[dodo_nutter]

I live across the pond and over here almost no-one can understand why you put up having your country run by an obviously stupid and corrupt man (and his administration who are corrupt but defiantly not stupid)

There was a huge uproar over here when the no WMD news came about and i think the fact that Tony Blair went to war when the majority of the population didn't want to will mean he will have a tough time Keeping his party in power at the next election.

Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and kicked out their leaders and installed what are effectively puppet rulers and funnily enough that black substance oil keeps getting mentioned. Isn't it obvious that half (if not much more) of the reason that those countries were "liberated" was for said black stuff?

Not that i can complain too much as Blair does a very good impression of a female dog owned by Bush.

Just wondered if anyone could enlighten me?

[dcolton]

Doesn't sound like you want to be enlightened.

[dodo_nutter]

Sorry did put it a little strongly. I do want to know because i generally only hear bad things (as you can see) I read one thread about why people vote for bush (in the lounge) after it got locked and i wanted to continue a similar thread in the appropriate forum.

Im open to having my views changed even if that might be difficult.

--Dodo

[Spliffdaddy]

Mostly,we keep Dubya around just to piss off the folks across the pond.

Seriously though....you must have *really* thought we were crazy after re-electing Clinton.

[typoon]

Originally posted by dodo_nutter:
I live across the pond and over here almost no-one can understand why you put up having your country run by an obviously stupid and corrupt man (and his administration who are corrupt but defiantly not stupid)

There was a huge uproar over here when the no WMD news came about and i think the fact that Tony Blair went to war when the majority of the population didn't want to will mean he will have a tough time Keeping his party in power at the next election.

Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and kicked out their leaders and installed what are effectively puppet rulers and funnily enough that black substance oil keeps getting mentioned. Isn't it obvious that half (if not much more) of the reason that those countries were "liberated" was for said black stuff?

Not that i can complain too much as Blair does a very good impression of a female dog owned by Bush.

Just wondered if anyone could enlighten me?

Yes Bush invaded Afghanistan because they were harbouring Bin Ladin therefore making them a fair target. Iraq was suspected of having WMD which haven't been found in mass quantity yet they still have found some. Iraq's gov't I wouldn't call a puppet Gov't they are calling the shots there. Also Bush had the testicular fortitude to stand up to terrorists unlike many of the democrats and there buddies in the EU.

Why do I put up with Bush. there are a few reasons

1. whether he is right or wrong he stand for what he believes in. Kerry doesn't know what he stands for and keeps changing his position

2. We haven't been attacked yet since 9/11 and because of that whether his administration is or isn't doing a good job on terrorism if we haven't been attacked again in my book he is. I believe he will do the best job fighting terrorism.

3. Our economy is doing better than when he took office. By many economists called one of the best economies in the past 20 years.

There are a few more I'm not able to think of at the moment but these 3 are the three main reasons I'm still for President Bush, and why I WILL be voting for him again.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by typoon:
Yes Bush invaded Afghanistan because they were harbouring Bin Ladin therefore making them a fair target. Iraq was suspected of having WMD which haven't been found in mass quantity yet they still have found some. Iraq's gov't I wouldn't call a puppet Gov't they are calling the shots there. Also Bush had the testicular fortitude to stand up to terrorists unlike many of the democrats and there buddies in the EU.

Why do I put up with Bush. there are a few reasons

1. whether he is right or wrong he stand for what he believes in. Kerry doesn't know what he stands for and keeps changing his position

2. We haven't been attacked yet since 9/11 and because of that whether his administration is or isn't doing a good job on terrorism if we haven't been attacked again in my book he is. I believe he will do the best job fighting terrorism.

3. Our economy is doing better than when he took office. By many economists called one of the best economies in the past 20 years.

There are a few more I'm not able to think of at the moment but these 3 are the three main reasons I'm still for President Bush, and why I WILL be voting for him again.

[OldManMac]

We have to put up with him for a few more months. Change is on the way.

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
1. whether he is right or wrong he stand for what he believes in. Kerry doesn't know what he stands for and keeps changing his position

2. We haven't been attacked yet since 9/11 and because of that whether his administration is or isn't doing a good job on terrorism if we haven't been attacked again in my book he is. I believe he will do the best job fighting terrorism.

