Thread Options 
|
#244462 - 09/15/04 12:32 AM
Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Imagine an incoming CEO who is chosen to lead a very successful company, cash rich and prospects high. In four short years, he has drained all the cash and is currently running the company in the red.
This same CEO and his minions mislead the Board into a hostile takeover of another company, citing irrefutable evidence that this company is a risk and would welcome such action. This evidence turns out to be false of course. This takeover is costing the company dearly, both in manhours and money. However, groups and companies that sought to harm this company are still functional.
Imagine this same CEO has failed to balance any budgets, failed to spending cuts to offset loss of income.
This CEO operates under a veil of secrecy, rarely answering stockholder questions, citing Executive Privilege. Those stockholders who seek to question or challenge him are often castigated or seen as secretly working to hurt the company.
This company was formerly a beacon of light in the industrial world. Other companies always looked up to his company as a shining example of the way things should be. Because of some of the CEO's actions, this company is now hated by most other companies, even those who used to be friendly competitors.
Imagine now that this CEO wants to continue to serve this company for four more years. How should the stockholders vote?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244463 - 09/15/04 12:45 AM
Re: Not my vote
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,189
Land of Steady Habits
|
Sorry, Anon. You are comparing apples with oranges. Government and private companies do not operate the way so to compare one with the other is not only unfair, it is very wrong.
Governments have no products to sell. All they can do is levy taxes and for a large part, the revenue stream is dependent on how well the economy does. At the national level, and even the state level for those states having income taxes, this is very important as it reates to incomes levels. Obviously, economic growth impacts all sources of revenue for governments.
Private business, on the other hand, relies on expanding its market share for its revenue and is answerable (public companies) to the shareholders, unlike elected government.
One cannot fairly compare the two. And, for your info, I learned this from a very, very, liberal talk show host.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244464 - 09/15/04 01:15 AM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine
an incoming CEO who is chosen to lead a very successful company, cash rich and prospects high. In four short years, he has drained all the cash and is currently running the company in the red.
This same CEO and his minions mislead the Board into a hostile takeover of another company, citing irrefutable evidence that this company is a risk and would welcome such action. This evidence turns out to be false of course. This takeover is costing the company dearly, both in manhours and money. However, groups and companies that sought to harm this company are still functional.
Quote:
Imagine
this same CEO has failed to balance any budgets, failed to spending cuts to offset loss of income.
This CEO operates under a veil of secrecy, rarely answering stockholder questions, citing Executive Privilege. Those stockholders who seek to question or challenge him are often castigated or seen as secretly working to hurt the company.
This company was formerly a beacon of light in the industrial world. Other companies always looked up to his company as a shining example of the way things should be. Because of some of the CEO's actions, this company is now hated by most other companies, even those who used to be friendly competitors.
Quote:
Imagine
now that this CEO wants to continue to serve this company for four more years. How should the stockholders vote?
What a fertile imagination you have! Your Alice Through the Looking Glass imagination is worthy of Lewis Carroll. I just saw a Harvard professor. Hardly a conservative talking about the economy. He said that Clinton was fiscally moderate, but is adminstration enjoyed a dot com boom and stock market rise for which he can't take credit. He also said that the stock market and dot com began to burst before he left office. Clinton also raised our taxes more than any previous president. Hey, not hard to wipe out a deficit if you keep spending in check (I applaud him for that) and raise taxes (I do not applaud that) during one of the best growth periods the nation had ever seen. That growth was a myth. The Harvard professor said that the next president needs to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. Bush is spending too much, but it is a new world of Islamo-fascists attacks. I will allow others to address the remainder of your fantasy. I hope you win a fiction award.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244465 - 09/15/04 03:17 AM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Facts:
The unemployment rate was over 7% when Clinton took office, was at 4% when Bush took office and much worse now at 5.4%.
The Dow-Jones average was at 3200 when Clinton took office, was at 10,600 when Bush took office, and is lower than that now.
The period from March 1991 to March 2001 was the longest period in recorded US history without a recession.
The deficit was a record dollar amount of $290 billion when Clinton took office, was at a record $236 billion SURPLUS when Bush took office, and is estimated at a record dollar amount deficit of $22 billion now.
Facts.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244466 - 09/15/04 04:31 AM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
FACT: The economy is cyclical. It was cycling upward when Clinton entered office and was cycling downward when he left office.
FACT: The unemployment rate is still at historical lows. How old are you? Do you know what the historical average unemployment rate has been for the last 35 years?
FACT: The president does not make the economy.
FACT: No president's legacy has ever been economy during his presidency. Clinton's legacy will not be the economy (though I am sure he wishes it could be) and neither will Bush's. Fifty years from now, no one is going to remember if the economy was good or bad during Bush's or Clinton's presidency. It is cyclical and there are factors too numerous to mention. Campaigns take credit for economic prosperity when they are in the highest office and blame the other side for economic duldrums when they are not. Kind of like what you are doing. Read an economic's book and you will not find a single economist talking about the importance of the presidency to the economy.
FACT: Clinton governed during a prosperous time and raised taxes more than any other president. I'll give him credit for being a little more fiscally restrained than W, but the economy of the 1990s owes more to Gates and Dell, than to Clinton. And where was the Clinton White House while Enron, MCI, and others were bilking people in the 90s that led to their crash in the new century? So, is it little wonder that the deficit was reduced.
FACT: We have already had this discussion many times in these threads. From you analogy about corporate America, i presume that you supported GW Bush as "CEO" of the USA and now you do not. I doubt it. You did not support him then and you do not support him now. Am I right?
Now, want to talk about something relevant? Let's talk about the Clinton's: Justice Department failures (Waco, pornography, the Cuban boy in Florida), Ruth Bader "ACLU" Ginsberg, the demise of the CIA, the rise of Al Queda, our weak-knee response to the '93 bombing of the WTC, his getting serviced by Monica while talking on the phone to a general about Bosnia, perjury, adultery, selling the Lincoln bedroom, selling out to the Chinese, etc.... There is Clinton's legacy.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244467 - 09/15/04 04:39 AM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
We are all suffering right now because of Bill Clinton's presidency, and it has nothing to do with his moral failings. It has everything to do with his policy failings.
The current earnings recession and economic slowdown has its roots in Mr. Clinton's final year in office. During that time, he turned away from managing the economy and devoted a huge amount of time fund-raising for himself (the Clinton Library), his wife's senatorial campaign and the Democratic Party.
Spurned by Al Gore, Mr. Clinton traveled not to deliver a political message, but to grab your wallet. His wanderings turned into a giant mobile flea market where he sold his time and presence for major dollars.
Mr. Clinton also became obsessed with brokering a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This, of course, led to nothing but more hatred and violence, as we are seeing now on a daily basis.
With the president's attention diverted, Alan Greenspan and his merry band inexplicably kept the U.S. money supply tight, even as manufacturing orders, especially in high-tech, were slowing drastically. There was no political pressure on the Fed to cut rates as Mr. Clinton was paying scant attention. Thus, in December, when Greenspan still declined to cut interest rates, the economic dam broke and the waters of declining earnings flooded the stock market.
The bad economic news was compounded by the fact that Mr. Clinton never had an energy policy and allowed the OPEC nations to cut oil production without challenge. Energy prices soared, cutting into corporate profits and gutting the take-home pay of American workers. Mr. Clinton knew there weren't enough oil refineries in the USA but made no attempt to build any. He also knew that America's dependence on foreign oil was at an all-time high but failed to encourage consumers to conserve energy, because that might annoy his SUV-driving soccer mom base.
Bill Clinton fiddled while oil and natural gas burned. And finally, the nation's most powerful state, California, simply ran out of power.
In his last days as president, Mr. Clinton signed a number of environmental orders but never once warned anybody about the growing scarcity of energy. To say he was pandering to the greens is a gross understatement.
Bill Clinton's education policies have also been a disaster. Despite a massive amount of federal spending, 60 percent of the nation's poor fourth-graders still can barely read. Mr. Clinton was a champion of educational spending but made no attempt to tie the money to performance. This endeared him to the teachers' unions but didn't do much for at-risk kids who desperately need discipline and learning standards.
The second most at-risk group in America are poor seniors. And what did Mr. Clinton do for them? Drug prices are the highest they've ever been. Some seniors are still traveling to Mexico and Canada to get their prescriptions filled.
But prices for illegal drugs are the lowest they've ever been. Street heroin and cocaine are readily available all over the USA with no waiting. That's because narcotics continue to flood into this country while Bill Clinton and his drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, introduced absolutely no effective federal measures designed to cut either supply or demand. Mr. Clinton's NAFTA agreement with Mexico allowed for freer passage through our southern border. The "traffic" that ensued had little do with cars and trucks.
