None of us is perfect, so we should not be concerned about another's personal affairs. My concern is that we have an excellent president, which was the case with Clinton.
cicerone imposter wrote:snood, Nobody that I know is arguing that point. There's a big difference between a legal issue between lying about an extramarital affair vs starting a war. The first lie doesn't hurt anybody except himself and his family. The next one hurts thousands of people, and also gets many people killed.
The first (Clinton) is still a lie, and it's perjury when made under oath. The second (Bush) is not a lie, except in the fertile imaginations of anti-Bush leftists.
Well, we could agree to disagree about that. The evidence would suggest otherwise.
Of course, Mr Bush might just sleepwalk through life.
mysteryman wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:mysteryman wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:mysteryman wrote:Advocate wrote:It is silly to constantly dump on Clinton. He lied about a bj by a consenting adult in his home. This is something any married man, who has a child, would do. Big deal!
What was really criminal was the Republicans spending years persecuting Clinton (while not doing the government's business) at tremendous taxpayer expense.
Actually,an HONORABLE man,if he is married,wouldnt have gotten a bj by someone other then his wife in the first place.
So he would have no reason to lie about it.
The difference is the word HONORABLE.
Are you now defending a man that admittedly cheated on his wife?
Good question - where are you on, say, Guiliani or Gingrich?
Cycloptichorn
I dont like either one of them.
I applaud your consistency!
I agree with you that cheating is something no honorable man would do.
Cycloptichorn
IMO,ANY man that cheats on his wife (or woman that cheats on her husband) has no honor and is not to be trusted any further then you can throw them.
If someone will break that most sacred promise,then there is every reason to believe they will break every other promise they can make.
You sure would be in a pickle if Giuliani runs against Hillary.
On another thread, somebody referenced Berkeley as a "left wing nuthouse" and another member asked why?
I am waiting on a conference call and was briefly between projects and on a whim typed in "Berekely left wing nuthouse" to see what my browser would bring up.
First on the list was this:
WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?
By Michelle Malkin
September 09, 2004 12:27 PM
A subtle but telling example of media bias:
Just before I arrived in Berkeley, a headline in the news section of the San Francisco Chronicle referred to me as a "right-wing pundit."
In last night's speech I mused that if New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd came to the Bay Area, no Chronicle headline would refer to her as a "left-wing pundit." The very next day I was proven right.
Update: In the Chronicle's follow-up story (published on Friday morning), the headline refers to me as a "Columnist." Much better.
SOURCE
What does this have to do with the current discussion in progress? Nothing. Just thought it was interesting.
Bush Faces Clash of Agendas in Latin America "I go a lot of places and there are street rallies. And my attitude is, I love freedom and the right for people to express themselves."
Except for Americans in the US. That's the reason why his speeches are usually to the military or restricted to republicans only groups.
I also wonder why he hasn't been back to New Orleans to talk to the people of that city after he promised the "biggest reconstruction project in the US."
Updated: 9:36 p.m. PT Sept 15, 2005
NEW ORLEANS - President Bush promised Thursday night the government will pay most of the costs of rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast in one of the largest reconstruction projects the world has ever seen. "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again," the president said.
Bush probably didn't take into consideration teh sheer incompetence of the local officials.
McG, When Bush made that statement, he didn't make it "conditional."
We briefly interrupt the usual vacuous bush-bashing fare on this thread because I thought this was funny.
Here's an update on the "terrible" Bush economy. Boy I sure hope the Democrat controlled Congress can do something about this. Not!!!!!
Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.5 percent in February even as big losses of construction and factory jobs restrained overall payroll growth. Wages grew briskly.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070309/D8NOMJJO0.html
Quote:The US trade deficit narrowed 3.8 percent in January to 59.1 billion dollars thanks to record-breaking export growth, the Commerce Department said Friday.
It was a bigger drop than expected on Wall Street, where analysts saw a deficit of 60.0 billion dollars, and marked the steepest change in the trade figure since October.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/09/070309142115.84ch37t1.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/fed_household_finances_1
The net worth numbers don't reflect anything except the rich getting richer. The other numbers are good news though. I am happy to see the trade deficit shrinking; we need more of this...
Cycloptichorn
A one month trade deficit reduction does not a gain make.
Add up all the net worth of the really rich people and you'll see their total wealth doesn't make a dent in the overall totals. They also hold a tiny percentage of all privately owned real estate and most stocks/bonds etc. are held in the average Joe's 401Ks and simple IRAs and private investments by the little guys. My family is waaaaaaaaaay below the 'rich' category, but us old folks and the kids' (Texas and California) net worth has increased pretty much according to the national average. I'm also in a line of work in which I see a lot of P & Ls, balance sheets ,and payrolls, mostly of smaller companies, and I'm not seeing any declines in either wages or profits here and we're a poor state compared to most. I think this rising tide has pretty well lifted all boats and the blessings have been pretty much across the board.
It's a good economy. And no amount of liberalspeak can deny that.
Foxfyre wrote:Add up all the net worth of the really rich people and you'll see their total wealth doesn't make a dent in the overall totals. My family is waaaaaaaaaay below the 'rich' category, but us old folks and the kids' (Texas and California) net worth has increased pretty much according to the national average. I'm also in a line of work in which I see a lot of P & Ls, balance sheets ,and payrolls, mostly of smaller companies, and I'm not seeing any declines in either wages or profits here and we're a poor state compared to most. I think this rising tide has pretty well lifted all boats and the blessings have been pretty much across the board.
