Congrats! You finally got one right.
Nice going...
I've never say anythng but that....you can read can't you..??
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2009
- Thread starter TuTu Monroe
- Start date
I've never say anythng but that....you can read can't you..??
To kick around some opinion now.....
IMO...there was an ungoing war already on between the US and Iraq for years....Bush 1 , Clinton, Bush 2.....we were actively bombing and using missiles against Iraqis for years....Warfare does not require ground troops....
Don' t you agree?
IMO...there was an ungoing war already on between the US and Iraq for years....Bush 1 , Clinton, Bush 2.....we were actively bombing and using missiles against Iraqis for years....Warfare does not require ground troops....
Don' t you agree?
This is an apologist tactic, that is rather typical of you. Trying to equate lobbing missiles here & there to the fateful decision Bush made.
It's all about accountability. You do everything you can to minimize Bush's (and it doesnt' really work, btw).
Am I right or wrong....an why....
You think killing Iraqis from 1990 to 2000 was just a game?
do you thing war MUST include ground troops...?
Are you really gonna go the route?
Nah; the things you describe are military actions, of course.
But they are not on par with the decision to invade Iraq. They're not in the same neighborhood, or the same planet. Bush's decision - and yes, it was his decision - was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in modern American history.
An "act of war"? On the part of what country...Iraq?
Killing Iraqi troops with missiles and bombs is "military action"....but
killing Iraqi troops with rifles and bullets is something else....?
And of course, sending troops into Baghdad is different...its a different tactic...
Are the enemy troops not just as dead if we only use bombs..???
Whats your point? You don't like the tactics Bush used against Iraq?
Bus Clinton Tactics were acceptable?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why has a thread about UNEMPLOYMENT turned into yet ANOTHER rehash of Iraq/Bush/Cheney/NEOCON/NWO bullshit?
Can you idiot pinheads NOT stay on topic these days?
Can you idiot pinheads NOT stay on topic these days?
???? Now your under the illusion that a specific country must attack another for there to be war...? Militant Muslims cannot wage war on someone....unless they are recognized as a 'country'? Is that your position/
Nah - I won't apologize for Clinton like you do Bush. Clinton was terrible when it came to Iraq.
We're talking severity & cost. Bush treated the idea of war lightly, and many, many people continue to pay for that...
Because hes been pwned on that front....I know it, even if he doesn't
Nah; I just like watching you spin.
Your argument on the economy is hilarious. Bush did a great job...well, until the last few months!
Yeah...war is quite severe and costs a lot....
OK...you obviously can't answer simple questions....we're done here...unless you want to tell Dixie how bad the Bush years were economically?
It been over for awhile and we won....and the "occupation" will continue to be a success.....
I was trying to be fair and say the tax cuts went to most segments of the population. I agree, the cut to business and investors is the Supply Side portion of the tax cut, however, no tax cuts could have been made had he not cut taxes to those on the demand side also and the fact that he felt compelled to implement them at all in a time of war was the result of Supply Side influence from his advisors. Was it Snow or O'Neill at the time, along with Congressional Supply Siders?
.......and when we leave?????? When you "win" it intimates someone has been defeated. Currently the "peace" is a result of paying the various factions to buy their "peace". Does that mean the dollar has been a better weapon than bombs and bullets? How long can it continue? The almost daily bombings must signify something beside tranquility.
So results and the legacy of an administration is not important. You must consider Clinton amazingly successful.
bush day 1 unemployment- 4.2%, handed to him by Clinton.
bush month 96 unemployment- 8%, handed to Obama.
No comments, just make your own assessment.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, the Bush tax cuts at a time of war has nothing to do with "supply side economics" or influence. Every American got a tax cut, that wasn't supply side or Keynesian, it was 'compassionate' and that's all. Supply side policies are specifically directed at the supply or production side of the economy... tax incentives to business... marginal tax rate cuts... capital gains tax reduction... those are examples of "supply side economic policies" and other kinds of tax cuts, etc., are not. Bush wasn't a "supply-sider" and neither was his father. Clinton actually understood supply side economics better than the Bushes, and if it weren't for his 'largest tax increase in history' he would have been a 'supply side' president like Reagan.
Two...count 'em....two months do not describe a period of 8 years.....
Even a Democrat meathead can understand that....
That would be as fair as me saying Obama, day 1...... 8%....11 months later, 10+%.....would you call that fair? Hardly...
And I DO consider Clinton successful....but its hardly amazing. He had the advantage of Newt running the Congress, passing smart legislation that worked FOR the country....
Now that is amazing...but then I don't know how much you earned ethically or how much you stole from your undereducated clients....
Last edited: