Even on the other board whose name I won't mention, I said that Gore should NOT run and would NOT get the nomination. Anybody who wasn't intelligent enough to run on the Clinton fiscal record doesn't run the best campaign. I still remember his words at the Democratic National Convention which were almost exactly like "I'm not going to run on our record of prosperity of the past 8 years but run on what we will do in the future." HUH???? People KNOW how the last 8 years turned out and who was responsible for it, CLINTON!! They know that everytime the "fiscal conservative" pretendees (i.e. GOP) get into office, they BORROW and SPEND. And Gore also blew another chance during one of the debates when the moderator asked Gore if he thought Sapling was qualified to be president. He should have said NO! and basically said the guy's numbers don't add up, didn't even know what happened to the Byrd defendants (said everyone was going to be put to death which was inaccurate since one was not), etc. I want a Democratic candidate who will PUBLICLY say that Sapling has proven himself incompetent in trying to make policies, all of which have failed miserably. Basically, he should say that Sapling is simply not up to the job and has proven it by his countless mistakes during this term. He had made the fiscal situation of this country worse, made the environment worse, starts commissions to study issues and then rejects them when they don't come out his own way, doesn't understand that this country's principles are based upon EVIDENCE and PROOF being presented when making accusations, etc.. Thus, the Democrats need an aggressive candidate who will not be afraid to point out all of Sapling's failures. And IF Sapling dares to try to call the person as non-supportive of American's actions against terrorism, say that the American action is to point out when someone tries to take away freedoms by hiding behind the American flag.
Trying to rewrite history I see since you guys screwed up the economy >>Do you mean the paper tiger economy that was built on fraudulent IPO's where greedy investment bankers falsely/fraudulently inflated profit potential jumped ship when the price was sky high and left the little investors holding the bag? No, actually Clinton tried to prevent those scams by not letting consultants and accountants from the same Big 7 firms occupy both areas at their client companies. But Newtie and his gang of crooked incompetents passed bills over Clinton's vetoes that allowed such. BTW, what party have most of the con men been from who have presided over these scams (Kenneth Lay, Dick Cheney at Haliburton, etc.) 'Nuff said. The technology boom was overblown, but was not phony. What Clinton did correctly was to FORCE investment if you wanted tax breaks. Unlike the GOP that loves to give windfall tax breaks for NO commitment to actually invest the money in America's future. The GOP is TRULY the party of "something for nothing". >>Please tell me besides NAFTA, which only passed because of Republicans, what exactly is it that Clinton did to create such a great economy. ROTFLMAO!! Uh guy, I hate to tell you but you need to pick up a newpaper. First, NAFTA has proven to be a NON-EVENT. That is exactly what I said it would be, i.e. would neither hurt nor help the American economy to any extent. That is EXACTLY what the recently released study said -- it has been a MINOR event. Here is what Clinton did to turn around the Reagan/Bush disaster: 1) convinced financial markets that the deficit would be brought under control which brought interest rates down to very low levels even with a booming economy 2) tied tax breaks to INVESTMENT in new technologies, unlike the GOP that likes to give tax breaks to the "Persian Rug" crowd or the "baseball collectors" crowd 3) made the workplace more user friendly with the likes of minimum wage increases and the Family and Medical Leave Act 4) made the environment better which did NOT at all hurt the economy 5) took away the full writeoff of the 3 martini lunch, one of the biggest JOKES in business today etc., etc., etc. So, I would suggest you do your homework next time BEFORE you post. If you REALLY believe NAFTA was responsible for squat, you have a real breakthrough story. Because NO ONE else believes it!
