tart
It's good....except for the 'formidable intelligence' part.
blatham wrote:
george will say, "bernie, you and other leftists do the same thing...look at how you talk about Bush and the evangelicals!!".
But it is not that I wish the demise of the Republican party or the loss of its viewpoint...it is that I think this present variant is ahistorical and reflects a deep and dangerous pathology.
Bernie, you and other leftists do the same thing ... look at how you talk about Bush and the evangelicals.
I don't wish for the demise of the Democrat party. Hell, I don't even think they are either deep, dangerous, or pathological - just wrong and wrongheaded. I just want them to lose next year.
Well, that's what they think, Blatham!! But when the Rep choir boys in the House -- Lindsay Graham et al -- were after Clinton, that's what I thought of -- those horrible blonde kids with their wide-open eyes...!
Tartarin wrote: -- those horrible blonde kids with their wide-open eyes...!
Was that a stereotype? Too bad they are not a protected group.
Lola wrote:Quote:but I won't attempt any humiliation - just not that kind of guy.
Sure you're not george........we all believe you, don't we gang? Economic figures are up........you bet they are. and they're all engineered....phooey
Oh, but during Clinton those numbers meant something, right?
"Oh, but during Clinton those numbers meant something, right?"
Yup. I guess it depends on who's cooking the books... Or could it be that we were all doing so well we had no cause to doubt the numbers. With this administration, it's all tell 'em one thing, do another.
Scrat wrote:Oh, but during Clinton those numbers meant something, right?
They meant something under Clinton, and they mean the same thing under Bush. Personally, the thing that strikes me most about the conservative position is that 8 years of sustained growth (GDP
and employment) didn't vindicate Clinton's economic policy, but one good quarter (GDP only) after 2 1/2 rollercoaster years does vindicate Bush's economic policy. Isn't that rather inconsistent?
Tartarin wrote:"Oh, but during Clinton those numbers meant something, right?"
Yup. I guess it depends on who's cooking the books... Or could it be that we were all doing so well we had no cause to doubt the numbers. With this administration, it's all tell 'em one thing, do another.
Yeah, we were all doing so well when the Kobe Towers got bombed and we didn't respond. So well that the USS Cole got bombed, but of course in response to that, we did nothing. Then 9/11 happened. Thank God we had a new administration in place to actually respond.
But yeah, we were doing real well under your boy Clinton, gutted military, zero plausible deterrence for those who wished us harm, the most indicted administration in US history, but hell yeah, that economy Reagan and Bush crafted was nice until Clinton killed that too.
Uh oh, Scrat, you couldn't actually come up with anti-Clinton economic figures so you went off on a tangent.
scrat, I do believe it was Bush I that did the major cuts of military funding.
Tartarin wrote:Uh oh, Scrat, you couldn't actually come up with anti-Clinton economic figures so you went off on a tangent.
Yeah, that's what happened. See that everybody? Tart is so insightful! ()
Didn't you? So come up with the economic report on Clinton!
Good point Thomas; Clinton's almost 32 quarters of a good economy seems overwhelming in contrast to what the conservatives bloating about GWBush's one good quarter out of 11. Inconsistent indeed!
george
Not referring to you, nor most republicans, in my post above. Unless you, or them, get rabies.
I'd check George's medical status though your politeness is admirable. A little drooling at the corner of the mouth is an indication...
Tartarin wrote:Didn't you? So come up with the economic report on Clinton!
I'm sorry, what claim did I make that you think I need to substantiate?
Between them, Reagan and Bush the Elder reduced the active-duty military from some 2.25 Million to approximately 1.8 Million. At the end of Clinton's term, Bush the Younger inherited an active-duty military of a bit under 1.4 Million, so the manpower cuts were roughly equal. However, during the Clinton years, military spending as percentage of GDP declined significantly, even when adjusted for a smaller military. Clinton's treatment of the military, exacerbated by an exploding tech job market, brought about a retention and recruitment crisis, both in active duty and reserve components. Pilots, electronics, communications, and computer specialists, mechanics, and medical personnel were key shortfalls. In terms of equipment and training, Clinton spent less per-military-member than had any of his post WWII predecessors, including Carter. Clinton handed off to Bush the Younger a much less capable military than he had received from Bush the Elder.
Timber - To be fair, (and speaking as someone that was in the military during all of the Reagan, Bush I and most of Clinton's Adminstrations) there was no way Clinton could have kept pace with the open job market. There are always retention problems in an all-volunteer military but the commercial sectors were in a feeding frenzy for warm bodies through the 90s and people were getting ridiculous offers thrown at them. Pilots were being offered salaries that were 5 and 6 times what they were making in the military (and military pilots do pretty well when you add in all of the incentive pay they get..). I had 19 and 20 year old E-3s that that knew little more than basic PC repair and they were getting job offers in excess of $60K with all sorts of stock options, etc..
Government employment, and especially the military, always suffer badly in a hyper-inflated job market.
the dems don't have a prayer.
bush is back in.
God help us all.
