Obamateurism of the Year ?

[Trajan]

Strict ideology translated into revenge politics did not become extreme until Bill Clinton was elected. And I have plenty of evidence to prove that statement (but I'll have to do it later because I've run out of time).

robert bork? clarence thomas...?REAGAN? KENNEDY?DUKAKIS?


come now...

Nobody is claiming there weren't conflicts. Of course there were. PC was correct about only one thing, and that is that there is basic ideology differences between the parties. I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41.

Even long before the Lewinsky scandal, Republicans had set out to destroy him. The held hundreds of hearings to "investigate" all manner of things. The House oversight committee took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database, whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. All that not to mention the 18 million pricetag to investigate Hillary's "Whitewater" thing. Shall I go on?

no because you have now changed the debate to fit your evidence, as you have thrown a great deal at the wall at once and deciding what is worthy or not. Apparently due to your particular ideological stance it appears its a problem and 'partisan' to investigate why Livingstone yes, cheif of sec. should be collecting fbi files on 900 prominent rep.s so in the end, if anyone bush Reagan Kennedy had done as much yes they should be investigated...so this debate is at a dead end in this context. thx for posting it though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nobody is claiming there weren't conflicts. Of course there were. PC was correct about only one thing, and that is that there is basic ideology differences between the parties. I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41.

Even long before the Lewinsky scandal, Republicans had set out to destroy him. The held hundreds of hearings to "investigate" all manner of things. The House oversight committee took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database, whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. All that not to mention the 18 million pricetag to investigate Hillary's "Whitewater" thing. Shall I go on?

Clinton???

Another post like this and I may have to remove any cache you have with regards to a knowledge of history...

Recall this about Cleveland, 1884: "Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha" about his possibly having a child out of wedlock....

Do you need to be remided about stuff written about Jefferson???

And, this pretty well sums it up about Clinton:

"…every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamofascism down the road for eight years, and so on."
Coulter

Tell Ann I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions. So her all-inclusivity is, as usual, wrong. And I would also refer her to the 911 Commission's report which, based upon the timeframe and global activity of the time, did not entirely blame the Clinton administration for the rise of Islamofascism, nor did it blame the Bush administration for totally ignoring it.

Want to skip your line "I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41."?


Is it necessary to point to the accusations of Jefferson being an athiest, or the stories...still current, of his relationship with one of his slaves....
Of course there is no proof of this...only conjecture.

Or are you arguing that Jefferson was on the same ticket with Clinton....

give it up.

 

[MaggieMae]

What??


If you have the time, you might pick up Arnaud de Borchgrave's "The Spike" which is an entertaining example of how news media slant the news, not only by what they say...but what they don't report.

I think Orwell said the same.

So will you admit that Fox does an excellent job of spiking? It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. I'm truly shocked that this argument is even necessary.

I defend CNN, because they report a LOT of "news," in addition to their panels which are intentionally chosen from opinionators from the left and right. If you can tear yourself away from Fox for awhile, just try to catch John King's USA at 7PM eastern and you'll probably get to see such conservative pundits as Erick Erickson of Redstatenation.com. Following that is the new point/counterpoint political program with Elliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker going head to head. ALL of CNN's political panels are balanced.

The half-hour news shows don't have time to spew opinions. A half-hour actually equates to about 20 minutes, and there's a lot to cover in addition to politics.

"It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. "
No, it's not...in fact your post smacks of the bygone times when there was only the MSM around to provide such 'common knowledge.'

Fox is pretty much right-center, and the scary thing about it for you lefties is...well, here's Coulter nailing it again:

"Fox News isn’t conservative (despite liberals repeating that to themselves over and over again). But it does promote something liberals fear more than anything other than the FBI being able to see the porn sites they’ve visited: debate. What really distinguished Fox News is that its prime-time lineup is predicated on conservatives and liberals debating, which regularly results in liberals being trounced."


It unnerves you lefties when Fox allows it to get out that the Tea Parties aren't racist or violent...heck, it was so much better when your networks could cast aspirsions and walk away leaving viewers with the impression that it was truth they were the purveyor of the only truth....

Isn't it telling that you only want one side of a story to be allowed?


"I defend CNN, ..."
Do you attach any significance to the precipitous fall in their viewership?
The mass escape of tons of their anchors?

BTW, I watch John King...far better than the Fox show with a lib name Shep....
I also watch Maddow on MSNBC...she is the most professional that they have.

Hey, did you notice that we on the right never call for opposition voices to be shut down, unlike the apparachiks in the White House?

C'mon, Maggie...leave the darkside and come out into the light.

1. CNN hasn't "lost" many anchors. They've done some switching around, and lost a few reporters (or journalists, or whatever) because they're trying to keep costs under control knowing that it's become a much more competitive arena. They canned Lou Dobbs for obvious reasons. I used to like him too, until he became downright ugly. And THAT was never acceptable under the CNN trademark.

