your thought on (Mrs) Clinton in 2008???

[Typhoon1244]

On a positive note, A&E will feature a program on Horatio Hornblower, the literary character that inspired Gene Roddenberry in the creation of the Star Trek Captain Kirk character.

The bad news: based on the couple of episodes I've seen, I don't think anyone at A&E actually read the Hornblower novels before they made this miniseries.

Oh, and sorry I left out the 's. (However, I contend that the corporate scandals you mentioned were products of the "Reagan Revolution" more than the Clinton era...)

Anyway, what were we talking about...?

 

[Timebuilder]

However, I contend that the corporate scandals you mentioned were products of the "Reagan Revolution" more than the Clinton era...)

Well, it's a hypothesis. Let's try it.

I was involved in investing when I was enjoying the "peak" of my broadcasting career, such as it was, and I was also a democrat during the Reagan years. I recall no sense of the corporate impropriety that we are discovering had been under way during the Clinton years.

Is Clinton personally responsible for this activity? Of course not! It is simply an interesting side note to the kind of accusations that people are making about Bush, as if he is somehow connected to these revelations as President, when the truth is that this actiivity was well underway during the Clinton years instead. In other words, it isn't only a lie, it is a poorly told lie, and shows the lengths that the dems are willing to traverse in order to try and stain a very good man.

Sorry to hear the Hornblower program isn't up to par. I heard a radio spot for it today, and I thought it might be worthwhile.

 

[pipers]

[BRudy would swallow the witch up and spit her out!!!!!!!
[/B]

Didn't she already beat Rudy once? He dropped out remember?

 

[asacap]

I agree. It would be absolutely horrible to have a pro labor president. I don't even want to think about that. Shooting ourselves in the foot is much better. Much much better.

 

[lookup]

Well no real hard bites on the union flame bait... let's try another one...

"Bush economy"... Someone define that for me.. prefer someone who did not vote for him...

"Clinton economy".... define that too, clinton fan fine..

Then, name 3 specific things each president did to cause them...

(This should be goooood)

[and no, I am not a Bush "lover".. personally I'm pretty pissed about some of the spending going on.. like drug benefit, TSA, etc... but I have no better choice up, so I vote against the ideology I disagree with the most]

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Well no real hard bites on the union flame bait... let's try another one...

"Bush economy"... Someone define that for me.. prefer someone who did not vote for him...

"Clinton economy".... define that too, clinton fan fine..

]

Are you crazy?! There has been enormous job growth under Bush! There are now more guberment employees than ever before! Also, it now only takes Wong Fu 2 years worth of wages to be able to afford a pair of those finely crafted Nike tennis shoes he made compared to 3 years while Clinton was in office. However, give Clinton credit, he gave the Chinese economy a big shot in the arm! I hope I don't sound cynical.
Politicians and entertainers...the backbone of America!

 

[lookup]

Alrighty self-proclaimed groupie...

"Are you crazy?! There has been enormous job growth under Bush! There are now more guberment employees than ever before!"

Tell me what caused the loss of so many jobs in the past couple of years.. Bonus points for timelines....


Note: Growth of the gubmit is another thing I am mad about with Bush, but again, what choice do I have... stick my head in the sand and let "the other side" have a crack at my wallet?..... yeah.. I got a life size picture of that happin, NOT...

 

[Timebuilder]

I agree. It would be absolutely horrible to have a pro labor president. I don't even want to think about that. Shooting ourselves in the foot is much better. Much much better.

We already did have several, one in recent times.

Anyone remember Jimmy Carter?

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Timebuilder,


Wasn't it "irrational exuberance", not "unwarranted exuberance". One word can be very misleading. And although I don't recall the corporate governance scandals the country has recently encountered in the 1980's, shouldn't names like Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky ring a bell? How about the Savings and Loan scandals?

Nobody is so perfect. And I don't think the Bush or Clinton administration had anything to do with the corporate goverance issues our country is having. That is a problem in and of itself far greater than either of them.


Mr. I.

 

[skychaser]

hey piper....GET A GRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get your facts straight then re-post.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Alrighty self-proclaimed groupie...

