just have to see.
unfortunately for all of us especially you SDW, its increasingly more complicated than what can be shown on a mere list, sure Clinton wasn't big on national security he was fairly good on domestic issues. I'll give him that one. Its unfortunate for Bush that 9-11 right in the beginning of his term to an extent where his policies were getting a foothold, had it have never happened we would have got out of a recession much earlier, and the war on Iraq would have never happened as well.
You can go on to say so much about what a president did, but given the circumstances, he wasn't elected for 2 terms for no reason at all.
Its sad that whole accident has caused the world to rile up when it could be concentrating on a more pleasant future.
unfortunately for all of us especially you SDW, its increasingly more complicated than what can be shown on a mere list, sure Clinton wasn't big on national security he was fairly good on domestic issues. I'll give him that one. Its unfortunate for Bush that 9-11 right in the beginning of his term to an extent where his policies were getting a foothold, had it have never happened we would have got out of a recession much earlier, and the war on Iraq would have never happened as well.
You can go on to say so much about what a president did, but given the circumstances, he wasn't elected for 2 terms for no reason at all.
Its sad that whole accident has caused the world to rile up when it could be concentrating on a more pleasant future.
Sorry but none of us have any way of knowing this. Too many variables. It would be like me saying had it not been for 911 everyone would have been concentrating on Bush's failed economic policies and would be very unpopular because of that. Although I think that's most likely.
I don't know jimmac, one of the few strengths bush has is he is business oriented. He was much more economically centered and gave the economy his top priority, than say his foreign policy, especially during the election campaign. I'm glad I didn't vote with the rest of the 86% had it of been anyone else we'd still be where we are today, given the events that have taken place.
I don't know jimmac, one of the few strengths bush has is he is business oriented. He was much more economically centered and gave the economy his top priority, than say his foreign policy, especially during the election campaign. I'm glad I didn't vote with the rest of the 86% had it of been anyone else we'd still be where we are today, given the events that have taken place.
For being economically oriented it doesn't seem to be doing much good. As a matter of fact why have a war in bad economic times unles you have to? As a matter of fact he's got the highest debt in history.
Not a good sign about his economic prowess if you ask me.
About your last statement you have no way of knowing that either.
well short of voting figures yes its just an estimate but we all know harldy anyone votes... especially 18-31 year olds... my demo. but still bush has a lot more economic strength than what gore had easily. He's doing the only thing he can do as a president, keeping inflation down, and lowering interest rates while not letting in VISA workers (what clinton did to kill us) the only thing I hate is he reccommends to take away overtime. Stuff like that is going to kill the blue-collar portion of my family.
well short of voting figures yes its just an estimate but we all know harldy anyone votes... especially 18-31 year olds... my demo. but still bush has a lot more economic strength than what gore had easily. He's doing the only thing he can do as a president, keeping inflation down, and lowering interest rates while not letting in VISA workers (what clinton did to kill us) the only thing I hate is he reccommends to take away overtime. Stuff like that is going to kill the blue-collar portion of my family.
Once again you speculating on events that didn't happen. You have no idea how Gore would have faired.
Also I think most people are begining to doubt Bush is doing all he can about the economy and in some cases making it worse. One of the short sighted arguments early this year ( that doesn't hold water these days ) is that war with iraq would be good because war always bolsters the economy.
We now know that used to be true in WWII but not now days. Now days war is expensive.
In a general sense the way things go. Bad desicions by the president can have a big influence on the economy. Such as racking up more debt in a time of economic strife. Deciding to do the right ( but may be not popular ) thing and tighten our belts and pay for things, institute the proper programs to create more jobs, and not give tax breaks to only big business are a few of the things a president can do on the positive side. Hell, just doing monumentally stupid things can effect the stock market! An example : Reagan deregulates the savings and loan industry so anybody can say they have a company and millions of dollars are funneled out of the country by phony companies never to return. Yes, the president can have a big influence.
When this is demonstrated to be false he has nothing to fall back on.
Such as when? That's what I thought. I could (and have!)run down a list of times you and alky have been patently wrong.
What you posted was so biased he went to counterpunch, dug up an article comparing scare tactics so that he can say 'look! Their radicals! They compare Bush to Hitler!' You should be embarrassed to cite such garbage. I think it would actually be interesting
But hey, look who your cheerleading squad is. It's like a who's who of folks that argue such things as 'unprofitable' means 'making money'.