2. Was that a joke?

3. I think the tea partiers during the summer of 09 brought it all on themselves by allowing every lunatic within shouting distance to speak the loudest for them. I have nothing against the tea party movement, except that. And the leaders (whoever they are now) admit that they need to distance themselves from extremists.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm not running away, just running off. As usual, I've spent too much time here. But I'll return for Round Three. Betcha ya'll can't wait!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nobody is claiming there weren't conflicts. Of course there were. PC was correct about only one thing, and that is that there is basic ideology differences between the parties. I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41.

Even long before the Lewinsky scandal, Republicans had set out to destroy him. The held hundreds of hearings to "investigate" all manner of things. The House oversight committee took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database, whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. All that not to mention the 18 million pricetag to investigate Hillary's "Whitewater" thing. Shall I go on?

Clinton???

Another post like this and I may have to remove any cache you have with regards to a knowledge of history...

Recall this about Cleveland, 1884: "Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha" about his possibly having a child out of wedlock....

Do you need to be remided about stuff written about Jefferson???

And, this pretty well sums it up about Clinton:

"…every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamofascism down the road for eight years, and so on."
Coulter

Tell Ann I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions. So her all-inclusivity is, as usual, wrong. And I would also refer her to the 911 Commission's report which, based upon the timeframe and global activity of the time, did not entirely blame the Clinton administration for the rise of Islamofascism, nor did it blame the Bush administration for totally ignoring it.

With amusement I just re-read your post...and note how small a role objectivity plays....

earlier you used the phrase 'cherry-picking' when I noted some fact or other, yet here you are cherry-picking which aspects of Clinon's character- or, rather, lack of same, you will defend.

But Beck didn't get the same treatment from you.

And I note you cherry-picked only certain aspects of the Coulter quote to rebut...and there was a certain amount of disingenuousness there, as well.

Did "I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions" mean that you only defended the parts of Clinton's 'indiscretion' that included "duplicity, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, perjury, obstruction of justice, "?

Just not the rape or adultery?

Don't you think that even a couple of those should make him ineligible for any support?

In you post I hear the echo of Nina Burleigh..
"I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal."

Those were the enlightening words uttered by former Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh in an interview in Mirabella magazine, as reported by Howard Kurtz in a Washington Post Article."

...the observations of Star Parker in her essay Why the Modern Woman voted For Bill Clinton. "The way liberal women have justified their vote for Bill Clinton kind of reminds me of the relationship a whore has with her pimp," states Parker. "
Sex for a Cause - Feminists Imply Sex is Ok if Done for the Cause - A Rightgrrl Article

So, this is the man you are ready to defend as having been insulted when he ran agaist Bush I?

Just checkin'.

 

[Trajan]

Bush's economy wasn't either. Not for the entire time the Administration was in power. Now, suddenly..it's a problem?

President Bush's time in office is ending as it began, with our economy under stress. The recession President Bush inherited as he entered office ran through the attacks of September 11, 2001, but during the recovery that followed, and due in no small part to the tax relief President Bush worked with Congress to provide, this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth - 52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created.

This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed. The current economic challenges, which the President and his Administration have responded to aggressively, threaten to reverse some of these gains - but the gains cannot be denied.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Myths & Facts About the Real Bush Record

^^December 22, 2008.

The tables included in THIS analysis are from IRS Statistics of Income pages, which prove that those numbers by Real Clear Politics are skewed.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

can you point out to me please what your rebutting exactly with the your link. I am not clear on that...thx!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So will you admit that Fox does an excellent job of spiking? It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. I'm truly shocked that this argument is even necessary.

I defend CNN, because they report a LOT of "news," in addition to their panels which are intentionally chosen from opinionators from the left and right. If you can tear yourself away from Fox for awhile, just try to catch John King's USA at 7PM eastern and you'll probably get to see such conservative pundits as Erick Erickson of Redstatenation.com. Following that is the new point/counterpoint political program with Elliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker going head to head. ALL of CNN's political panels are balanced.

The half-hour news shows don't have time to spew opinions. A half-hour actually equates to about 20 minutes, and there's a lot to cover in addition to politics.

"It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. "
No, it's not...in fact your post smacks of the bygone times when there was only the MSM around to provide such 'common knowledge.'

Fox is pretty much right-center, and the scary thing about it for you lefties is...well, here's Coulter nailing it again:

"Fox News isn’t conservative (despite liberals repeating that to themselves over and over again). But it does promote something liberals fear more than anything other than the FBI being able to see the porn sites they’ve visited: debate. What really distinguished Fox News is that its prime-time lineup is predicated on conservatives and liberals debating, which regularly results in liberals being trounced."


It unnerves you lefties when Fox allows it to get out that the Tea Parties aren't racist or violent...heck, it was so much better when your networks could cast aspirsions and walk away leaving viewers with the impression that it was truth they were the purveyor of the only truth....

Isn't it telling that you only want one side of a story to be allowed?


"I defend CNN, ..."
Do you attach any significance to the precipitous fall in their viewership?
The mass escape of tons of their anchors?

BTW, I watch John King...far better than the Fox show with a lib name Shep....
I also watch Maddow on MSNBC...she is the most professional that they have.

Hey, did you notice that we on the right never call for opposition voices to be shut down, unlike the apparachiks in the White House?

C'mon, Maggie...leave the darkside and come out into the light.

1. CNN hasn't "lost" many anchors. They've done some switching around, and lost a few reporters (or journalists, or whatever) because they're trying to keep costs under control knowing that it's become a much more competitive arena. They canned Lou Dobbs for obvious reasons. I used to like him too, until he became downright ugly. And THAT was never acceptable under the CNN trademark.

2. Was that a joke?

3. I think the tea partiers during the summer of 09 brought it all on themselves by allowing every lunatic within shouting distance to speak the loudest for them. I have nothing against the tea party movement, except that. And the leaders (whoever they are now) admit that they need to distance themselves from extremists.

1.Campbell Brown...Larry King...Lou Dobbs...Christiane Amanpour...have all left the premier left of center cable network.
CNN's senior Middle East editor, Octavia Nasr...Jonathan Klein, the president of the beleaguered CNN/U.S. cable channel, is being replaced by Ken Jautz, the head of the tabloid-oriented sister channel HLN, the company said Friday.

...very popular and attractive anchor woman, Betty Nguyen, is leaving CNN news ...Another loss for the network: Abbie Boudreau has reportedly left....

The channel’s biggest star, Anderson Cooper, is close to leaving it behind, according TheWrap.com....Heidi Collins, who had been anchoring “CNN Newsroom” during that time, is leaving the network.

Tony Harris will no longer be with CNN at the end of this year.

2. No...it's the reason so many folks have left the left wing cables for Fox.

3. Obfuscation. The 'tea baggers' vulgar attempt to smear. The never proven smear that black representatives were spit on....most telling was that an offer of $10,000 to take a lie detector test was turned down....Pelosi's comment that the movement was 'astro turf'...all a fabrication of the left. And the attempt to use the 'extremist' tag, as you are stll trying to do.

 

[Trajan]

Hey imbecile.....

Look at month 24 of your graph... THAT'S where Obama took office. You have just swimmingly proved my point. GOD DAMN that must sting... Do you ever get tired of being wrong about EVERYTHING?

Here's another.

Every recession bottoms out. The issue with this one is that the subsequent recovery has been incredibly anemic and is NOT GENERATING ENOUGH JOBS TO KEEP UP WITH POPULATION GROWTH. Obamanomics has retarded the growth rate by at least 50%.

So prove it. Thus far, that's only an assumption on the part of conservatives, since NO ONE can accurately define just how bad the situation would have been withOUT the stimulus AND, of course, all the additional tax cuts to businesses that came with it--that ironically everyone like you seems to forget.

and you cannot define what jobs were created outside the normal ebb and flow in the labor market due to such, with the stimulus and without.... we do have one benchmark that infinitely 'provable', the Romer plan signed off on the section grp., etc. of the economic policy makers in the obama admin. forecast a 8.0 % unemployment rate IF they got the stimulus, they did and then some....?

 

[Trajan]

No, it's never a perfect science, but virtually all economists and the CBO seem to agree that it has had some stimulative effect. It's not only the jobs created that's imperfect, but also attempting to forecast an economy in absentia.

But just baselessly screaming its a failure is far less scientific than the methodology employed by the economic community... Just sayin'

Please read my prior post to maggie ala the CBO.

yes and I have already said it created some jobs and saved some too and I also said that that price was exorbitant.

In any case we can leave it several sects factions grps of experts in the economic community there are as one sect faction grp goes, the ones whom have left the admin., they were dead wrong in their assertions as to the value of the stimulus, you and I know this. They made their case, got their money and here we sit.

It appears we are quibbling over whether Rome burned all the way or only 3/4's. Sure the 1/4 not burning is great, but they said it would not burn more than a quarter...and add in that we have used up all of our fire fighting equipment as well. Thats the point, by analogy as I see it.

So in other words, if Obama's economic team had just said at the outset that we were looking at 15% unemployment which wouldn't start showing signs of improvement for at least ten years, that would have made the situation more palpable? It was what it was, at the time; it is what it is today.

thats not what I said at all...

Who knew that regardless of bank bailouts and stimulus and even more tax breaks that the private sector would still chose to sit on trillions instead of using it to enhance their businesses and rehire?

who else is supposed to know? It was their ship, thats not for me to answer thats for the experts, they had their shot, they were wrong. the tax break for bus. were not nearly enough and the tax uncertainty is totally the fault of the admin. this is one major reason why their money is on the sidelines, the dems had a supra majority for several months, they could have done what they just did, extend the tax cuts( and who knows if a 2 year extension will even work) . They didn't do a thing and they didn't even do a budget for 2011......