"Are you crazy?! There has been enormous job growth under Bush! There are now more guberment employees than ever before!"

Tell me what caused the loss of so many jobs in the past couple of years.. Bonus points for timelines....


Note: Growth of the gubmit is another thing I am mad about with Bush, but again, what choice do I have... stick my head in the sand and let "the other side" have a crack at my wallet?..... yeah.. I got a life size picture of that happin, NOT...

The loss of jobs is a result of a slowing economy due to jobs leaving the country (no facts, just opinion). I blame business people looking to improve "shareholder value", government for creating burdensome taxes and laws, and lawyers. What has happened, via competition, is one person is able to lower their costs then a competitor panics and attempts to find lower cost and it becomes a rat race to the bottom (doesn't happen in the airline biz though!). I don't blame competition itself, that is good, but I blame "lazy" solutions to a complex problem.
If we continue down this path there will not be anyone left to afford the $100 Nikes and the guberment will be hurting for tax revenues for their bloated growth and over expansion. May take years for this to finally come home. Pretty soon the entertainment industry will be the leading export item.
Sounds cynical. It is a result of feeling helpless. I think Bush pimps off the conservatives much like the Dems pimp off the minority vote. We are beyond reform. There are few men of honor in key positions in government and business.
BTW, the other day I received an "autographed" picture of GWB from the RNC. Thought it was a real hoot since I've don't support them. Any takers ?

 

[lookup]

Thanks for the post there groupie... I'll try to respond in kind...

I understand the frustration, but I would wager that the # of jobs "leaving the country" are a lot fewer than were "lost" during the down turn. I am not happy about alot of the jobs moving off shore, but ultimately, it will force us to train up on different things that have local value and can not be shipped out.. Personally I am thinking liquor store, titty bar, wrecker service and bail bonds, all in one center... Outsource this!

It is a very hard dance to perform without pissing someone off or screwing something up.. Clinton was lucky that the Nasdaq roared in the 90s and so much of this was hidden from plain view by people at Best Buy getting plasma TVs, etc..

Be careful about slamming "shareholder value"... That is the basic backbone of our economic system.. Shareholder value applies to all for profit business, not just "public" one on the stock exchanges.. If I owned a small private business, I would still want to drive shareholder value... That is the part I share with the people who took a chance on me and my idea and bankrolled me... Without reward for taking risks, money bags would close and we'd have little or no investment...

I completely agree about bloated gubmit and big taxes... That's why I am pissed at Bush, but still have to vote for him.. He's bad, "they" are WORSE. Take a look at CA.. What a great little political science experiment... Call it the CA Ant Farm if you will.. The "democrat" ideology had complete control of the state gubmit, free reign to prove how smart their way of gubmit was, and what happened? As soon as tax revenues cratered, they choaked.. Even as revenues slipped, and businesses started to cut spending, they still increased their spending... It's like beating the sh!t out of the one good engine on a PA23-180 once the other is dead... It ain't gonna help... Accept that something is going to have to change, and deal with it... They didn't and ALL of us are paying (CA will be taking more than their fair share from the Fed $ bags I promise you that!)

The only real hope we have is for a real fiscal conservative to step out into the light and be clean enough where the liberals can't slander him/her into the shadows... Or a liberal takes office and revolution happens after they further bankrupt us...

Oh, and btw, I am still interested in someone stepping up to the previous challenge.... takers?

LU

 

[Timebuilder]

Wasn't it "irrational exuberance", not "unwarranted exuberance". One word can be very misleading. And although I don't recall the corporate governance scandals the country has recently encountered in the 1980's, shouldn't names like Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky ring a bell? How about the Savings and Loan scandals?

You're right, it was "irrational", not "unwarranted". Fortunately, my CRS doesn't change the character of the meaning.

I recall the scandals that you mention. None of that even approaches the scope of deceit and avarice that has reached into such areas as mutual funds fraud, the formerly sacrosanct refuge of widows and orphans (an industry term). Junk bonds are one thing. What we have seen growing out of the nineties is another order of wrongdoing.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I was involved in investing when I was enjoying the "peak" of my broadcasting career, such as it was, and I was also a democrat during the Reagan years. I recall no sense of the corporate impropriety that we are discovering had been under way during the Clinton years.

