Where's the Outrage?

I think you are right, W didn't blame Clinton for anything. However, his administration was on all the talk shows blaming Clinton for everything. But W himself did not.

Lacrew, when you post a link, you may not want for it to go to a site that is a blog from a software developer and a consultant in that field and try to pass that site on as a legitimate source. This tells me one thing. There WAS a surplus!!! If you need me to provide a link, I will, but give me a time... I need to set up my blog. LOL.

While you referenced my post, you never did respond with a quote made by W. that criticized Clinton. Why is it when Democrats have no response to directly answer a question, they obvuscate and try and rationalize their point of view? If you cannot respond with an answer to a post, please do not quote that post in your response.

And we are feeling the pains from the Democrat-controlled Congress of Jan. 2007, which began and accelerated the economic decline we are in now. Originally Posted by fritz3552

If you read betweren lines you would have seen that I clearly answered your post. Here is the answer: Bush would not have spoken against Clinton because he had nothing to complain- Bush got handed to him by Clinton- a budget surplus, no wars- very low unemployment, a booming economy- so what was there to complain about? Your question is as strange as if a person hands another keys to a spanking new mercedes benz in mint condition versus a person who gets handed the keys to a car with a blown gasket, high milage, a flat tire an a slipping transmission. Do you think the person who is receiving the keys to a Benz is going to complain? get my point?

I think you are right, W didn't blame Clinton for anything. However, his administration was on all the talk shows blaming Clinton for everything. But W himself did not. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

W got handed a silver platter so why would he bash Clinton? You act as if Clinton handed Bush a bad economy, wars- mortgage crisis- high oil prices, etc. The last time this country was doing very good was the Clinton years.

The reason the country was doing well was that for six years we had a democrat president and a republican congress. Gridlock! Neither side could screw things up too badly! Gridlock! Gotta love it! We need it again. Clinton also helped the economy by getting congress to chase after a stupid, yet entertaining, sex scandal. The more time they spent chasing that blue dress meant less time drafting stupid laws. Ken Starr was worth every dime he got paid.

But W's minions still blamed Clinton. It's tradition. Regardless of whether it is deserved or not, they just do it. W did have enough class to not do it himself, however.

Wow longer, you really are a tool for the liberal mindset. How pathetic. Sure he "inherited" some messes. So does every President. Stop whining, get over it, grow some stones and do something about it. Originally Posted by undrtkr

You forgot to mention what kind of tool I am. I'm a hammer and I hammer fools like you into the ground. That is what the fuck I do. LOL

That said, if someone could please spend a few hours tracking down non-existent quotes of George W. Bush whining about how he inherited a United States without any wars and without trillions of dollars of debt I'd really appreciate it. LOL

Better yet, let's see some quotes from Dubya thanking Bill Clinton. Get right on that Fritz.

Your wasting your time taker, best thing is to just ignore him, most of the stuff he types he does not even believe in, he does it to stir up the other side. Anyone with a brain knows that Korea and Iran have been a problem a lot longer than the last 8 years. Our problems in Iran started with the overthrow of the shaw and the taking of hostages, which I am sure you know was on Carters watch. Korea has been a problem for ever, Clinton has several situations. Health care has been a problem for a lot longer than 8 year, Clinton tried to overhaul healthcare in his first year, remember Hillary was in charge. Monger likes to bend the facts to fit his opinion instead of having an opinion of the facts. If you dont believe me, read his reviews. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I highlighted your lies in red and your egregious spelling errors in green for your convenience.

First, most of you guys tend to place blame ALL on one president. That's just wrong. Most issues are not 100% anybody's fault. You should try thinking about it as percentages.

Second, I know there was a world before the last Republican Administration took office. (You guys just can't fuckin' read!) Iran, for example, was an issue that PASSED THROUGH ALL EIGHT YEARS of the Bush Administration and was worse than when when he took office. I didn't say, and never implied, that Iran "just all of the sudden" became a problem during the Bush years.