3. Our economy is doing better than when he took office. By many economists called one of the best economies in the past 20 years.

1. So Bush is still against nationbuilding? I think this flip flopping claim has been debunked often enough and at least it's been shown that Bush him self changes opinion as often as Kerry does.

2. How often have you been attacked a foreign entity since you came independent?

3. Care to show something to back that claim up? Because most economists say that 9/11 hurt the world economy pretty badly and if that still is the best economy ever then they should go back to school. But could you please show me anything that backs that claim up?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
We have to put up with him for a few more months. Change is on the way.

Doubtful...but optimism does help to keep you healthy. Just prepare yourself for the let down

[dodo_nutter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Mostly,we keep Dubya around just to piss off the folks across the pond.

Seriously though....you must have *really* thought we were crazy after re-electing Clinton.

Hehehe, meh Clinton was entertaining, Watching Bush is just like watching one of those funny home video shows

Typoon, i understand what your saying but i don't believe what you say about the WMDs. Im not saying this is what happened but you could say that a mobile medical research truck that had the ability to deal with viral and chemical agents was a biological and chemical weapons truck and therefore proof of WMDs. What im saying is there has been sketchy proof at that of WMD and a government (mine included) who is desperately looking for proof of WMD capability is going to try and say anything that even has tenuous links with warfare is proof that they exist. No warehouses of ICBMs or fields of tanks full of chemical warfare agents have been found.

Your comment about not being attacked since 11th September is true and that is probably due to the fact that security has increased a huge amount over there (as well as here) but another terrorist attack will happen in the states and it will happen here in the UK. Its not a matter of if but when. We have pissed enough people off in the world that a hell of a lot of people hate us.

PS. Why was everyone so shocked about 11th September? I know it was a huge even and im not dishonoring those who died but it was enevitable some terrorist was going to attack the states. We have been putting up with the IRA for years although that threat is mostly over now. Dont have to be scared of being blown up if you go shopping in London!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dodo_nutter:
I live across the pond and over here almost no-one can understand why you put up having your country run by an obviously stupid and corrupt man (and his administration who are corrupt but defiantly not stupid)

There was a huge uproar over here when the no WMD news came about and i think the fact that Tony Blair went to war when the majority of the population didn't want to will mean he will have a tough time Keeping his party in power at the next election.

Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and kicked out their leaders and installed what are effectively puppet rulers and funnily enough that black substance oil keeps getting mentioned. Isn't it obvious that half (if not much more) of the reason that those countries were "liberated" was for said black stuff?

Not that i can complain too much as Blair does a very good impression of a female dog owned by Bush.

Just wondered if anyone could enlighten me?

the last election was close, which should let you know that of those who bothered to vote, over half of them OPPOSED Bush as president, and we are even more certain of that after four years. I think its easy to see the strident jingoists and war mongering americans and think they represent ALL americans but they do not.

You also have to realize that even those who voted for Bush voted for a platform that evaporated once he was in office. Bush campaigned on not being a nation-builder (euphemism for being an isolationist globally), but as we see, the opposite goal is being attempted.

As for us "putting up with" Bush, the only recourse we have is to vote him out, which many of us intend to do in November. Or, we could impeach him, but with congress in his party, that's unlikely, even if deserved.

My apologies to those of you outside america...I do not support this president nor his policies. I find them foolhardy and dangerous and I think they have contributed to increased threats of terrorism rather than decreased.

You'll find a majority of posters on boards like this will be the shrill "with us or against us" or those who label anyone disagreeing with Bush policy as "saddam sympathizers", etc.

But they do not reflect accurately the makeup of citizens in general in this country. There is a general impression that many who voted Bush in 2000 are outraged by the actions of his administration, and will be voting differently.

What you should pay attention to is how draconian are the restrainst the Bush administration puts on the truth (military caskets being one example), stonewalling and attempting to disrupt the 9/11 commission....that sort of thing...requiring attendees to their "rallies" to sign loyalty oaths. Softball questions to Bush or Cheney. Public attacks of whistleblowers, outing of CIA agents...etc.....and you should conclude that they have something to hide or something they wish to control.

Kerry, on the other hand, is drawing tens of thousands of people at his rallies around the country...photos show virtual seas of crowds extending as far as the eye can see.
But Bush rallies can be contained in small, controlled, television audience size rooms, where the questions are approved ahead of time, etc.

Americans can be misled, and some willling allow themselves to be, But I believe the american spirit is going to overcome the present administration as a moral imperative.

[Troll]

Originally posted by typoon:
1. whether he is right or wrong he stand for what he believes in. Kerry doesn't know what he stands for and keeps changing his position

Why is that an asset? I have a friend who always stands up for what she believes in. We told her for about an hour straight that the Sphinx was a statue in Egypt not a muscle in her arse and she refused to believe us. On your logic, she'd make a good leader.

There's a letter in this week's Time Magazine from a Minnesotan. Some bits from it that explain my point:

I wasn't going to vote for Kerry because of his reputation for flip-flopping. But if it becomes evident you have made the wrong decision, it's time to flip-flop. When Kerry's eyes were opened to what was happening in Vietnam, he opposed the war he had volunteered to fight in. I was taken by the lies regarding the dangers posed by Iraq ... I now realize we Americans were deceived by our President and Vice President. There is no virtue in blind, stupid stubborness (neither mine nor the President's), no wisdom in sticking to an untenable position. I am flip-flopping to support Kerry.

-Stewart Perry
Wayzata, Minnesota

Originally posted by typoon:
2. We haven't been attacked yet since 9/11 and because of that whether his administration is or isn't doing a good job on terrorism if we haven't been attacked again in my book he is. I believe he will do the best job fighting terrorism.

What do you mean you haven't been attacked by terrorists again since 9/11? Did you miss the anthrax attacks? How 'bout the sniper attacks? You're obviously ignoring the civilians and US soldiers being killed by terrorists every day in Iraq. What about the bombs against US embassied in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere? I suppose those weren't aimed at Americans? Besides, the biggest terrorist attacks ever in the history of the world took place on Bush's shift in the United States. Isn't it a bit arbitrary to say, "Well, we only count from after 9/11?"

Originally posted by typoon:
3. Our economy is doing better than when he took office. By many economists called one of the best economies in the past 20 years.

The economy is doing better than when Bush took office? What figures are you using there? Bigger national debt, higher unemployment, dollar has lost how much since he came in. Sure, those are maybe not the best indicators either, but I think you're extremely bold to say the US economy in 2004 is better than it was in 2000. Extremely bold!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Doubtful...but optimism does help to keep you healthy. Just prepare yourself for the let down

I hope you remember that, yourself. Going from past experience, when Pappy was a one-termer, You guys didn't take failure very well...

If I were you, I'd start practicing how to deal with failure. Since you guys have put yourself to a great height of hubris in your arrogance...I think your fall will be that much harder.

[dodo_nutter]

Reply to post by Lerkfish: (too long to quote!)


I went over to San Francisco a couple of Xmases ago and i have to say all the people i met there didn't support bush but apparently the west coast is quite liberal or so i have been told.

I also think your right when you say Bush's actions will increase terrorism rather than stop it...you can't control the entire half of the world who hates you (or can you )

I think a problem with humans is individually they are quite clever (usually!) but as a whole they are stupid and open to manipulation by the media and government when they say things that are blatantly untrue. Oh well thats life i suppose

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I hope you remember that, yourself. Going from past experience, when Pappy was a one-termer, You guys didn't take failure very well...

If I were you, I'd start practicing how to deal with failure. Since you guys have put yourself to a great height of hubris in your arrogance...I think your fall will be that much harder.

Yeah, it did hurt quite a bit when daddy lost! You know, I was actually working for the RNC at that time as a fundraiser (college job...fancy term for telemarketer). I knew we lost when the scripts changed dramatically.

[dcolton]

think a problem with humans is individually they are quite clever (usually!) but as a whole they are stupid and open to manipulation by the media and government when they say things that are blatantly untrue.

