 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Kosovo war. Bombing Iraq, and generally bullying it. Successfully maintained the New World Order, i.e. prevented new blocs to even attempt to emerge.
Clinton initiated at least one illegal war, just like Bush. How come the opposition to the Kosovo war wasn't mainstream, while the opposition to the war in Iraq was? |
Spiffor, Clinton didn't even bother asking Congress about Kosovo. He just did it. Many Republicans were against the war at the time, including Kissinger, so I don't know if Clinton could have gotten Congress to go along.
When Saddam kicked out the inspectors in '98, Clinton bombed Iraq for three days and threatened invasion. Clinton never asked anyone for permission to do either.
So, the axiom we glean from Clinton's behavior is to avoid nasty arguments and questions and just act. Presidents who act are always more popular.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
So, the axiom we glean from Clinton's behavior is to avoid nasty arguments and questions and just act. Presidents who act are always more popular. |
I don't entirely agree with that, but there's truth in this statement.
There are various reasons as to why Clinton was popular, and his handling of Iraq didn't increase his popularity. However, as he avoided lengthy arguments altogether, he did avoid seeing his popularity shrink too much. Had Bush surprised everybody with the war in Iraq (i.e no lengthy build-up and no lengthy diplomatic crisis), his unpopularity might have not skyrocketed that much.
However, he was fairly impopular before, because of how the US gave the world the finger on pretty much every multilateral agreement (the ICC, Kyoto, the land mines ban), while Clinton was at least polite enough to do lip service about it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
Sometimes I wonder if Ned actually believes the stuff he posts, or if it's all just one big troll.
Most times I simply don't care. Easier just to laugh than waste any time countering it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
Are not they imitating their parents? |
No, they typically revolt and do the opposite, so it's Lefty's parents that was self centered, hedonistic, and irresponsible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Davout, you and I seem to have about the same level of experience then in "trying to understand the economy."
|
I am not able to confirm that we have anything identical, and I would much prefer that we do not. If our level of experience appear to be the same, it can only be the result of a coincidence, and this observation is intrinsically useless.
quote:
I must admit that until recently I could not answer why the US economy generally did better under Democrats than Republicans. I too thought that balanced budgets were "good" and a "surplus" was better. But it seems the truth lies elsewhere. Republicans, like Ike, Nixon and Ford always tried to restrain spending and balance the budget. What they got for their efforts was recession and/or a sluggish economy. Big spending Democrats always seem to push the economy forward.
Reagan got it right by accident. He wanted to cut both taxes and spending; but the Dems wouldn't let him do the latter. As a result, we had tax cuts and high spending during the Reagan years and the economy really took off. We continued to have high deficits under Clinton until the last years, when we switched to a surplus. That surplus helped bring about the stock market crash of 2000-2.
Bush still talks the traditional Republican talk of balanced budgets in public. But he has been the biggest spender in history in addition to being a president who cut taxes. This all was necessary to pull us out of our deflationary recession. All I can say to Bush is bravo!
|
It would be so pleasant that the economy be understood and mastered with one or two simplistic ideas, and that ideological bias would just make things a bit clearer. Unfortunately complexity is inherent to the economy, and you could benefit greatly from the reading of Greenspan testimonies before the senate : whatever one can think of Greenspan, those reports describe in the shortest possible way the intricacies of the US economy. Nevertheless, this effort is not needed if you just want to say Bravo to your President.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
Big spending Democrats always seem to push the economy forward. |
That sounds like pinko-red-liberal-lefty-anti-life-anti-gun-russian-chinese-vietnamese-european-socialist talk to me
*pulls out a gun*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Actually, Davout, I have read Greenspan's testimonies. You will recall that he too was surprised by the deflationary effects of the fall in equity prices, which clearly indicated that easily convertible stocks were a form of money. Also recall that Greenspan supported the Bush tax cuts even in face of record deficits to combat deflation. |
Spain in the 16th century was hit by both runaway inflation and defllation at the same time it total weaknen they empire. It rarely happen that both will hit at the same time. All the Gold and silver from the new world going to Spain cause inflation which cause the price of very to go up. There is than limit of how hight prices can go up so prices start to go down which lead
to deflation while still more gold and silver from the new world enter spain cause inflation of the value of the curreny.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-11-2004 17:43
. That would explain your happiness 
|