The president wasted one full year lying about his sexcapades and another year asking people for money. The other six years he talked a really good game.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244468 - 09/15/04 11:36 AM
Re: Not my vote
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,864
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
The deficit was a record dollar amount of $290 billion when Clinton took office, was at a record $236 billion SURPLUS when Bush took office, and is estimated at a record dollar amount deficit of $22 billion now
may want to restate this, because using these figures, Bush is doing great. 22 billion deficit for Bush, 290 billion deficit for Clinton...
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244469 - 09/15/04 12:17 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
A slide in the economy is temporal; a slide in morality affects us all and for decades. Listen to these quotes by the porn industry and learn a little about Clinton's legacy:
What the Porn Industry Thinks About Bill Clinton
Adult Video News ("AVN") is a trade publication for the videoporn industry. The following quotes from AVN indicate that Bill Clinton has been good for the porn industry.
"During a meeting of the Free Speech Coalition [a trade association for the porn industry], Jeffrey Douglas warned us that the eight-year free ride we have received at the federal level is probably about to end." AVN, April 2000.
"We've all heard the campaign speeches by now and we're just beginning to get a glimpse of the probable nominees and even the eventual winner in the biggest popularity contest in the world: The election of the President of the [U.S]...How likely is it...that we are going to enjoy the same benevolent neglect that the industry has enjoyed under Janet Reno." Kat Sunlove, Free Speech Coalition chief lobbyist, AVN, March 2000.
"Shortly after Reagan gave his second inaugural speech, then-Attorney General William French Smith...established the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, whereupon Reagan appointed Ed Meese as Attorney General to take charge...In July 1986, the government released...[the Commission's] Final Report...Meese promptly created the Obscenity Enforcement Unit which...was to create havoc on the entire adult industry...until President Bush was defeated in 1992." Clyde Dewitt, Esq., author of AVN's "Legal Commentary," May 1999.
"With a more relaxed Justice Department...some of you retailers felt free not only to carry adult, but to market the product...And the best news of all...is the breadth of product available to you...Fresh new adult magazines generate big profits...If you believe the Internet, WebTV and fiber optic delivery of video software directly to consumers' homes will affect your [neighborhood retail] business, think again...It's human nature to want to shop...Besides, the adult mail order companies thrive and so do you!" Paul Fishbein (publisher), "It's a great time to be an adult retailer," AVN, March 1998.
"[T]here have been fewer federal prosecutions of the adult industry under the Clinton administration than under Reagan and Bush, and since if elected Clinton will be a lame duck with no reason to change his hands-nearly-off porn policy, vote for him." Mark Kernes, "Business or No Business, That's the Choice in November," AVN, October 1996.
"As the Internet issues continue to rage...I keep thinking how wonderfully surprising the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions have been. It's quite probable the Court will uphold the Third Circuit's preliminary injunction against enforcing the 'Communications Decency Act'...Notwithstanding, there is still a very important Presidential election coming up, and the future of the Supreme Court depends on it. If Clinton wins, you get four more years of this sedate political climate concerning speech issues...The need to vote (for Clinton, mind you) is greater than ever." AVN, September 1996.
"An optimistic note was sounded by the next speaker, David Wasserman, an attorney and 1st Amendment activist...(In an interview after the meeting Wasserman added that his sense of the direction that will be taken by the Justice Department's Obscenity Section is that changes will be made, backing off from the ferocity and multiplicity of attacks instigated by [Obscenity Section] leaders Rob Showers and Patrick Trueman, but that the adult industry should 'expect it (the change) to be quietly done.'") AVN, March 1994.