Mr W is full of crap as usual >>The issue in debate over consultants operating with auditors had no effect on the demise of the Enron's of the world. In fact, it was the "independent" law firms operating in concert with the "independent" consultants that precipitated the crooks at Enron. Did Clinton propose anything to address this issue? No. You're full of crap. What has come out time and time again was that the consultant arms of accounting firms put pressure on the accounting arms of the same companies to make the books look as good as possible so that their consulting fees would be as high as possible. Pick up a paper because that has been widely dissiminated. >>While Clinton's policies were denounced by the American people at the polls in 1994 to an unprecedented degree, at no time did the Republican party hold 2/3 of the seats in the Senate, nor was Newt Gingrich ever a member of the US Senate. Uh, I hate to tell you, Sparky, but what happened in the 1998 elections. The elephant men got SWAMPED at the polls in the biggest loss by a non-White House party in the Senate in the 20th century. Also, Gingrich led the House fiasco, obviously you jerks had other people that had been bribed in the Senate. >>There is no indication that these "con men" gave a dime to either of these "third parties". There is evidence and it has been WIDELY disclosed that Enron gave 75% of their political money to the GOP, and most of the rest to local Democrats like K. Bentsen of Texas. Here is what Clinton did to turn around the Reagan/Bush disaster: 1) convinced financial markets that the deficit would be brought under control which brought interest rates down to very low levels even with a booming economy >>What do you mean "convinced" them? What did he do "point his finger" and "bite his lower lip"? That is so ridiculous, its a non-starter. No JERK, he laid out how the budget was going to become balanced by adding revenues and subtracting expenditures. I realize for the GOP, you guys don't know how to add and subtract, so for YOU , it probably is a non-starter. Take Math 101, DIMWIT! 2) tied tax breaks to INVESTMENT in new technologies, unlike the GOP that likes to give tax breaks to the "Persian Rug" crowd or the "baseball collectors" crowd >>I do give Clinton and the House Republicans/Senate credit for some of the investment tax credit schemes. VERY LITTLE credit goes to the GOP. They were forced into a corner to have taxes reduced in any way. BTW, how many elephant men supported the Budget & Reconcilliation Package of 1994 which started the return to fiscal responsibility. Oh, that's right the number was ****0*****. So much for YOUR revisionist history. >>3) made the workplace more user friendly with the likes of minimum wage increases and the Family and Medical Leave Act Are you kidding? If that's the key, perhaps what Bush needs to do is propose office gyms, massaging seats and friendly pastel walls. As ridiculous as #1. You would think giving workers a living wage and time off for family would be ridiculous. Perhaps, country club memberships would have been perceived as a prudent choice, huh? What an elitist piece of sewage you are. 4) made the environment better which did NOT at all hurt the economy >> What did Clinton do "environmentally", he proposed a bunch of executive orders to take place AFTER he left office. And the proposals you champion, Kyoto, higher mileage requirements, etc. he never passed, and if he did they wouldn't have "hurt" the economy, they would have destroyed it. Uh, Mr. W., peabrain, Kyoto was NOT around when Clinton was in office. They were rewriting it from the version that NO COUNTRY SUPPORTED. And environmental orders DID take place including setting aside of land for national parks, eliminating logging roads into some federal lands which Sapling is trying to overturn, etc. >>>5) took away the full writeoff of the 3 martini lunch, one of the biggest JOKES in business today >> Yeah, no businesses are deducting "office expenses" in full, amazing how "entertainment" firms can make a receipt look that auditors never catch! LOL Hey idiot, then why did they fight so hard against it, if it wasn't going to make a difference. ROTFLMAO @ someone with no deductive reasoning. So, once again, you prove you are CLUELESS on issues and just try to spout 1/4 truths to try to debate. Hey junior, time to go and sleep on your rug. Political conversations are a little over your head.
Gosh. Never have I seen two people arguing so convinced they are absolutely RIGHT and the other is so absolutely WRONG! Please continue, Tom and Mr. W, I'm enjoying this very much.
>>>Just as long as you are aware that Gingrich was not in a body that vetoed anything and that neither from 92-97 or 98-00 did the Republicans have a veto proof majority. That is progress for an imbecile such as yourself. Never said Gingrich was the leader of the Senate, PEABRAIN, and the President vetoes bills, not Senate, you Constitutional MORON. Guy, instead of using your copy of that document as a birdcage liner, try reading it. And I never said the Republicans had a veto proof majority either. Guy, you need to actually READ messages (get a retarded child to help you since obviously you aren't very capable of understanding them, either). >>I bet there is evidence that the large insurance companies based in Hartford give a larger percentage to Democrat Senators Dodd and Lieberman too! Would you like to inform us when insurance policy was formulated behind closed doors in the Clinton administration as the energy policy was done under Sapling/Cheney. No one ever said the Democrats don't get campaign contributions, but they don't hold secret meetings to determine public policy because of it, do they? Ooooopppppssss, just got your ass wiped on this board with that issue, huh? >>Ken gave amply to good ol' Ann Richards which she properly rewarded him for with a seat on that "business commission", but then again since in the re-election he gave more to Bush (but still some to Ann and more than any 3rd party candidate got ever), by your illogic, Lay did NOT support good ol' Ann! ROFLMAO What a total dumbass you are Uh, compulsive LYING PIECE OF SCUM, Lay and Enron gave 3 times the amount to Sapling and the elephant men than to Richards and the Democrats. Understand 3 times, IDIOT, or do we need to draw stick figures on a piece of paper for an IGNORANT ASS like yourself to comprehend. >> Yeah he "laid it out. Funny he didn't start laying until the Democrats in the House and Senate were rejected in unprecedent numbers in 1994. The biggest rejection of any party at any time in modern history. As usual, you are LYING your head off. The Budget Act that stated WHERE the money was coming from was in 1993. Now I understand you aren't very bright, but 1993 is BEFORE 1994. And your "biggest rejection of any party at any time in American history" is NONSENSE, JERK! >>A living wage? When did Clinton even propose a "living wage"? He got a minimum wage increase passed. Pick up a newspaper every once in a while, Sparky. >>Oh that's right, it wasn't this Kyoto, it was that Kyoto! LOL Learn something about contracts and the European attitudes toward such before talking about the value of which countries "support" it and how far they will go to keep their word on such a "contract". Glad you finally realized that Kyoto had BEEN REWRITTEN. See you actually CAN LEARN if you listen to people who know more than you do. Bad news for you is that means you never speak! As usual, Mr. Wonderful shows unparalled stupidity and lack of understand of issues. Hey guy, quit reading comic books and actually turn on a news station or pick up a newspaper every once in a while. I admit it will be harder since some of the networks quit those "news briefs" before the hour. After all, apparently your brain capacity limits you to an attention span of 15 seconds, huh? What a POS!!
Clinton campaigned on NAFTA, campaigned on a balanced budget and campaigned on an increase in infrastructure. He didn't deliver the last, unfortunately, but delivered the first 2. As SOON as right wing economics (i.e. massive wealth distribution from the middle class to the rich) takes place with bush, the deficit recurs and the economy tanks. But there are lots of little people holding the bag for the right wing in this country to scapegoat for the nation's problems. BTW, how is bush's friend Ken Lay doing in his Florida mansion? Or is he in his Colorado condo these days?
oh the economy that was so powerful it was officially a recession 1 month after the inaguratiuon? and NAFTA? its done wonders for the LA economy. you mention Lay, tell me again when the enron (and the rest) scandals started? what would have happened to the clinton economy had the facts of enron, worldcom, adelphia, etc had broke during clintons term? how much of the stock market gain of clintons term was based on those co's and the internet boom and later bust?
Economy was in recession more than 1 month First, the definition of a recession in almost all areas of thought is consecutive down quarters in the GDP. That was reached, so obviously since a quarter is 3 months itself, your statement of 1 month in recession is utter nonsense. Also, reports were released on the effects of NAFTA, and it was a NON-EVENT either way. That is what most reasonable economists predicted at the time (that is also what I said at the time)-- only the extremists on either side of the issue claimed otherwise. Clinton said it would be a plus, and it probably was to some degree. But he never claimed it would be a savior for anyone's economy. Mexico is too tiny of a frog in a huge pond of world trade to make a difference one way or the other.
