[Nico]

Who's Dean?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I think he meant that they arn't takeing the threat seriusly and that it will take a Al Qeda nuke in Paris to get them to pay atention.

Well that's equally stupid. As everyone else has said the evidence of Saddam having WMDs was faked anyway so the best saddam could do is pretend to plant a bomb in France or Germany.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Bobboau
(I don't eat yoplait any more)

darn, my world shatters!

Bah, I'll reply to that anyway: why would we have a nuke in Paris or Berlin? If Al Quaeda can put a nuke somewhere, that'll be on the US soil, sucka, coz you give them more and more reasons
What, you expected me to post a serious answer?

So, who is Dean?

[Stryke 9]

A candidate in the upcoming election.

[IceFire]

Its the democratic party trying to figure out who will be leader for the election coming up next year.  So while you have, what 7-8 candidates, Canada's liberal and conservative parties had maybe 2-3 real candidates...someone got in and that was it.

We even have a new Prime Minister and it didn't seem to have taken nearly as long as the democrats in the states have taken.  Seems overly long and drawn out.

[Liberator]

1. Economists have traced the begginng of the recession to the middle of the second Clinton term.

2.  GW has CUT taxes.

3.  GW has reinvigorated the intelligence apparatus(CIA/NSA) that Clinton gutted.

[karajorma]

Bill Hicks said it best.

How far does this guy's dick have to be up your ass before you realise he's ****ing you?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator
1. Economists have traced the begginng of the recession to the middle of the second Clinton term.

2.  GW has CUT taxes.

3.  GW has reinvigorated the intelligence apparatus(CIA/NSA) that Clinton gutted.

1) Really? Funny how the economy was still growing at a still increasing rate until Clinton's last year in office. If  Bush had done NOTHING, the worst that would have happened to the economy was that it would have returned to equilibrium at a no-growth/no-loss state. However, due to BUSH policies, we see the budget surplus not just shrink, but actually reverse into the fastest growing deficit in the history of the nation.

2) You're absolutely right. He did cut taxes. And he also said that "the vast majority of this tax cut will benefit the lowest earning 60% of the nations tax payers". Except it didn't. It benefitted the top earning 25% of the tax payers, leaving the bottome 75% with mere pennies. So yes, he cut taxes for his rich cronies and lied about it to all of us.

3) It should be noted that the Clinton White House handed Bush a comprehensive intelligence apparatus when Clinton left office. Republicans in Congress fought the funding of Clinton's intelligence apparatus in the same way they fought everything Clinton did. It was declared a waste of money. When Bush took control of the White House, he let the funding slip. In fact, during the time between the inauguration and Sept11, Bush did nearly nothing regarding intelligence gathering and antiterrorist operations. The programs floundered. AFTER Sept11, Bush reincarnated a Clinton era plan to create the Office of Homeland security.

Before you lay out the "facts" Liberator, I'd suggest getting them straight.

[Bobboau]

so you realy don't think that loseing 3000 people and a major world finantial center, not to mention the whole 'were under atack' mind set had nothing at all to do with the economy going down, not to mention that the down run in the economy started about 6 months before the 2000 elections (interestingly it seemed to start when it seemed that Bush was going to get the republican nomination), and that a whole bunch of economic scandals blew up that had been simmering sence well into the clintan administration, now I'm not saying that his policys are godlike in there amazing powers to restore the economy, but I don't think the tax cuts were the major factors in the economic downturn we experienced over the last few years, especaly seeing as the economy has recovered and stablised for the most part (I think his polocys had little to do with that)

now as for the 'tax cuts for the rich' thing, it was basicly a flat tax cut, the rich people got the same percentage of there taxes back as the poor people, wich yes means that they get more grose money back, but I don't think that means that they got more of there money back, given that it was about the same percentages, if I'm wrong give me some numbers to corect me

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Those are good.

Explain this to me:  Just because GW won't fall on his knees before the EU(particularly the French and the Germans(how quickly we forget?)) and all of a sudden he's a ####up?  

GW is acting like what he is, the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and leading by example.  

Is it going to take a nuke in Paris or Berlin to get you guys to realize that this is a them or us war?

Maybe if you knew who 'them' was.......so far it's a case of screwing up one war after another whilst creating martyrs.  The situations's worse, not better - Afghanistan is falling apart (only Kabul is safe, the Taliban is regrouping and the UN is considering leaving due to insecurity) and Iraq has become a destination of choice for foreign terrorists looking to shoot Americans.

