who is responsible for the US debt?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

The debt has shot up due to the Iraq war, which if you want to hold anyone responsible for - hold the entire congress for who approved every dollar of spending you see going there. Of course you're trying to blame Bush as usual but you're wrong.

I think it's money well spent and I'm proud of every last dollar it may cost me. I wish they'd quadruple the spending, eradicate Muslim fanaticism, and allow me to sleep better knowing these scumbags are 6ft under instead of busy devising ways to kill us.

[Trigg]

Well according to YOUR graph Clinton didn't put much of a stop to the growth either. But, I am forced to agree with Jimmy since the congress approves spending.

Here is a websight that shows who the majority in congress was for any given year. Looks pretty even to me, so my answer is they're both guilty.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Im just trying to present the facts here and the facts speak loud and clear.

What, the fact that once again you IGNORE the facts? Congress approves spending. Can you grasp that idea, or is it too complicated for you?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

So you are saying republicans can only save money when a Democrat is President?

A simple YES to my question, that you couldn't grasp the concept, would have apparently sufficed.

I'm saying that CONGRESS is responsible for approving money that is spent by our government. If you want to play the blame game, look at the voting records from congress. The debt has risen as a result of the war effort, and many, many democrats voted to fund said war.

Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself on here, or do you enjoy the daily humiliation of speaking incorrectly?

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993#Republic an_warnings

give it a read and remember the times

Again, can you not comprehend? You'll sit here and give the dems full credit for credits to our debt but fail to acknowledge they are just as guilty when it comes to authorizing spending, specifically to GWB and the Iraq war.

Keep it coming, this is funny! I might have to send you my cleaning bill if I laugh any harder and pee my pants!

[retiredman]

I think it's money well spent and I'm proud of every last dollar it may cost me. I wish they'd quadruple the spending, eradicate Muslim fanaticism, and allow me to sleep better knowing these scumbags are 6ft under instead of busy devising ways to kill us.

Do you really think, if our approach to islamic extremism is basically to kill adherents, that there will not be a never ending stream of newly enraged recruits to take their place?

[jimnyc]

Do you really think, if our approach to islamic extremism is basically to kill adherents, that there will not be a never ending stream of newly enraged recruits to take their place?

Ok, so let us leave them be so they can go on as they have.

Nope, sorry, if they want to reproduce like cockroaches, then we exterminate them like cockroaches.

[retiredman]

for someone who jumps on the hyperbolic statements of others, you sure know how to dish it out.

Yeah...that makes a lot of sense...there really ARE only those two options, aren't they?

We can either approach islamic extremism by simply killing muslims over and over again or we can leave them alone. That's certainly what I implied. [/sarcasm off]

[jimnyc]

for someone who jumps on the hyperbolic statements of others, you sure know how to dish it out.

Yeah...that makes a lot of sense...there really ARE only those two options, aren't they?

We can either approach islamic extremism by simply killing muslims over and over again or we can leave them alone. That's certainly what I implied. [/sarcasm off]

Except I spoke how "I" felt and didn't make a statement of fact about how our entire nation feels. You see, this is the problem with the libs and lies, you guys can't even do that right!

Leave them alone? LOL That's a LOVELY approach to the problem!

[Yurt]

In 1993 the congress had a slim majority Dem and Clinton.
In this year the congress passed the 1993 budget deficit reduction act by having Gore come in and break the tie. Not one single R vote was on the bill.
This bill has been credited by the GAO and the OMB as the major factor in the budget reduction of the 1990s.

The best fiscal momments we had in the last thirty years was under Dem leadership and without ONE SINGLE R VOTE!

If you had a loved one who had a serious medical emergency that was life or death, would you go into debt to make sure they live?

[retiredman]

my statement:

Do you really think, if our approach to islamic extremism is basically to kill adherents, that there will not be a never ending stream of newly enraged recruits to take their place?

does NOT mean that I endorse "leaving them alone".

Perhaps you really are incapable of imagining any other, more creative and multi-facested approaches.

I am not.

[glockmail]

my statement:

Do you really think, if our approach to islamic extremism is basically to kill adherents, that there will not be a never ending stream of newly enraged recruits to take their place?

does NOT mean that I endorse "leaving them alone".

Perhaps you really are incapable of imagining any other, more creative and multi-facested approaches.

I am not. Typical of a liberal. He has offered no solution, just suggests that the common sense approach won't work because its to simplistic.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

my statement:

Do you really think, if our approach to islamic extremism is basically to kill adherents, that there will not be a never ending stream of newly enraged recruits to take their place?

does NOT mean that I endorse "leaving them alone".

Perhaps you really are incapable of imagining any other, more creative and multi-facested approaches.

I am not.


We can either approach islamic extremism by simply killing muslims over and over again or we can leave them alone. That's certainly what I implied.

Again, don't say it if you don't want to be called on it.

[jimnyc]

So you are saying its OK for Reagan , Bush 41 and Bush 43 to have created massive debt because Bush tricked us into a war which the vast majority of experts say is making us less safe?

I guess you forgot the democrat's votes yet again, and their very own statements as to why Saddam needed to be removed over the years.

The bill for my pissed pants will be on the way!

[truthmatters]

4

[Dilloduck]

---- Bush tricked us into a war----


still pissed that you got hoodwinked huh? :poke:

[retiredman]

wow...intentionally editing my comments to change their meaning.

pretty low.

"We can either approach islamic extremism by simply killing muslims over and over again or we can leave them alone. That's certainly what I implied. [/sarcasm off]"

[jimnyc]

Which votes are you refering to?

The statements since 1998 by many democrats that Saddam needed to be removed and he was a serious danger.

And the vote giving Bush authority to go into Iraq in 2002.

[retiredman]

The statements since 1998 by many democrats that Saddam needed to be removed and he was a serious danger.

And the vote giving Bush authority to go into Iraq in 2002.

a majority of congressional democrats voted against that resolution.

[jimnyc]

wow...intentionally editing my comments to change their meaning.

pretty low.

"We can either approach islamic extremism by simply killing muslims over and over again or we can leave them alone. That's certainly what I implied. [/sarcasm off]"

Not a damn thing was edited in your post, LIAR. I see this is becoming habitual for you!

And generally a closing statement such as what you put in bold comes with an opening statement. Am I to assume then that your entire post was nothing more than sarcasm, or is the reader supposed to figure it out for themselves? Maybe if you intend on being funny with HTML statements you educate yourself properly first.

[glockmail]

wow...intentionally editing my comments to change their meaning.

pretty low.

"We can either approach islamic extremism by simply killing muslims over and over again or we can leave them alone. That's certainly what I implied. [/sarcasm off]"
Must have taken a tip from you.

[jimnyc]

a majority of congressional democrats voted against that resolution.

it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.

Sure, majority. LOL

Educate yourself.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

The quotes I would have to see and deal with individually and the votes in 2002 were based on scewed intell.

So the democrats who made their statements from 1998-2001 were based on bad intel coming to them from the democrat administration?

[truthmatters]

4

[retiredman]

it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.

Sure, majority. LOL

Educate yourself.


excuse me sir.... I am standing by my assertion that a majority of democrats serving in congress on 10/02/02 did, in fact, vote against the use of force resolution. Would you like to bet me some money that I am wrong? Or would you like to reconsider and perhaps try a little re-education yourself?

lol

[truthmatters]

4

[retiredman]

Typical of a liberal. He has offered no solution, just suggests that the common sense approach won't work because its to simplistic.

I would suggest that trying to get muslims to stop killing us simply by killing muslims is the antithesis of common sense.

[jimnyc]

excuse me sir.... I am standing by my assertion that a majority of democrats serving in congress on 10/02/02 did, in fact, vote against the use of force resolution. Would you like to bet me some money that I am wrong? Or would you like to reconsider and perhaps try a little re-education yourself?


You stated the majority of democrats in congress voted against the resolution I speak of. The vote was 77-23.

29 democrats voted YES
21 democrats voted NO

[truthmatters]

4

[retiredman]

You stated the majority of democrats in congress voted against the resolution I speak of. The vote was 77-23.

