Or even better... - st3phen

Klinton is by far the worst president in the history of the United States. He stands against the values of truth (perjurer), Justice (Waco) & freedom (Elian Gonzales) on which America's very existence [is based]. He, along with his socialist puppetmasters, have comitted [sic] crimes against humanities [sic], destroyed the US army for years to come by de-funding (and loathing it) it, and drove the US economy into recession (which took GWB to rebuild to 5% growth we now have).

Oh yeah, he's also an adulterer, basing his decisions on his libido. Jeez, I'd have voted in Bill Gates before I'd have voted [in] Klinton!

Reply to This

Monday, January 30 2006 @ 09:29 PM PST

Or even better... - graffix

LOL!

With each post, you're slowly descending further and further into ignorance. Nobody is singing Clinton's praises, only pointing out that Bush is a putz, plain and simple. I love this duality of absolutes that Republicans possess when it comes to logic. "If somebody says that Bush is 'bad', then obviously they must think that Clinton is 'good'. Bad boy! Bad Boy!"

And you're stretching the truth when trying to pin stuff on Clinton that he had no responsibility for... Waco was handled by Janet Reno, who was just doing her job. The funny thing is that the Branch Davidians would have been labeled 'terrorists' in the current day and age, and everybody would support any action taken against them. Elian Gonzales was kidnapped by his mother, and then floated on an inner tube across the Gulf of Mexico to Florida. All the Clinton administration did was give him back to his father in Cuba (where he rightfully belonged). I'd much rather be part of a socialist country, where everybody is looking out for the common good, rather than be part of our current neo-fascist country, where everything is done for the good of the corporation.

I also like how you say that somehow the last Democratic administration drove the country into a recession... LOL! When Clinton left office, we had a budget surplus for the first time in almost 50 years! So, being that I have a degree in Economics, I'd really like you to explain to me just how a booming economy equates to a recession. C'mon, I know you can do it...

Also, would you point me to these statistics that show 5% growth in the U.S. economy? Because I'd really like to see them. Oh, you mean they're figures released by the Bush administration that are trying to make him look good? Because all the figures I've seen show a dismal .2 to 1.1 percent quarter over quarter growth, with a single quarter in 3Q 2005 that showed a 4.1 percent growth rate (and I bet you can name the hurricane that caused that sudden employment and economic spike).

So please, stick to what you know when leaving comments... attempting to astroturf this comment/review area with your neo-con viewpoint does nothing but make you look ignorant.

Reply to This

Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:50 PM PST

Or even better... - st3phen

Ah, historical revisionism. The second tool of the libs (beyond namecalling)... I don't have time to set you straight on everything. But, one econ major to another... I must say I am disappointed in you. Perhaps your professor spent too much time bashing conservatism instead of teaching?

You may recall that Klinton's economy began a rapid decline in April, 2000? The same economy that was only kept aloft by the unprecedented technology bubble? Ring a bell? Remember how, when candidate Bush pointed out that the economy was tanking, the dems and their willing accomplices in the MSM howled that Bush's very comments were going to be responsible for a recession?!

You are not so base as to suggest that the economy does not show a trailing response to economic inputs, but rather realtime response, are you? You're suggesting that the recession of 2000 spontaneously began the day Bush was elected-- before the candidate/President Elect/President could issue a single economic policy?

Oh, and this much-bandied-about budget surplus!? How intellectually dishonest of you! As an econ grad, you should know that this surplus existed only *on paper* and over a ten year period... over which Klinton had no control. There was no realised surplus. Not during Klinton's reign, not after.

Ah, partisanship... I guess it makes your positions so much more convenient than the truth, eh, graffix?

Reply to This

Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 09:11 AM PST

great - versiontracker_reg

One of the more surreal aspects of modern American life is the merging of farce and satire with reality. There's no way to tell them apart!

Reply to This

Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 09:23 AM PST