And on top of this, we get criticism of european nations for excercising free speech that is anti war.  Surely Germany & France of all nations are able to understand the ultimate cost of unilateral war?

[Grey Wolf]

Realistically, a recession was due anyway. We're just lucky that it wasn't even worse, since the 1990s were roughly analogous to the 1920s.

However, the primary problem right now is the fact that Republicans have a majority in both houses, and have the presidency. For any of the checks and balances to actually work, there needs to be roughly equivalent numbers from each party in each house. Otherwise, you get either a Congress who passes every bill the President tells them to, or blocks everything.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so you realy don't think that loseing 3000 people and a major world finantial center, not to mention the whole 'were under atack' mind set had nothing at all to do with the economy going down, not to mention that the down run in the economy started about 6 months before the 2000 elections (interestingly it seemed to start when it seemed that Bush was going to get the republican nomination), and that a whole bunch of economic scandals blew up that had been simmering sence well into the clintan administration, now I'm not saying that his policys are godlike in there amazing powers to restore the economy, but I don't think the tax cuts were the major factors in the economic downturn we experienced over the last few years, especaly seeing as the economy has recovered and stablised for the most part (I think his polocys had little to do with that)

Let us consider this line of reasoning.
Sept11 caused the downturn in the economy. Hey, I can buy that. The 3000 people were inconsequential financially, but the loss of business might have had something to do with the downturn. Arguably, had Bush not cancelled funding for Clinton's intelligence and anti-terrorism programs during his first week in the White House, we would still have the World Trade Center. The FBI knew about foreign nationals in American flight schools. They had actually arrested Zacharias Mousoui before the planes hit the towers. The Republicans fought hard against Clinton's anti-terrorism programs when they were proposed after the first attack on the WTC (does anyone else remember that one tower was a story or two shorter than the other because of a truck bomb). They fought the funding even after the USS Cole was hit. Bush just followed party line when he killed the program and ignored antiterrorism activities entirely until Sept 11.
HOWEVER, that still does not answer how an accellerating budget surplus was turned into an accellerating budget deficit. Bush took charge of the White House with a surplus of over 200 BILLION USD. The following year, he had cut that back to just over a 100 BILLION USD. In 2002, he furthered this trend by taking us to a deficit of over 150 BILLION. 2003 saw it drop down to a 350 BILLION deficit. The projection for 2004 is nearly 500 BILLION dollars. That's half a TRILLION. This is the biggest single year budget deficit in the history of the country (even if you adjust for inflation) and the FASTEST growing deficit in the history of the country. Even World War 2 AND the reconstruction of Japan and Germany didn't rape this country's economy the way Bush Jr. has done. Besides anything else: if the WTC was so entrenched in the world economy, why has no other country seen as great a per-capita downturn in its economy as the US? I really think it is disingenuous to claim the WTC is enough to explain a 600 BILLION USD shift in the budget, or the massive loss of jobs we saw over the last three years.

now as for the 'tax cuts for the rich' thing, it was basicly a flat tax cut, the rich people got the same percentage of there taxes back as the poor people, wich yes means that they get more grose money back, but I don't think that means that they got more of there money back, given that it was about the same percentages, if I'm wrong give me some numbers to corect me

Interesting concept: a flat rate tax cut. There's just one problem: It wasn't. The bottom 60% of the nation (for those keeping score, that's 171 million people) took back an total of 39.9 billion dollars. The top 1% of the nation (2.85 million people) took back a total of 91.1 billion dollars. When you compare these number to the pre-cut numbers some interesting things emerge. The bottom 60% of the nation recieved a tax cut of about 17%. That's a pretty nice number. The top 60% however, recieved a total tax cut of about 62%.
Now, where I went to school 17% and 62% do not work out to a "flat tax cut". By far and away, the top 1% of the nation saw nearly FOUR TIMES as much tax relief (percentage wise) over the bottom 60%.
These numbers take into account more than just income tax cuts though. They take into account estate tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts as well. Lets take these numbers away and just look at pure income tax cuts. If we do that, the bottom 60% of the nation recieved a nice 22% cut from Bush. Again, not a bad number. However, the top 1% of the nation recieved a 50.2% tax cut. That's still nearly twice as much as the bottom 60% recieved. Somehow, this doesn't seem to add up to a flat tax cut either. 22% != 60%.