Then you must have either been (1) working for very honest people, (2) very well insulated, or (3) very naive. (I will say I doubt it was #3.) Remember, we're talking about the Michael Milken/Frank Lorenzo era here.

There is one thing I'm tired of hearing about any president, but I'll use Clinton as an example: if anything bad happened during Clinton's presidency, it was Clinton's fault. If anything good happened during his presidency, it was the work of Reagan, Bush, Nixon, etc. At some point you have to make up your mind whether or not "the buck stops here."

One more thought along these lines. Whenever I or anyone else says anything negative about W., you guys rush forward to either defend him or attack us...with one glaring exception: I've repeatedly asked the question "if the current White House was so concerned about Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda, why did they do nothing about it between the election and September 11th?"

Nobody seems to want to talk about that.

 

[Timebuilder]

I was an investor. I spent so much time at the Shearson office that a new secretary asked me which office was mine!!

"if the current White House was so concerned about Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda, why did they do nothing about it between the election and September 11th?"

I think you are making the mistake of not being aware of what was being done as being equivalent to nothing being done. We can't assume that nothing was being done just because we are not aware of actions that were being planned, developed, and executed against a whole host of individuals. This set of circumstances included our efforts to develop covert intelligence that was insufficient to avoid the attack of September 11th. Even with the best intelligence, we can't know everything, all of the time. That's why we have to continually strive to be better, faster, and more efficient.

 

[lookup]

Typhoon:

You're F'ing kidding me right? Let's take a look at what was happening in the world right as W took office..

The Nasdaq, which had been the engine of the bubble, had dropped by 45% by Jan 20th, and a full 50% by Bush +20 days. The economy was already in a free fall and jobs were starting to slide.. Some layoffs happened by Jan 20th, our big one happened in April 01. It's perhaps just possible that even YOU would be a bit focused on trying to salvage a economic cycle.... Notice how I didn't blame or credit BC for the bubble of the 90s... Presidents have little control over stuff like that... Congress has much more control, and believe it or not, the economy, unlike a 172, is NOT inheriently stable...

Besides, other than using the CIA and other intel organizations, what could ANY president have done, either D or R?

UBL had done -0- on W's watch to be more of a threat than he was to BC.. Let's see, in fact, IIRC, UBL tried to wipe out WTC on BC's watch and nothing was done.. BC passed up chances to deal with it because it was VERY messy.

Oh and, IIRC elected officals don't have power until sworn in.. (Jan 20th for Presidents I believe)...

9/11 was the "awe sh!t, I KNOW you didn't... you didn't just come up in here and start some sh!t on my watch.... excuse me while I open up a can of dis here whip a$$"....

I gotta just shake my head at your post.... really.. where you serious? Or was that just a deflection tactic so common when these "debates" break out...

LU

 

[lookup]

 

[Typhoon1244]

Typhoon: You're F'ing kidding me right?

No, I'm deadly serious.

Besides, other than using the CIA and other intel organizations, what could ANY president have done, either D or R?

What he could have done was exactly what he did on September 12, 2001: pull out the stops on efforts to destroy al-Quaeda. Clinton didn't do it. He could have. The first attack on the W.T.C. should have been a huge wake-up call. Clinton ignored it.

So did W.

You guys act like you were just itching to get somebody in the White House who would finally get off his butt and get bin Laden before there was another attack. So you voted W. in...and he sat on his butt waiting for another attack, apparently.

Oh and, IIRC elected officals don't have power until sworn in.. (Jan 20th for Presidents I believe)...

I misspoke. I meant "between the time he was sworn in and September 11th...."

I gotta just shake my head at your post.... really.. where you serious?

Yes, I "where" serious. (Are you from Arkansas too? )

I'll give you another example: a lot of people assert that Clinton beat George H.W. Bush in '94 because Bush had mangled the economy so badly. The truth is that it wasn't Bush's economy, it was Reagan's. You can't spend eight years tripling the deficit and expect the next presidnet to be able to undo it in four years.