29 democrats voted YES
21 democrats voted NO


the resolution of which you speak was voted on by both chambers. You yourself noted the 296-133 vote in the house. I stand by my assertion.

I still recommend re-education AND RETRACTION over wagering in this instance.

[jimnyc]

the resolution of which you speak was voted on by both chambers. You yourself noted the 296-133 vote in the house. I stand by my assertion.

I still recommend re-education AND RETRACTION over wagering in this instance.

All votes tallied in both chambers, yes, a majority of democrats voted against, while 104 voted for. I officially retract my statement that you were wrong.

Now feel free to retract your LIE in the other thread.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

Again, can you not comprehend? You'll sit here and give the dems full credit for credits to our debt but fail to acknowledge they are just as guilty when it comes to authorizing spending, specifically to GWB and the Iraq war.

Keep it coming, this is funny! I might have to send you my cleaning bill if I laugh any harder and pee my pants!


The GAO and the CBO have both credited the 1993 ombra passed without one single R vote with the majority of the credit for the budget surplusses of the 1991s.

It not just me whow sees that the best fiscal action in the last 30 years come with a completely Democratic government for a brief momment in 1992 and 1993.

[bullypulpit]

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png

can we keep this to the facts and not spew invective every other word?

Who is responsible for the US Debt? That would be Chimpy McPresident and his relentless borrowing to fund the continued occupation of Iraq, to the tune of some $200 million daily.

And the bitch of it is that some of the nations holding US debt, China comes readily to mind, are less than friendly to the US. The unprecedented level of borrowing by the Bush Administration leaves the country vulnerable to economic blackmail, and puts US security at risk.

[glockmail]

I would suggest that trying to get muslims to stop killing us simply by killing muslims is the antithesis of common sense. Apparently you haven't read the Koran, or fought against people who believe in it.

[Gunny]

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png

can we keep this to the facts and not spew invective every other word?


Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

btw, telling you that you are wrong is NOT spewing invective. That's just more of your usual crying "wolf."

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

Telling me Im wrong is nothing but one persons opinion.

PROVE Im wrong.

You have yet to do that.

I've proven you wrong a good 20 times in each thread you choose to engage me in debate mostly because you have no freakin' clue what you're talking about and don't bail after your ass is handed to you the first time. You just continue prattling off the same old shit as if it wasn't killed on page one by half the members of the board.

[jimnyc]

presidents have veto pins.

What does this have to do with the war vote and subsequent debt associated with it? Are you saying the democrats who voted for authorization did so because of a veto? What ARE you saying?

[PostmodernProphet]

The only slow down in the accumulation of debt in the last in the last thirty years was under Clinton

let's be specific.....the only slowdown was during that part of the Clinton administration when Gingrich controlled the House.....

[glockmail]

let's be specific.....the only slowdown was during that part of the Clinton administration when Gingrich controlled the House.....
Gee, whouda thunk that the House was were spending was originated? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

So you are saying its OK for Reagan , Bush 41 and Bush 43 to have created massive debt because Bush tricked us into a war which the vast majority of experts say is making us less safe?

I did not say anything, I asked you a question, kindly answer it.


If you had a loved one who had a serious medical emergency that was life or death, would you go into debt to make sure they live?

[Yurt]

Telling me Im wrong is nothing but one persons opinion.

PROVE Im wrong.

You have yet to do that.

Everytime you write something it is proven :coffee:

[bullypulpit]

Typical of a liberal. He has offered no solution, just suggests that the common sense approach won't work because its to simplistic.

Your simple answer is aptly suited to your equally simple mind. The awful truth which you, your fellow travelers, the Bush administration, <i>et al </i> refuse to accept is that there is no simple "common sense" approach to solving the problem of Islamic insurgency. Its roots run too deep in the history of the region, particularly during the European colonialism of the 18th through the mid 20th centuries.

Part of that awful truth about Iraq is that the Bush administration utterly ignored that history before invading Iraq. Hell, the little twit didn't even know that there what Sunni and Shi'ia meant before he pulled the trigger. You and your boon companions ignorance is monumental, and that it is will ful makes it all the more unforgiveable.

[Yurt]

Your simple answer is aptly suited to your equally simple mind. The awful truth which you, your fellow travelers, the Bush administration, <i>et al </i> refuse to accept is that there is no simple "common sense" approach to solving the problem of Islamic insurgency. Its roots run too deep in the history of the region, particularly during the European colonialism of the 18th through the mid 20th centuries.

Part of that awful truth about Iraq is that the Bush administration utterly ignored that history before invading Iraq. Hell, the little twit didn't even know that there what Sunni and Shi'ia meant before he pulled the trigger. You and your boon companions ignorance is monumental, and that it is will ful makes it all the more unforgiveable.

yes, dhimmi

[retiredman]

All votes tallied in both chambers, yes, a majority of democrats voted against, while 104 voted for. I officially retract my statement that you were wrong.

Now feel free to retract your LIE in the other thread.

Thank you.

I never intentionally lied about anything...but if I did misspeak, I retract it.

[retiredman]

Apparently you haven't read the Koran, or fought against people who believe in it.

I have not read all of it, I admit...and I have not fought against muslims because my job was specifically to get muslims to stop fighting...but I HAVE lived among them for two solid years. How long have you lived amongst the people in a muslim middle eastern country?

[Nukeman]

The quotes I would have to see and deal with individually and the votes in 2002 were based on scewed intell.

I am proud of the few people R and D alike who saw through the scam but it was a propaganda railroad job on people right near the 911 first birthday.
Here yaa go numbnuts, these quotes have been around for quite awhile. If you can't find these except whten someone supplies them for you you really are stupid. These are after all on one of your favorite websights "wikipedia"


address each and everyone of these will you!! If you will notice these are.... "gasp".......DEMOCRATS. with democrats in power intel!!! My God imagine that. I'm sure GWB was feeding this intel to the dems before he became president just so he could go to war.....

Refute these all you want but they are in the national archives......



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[jimnyc]

Thank you.

I never intentionally lied about anything...but if I did misspeak, I retract it.

Fair enough then! :beer:

[Nukeman]

Fair enough then! :beer:

Ummm do you guys need a room?????:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::cheers2:

[jimnyc]

Ummm do you guys need a room?????:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::cheers2:

I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. It appears MFM was able to do the same, sort of. Good enough in my book!

I still don't like him though! LOL

[retiredman]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
it would appear that we had been successful prior to invading, would it not?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 ditto

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
she doesn't say he has weapons, only that there would be a risk if he did

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
if he had them, of course...which Sandy does not say he has

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: --Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

newsflash: air and missile strikes are not synonymous with invasion, conquest, and occupation by a 150K man army. Also.... the treat was Iraq's refusal to end its programs.... not any actual weapons. No immediate danger.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"engaged in developing" is not possessing

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
doesn't say he has actually ever built one...just that he spent money on it

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: --Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
reinvigorating programs is not synonymous with owning stockpiles of WMD's

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
building ain't owning. Led Zepplin may be building a stairway to heaven, but they ain't there yet

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Al Gore reading from Rummy's talking points. Gore - AND Rummy were both wrong, weren't they?

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
assume? where are the stockpiles?

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
seeking ain't owning

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
ditto

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
true dat.... a deadly arsenal in Saddam's hands might have been a threat. Kerry does not say that Saddam actually HAS one, however.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
working to develop ain't owning stockpiles....yawn

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
but it would seem, that while Saddam might have publicly refused to do something, he, in fact, had done so

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
but the inspectors came back! Why not let them complete their work?

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"think".... developing capacity.....not developed. no stockpiles.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Saddam was disarmed. mission accomplished without invasion


Bottom line: with the exception of the Gore quote above, none of the democrats listed claim that Saddam actually HAS weapons of mass destruction.... which is significantly different than Team Bush who ALL said that he had them...that there was no doubt that he had them...that there was absolute certainty that he had them and that we knew precisely where they were.

[retiredman]

I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. It appears MFM was able to do the same, sort of. Good enough in my book!

I still don't like him though! LOL

aw..that's too bad...I think you are a prince of a fellow!

