"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:48:03 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:



Bush's daughters manage to keep there assests hidden while Kerry's
daughters parade around in outfits that leave nothing to the imagination.


Really? I wonder what all those hits on Google are about?

Obviously (but not unexpected) operator error.

Next time type in "bush" not "clinton". LOL!

"Ted" tedwilliams@nospam wrote in message
...
Got to
admit I hated organic chemistry

Finally something we agree on. What a useless class.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil... and put many more *real* terrorists behind
bars for life than Bush has done... after due process, too. Icing on the
cake.

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?
It is as long as it's being made a political football.
Is an energy-independent America "impossible"
Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.
Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to invade
Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr put
together?
YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were getting.
Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?
When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't, yes.
Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?
All countries act in their own short term interest.
Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?
see below
Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?
No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians, Bush
had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took the
money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder reactors
and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line with them.
Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management and
Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get is
some positive world press because we tried while the people we are trying to
help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20 million dollars
from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game now too."

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bush dumb? Kerry Dumber?

Dumber yet would be anybody equating GPA with intelligence. Grades have
a lot to do with motivation,
social issues, and (in what passes for education these days), the
ability to parrot back factoids on "exams" that do little to
demonstrate whether the student actually understands the material.

That's true for liberal art classes but in the applied fields like
engineering and math, you have to demonstrate that you not only understand
the material but actually have the mental ability to use the information.

NOYB wrote:

I've seen both of their transcripts. He took even easier classes than
Bush.

Proof?

Proof from Harry? When he posts Bush's transcripts, I'll post Kerry's...and
then you can compare the two.

Perhaps you didn't understand my request. YOU SAID "I've seen both of
their transcripts. He took even easier classes than Bush", did you
not? Just look above, you did! So, I asked for the proof. Do you have
any, or is it business as usual with you, just trying your hardest to
make the right look better than they really are?

wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

I've seen both of their transcripts. He took even easier classes than
Bush.

Proof?

Proof from Harry? When he posts Bush's transcripts, I'll post
Kerry's...and
then you can compare the two.

Perhaps you didn't understand my request. YOU SAID "I've seen both of
their transcripts. He took even easier classes than Bush", did you
not? Just look above, you did! So, I asked for the proof. Do you have
any, or is it business as usual with you, just trying your hardest to
make the right look better than they really are?

When Harry posts Bush's transcript, I'll post Kerry's.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

....except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit

"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

"Ted" tedwilliams@nospam wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:15:18 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Ted" tedwilliams@nospam wrote in message
. ..
Got to
admit I hated organic chemistry

Finally something we agree on. What a useless class.


Yeah, 3 credits for the class 3 hours a week, plus a mandatory 2 hours of
lab per week. You would think it would have been 5 credits plus 3 more
for
having to suffer through it.

It should have been zero credits...since it served no useful function.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?



Al Qaeda has known contact with FARQ and the IRA. So what? They probably use
each other to network for weapons, same way people come here for help
finding decent boat accessories.

John H wrote:
Clinton - a real winner as far as terrorism goes.


Clinton BAD! Clinton BAD! AArrk!

Polly wanna cracker?

If you bothered your little head with facts, you'd be aware that the
Clinton Administration... meaning mostly the professional counterspooks
in the NSA, along with the Justice Dept... put more terrorists behind
bars for life than the Bush Administration has even caught.

Or were you under the impression that Sept 11th happened on Clinton's
watch, and that Clinton is the one who removed US troops from the hunt
for Osama Bin Laden?



Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?


No, Bush has started the job.

Really? How? By running up a huge deficit, reducing the tax base, and
proposing a plan which *increases* the SS income/payout split and makes
the system go bust sooner? Bush's plan is a great scheme for funneling
money to Bush/Rove affiliated political campaign chests (gotta keep the
cash out of enemy hands, like McCains or Whitmans).




Is an energy-independent America "impossible"


In the near term? Yes. If we build a lot of nuclear plants? Maybe.
If we owned Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Are you under the impression that oil lasts forever? Do you think we've
done well at gaining control of Iraq's oil fields so far?


To prevent you going in to your name-calling, put-down routine, we'll stop now.


Is stating facts and asking for some intelligent reply "name-calling"?

DSK

That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...


Nice editing there, NOBBY. Almost makes it look like you're about to
make a point...

NOYB wrote:
...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due process.