 

[Trajan]

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

maggie, if I told you that I was going to hire you and your pay would be between 8 and 24 dollars, what would you say to me?

The cbo's estimate is, well, not very 'good'. IF they cannot narrow this down below a400% fudge factor, I'd say those stats are not worth using. I saw one from them where in they said 1.4 mill to 3.4 mill.

Thats not a calculus I would make a bet on or use .and yes, thats me.*shrugs*

Now did the gov. create jobs? Yes in the gov. and I am sure they added a couple hundred thousand in the gov, and perhaps 2-300 k in the private sector, but a data set with a variance that huge is next to worthless, and they should just stay out if it imho. They apparently cannot quantify the number and they know it, so they gave us this. They cannot provide a list of these jobs, which is why the estimate is so huge.

And I am sure they saved jobs as well, this we know. and that has its own blow back.




In the end lets say okay we'll use the figure that illustrates a high degree of oomph. so lets use the mid way mark of 1.6.now, at a trillion dollars, how much a job is that?
AND we do not know what the jobs are so we don't know how long they HAVE lasted or WILL last.

First, a job is a job is a JOB. Without those government "created or saved" jobs, the unemployment number would have been far greater. That's a no-brainer.

no a job is not a 'job'. we borrowed money to 'create' or save those jobs, we pay interest on the this money. and we still have not established this yet as to the created or saved jobs are in fact extent. The saved jobs as in money given to states to maintain their payroll is a given, yup that was done, yet when the fed tap is off...what then?

Second, when projects begun under the stimulus continue and end by eventual hiring from the private sector, it's another plus that they were even begun in the first place. I can't tell you the number of road projects just in my tiny state that had been put on hold for seemingly forever because there was no money to finish them, and they are now complete.

how do you know this? can you quantify this please? I hear temp work and 30 hour work weeks ( part time staffing )were up not down.

And being complete means what exactly?

Third, even if some of those jobs were temporary, a person has enhanced his/her resume to include that work. The longer a person remains unemployed, the harder it is for him to compete once private sector jobs reopen because the hiring employer looks at the most current experience.

so at 225K a crack this is worth it, so they can fill in blank spots on their resume during the worst recession in decades?

Finally, without the federal government stepping in to help state governments who were also suffering from loss of anticipated revenue (there's that forecasting thingie again, which apparently you don't believe should be a consideration but of course it must be),

I don't understand what you mean here. everyone spent above revenue for years.....

the employees the states would have had to lay off would have sucked both federal and state social umbrella programs (welfare, if you must) dry. In other words: Help out up front or pay for it at the end.

okay , we shall see if this gamble worked. for this to have had a net positive effect and your 'formula' correct, this will mean these folks will no longer need any federally granted money from this point forward, they have jobs before they have to use a safety net, good luck on that MM.

Today is the first day of the year, an easy break from which we can make that judgment going forward, the last 18 months is on me.

There are any number of factors that the naysayers will attempt to show which simply do not prove true.

naysayer is defined as I think- someone with a pessimistic and aggressively negative attitude. So lets use another word. We are discussing the issues, you have me at a disadvantage, as I am not up on what we would call someone if I was so inclined, who had an 'aggressive optimistic attitude'......

 

[MaggieMae]

robert bork? clarence thomas...?REAGAN? KENNEDY?DUKAKIS?


come now...

Nobody is claiming there weren't conflicts. Of course there were. PC was correct about only one thing, and that is that there is basic ideology differences between the parties. I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41.

Even long before the Lewinsky scandal, Republicans had set out to destroy him. The held hundreds of hearings to "investigate" all manner of things. The House oversight committee took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database, whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. All that not to mention the 18 million pricetag to investigate Hillary's "Whitewater" thing. Shall I go on?

no because you have now changed the debate to fit your evidence, as you have thrown a great deal at the wall at once and deciding what is worthy or not. Apparently due to your particular ideological stance it appears its a problem and 'partisan' to investigate why Livingstone yes, cheif of sec. should be collecting fbi files on 900 prominent rep.s so in the end, if anyone bush Reagan Kennedy had done as much yes they should be investigated...so this debate is at a dead end in this context. thx for posting it though.

Regarding Livingston, it was undoubtedly a credible issue for investigation, but TWO YEARS? The bottom line is that Republicans felt they needed to have some investigation in motion at all times in order to make themselves look credible. And in the end, almost all of it backfired, except the Lewinsky investigation which was ironically an offshoot of Whitewater which also failed their test.

 

[MaggieMae]

Clinton???

Another post like this and I may have to remove any cache you have with regards to a knowledge of history...

Recall this about Cleveland, 1884: "Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha" about his possibly having a child out of wedlock....

