If you would read the article I posted as a link, even Bill Clinton recognized the problem, as relates to poverty, etc.
And so mentioning an important factor as relates to the subject of poverty is a "strawman," huh? You guys love the term. Open mouth, say "strawman." Practice it some more, cyclops, and anytime you can't rebut an argument, just repeat, "strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman." Pathetic, cyclops.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, FYI, listen closely. My siblings and I were "welfare children." Our mother probably didn't even have a high school education.
Today, my older brother is an attorney, and was an administrative judge in CA. My younger brother is an ophthalmologist and is today a legislator in CA. My sister is an RN.
My sister's four children are all professionals; two oldest are physicians, the third son a dentist, and the youngest doughter has a PhD in chemistry. My younger brother's children; oldest daughter is an ophthalmologist, younger daughter has a PhD in special education, and the youngest, his son, is an attorney. Both our sons graduated cum laude from college.
You usually don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry, imposter, anecdotal evidence does not count. You've told me that many, many times, I think, unless I have you mixed up with cyclops or parados, but you all pretty much repeat the same liberal line.
okie, If you still believe Bill Clinton is a liberal, you don't understand American Politics.
okie wrote:If you would read the article I posted as a link, even Bill Clinton recognized the problem, as relates to poverty, etc.
And so mentioning an important factor as relates to the subject of poverty is a "strawman," huh? You guys love the term. Open mouth, say "strawman." Practice it some more, cyclops, and anytime you can't rebut an argument, just repeat, "strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman." Pathetic, cyclops.
A 'strawman' means that you are arguing against a different argument than the one I put forward. It isn't a partisan term.
My argument isn't that this is incorrect:
Quote:So single parenthood and other cultural factors have no influence upon poverty? Ooooookay, typical liberal viewpoint, but obviously out of touch and totally blind to the obvious.
But that the Heritage foundation, being a Republican-paid and ran organization, isn't a reliable source for judgement of, well, anything. That's different than what you accused me of.
Cycloptichorn
You for sure don't if you think he isn't.
Anything he ever did that was conservative, he did for political expediency, not because he wanted to. You should know that.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But that the Heritage foundation, being a Republican-paid and ran organization, isn't a reliable source for judgement of, well, anything. That's different than what you accused me of.
Cycloptichorn
I suppose if the Heritage Foundation said the sun came up in the east, you would swear it had to be wrong?
okie wrote: Sorry, imposter, anecdotal evidence does not count. You've told me that many, many times, I think, unless I have you mixed up with cyclops or parados, but you all pretty much repeat the same liberal line.
And this guys telling me "anecdotal evidence does not count" after writing "If you would read the article I posted as a link, even Bill Clinton recognized the problem, as relates to poverty, etc."
Geeesh!
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
But that the Heritage foundation, being a Republican-paid and ran organization, isn't a reliable source for judgement of, well, anything. That's different than what you accused me of.
Cycloptichorn
I suppose if the Heritage Foundation said the sun came up in the east, you would swear it had to be wrong?
No, but I wouldn't take it as evidence that it does. And in fact, it is incorrect - the sun doesn't 'come up' anywhere, the Earth rotates. But that's just nitpicking.
Clinton wasn't a Liberal, um, yeah. He didn't hold any really liberal positions. He was a centrist, a Republican-lite.
Cycloptichorn
And to repeat my post from above: okie, If you still believe Bill Clinton is a liberal, you don't understand American Politics.
okie, When you only use the stock market performance as a guage of our overall economy, how do you react to the following news?
Economy may slow this summer, data show By CANDICE CHOI, AP Business Writer
7 minutes ago
NEW YORK - A gauge of future economic activity showed the U.S. economy will slow in coming months, reversing recent gains and suggesting higher gas prices and a sluggish construction industry are beginning to take their toll.
The Conference Board said Thursday its index of leading economic indicators dropped 0.5 percent, higher than the 0.1 decline analysts were expecting. The reading is designed to forecast economic activity over the next three to six months.
The increase almost reversed an amended 0.6 percent climb in March, which analysts say should relieve pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates.
"The data may be pointing to slower economic conditions this summer. With the industrial core of the economy already slow, and housing mired in a continued slump, there are some signs that these weaknesses may be beginning to soften both consumer spending and hiring this summer," said Ken Goldstein, labor economist for the Conference Board.
The reading tracks 10 economic indicators. Two of those readings were positive in April: stock prices and real money supply.
The negative contributors, beginning with the largest, were building permits, weekly unemployment claims, manufacturers' new orders for non-defense capital goods, consumer expectations, vendor performance, average weekly manufacturing hours and interest rate spread.
With the latest decline, the cumulative change in the index over the past six months has dropped 0.2 percent.
You must consider this news on top of all the government statistics provided earlier comparing Clinton and Bush.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie wrote: Sorry, imposter, anecdotal evidence does not count. You've told me that many, many times, I think, unless I have you mixed up with cyclops or parados, but you all pretty much repeat the same liberal line.