Third, anyone with a brain knows how to spell 'Shah'.

Lastly, I don't have reviewS on this forum. I only did one review and then quit so I wouldn't have to deal with quackers (like you) that whined on ASPD. You already know that I hate being called a liar. That's why you claimed (on other boards) that I lied about my reviews. But you should also know that I get a kick thinking about it when you bring it up because I know what I did. And I'm damn proud of it! I ought to be. It cost me a fortune! LOL I think I had more reviews than Bubba...in a third of the time.

"First, most of you guys tend to place blame ALL on one president. That's just wrong. Most issues are not 100% anybody's fault. You should try thinking about it as percentages"

How come when I say this exact thing, I am told I am wrong..... how come when you make comments about corruption and such and I point out the same thing on the other side, you dismiss it or justify their actions instead of just admitting that it happens on both sides. Give me a freaking break, you cant have it both ways.


"Second, I know there was a world before the last Republican Administration took office. (You guys just can't fuckin' read!) Iran, for example, was an issue that PASSED THROUGH ALL EIGHT YEARS of the Bush Administration and was worse than when when he took office. I didn't say, and never implied, that Iran "just all of the sudden" became a problem during the Bush years."

Do you think that this might possible be the fact that they have a new president in Iran, who is promoting a confrontational stance. But the reality is it also passed through 8 years of Clinton with no improvement either.

"I didn't say, and never implied, that Iran "just all of the sudden" became a problem during the Bush years."

Well since more than one person took your comment in this way maybe you were not as clear in your wording as you think. But we both know the truth, you just got called out and now your backpeddling.

"Lastly, I don't have reviewS on this forum. I only did one review and then quit so I wouldn't have to deal with quackers (like you) that whined on ASPD. You already know that I hate being called a liar. That's why you claimed (on other boards) that I lied about my reviews. But you should also know that I get a kick thinking about it when you bring it up because I know what I did. And I'm damn proud of it! I ought to be. It cost me a fortune! LOL I think I had more reviews than Bubba...in a third of the time. "

Do you really want to go there, limpy. I think its everyones right on this board to trust that the information they get in a review is accurate and truthful, and not just the product of an impotant mind.

The reason the country was doing well was that for six years we had a democrat president and a republican congress. Gridlock! Neither side could screw things up too badly! Gridlock! Gotta love it! We need it again. Clinton also helped the economy by getting congress to chase after a stupid, yet entertaining, sex scandal. The more time they spent chasing that blue dress meant less time drafting stupid laws. Ken Starr was worth every dime he got paid.

But W's minions still blamed Clinton. It's tradition. Regardless of whether it is deserved or not, they just do it. W did have enough class to not do it himself, however. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I agree that the country works best when you have gridlock in the congress- it's totally uncool if you have a Republican Pres and a Republican dominated Congress or Dem press and Dem dominated Congress because they can obviously pass anything they like. However, I think the govt should get rid of the whole filibuster crap

Lacrew, when you post a link, you may not want for it to go to a site that is a blog from a software developer and a consultant in that field and try to pass that site on as a legitimate source. This tells me one thing. There WAS a surplus!!! If you need me to provide a link, I will, but give me a time... I need to set up my blog. LOL. Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Just because its a blog, it doesn't mean the treasury data was wrong. I'll even use caps to prove it:

There WASN'T a surplus.

There, now I feel better.

We borrowed from the social security trust fund, thinking it wouldn't be a big deal until 2035. Well, turns out that those econmic elites were wrong, and the trust fund will go in the red between 2012 and 2015. The bill is about to come due, big time.

Don't you remember Al Gore talking about the 'lock box'? At the time of the 'surplus', both parties were taking credit for it, and quite frankly, the GOP was more responsible for the 'borrowing' from the trust fund...so Al was running against this. No more stealing from the trust fund to balance the federal budget....an idea I actually agreed with Al on.

