Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on July 27, 2002, 03:57:02 PM
-
"Former President Bill Clinton today hailed his own efforts to increase the oversight of corporate governance and criticized Republicans and Harvey L. Pitt, currently the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying they had frustrated Mr. Clinton's efforts at reform. He said Republicans thus deserved some of the blame for the current flight of foreign capital from United States markets...he chided Republicans, who he said had blocked his administration's efforts to, among other things, bar accounting firms from working as auditors and consultants for the same companies...'Harvey Pitt was the leader trying to stop us from ending those kind of abuses. That is a matter of record'...Mr. Clinton also said he had been overridden by Republicans when he vetoed a securities-industry bill he said would have 'basically cut off investors from being able to sue if they were getting the shaft.'"
Too bad. We might have the "Clinton Economy" still if not for those silly Republican lawmakers.
-
Bill is ok
:cool:
-
Clinton Economy=false earnings reports=booming stock prices
-
somebody let me know when the bush adminstration starts, okay?
:rolleyes:
-
the bush adminstration has already started , but when you move into a rundown house it take time to clean up the mess left by the people that lived there for the last 8 years.
-
Funny thing is... the mess wasn't visible until he left. :rolleyes:
-
Sandman, they have to glue the W back into the keyboards.. That takes time you know.
Maybe they used the 335 billion Clinton left on the desk to fix the keyboards..
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Funny thing is... the mess wasn't visible until he left. :rolleyes:
he did do a good job hiding it, it'll be his "legacy" in the end
-
Originally posted by Eagler
he did do a good job hiding it, it'll be his "legacy" in the end
:rolleyes:
-
Former President Bill Clinton today hailed his own efforts
...do you really have to read more than this?
...and really, this from a man who took money like a cheap stripper in a night club from any source?
...and it surprises you the Democrats use Clinton to stump for the cause in an election year?
Funny thing is... the mess wasn't visible until he left. :rolleyes:
Curious, why do you think this is?
-
Now lemme get this straight.
Bush is inaugurated on January 20, 2001.
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), composed of academic economists from Harvard, Stanford and other universities, ruled that the long expansion ended in March 2001 and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time.
"The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001," the panel said in its announcement. "A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession."
So Bush managed to take us from expansion into recession with only two months in office?????
Come on.. even you guys wouldn't try to slide BS like that past us, right?
"The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses."
... and Sept. 11 is all Bush's fault as well? Because Clinton had Osama under control by lobbing a few cruise missiles into empty "Osama's Kampgrounds Of Afghanistan" (Osama's KOA)?
The strong response to the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings had Osama cowering?
Ah, I needed a laugh tonite anyway.
Economists call it recession (http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/)
-
Bill Clinton Says Republicans Blocked Corporate Reform Efforts
FunkedUp Says It's Irrelevant Because Bubba Has Previously Demonstrated Himself To Be A Lying Sack Of toejam
-
Found the actual report.
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/)
Take a look at the charts; particularly in the Jul '00 - Sep '00 timeframe. Am I seeing a flattening of the rise and even some declines in there?
Or did Bush really just instantly make it happen with two months in office. Basically before they even got the posts filled with his choices.
Be honest.
-
Arkansans have been entertained by Clinton's antics for more than twenty years.
His accomplishments have always been overshadowed by his scandals, partisanship, and narcisism.
Politicians who are straight shooters do not generate the kind of animosity and outright hatred that Clinton did. Pooh-pooh his scandals if you wish, but there is a lengthy list of them. Whitewater is one of the least important. The appearance of 700 personal FBI files at the White House by "accident" is just one of the more serious. An enemies list perhaps?
Heads would have rolled in most administrations over something like that. But heads never rolled in the Clinton administration.
Want more proof? Check the back editions of Arkansas' main daily newspaper The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. In the governor's race of 1990 then governor Clinton had his main opponent, Republican challenger Sheffield Nelson investigated by the State Attorney General's Office on a charge for which he had already been acquitted some years earlier. The original charge had to do with Nelson's alleged mismanagement of a public utilities review committee. The second investigation of this incident was initiated by Clinton and his administration just a few weeks before the election for governor. Clinton had been losing ground to Nelson in the polls shortly before the investigation was begun. An editor of the Democrat-Gazette , John Robert Starr, had been a supporter of Clinton until this incident. In a conversation with Clinton, held over the phone, Starr reported that he asked Clinton if he understood what the phrase "abuse of power" referred to? Clinton, he said, merely laughed.
I don't have to remind you of all the other scandals. They are well documented. If at times the criticism and the attacks on Clinton have seemed unfair then he brought much of it upon himself. During his first two years in office he was one of the most openly partisan presidents of the 20th century. This hurt not only himself but his party as well, which is one of the reasons the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress in the elections of 1994. If you check history for a parallel to this you would find it in Woodrow Wilson's contemptuous attitude toward Republicans in Congress at the end of World War I, when he refused to take a single Republican on his trip to Europe to draw up the Versailles Treaty, an affront for which they never forgave him.
Clinton had many gifts, but humility and empathy with his political adversaries were not among them.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Quote:
"Former President Bill Clinton today hailed his own efforts..."
Because nobody else would???
What a complete effin' a-hole "The Big Creep" is............
Cabby
-
There is no way in hell the Republicans would have voted for this reform bill a month ago.
However the WorldCom bankruptcy put them in the same place that the 9-11 attack put the Democrats.
When 9-11 happened the Democrats had to support a bunch of police powers bills that the Republicans had been drooling over for some time, but that Democrats would never vote for in normal circumstances. 9-11 forced them to vote for the bills or get voted out of office.
The recent spate of corporate screwups put the Rupublicans in the position of having to support corporate reform ideas that the Democrats had been drooling over, but that Republicans would never vote for in normal circumstances. The corparate scandals forced them to vote for the bill or get voted out of office.
As to the "this party is to blame, no, that party is to blame" crap, its all BS. Both parties try to take credit for good economies and both try to blame the other for poor economies and they're both lying. Reagan wasn't responsible for the Savings & Loan scandals, Bush Sr. wasn't responsible for the recession 12 years ago, Clinton wasn't responisble for the malfeasence of CEOs and Bush Jr. isn't responsible for the current recession. Anybody who claims any of that BS is a blind partisan and can have their opinion on the subject safely dismissed.
The only individual that I can absolutely lay blame fro some of this recession is Osama bin Laden.
-
when will the party in power become resposible? just when?
since they arent now.
-
lord dolf vader,
I don't think that any party can be responsible for the economy. The economy is too complex and independant to ever be pinned down like that.
The Fed has more of an effect than both political parties together and, at least under Greenspan, the parties have had little effect on the Fed.
This isn't a matter of taking responsibility for something instead of shirking ones duty, it is about something that is simply out of any one groups power to have enough effect in order to be responsible for it.
-
Karnak's got it right. Well said.
-
sorry sounds to me like basicaly your sayin two things . if there is a problem with the ecomomy it was caused and started by clinton.
but when faced with the question "ok when will you have it fixed"
you have the answer that no one it resposible for it. the fed has a lot of effect bla bla . I say bullcrap, your guy is scarin the hell out of america and the world causeing the economy to dump. its that simple . you think that a loose cannon talkin war day and night with a iq of 70 in the whitehouse has nothing to do with it your crazy.
Sounds like typical conservative republican crap.
Bring back the blojob gettin economy fixin people you hate
-
-Sikboy
-
No, he's saying just ONE thing:
I don't think that any party can be responsible for the economy. The economy is too complex and independant to ever be pinned down like that.
..and what's "scaring the hell" out of America is the realization that we are now and always have been basically undefended against terrorism. It's just now starting to sink in and people haven't figured out how to deal with the realization yet. But we will; other nations have adapted already. You just have to come to terms with the fact that every day of life is a gift. But that's the major problem with the economy right now. People are scared and uncertain; so, they aren't spending much. Yes, there's other factors , but all those factors are adding to the basic fear, uncertaintly and doubt initially generated on Sept. 11.
As far as "talking war".. yes, they are. You can ignore something or you can deal with it. Usually dealing with it in the near term is better than dealing with it much later. IMO.
I assume you're referring to Iraq. Hypothetical question:
Would you rather deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs BEFORE or AFTER those weapons are completed and supplied to terrorists like Bin Laden and actually used against a US city?
Because if you think it will never happen........
-
What Karnak said. Capitalism in America isn't dictated by the administration, so crediting one administration or blaming another in such a sweeping fashion is very inaccurate.
Now, you might have an admin call for change in the operation, call for investigation, etc., but they cannot directly force the economy one way or another...
...now you might argue Bush is scaring everyone with talk of war, but then again, we didn't attack ourselves on 9/11. There will be more attacks, and the time has come to get proactive. War may be scary to business, but so is having our major cities attacked. If it is a choice between the two, I choose proactive war, economy be damned.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
-Sikboy
That "Clinton Fly" never fails does it? ;)
-
Well, I heard he really didn't use a fly. Had all his trousers made with a simple open slit in the front from his waistband to the crotch. Maybe just a rumor though. ;)
-
Never mind.
-
On second thought, don't answer that. If you really are here to simply stir up a response, I think I'll recuse myself from any thread with your name on it. I thought you wanted to discuss topics. Flamers and pot stirrers are a dime a dozen.
-
Hey all
Out of respect for the conservatives on this board I try not to bash Bush too much but when you guys trash Clinton, I figure that’s like crossing swords.
During the 1987 state of the Union address, President Reagan told Americans his administration created 10 million new jobs.. Was he lying?.. well no because of government funded research and development, new trade agreements, opening up new markets and funding for entrepreneurs which in turn hired more workers. That’s a fact you can go look it up. That coupled with the administration hiring a Fed chairman who controls the rate banks can charge so folks can get the loans for a new business. The more balanced the budget the lower the interest rates are The economy doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s not just a coincidence Reagan and Clinton’s economy were good. Having a good economy does a number of things.
* lowers crime -- people are working more, no need to rob the liquor store
* lowers drug abuse -- Can’t go to work loaded.
* lower teenage pregnancy -- same as above, no time to be pregnant.
* raises education -- more money for collage, the more people you have educated, the better society is as a whole.
from Toad: So Bush managed to take us from expansion into recession with only two months in office?????
April 1999 Dick Chenny as head of Helliburton, gos to OPEC meeting in middle east to argue for slowing down oil production. The effect of this doesn’t happen until the summer of 2000 with higher fuel prices.
Early summer 2000 polls show Bush ahead of Gore the stock market starts to dip.
Midsummer 2000 Democratic convention Gore make good speech, poll for Gore rises, so does market.
Autumn 2000 Bush has to be prodded to debate with Gore, Pundents proclaim Bush at least didn’t loose debate. Stocks fall
Autumn 2000 Bush talks down economy is criticized by Clinton. Claims tax cut is needed to stimulate already roaring economy. Market falls
Nov 2000 recount fight in Florida Enron donates $100,000 to stop recount, market falls.
Dec 11th 2000 Supreme court rules that it would be against George Bush’s constitutional rights if he were not named president, then reverse themselves and say the recount can go ahead.. but they only have two hours... (heh) Market drops.
January 2001 Suddenly out of the blue, California energy prices go up 138%, Bush administration claims it’s all California’s fault and they should just learn to live with it.
February and March 2001 Bush administration cancels out or un-signs or refuses to ratify just about every international treaty there is. All this doesn’t show the American investor much confidence.
March 2001 recession is declared.
So Toad, *ALL* of this happened before 911. And lets not talk about the forth quarter earning reports due to be released in Oct 2001... The ones that the corporations would not be able to hide the fraud.
from Funkedup FunkedUp Says It's Irrelevant Because Bubba Has Previously Demonstrated Himself To Be A Lying Sack Of toejam
So FunkedUp, you still screwing horses?.. prove that your not.
from Shuckins Politicians who are straight shooters do not generate the kind of animosity and outright hatred that Clinton did. Pooh-pooh his scandals if you wish, but there is a lengthy list of them. Whitewater is one of the least important. The appearance of 700 personal FBI files at the White House by "accident" is just one of the more serious. An enemies list perhaps?
How does this compare with denying Americans their right to due process?
Karnak wrote: I don't think that any party can be responsible for the economy. The economy is too complex and independant to ever be pinned down like that.
Nonsense, toejam don’t happen in a vacuum Karnak, it’s not the blind watchmaker.
Toad (again) Would you rather deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs BEFORE or AFTER those weapons are completed and supplied to terrorists like Bin Laden and actually used against a US city?
Because if you think it will never happen........