... the 1995 OKC bombing

The perpetrators of which have either been exectued or in jail for a
really long time, again after due process...

(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.

... and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Did that happen in the U.S.?

BTW would you like to mention the U.S. response (along with our former
European allies) to the Lockerbie airplane bombing, which is one of the
big reasons why Libya is backing off from sponsoring terrorism? Dubya
had a *lot* to do with that, din't he, huh?


Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?


None that were not taken care of, including due process of law...
something that the Bushies seem uneasy with...

DSK

That's funny, they reduced the deficit


NOYB wrote:
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.


Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?

DSK

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It is as long as it's being made a political football.


Agreed, to a large extent.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.

That's hilarious... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.



Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to invade
Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr put
together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't, yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...



Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

All countries act in their own short term interest.

Agreed. OTOH if we don't insult & trample other countries needlessly,
they might be more cooperative on the anti-terror thing.

After Sept 11th the whole world was on our side... except for the very
few Muslim radicals who openly sided with Al-Queda.

The Bush Administration has squandered that good will and lost the
chance to forge a meaningful alliance against terrorism.



Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?

see below

Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?

No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians, Bush
had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took the
money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder reactors
and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line with them.

Really? We sold them that stuff long before... and the Koreans knew more
than you did about Clinton's planning to raid their nuclear facilities
if they didn't dance right. The pros at the State Dept managed the show
under Clinton, not the suck-up right-wing whackos that the Bushies have
put in charge.

The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about
what was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens
with a stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.



Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management and
Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get is
some positive world press because we tried while the people we are trying to
help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20 million dollars
from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game now too."


Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in
foreign policy, I guess.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
That's funny, they reduced the deficit


NOYB wrote:
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?

DSK


I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that under Clinton,
they were working with a coherent president. And, I really wonder how much
more they could have accomplished together if they hadn't wasted so much
time chasing a blowjob.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:19:59 -0400, DSK wrote:


If you want to see the *real* difference between the two, compare how the
two's children speak in public, and behave in general. But hey, if
'family
values' matter most to you, then you probably won't care about raising
intelligent, well balanced, well-spoken, professional, and high-achieving
kids... at least, if you claim you care about family values and voted for
Bush anyway...


"Family values" like hypocrisy. Google on "Jennifer Fitzgerald" to see
Bush I's "family values".

She's hot...for a farmgirl.
http://www.progresspr.ie/images/award.gif

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?



Al Qaeda has known contact with FARQ and the IRA. So what? They probably
use each other to network for weapons, same way people come here for help
finding decent boat accessories.

They use each other to network for weapons, and you're response is "so
what?"? I'm glad you're not running this war on terror.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...


Nice editing there, NOBBY. Almost makes it look like you're about to make
a point...

NOYB wrote:
...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due process.

For what? I thought you said there were no terrorist attacks on our soil
under Clinton?


... the 1995 OKC bombing

The perpetrators of which have either been exectued or in jail for a
really long time, again after due process...

(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.

They *were* shipped to Syria. The UN weapons inspection group just admitted
the other day that their satellite info showed that the weapons and/or
weapons-making equipment were moved before the war. What the satellites did
not show is where they were moved to.


... and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Did that happen in the U.S.?

BTW would you like to mention the U.S. response (along with our former
European allies) to the Lockerbie airplane bombing, which is one of the
big reasons why Libya is backing off from sponsoring terrorism? Dubya had
a *lot* to do with that, din't he, huh?



Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?


None that were not taken care of, including due process of law...
something that the Bushies seem uneasy with...

Arresting the mercenaries has very little affect. It's the equivalent of
arresting the "soldiers" when the FBI goes after the mob. It did very
little good until they nabbed the bosses.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
That's funny, they reduced the deficit


NOYB wrote:
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?

Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in the
stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy. Tax revenues
are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a rate large enough to pay
for the increased spending necessary to support a war that was started in
our backyard.

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due process.


NOYB wrote:
For what? I thought you said there were no terrorist attacks on our soil
under Clinton?



That's not what I said, NOBBY. That's what you *wish* I'd said.



(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.


They *were* shipped to Syria.

Yeah yeah yeah

... The UN weapons inspection group just admitted
the other day that their satellite info showed that the weapons and/or
weapons-making equipment were moved before the war.

Oh the UN says so? Didn't you claim the UN was corrupt and ineffective?

Please also note that the UN weapons inspectors did *not* say that WMDs
were moved, only that "something which could have been" was moved. Is
that the same thing?

