Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blair to meet with mass protests in the UK

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by _Ender_
    IIRC didnt Clikton have to finish the first Gulf War?
    :?: What do you mean "finish"?
    Were there still American troops there? Yes, mostly in the Kurdish refugee camps in northern Iraq. I don't think that President Clinton had to make very many decisions regarding the Gulf War. I believe that President Clinton just told the troops to "continue to march"...
    Become a supporting member!
    Buy a Tactical Duck!
    Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
    TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

    Comment


    • #32
      I just realised that I miss titled this thread....

      erm i mean spot the deliberate mistake....

      I don't have much to add except that to repeat what was said before in response to Spectre's wish to ignore the international community. The US already ignores the internaional community too much. I am happy for countries to disregard me and me to disregard them. There are countries that I don't even know the name of. It is not possible to disregard the world's biggest economy and the world's most powerful and active military. Nor is it possible to disregard the US when it influences/controls to varying degrees NATO, the UN and international trade.

      Frankly, if the US has such a big hand in our lives means it damn well should listen to us. The fact that it is the up to US politicians whether they listen or not is the major problem. The international system is undemocratic. The Iraqis didnt vote for Sadam but neither did they vote for Bush.

      As for national pride, most EU countries get along very happily without it. We talk to each other and do cooperative things like the EU. We only have national pride when the football or Rugby is on. ....but not when the cricket is on.

      Some long haired bloke around about 0 AD said pride was a sin and so did his dad.
      Wintermute

      Play EVE online. It's like being an accounting addict in space.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Wintermute
        Frankly, if the US has such a big hand in our lives means it damn well should listen to us.
        I think you've got it backwards....
        Become a supporting member!
        Buy a Tactical Duck!
        Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
        TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

        Comment


        • #34
          Also that graph is not correct. The economy improved before Clinton took office and was going downhill before Clinton left office. Whoever made those graphs left that information out......
          actually, those graphs were made using .gov data, hit the link in the post.
          http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm

          And lee, the economy was on it's way down BEFORE 9-11. That just exascerbated(sp?) the situation.

          Comment


          • #35
            Well my point is that 9/11 and the subsequent war exacerbated the HELL out of the situation. What was Bush supposed to do? Hope it didn't happen again?

            And Wintermute, when you claim that the US doesn't listen to the rest of the world, I would like to know what you mean. Are you referring to the tens of billions of dollars that our government and private citizens give to the world? Are you referring to the hundreds of thousands of troops we send all over the planet to die for other people's problems?

            And as far as taking our cues from Europe as to how to run foreign policy, I believe that many of the roots of terrorism can be traced back to colonialism and the carving up of the world to suit Europe's whim, further exacerbated by the fiddling of borders at the end of WWI and WWII. Thanks a lot Europe. Forgive us if we take Europe's advice with a grain of salt. After all, several hundred thousand of our troops have died in the last 100 years fighting wars in Europe that we didn't want, didn't start, and were born out of Europe's sage foreign policies.

            And now, having worked hard on our own to build the world's strongest economy and the mightiest military, having given Europe the money to rebuild after WWII, having rebuilt Germany and Japan as self-sufficient and sovereign states, and having wanted nothing more than to be left alone to live in peace, our president gets lectured like a naughty school boy, and we get treated like fools.

            I'm not sure what the US must do to earn more than scorn from Europe or others, and why these people are so happy to forgive their own inadequacies. Many of our tourists may be jackasses, some of our foreign policies may cause some distress, but damn if anyone's ever set a better example. What nation in history would you point to as an example of how to do it right?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by fr1j0l3
              Also that graph is not correct. The economy improved before Clinton took office and was going downhill before Clinton left office. Whoever made those graphs left that information out......
              actually, those graphs were made using .gov data, hit the link in the post.
              http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm

              And lee, the economy was on it's way down BEFORE 9-11. That just exascerbated(sp?) the situation.
              My main question and no one has yet to answer it to any great satisfaction is this:

              How can a President have an effect on the economy without passing ANY economic resolutions and only of been in office for less than a year???

              (Clinton getting credit in 1993 for upturn, Bush getting slammed in 2001 for downturn: BOTH at that point in their administrations hadn't passed ONE SINGLE shred of economic policy)

              People have the economy / Government relationship so out of whack and the news just keeps perpetuating the misconceptions over the years...just because it makes for "good news."

              The simple fact is this.

              FACT 1: The economy is a free moving and separate entity from the United States Government.

              FACT2: Individuals invest in companies; companies invest in the United States Government in the form of treasury bonds.

              FACT3: The Fed, headed by Alan Greenspan (appointed by Reagan August 11, 1987) Adjusts the interest rate and return values on government stocks and bonds.

              FACT4: When the Fed adjusts its interest rates, the QUICKEST POSSIBLE time it can have an effect is 5 YEARS from setting the interest rate, as that is the quickest bond you could buy, the FIVE YEAR TREASURY BOND.

              FACT5: The Fed lowered the five and ten year interest rates in early 1988. When did the economy start its roaring 90's upturn??? 1992 / 1993

              FACT6: Clinton was just elected in 1992 and took office in January 1993. He Happened to be in the right place at the right time, just when the changes the Fed made to the Five and Ten year bonds were creating a profit for large corporations.

              FACT7: The Fed, to curb inflation because TOO MUCH money was being made by big business and the government was missing out on additional profits, RAISED the interest rate on the five and ten year bond on Sept 24th, 1997.

              FACT8: Bush was elected immediately after the DOT.COM crisis of 1999 / 2000. A period in which over 800 Billion dollars in corporate profit was lost in shaky internet startup capital.

              FACT9: The Five year bond interest rate hike hit right after 2001, causing businesses to lose even more money due to poor Treasury bond performance.

              FACT10: Businesses without money fire people.

              FACT11: Neither Clinton or Bush have had ANY measurable impact on long-term economic policy. Plus, in 1994 Clinton signed off on a federal budget with a deficit larger than the one we incur today (in 1994 dollars)

              FACT12: Having a balanced budget each year can be a hindrance to proper federal spending:

              Quote prominent Democrat and Think-tank member of AFL-CIO, Albert Shaker:

              "Some people say that, if ordinary folks can balance their budgets, the government can do the same. But most families -- and most businesses -- don't balance their budget in any given year, and there is no reason why they need to. Indeed, it may be better under certain circumstances not to balance it. Some years a family -- or the government -- must spend more in order to take care of needs that are unexpected or crucial. And often borrowing leads to economic advantages down the road. That's why parents go into debt to send their children to college. And many businesses become prosperous precisely because they have borrowed money to develop and market new products. A country also may have to incur short-term deficits in order to pursue important long-term goals or stimulate the economy. For 200 years, we have gotten along without a balanced budget requirement, and no other country puts its budget process into this kind of straitjacket."


              I hope this sheds a little more light on the economic debate, as SoundBits on the nightly news do NOTHING to truly further our understanding of such matters.

              -Spectre:D














              http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/greenspan.htm

              http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/

              http://www.aft.org/stand/previous/1994/022794.html

              Comment


              • #37
                Back to the security of Bush's trip...

                I just realized something, I been arguing this thing the wrong way the entire time.

                Guardian may have their facts straight (US SS may have indeed requested all those things - overflights, shut down the tube, etc). However, the thing is, the Guardian presented those facts in such a way that the reader could only draw themselves to the conclusion that the Guardian wanted.

                Remember, requesting something and demanding are two different things. The US SS are going to be paranoid when it comes to keeping the President safe and are going to request a lot of measures. However, as another article mentioned (trying to find it, I read it at work today), the British met some of the requests and politely turned down others. In no way was the US demanding that Britian do what it wanted to.

