PD, you need to check your facts instead of going straight to the "it's a conspiracy". Clinton did take out the short term bonds, knowing that they would come due on the next Pres. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Hilary planned on running for Pres for at least one term after Bill, so he didn't care who the bonds came due on. He just wanted him-self to look good. Every Pres wants to make a lasting good impression on history, it's just the way that they go about trying to do it that bugs me.[/b][/quote]
Mr. Carrie, I'm sorry, Mrs. Carrie posted nothing worthy of checking facts over. Even if I did "check facts", it's very unlikely I would get them from the same radio frequency or newsletter from Idaho that y'all seem to. Besides, I'm hot on the trail of proving an even more plausible theory - that Elvis is alive and living in Area 51 as Tupac's domestic partner.

I understand that it's a free country and you have the right to believe anything you want - not even the Republican Right has proposed an amendment to abolish stupid (they need the votes). But gimme a break, huh?

If she had limited the allegations to manipulation of the markets to create a boom for political purposes, she might have actually fooled somebody into taking it seriously. She tipped her hand when it went off into the "deliberately wanted his successor to fail" malarkey. That kind of stupidity - like "Bush was behind 9/11", "Johnson assassinated Kennedy", "All liberals are traitors", "all conservatives are fascists" tripe plays well with mindless haters who want an opportunity to say "Amen" to preprogrammed sound bytes that substitute for the thoughts they are either discomforted by (or incapbable of forming).

It also may very well qualify as one of the outright idiotic things I've seen posted on Oprano - and I say that even after Torone* entered the thread. :D

(*You doing okay, old man?)

I don;t know if I'm gonna vote for Bush....maybe I just go get drunk instead....but I won't vote for Democrats...

Mr. Carrie, I'm sorry, Mrs. Carrie posted nothing worthy of checking facts over. Even if I did "check facts", it's very unlikely I would get them from the same radio frequency or newsletter from Idaho that y'all seem to. Besides, I'm hot on the trail of proving an even more plausible theory - that Elvis is alive and living in Area 51 as Tupac's domestic partner.

I understand that it's a free country and you have the right to believe anything you want - not even the Republican Right has proposed an amendment to abolish stupid (they need the votes). But gimme a break, huh?

If she had limited the allegations to manipulation of the markets to create a boom for political purposes, she might have actually fooled somebody into taking it seriously. She tipped her hand when it went off into the "deliberately wanted his successor to fail" malarkey. That kind of stupidity - like "Bush was behind 9/11", "Johnson assassinated Kennedy", "All liberals are traitors", "all conservatives are fascists" tripe plays well with mindless haters who want an opportunity to say "Amen" to preprogrammed sound bytes that substitute for the thoughts they are either discomforted by (or incapbable of forming).

It also may very well qualify as one of the outright idiotic things I've seen posted on Oprano - and I say that even after Torone* entered the thread. :D

(*You doing okay, old man?)[/quote]


You don't need to get it from any radio frequency. It is a matter of public record that Pres. Clinton signed for the short term bonds. He isn't a fool, he knew exactly what he was doing. He made a calculated move to boost the economy, and at the same time make himself look better than the next guy, so to speak.

Okay PD, let's take the rhetoric out of it, shall we?

1. Did or did not Clinton introduce short-term, 10-year bonds during his time in office?
2. Did or did not those bonds come to maturity during Bush's time in office?

My answer to both is yes.
And regardless of the reasoning behind it, those bonds' maturity caused a downturn in the economy.

Mr. Carrie, I don't dispute the FACTS.

Bill Clinton is a politician. He did some things to get the economy going, and to make himself look good. Holy fucking politician, batboy!!

What a shocking, disgusting thing. He should have avoided attempting to make himself look good, in the way the faux Texan currently occupying the office has over the tax cuts has, right? And while you're at it, do you want to compare the numbers "due" during the term of the next guy (or his grandson) between the current deficit and some short-term bonds?. No ... I didn't think so.

Now, I realize that there is a certain element who read some diabolical purpose into the fact that Bill Clinton draws breath. There are people on the left in this country who think the same way about George Bush. In other words, there are morons on both sides of every issue.

When you go beyond the facts and theorize about Clinton's "deliberate attempt to make the next President look bad to ensure his legacy" you have found the moron line, and smashed through it with flying colors.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 11 2003, 12:06 AM

Mrs. Carrie, as I said before - you tipped the deck you are playing with in your initial post - and they are crazy 8's. So calling on ME to take the rhetoric out of it is absurd.

The bonds are not the only cause of the downturn in the economy. Sure, it's the only one you can hang on Clinton - but gimme a break, huh?

At a UK sportsbook (Bet 365), the democrats were recently 6/4 (+150) underdogs to win the 2004 election and the republicans were 1/2 (-200)

But in the past few weeks the odds for the democrats have improved to 5/4 (+125).

Personally, I think that as the situation in Iraq gets worse and as the economy starts to go down again, Bush's approval rating will get lower and he will lose in 2004.

I like the getting drunk idea

:bdance: :stout: :hic:

Mrs. Carrie, as I said before - you tipped the deck you are playing with in your initial post - and they are crazy 8's. So calling on ME to take the rhetoric out of it is absurd.

The bonds are not the only cause of the downturn in the economy. Sure, it's the only one you can hang on Clinton - but gimme a break, huh?[/b][/quote]
PD I enjoy lively debates with you, knowing darn well that we keep it separate from anything else.
But the "moron" and Confucyanistic "Ms. Carrie" labels are getting tiring and offensive. It seems that I am the only one keeping it separate here.

If you want to debate my opinions, that's fine. You want to debate my facts, that's fine. I'm all for it.

But the buck stops with the personal name-calling.
You don't see me sitting here repeatedly calling *you* a moron, or saying that you've smashed through the moron border with flying colors... yet you feel fine spewing that shit at me.

Kinda says something, I think.
I'll see you in another thread when you're done throwing labels around and inferring that I am stupid for my opinions.

Oh, and for your statistical knowledge, I am not a Republican, nor am I Christian. So stuff that in your pre-conceived notion pipe and smoke it.

I have suspected for a long time that the support for Bush was as shallow as it was for his father.

A lot will depend on who the Democrats nominate, and whether they close ranks after the primaries.

A lot will also depend on how much Bush can keep the reigns on the neoconservatives in Congress, particularly the folks in the House - which may draw him criticism from his base on the far right. That could be a tough juggling act if things stay close - because pandering to the far right too much will alienate more of the center, who I think are far more cynical about his so-called compassionate conservatism; and it will motivate the left even more.

A lot will depend on the economy. A lot will depend on the war - and while those who believe that they have a better-than-average understanding of real politik may not believe it, Joe Schmo out on the street is just as likely to be feeling mislead and manipulated as he is glad we did what we did.

At this point in time, I think it is too close to call - although if you forced me to make a choice I think he'd win again, in just as much of a squeaker as last time. There is, however, a lot of time between now and the election - and if I were him, I think I'd be very jealous of a parlimentary leader who could call a snap election right about now.

PD I enjoy lively debates with you, knowing darn well that we keep it separate from anything else.
But the "moron" and Confucyanistic "Ms. Carrie" labels are getting tiring and offensive. It seems that I am the only one keeping it separate here.

If you want to debate my opinions, that's fine. You want to debate my facts, that's fine. I'm all for it.

But the buck stops with the personal name-calling.
You don't see me sitting here repeatedly calling *you* a moron, or saying that you've smashed through the moron border with flying colors... yet you feel fine spewing that shit at me.

Kinda says something, I think.
I'll see you in another thread when you're done throwing labels around and inferring that I am stupid for my opinions.

Oh, and for your statistical knowledge, I am not a Republican, nor am I Christian. So stuff that in your pre-conceived notion pipe and smoke it.[/b][/quote]
First of all, you do know that I most strongly believe in this Pearl of KK'sSecond, I ain't calling ANYONE Hubby - so Mr. and Mrs. Carrie seemed appropriate. Sorry if you took offense at it.

Carrie, you took the obvious - Clinton approved the bonds and wanted to take credit for the economy - and spun it to the absurd conclusion that it was a deliberate attempt by Clinton to make his successor look bad. I did not say a single thing to you that I would not have said to anyone on GFY who concluded that Bush allowed 9/11 in order to garner profits for his oil interests or for Haliburton. I consider the conclusion you reached/allegation you made cut from the exact same cloth, and treated it with the dignity that I thnk it deserved.

I know fully well you aren't a Republican - and I never gave your religious afiliation a thought.