 

[Timebuilder]

Most politcal analysts agree that there is one principal reason that GHWB was not elected: he raised taxes, which he had promoised not to do. Enter: the spoiler candidate, that drained off votes from Clinton's main opposition: Ross perot. Result? A Clinton presidency, by default.

Just imagine for a moment, that GW went after Al Queda on Jan 21st. Can you hear the screaming from Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and the entire DNC? I can. The world would see this as an unprovoked and unreasonable attack. It's funny how many nations fail to see 9-11 as being just that, though, isn't it?

 

[46Driver]

As for Hillary being elected, you just have to start counting the votes in the electoral college. You can pretty much write off the entire South for any Democrat now. What states can she win? Also, her influence will be moderated due to the fact that Republicans hold the majority in both the Senate and the House - I don't that changing for a long time.

 

[lookup]

Typhoon:

Be sure to lay off the crack a bit... There might be a random drug test in your future...

As far as the average public was concerned, UBL was not a major issue of the day on Jan 21st. The public would not have supported direct action. Targeted killings is not allowed (mistake). And the Democrats would have had a FIT. They were so hopping mad Jan 21st that the republicans "STOLE" the election (let's just ignore the electoral college and the since released results showing W DID in fact have the votes to win the state...) You are either in complete denial or are choosing to ignore recent history and public support based on immediate pain (my thumb is spurting blood, but sure, let's go ahead and work on that bunion... yeah.. right)

No, I'm deadly serious.What he could have done was exactly what he did on September 12, 2001: pull out the stops on efforts to destroy al-Quaeda. Clinton didn't do it. He could have. The first attack on the W.T.C. should have been a huge wake-up call. Clinton ignored it.

So did W.

What evidence do you have to support that? I will agree he wasn't talking about it, but that doesn't mean that CIA/et al weren't at least looking at the situation. I still want you to tell me what actions the public would have supported in say August 01... You know, right as people were getting pink slips and unable to find jobs... Do you think they gave a rat's a$$ about some d!ckhead in U-Pick-a-stan talking crap about the U.S.? If you think they do, you really don't understand the US public..

You guys act like you were just itching to get somebody in the White House who would finally get off his butt and get bin Laden before there was another attack. So you voted W. in...and he sat on his butt waiting for another attack, apparently.I misspoke. I meant "between the time he was sworn in and September 11th...." Yes, I "where" serious. (Are you from Arkansas too? )

What the he!! are you talking about? Roll the campaign tapes for 00... Did I miss something... Did UBL come up? Hell, I don't remember national security coming up either... Maybe I was sleeping....
I am rational enough to know that W got elected because Nader spoiled the environmental vote and Gore was about as fun to listen to as achey breaky heart! Speaking of, what's up with the personal attack..? Arkansas... Dood! You gotta be sh!tting me....

I'll give you another example: a lot of people assert that Clinton beat George H.W. Bush in '94 because Bush had mangled the economy so badly. The truth is that it wasn't Bush's economy, it was Reagan's. You can't spend eight years tripling the deficit and expect the next presidnet to be able to undo it in four years.

Uh, no.. A couple of things..
- GHWB lost because he wimped out and raised taxes (integrity mattered to some)
- Apparently you don't remember the roaring 70s and Carter's economy, or alot of Reagan's spending was a contibuting factor to the demise of the USSR... I'll just let you continue to believe that all deficit spending is bad...
- Remember the little general? A lot of people liked the no-nonsense comments he made about running the government. He was the Republicans Ralph Nader...a spoiler..

Now.. with all this said, it is not a personal attack, but I do think you are really off with you basic assertion...

LU

 

[Typhoon1244]

Typhoon: Be sure to lay off the crack a bit... There might be a random drug test in your future...

If this is a demonstration of your ability to debate, I'm wasting my time.

I understand that you too are angry that W. did nothing to stop our country from being attacked. You should be! But try not to let that anger drive you into irrationality.

The President's job is to defend this country against aggression. Clinton dropped the ball. Bush didn't pick it up until it was too late. The "general public," who you say wouldn't have supported an anti-terror campaign back then, needed to be educated about the danger...we know now it wouldn't have been hard to do.