So, please, somebody tell me how the treasury numbers are wrong. I would love to wake up tomorrow and have somebody tell me that we didn't really steal...err...borrow from the trust fund, and it won't really go in the red in the next five years. I would gladly be wrong...sadly I'm not.

But I'm not even trying to pin blame on Clinton...the GOP is just as responsible...but we absolutely can not look at those years as a shining example of fiscal success...they weren't. They were example of shifting buckets of money to fool people...

We really shouldn't put up with it...should demand clear, simple accounting, so words like 'surplus' really mean surplus.

If you read betweren lines you would have seen that I clearly answered your post. Here is the answer: Bush would not have spoken against Clinton because he had nothing to complain- Bush got handed to him by Clinton- a budget surplus, no wars- very low unemployment, a booming economy- so what was there to complain about? Your question is as strange as if a person hands another keys to a spanking new mercedes benz in mint condition versus a person who gets handed the keys to a car with a blown gasket, high milage, a flat tire an a slipping transmission. Do you think the person who is receiving the keys to a Benz is going to complain? get my point? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

No - but did you get MY point - that W. had much more class than the Bamster. The Bamster is STILL criticizing W's administration directly. It's one thing to have your minions do it (as W's administration did - I have no delusions about that), but to be the President and directly criticize the previous administration is the epitome of low class.

Lacrew, do you also buy your cold prevention medicine from the teacher that made it because, you know... who would know better how to prevent colds and coughs but a school teacher? I'll stick to scientists and doctors making my meds and I'll also stick to getting my information from legitimate sources. Of course, Airborne was proven to be shit, and I'm willing to bet the one sided information that is in that blog is equally as smelly.

Here is a link to a completely reputable blog that states otherwise.

The Absolute Truth... I Swear

No - but did you get MY point - that W. had much more class than the Bamster. Originally Posted by fritz3552

I cannot argue that. Like when we had soldiers dying in Afghanistan and President Bush was playing golf and joking with the reporters he said "now watch me hit this drive," well nothing quite spells classy like that. Bush even claims he quit golf because:

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said in an interview for Yahoo! News and Politico magazine.
"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf," he said."I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."

BTW, has Obama directly blamed Bush like you said? I have heard that he said he inherited this economy, but that is not to say he blames Bush. Hell, I know a lot of that was from removing bank regulations under the Clinton administration. I would like to see a quote, or better yet a video, with Obama stating the current situation is because of Bush.

I dont think he has said his name, he has made comments that he inherited a mess that the other party caused, during the election he made comments to the affects that its their policies that have caused this, do you want to continue to follow their lead.

[quote=kcbigpapa;404320]Lacrew, do you also buy your cold prevention medicine from the teacher that made it because, you know... who would know better how to prevent colds and coughs but a school teacher? I'll stick to scientists and doctors making my meds and I'll also stick to getting my information from legitimate sources. Of course, Airborne was proven to be shit, and I'm willing to bet the one sided information that is in that blog is equally as smelly.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon" - Saul Alinski

Please, somebody dispute the treasury department records which show public debt and intergovernment holdings. Trying to ridicule me does nothing to dispute the black and white numbers. We were borrowing from the social security trust fund, to reduce the deficit (even the Clinton numbers only came close showing breaking even...don't know how the word 'surplus' even entered the vocabulary)

Like I said, its not even a bash on Clinton. At the time, it was the GOP congress that was blowing its own horn about the 'balanced budget'. Clinton just usurped this, and took the credit himself...budgets are passed by congress and all. But it wasn't balanced. All I am saying is that any look to the Clinton years as an example of fiscal success, and any future economic plan modeled after it, must by definition include robbing money from the Social Security trust fund....which btw is impossible, because its about to go in the red.

You keep ridiculing the blog...but tell me that the table showing intergovernmental transfers isn't correct. If nobody can, I think we really did rob the fund, just like Al Gore said.