Yeah and why quibble about things like evidence?.. Or the wisdom of Military Generals?.. The chicken hawks know what to do... Say if your gonna wag that dog you better do it before the fall elections otherwise you might loose congressional funding for your adventure.
-
WTF Are you on about? Are you Bubba's little defender attack dog or something?
Sheep maybe.
Horses EWWWWWWWWWWWW!
-
Originally posted by Kieran
On second thought, don't answer that. If you really are here to simply stir up a response, I think I'll recuse myself from any thread with your name on it. I thought you wanted to discuss topics. Flamers and pot stirrers are a dime a dozen.
Now who's getting snooty? I will let my actions and responses on this board speak for themselves. If making a little quip regarding Clinton's ability to draw a crowd is "pot stirring" then I plead guilty!
And BTW, almost all posts in the O-club are designed to elicit a response. Sheesh Kieran, lighten up bud.
Back on topic, I'm the one who mentioned the economy in the original post. This seems to be what everyone is pouncing on. If Clinton had been able to implement his reforms back in 93, it is possible the corporate shenanigans that are causing the market to sink may have been identified sooner, or avoided altogether.
-
Corporate mismanagement and corruption have been around since the first corporations were formed in the last century. It can never be eliminated entirely as long as fallable human beings are chairmen of the corporations.
Republican controlled Congresses did very little about it during the first part of the 20th century. Democratic controlled Congresses did little about it during the latter half of the century.
How can an administration that was "for sale" and that did not believe in any "controlling legal authority" not be held accountable for the consequences of these actions and beliefs. Clinton could have forced corporate reform legislation through Congress when his party held control of the Senate from 1993-1994. The Republican majority in the House at that time was razor thin. He could have used his famous powers of persuasion to enlist the help of sympathetic Republicans. But Clinton was the most partisan of Presidents, especially during that period. He made little effort to win over Republicans until after the electorate spurned the Democratic party in the Congressional elections of 1994.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Wow, 10bears. There's some real tenuous (at best) connections there. All those things that happened before 9/11 that you listed were the Bush administration either deliberately or inadvertently ruining the economy?
Early summer 2000 polls show Bush ahead of Gore the stock market starts to dip
You're prepared to detail the cause and effect relationship here? If a mere poll shows Bush ahead that's the cause for a stock market dip and, by extension, leads to recession? Please elaborate.
Yeah and why quibble about things like evidence?..
You assume there is none. You further assume the government would publicly release all of their information long before we're ready to act.
I believe you to be wrong on both counts.
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (http://special.fco.gov.uk/background/iraqcbw.shtml)
"Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq produced enough chemical and biological weapons material to kill the world's population several times over. It is still trying to procure weapons technology. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed more weapons than were destroyed during the whole of the Gulf War. Its work is vital to the security of the entire Middle East.
This web site, produced jointly by the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence, contains the latest news updates on the situation in Iraq, its refusal to cooperate with United Nations (UNSCOM) weapons inspections, and the subsequent UK military action. It also offers a dossier, in English and Arabic, explaining the role of UNSCOM, the extent of Iraq's weapons programmes, and a chronology of events."
The evidence is out there.
Now, some may be content to wait and see if there is another 9/11-type attack on the US with Iraqi supplied Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm sure some would want to find Saddam' s DNA on the remains of the weapon before action is authorized too. Of course, if his DNA WAS on the weapon, there would be those who would claim it was planted there by the CIA.
I'd rather remove the threat before the attack can be made. I think there is ample evidence and I think it will be made available before we act.
-
You say the recession couldn't have happened in two months.. I say it had been building up prior to Bush's selection.
As for Iraq, read what 12 year Marine veteran Scott Riker has to say.
The real American emperor
By Carla Binion
Online Journal Contributing Editor
July 25, 2002—With today's avalanche of corporate scandals, I'm reminded of early warnings from wise journalists. In Who Will Tell The People (Simon & Schuster, 1992) Bill Greider warned that certain multinational corporations, companies largely unaccountable to U.S. law, were slowly eroding American democracy. Greider mentioned that German social critic Wolfgang Sachs had called those corporations and their global marketplace the world's new "closet dictator."
In The American Presidency (Common Courage Press, 1998) Gore Vidal said we are a people "conditioned from birth to believe that Americans possess neither an emperor nor a ruling class." However, today's emperor is not any individual politician, but is, among other entities, the unaccountable corporations referred to by Sachs and Greider.