Did W. cause 9/11? Hell no! The attacks on New York and Washington were the culmination of failed policies going all the way back to F.D.R. To say it was all W.'s fault makes no more sense than saying it was all Clinton's fault...which was my original point. But he didn't do anything to stop it when he had the chance. Remember that.

 

[lookup]

If this is a demonstration of your ability to debate, I'm wasting my time.

Gotcha... Let's just drop it here.. A little humor was apparently lost on you... I even noted at the end it wasn't an attack.. In fact YOU are the one who started with personal stuff...

I understand that you too are angry that W. did nothing to stop our country from being attacked. You should be! But try not to let that anger drive you into irrationality.

The President's job is to defend this country against aggression. Clinton dropped the ball. Bush didn't pick it up until it was too late. The "general public," who you say wouldn't have supported an anti-terror campaign back then, needed to be educated about the danger...we know now it wouldn't have been hard to do.

Uh, where did you get this? Angry the president did nothing? Is that a new debate tactic, put words in my mouth, or feelings in my heart? oh right, that IS the tactic of many... Kind of like labeling someone a racist who isn't... I'm not angry. And now calling my irrational.. Perfect example of someone who refuses to debate based on facts and real history.. You simply deflect and attack your opponent. Sad, but common now a days...

I do think you have a incorrect view of the US public. in August if he talked until he was blue in his face he MIGHT have gotten 20% approval for action... MAYBE.. Even AFTER 9/11 he is getting slammed for not doing the right things or sending money overseas that should be spent here... You can't have it both ways.

Did W. cause 9/11? Hell no! The attacks on New York and Washington were the culmination of failed policies going all the way back to F.D.R. To say it was all W.'s fault makes no more sense than saying it was all Clinton's fault...which was my original point. But he didn't do anything to stop it when he had the chance. Remember that.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.. W had no real chance to stop it.. You continue to fail to offer specific suggestions of what he should have done (other than for him to "educate" the US) to stop UBL and 9/11. The "fault" lies squarely on the shoulders of people who brainwash children from early ages to hate people they don't even know, for their poor existence in life.. Take a look at all of the conflict zones in the world today, look at the combatants, and tell me what common thread you find.... I'll be here when you find the info....

LU

 

[Typhoon1244]

My original point is this: the conservative element on Flightinfo.com spent a lot of time declaring the the September 11th attack was Clinton's fault. Frankly, the people who hold that opinion have no more evidence to support it than I do for saying W. should have been able to stop the attacks. None of us knows what the White House knows.

But whenever I hear people saying "Clinton could've gotten bin Laden back in '99, and he dropped the fuc_ing ball, dude," I ask them what exactly W. did about the problem before Spetember 11th. They never have an answer. It's possible that no U.S. president could have altered these terrible events...we'll never know for sure, I suppose.

But if we could get people to stop thinking like Democrats and Republicans, maybe we could get closer to the truth...about a lot of issues!

And now calling my irrational.. Perfect example of someone who refuses to debate based on facts and real history.. You simply deflect and attack your opponent. Sad, but common now a days...

I'm sorry...that must have been somebody else who called me a crack addict because I criticized W. (Thank you, though, for demonstrating a classic political debate technique: accuse the other side of doing the same things you're doing.)

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Timebuilder can debate these issues without resorting to crap like that. I wish for your sake you could, too.

 

[pipers]

hey piper....GET A GRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get your facts straight then re-post.

Rudy dropped out in the 2000 race....I can't recall the name of the man that replaced him and lost to Clinton. Enjoy.

 

[lookup]

I'm sorry...that must have been somebody else who called me a crack addict because I criticized W. (Thank you, though, for demonstrating a classic political debate technique: accuse the other side of doing the same things you're doing.)

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Timebuilder can debate these issues without resorting to crap like that. I wish for your sake you could, too. [/B]

Forget it dood.. YOU are the one who started with the personal attack.. I took it as a light hearted jab, and JOKINGLY made a comment back... Let's get the FACTS straight, lest you twist this around too... YOU made the first thrust.. I responded, my bad to think you could take it...