Damn liberal media!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dodo_nutter:
I live across the pond and over here almost no-one can understand why you put up having your country run by an obviously stupid and corrupt man (and his administration who are corrupt but defiantly not stupid)

There was a huge uproar over here when the no WMD news came about and i think the fact that Tony Blair went to war when the majority of the population didn't want to will mean he will have a tough time Keeping his party in power at the next election.

Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and kicked out their leaders and installed what are effectively puppet rulers and funnily enough that black substance oil keeps getting mentioned. Isn't it obvious that half (if not much more) of the reason that those countries were "liberated" was for said black stuff?

Not that i can complain too much as Blair does a very good impression of a female dog owned by Bush.

Just wondered if anyone could enlighten me?

It should be obvious that we are in an election at the moment. Lots of Americans dislike Bush, or at least the policies he has followed. Lots of Americans like Bush or like the policies he has followed. Some Americans dislike Bush personally, but like the policies he has followed, and others personally like Bush but dislike the policies he has followed. Others dislike both Bush and the policies he has followed, but think that on balance he and/or his policies are better than the alternative offered by the other party.

Any of these possibilities answer your question. They will all play a part in how the decision unfolds in November. That's part of the mystery of a democracy (or rather, a Republic). However, he will be president at least until early January next year because the US has fixed terms of office. Prime Ministers don't call elections here.

Incidentally, why do you guys put up with Blair if you dislike him so? Unlike the US, you don't have fixed terms. You could force an election any time you like wheras Americans only hold elections on fixed dates announced in advance. Could it perhaps be that some of the considerations I have outlined above might also apply in the UK?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Why is that an asset? I have a friend who always stands up for what she believes in. We told her for about an hour straight that the Sphinx was a statue in Egypt not a muscle in her arse and she refused to believe us. On your logic, she'd make a good leader.

ROFLMAO!

[typoon]

Originally posted by Logic:
1. So Bush is still against nationbuilding? I think this flip flopping claim has been debunked often enough and at least it's been shown that Bush him self changes opinion as often as Kerry does.

2. How often have you been attacked a foreign entity since you came independent?

3. Care to show something to back that claim up? Because most economists say that 9/11 hurt the world economy pretty badly and if that still is the best economy ever then they should go back to school. But could you please show me anything that backs that claim up?

1. Nation building How is he nation building? the Iraqi Gov't is running Iraq, and Afghanistan has it's own gov't

2 Let's see. Pearl Harbour, WTC 1993, 9/11

3.http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040727/D843769O0.html

Consumer confidence rose for the fourth straight month in July thanks to steady improvements in the job market, the Conference Board reported Tuesday, putting the indicator at a two-year high.

The New York-based research group reported that its index for consumer confidence rose to 106.1 in July, up from 102.8 in June and well ahead of the figure of 102.0 that investors had been expecting. It was the highest level for the indicator since June 2002.


Something that backs up my claims.

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
1. Nation building How is he nation building? the Iraqi Gov't is running Iraq, and Afghanistan has it's own gov't

What about all the money the Bush admin has poured into both those countries to rebuild them?

2 Let's see. Pearl Harbour, WTC 1993, 9/11

So in a couple of hundred years you've had three attacks. And you are happy that no attack has happened since 9/11 BTW, how many times has the US attacked someone else in that same timeframe?

3.http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040727/D843769O0.html

Consumer confidence rose for the fourth straight month in July thanks to steady improvements in the job market, the Conference Board reported Tuesday, putting the indicator at a two-year high.

The New York-based research group reported that its index for consumer confidence rose to 106.1 in July, up from 102.8 in June and well ahead of the figure of 102.0 that investors had been expecting. It was the highest level for the indicator since June 2002.


Something that backs up my claims.

Growth has nothing to do with being the best economy ever. After every recession there is growth. That doesn't mean that the economy is good, only that it is getting better.

And consumer confidence is another such thing. Consumers were afraid after 9/11 and money probably went to safer investments. Now people have realised that those fears were unwarranted and have started spending again. Again, that has nothing to do with the economy being the best ever.