[jimnyc]

aw..that's too bad...I think you are a prince of a fellow!

I may not like you, but you're pretty smart sometimes! :laugh2:

[retiredman]

what's not to like, really? once you get past the rough edges and the sailor's vocabulary, I am really quite an affable and friendly guy.

[glockmail]

what's not to like, really? once you get past the rough edges and the sailor's vocabulary, I am really quite an affable and friendly guy.
Once you get past that shit you see some lazy fat drunk with bad thoughts about teenage boys. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Once you get past that shit you see some lazy fat drunk with bad thoughts about teenage boys. :laugh2:

where do you get this bizarre stuff? Your mind is pretty fetid, isn;t it?

[avatar4321]

Liberals who leech off the government and Republicans who help them do it.

[glockmail]

where do you get this bizarre stuff? Your mind is pretty fetid, isn;t it? Based on your past posts and PMs to me, as I stated peviously.

[retiredman]

Based on your past posts and PMs to me, as I stated peviously.


nothing I have ever written would indicate that I was fat or lazy or had a problem with alcohol or was anything other than a normal heterosexual male in a normal committed monogamous relationship. You probably need to have your meds adjusted.

[manu1959]

The GAO and the CBO have both credited the 1993 ombra passed without one single R vote with the majority of the credit for the budget surplusses of the 1991s.

It not just me whow sees that the best fiscal action in the last 30 years come with a completely Democratic government for a brief momment in 1992 and 1993.


i remember that recession......

[glockmail]

nothing I have ever written would indicate that I was fat or lazy or had a problem with alcohol or was anything other than a normal heterosexual male in a normal committed monogamous relationship. You probably need to have your meds adjusted. Sorry, don't need any meds here. Have some salt?

[retiredman]

so...because I have coronary artery disease, that makes me fat and lazy and drunk and lecherous, too, in your book?

Like I said...you are just really weird.

You really should go back to the horsefaced tranny avatar....it suits you so much better!

[glockmail]

so...because I have coronary artery disease, that makes me fat and lazy and drunk and lecherous, too, in your book?

Like I said...you are just really weird.

You really should go back to the horsefaced tranny avatar....it suits you so much better!
Perhaps you could point out:
1. Where I performed your accused train of logic;
2. that the lovely Ann Coulter is a transvestite.
:pee:

[retiredman]

perhaps you could first explain how you have come to the laughably moronic conclusion that I am a fat lecherous lazy drunk?

and have you ever checked out the adam's apple on that ho?

clearly, "she" tucks the sack back.... and that turns you on???? :lol:

[retiredman]

and I really am not saying that she is a transvestite, but a transsexual.... and she may be post-op, by now..... but her horse face is pretty "revealing"!

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

1. You are lewd and disgusting as demonstrated numerous times by your posts.
2. You carried on once how you'd drink scotch well into the night and have "talks" with the dead. That's just plain freaky, reminiscent of Hillary Clinton. It also indicates that you’re a delirious drunk.
3. So you have no proof that AC’s a transvestite except that her slenderness makes her features more pronounced then you’d prefer.
4. Since you don’t like thin women, it is logical to assume that you like fat ones, and logical as well to assume it is because you are fat yourself.
:D

[JohnDoe]

Who is responsible for the US debt?

We are.

And our granchildren and great grandchildren and great, great grandchildren will be too! :(:(:(

When Clinton left office, our National Debt Accumilated by all Presidencies previous, from our beginnings, was $5.6 Trillion dollars.

I have read that by the time President Bush is out of office the National Debt estimate is $11.5 TRILLION dollars based on how things stand now with the legislation that has been put in place,,,,Our total History's National Debt accumilated up untill President Bush will DOUBLE in one 8 year presidency!

This is UNACCEPTABLE under ANYONE'S STANDARDS!!!!

Also, I might note that the same republicans that you all give credit to for controlling the spending during Clinton, are the same republicans that PUT US IN HUGE FINANCIAL DEBT under Bush 1....

So it appears to me, a bystander :), that it was NOT the republicans at ALL that controlled the debt, but the LEADERSHIP, is what made it happen! ;)

Otherwise these Republicans would have controlled spending under Bush also, don't you think...if it was really THEM that are to get all the credit under Clinton?

[jimnyc]

Polls are showing upcoming and new voters NOT identifying with the R party.

Are these the same polls utilizing about .00001 percent of the nation?

[jimnyc]

I have read that by the time President Bush is out of office the National Debt estimate is $11.5 TRILLION dollars based on how things stand now with the legislation that has been put in place,,,,Our total History's National Debt accumilated up untill President Bush will DOUBLE in one 8 year presidency!

Again, this is mostly due to the money invested in the war on terror. The same investments that MANY democrats are responsible for approving.

[glockmail]

So what's the debt in proportion to the GNP? :poke:

[truthmatters]

4

[JohnDoe]

Again, this is mostly due to the money invested in the war on terror. The same investments that MANY democrats are responsible for approving. Again, do you want them to not approve the money needed to keep our soldiers safe that are ALREADY OVER THERE IN HARMS WAY? The first bil for the war was 60 billion or maybe it was 40 billion....do you think that one vote is what made us borrow the TRILLIONS?

NO, and the war isn't even close to the cost of our OVERSPENDING, it is only a small part of it.

But tax policy, cutting taxes WITHOUT CUTTING THE SPENDING is where the problem lies....

cutting taxes and BORROWING the money from the Chinese to do it, is what WILL BRING US DOWN and is what is adding to the stock market's unstableness, with the realestate market fall....from what I have read....

the Chinese will own us soon....and we will not be able to stablize and control our own economy if this keeps up.....be forwarned! ;)

jd

[JohnDoe]

So what's the debt in proportion to the GNP? :poke:Why? Has our gross national product doubled in the last 6 years? or will it in 8 years? Because if the GNP hasn't doubled since January of 2001 and our National Debt will have, then WE ARE HURTING ourselves to allow this overspending moreso than we were in 2001....

plus we are on the heels of having to PAY BACK the treasuries we issued for the SS surplusses....this is NO TIME to be adding to our national debt when we will have to borrow the money to pay SS back for the money that was borrowed and used in the general revenues budget?

[jimnyc]

Polling is a science and if its so useless Please explain to me why Corporatioons make major financial decisions based on polling results and then succede?

You can say the world is flat and even believe it is but it does not make the world flat.

Because they don't. Show me major corporations that make major financial decisions based on polls such as Zogby's or the like. They use in depth analysis, not minute samplings.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Again, do you want them to not approve the money needed to keep our soldiers safe that are ALREADY OVER THERE IN HARMS WAY? The first bil for the war was 60 billion or maybe it was 40 billion....do you think that one vote is what made us borrow the TRILLIONS?

NO, and the war isn't even close to the cost of our OVERSPENDING, it is only a small part of it.

But tax policy, cutting taxes WITHOUT CUTTING THE SPENDING is where the problem lies....

cutting taxes and BORROWING the money from the Chinese to do it, is what WILL BRING US DOWN and is what is adding to the stock market's unstableness, with the realestate market fall....from what I have read....

the Chinese will own us soon....and we will not be able to stablize and control our own economy if this keeps up.....be forwarned! ;)

jd

The war is only a small part of the current debt? LOL The forecast for debt incurred from the war is at approximately 2 trillion dollars. That's just a "small" part?

[jimnyc]

They approved (and the Rs) him to use force if nessesary after using all diplomatic avenues available.
He got this vote on lies. He lied to the congress and the American people.
Then he went staright to war instead of using the diplomatica avenues available.

This baby is all Bush and then for a couple of years they sang the "Pottery barn" rule on us remember?

I was against the war from the begining , and have wanted us to move to leave as soon as possible at every momment even when Most of the Dems did not agree with me.
Now they fast majority of the world agress with me.

THIS WAR has done nothing to make us safer ,has spilled the blood of our bravest and thrown our treasure to the wind.

It all belongs to the Republicans and your party will be blamed for generations to come.

