GeneralTsao wrote:roverroad wrote:I get through life just fine thank you. Not as well as I did when Clinton was President though. I had a bigger bank account then. Not thanks to Bushman it's my boss that has the bigger bank account... I can't wait to vote this lying un-American warmonger out of white house. He thinks he's owed the white house. We need a president that realizes that he works for the people again.
Unbelievable. Completely unbelievable that a person can be so misguided as to believe that his bank account size is directly attributable to any one person other than himself.
Have you forgotten that Clinton financed a faux economic recovery in 1993 by using bonds which came due in 2000? Remember the economy began tumbling in March, 2000? Remember the recession began in October, 2000?
Do you remember all the dotcom's in the 90s? Remember all the false hope and fictitiously-inflated stock values of the dotcom's?
How about the fraud discovered, during GW Bush's first two years, within Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia, Tyson, and about a dozen other companies? All this fraud began during the Clinton years. Do you not see a link there, someplace?
Unbelievable!
General - I hope YOU see the irony in criticizing the attribution of so much to a president and then making yoru own attributions to Clinton in the most undeserved manner.
Markets have their own logic, determined by many factors, one of which is political decision making. The dotcom boom/crash had little or nothing to do with Clinton, nor did the run of corporate frauds - the state of investment banking and the disregard for honesty was not a Democrat phenomenon any more than it was Republican.
I'm talking about something I know in detail. I'm a Forensic Accountant, specialising in fraud and money laundering prevention and detection.
Back the question...
Not my country or president but I know there was a big fuss about the Royal Ensign (the flag on Buckingham Palace, reprenting the Queen - not the Union Jack) NOT being flown at 1/2 mast after Princess Diana's death. The argument went that it never does, even after the death of a monarch, as it is symbolic of the continuity of the insitution of the head of state, not the person.
KP