Do you need to be remided about stuff written about Jefferson???

And, this pretty well sums it up about Clinton:

"…every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamofascism down the road for eight years, and so on."
Coulter

Tell Ann I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions. So her all-inclusivity is, as usual, wrong. And I would also refer her to the 911 Commission's report which, based upon the timeframe and global activity of the time, did not entirely blame the Clinton administration for the rise of Islamofascism, nor did it blame the Bush administration for totally ignoring it.

Want to skip your line "I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41."?


Is it necessary to point to the accusations of Jefferson being an athiest, or the stories...still current, of his relationship with one of his slaves....
Of course there is no proof of this...only conjecture.

Or are you arguing that Jefferson was on the same ticket with Clinton....

give it up.

Reagan never would have succeeded without the working relationship he had with Tip O'Neill. Clinton never would have succeeded without the eventual working relationship with Gingrich, but it didn't occur until Clinton's second term. Sitting Republicans despised Bill Clinton, and voters took their hatred of Clinton (because of the sex scandal) out on Al Gore. Then the USSC decision in Bush v. Gore which enraged Democrats. Are you telling me the vitiol between the parties, and especially among party subscribers, has not been uglier over the past decade than any time in history? Surely, as a quasi historian yourself (albeit knowledgeable mostly about conservative ideology), you know that it has.

 

[MaggieMae]

Clinton???

Another post like this and I may have to remove any cache you have with regards to a knowledge of history...

Recall this about Cleveland, 1884: "Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha" about his possibly having a child out of wedlock....

Do you need to be remided about stuff written about Jefferson???

And, this pretty well sums it up about Clinton:

"…every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamofascism down the road for eight years, and so on."
Coulter

Tell Ann I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions. So her all-inclusivity is, as usual, wrong. And I would also refer her to the 911 Commission's report which, based upon the timeframe and global activity of the time, did not entirely blame the Clinton administration for the rise of Islamofascism, nor did it blame the Bush administration for totally ignoring it.

With amusement I just re-read your post...and note how small a role objectivity plays....

earlier you used the phrase 'cherry-picking' when I noted some fact or other, yet here you are cherry-picking which aspects of Clinon's character- or, rather, lack of same, you will defend.

But Beck didn't get the same treatment from you.

And I note you cherry-picked only certain aspects of the Coulter quote to rebut...and there was a certain amount of disingenuousness there, as well.

Did "I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions" mean that you only defended the parts of Clinton's 'indiscretion' that included "duplicity, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, perjury, obstruction of justice, "?

Just not the rape or adultery?

Don't you think that even a couple of those should make him ineligible for any support?

In you post I hear the echo of Nina Burleigh..
"I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal."

Those were the enlightening words uttered by former Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh in an interview in Mirabella magazine, as reported by Howard Kurtz in a Washington Post Article."

...the observations of Star Parker in her essay Why the Modern Woman voted For Bill Clinton. "The way liberal women have justified their vote for Bill Clinton kind of reminds me of the relationship a whore has with her pimp," states Parker. "
Sex for a Cause - Feminists Imply Sex is Ok if Done for the Cause - A Rightgrrl Article

So, this is the man you are ready to defend as having been insulted when he ran agaist Bush I?

Just checkin'.

Your attempted criticism of my own "cherry-picking" is laughable, PC. We are NOT talking about the same thing: You cherry-picking statements, and alleging that I'm cherry-picking what I approve or disapprove of a presidential candidate. Apples and oranges? Of course.

I indeed had to bite my lip in continuing to defend President Clinton's POLICIES and his GOVERNING, since I was disgusted with his personal habits. What's so difficult to *get* about something that simple? Count me among the 65% who continued to approve of Clinton's job by the end of his presidency, in spite of the sex scandal.

 

[Trajan]

Nobody is claiming there weren't conflicts. Of course there were. PC was correct about only one thing, and that is that there is basic ideology differences between the parties. I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41.

Even long before the Lewinsky scandal, Republicans had set out to destroy him. The held hundreds of hearings to "investigate" all manner of things. The House oversight committee took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database, whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. All that not to mention the 18 million pricetag to investigate Hillary's "Whitewater" thing. Shall I go on?

no because you have now changed the debate to fit your evidence, as you have thrown a great deal at the wall at once and deciding what is worthy or not. Apparently due to your particular ideological stance it appears its a problem and 'partisan' to investigate why Livingstone yes, cheif of sec. should be collecting fbi files on 900 prominent rep.s so in the end, if anyone bush Reagan Kennedy had done as much yes they should be investigated...so this debate is at a dead end in this context. thx for posting it though.

Regarding Livingston, it was undoubtedly a credible issue for investigation, but TWO YEARS?

I fail to see why a congressional investigations length has a bearing if there was wrong doing? 2 years ? How long did Rangel dangle? whats up with maxine waters? they drag it out hoping it goes away and no this is not a strictly dem. phenomena. they all do it.