And if they know so much, why don't they know where?

You can keep chasing this fantasy, I'm sure it's very comforting to you.
But don't confuse it with facts.

FACT- Iraq had no WMDs... even the Bush Administration says so now,
after spending millions looking for them (and worse, frittering away
extremely valuable counter-intel resources during a time when it could
have meant saving American lives)

FACT- Iraq had *no* connection with Sept 11th or Al-Queda.

Maybe someday you'll be strong enough to face the truth.

DSK


What the satellites did
not show is where they were moved to.


... and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Did that happen in the U.S.?

BTW would you like to mention the U.S. response (along with our former
European allies) to the Lockerbie airplane bombing, which is one of the
big reasons why Libya is backing off from sponsoring terrorism? Dubya had
a *lot* to do with that, din't he, huh?


Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?


None that were not taken care of, including due process of law...
something that the Bushies seem uneasy with...


Arresting the mercenaries has very little affect. It's the equivalent of
arresting the "soldiers" when the FBI goes after the mob. It did very
little good until they nabbed the bosses.

"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?


NOYB wrote:
Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in the
stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy.

That's a laugh. The 1990s were the biggest growth in economic history...
the longest sustained business boom in peace time... EVER.

Do you genuinely believe it's all Clinton's fault? If so, do you think
the rest of us are stupid enough to believe it?

How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of
President Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to
have screwed up?

... Tax revenues
are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a rate large enough to pay
for the increased spending necessary to support a war that was started in
our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work? That's funny, I thought if
we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires, they'd all go out and order
new yachts or something, and the economy would boom again...

BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?



Al Qaeda has known contact with FARQ and the IRA. So what? They probably
use each other to network for weapons, same way people come here for help
finding decent boat accessories.

They use each other to network for weapons, and you're response is "so
what?"? I'm glad you're not running this war on terror.


I'm sure that the appropriate government personnel know where to best expend
their efforts, and trying to stop two groups from communicating is probably
not at the top of their list. That would be like ****ing into the wind. For
thousands of years, spies have known ways of passing messages.

Now, *knowing* what they're saying is another story, but that's not what you
were talking about when you mentioned Nichols' theoretical connections with
terrorist groups.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due
process.


NOYB wrote:
For what? I thought you said there were no terrorist attacks on our soil
under Clinton?



That's not what I said, NOBBY.

Sure it is.

This is what you said:
"That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO terrorist
attacks on US soil"

You clearly said "NO terrorist attacks on US soil". You even capitalized
"NO".



(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.


They *were* shipped to Syria.

Yeah yeah yeah

... The UN weapons inspection group just admitted the other day that
their satellite info showed that the weapons and/or weapons-making
equipment were moved before the war.

Oh the UN says so? Didn't you claim the UN was corrupt and ineffective?

*Was* corrupt...until they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and
began instituting reforms.

First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.


Please also note that the UN weapons inspectors did *not* say that WMDs
were moved, only that "something which could have been" was moved. Is that
the same thing?

It could very well be the same thing. Depends upon how one interprets it.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.

I didn't want to confuse him. He does that well enough on his own.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?


NOYB wrote:
Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in the
stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy.

That's a laugh. The 1990s were the biggest growth in economic history...
the longest sustained business boom in peace time... EVER.

Year 2000 wasn't the 90's. But it was the final year of Clinton's
presidency.



Do you genuinely believe it's all Clinton's fault?

I believe the irrational exhuberance that existed in the markets *was*
Clinton's (and the media's) fault. We were led to believe that everything
was just rosy, that we had no outside threats to our safety (because they
pursued terrorists as criminals instead of nation-state sponsored), and that
economy wasn't showing signs of slowdown. Of course, the data from 2000 all
came out in the wash in 2001.

If so, do you think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe it?

Yes, I think you're stupid...but that's besides the point.


How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock market
is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate accounting scandals
and irrational growth from the dot-coms and IPO's...and turned to a safer
investment: real estate. Real estate is the new millenium's new stock
market.



When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of President
Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to have screwed
up?

Besides the short recession that he helped us recover from, and the
democratic elections happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and even Saudi
Arabia (at least on a local level)?


... Tax revenues are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a rate
large enough to pay for the increased spending necessary to support a war
that was started in our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work?

Of course it works. That's why the recession was so short-lived.