Say hello to Ms. Sheehan for me, she's training you well! :laugh2:

BTW, not for nothing, but you have no less than 7 spelling errors in your post. Normally I don't overly nitpick about this kind of stuff, but reading your posts gives me a headache.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

They do it all the time to make major product decisions and store placement.

EVERY major company does polling and you know it.

Again, provide proof that major corporations rely upon polls such as those you provide to make major financial decisions. YOU made the statement and I only expect you to back it up.

[JohnDoe]

Because they don't. Show me major corporations that make major financial decisions based on polls such as Zogby's or the like. They use in depth analysis, not minute samplings.We did at my last job for new technology... I worked for the Rockport Company, a division of Reebok, and we had focus groups that we polled on key questions regarding the new product, that they tested by wearing it, and based on our polling questions and their answers to such, we exprapolated a Buy for the product for the entire country.

When I worked as a buyer for Dillard's Dept Stores, I brought in new test product in to 5 stores, one in each one of my regions, put the product on the floor in several colors and based on how the public responded to it in the various colors, I placed a Buy for my entire division of over 50 stores...

It is not the precise method of all the Polsters in this country, but it is the same premise imo..... getting a feel from a few, to estimate the Country's interest in buying it....

jd

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

http://www.polling.net/

Here is just one co that offers corporate polling.

Jim really I am finding it hard to believe you are insisting corporations do not do polling?

I can not show you say GMCs polling department because they would never let a customer into that section.

But really ...come on ... You know they all do polling , please be honest and lets get back to the real subject?

Offering it, and major corporations USING them to make major financial decisions based on the polls you specified are 2 different things.

Why do you not want to provide me with proof?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

This is really sad Jim.

The fact that you make claims and can't back them up? I agree, it is sad, and becoming a habit of yours.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

We did at my last job for new technology... I worked for the Rockport Company, a division of Reebok, and we had focus groups that we polled on key questions regarding the new product, that they tested by wearing it, and based on our polling questions and their answers to such, we exprapolated a Buy for the product for the entire country.

When I worked as a buyer for Dillard's Dept Stores, I brought in new test product in to 5 stores, one in each one of my regions, put the product on the floor in several colors and based on how the public responded to it in the various colors, I placed a Buy for my entire division of over 50 stores...

It is not the precise method of all the Polsters in this country, but it is the same premise imo..... getting a feel from a few, to estimate the Country's interest in buying it....

jd

Focus groups and Zogby's are a little different, no? And the sampling size used for retail based on the customer base is HUGELY different than the .00001 percent that is sampled with the political polls TM keeps referring to.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

http://text.tns-global.com/business-research/opinion-polling.htm

here is another company who offers business polling.

What part of "offering" and major companies UTLIZING polls to make major financial decisions don't you understand?

Why won't you provide proof?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Jim it is the same thing , a small group to deside what the entire nation will buy.

It's NOT the same thing, I'll be willing to bet the sampling size of those polled against the consumer base for said product is MUCH higher than .00001 percent!

Why do you not want to provide proof?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Why do you not want to provide proof? Do you hate proof? Is the proof somehow being protected by the evil conservatives?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I own an image hosting site, it's linked at the top of this site. I advertise it all over and offer it to major companies throughout the USA. Would it be fair of me to say "Major companies throughout the USA utilize image hosting sites for their photo storage needs"

No, it wouldn't. They use more practical and proven methods.

But I'll still wait patiently for your proof that major companies make major financial decisions based on polls such as you referred to.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_research

Are you really going to deny the exsistance of Marketing reseach?

Sadly, you can't address or provide proof to your exact statement. I'll hold you in my prayers and hope for your brain to return to normal operating behavior someday. Best wishes!

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I just dont get how you people can be given proof and then just say "oh that proves nothing"

Holy shit! I just spit my coffee on my screen yet again!

I've asked you about a million times for the proof and you refuse to provide it, and now you claim you did! :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

Why? Has our gross national product doubled in the last 6 years? or will it in 8 years? Because if the GNP hasn't doubled since January of 2001 and our National Debt will have, then WE ARE HURTING ourselves to allow this overspending moreso than we were in 2001....

plus we are on the heels of having to PAY BACK the treasuries we issued for the SS surplusses....this is NO TIME to be adding to our national debt when we will have to borrow the money to pay SS back for the money that was borrowed and used in the general revenues budget?

That was my question to y'all. You appear to claim its not relavant. It's not difficult to double in 6 or 8 years, all it takes is a consistent 7% growth.

Equate debt with GDP and inflation-adjusted dollars, and measure on a consisent scale (with all the entitlement debt added) and then we can discuss the issue with some intelligence. Until you do that its all smoke and mirrors.

[jimnyc]

I must now ignore you, TM. I am tired and my coffee is too important to be spit out for the likes of you. Please alert me when you provide the proof I asked for and I'll be happy to re-engage!

[MtnBiker]

Who is responsible for the debt. Politicians, duh!!


Polling is a means for corporation to make major finanical decisions, wow that funny! Jim it is true, it is true to her because she believes it and nothing is going to change that. Now where is my coffee?

[truthmatters]

4

[PostmodernProphet]

It's not difficult to double in 6 or 8 years, all it takes is a consistent 7% growth.

uhhh.....sorry glock, but a consistant 7% growth, compounded for 8 years will not give you double.....it only gives you 160%

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Who is responsible for the debt. Politicians, duh!!


Polling is a means for corporation to make major finanical decisions, wow that funny! Jim it is true, it is true to her because she believes it and nothing is going to change that. Now where is my coffee?

Please, protect your coffee at all costs. And protect your head from a beating and take my advice, DO NOT ask her to provide proof of her claims!

[truthmatters]

4

[retiredman]

1. You are lewd and disgusting as demonstrated numerous times by your posts.
2. You carried on once how you'd drink scotch well into the night and have "talks" with the dead. That's just plain freaky, reminiscent of Hillary Clinton. It also indicates that you’re a delirious drunk.
3. So you have no proof that AC’s a transvestite except that her slenderness makes her features more pronounced then you’d prefer.
4. Since you don’t like thin women, it is logical to assume that you like fat ones, and logical as well to assume it is because you are fat yourself.
:D

1. using profane language is synonymous with having bad thoughts about little boys? That is an interesting "stretch"! LOL
2. I drank scotch well into the night the night my father died. I was never drunk that night and certainly not delirious. I was sad... did you know the identity of your dad?
3. She has an adam's apple and looks like a horse.
4. who said I don't like thin women? I just don't like Ann Coulter. Your "logic" is really weak....really really weak. In fact, my wife is thin and so am I....AND my wife doesn't have an adam's apple and doesn't look like a horse.

[jimnyc]

I am now reminded of the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz - "If I only had a brain".

[glockmail]

uhhh.....sorry glock, but a consistant 7% growth, compounded for 8 years will not give you double.....it only gives you 160% I stand corrected. It takes 10 years to double at 7% growth.

[glockmail]

....... did you know the identity of your dad?
.....
Yet another attack on my family by the maine asshole.:fu:

[retiredman]

Yet another attack on my family by the maine asshole.:fu:


how is that an attack on your family? I wondered perhaps, if you did not know who your dad was, that maybe my grief at MY dad's death was not something that you could appreciate.

[glockmail]

*** PM's are not to be reposted on the board, they are considered private *** - Staff

[glockmail]

*** PM's are not to be reposted on the board, they are considered private *** - Staff That's bullshit, as they are only considered private if the reciever considers it so.

[jimnyc]

That's bullshit, as they are only considered private if the reciever considers it so.

Sorry, Glock. It's in the rules, all private communications shall remain private. If he intended it for the entire board to read he would have posted it here.

[glockmail]

Sorry, Glock. It's in the rules, all private communications shall remain private. If he intended it for the entire board to read he would have posted it here.

Fine. Then I’ll post what maineman published on the other board in its context:

1. I had a “ski photos” thread going similar to what I have here. My son and I were back from last year’s championship races and I posted the following photo with the caption: “me and the boy”:
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/meandboy.jpg
2. Maineman aka manfrommaine’s response was, as he posted on the other board, was to remark how puny I looked in comparison to my teenage son.
3. I then replied that I was 5-11, 160#.
4. maineman then responded, again in a public forum, some wise ass remark about how “cute” we looked in our “ski outfits”, my close relationship with my son with obvious references to homosexuality ending with: “Oh no daddy, don't...that HURTS”.