[Troll]

Originally posted by typoon:
1. Nation building How is he nation building? the Iraqi Gov't is running Iraq, and Afghanistan has it's own gov't

[Troll]

Originally posted by typoon:
Something that backs up my claims.

Uh no! Where's the comparison with the economy pre-Bush? Your claim was that the economy is doing better now than when Bush took office! All your links claim is tha the economy is doing better now than it was earlier in Bush's term.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Troll:
Uh no! Where's the comparison with the economy pre-Bush? Your claim was that the economy is doing better now than when Bush took office! All your links claim is tha the economy is doing better now than it was earlier in Bush's term.

He inherited a recession that had just started after he took office. The economy was on it's way down before he took over.

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
He inherited a recession that had just started after he took office. The economy was on it's way down before he took over.

Well it's sort of a rule in economic that for the economy to go up it must first go down. 2 steps forward, one step back.

[Capt.McDuff]

My taxes are lower. Good enough for me.

[Troll]

Originally posted by typoon:
He inherited a recession that had just started after he took office. The economy was on it's way down before he took over.

You know what tautology is right?

The recession started after he took office / the economy was on its (note spelling) way down before he took over.

You still haven't answered my question: what are you using to measure the economy. What indicators show the economy was on its way down before he took over?

[Buckaroo]

Originally posted by KarlG:
We have to put up with him for a few more months. Change is on the way.

Wrong.


We don't want Stab our soldiers in the back Kerry in office. He'll have us all slaves to the UN.

[Capt.McDuff]

Or Kerry will sit there and accuse all of them of abusing prisoners.

[Troll]

A recession is defined as 2 or more quarters of negative GDP growth. GDP growth was negative for only one quarter during Clinton's shift and in his last quarter in office, it was positive. Here's a graph. Why do you say the economy was shot when Clinton took over? In terms of a comparison, the graph pretty decently rebutts your allegation that the economy is better today than under Clinton.

Bigger Version

Hey, three recessions in recent history and they happened each time there was a Republican at the helm.

[Zimphire]

Troll you are living up to your name. The economy has very little to do with the president.

Clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom in the 90s. He just road the wav.

I put up with Bush, because it was better than putting up with Gore.

I'll be putting up with Bush after 2004 because it is better than putting up with Kerry.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by typoon:
He inherited a recession that had just started after he took office. The economy was on it's way down before he took over.

Indeed. Such drop STARTED in Clinton's terms. Not that I am blaming him. I am not.

Not to mention that RECESSIONS HAPPEN in a STEADY economy.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The economy has very little to do with the president.

Not according to Typoon who says he is going to vote for Bush as President is because the economy is better now than it was under Clinton. Maybe you want to follow the argument before hitting reply.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed. Such drop STARTED in Clinton's terms.

No it didn't. Look at the graph. Growth in Clinton's last term!!! Growth in 31 of 32 quarters he was in office for. Compared with growth in 6 of the 9 quarters Bush has been in office for. Fact is, every time there's a Republican President, there's a recession. This is no surprise, everyone knows the democrats are better at running the economy.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by dodo_nutter:
Reply to post by Lerkfish: (too long to quote!)


I went over to San Francisco a couple of Xmases ago and i have to say all the people i met there didn't support bush but apparently the west coast is quite liberal or so i have been told.

[...]

I think a problem with humans is individually they are quite clever (usually!) but as a whole they are stupid and open to manipulation by the media and government when they say things that are blatantly untrue. Oh well thats life i suppose

Well, that's to be seen: are they really so clever individually? and so stupid collectively?

For example, manipulation by the media (in the meaning of the stupid advertisement industry, mainly) goes from the individual to the collective, probably by substituting the originary, mainly qualitative collective sense of the person with something merely quantifiable through monetary exchange (albeit mainly remaining at the subliminal level, of course): to say it briefly, instead of gathering together in order to build a better world for all, people today tend to go after status symbols (often inconsciously), such as fashion objects, cars, and so on. Anyway, the "real" values seem to be more and more confined into the private sphere, with the public one subsequently dichotomised into nothingness, essentially.