Gore Vidal also points out that today the emperor and its supporting ruling class have rendered the office of the president "as powerless as it is expensive to gain, rather like elections to the Roman consulships, which were retained to the end of the empire while Caesars did the ruling. They kept the forms of an ancient and revered republic while depriving consuls and Senate of those powers to rule which were now the emperor's sole prerogative."
As an example, Vidal points out the effort to "get" President Bill Clinton was a warning strike from the ruling class to "any politician who might want to divert tax money back to the people in the form of, say, health care." When the Clintons proposed a national health care system that threatened insurance company profits, the insurance industry ("cash cow to the richest 1 percent of the population," according to Vidal) conducted a media blitz against the Clinton plans.
This look back at the get-Clinton effort is not a defense of the Clintons but a defense of the American people's right to select our own leaders. The point is to note that the U. S. ruling class and its right-wing allies have at times gone to great lengths to weaken democracy and oppose the will of the people.
In The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, journalists Joe Conason and Gene Lyons say, "Hillary Clinton's remarks about a 'vast right-wing conspiracy to undermine my husband' were initially mocked by pundits as a feeble defense of her husband's bad character. Yet subsequent revelations about OIC's [Office of Independent Council's] behavior lent weight to her accusations."
By the time details emerged regarding "the secretive machinations of Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, Richard Porter, George Conway, Ann Coulter and Jerome Marcus to buttress the first lady's allegations . . . there was little argument about the existence of a 'conspiracy,' and still less about whether the plotters were 'right-wing,'" Conason and Lyons write.
Conason and Lyons also note that most Americans objected to the fact that during the get-Clinton frenzy, "the Washington press appeared to have joined forces with a partisan prosecutor to void the results of two presidential elections." They add that this effort to nullify the will of the people via the partisan-driven Clinton impeachment was "a ratings-driven coup d'etat."
Gore Vidal says the ruling class initially assumed Clinton would play by their axiom: "Do nothing at home unless the banks give the green light and the boardrooms sign on." Instead, Clinton acted independently to "rev up the economy and even do things that need doing for the people at large." In other words, Clinton was attacked by wealthy, right-wing interests in part because he believed he could in some instances go against the ruling class on behalf of the people.
According to Vidal, the get-Clinton effort was a message from the ruling class to all challengers: "Don't mess with us. It's our country, not yours. We're not selling. And forget about taxing us. Anyway, isn't it pretty exciting now we got just about the whole globe? Soon we'll get into China. Big market. Cheaper than going to war with them but maybe we'll have to go that route too, one of these days. The big one. Meanwhile, just keep government off our backs."
This might also be the message of the stolen election.
Around the time of the 2000 election, oil, insurance, pharmaceutical and other corporations expressed disdain for a Gore presidency, fearing Gore might favor industry regulation. An article, "America in the Grip of Bush's 'Iron Triangle," (The Observer, December 3, 2000) noted those corporations wanted to "take over the regulatory bodies of government and regulate themselves."
The efforts to depose Clinton and to steal the 2000 election also happened to subvert democracy and oppose the expressed will of the people, whether they originated primarily with "right-wing" or "ruling class/corporate" interests. Those interests are often the same.
Some of the following paragraphs appeared in an earlier article of mine. They exemplify corporate opposition to the Clinton health care plan.
In 1993, the Clinton administration tried to do something about the high price of prescription drugs, hinting at possible government-imposed price controls. The pharmaceutical industry then turned to the Beckel Cowan PR firm to oppose the administration's designs on lowering the cost of prescription drugs—although, of course, arguably the Clinton plan would have benefited the public.
John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, (Toxic Sludge is Good for You, Common Courage Press, 1995) write that Beckel Cowan "created an AstroTurf [or, fake grassroots] organization called 'Rx Partners' and began deploying state and local organizers to, in the words of a company brochure, 'generate and secure high-quality personal letters from influential constituents to 35 targeted members of Congress.'"
Pharmaceutical companies weren't the only corporations to oppose the Clinton health care plan and target Congress. The insurance industry went to work to fight against the Clinton proposals, recruiting PR-man Robert Hoopes.
According to Stauber and Rampton, the 300,000 member Independent Insurance Agents of America (IIAA) hired Hoopes as their "grassroots coordinator/political education specialist."
Campaign & Elections magazine reported the IIAA activated "nearly 140,000 insurance agents during the health care debate, becoming what Hoopes describes as a new breed of Washington lobbyists," say Stauber and Rampton.
Hoopes said the lobbyists "have behind them an army of independent insurance agents from each state, and members of Congress understand what a lobbyist can do with the touch of a button to mobilize those people for or against them."
In Campaign & Elections magazine ("Killing Health Care Reform," October/November 1994) Thomas Scarlett wrote of the insurance companies PR moves, "Through a combination of skillfully targeted media and grassroots lobbying, these groups were able to change more minds than the president could, despite the White House 'bully pulpit.' . . . Never before have private interests spent so much money so publicly to defeat an initiative launched by a president."
Propagandist Rush Limbaugh also fueled the anti-health care debate on his radio show with frequent "calculated rants" aimed at his dittohead audience. The insurance industry's PR-man Blair Childs said his coalition ran paid ads on Limbaugh's show to encourage Rush's listeners to call members of Congress and urge them to kill health care reform.
Stauber and Rampton say congressional staffers often didn't know the callers were "primed, loaded, aimed and fired at them by radio ads on the Limbaugh show, paid by the insurance industry, with the goal of orchestrating the appearance of overwhelming grassroots opposition to
health reform."
By 1994, the insurance corporations' PR attacks had changed the political environment. Stauber and Rampton write that "Republicans who previously had signed on to various components of the Clinton plan backed away." Even Democratic Party Senate majority leader George Mitchell "announced a scaled-back plan that was almost pure symbolism . . . Republicans dismissed it
with fierce scorn."
In George W. Bush, the ruling class and closet dictator have their yes-man. Commentators for the corporate-owned media have no need to attempt to hound him out of office as they did Clinton for daring to try to "rev up the economy and even do things that need doing for the people at large." The insurance and oil industries have no need to battle this president for trying to tax or regulate them, as they might have found necessary if Gore had been allowed to keep his 2000 election win.
As we've seen with Bush's deregulation policies and lax handling of today's corporate scandals, those corporations have little to fear. Bush knows who the "real American emperor" is. He allows the closet dictator to rule while he plays its protector and serves as figurehead.
This may be the only kind of "president" we Americans are allowed to have from now on, unless we identify and challenge the real American emperor and come up with ways to prevent such things as trivially-based, politically motivated impeachment and stolen elections in the future.
Since the various forms of mainstream media are owned by the same ruling corporations Bush now protects, Bill Greider's question is still relevant. Bush and his corporate cronies may know the identity of the real American emperor, today's closet dictator. However, in the interest of keeping democracy alive, who will tell the people?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
You say the recession couldn't have happened in two months.. I say it had been building up prior to Bush's selection.
As for Iraq, read what 12 year Marine veteran Scott Riker has to say.
So we agree then? The recession was building BEFORE the election? That would have been when Clinton was President? Which all goes back to what Kieran said right?
I don't think that any party can be responsible for the economy. The economy is too complex and independant to ever be pinned down like that.
Which is pretty much where we started. Economic cycles are not necessarily dependent upon or related to which party is holding office at the time the pundits announce an expansion or recession.
As for Riker, did a google search and didn't turn up anything. I'd check it out if I knew where to start looking.
OTOH, I still have what I feel are reliable sources in the business of Reconnaissance. I've pretty much formed my opinion from what they have told me. Time will tell.
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
Time usually does tell. We'll see who was right and who was wrong by and by. No point in getting all in a fuss about it now.
-
Comrade 10Bears, you, and your above quoted "economic experts"(Gore Vidal??? lol), are funny as hell............
Cabby
-
cabby your not having the effect you think you are.
-
gore vidal ?? is that communist still alive??
-
Originally posted by john9001
gore vidal ?? is that communist still alive??
No, john, he's dead but he's been freeze dried so he looks entirely lifelike and only weighs twelve pounds. He's owned by a former carnival barker who takes him on the lecture circuit at all major Universities, sets him up at the podium and plays tapes of his old speeches before packed houses of leftist college students.
Two things are really bizarre, tho- 1) Nobody realizes he's dead and 2) during the Q & A segment after his speech his recorded answers actually make more sense than his answers did when he was alive.