"Janet Reno has been crowned the Attorney General...without one dissenting vote...Ms. Reno is well-educated, articulate, principled, loaded with integrity and, given her years of experience as State Attorney in Miami, unquestionably in touch with a proper perspective on American problems...There were only two questions during the two days of confirmation hearings bearing upon the obscenity issues...Draw your own conclusions! But obscenity prosecutions certainly will not have the priority with General Reno that existed in the two last administrations." Clyde DeWitt, AVN, March 1993.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244470 - 09/15/04 06:44 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I am appalled at how stubborn some people can be. Some people are so set in their ways you'd think they are in their 90's and don't have much time left before they die. Instead, these are much younger folks who are willing to make excuses for their political candidate rather than accept certain truths about their candidate. This applies to both democrats and republicans. What I know is that the Clinton years were much better than today, economically and foreign policy-wise. Are there factors that contribute to that? Yes, but instead of making excuses for why things came to be so bad, we should be weighing the two candidates' solutions to see who has the better idea how we should solve our problems. Bickering only exposes how foolish we are in not demanding more from our political representatives, especially, those that represent (our) party. Before you point out the amount of crap in someone's face, recognize and clean up the pile on yours.
Thank you.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244471 - 09/15/04 07:06 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Should we also do away with self-righteousness while we are at it because that was the most self-righteous post I've read in a while?
Please fill in the blanks:
Clinton's foreign policy for:
1) the Middle East was:
a) _____________________ for Israel.
b) _____________________ for Iraq.
c) _____________________ for Iran.
d) _____________________ in general.
2) Central America (particularly drugs) was _____________________.
3) Asia (particularly China) was ________________.
4) Al Queda was ______________________.
5) Sudan was ________________________.
6) Mexico was _______________________.
Oh, never mind, even the brightest foreign policy experts can't answer these questions.
Dude, you keep harping on the economy as if it is the holy grail and the president's decisions ultimately decide whether you flip burgers or sit in a suite in the Trump Towers. Kerry does have a plan and you better grab your wallet because that is how he is going to fund it. Bush has a plan and it involves putting money back in your pocket. I give neither party credit for the economy.
OK, you got me on one thing, a president during good economic times has better national numbers. What a no-brainer. Please connect the dots for me between Clinton and these better numbers. Please allow for a lag time between whatever magic he performed and the improved economy. Remember he took office in January 1993. When did the economy begin to recover? (Hint: It was before he took office.) When did it begin to fail again And don't tell me that it did not start until after January 2001 when Bush took office or I'll have to take your Junior Economist badge away from you.
P.S. I am not giving any politician credit or blame for the economy.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244472 - 09/15/04 07:26 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Imagine a CEO who allows his people to be killed by terrorists without adequately retaliating.
Imagine a married CEO who who has sex with his young intern.
Imagine a married CEO who lies to the whole country about having sex with his intern while his wife is by his side, on national television nonetheless.
Imagine a CEO who lies to the judicial system to protect his name.
Imagine a CEO who debates the definition of a 2 lettor word to try to explain to his people he didn't lie about having sex with his intern.
Imagine a CEO who on his last day at work cleans out the office (including company belongings).
Imagine a CEO who has an XO that tells the world he invented the internet.
Imagine a CEO who fabricated wartime heroics to get medals.
Imagine a CEO who lies about throwing away wartime medals and later remembers they were not his that he threw away.
Imagine a CEO who wants to give you a paycut so he can spend the money in the way he wants because he thinks he knows best.
Imagine a CEO who allows people to kill other people even though he says he thinks it is killing a person in order to allow the individual to do what they want.
There is so much more to be said about Clinton and Kerry, but I really have to go back to work.
Thank God for a country where we can participate in the election process. I hope everyone votes!!!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244473 - 09/15/04 07:54 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Imagine a CEO who has underlings begin a smear campaign against a prosecutor and his attorneys appointed to investigate him. (Clinton had underlings trying to dig up dirt on Ken Starr and his attorneys and used it against them. Some resigned.) Regardless of what you think about Ken Starr (and I am not sure it was not just a monumental waste of time, effort, and money), can you say obstruction of justice, kiddies?
Imagine a CEO whose own COO says he should not have been appointed to a second term (Stephanopolis said this about Clinton).
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244474 - 09/15/04 10:08 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
FACT: Clinton governed during a prosperous time and raised taxes more than any other president.
This is blatantly untrue. The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II. In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes.
Here is a sample of quotes from those genius Republicans in congress, none of whom voted for his deficit reduction in 93, had to say at the time.
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."
—Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."
—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."
—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."
—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."
—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
Quote:
our weak-knee response to the '93 bombing of the WTC
They are all in jail.
Quote:
You did not support him then and you do not support him now. Am I right?
