Elections!

Ok, Yodie, go to this site. Surely I didn't make this up.
US Dept of Labor
Lets take a look at that chart. Unemployment is going down, down, down, wheee, until, 2000 when Bushlite takes over. I guess you can't claim Bushy is creating jobs, blah, blah, blah...

Now let's talk about the GDP (In 1999)
Gross domestic product grew at a 6.9 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said, above the revised 6.5 percent increase expected by economists and well ahead of the 5.8 percent pace originally reported a month ago.
The GDP price deflator, a key inflation gauge, rose at a 2 percent annual rate, the same rate initially recorded a month ago and in line with economists' forecasts of a 2 percent gain. For the entire year, the U.S. economy grew at a 4.1 percent pace, while the GDP price deflator advanced 1.6 percent.
Source: CNNMoney
And today under Bushie
For one thing, the gross domestic product (GDP) price index, a broad and closely watched measure of inflation, grew just 0.8 percent year-over-year in the third quarter of 2002 -- the lowest rate since the second quarter of 1950, according to Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach.
Source: CNNMoney

Now for Toosy, bring it big boy!

Ooh, burned!

Al Qaeda was toppled?!?!?! Damn, go to the bathroom for forty-three minutes and the state of the world changes. I was only brushing my hair damnit!!!! I was only brushing my hair!!!

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I agree that Yoda got burned a little on that one. However, in all fairness to the president, you have to understand that the current state of the economy is often the result of things that happened years before. Our economy, under Clinton's administration, benifitted from things that Bush Sr.'s administration was partly responsible for. In addition, our current economy is suffering from things that Clinton's administration was partly responsible for. Now, I'm not saying that Clinton didn't do anything at all good for the economy, or that George W. has been absolutely fantastic, but we need to do more than just look at who was in charge at the time of dips and rises to find out who deserves the credit or blame.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

There was a mild recession because of the transition from a wartime (Cold War) economy to a peacetime economy. Clinton enjoyed six or so years of prosperity from Ronald Reagan's and George Bush's victory over the Soviet Union then his administration claimed credit for a strong economy they had no hand in creating. Then we see that the final two years of their administration started showing signs of a coming recession. Is that what you meant FireGod?

Burned? Yikes; collective reading comprehension is low today. Keep reading...


You seem to have completely stepped out of the debate at this point, serving only as a cheerleader for people using arguments you did not formulate, yet probably agreed with before they were even brought to light.


A few things you're clearly not getting:

1. I never said he was creating jobs. Read the post: I said the current level of unemployment is lower than the average rate over the last 30 years. That's 100% true, as indicated by the numbers you linked us to. If you agreeing with what I say means I'm burned, then consider me charred to a crisp.
   
2. Unemployment and employment are not as directly linked as you seem to think. Example: employment is up. Unemployment as a PERCENTAGE is also up...but that depends on what you start measuring. I've attached a chart to demonstrate some of this.
   
3. Clinton focused on getting rid of unemployment. He was damn good at it; Bush's failure to live up to that RIDICULOUSLY high standard is not a testament to Bush's shortcomings so much as it's a testament to Clinton's skills in that area.

Gladly! Did you know that Clinton left office with a -1.1% GDP? It's now at +3.1%. What do you make of that?

3.1, by the way, is exactly the average over the last 30 years.

Or, put another way: we can go back and forth on whether or not Dubya has done much good, but clearly your claim that he is the "worst President in U.S. history" is totally and utterly the most ridiculous claim you could possibly make. For one, if he were, why is unemployment better than the 30-year average? Why is the GDP currently growing just as well as it has been, on average, over the last 30 years? If he's the worst ever, shouldn't these things be in the sh*tter?

Not only that, but I'd like to repeat my earlier question: can you, honestly, name all 43 Presidents? If not, how can you claim Dubya as the worst, especially in light of this economic evidence?

Your claim sounds like a joke in some ways...but you've stated it in maybe half a dozen seperate posts, never with any smilie or indicator that you weren't serious. So, I'm callin' you out on it.


Bingo. No President was, is, or ever will be an island.

Attachments

 

Toose: I'd like to ask about the justification for invading Iraq. As it stands, I don't see one - but my dad supports it, my teachers support it, and nearly everyone I know who's not a socialist supports it. Someone explain why the President's course of action should be followed.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

I posted this in another thread, but oh well....

Bush's administration wants Hussein out, and so do I. That man has spit in the face of the U.N. for too long now. Do I want to go to war, no. A person would have to be an idiot to want to go to war. Yet, if they send in inspectors again, and he gives them the same old *****, then the only choice this country has, is to remove him from power.

Bush said that a war over Iraq, which Egypt has said would plunge the region into chaos, was not imminent or unavoidable and pledged to build an international coalition against Iraq if it defied U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

Haven't you seen the footage of Iranians dead from Iraqis chemicle weapons? He has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

You want to see the "smoking gun" before you act? What if that gun is pointed at the city you're from, or the military base and its soldiers where your war veteran friend came from? Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

The al Qaeda terrorist network and Hussein have one enemy in common, America. Who's to say they won't become bedfellows.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

I wasn't referring to that specifically; I was simply pointing out that the current president is usually not fully (or even almost fully) responsible for the current economy. Actions from several years earlier usually play a significant part. Obviously, there are also many factors outside of all of the presidents' control.

Okay, this is more about the elections and why Dems lost so badly. It's a comic that just cracked me up, but also has a great point....

Attachments

 

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

The United States has spit in the face of the U.N., too. Remember the Kyoto protocol?

2 points that need to be made:

- Not once has an act of terror against the U.S. been linked to Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
- The weapons it possesses and produces were given to it by the United States in the 1980s.

Before we actually get into this, I'm not trying to make the case for Saddam Hussein as being a grade-A leader, nor am I making the case for any kind of terrorism or extremist leadership. What I am trying to make a case for is knowing all sides of the issue - the United States has a history of hypocrisy when dealing with foreign affairs, and this hypocrisy is directly linked to our belief that we are superior to the rest of the world, directly linked to selfishness, and directly linked to the almighty dollar. All of these factors are seen by the non-Americans all over the world, and this is where the hatred for the United States breeds and grows.

The case against invading Iraq, for me, is predicated on two things: 1) the idea that when the bully beats up everyone in the neighborhood, eventually they get together and whip his ass, and 2) Saddam Hussein wouldn't use the weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or any of its allies because he knows he would be dead faster than a rabbit on speed.

Have you seen the footage of Iraqis dead from U.S. bombing raids? The average age of a citizen of Baghdad is 16 - essentially, we're bombing children. Also, did you know that the cancer rates in Baghdad are 3-4 times higher than they were before the Gulf War? Wanna know why? Many of the bombs dropped had tips of depleted uranium, which seeped into the water system. The cancer rate for children is up 400%. Of course, because of the economic sanctions, these children can't get proper medicines and will likely die before the sanctions are lifted. And why are they so hostile toward the U.S.?

You could offer the same argument against the United States. We have tried to dominate Latin America, invaded and brutally occupied small neighbors (and helped along scores of dictators into power without direct military intervention), struck other nations without warning (Cuba), and we hold an unrelenting hostility toward the poor.

Over a million Iraqis have died from U.S. bombings in the past 15 years. the U.S. has ballistic missiles too, ones that reach far enough to strike any place on the planet. The difference between them and us is, we've used them on hostile nations, and Iraq has not. The reason is because Saddam Hussein knows that he would be overthrown if he ever even considered launching a real attack against a country larger than Kuwait.

And it should be pointed out that all of the weapons that Iraq has possessed since the 80s were sold to them by the United States.

The al Qaeda network hates Iraq - most of the members fought in the Iraq-Iran wars on the side of Iran. And it should be pointed out that if anything happened to the United States, the first place we would look is Iraq, and Saddam's first priority for the tenure of his reign has been self-preservation. After September 11th, he was the first person we looked to. He knows that if he's caught communicating with a member of al Qaeda, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to kill him.


I point to three different U.S.-backed dictators from the 20th century: Mobutu Seeseeseiko in Zaire, Peron in Argentina, and Pinochet in Chile. All were responsible for crimes roughly equivalent to the above. Do you want to know why we didn't invade them?

Business interests! The Pepsi company and the CIA working together to remove the democratically elected Allende in Chile and install Pinochet, who during the first year of his reign killed 3,000 of his own people. Mobutu in Zaire became one of the richest men in the world while 7 million of his people remained in poverty - but he wasn't removed by the U.S. because, well, he allowed Ali and Foreman to fight there. When you think about it, it's imperialism, manifest destiny, whatever you want to call it. This is ours, it makes us money, we're rich, you don't matter, now we own you and your country.

I think that the issue of oil shouldn't be ignored in this situation with Iraq. If history doesn't lie, what's to prevent the U.S. from installing another dictator who will be just as bad as Hussein, but is friendly to U.S. business interests? I point to the Northern Alliance essentially replacing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and encourage you to read about that (or if you get the al-Jazeera network on a public access channel, watch that.) Saudi Arabia harbors al Qaeda members, but we haven't invaded them because they're friendly with their oil. If you want to talk about evil, Saudi Arabia is the most oppressive of the Middle Eastern countries - much worse than Iraq in this respect, as women have been shot for sewing pockets on their burquas. But Hussein controls the most oil-rich area in the world, and he isn't sharing.

Yes I do, I mentioned it earlier. I also mentioned how I was not pleased with our President for almost doing it again concerning Iraq.

You're right, but just because terrorism isn't always directed towards the United States, doesn't mean it isn't terrorism. Iraq has long offered support for international terrorism. Their motive was not the support of Islam, but the restoration of Arab power in the Middle East. You are aware, I'm sure, of his financial incentives for suicide bombers in Israel.

Nobody's concerned with their conventional weapons. We didn't supply them with weapons grade plutonium, which they are actively pursuing.


That is over simplifying the problem. What country in the world isn't concerned for its own welfare? Also, no country in history has been free from guilt, none. We are however, the first country to be called on for assistance when another bully comes along, and then ostrisised for our troubles. Oh well, allies today, enemies tomorrow.

Is that what he told you? Because he told me something completely different.

Yes, and I've also seen his own soldiers starving to death. I've also seen his soldiers murdered by fellow soldiers because they wanted to be free. I've also seen Iraqi villages poisened with nerve gas, poisened by other Iraqi's. I've seen a lot, but I also now if Saddam would follow U.N. regulations, the bombing would stop. But he would rather disobey them, even though his people die. They serve a good purpose as martyrs.

There are many other reasons than that. Propaganda is a powerful tool when the people cannot access news from the outside world.

We did what to who? Are you talking about the Bay of Pigs? Attacking Cuba at that time was without warning? What is the military supposed to do? Ask them to check their schedules?

The bombings are all up to Saddam, pay attention to U.N. resolutions, don't invade your neighbors, and you could be bomb free.

Are you afraid the United States will decide to conquer Canada or something? I'm not even remotely concerned about the United States firing it's missles, but I am with Iraq.

I am not concerned about Iraq attacking us openly, I am that they will supply other factions that will.

And your point is...?

Sorry, I don't buy it. They both hate us. If there is one thing that can make them side their differences, it would be the downfall of the United States. BTW, his higher level officers have been documented having communications with al Qaeda.

You're talking about ancient history here. Not that it isn't important, mind you, but this is not what's going on now. I also refuse to feel guilty about a government that was in power when I was a child, and before you were born. The year is 2002, and we are threatened. Should we ignore it because of the sins of our Fathers and their Fathers before them? Give me a break! Right here, and right now, we are a target. A great big target, and Iraq is manufacturing darts.