You are the one unable to debate based on facts. You are the one crying foul for something that you started...

We can just ignore each other and spare the group this sort of waste of time...

 

[Timebuilder]

The "general public," who you say wouldn't have supported an anti-terror campaign back then, needed to be educated about the danger...we know now it wouldn't have been hard to do.

That might have been just about impossible to do.

the conservative element on Flightinfo.com spent a lot of time declaring the the September 11th attack was Clinton's fault.

I don't recall saying that it was Clinton's fault. Not directly. Clinton did have some intelligence that would have made it easy to round up UBL before the atttack, but even that might not have stopped it. However, it may have stopped it. It's too late now to say one way or the other with certainty.

But whenever I hear people saying "Clinton could've gotten bin Laden back in '99, and he dropped the fuc_ing ball, dude," I ask them what exactly W. did about the problem before Spetember 11th.

The reason that there isn't an answer for you is that you refuse to see it. If GW had the same opportunity to round up UBL that Clinton had, you would have a point. The problem with the situation you ask about is this idea that somehow we all should have been told what was being done just because we'd like to know. The changing situation after Clinton let UBL slip through his fingers dictated that we take a different tack, a different approach. We no longer had UBL available on a silver platter, because after that incident UBL most likely was made aware that the changing political climate in the US meant that he should submerge from public view, which by and large is exactly what he did.

So, the criticism of Clinton is that he didn't do what he should when he could, and that Bush did as much as he could when and how he could. Those aren't anything like one another. One gives up the best opportunity that anyone could hope for, and the other, after being handed a platter of turds, is left to make fertilizer. Unfortunately, we couldn't grow our security fast enough after that sequence of events.

 

[Typhoon1244]

If GW had the same opportunity to round up UBL that Clinton had, you would have a point.

But that's just it: Clinton didn't have that opportunity! The often repeated Mansoor Ijaz story turned out to be a sham. He could no more produce bin Laden than he could Elvis Presley. That makes any argument based on how Clinton "let UBL slip through his fingers" invalid.

Originally posted by lookup
YOU are the one who started with the personal attack.. I took it as a light hearted jab, and JOKINGLY made a comment back... Let's get the FACTS straight, lest you twist this around too... YOU made the first thrust.. I responded, my bad to think you could take it...

If it makes you feel better to remember it that way, fine. I guess you'd better go edit your posts so they conform to your story. We'll wait.

 

[flywithastick]

My original point is this: the conservative element on Flightinfo.com spent a lot of time declaring the the September 11th attack was Clinton's fault.

OK - not directly at fault. How about guilty of criminal negligence or dereliction of duty?

Frankly, the people who hold that opinion have no more evidence to support it than I do for saying W. should have been able to stop the attacks. None of us knows what the White House knows.

I think it's public knowledge that the gub'ment knew in '01 that terrorists might comandeer airliners and use them to fly into buildings. I can't imagine someone in the same group didn't know it before '02 as well.

But whenever I hear people saying "Clinton could've gotten bin Laden back in '99, and he dropped the fuc_ing ball, dude," I ask them what exactly W. did about the problem before Spetember 11th. They never have an answer. It's possible that no U.S. president could have altered these terrible events...we'll never know for sure, I suppose.

This whole thing comes back to perception... it was widely perceived (and I would argue factual) that Clinton was inept, incompetent and a traitor. Bush is perceived by some as bumbling and arrogant, but by most as sincere about trying to do the right thing for the country. Who's going to get the break when the issues are gray?

I'm sorry...that must have been somebody else who called me a crack addict because I criticized W. (Thank you, though, for demonstrating a classic political debate technique: accuse the other side of doing the same things you're doing.)

Typhoon, you're no crack addict... a little naive and sheltered maye, but no dope addict!! I do believe that you're a participant in the widespread pop-culture trend of Bush bashing because it's in vogue and trendy.

 

[Typhoon1244]

By the way, I never weighted in on this thread's central premise: "how do you feel about Hillary in '08?"

Bad idea. The last thing this country needs in Hillary in the White House...again.