ABSOLUTELY. One fact you got right anyway.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244475 - 09/15/04 10:19 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Imagine a CEO who allows his people to be killed by terrorists without adequately retaliating
Hey here's a thought..MMM Lets bomb IRAQ. Lots of those mean old IRAQIS behind 9-11. DUH
Quote:
Imagine a married CEO who who has sex with his young intern
Happens every day. Where have you been????
Quote:
Imagine a CEO who on his last day at work cleans out the office (including company belongings).
[/quote) You lost me there. Be more specific with this allegation.
Quote:
Imagine a CEO who has an XO that tells the world he invented the internet
Blantant misrepresentation perpetuated by Dick Armey and picked up on by idiot journalists.
Quote:
Imagine a CEO who fabricated wartime heroics to get medals.
Even if this is true, which I dont believe, his service still beats laying drunk in Alabama.
Quote:
Imagine a CEO who wants to give you a paycut so he can spend the money in the way he wants because he thinks he knows best.
On those fortunate to be in the top 1%. Someone has to pay for these last four years of raiding the budget. Choose them or raid Social Security and Medicare. I choose them. Bushies choose the other option, or let our kids pay.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244476 - 09/15/04 10:48 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,164
|
From here - with permission to post from author. Kerry, the executive September 15th, 2004 John F. Kerry has already demonstrated a frightening level of incompetence as an executive. Regardless of any agreement or disagreement American voters may have with him on the issues, his demonstrated inability to handle the complexities of a presidential campaign ought to preclude voting for him. For those of a leftist bent, Ralph Nader at least has a track record of managing a complex network of non-profit organizations, while also building a substantial personal investment portfolio, without benefit of marriage to even a single heiress. Unlike George W. Bush, John F. Kerry never ran any organization bigger than a Senatorial staff. While Bush received high-level postgraduate training in management at Harvard Business School, Kerry attended Boston College Law School, where executive skills are not prominently on the curriculum. While Bush was running a Major League Baseball team, and then the Great State of Texas, Kerry was skipping most of his committee meetings, and taking a leading role in the Senate on precisely no significant legislation. Kerry doesn’t even have to take a role in managing his household: Teresa pays for a butler to do that. A presidential campaign, however, is a major enterprise, with a nine figure budget. Supplemented by the efforts of vast number of unpaid volunteers, sympathizers and collateral allied organizations ranging form a party structure to unions to the ostensibly “uncoordinated” 527 groups, a campaign must deal with a vast array of competing interests, and focus diverse people on a single goal. It is a formidable task, albeit much simpler than running the behemoth of the federal government in a time of war. Kerry has done a spectacularly bad job of running his campaign. After his defeat, we can look forward to a spate of books by insiders blaming the chaos on others, so we will eventually have first hand accounts. It will become a classic case study. But in the interim, we have only thinly-sourced press accounts to rely upon. Nevertheless, certain errors are glaring enough that we can already see them clearly. Kerry has made several fundamental mistakes that a well-trained or experienced manager would avoid: He has created no consistent vision Along with flip-flopping on the issues, Kerry has flip-flopped on campaign strategies. Is he signaling that his campaigners are to take the high road, and argue that he can do a better job of running the government and the war? Or is he signaling that they are to take the low road, and argue that Bush is incompetent, corrupt, a coward, or a Kitty Kellyesque monster? Is he running on his Vietnam warrior experience, or on his superior ability to mobilized support from allies, both coerced and bribed, and un-coerced and un-bribed? Fundamentally, why does he want to be President? The fact that there is no one-sentence answer to this basic question leaves his vast army of paid and volunteer staff rudderless. He has avoided hard personnel decisions Mary Beth Cahill replaced Jim Jordan, Kerry’s original campaign manager, in November, 2003. So far, so good. His campaign was going nowhere, and Cahill got the job done, or at least avoided torpedoing the campaign while Howard Dean self-destructed. But since he became the favorite to win the nomination, Kerry has not backed-up Cahill with the requisite support and authority to bring consistency and order to the ever-expanding universe of individuals acting in his behalf. Ms. Cahill is now all but universally acknowledged to be effectively fired. Except that she hasn’t been fired. Perhaps because she has two x chromosomes, and Kerry fears criticism from the feminist camp. So, she is among the walking dead. And as any horror movie fan can tell you, the walking dead are capable of creating lots of trouble, especially as the midnight hour (November 2nd) nears. He has not established clear lines of authority and communications Mary Beth Cahill was once chief of staff for Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Robert Shrum, who has emerged as another major figure in the campaign, is likewise an old Boston brain-truster. But a phalanx of Clintonistas has also joined the campaign, many of them in vaguely-described and reportedly unpaid roles. Who's in charge here? Nobody knows. Even worse, this situation is leading to an even more serious problem: He has allowed factionalism to emerge and solidify Mike McCurry, Paul Begala, James Carville, and others now reportedly occupy desks at one end of campaign headquarters in Washington, DC, while the Kennedy cohort occupies desks at he other end of the layout. This is a disaster in the making. It is one thing for an executive to hear a variety of viewpoints and have advisors of different assumptions and inclinations. That can enhance decision-making. But to have factions of old associates, physically isolated from one another and therefore free to plot among themselves, exercising undefined authority is a prescription for chaos. He has made poor use of his allies Black political leaders have been left out to the point that Jesse Jackson complained that the latest staff changes were a “vanilla shake-up.” Apparently, his characteristically colorful complaint got some attention, because Kerry has begun to go into full pander mode toward the black vote, and has announced plans to spend more money advertising in black media. But there are only seven weeks to energize black turnout, and given his lack of inherent appeal to blacks, as a haughty and wealthy New Englander, he may not enjoy the customary turnout and margin of support among blacks. Evan Thomas of Newsweek famously predicted that the MSM’s support for Kerry was worth 15 percentage points of the vote. Yet Kerry has begun to alienate the press. He promised monthly press conferences, but has not had one since July. He rarely mixes with the press corps on his campaign plane. The MSMers may still hate Bush, but they are having a hard time warming up to Kerry. He has displayed obvious, potentially fatal naivete In allowing devoted followers of Bill Clinton to occupy important space in his campaign, he has created the appearance of a naïve simpleton. There has been ample public speculation that Hillary Clinton plans a run for the Democratic nomination in 2008, a prospect which would be obviated by a successful Kerry-for-President campaign. There is thus sufficient cause to at least question the motivations of people he has allowed to staff his organization. A President is called-upon to navigate the difficult waters of international diplomacy. Duplicity and treachery are the expected and normal mode of statecraft. Installing allies with dual loyalties into roles critical to success is a fundamental error, usually made only by beginners. In time of war, such obvious indifference to the risks of betrayal could be fatal. The American people are necessarily coming to the inevitable conclusion that John F. Kerry is unqualified to run an organization as complex as the federal government in a time of national peril. Thomas Lifson, the editor and publisher of The American Thinker, formerly taught at Harvard Business School, from which he received an MBA degree, awarded "with high distinction"
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244477 - 09/16/04 04:27 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Some Facts about your facts: Quote:
The unemployment rate was over 7% when Clinton took office, was at 4% when Bush took office and much worse now at 5.4%. The umemployment rate has actually improved by .5% over the past nine months.
Let's remember that the recession that happened during the past four years actually began with the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, before the President took office. Let's also remember that part of the continuing slow growth is due to 9/11, a factor over which no one had any control.
Quote:
The Dow-Jones average was at 3200 when Clinton took office, was at 10,600 when Bush took office, and is lower than that now.
And let's remember that the decline actually started in March of 2000, while the prior President was in office. The bubble was created in some part by faulty accounting practices by a number of firms in a moral climate created by a President who is an admitted perjurer.
Quote:
The period from March 1991 to March 2001 was the longest period in recorded US history without a recession.
Yes, an expansion created under a Republican President (GHWB Was President for the first two years) and a Republican Fed Chief (Alan Greenspan). And reference my comments above regarding the tech bubble, which really started about 1995-96, and the accounting problems that created some of that prosperity.
Quote:
The deficit was a record dollar amount of $290 billion when Clinton took office, was at a record $236 billion SURPLUS when Bush took office, and is estimated at a record dollar amount deficit of $22 billion now.
President Clinton gets credit, and GHB should be justifiably alarmed, by these figures. However, Clinton did't have to fight a war or try to stimulate the economy through a recession created by his predecessors and exacerbated by 9/11.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244478 - 09/16/04 04:37 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Just an open question to the Republicans....
Why is every economic boom that occurs during a Democratic president attributable to the previous Republican president?
Why is every economic disaster that occurs during a Republican president attributable to the previous Democratic president?