-
ZZzzzz
-
Sorry Scott Ritter.. makes an excellent argument.. can't find the article right now but he's someone who knows quite a bit about Iraq weapons programe. In any case it won't change your mind so why bother.
Enjoy your Sunday.
-
10Bears,
Corporations have the same legal status as an individual citizen. They can sue and be sued. Their profits are taxed just like those of individuals. The corporate boards that run them have an obligation to protect the interests of their shareholders.
If they commit acts that are illegal while protecting those interests they should be punished by the legal system. Your post suggests, however, that you find their use of media and public relations campaigns to defend their interests to be objectionable. One of the foundations of our democracy is freedom of speech . Would you deny them that right? Or do you believe that the average citizen is so simple minded that they cannot discern the truth about these matters for themselves and must be protected from these "evil institutions?" How is corporate greed any different from governmental greed? Once the federal government is given the power to regulate health care and all the other aspects of American life you mentioned in your post who will protect us from government corruption and incompetence?
I prefer to keep things as they are. If the heads of Enron have broken any existing law then arrest, try, convict and imprison them. Pass any laws that are needed to correct the situation. But please remember that our democratic freedoms cannot be selectively applied.
Regards, Shuckins
-
10Bears,
Oh...by the way. I do not totally discount the quotes you used to refer to the "american emperor." There is some truth to what these authors say. But I do not accept what they say in totality because they have their own political agendas. I take their statements with a grain of salt.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
...In any case it won't change your mind so why bother.
Enjoy your Sunday.
Nor, I suspect, would any argument or "proof" change your mind, eh? ;)
Time will tell.
"And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be." (Desiderata)
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
(Macbeth V.v. 19-28)
I'm having a great Sunday, hope yours is as well. :D
-
What does "Desiderata" mean?
Sorry...
-
I believe Bill Clinton... I mean... how could you doubt him? Has he ever lied...?
-
It'll be the same deal when the current liar, I mean, president leaves office. When the next huckster, I mean, president, comes in everyone here will be pissing and moaning all over again.
Jesus, don't you people get it? They're all liars and crooks. You're not electing the best man for the job, you're choosing the lesser of two evils. At best you can realistically hope whoever you elect doesn't immediately take the country down the toejamter. Then in 4 years, we can put another idiot in office and reverse gears to bring the bs back to the other end of the Screw-o-meter.
-
Bill Clinton was the sorryiest excuse for a president this country ever had. The fact that he was re-elected instills fear and doubt in my mind over the population of this country. I use to think I was the normal one (with my conservative and fundamental views).
-
Bush got the lowest IQ, the states ever got in a president
:D
-
Desiderata means something desired as essential.
Check it out here. When I get all up tight, I read it to relax. YMMV.
Desiderata (http://www.secretoflife.com/desiderata.html)
-
I guess you dont own a gun then.
:D
-
What is existentionalism and vitalism?
-
I am really impressed by William Jefferson, but wait! What did Hillary Say?:rolleyes:
-
gore friggin vidal! sheesh.... all that roadkill and you are quoting...... gore friggin vidal!
Allways vote for whoever would take the least of your freedoms away.. That means don't vote for democrats or the wacko fringe parties except in very rare instances. It is ok to vote libertarian unless doing so would help elect a democrat... you aren't sending any message except that you don't care if a democrat is elected. democrats take that as unilateral support.
Never vote to raise taxes or start new ones no matter how many children are claimed to be saved by such a tax. Never vote to take away someone elses freedoms.... they will just get to you that much sooner... Vote for anything that will bust up a govenment program. Take the constitution at face value.
lazs
-
Ya know Laz, I am really looking forward to meeting you. Have you ever thought of writing an editorial column for a major news paper?
You'd be great.
Cya at the con!
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Bush got the lowest IQ, the states ever got in a president
:D
nice grammer... 8th grade was pretty tough huh?:D
of course, my dutch sucks..
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
nice grammer... 8th grade was pretty tough huh?:D
If English were Bug's 1st language I would agree with you. How many languages can you speak or write????
:rolleyes:
-
Gephardt recently said, figuratively wringing his hands and grinning, that the demos would gain a certian number of house seats for every certian number of points the Dow drops.
Knowing that, which party wants the economy to tank?
regarding languages, deux.