Today's individual "cleverness" seems to be rather an instrumental one, in order to survive with the least possible pain in such a sold-out world.

... And politicians, obviously, tend to capitalise on this lack of positive orientation in the general populace - for that matter, both those of the right and left, even if the righties certainly seem to be more void of constructive attitudes.

[Capt.McDuff]

Originally posted by Troll:
No it didn't. Look at the graph. Growth in Clinton's last term!!! Growth in 31 of 32 quarters he was in office for. Compared with growth in 6 of the 9 quarters Bush has been in office for. Fact is, every time there's a Republican President, there's a recession. This is no surprise, everyone knows the democrats are better at running the economy.

Because we all know there's a SEKRET EKINEMEE dial that the President has sole control over

Pick your numbers, pick 'yo numbers. The GDP is higher now than at anytime in the Clinton Administrations, therefore, the economy is better.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by typoon:
1. whether he is right or wrong he stand for what he believes in.

Oh whoopee fu<kin' doo! Hitler, Mussolini, Genghis Khan and the pillsbury doughboy all "stand" for what they believed in. WTF is that? What is so fu<king noble about standing up for what you believe in? Any moron can do that. Please.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yeah, it did hurt quite a bit when daddy lost! You know, I was actually working for the RNC at that time as a fundraiser (college job...fancy term for telemarketer). I knew we lost when the scripts changed dramatically.

that explains a great deal.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Not according to Typoon who says he is going to vote for Bush as President is because the economy is better now than it was under Clinton. Maybe you want to follow the argument before hitting reply.

LAWL Troll I don't care WHAT Typoon said. It has nothing to do with following the argument.

Get a grip.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by typoon:
1. whether he is right or wrong he stand for what he believes in. Kerry doesn't know what he stands for and keeps changing his position

I would say that being stubborn isn't that admirable. Regardless, Bush changes his position on things, too...

Originally posted by typoon:
2. We haven't been attacked yet since 9/11 and because of that whether his administration is or isn't doing a good job on terrorism if we haven't been attacked again in my book he is. I believe he will do the best job fighting terrorism.

I'm not sure why this is a point...other than you perhaps being ignorant.

Originally posted by typoon:
3. Our economy is doing better than when he took office. By many economists called one of the best economies in the past 20 years.

Ummm...our economy is not doing better. There's a huge deficit, not to mention quite prevalent unemployment numbers.

Originally posted by typoon:
There are a few more I'm not able to think of at the moment but these 3 are the three main reasons I'm still for President Bush, and why I WILL be voting for him again.

Great reasons

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
No it didn't. Look at the graph. Growth in Clinton's last term!!! Growth in 31 of 32 quarters he was in office for. Compared with growth in 6 of the 9 quarters Bush has been in office for. Fact is, every time there's a Republican President, there's a recession. This is no surprise, everyone knows the democrats are better at running the economy.

Troll the economy dropped in in 99/00 here in the US. There was a big "recession" scare. And it happened. This was WELL BEFORE BUSH took office.

A good economy Rises and falls Troll. It never stays the same.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL Troll I don't care WHAT Typoon said. It has nothing to do with following the argument.

Get a grip.

You accused me of trolling when what I was doing was debating a specific point with Typoon. That point being whether the economy is better now than it was under Clinton. The only way you could have accused me of trolling is if you weren't following the argument.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
Pick your numbers, pick 'yo numbers. The GDP is higher now than at anytime in the Clinton Administrations, therefore, the economy is better.

But, but, but

[KaBlooey]

Just a few of Bush's flip-flops

[voyageur]

1. whether he is right or wrong he stand for what he believes in. Kerry doesn't know what he stands for and keeps changing his position

I'm surprised when I hear people say Kerry doesn't know what he stands for. He's been a senator of the state I live in for many years now and has been quite consistent in standing up for environmental protection, civil rights and education.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Troll the economy dropped in in 99/00 here in the US. There was a big "recession" scare. And it happened. This was WELL BEFORE BUSH took office.