Do you see a pattern here? Are you all really that gullible? The minions of the Republican party have all of you spouting the party line without realizing that they are getting what they want at YOUR expense.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244479 - 09/16/04 04:45 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Why is every economic boom that occurs during a Democratic president attributable to the previous Republican president?
Every one isn't. For example, I give John F. Kennedy credit for economic growth in the 60's.
Quote:
Why is every economic disaster that occurs during a Republican president attributable to the previous Democratic president?
Disaster? Let's not overdo it. But again, every one isn't. I blame President George H. W. Bush's "double-dip" recession on his decision to raise taxes.
A question for you, anon. What did Bill Clinton do that he deserves credit for economic growth in the 90's? (I actually have an answer, but I want to hear yours.)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244480 - 09/16/04 04:55 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Because it's hard to argue with the calendar. The recession and boom cited by the poster above started when they started. All I did was respond to the post that was made. The recession of 2001 referenced by the poster actually started in 2000, before the current President was elected. The boom of 1991 - 2000 cited by the poster began while a Republican was President (GHW Bush). If there is a mistake in my reading of the calendar, please enlighten me - maybe I need additional training in calendar reading.  If you read my entire post, I give the Clinton Administration the credit they deserve for turning the deficit into a surplus. That certainly had an impact on the economic growth of the 90s. In the interest of full disclosure, however, the great bear market of the 70s began under Nixon, a Republican. The bull market of the 60s occurred during the terms of Kennedy and Johnson, 2 Democrats. The reality is that the President and his policies have very little to do with economic results. There are a whole host of forces which are outside the President's control that exert much greater effect on the economy.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244481 - 09/16/04 08:44 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Some Facts about your facts:
Quote:
The Dow-Jones average was at 3200 when Clinton took office, was at 10,600 when Bush took office, and is lower than that now.
And let's remember that the decline actually started in March of 2000, while the prior President was in office. The bubble was created in some part by faulty accounting practices by a number of firms in a moral climate created by a President who is an admitted perjurer.
OK, if we are really trying to be factual here I feel compelled to add this point. Clinton admitted he lied about his affair. While perjury is typically always some type of lie, a lie is not necessarily perjury. The key is that the lie (presumably reference is being made to the sworn statement/affidavit presented in the Paula Jones case) must be "material." That distinction is important because perjury is a crime, lying (unfortunately in some cases) is not.
The judge ruled that Clinton's statement about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case was not material because it involved what was clearly mutual consent. That it did not necessarily go towards proving a pattern of sexual harassment. Then the case, if I remember correctly, was either tossed or settled.
So, the reason he was never prosecuted for perjury was because, technically, he didn't commit it. The statement/affidavit was ruled not material in a case that ultimately did not get settled in a court of law. I don't think that anyone believes he didn't lie...and he admitted to that. The difference is that while he lied, it was not a crime. Do you believe for one minute that if he had truly, technically committed perjury that action would not have been taken by his opposition? That is why it wasn't.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244482 - 09/16/04 09:27 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Suuuuuuure.
Keep on drinking the kool-aid.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244483 - 09/16/04 09:36 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
The judge ruled that Clinton's statement about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case was not material because it involved what was clearly mutual consent. That it did not necessarily go towards proving a pattern of sexual harassment. Then the case, if I remember correctly, was either tossed or settled.
From The Washington Post:
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the case last spring, ruling that even if Jones's allegations were true, such "boorish and offensive" behavior would not be severe enough to constitute sexual harassment under the law.
Jones then asked the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision and, after Starr's report came out, argued that Clinton's alleged misconduct during the case justified a reversal. Two members of the three-judge panel appeared sympathetic during oral arguments last month and on Tuesday the court asked for the full transcript of Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition in the case, which some lawyers close to the Jones camp interpreted as a sign that they were concerned about possible perjury by the president.
To short-circuit the appeal, the two sides came together yesterday after two months of fitful negotiations [and settled]...
You might also note that Judge Susan Weber Wright held Mr. Clinton in contempt and fined him $90,000 for making false statements under oath. The man was guilty of perjury. Plain and simple. You are correct that those charges were not brought before a jury in DC (have fun getting a conviction there). But that doesn't mean that we don't all know the truth.
I especially thought this part of the article was interesting...