Comments
I don't think anyone here has the full story actually. It will probably takes months to be revealed. But it looks like it won't be pretty. SDW you can not change this by trolling at AppleInsider.
You can go on to say so much about what a president did, but given the circumstances, he wasn't elected for 2 terms for no reason at all.
Its sad that whole accident has caused the world to rile up when it could be concentrating on a more pleasant future.
Originally posted by kraig911
unfortunately for all of us especially you SDW, its increasingly more complicated than what can be shown on a mere list, sure Clinton wasn't big on national security he was fairly good on domestic issues. I'll give him that one. Its unfortunate for Bush that 9-11 right in the beginning of his term to an extent where his policies were getting a foothold, had it have never happened we would have got out of a recession much earlier, and the war on Iraq would have never happened as well.
You can go on to say so much about what a president did, but given the circumstances, he wasn't elected for 2 terms for no reason at all.
Its sad that whole accident has caused the world to rile up when it could be concentrating on a more pleasant future.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" it have never happened we would have got out of a recession much earlier, and the war on Iraq would have never happened as well. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but none of us have any way of knowing this. Too many variables. It would be like me saying had it not been for 911 everyone would have been concentrating on Bush's failed economic policies and would be very unpopular because of that. Although I think that's most likely.
Originally posted by kraig911
I don't know jimmac, one of the few strengths bush has is he is business oriented. He was much more economically centered and gave the economy his top priority, than say his foreign policy, especially during the election campaign. I'm glad I didn't vote with the rest of the 86% had it of been anyone else we'd still be where we are today, given the events that have taken place.
For being economically oriented it doesn't seem to be doing much good. As a matter of fact why have a war in bad economic times unles you have to? As a matter of fact he's got the highest debt in history.
Not a good sign about his economic prowess if you ask me.
About your last statement you have no way of knowing that either.
Originally posted by Scott
It's always been a fantasy that the president has a lot of control over the economy.
Yes but if you examine history you'll find that he always has a big influence. Directly or indirectly.
Originally posted by kraig911
well short of voting figures yes its just an estimate but we all know harldy anyone votes... especially 18-31 year olds... my demo. but still bush has a lot more economic strength than what gore had easily. He's doing the only thing he can do as a president, keeping inflation down, and lowering interest rates while not letting in VISA workers (what clinton did to kill us) the only thing I hate is he reccommends to take away overtime. Stuff like that is going to kill the blue-collar portion of my family.
Once again you speculating on events that didn't happen. You have no idea how Gore would have faired.
Also I think most people are begining to doubt Bush is doing all he can about the economy and in some cases making it worse. One of the short sighted arguments early this year ( that doesn't hold water these days ) is that war with iraq would be good because war always bolsters the economy.
We now know that used to be true in WWII but not now days. Now days war is expensive.
(what clinton did to kill us)
Don't you mean, "what the greedy CEOs of tech companies lobbied congress to do and yes, convinced clinton" to do?
Nope.... all Clinton.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes but if you examine history you'll find that he always has a big influence. Directly or indirectly.
Define "big".
Originally posted by Scott
Define "big".
In a general sense the way things go. Bad desicions by the president can have a big influence on the economy. Such as racking up more debt in a time of economic strife. Deciding to do the right ( but may be not popular ) thing and tighten our belts and pay for things, institute the proper programs to create more jobs, and not give tax breaks to only big business are a few of the things a president can do on the positive side. Hell, just doing monumentally stupid things can effect the stock market! An example : Reagan deregulates the savings and loan industry so anybody can say they have a company and millions of dollars are funneled out of the country by phony companies never to return. Yes, the president can have a big influence.
Originally posted by Scott
When this is demonstrated to be false he has nothing to fall back on.
Such as when? That's what I thought. I could (and have!)run down a list of times you and alky have been patently wrong.
What you posted was so biased he went to counterpunch, dug up an article comparing scare tactics so that he can say 'look! Their radicals! They compare Bush to Hitler!' You should be embarrassed to cite such garbage. I think it would actually be interesting
But hey, look who your cheerleading squad is. It's like a who's who of folks that argue such things as 'unprofitable' means 'making money'.