That's funny, I thought if we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires,
they'd all go out and order new yachts or something, and the economy would
boom again...

It is booming.


BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

They're doing that to offset spiking energy costs.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?


NOYB wrote:
Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in
the stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy.

That's a laugh. The 1990s were the biggest growth in economic history...
the longest sustained business boom in peace time... EVER.

Year 2000 wasn't the 90's. But it was the final year of Clinton's
presidency.



Do you genuinely believe it's all Clinton's fault?

I believe the irrational exhuberance that existed in the markets *was*
Clinton's (and the media's) fault. We were led to believe that everything
was just rosy, that we had no outside threats to our safety (because they
pursued terrorists as criminals instead of nation-state sponsored), and
that economy wasn't showing signs of slowdown. Of course, the data from
2000 all came out in the wash in 2001.

Not to mention the Clinton cap on exec's salaries deductions, and the turn
to stock options as compensation for top employees....That in turn led to an
emphasis on driving up stock prices.

Bush was able to correct part of that through the reduction in the dividend
tax.



If so, do you think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe it?

Yes, I think you're stupid...but that's besides the point.


How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate accounting
scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and IPO's...and turned to
a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is the new millenium's new
stock market.



When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of
President Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to have
screwed up?

Besides the short recession that he helped us recover from, and the
democratic elections happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and even Saudi
Arabia (at least on a local level)?


... Tax revenues are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a
rate large enough to pay for the increased spending necessary to support
a war that was started in our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work?

Of course it works. That's why the recession was so short-lived.

That's funny, I thought if we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires,
they'd all go out and order new yachts or something, and the economy
would boom again...

It is booming.


BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

They're doing that to offset spiking energy costs.

If only the liebrals could comprehend Econ 101

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike
the terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them
in custody.

NOYB wrote:
I didn't want to confuse him. He does that well enough on his own.


I guess a complete sentence must confuse you. Go back and read the
original post, NOBBY. See if you can figure it out.

We know Puff Fritzy won't, but then he can't read and is afraid of the
facts. Why should a 'conservative' be scared of the truth?

DSK

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:35:14 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock market
is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate accounting scandals
and irrational growth from the dot-coms and IPO's...and turned to a safer
investment: real estate. Real estate is the new millenium's new stock
market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during
the past two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus
tenure. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the job growth
Bush trumpeted simply makes up for the jobs lost earlier in his term. In
May when the economy added just 78,000 new jobs, about half of what was
forecast, the number of jobs in the private sector finally recovered to
the level of March 2001. About 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have
disappeared since Bush took office (not counting the 25,000 General
Motors jobs just announced). On the unemployment front, today's 5.1
percent unemployment rate is a far cry from the 30-year record low rate
of 3.9 percent when Bush took office.

Yup, it's taken a lot of work to recover from Clinton's recession, especially
with all the other crap that has taken place.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?


NOYB wrote:
Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in
the stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy.

That's a laugh. The 1990s were the biggest growth in economic history...
the longest sustained business boom in peace time... EVER.

Year 2000 wasn't the 90's. But it was the final year of Clinton's
presidency.



Do you genuinely believe it's all Clinton's fault?

I believe the irrational exhuberance that existed in the markets *was*
Clinton's (and the media's) fault. We were led to believe that
everything was just rosy, that we had no outside threats to our safety
(because they pursued terrorists as criminals instead of nation-state
sponsored), and that economy wasn't showing signs of slowdown. Of
course, the data from 2000 all came out in the wash in 2001.

Not to mention the Clinton cap on exec's salaries deductions, and the turn
to stock options as compensation for top employees....That in turn led to
an emphasis on driving up stock prices.

Bush was able to correct part of that through the reduction in the
dividend tax.



If so, do you think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe it?

Yes, I think you're stupid...but that's besides the point.


How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is
the new millenium's new stock market.



When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of
President Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to
have screwed up?

Besides the short recession that he helped us recover from, and the
democratic elections happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and even
Saudi Arabia (at least on a local level)?


... Tax revenues are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a
rate large enough to pay for the increased spending necessary to
support a war that was started in our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work?

Of course it works. That's why the recession was so short-lived.

That's funny, I thought if we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires,
they'd all go out and order new yachts or something, and the economy
would boom again...

It is booming.


BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

They're doing that to offset spiking energy costs.