I'm sorry, Bob, you're wrong on both counts.

[Grey Wolf]

You know, moderation doesn't really seam to have it's advocates on this board.

[mikhael]

Generally, I am a moderate. I sit just a bit to the left of center and with some socialist and libertarian tendencies (which are not, as some would have it, mutually contradictory).

I'm just no fan of Bush. In truth, I'm not much of a fan of his predecessors either. I just prefer that if people are going spew rhetoric, they spew reasonably accurate rhetoric.

[Bobboau]

I've never been able to tell whose retoric was real with the tax cuts thing as no one ever puts up numbers, surely the law is posted somewere for public viewing,
however there is no way that bush could have ****ed things up enough in the short amount of time he was in office as to make 9/11 more likly to happen, even you say it took him two years to turn our surplus into a deficit, had Clinton been elagable for a thrid term (and he would have been reelected) we still would have lost the towers, and we still would have had a recesion, I remember the economy droping like a rock BEFORE Bush was elected, I remember thinking during the months before the election 'well it's about time the economy came back to it's sences', I was waiting for about four years for the investment opertunity so I was paying atention, and granted the individual lives of the 3000 people probly didn't contribute that much to the GNP directly, the rather spectacular way in wich they were killed could not have helped things.

for the record I was, and to a large extent still am, opposed to the tax cuts, it's nice to see some numbers being presented, but I still have no idea were they came from, for all I know you got them from moveon.org

[mikhael]

Given that Clinton antiterrorism record is absolutely peerless, Bob, I have to disagree. Had Clinton--or Gore--been in power, the WTC would still be standing. Unlike the Bush administration, Clinton did not ignore the threat that Osama and his cronies represented. He was, in fact, criticised for ignoring Saddam Hussein in favor of Osama, repeatedly. Its in the Congressional record.

You say that Bush couldn't "have ****ed things up enough in the short amount of time he was in office as to make 9/11 more likely to happen". Well that's just not true. Ignoring warnings from the FBI and the CIA and dismantling the existing antiterrorism infrastructure that Clinton handed him on a silver platter is quite enough to do exactly that. Its like firing the cops and then being surprised when a burglary occurs. Only its worse.

As for the economy dropping like a rock, it hadn't. It had certainly slowed, especially with the bursting of the tech bubble. I do not think, however, that you can blame Clinton (or Bush) for that debacle. We geeks in the industry did that one to ourselves.

As for the numbers for the tax cuts I got them from this chart on the "Citizens for Tax Justice" web page. They bill themselves as " a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and advocacy organization dedicated to fair taxation at the federal, state, and local levels". About.com gives an interesting breakdown.

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by Bobboau
moveon.org

[Liberator]

Given that Clinton antiterrorism record is absolutely peerless...

He never did anything but drop a couple of Tomahawks at any given time and most of the time he did it to distract the press from his various monkeyshines.  

But I suppose you think his impeachment, failed though it was, was a partisan attack on the part of the Republicans?

[mikhael]

Funny, I seem to recall it was the Clinton administration that brought to justice the men who bombed the World Trade Center the first time. And Clinton did that without having to send American troops to invade foreign countries. His administration actually did something, unlike his predecessors, Bush and Reagan, who actively funded the terrorists we deal with today. That might be a bit before your time though.

Actually, I thought Clinton's impeachment was a waste of money. Given that it wasn't exactly what you would call a broadbased attack (it was mostly republicans, yes) it was the very definition of a partisan attack. I really don't see how a blowjobs were relevant. Now if you want to talk about impeachable offenses, how about getting American troops killed by lying about the "intelligence" you have as a justification for war. But hey, what's several dozen American lives compared to a few hundred thousand presidential sperm, right? Its really funny how much more important some blowjobs are than men dying in war, isn't it?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
Funny, I seem to recall it was the Clinton administration that brought to justice the men who bombed the World Trade Center the first time. And Clinton did that without having to send American troops to invade foreign countries. His administration actually did something, unlike his predecessors, Bush and Reagan, who actively funded the terrorists we deal with today. That might be a bit before your time though.

Well put Mikhael. Let's not forget that it was the republicans who created Osama Bin Laden and armed Saddam.