The bottom line is that Republicans felt they needed to have some investigation in motion at all times in order to make themselves look credible. And in the end, almost all of it backfired, except the Lewinsky investigation which was ironically an offshoot of Whitewater which also failed their test.

I am sorry MM, that is simply not true; one example, by the end of the 90's decade, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.And say, Webster Hubbell? Cisneros, Espy? Tyson foods? Ron Brown 'escaped' by dieing...

 

[MaggieMae]

President Bush's time in office is ending as it began, with our economy under stress. The recession President Bush inherited as he entered office ran through the attacks of September 11, 2001, but during the recovery that followed, and due in no small part to the tax relief President Bush worked with Congress to provide, this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth - 52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created.

This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed. The current economic challenges, which the President and his Administration have responded to aggressively, threaten to reverse some of these gains - but the gains cannot be denied.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Myths & Facts About the Real Bush Record

^^December 22, 2008.

The tables included in THIS analysis are from IRS Statistics of Income pages, which prove that those numbers by Real Clear Politics are skewed.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

can you point out to me please what your rebutting exactly with the your link. I am not clear on that...thx!

The Real Clear Politics article made this statement:

From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed.

There may have been a brief period of time when that was true, but the overall after-tax income fell from 2000 through 2008.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tell Ann I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions. So her all-inclusivity is, as usual, wrong. And I would also refer her to the 911 Commission's report which, based upon the timeframe and global activity of the time, did not entirely blame the Clinton administration for the rise of Islamofascism, nor did it blame the Bush administration for totally ignoring it.

Want to skip your line "I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41."?


Is it necessary to point to the accusations of Jefferson being an athiest, or the stories...still current, of his relationship with one of his slaves....
Of course there is no proof of this...only conjecture.

Or are you arguing that Jefferson was on the same ticket with Clinton....

give it up.

Reagan never would have succeeded without the working relationship he had with Tip O'Neill. Clinton never would have succeeded without the eventual working relationship with Gingrich, but it didn't occur until Clinton's second term. Sitting Republicans despised Bill Clinton, and voters took their hatred of Clinton (because of the sex scandal) out on Al Gore. Then the USSC decision in Bush v. Gore when enraged Democrats. Are you telling me the vitiol between the parties, and especially among party subscribers, has not been uglier over the past decade than any time in history? Surely, as a quasi historian yourself (albeit knowledgeable mostly about conservative ideology), you know that it has.

Absurd.

The same argument has been used before and regularly.

Politics is, and always has been, a bloodsport.

But..you are correct about he 1997 working relationship that Clinton and Gingrich had...up until the scandal, 1998-99. "...prepared to forge a bipartisan compromise on Social Security and Medicare, a plan that was derailed when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke."
From "The Pact," by Gillon.

Imagine how much better our nation would be ...at least fiscally, if you folks on the left didn't foist the sleazy, morally corrupt pols on the rest of us.

 

[MaggieMae]

"It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. "
No, it's not...in fact your post smacks of the bygone times when there was only the MSM around to provide such 'common knowledge.'

Fox is pretty much right-center, and the scary thing about it for you lefties is...well, here's Coulter nailing it again:

"Fox News isn’t conservative (despite liberals repeating that to themselves over and over again). But it does promote something liberals fear more than anything other than the FBI being able to see the porn sites they’ve visited: debate. What really distinguished Fox News is that its prime-time lineup is predicated on conservatives and liberals debating, which regularly results in liberals being trounced."


It unnerves you lefties when Fox allows it to get out that the Tea Parties aren't racist or violent...heck, it was so much better when your networks could cast aspirsions and walk away leaving viewers with the impression that it was truth they were the purveyor of the only truth....

Isn't it telling that you only want one side of a story to be allowed?


"I defend CNN, ..."
Do you attach any significance to the precipitous fall in their viewership?
The mass escape of tons of their anchors?

BTW, I watch John King...far better than the Fox show with a lib name Shep....
I also watch Maddow on MSNBC...she is the most professional that they have.

Hey, did you notice that we on the right never call for opposition voices to be shut down, unlike the apparachiks in the White House?

C'mon, Maggie...leave the darkside and come out into the light.

1. CNN hasn't "lost" many anchors. They've done some switching around, and lost a few reporters (or journalists, or whatever) because they're trying to keep costs under control knowing that it's become a much more competitive arena. They canned Lou Dobbs for obvious reasons. I used to like him too, until he became downright ugly. And THAT was never acceptable under the CNN trademark.

2. Was that a joke?

3. I think the tea partiers during the summer of 09 brought it all on themselves by allowing every lunatic within shouting distance to speak the loudest for them. I have nothing against the tea party movement, except that. And the leaders (whoever they are now) admit that they need to distance themselves from extremists.

1.Campbell Brown...Larry King...Lou Dobbs...Christiane Amanpour...have all left the premier left of center cable network.
CNN's senior Middle East editor, Octavia Nasr...Jonathan Klein, the president of the beleaguered CNN/U.S. cable channel, is being replaced by Ken Jautz, the head of the tabloid-oriented sister channel HLN, the company said Friday.

...very popular and attractive anchor woman, Betty Nguyen, is leaving CNN news ...Another loss for the network: Abbie Boudreau has reportedly left....

The channel’s biggest star, Anderson Cooper, is close to leaving it behind, according TheWrap.com....Heidi Collins, who had been anchoring “CNN Newsroom” during that time, is leaving the network.

Tony Harris will no longer be with CNN at the end of this year.

2. No...it's the reason so many folks have left the left wing cables for Fox.

3. Obfuscation. The 'tea baggers' vulgar attempt to smear. The never proven smear that black representatives were spit on....most telling was that an offer of $10,000 to take a lie detector test was turned down....Pelosi's comment that the movement was 'astro turf'...all a fabrication of the left. And the attempt to use the 'extremist' tag, as you are stll trying to do.

So I guess CNN's decision to make staffing decision automatically makes it suddenly a leftist news outlet? Hardly.

Regarding Item 2, it doesn't surprise me at all that much of Fox's audience would be so ignorant as to believe such hogwash. I actually think that assumption is downright hilarious, especially since many of the right wingers who post on this board absolutely LOVE to see how far they can stretch the rules by posting porn and/or write posts with sexual innuendo injected. One can presume they are avid Fox supporters. Shall I name them?

With respect to the tea party, admit it--they've backed off a lot from their daily shout-outs finally recognizing how damaging a lot of it sounded.

Tea Party convention begins in Nashville - washingtonpost.com

Unlike the protests and town hall rage that defined the tea party movement in its first year, the convention is designed to show that the effort is "growing up," said convention spokesman Mark Skoda, chairman of the Memphis Tea Party.

 

[Trajan]

Tell Ann I never defended any of the sexual indiscretions. So her all-inclusivity is, as usual, wrong. And I would also refer her to the 911 Commission's report which, based upon the timeframe and global activity of the time, did not entirely blame the Clinton administration for the rise of Islamofascism, nor did it blame the Bush administration for totally ignoring it.

Want to skip your line "I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41."?


Is it necessary to point to the accusations of Jefferson being an athiest, or the stories...still current, of his relationship with one of his slaves....
Of course there is no proof of this...only conjecture.

Or are you arguing that Jefferson was on the same ticket with Clinton....

give it up.

Reagan never would have succeeded without the working relationship he had with Tip O'Neill. Clinton never would have succeeded without the eventual working relationship with Gingrich, but it didn't occur until Clinton's second term. Sitting Republicans despised Bill Clinton, and voters took their hatred of Clinton (because of the sex scandal) out on Al Gore. Then the USSC decision in Bush v. Gore when enraged Democrats. Are you telling me the vitiol between the parties, and especially among party subscribers, has not been uglier over the past decade than any time in history? Surely, as a quasi historian yourself (albeit knowledgeable mostly about conservative ideology), you know that it has.

misled anger is no excuse imho, we see it today with some aspects of Obamacare, the heavy breathing from those opposed to it, is at times just that, lacking a real understanding of the issues no doubt and its not an excuse anymore than dems who carried a grudge who are wrong to employ the same level of angst over an election 'they' didn't win. If anything that made them more angry and provided fodder for obfuscation and hatred, not the other way around, Bush and rep.s won. None of this is really new imho.

Its always been there, we are just in the moment and Clintons term is great deal closer and more familiar to us now, due to contemporary media output than Reagan or bush 1's terms were.

Read Ted Kennedys vitriol on the senate floor circa 87;

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.....

President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.[16][17]

Robert Bork - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there was plenty of this , it appears more common now because there are so many portals of access via the web cable etc. that broadcast it so it may appear so, but you think the networks at the time laid off this? No way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. CNN hasn't "lost" many anchors. They've done some switching around, and lost a few reporters (or journalists, or whatever) because they're trying to keep costs under control knowing that it's become a much more competitive arena. They canned Lou Dobbs for obvious reasons. I used to like him too, until he became downright ugly. And THAT was never acceptable under the CNN trademark.

2. Was that a joke?

3. I think the tea partiers during the summer of 09 brought it all on themselves by allowing every lunatic within shouting distance to speak the loudest for them. I have nothing against the tea party movement, except that. And the leaders (whoever they are now) admit that they need to distance themselves from extremists.

1.Campbell Brown...Larry King...Lou Dobbs...Christiane Amanpour...have all left the premier left of center cable network.
CNN's senior Middle East editor, Octavia Nasr...Jonathan Klein, the president of the beleaguered CNN/U.S. cable channel, is being replaced by Ken Jautz, the head of the tabloid-oriented sister channel HLN, the company said Friday.