If only the liebrals could comprehend Econ 101

They'd have to learn math and deductive reasoning first. Ain't gonna happen
in our lifetime. Thus, they all must be assimilated...or wiped out.

NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.

How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up.

Really?
Let's see what the pros say
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

Hmm, 3.5% which isn't bad, but it darn sure isn't "great." The previous
quarters were less though.

So why are we having layoffs, huge gov't deficits, dropping the prime
rate, increasing trade imbalance, dropping dollar, etc etc?

Oh wait, none of that is happening in Hooray-Bush-&-Cheney-World.


... The stock
market is undervalued IMHO.

That's a great excuse. First it was overvalued under Clinton... right...
now after almost 5 years of the great Bush/Cheney leadership, it's still
not as good as under Clinton...

Does anybody else buy this lame BS?



When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of
President Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to
have screwed up?

Besides the short recession that he helped us recover from,

Really? When was that?

... and the
democratic elections happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and even
Saudi Arabia (at least on a local level)?


And the fact that more countries than ever hate us, more terrorism than
ever, worst military preparedness ever, etc etc. I guess a few elections
(which seem to be mostly installing America-hating radical Muslim
theocracies) are something to crow about, all right.



... Tax revenues are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a
rate large enough to pay for the increased spending necessary to
support a war that was started in our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work?

Of course it works. That's why the recession was so short-lived.


Then how come you're claiming 3.5% GDP growth is "great" and sputtering
over trying to explain the HUGE deficit, the trade imbalance, the
falling dollar, the layoffs, the "undervalued" stock market, etc etc?



That's funny, I thought if we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires,
they'd all go out and order new yachts or something, and the economy
would boom again...

It is booming.


Really?


BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

They're doing that to offset spiking energy costs.


Wait, I thought spiking oil prices helped the Top Secret Cheney Energy
Policy? It certainly seems to have boosted oil company stock.


If only the liebrals could comprehend Econ 101


NOYB wrote:
They'd have to learn math and deductive reasoning first. Ain't gonna happen
in our lifetime. Thus, they all must be assimilated...or wiped out.


Yeah, that's the answer... kill all the disbelievers...

DSK

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000 jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

NOYB wrote:
Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last
November & December. That would be very impressive.

"After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry
supporters were quick to declare that Bush was the first American
president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his
term. However, since Bush officially took office in January 2001, he
still had the November and December numbers to add to his total. By the
time of his second inauguration in January 2005, Bush ended up with a
net gain of jobs for his first term."

No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW! Pretty soon the Chinese
will be griping about all the factories being moved over here!

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1
trillion or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK

Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.


Well, duh. There are more people, period, today than in 2000.


Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Says who? Anybody we know and might believe, anybody with some shred of
credibility outside Hooray-Bush-&-Cheney-World?

NOYB wrote:
Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000 jobs.


Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?

BTW did you ever work out that issue of how much US debt the Chinese are
currently holding?

Fact: You're a dimwit


He's not the one claiming 2 *very* different sets of numbers for the
same statistic.

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.


Well, duh. There are more people, period, today than in 2000.


Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Says who? Anybody we know and might believe, anybody with some shred of
credibility outside Hooray-Bush-&-Cheney-World?


Says the BLS you nincompoop.

NOYB wrote:
Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since
Bush has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost
900,000 jobs.


Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?

3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.




BTW did you ever work out that issue of how much US debt the Chinese are
currently holding?

Fact: You're a dimwit

He's not the one claiming 2 *very* different sets of numbers for the same
statistic

Boy are you obtuse.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike the
terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them in
custody.



What about the bosses?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up.

Really?
Let's see what the pros say
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

Hmm, 3.5% which isn't bad, but it darn sure isn't "great." The previous
quarters were less though.

So why are we having layoffs

Jobs going to countries with uneven labor playing fields.

, huge gov't deficits

Already been asked and answered.

, dropping the prime rate,

As I said...
To offset the oil spike, *and* to create a more level field with our
international competitors who receive government-subsidized loans for cheap.

increasing trade imbalance,

China won't float there currency. It's indexed to the dollar, making it
artificially depressed. Besides being cheaper due to a lowcost labor
supply, their stuff also appears much, much cheaper due to their
artificially deflated currency.

dropping dollar, etc etc?

A depressed dollar is good for helping keep jobs in the US. It makes
US-made products seem cheaper. Of course, your statement is erroneous: the
dollar has been heading back up against all currencies except for the yuan.