I keep current with world affairs, thanks. You think that Afghanis lives are worse than before? Also, I'm not about to base my opinions on propaganda news from the middle east. BTW, where did you find proof that Saudi Arabia was horboring terrorists? Oh wait, neither of us know that for sure do we? Maybe you should stop making your guesses sound so positive.

Life is opressive for women almost everywhere in the middle east, with the exception of Isreal. Saying that Saudi is the worst is naive.



Listen Steve, I respect your opinion, we're all entitled (unlike the country in question). You seem to be quite intelligent and learned in what you believe in. You may or may not realise the situation though. There is no easy answer, this is certainly a situation of being damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm not for war, I'm really not, but I'm also not for closing my eyes and hoping for the best. We're the big kids on the block for a reason, because the world expects us to be.

Now to sound like a redneck ignorant ; If you have so much contempt and dislike for America, move. If you don't, then before you burn a flag, better make sure it's not on my block, because I'll kick your ass!

PS: I'M NOT PISSED AT YOU, JUST MAKING A POINT.

I don't know if we should go to war or not, but that was a great message, LS. I wish I knew half of what you 2 know about this stuff!

Is the United States not guilty of sponsoring terrorism? We turn a shoulder to the diamond wars in Africa - militias invade villages, select women and children at random, and hack off an arm. The others are forced to work in the mines. DeBeers keeps every diamond these people find. That sounds like a bit of terrorism to me. Or how about the Contras in Nicaragua? Paid for by Ronald Reagan to prevent the Marxists from taking over, they killed entire villages of innocent people.


That's completely true. You think CNN and FOX news are free of propaganda?


:

Guatemala - overthrew democratically elected leader
Iran - overthrew Mossadegh, installed the Shah. we were afraid Mossadegh would nationalize the oil reserves, something the Shah did anyway.
Afghanistan - paid religious fundamentalists to fight the Soviets; many of these funds were eventually funnelled into al-Qaeda and helped pay for the Taliban government.
Chile - overthrew Allende, installed Pinochet
Nicaragua - secretly sold arms to Iran in the 80s to help pay for the Contras, who wanted to stop the Marxists
Grenada - overthrew Marxist ally to Cuba
Cuba - repeatedly attempted to murder Castro in the 50's. CIA, Mafia, and Baptista all were working together - Castro's revolution stopped the Mafia's control of Cuban business, so the CIA retaliated. Hence Bay of Pigs.
North Korea -self explanatory
Vietnam - self explanatory



Are you saying that you don't have a problem with reducing a city full of teenagers to smoldering radioactive rubble?

I don't have any more contempt or dislike for America as I do for any other country in the world. I just think that America holds itself on a pedestal above everyone else, and this is all wrong. We are guilty, too. That's what I've been trying to say.

You avoided a few things I pointed out in my last post. Do you think you could address them?

Interestingly enough: Iraq Accepts U.N. Weapon Inspection Resolutions

PLite thinks Steve & Sunfroggy are the coolest.

__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!

I hope they mean it, but I'm skeptical.

Chris thinks PLite is and always has been a virtual yes-man for liberal causes.

I already answered to this logic. See?

Yes I do believe CNN is propoganda free. FOX on the otherhand is an obvious conservative news channel. Any form of propoganda is geared for it's conservative veiwership against the democratic party. Just an opinion. Thay don't paste lies to the American public, like al-Jazeera has been known to do to it's viewers.

No I don't, can't you tell that I love it when people die?

I resent that kid, quite a bit. Did you see how long my rebuttle was? Christ, what do you want from me? Your original question was why should we invade Iraq. So I answered with my opinion. But then you changed the question to a frustrated expression of your disatisfaction with the American government, there's no answer to that. Geez Steve, we're all disatisfied, just wait until you're old enough to pay property taxes. . Whatever our government has done in the past is irrelevant to the problem at hand.

No station is utterly free from bias or propoganda. I think CNN is better than it used to be (a ridiculous liberal slant in the past), but still has a ways to go. Fox is conservative, but I've never known it to let that interfere much with its news. It's quite upfront about what's opinion, and what's not.

There's a reason they're #1.