And this guys telling me "anecdotal evidence does not count" after writing "If you would read the article I posted as a link, even Bill Clinton recognized the problem, as relates to poverty, etc."
Geeesh!
imposter, Clinton simply recognized the statistical data, which is not anecdotal. Sheesh, I should have given up on you long ago.
And to proclaim Clinton was not a liberal, you are hopelessly lost in the forest of confusion, as apparently cyclops is as well in regard to Clinton. Hillary is a staunch leftist, and Bill follows pretty much the same, but does do a few thing to appear to cater to a conservative view in order to get elected, but no way is he a conservative. Are you guys nuts?
Stock market under Clinton and bush
Budget deficits under Clinton and Bush
Unemployment under Clinton and Bush
okie wrote: And to proclaim Clinton was not a liberal, you are hopelessly lost in the forest of confusion, as apparently cyclops is as well in regard to Clinton.
Show us all of Clinton's liberal legislations during his eight years in office? We'll see who's lost.
cicerone imposter wrote:Stock market under Clinton and bush
Budget deficits under Clinton and Bush
Unemployment under Clinton and Bush
Add "Gingrich led Congress" next the name, Clinton, and you might get a slightly clearer picture, imposter. And Stock Market and Unemployment is decent under both Bush and Clinton, but Clinton presided over the huge dotcom bubble, which had to correct itself, plus Bush had to deal with the economic effects of 911. I agree the deficit is worse than it should be, thanks to big spenders in Congress, and Bush.
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:okie wrote: Sorry, imposter, anecdotal evidence does not count. You've told me that many, many times, I think, unless I have you mixed up with cyclops or parados, but you all pretty much repeat the same liberal line.
And this guys telling me "anecdotal evidence does not count" after writing "If you would read the article I posted as a link, even Bill Clinton recognized the problem, as relates to poverty, etc."
Geeesh!
imposter, Clinton simply recognized the statistical data, which is not anecdotal. Sheesh, I should have given up on you long ago.
And to proclaim Clinton was not a liberal, you are hopelessly lost in the forest of confusion, as apparently cyclops is as well in regard to Clinton. Hillary is a staunch leftist, and Bill follows pretty much the same, but does do a few thing to appear to cater to a conservative view in order to get elected, but no way is he a conservative. Are you guys nuts?
I never said he was a conservative, I said he was a centrist.
Tell ya what. Why don't you point out to me the positions he took which were liberal?
Cycloptichorn
If you want to look at the different facets of liberalism, take the social side, he is staunchly liberal, no question. I am not surrendering on any of the other facets, but just look at the social side, that should be no argument at all.
okie wrote:If you want to look at the different facets of liberalism, take the social side, he is staunchly liberal, no question. I am not surrendering on any of the other facets, but just look at the social side, that should be no argument at all.
It shouldn't be difficult for you to point out specifics, Okie, if he was so Liberal.
Remember that a Centrist is someone who has some Liberal positions and some Conservative ones. And that describes Clinton to a T, even if he's more Liberal socially and more Conservative Fiscally.
Cycloptichorn
Socially, totally liberal. His judge appointments all liberal. National defense, liberal. Domestic policy in terms of being in favor of government programs, overwhelmingly liberal. If you question that, look at the effort he sent his wife into, attempting to socialize medicine, 1/7 of the economy. Fiscally, the deficits were reduced due to a fortunate cycle, coupled with a period of peace time, reduced military, and a Republican led Congress. He signed welfare reform, not because he wanted to, but because he saw the handwriting on the wall.
To clarify, Bush is not conservative on all issues, and in fact acts like a liberal on some issues, such as throwing more money at education on a federal level. But Bush at least has appointed some sensible Supreme Court judges, and if Clinton was in office, the situation would look drastically different in terms of court decisions.
What's the matter okie, you can't produce any evidence that Bill Clinton is a "staunch liberal?"
okie wrote:Socially, totally liberal. His judge appointments all liberal. National defense, liberal. Domestic policy in terms of being in favor of government programs, overwhelmingly liberal. If you question that, look at the effort he sent his wife into, attempting to socialize medicine, 1/7 of the economy. Fiscally, the deficits were reduced due to a fortunate cycle, coupled with a period of peace time, reduced military, and a Republican led Congress. He signed welfare reform, not because he wanted to, but because he saw the handwriting on the wall.
To clarify, Bush is not conservative on all issues, and in fact acts like a liberal on some issues, such as throwing more money at education on a federal level. But Bush at least has appointed some sensible Supreme Court judges, and if Clinton was in office, the situation would look drastically different in terms of court decisions.
These are fair arguments, but I think it's appropriate and accurate to call Clinton a Centrist, as he was disavowed by the Liberals for the same sorts of reasons Bush is disavowed by the Conservatives.
Cycloptichorn