Now maineman aka manfrommaine can clear this all up by linking to this exchange, or be called on it for what he is: a sick attacker of my family.

My prediction is that he will claim that he meant something else, which is of course a lie but totally expected for the wussie that he is.

For the record I did reply to him in an unrelated exchange with the sheep-fuck smilie. I admit that and would do it again.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Lets see if anyone can be honest in this debate?

How about if I deny it, claim something otherwise, and then fail to produce proof after requested multiple times? Would that be honest enough for you?

[PostmodernProphet]

Here are some charts

I liked the one that talked about the "costs" of a tax cut, as if it were the equivalent of federal spending.....

[retiredman]

For the record I did reply to him in an unrelated exchange with the sheep-fuck smilie.

UNRELATED? :finger3: that is a flat our lie. the sheep-fuck smilie was directly in the midst of the exchange in question.. .it was posted directly after I denied his allegations that I "had a thing for boys" and had reasserted that I was a normal hetero guy. He then suggested that I fucked sheep. It was, in fact, the only reason I mentioned that his son might have a sickly smile on his face..and never once suggested any sexual contact between him and his "dad". Oh..and in the photo...which one is you and which one is your son? I really can't tell.

[glockmail]

UNRELATED? :finger3: that is a flat our lie. the sheep-fuck smilie was directly in the midst of the exchange in question.. .it was posted directly after I denied his allegations that I "had a thing for boys" and had reasserted that I was a normal hetero guy. He then suggested that I fucked sheep. It was, in fact, the only reason I mentioned that his son might have a sickly smile on his face..and never once suggested any sexual contact between him and his "dad". This lie is easy to prove. My son's wearing a slalom bar on his helmet (see picture, post 127) and you can't even see his face, never mind any "sickly smile".

[glockmail]

UNRELATED? :finger3: that is a flat our lie. the sheep-fuck smilie was directly in the midst of the exchange in question.. . .....

If it wasn't unrelated, that gives you license to attack my family?

[retiredman]

no lie...I said he might have a smile on his face....never did I ever say anything about you sexually abusing him. not once.

[retiredman]

If it wasn't unrelated, that gives you license to attack my family?

I didn't "attack" your family at all.

but nonetheless...your claiming it was "unrelated" is another in a long string of statements which prove that you have the integrity of a wolverine.

[glockmail]

.... Oh..and in the photo...which one is you and which one is your son? I really can't tell. I noticed you edited your post in attempt to cover yourself here. Do you think anyone else here could reasonably agree with you that they can't tell the difference between the adult here and the young teenager? (Again referring to the picture on post 127). :lol:

Caught red-handed with your pants down. :laugh:

[glockmail]

I didn't "attack" your family at all.

but nonetheless...your claiming it was "unrelated" is another in a long string of statements which prove that you have the integrity of a wolverine.

More bullshit from you. Again, if it was related you could clear that up by providing links. Again, if it was does that give you license to attack my family?

[retiredman]

More bullshit from you. Again, if it was related you could clear that up by providing links. Again, if it was does that give you license to attack my family?

We both know you are lying about that...

and there never was any "attack". you really need to seek therapy.

[retiredman]

I noticed you edited your post in attempt to cover yourself here. Do you think anyone else here could reasonably agree with you that they can't tell the difference between the adult here and the young teenager? (Again referring to the picture on post 127). :lol:

Caught red-handed with your pants down. :laugh:

the two people look about the same size to me. I have two adult sons...one is three inches shorter than me...one is four inches taller than me.... you'd be hard pressed to figure out which one I was in a photo with either one of them if we were wrapped up in ski suits.

[glockmail]

We both know you are lying about that....

THEN PROVIDE A LINK.

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

the two people look about the same size to me. I have two adult sons...one is three inches shorter than me...one is four inches taller than me.... you'd be hard pressed to figure out which one I was in a photo with either one of them if we were wrapped up in ski suits. Where not talking about you and your adult sons, but me and my teenage one. One of the skiers is obviously heavier and older, and the other has a team jacket and race gear. Your lie is getting more and more obvious, as well as a deflection of the issue being discussed.

[retiredman]

THEN PROVIDE A LINK.


you do need to understand that the only two people who give a shit about this little hissy fit of yours are you and me.... and I don't care very much for it at all. We both know that line about "unrelated" is a lie.... we both were there. I just went back and reread it this morning and I related it to you pretty much verbatim in a PM here. you make explicit comments about my relationship with MY wife, but get all stemmy when I make non-specific allusions about your family. You need to let this go. You need to seek therapy. really. It is getting to the point where I am beginning to doubt the adult identity behind this glockmail internet persona. You sound way too immature sometimes to actually be an adult.

[retiredman]

Where not talking about you and your adult sons, but me and my teenage one. One of the skiers is obviously heavier and older, and the other has a team jacket and race gear. Your lie is getting more and more obvious, as well as a deflection of the issue being discussed.

like i said... the two people in the photo look about the same size as me.

and the younger of MY two sons has been taller than me since he was 14.

again...I never attacked your family...I never said the things about your family that you claim i said.... give this up. really. I would love to talk foreign policy and quit talking about your bizarre vendetta.

[glockmail]

you do need to understand that the only two people who give a shit about this little hissy fit of yours are you and me.... and I don't care very much for it at all. We both know that line about "unrelated" is a lie.... we both were there. I just went back and reread it this morning and I related it to you pretty much verbatim in a PM here. you make explicit comments about my relationship with MY wife, but get all stemmy when I make non-specific allusions about your family. You need to let this go. You need to seek therapy. really. It is getting to the point where I am beginning to doubt the adult identity behind this glockmail internet persona. You sound way too immature sometimes to actually be an adult.


like i said... the two people in the photo look about the same size as me.

and the younger of MY two sons has been taller than me since he was 14.

again...I never attacked your family...I never said the things about your family that you claim i said.... give this up. really. I would love to talk foreign policy and quit talking about your bizarre vendetta.

EZ enough for you to clear up. Provide links. :pee:

[retiredman]

EZ enough for you to clear up. Provide links. :pee:

"clear it up" for whom? No one cares but you and me and we both know I am right. I never accused you of having anal sex with your son. You know it. I know it.

really.... you need to quit obsessing and go pop a zit or something.:laugh2:

[glockmail]

"clear it up" for whom? No one cares but you and me and we both know I am right. I never accused you of having anal sex with your son. You know it. I know it.

really.... you need to quit obsessing and go pop a zit or something.:laugh2:


I don't know that you're right. Provide links to back up your claims. You already said that you looked this shit up earlier, so its within your capabilities. Post it here with links.

[MtnBiker]

Alright guys either take it to the cage or pm, it doesn't really need to be in this thread anymore.

[retiredman]

Alright guys either take it to the cage or pm, it doesn't really need to be in this thread anymore.

I already tried that approach. I wrote him a lengthy PM and he still insists on obsessing about it in public.

I swear, teenaged girls and speed freaks are the only folks I know who obsess like this guy.

[glockmail]

Alright guys either take it to the cage or pm, it doesn't really need to be in this thread anymore.
He's shown himself to have a slightly different attitude in pms, so the cage it is: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=121381&postcount=1

[jafar00]

If I may get back on topic for the moment ;)
I'm a currency trader by trade. Here is an annotated, Monthly US$ Index Chart to mull over. I think it's clear why the US economy is messed up and who is responsible.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[jafar00]

It's not just $ woes either.

The Stock Market is being propped up by cash injections by the FED. To the tune of more than $300 billion in the last few weeks alone.

If the FED hadn't stepped in to save the day, the 1st stock market crash of the 21st century would have happened already.

All they have done is postpone the inevitable though. It will crash, and along with it, you will have hyper inflation caused by the creation of $300 billion out of thin air.

You know, I think they just pumped another $30 billion or so in today. I'm watching the DOW have another miraculous recovery as I type this.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[jafar00]

Well, you can't blame the republicrats for all of it. Alan Greenspan had his hand in it by creating the credit bubble which popped and caused the subprime loan meltdown.

[jimnyc]

This is a page from Expedia talking about decisions they are making due to customer polling.

After conducting extensive traveler lab research and customer polling, Expedia® Corporate Travel redesigned its site to reflect the evolving tastes and preferences of business travelers, enabling them to make smarter, easier and faster travel decisions for themselves and their company.

First off, I guess you missed the part where they stated "extensive traveler lab research".

Secondly, this is not a "major financial decision" but rather a redesign to their website! Is this the best you can do? LOL

Your reaching for straws, but your hands are returning piles of dogshit.

[jimnyc]

Here is what I said and now I have proven exactly what I have said was and is true.

No, you haven't, and not even close. A company like expedia can expect to pay anywhere from $10k - $50k for a major website overhaul. That is hardly a "major financial decision", and not to mention it was decided in conjunction with "extensive lab research".

Desperate, are we? :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[KarlMarx]

The President does not have much to say about spending, except to veto spending bills. It is the Congress, not the President, that is mostly responsible for our escalating debt. Oh by the way, the Democrats have controlled Congress for most of the past 50 years.

[KarlMarx]

jafar --- Alan Greenspan is not the chairman of the Fed. The Fed does not determine who or who does not get a loan or a mortgage.

The subprime mortgages were made by private corporations, not the government. People who were less than credit worthy were given loans and mortgages by lending companies and other financial institutions. Those people are now defaulting on their loans. That is the cause of the current "credit crisis".

[jimnyc]

So their web site has nothing to do with them making major business decisions?

No, it doesn't. They made a VERY MINOR financial decision for their website based on polls AND extensive research. Not even remotely close to what you were stating earlier about major corporations and major financial decisions based on the polling companies you referred to.

[jimnyc]

The President does not have much to say about spending, except to veto spending bills. It is the Congress, not the President, that is mostly responsible for our escalating debt. Oh by the way, the Democrats have controlled Congress for most of the past 50 years.

Thanks, Karl, I've said as much many times in this thread, but unfortunately your words will fall upon TM's deaf ears.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

How much does expedia.COMs business depends on their web site?

Doesn't matter. What matters is that they used "extensive lab research". No major company in their right mind is going to make "major financial decisions" based solely upon polls. The polls you refer to have more to do with the appearance of their website and less to do with any financial strategy.

Is this the best you can offer? Someone who redesigned a stinking website? Can you not find anything else to lay your claims on?

[MtnBiker]

How much does expedia.COMs business depends on their web site?

Considering finiancial decisions, how much of their business depend on contracts with hotels, contracts with airlines, contracts with car rental companines? How much of their business depends on payment systems? How much of their business depends on infromation systems, scheduling concerns? How much of their business depends on customer service and follow through? How much of their business depends upon abtaining the best rates and service for their customers? The website is very important to their business, but only one component.

[jimnyc]

Considering finiancial decisions, how much of their business depend on contracts with hotels, contracts with airlines, contracts with car rental companines? How much of their business depends on payment systems? How much of their business depends on infromation systems, scheduling concerns? How much of their business depends on customer service and follow through? How much of their business depends upon abtaining the best rates and service for their customers? The website is very important to their business, but only one component.

Now you went and did it, you injected reasoning and sensibility to the thread along with facts, you shall now feel the wrath of TM via obfuscation! :laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

I'm guarding my coffee.:coffee:

[avatar4321]

Polling is a science and if its so useless Please explain to me why Corporatioons make major financial decisions based on polling results and then succede?

You can say the world is flat and even believe it is but it does not make the world flat.

polling is a science huh?

having taken numerous science classes and a statistics class, id love to know what school presents statistics as a science.

[avatar4321]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_research

Are you really going to deny the exsistance of Marketing reseach?

since when is marketing research nothing but polls?

[avatar4321]

Trying to diver the subject to a false argument about proof on a minor side issue wont make these facts go away.

It is very typical of the Republican tanctics of the last thirty years but now too many people know this trick ad it is dead.

People in this country are much more concerned About the Fact the the Republicn party lies to them by saying they are the fiscal party when all the facts point to the simple truth that the Best Fiscal Policy We have Had in the Last Thiryt Years was Under completely Democratic Government.

The 1993 OMBRA passed WITHOUT ONE SINGLE R VOTE!

actually the best fiscal policy we've had in the last thirty years was accomplish by a Republican Congress.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[avatar4321]

What legislation was that ?

You know the ones that balanced the budget and have since lowered taxes allowing tax payers to keep their own money stimulating the economy and thus increasing the coffers of the treasury.

Are you seriously going to argue that the Congress that raised taxes tried to add Hillarycare are the best fiscal policy?

Its not a coincidence that when Democrats take office our economy is in the trash by the time their administration is over.

its not a coincidence that Republican administrations take poor economies and turn them into impressive growth.

Its also not a coincidence that Democrats try to pretend its their policies that caused it.

[jimnyc]

http://www.uta.edu/msmr/

Marketing research DOES NOT equate simply to "polling".

[truthmatters]

4

[PostmodernProphet]

a DOTCOM business

interesting that you should bring them up in a thread on who is responsible for the US debt.......if the dot.com business hadn't folded and brought about a recession, we probably wouldn't have a national debt now......

[jimnyc]

This again is what I said and desiding what is on your web site when you are a DOTCOM business IS A MAJOR FINANCIAL DECISION.

The people who PAY them money for which makes their company a sucessful company use this web site to access their business.

I cant believe you people are really just this dishonest.

And I can't believe you're this dense. When a company makes millions upon millions of dollars per year, a minor investment in their website is not a "major financial decision". And you are once again ignoring the fact that they CLEARLY stated they also did extensive lab research. The money they paid into a website upgrade can be made back via a handful of customer purchases.

And again, is this the only example you can provide? Why can you not find anything else to provide as proof? Surely if major companies do this as you say they do, then you should have no problem providing additional examples, or at least some that support your claim.

Why do you hate providing additional proof to backup your own words?

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

If polls are so bad why do corporations use them?

You have never asnwered MY question.

Actually, I did. You were just too busy obfuscating the issue rather than admitting you're wrong to notice.

Yes, they'll use polls. IN CONJUNCTION with proper marketing research, and their sampling rates are nowhere even remotely close to as low as those you used regarding politics.

Again, why do you hate providing proof? Do I have to ask you to do so for a 100th time today? Can you provide something other than a website upgrade to support your claims that major companies make major financial decisions based on the polls you referred to?

[avatar4321]

If polls are so bad why do corporations use them?

You have never asnwered MY question.

Polls are a scientific tool used by profit ad nonprofit alike because they are accurate if performed correctly.

The BEST piece of fiscal legislation we had in 30 years was the 1993 ombra and you refuse over and over and over and over to discuss this fact.

WHY?

there is nothing scientific about polls.

Science deals with facts.

but then you probably believe in global warming too.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

They use polls because contrary to what you said earlier that polls are not worthless.Polls provide a vast amount of information which corporations use to make money.

Now do you care to discuss the best piece of fiscal legislation in 30 years the 1993 budget reduction act passed into law wtithout one single Republican vote whioch the CBO and GAO credit with a major contribution to the surpluses of the 1990s?

Polls that use a sampling rate of .00001 percent ARE useless. Polls that use a much larger percentage, and done so in conjunction with proper marketing research and in-depth analysis are not.

And I'll be happy to discuss what you mentioned, as soon as you provide proof of your claim AND answer me from the beginning of the thread when I stated the current debt increase was due to the war and the finances involved, the very same finances that many democrats approved - which you seem to want to hold Bush or the republican administration fully accountable for.

[JohnDoe]

interesting that you should bring them up in a thread on who is responsible for the US debt.......if the dot.com business hadn't folded and brought about a recession, we probably wouldn't have a national debt now......but the recession only lasted 8 months from the dot com.... march of 2001 through november of 2001, november of 2001 the recession was OVER according to ALL economic indicators???

the republicans who were in power the past 6 years ARE the ones responsible for the legislation they introduced and passed and the money they added to the national debt the past 6 years.... in the very least.

And the amount the republicans in power and in total control of our budgets have added to the national debt is $3.4 TRILLION in those 6 years? this is not something minute!

NEVER in our history has anyone ever added, comparatively, $3.4 trillion to the national debt in just 6 years....shoot it took hundreds of years to get to the $5.6 trillion of national debt through the Clinton' presidency.

i think it is TIME to own up to your own party's mishaps and mistakes, and cutting taxes WHILE NOT CUTTING their spending but increasing it, is what has added to the national debt.... a spend and borrow from China policy....

ALL that money added to the national debt IS BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG SPENDING and not what republicans CLAIM to stand for, which is small gvt....right?

SOOOOO, this is just another fabrication of what those republicans in office SUPPOSEDLY believe in....because their actions DO NOT IN ANY WAY, match their words, so is it just rhetoric?

I wouldn't let YOUR PARTY off so easily if i were a republican on the financial issues and making government as BIG AS THEY HAVE the past 6 years....$3.4 TRILLION BIGGER, and counting!!!!

that ain't small change...

that is a disgrace imho.

jd

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

And the amount the republicans in power and in total control of our budgets have added to the national debt is $3.4 TRILLION in those 6 years? this is not something minute!

Approximately 2 trillion of that goes to the war effort as stated earlier, the very same war effort that so many democrats approved financing for.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

So you are going to claim the democrats are to blame when there is a republican majority in both houses and a republican president making decisions?

Nope, I think I clearly stated that it wasn't fully the Republicans to blame, that the democrats played a large role too.


I gave you proof you just refuse any facts you dont like.

It's not that I don't like them, It's just that they don't support your claims. You have yet to show me EVEN ONE major company that makes major financial decisions based solely on polling as you referred to.


You refuse polls because they dont say what you want to hear.

Couldn't be further from the truth. There are lots of polls that would support things I believe in from my political viewpoint, but if the sampling rate is so minute, I don't bother using it in a debate as I don't feel it truly supports my arguments.


You blame the democrats when the R arein control.

Haven't blamed them, but nice try again, Mrs. I can't comprehend. I simply stated they share a part in why the debt has risen as many Democrats have voted to authorize the war and financing.


You may think you are getting away with something but all you are accomplishing is further damage to your party through you inability to accept truth when its in your face.

Only because you say so! But yet you say this has been this way for over 30 years now, and the Republicans have done well getting elected in many places during that time. Couldn't have hurt too much, unless of course you are a deluded liberal.


Remember people view these sites and see you disengenious wiggling and thrashing away from the real facts.

I don't see anyone other than you claiming such. In fact, I only see others agreeing with me and telling you that you are incorrect.


You have not fooled me ,you have not fooled them.

I wouldn't want to fool you any further, it may prove to be fatal.


You have just lessened your integrity.

Only in your eyes, which amounts to a pile of donkey shit. This is why you get ripped in every single thread you participate in here. YOU are the one with no integrity. YOU are the one who continually looks foolish. YOU are the one who can't even grasp the English language.

But I'll wait for the rest of the board to chime in and tell me whether they feel I have lost all my integrity with my debate with you. What do you say anyone reading this, have I lost all credibility and integrity with my arguments against TM?

[JohnDoe]

Approximately 2 trillion of that goes to the war effort as stated earlier, the very same war effort that so many democrats approved financing for.Simply NOT TRUE....

we are at around 500 billion for the war right now....

jd

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Simply NOT TRUE....

we are at around 500 billion for the war right now....

jd

I was speaking of what the total cost calculations will be. Forecasters have projected it to be much higher than what "current" expenditures are at.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/16758
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iraq-war-could-cost-26-trillion/2006/01/10/1136851198921.html
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/cost_of_war_could_top_2_trillion.htm

I can provide many more "official" counts after I eat dinner if you like.

[jimnyc]

The democratic party is the fiscal party and the historical facts prove that.


That is what this thread was about and you could not deal with these facts so you detoured the thread into some small tangent which you also can not defend.

I showed you in many ways proof of what I said and you have shown nothing but a adverse nature to facts and admitting them.

The 1993 ombra was considered by the GAO and the CBO a major contributor to the 1990s budget surpluses and not one republican voted for it.

Democrats = the fiscal party.

More rants from the blathering idiot, who can't grasp her own language, nor debate her way out of her own damn arguments! :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

TM - I would like to personally thank you for one thing. Please take a moment to look at the top of the board, specifically at the "reputation standings". While I know it doesn't amount to more than a hill of beans, but YOU are the one who brought my honesty and integrity into question.

I've received close to 2,000 rep points just on my arguments against you alone! Your stupidity has actually helped me! :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

The numbers on the current debt dont include these projections so all you are doing is showing it will be even worse in the end.

Yet again, your stupidity shines through!

Take a look again at the photo YOU provided the board:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png

Now tell me what it states in the upper right hand corner, in black text...

I'll help you: US Gov Estimates 2007-10

Do you enjoy backpeddling on your OWN evidence?

[truthmatters]

4

[JohnDoe]

I was speaking of what the total cost calculations will be. Forecasters have projected it to be much higher than what "current" expenditures are at.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/16758
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iraq-war-could-cost-26-trillion/2006/01/10/1136851198921.html
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/cost_of_war_could_top_2_trillion.htm

I can provide many more "official" counts after I eat dinner if you like.but if you are talking about what our war cost will be in the future then you would have to include what our national debt will be in the future....an educated guess would be 12 Trillion by the time Bush leaves, especially if we go in to the recession they are speaking about on the horizon, less will be put in the caufers to pay for all....more borrowing....to come.

the republican medicare pill bill, with no congressmen on the dem's side voting for it, is the biggest social program added to our government in recent history....

the medicare/ pill bill will bankrupt us, if not reformed.

[jimnyc]

Post #78 by JD:


I have read that by the time President Bush is out of office the National Debt estimate is $11.5 TRILLION dollars based on how things stand now with the legislation that has been put in place,,,,Our total History's National Debt accumilated up untill President Bush will DOUBLE in one 8 year presidency!


It was in response to what you and john doe were talking about not the chart.

I was speaking throughout about who is responsible for the debt, based both on what YOU provided and what JD stated in her post.


but if you are talking about what our war cost will be in the future then you would have to include what our national debt will be in the future....an educated guess would be 12 Trillion by the time Bush leaves, especially if we go in to the recession they are speaking about on the horizon, less will be put in the caufers to pay for all....more borrowing....to come.

Yes, I know, which you already stated in post #78 which brought about a lot of this discussion.

You 2 seem to want to throw around the 11-12 trillion mark, which is in fact including forecasts, but when I include a forecast within the very same discussion you 2 think I'm wrong?

[jimnyc]

You are right they mean nothing.

On the large scale of things, agreed. But based on your comments that those reading will see me as disingenuous, or that I now have a lack of credibility or integrity - You are apparently dead wrong. As usual.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Sad very sad.

Yes, we know all too well that you are. It's proven with every single one of your illiterate posts.

Funny how so many pages later and you STILL can't provide anything to substantiate your claims outside of a website upgrade, which you were wrong with that example as well! :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

I get it!

Ummmm, No, you don't! That's what we've all been trying to tell you! You are absolutely lost. You make claims, then bail when called on them. You write like a chimpanzee who overdosed on speed. You are extremely arrogant and outright refuse to acknowledge when you're wrong. If you had an ounce of a brain I would be less forgiving, but I honestly can't recall you being correct about a single thing on this board that regarded fact and not opinion.

[truthmatters]

4

[JohnDoe]

less money is added to the national debt when Democratic presidents are in power.....this is what statistics and charts show, that is fact.

what it means? i don't know the full meaning of it?

and jim, jim, jim.... i said 3.4 trillion added to the debt level in 6 years by repubs...you claimed it was mostly ''war'' money that was in the 3.4 trillion added so far, and this is SIMPLY not true.... of that $3.4 trillion borrowed so far, less than $500 billion has been for the war expenditures so far... this is only 14% of what they have borrowed and added to the national debt level, so far..... this means that YOUR impression that the OVER SPENDING by the republican congress under the 6 years with president bush was due to the ''war'' costs, and Dems voting for the war, again, is not true, wrong.

just an fyi! ;)

jd

[glockmail]

less money is added to the national debt when Democratic presidents are in power.....this is what statistics and charts show, that is fact.

what it means? i don't know the full meaning of it?

....It appears to mean that the Republicans are cleaning up the mess made after Democrats were in the White House. For eample:

Reagan after Carter, massive inflation and day 400 or so of the Hostage Crisis traded for a robust economy and the downfall of the USSR.
Bush 43 after Clinton, Terrorists attacks on US soil and foreign bases, culminating with 9-11, followed by terrorists on the defensive for the first time.

[jimnyc]

The republican party will never be able to fool anyone but those who wish to be fooled by claiming they are the fiscal party.

You people have made mighty attempts to stay way from this fact.

You have played games all day long and have yet to truely accept the failure of your party to do the right thing for America.

I dont understand your loyalty but it doesnt matter because you will follow and whorship the party and climb into the grave it is headed for with it.

Those of us of all parties that put country above party will just have to clean up the mess you leave behind.

Did you say something? I'm having issues comprehending you again.

[jimnyc]

less money is added to the national debt when Democratic presidents are in power.....this is what statistics and charts show, that is fact.

what it means? i don't know the full meaning of it?

and jim, jim, jim.... i said 3.4 trillion added to the debt level in 6 years by repubs...you claimed it was mostly ''war'' money that was in the 3.4 trillion added so far, and this is SIMPLY not true.... of that $3.4 trillion borrowed so far, less than $500 billion has been for the war expenditures so far... this is only 14% of what they have borrowed and added to the national debt level, so far..... this means that YOUR impression that the OVER SPENDING by the republican congress under the 6 years with president bush was due to the ''war'' costs, and Dems voting for the war, again, is not true, wrong.

just an fyi! ;)

jd

Spin it any way you like, I was simply replying to your and TM's posts, both of which included forecasting as part of the spending. It was you who stated that the money spent Re: the war was such a small amount (remember, I replied with laughter?). I don't think "only" 14% current expenditure on the war would be considered a small amount in a nation of our size and as complex as our nation. Do you still feel 14% of 3.6 trillion is a small amount?

Funny how when discussing this somehow the money spent towards the war is considered small by you, but you guys will be the very first in line to condemn the republicans for money spent because of the war.

[truthmatters]

4

[jimnyc]

Why do people type like this?

Have they not received a proper education?

Can they not read that others have stated it makes it difficult to read?

Why is it that you hate paragraphs?

Have these paragraphs done anything to you to deserve such treatment?

I think Bush/Cheney are preventing you from properly posting.

I'm calling moveon.org to get them on top of it.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[MtnBiker]

Code Pink has developed on line posting.

One line posting diminishes studdering.

It also helps with focusing.

Just don't do this

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[Nukeman]

.


The Bush bit you mention is just horseshit because it has been documented that Bush ignored OBL and AQ from the day he got into office till 911. He told people "dont tell me about that again" when people like Richard Clarke(he was there through R and D president alike and He was treat like crap by Bush) tried to warn him.Hey numbnuts how about how much Billy boy ignored OBL. Hell he was going to be handed to Bill on a silver platter and he said, "Uhh not now Monica is taking "dick"tation if you know what I mean". You libs and your fucking stone throwing is soo absurd. You continue to scream look what they did. You always think that conservatives are inbred, uneducated, hilljacks. You wouldnt know how to run this contry without the backbone of the conservatives who built and maintain the military and heartland of this great country.

I tell you what "truthdoesntmatter", get off yor fucking holier than thou high horse and actually read the counter points to your onesided supposed arguments.

My God woman I dont think I have ever seen someone as dense and thinkheaded as you seem to be.... I pray to God your just pretending to be this stupid.....

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

Carter was ot a great president but he did have some unique problems. He took the helm after the vietnam war had recently ended. This gave the economy tens of thousands of unemployed soldiers coming home from war.
The military contracts some industries had been profiting from for years suddenly ended(if you are not usig up bullets ,guns and tanks everyday anymore you stop making them and profiting from their sale). The economy began doing things the Economist had no idea what to do with let alone some governor from GA knew what to do with.

Carter was a complete outsider to the washington scene. He was a Gov and had no inside freindships to cash in on like an outsider could. He still managed to NOT inflate the deficit though and that is a fact.


The Bush bit you mention is just horseshit because it has been documented that Bush ignored OBL and AQ from the day he got into office till 911. He told people "dont tell me about that again" when people like Richard Clarke(he was there through R and D president alike and He was treat like crap by Bush) tried to warn him.


The Vietnam war was over long before Jiminy Carter was Prez. Soldiers coming home from battle are a resource, not a burden as you indicate.

If Carter managed not to inflate the deficit then ths is simple proof that deficits don't matter to a robust economy.

The only "documentation" you have that Bush 43 "ignored" OBL is partisan in nature. All the delays to the start of the Administration were caused by Democrats, from AlGore's lawsuits on the election results to the Democrats dragging their feet on appointments, severly limiting Administartive powers during that critical 9 months leading up to 9-11.

[glockmail]

....
I tell you what "truthdoesntmatter", get off yor fucking holier than thou high horse and actually read the counter points to your onesided supposed arguments.
........ That would require an open mind.

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

I never said they were a burden but as they finished their terms of service they were then entering the private sector.

No I dont see how this is proof that deficits dont matter to the economy.

How is the proof I have offered partisan?

Paul O'Niel is a life long republican who Bush choice for the office he held.
Richard Clark had serve honorably under both R and D alike and held a non partisan position for which he was suprememly qualified for.

GWB did not take office until jan 20th so the lawsuits over the totally messed up elelctions had no bearing on his presidency because they were well over by the time he toolk office.


Oh I forgot to say that the vietnam war ended on 4/30/1975 and Jimmy Carter took office on 1/20/1977 and that is less than two years which would have the people who had been last drafted for the war in vietnam just finishing their terms of service and begining to enter the private economy right as he was taking office. There were a vast amount of young people in the country who were graduatig high school also due to the baby boomers leaving school from high school through higher education. What was an economy going to due to aborb the vast amount of young people ready to partake?

I've heard a lot of excuses for Jimmy Carter but this takes the cake.:lame2:

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

Its not excuses it facts about what was happening in the greater society at the time.

The baby boom was coming of age, people were back from vietnam and leaving their commitments to the military, the military industrial complex developed in the Veitnam war was being dismantled and social issues were very high on the agenda.

It was a time when even the field of economics was baffled about what was happening to the economy.
High taxes, punitive regulations, price controls, and a weak foreign policy were all Carter Hallmarks and well know predicted disasters according to conservatives at the time. Reagan came in, cut taxes and regulation, removed price controls, and developed a strong foreign policy. Hence starting the longest continuous growth period in modern US history.

I don't know why you would claim that "the field of economics" was so baffled. Maybe you're the one who's baffled. If you weren't so closed-minded about conservative values you might not be baffled.

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

Because they were because those conditions had not happen in combination before.
It is from people who have studied ecomonics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_carter#Economic_situation
stagflation Gee, I thought the experts were baffled? The revisions at wiki have been hard at work.

The fact is that Carter caused the four factors that I stated to occur. It had nothing to do with the end of a war, as that is normally beneficial to an economy. (If we aren't making guns, we can make more butter. That's Econ 101, 1st day.) It certaintly had nothing to do with an influx of labor into the market, as that also is beneficial.

Make all the excuses you want about Carter, but he was the worst president in modern US history. Choose to ignore what Reagan did, and your ignorance will only be compounded.

[truthmatters]

4

[glockmail]

It is where the Name stagflation comes form, it was coined by the years during the time when the economy did what it had not done before.
A stagnate economy and inflation at the same time. Ask an econimist about it.:lame2:

[truthmatters]

4