                If I was a betting man, I would say that the author/editor of that article was either anti-Bush or anti-War and was letting their feelings lead the readers.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by CingularDuality
                  Originally posted by _Ender_
                  IIRC didnt Clikton have to finish the first Gulf War?
                  :?: What do you mean "finish"?
                  Were there still American troops there? Yes, mostly in the Kurdish refugee camps in northern Iraq. I don't think that President Clinton had to make very many decisions regarding the Gulf War. I believe that President Clinton just told the troops to "continue to march"...
                  Ahh ok, thanks for clearing that up Dave.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Spectre
                    I hope this sheds a little more light on the economic debate, as SoundBits on the nightly news do NOTHING to truly further our understanding of such matters.

                    -Spectre:D
                    Hear, hear. I had started another book last night, complete with definitions of "budget deficit" versus "national deficit" (the national deficit increased just as much during Clinton's terms as anyone else's) and my stupid hotel connection died about 3/4 of the way through. But you did a really nice job covering the President/economy thing. 8) Kudos.

                    I submit the following since my first post was a geocities link and as such is about as watertight as toilet paper:
                    http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm
                    http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?3200&national%20debt
                    http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

                    Note that "national debt" is the source of the numbers that the media likes to display for incendiary purposes, but these are NOT the same as a budget deficit/surplus and not the same as the trade deficit. It's positively scary how easy it is for any schmoe with Excel to use incomplete information to prove anything - publish it and it must be true. Makes you want to doubt the whole system and wonder if we're all at the mercy of the Ministry of Truth. :(

                    P.S. The quote in Wolfie's post was stuff I'd deleted because I realized it wasn't really relevant to this topic. Perhaps we should start another thread on Presidents or economy comparisons.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      A President can introduce policies and put people in places of responsiblity that scare holy crap out of business and investors and can impact the economy in that manner. The converse is true, too, don't you think? If someone cleans house and gives the nation a sense that good times are on their way again, then consumers start spending again.

                      I think that one shouldn't misunderestimate the effect that the President can have on the economy. It would have been nice if Clinton had put together a functional FBI and SEC for example. Maybe throw in an AG who didn't get brought to her knees by a five-year-old from Cuba?

                      I was a democrat until 9/11, and I keep becoming less of a democrat as Clinton's legacy reveals itself.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by leejo

                        I was a democrat until 9/11, and I keep becoming less of a democrat as Clinton's legacy reveals itself.
                        I don't really label myself as a party member. I fit with the Libertarians really well but I don't blindly pick them over other candidates. I usually try to find the candidate that I believe will do the better job. If there is a democrat candidate that I strongly feel would make an excellent leader, then I would vote for him. In the last election, Gore did not come off as a strong leader. Maybe the democrats will field a stronger candidate this time around?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Wolfie
                          Originally posted by leejo

                          I was a democrat until 9/11, and I keep becoming less of a democrat as Clinton's legacy reveals itself.
                          I don't really label myself as a party member. I fit with the Libertarians really well but I don't blindly pick them over other candidates. I usually try to find the candidate that I believe will do the better job. If there is a democrat candidate that I strongly feel would make an excellent leader, then I would vote for him. In the last election, Gore did not come off as a strong leader. Maybe the democrats will field a stronger candidate this time around?
                          I too try to NOT vote strictly party-line, as that would make me a hypocrite. I have voted for Democrats on various tickets before because I truly felt that they were the better candidate. Considering my views on abortion and marriage rights, most would surmize that I should be classified as a liberal, however those are fringe issues compared to protecting our nation's physical and economic assests; subjects which have favored a Republican stance for quite some time now.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            OK well let's just say that neither Daschle nor Pelosi nor Dean are doing much to make me stand and cheer.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              i have completely missed out on this post...im completely lost by all these long ass posts

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by leejo
                                OK well let's just say that neither Daschle nor Pelosi nor Dean are doing much to make me stand and cheer.
                                The ONLY Dem for President I could live with is General Wesley Clark. Nancy Pelosi has her head so far up her a$$ she's disappeared!!!

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X