There's a graph there that I posted. It shows growth in the US economy. Where is the drop that happened WELL BEFORE BUSH that you are talking about?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Troll:
A recession is defined as 2 or more quarters of negative GDP growth. GDP growth was negative for only one quarter during Clinton's shift and in his last quarter in office, it was positive. Here's a graph. Why do you say the economy was shot when Clinton took over? In terms of a comparison, the graph pretty decently rebutts your allegation that the economy is better today than under Clinton.

Bigger Version

Hey, three recessions in recent history and they happened each time there was a Republican at the helm.

Interesting. What I'd be more interested in, though, is the following: inflation normalized GDP per capita. If possible, median and mode GDP per capita would be nice, too. If not, a trimmed mean (cut top and bottom 10% or so out of the figures, then divide what's left by the remaining population) should do.

For instance, the GDP going up by 2% means squat if the population increased 3% (ie the pie didn't get bigger as fast as the number of people splitting it up). Also of greater import than overall GDP, IMHO, are things like the size of the middle class, and how much of the pie an average person gets (not as compared to the wealthy, but as compared to what an average person got before).

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Just a few of Bush's flip-flops

A lot of those are phooey out of context and pure garbage. Take for instance

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]


...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT things.

The first he is basically saying terrorism is terrorism. That they both are terrorists and we be dealt with in this war on TERROR.

The next sentence he makes a statement saying that Saddam had no role in 9/11

That doesn't contradict what he said before.

There are a TON of discrepancies on that page of the like.

Sorry, try again with a page that is more concerned with credibility of their site, and less concerned with all out silliness.

[Zimphire]

Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change

* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.


Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.

Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.


Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%

* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.

Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease

* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton.

A few more tidbits:
* "2004 Will Be the U.S.'s Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years" ~ The Conference Board's revised forecast, December 2003.
* Manufacturing is at 20-year record highs.
* GDP for the second-half of 2003 grew an incredible 6 percent while inflation was held under 1 percent.
* Real private-sector GDP has expanded at a 5.3 percent annual rate since the Bush tax cuts were passed while in the prior six quarters private-sector GDP averaged only 2.5 percent.
* Foreign exports have been increasing and have actually doubled since six months ago.
* The Federal deficit is estimated to be $477 billion in 2004 but then drop to $362 billion for 2005. The current 2004 deficit is 4.2% of the GDP which makes it smaller, compared to the GDP, than what it was in the late '80s and early '90s.
* The stock markets (i.e. your pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s and college saving plans) have rebounded solidly and are approaching three-year highs.

Economically, things are looking good and getting better.

And so even though GWBush "wrecked" the economy, caused a long and deep recession and threw 4 gabzillion people out of work - in just two years GWBush was still able to keep the poverty rate LOWER than what Clinton had done in almost EIGHT years?
* And all of this IN SPITE OF 9-11, which annhialated one of America's most important financial centers.
* AND in spite of waging two major overseas wars to overthrow two terrorist regimes.
* AND in spite of completely revamping and reconstructing our national security and intelligence agencies to defend against constant domestic terrorist threats.
* And yet we STILL have (as the numbers show) a far BETTER economy after three years of GWBush than when he first took office.
* And, as shown above, GWBush has had a GREATER positive impact on the economy than what Clinton was able to accomplish in his first three years.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Interesting. What I'd be more interested in, though, is the following: inflation normalized GDP per capita. If possible, median and mode GDP per capita would be nice, too. If not, a trimmed mean (cut top and bottom 10% or so out of the figures, then divide what's left by the remaining population) should do.

I'd like to see those too actually. I keep asking them to show me why the economy is better now than it was under Clinton. The word "recession" came up which is why I posted the graph but I imagine the data could support either side. Still, I haven't seen anything from Typoon to back up his claim.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'd like to see those too actually. I keep asking them to show me why the economy is better now than it was under Clinton. The word "recession" came up which is why I posted the graph but I imagine the data could support either side. Still, I haven't seen anything from Typoon to back up his claim.

Troll fact is, the economy had started slumping in Clinton's term, and really took a dive shortly after (As was EXPECTED).

Bush was not in office long enough to do any damage.

I am not blaming this on Clinton. This was the computer industry , and over-inflated stocks busting.

Nothing more, nothing less.