...very popular and attractive anchor woman, Betty Nguyen, is leaving CNN news ...Another loss for the network: Abbie Boudreau has reportedly left....

The channel’s biggest star, Anderson Cooper, is close to leaving it behind, according TheWrap.com....Heidi Collins, who had been anchoring “CNN Newsroom” during that time, is leaving the network.

Tony Harris will no longer be with CNN at the end of this year.

2. No...it's the reason so many folks have left the left wing cables for Fox.

3. Obfuscation. The 'tea baggers' vulgar attempt to smear. The never proven smear that black representatives were spit on....most telling was that an offer of $10,000 to take a lie detector test was turned down....Pelosi's comment that the movement was 'astro turf'...all a fabrication of the left. And the attempt to use the 'extremist' tag, as you are stll trying to do.

So I guess CNN's decision to make staffing decision automatically makes it suddenly a leftist news outlet? Hardly.

Regarding Item 2, it doesn't surprise me at all that much of Fox's audience would be so ignorant as to believe such hogwash. I actually think that assumption is downright hilarious, especially since many of the right wingers who post on this board absolutely LOVE to see how far they can stretch the rules by posting porn and/or write posts with sexual innuendo injected. One can presume they are avid Fox supporters. Shall I name them?

With respect to the tea party, admit it--they've backed off a lot from their daily shout-outs finally recognizing how damaging a lot of it sounded.

Tea Party convention begins in Nashville - washingtonpost.com

Unlike the protests and town hall rage that defined the tea party movement in its first year, the convention is designed to show that the effort is "growing up," said convention spokesman Mark Skoda, chairman of the Memphis Tea Party.

How about you admit it: the left slandered every-day Americans who stood up and stated that they disagree with left wing policies.

Your link referred to the Tea Party convention as a 'feel-good gathering' of like minded individuals.

 

[MaggieMae]

maggie, if I told you that I was going to hire you and your pay would be between 8 and 24 dollars, what would you say to me?

The cbo's estimate is, well, not very 'good'. IF they cannot narrow this down below a400% fudge factor, I'd say those stats are not worth using. I saw one from them where in they said 1.4 mill to 3.4 mill.

Thats not a calculus I would make a bet on or use .and yes, thats me.*shrugs*

Now did the gov. create jobs? Yes in the gov. and I am sure they added a couple hundred thousand in the gov, and perhaps 2-300 k in the private sector, but a data set with a variance that huge is next to worthless, and they should just stay out if it imho. They apparently cannot quantify the number and they know it, so they gave us this. They cannot provide a list of these jobs, which is why the estimate is so huge.

And I am sure they saved jobs as well, this we know. and that has its own blow back.




In the end lets say okay we'll use the figure that illustrates a high degree of oomph. so lets use the mid way mark of 1.6.now, at a trillion dollars, how much a job is that?
AND we do not know what the jobs are so we don't know how long they HAVE lasted or WILL last.

no a job is not a 'job'. we borrowed money to 'create' or save those jobs, we pay interest on the this money. and we still have not established this yet as to the created or saved jobs are in fact extent. The saved jobs as in money given to states to maintain their payroll is a given, yup that was done, yet when the fed tap is off...what then?



how do you know this? can you quantify this please? I hear temp work and 30 hour work weeks ( part time staffing )were up not down.

And being complete means what exactly?



so at 225K a crack this is worth it, so they can fill in blank spots on their resume during the worst recession in decades?




I don't understand what you mean here. everyone spent above revenue for years.....



okay , we shall see if this gamble worked. for this to have had a net positive effect and your 'formula' correct, this will mean these folks will no longer need any federally granted money from this point forward, they have jobs before they have to use a safety net, good luck on that MM.

Today is the first day of the year, an easy break from which we can make that judgment going forward, the last 18 months is on me.

There are any number of factors that the naysayers will attempt to show which simply do not prove true.

naysayer is defined as I think- someone with a pessimistic and aggressively negative attitude. So lets use another word. We are discussing the issues, you have me at a disadvantage, as I am not up on what we would call someone if I was so inclined, who had an 'aggressive optimistic attitude'......

I have to thank you for at least THINKING about what you're going to say and making some valid points based on your knowledge of the ongoing problem. There are still a lot of unknowns at this point in time, so it's impossible for me (or you) to point to one thing or another as being 100% successful or 100% failure.

The only thing you say that is not true is that states have spent beyond their revenue for years. No, they haven't. Most states by their constitutions must have balanced budgets, and they wind up cutting programs and/or raising taxes to make it balance. But in this case, revenues dropped dramatically, so that even essential services needed to be cut, and that's when the federal aid stepped in under the stimulus program.

Just one more thing, when I use the term "naysayer," I generally mean those who make blanket statements like "The stimulus was a complete failure..." and then allow that statement to drop off a cliff.