You think incorrectly, in part.
You are correct that there hasn't been a drop in wages - they just haven't been rising any faster than inflation since 2001, which means they aren't really rising at all, but staying flat.
The wealthy, on the other hand, have seen a large rise in wages and net worth (thanks to Bush tax cuts, which affect them to a greater degree).
If you like, I can start posting statistics to show you the numbers. The 'blessings' of this economy have been solidly entrenched amongst the top 10% or 5% of wealth in this nation.
Cycloptichorn
Like I said, you cannot explain it away with liberalspeak, and unless you can post your 'facts' from a reasonably valid source such as Forbes or Businessweek or the Heritage Foundation or similar credible sources, don't bother. Of course you can find any number of sources willing to trash the economy to embarrass the President and that includes liberal gurus like Paul Krugman and his ilk who haven't had anything positive to say about anything in years. If it was a Democrat in office, however, they would be praising the glorious accomplishment in the economy and everything else.
We have a good, strong economy. Those willing to work for a living and who manage their affairs at all effectively know it. There will always be exceptions to every rule, but an economy doesn't operate on anecdotal evidence but operates on the big picture. The big picture points to a good, strong economy that is benefitting everybody.
No amount of liberalspeak can change what is.
Nor can conservatives tell the whole truth and nothing but...
From CBS News:
Wealth Gap Grows For Minorities
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) The enormous wealth gap between white families and blacks and Hispanics grew larger after the most recent recession, a private analysis of government data finds.
White households had a median net worth of greater than $88,000 in 2002, 11 times more than Hispanics and more than 14 times that of blacks, the Pew Hispanic Center said in a study being released Monday.
Blacks were slowest to emerge from the economic downturn that started in 2000 and ended early in 2001, the report found.
Net worth accounts for the values of items such as a home and car, checking and savings accounts, and stocks, minus debts such as mortgage, car loans and credit card bills.
Greater wealth means a greater ability to weather a job loss, emergency home repairs, illness and other unexpected costs, as well as being able to save for retirement or a child's college tuition.
According to the group's analysis of Census Bureau data, nearly one-third of black families and 26 percent of Hispanic families were in debt or had no net assets, compared with 11 percent of white families.
"Wealth is a measure of cumulative advantage or disadvantage," said Roderick Harrison, a researcher at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington think tank that focuses on black issues. "The fact that black and Hispanic wealth is a fraction of white wealth also reflects a history of discrimination."
After accounting for inflation, net worth for white households increased 17 percent between 1996 and 2002 and rose for Hispanic homes by 14 percent to about $7,900. It decreased for blacks by 16 percent, to roughly $6,000.
Regardless of race and ethnicity, the median net worth for all U.S. households was $59,700 in 2002, a 12 percent gain from 1996.
Only white homes recouped all their losses between 2001 and 2002. Both Hispanics and blacks lost nearly 27 percent of net worth between 1999 and 2001; the next year Latinos had gained almost all back (26 percent) though blacks were up only about 5 percent.
Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, said the accumulation of wealth allows low-income families to rise into the middle class and "have some kind of assets beyond next week's paychecks."
"Having more assets enabled whites to ride out the jobless recovery better," he said.
Harrison says Hispanics were more insulated from the downturn than blacks, so they took less of a hit. For example, Hispanics made employment gains in lower-paid, lower-skilled areas such as the service and construction sectors.
Blacks were hit hard by job losses in the manufacturing industry and in professional fields, where they were victims of "last hired, first fired" policies, he said.
Only relatively recently were large numbers of blacks and Hispanics able to make investments and accumulate wealth. They were slower to enter the stock market during the 1990s rush and then had less of a cushion when the market began its decline in 2000.
Another factor affecting disparities is that whites are far more likely to own their homes; homeownership is among the most common ways to build wealth.
Census figures released in August showed the national median household income remained basically flat between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318. Median incomes for whites ($47,800) and blacks ($29,600) also were stagnant, while the median income for Hispanics fell about 2 percent to $33,000.
Nor can liberals apparently distinguish between current news re the economy and something published two years before. Or acknowledge that we were still in the post 9/11 recession in 2002 plus the effect of the Bush tax cuts and other economic policy hadn't kicked in yet.
I think it also shows a great deal about liberals who seem to so desperately WANT there to be bad news, who NEED bad news I guess to justify their incredible pessimism about everything and don't care how miserable it is for the little people just so the rich don't benefit in any way.
Foxfyre wrote:Nor can liberals apparently distinguish between current news re the economy and something published two years before. Or acknowledge that we were still in the post 9/11 recession in 2002 plus the effect of the Bush tax cuts and other economic policy hadn't kicked in yet.
I think it also shows a great deal about liberals who seem to so desperately WANT there to be bad news, who NEED bad news I guess to justify their incredible pessimism about everything and don't care how miserable it is for the little people just so the rich don't benefit in any way.
Despite your horrible cariciature, it isn't that at all; it's the the economy is bad, and we recognize it instead of sticking our fingers in our ears and singing 'We have a good economy! Anyone who isn't crazy can see this! Lalalalala' as loud as we can, as many Republicans seem want to do.
We could get into a long discussion about it, but there's only one stat that's necessary to look at, and that's the national debt going up by half in just 6 years. There is no positive spin for the amount of debt that YOU personally have taken on during this time.
Cycloptichorn