Quote:
Bennett spoke with the president three times Thursday even as he was consulting with advisers about whether to attack Iraq and finally Clinton authorized his legal team to settle, one source said.
Yep, he was a great President, alright.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244484 - 09/16/04 10:12 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Our current President refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission. Even had tricky Dick beside him as he testified. Wonder Why he wouldn't testify under oath?? hmm 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244485 - 09/16/04 10:46 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
The judge ruled that Clinton's statement about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case was not material because it involved what was clearly mutual consent. That it did not necessarily go towards proving a pattern of sexual harassment. Then the case, if I remember correctly, was either tossed or settled.
From The Washington Post:
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the case last spring, ruling that even if Jones's allegations were true, such "boorish and offensive" behavior would not be severe enough to constitute sexual harassment under the law.
Jones then asked the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision and, after Starr's report came out, argued that Clinton's alleged misconduct during the case justified a reversal. Two members of the three-judge panel appeared sympathetic during oral arguments last month and on Tuesday the court asked for the full transcript of Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition in the case, which some lawyers close to the Jones camp interpreted as a sign that they were concerned about possible perjury by the president.
To short-circuit the appeal, the two sides came together yesterday after two months of fitful negotiations [and settled]...
You might also note that Judge Susan Weber Wright held Mr. Clinton in contempt and fined him $90,000 for making false statements under oath. The man was guilty of perjury. Plain and simple. You are correct that those charges were not brought before a jury in DC (have fun getting a conviction there). But that doesn't mean that we don't all know the truth.
Yep, he was a great President, alright.
I never expressed an opinion about what type of President he was. I was just trying to objectively state the facts...even though I figured that someone would probably accuse me of defending Clinton and what he did.
Just for the record, I do not approve of what he did, I do not like the fact that he didn't come clean about it when given a chance the first time (and I'm sure Hillary is really pxxxxd about that one after she defended him on national tv), the deposition COULD HAVE BEEN perjury under different circumstances (i.e. deemed material) and Clinton surely realized that at the time (being a lawyer) and took that risk when he lied.
Quote:
some lawyers close to the Jones camp ( her lawyers) interpreted (speculation) as a sign (indication) that they (the judges) were concerned about possible ( possible?) perjury by the president
Sorry, but that just means the judges were doing their job and making sure they didn't overlook anything. Bottom line, they determined that it was not perjury. BUT, since Clinton was an officer of the court, Judge Webber felt that the intent was there and was contemptuous, so she handed out a punishment that was afforded to her and allowed under the law.
Quote:
The man was guilty of perjury. Plain and simple.
Again, if it was that plain and that simple, the judges would have ruled differently and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Yes, he was guilty of making false statements under oath. That's the truth. BUT, when you apply the issue of materiality, again it does not meet the legal definition of perjury, and that's the truth as well.
The panel of judges made the right decision under the law, however, Judge Webber made a strong statement that while it may not be perjury technically, it was totally unacceptable behavior and should be punished.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#244486 - 09/16/04 11:08 PM
Re: Not my vote
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Suuuuuuure.
Keep on drinking the kool-aid.
That's nice. I don't even like kool-aid. People tend to take cheap shots rather than take the time to learn the facts and have a serious debate.
Don't believe me? Go look it up. Do the research. Your response, fellow anon, will probably be that you don't want to waste the time since you feel you already know the truth. How do you know the truth? You believe what other people have told you or the spin that was put on the facts.
I am not trying to insult you, but a cheap shot in response to simple facts does not support what is obviously your view (which by the way you are entitled to). But don't attack me personally because you don't like the facts or don't believe them.
Not true? Then please prove it to me. I am always open to listen to other viewpoints and consider additional information, and even (gasp) change my mind if so warranted. I wish everyone was more open minded and informed and didn't take rhetoric at face value just because it is what they want to hear.
Do the work... Consider the facts... Listen to different opinions... Make an informed decision... THINK!!! And then you will be armed with the facts when you discuss things and may be able to educate and influence someone to see your point of view. Isn't that part of the desire?
And an informed discussion is so much more effective than simply trying to intimidate those with a different opinion so they will simply shut up. Newsflash...it doesn't change their mind when they go into that voting booth and no one is standing outside ready to announce who they voted for and try and humiliate them. No, that person that you intimidated is probably going to be more resolute about their decision than they were BEFORE the insults were tossed around.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index