's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Why is Clinton defending Bush?(32 posts)

Why is Clinton defending Bush?94Nole
Jul 23, 2003 1:10 PM
Last night on Larry King (barely a)Live show, Bob Dole is on celebrating his 80th birthday. Clinton calls in and says something to the effect of "With all of the intelligence sources and material received by the White House, there is bound to be a mistake from time to time" talking about the Africa and uranium chaos.

That comment seems to be distancing himself from the Dumocrats (as labeled by Live Stream). What's up with that? That is the first positive thing he's said about Bush in almost 2½ years.
re: Why is Clinton defending Bush?Live Steam
Jul 23, 2003 1:21 PM
Hey thanks for the plug :O) Maybe Clinton knows something that he cannot talk about. Maybe some intelligence he used to try to persuade Congress to go to war with Iraq back in '98 was also compromised or totally wrong as is being alleged now. It does sound like he is backpedaling for some reason.
Maybe he knows what its like to be a victim of politics (nm)TJeanloz
Jul 23, 2003 1:23 PM
Jul 23, 2003 1:29 PM
because Clinton said the exact same things nmDougSloan
Jul 23, 2003 4:05 PM
Lessee ...OldEdScott
Jul 24, 2003 5:24 AM
a) Clinton has consistently been more supportive of Bush on Iraq than the average run-of-the-mill national Dumocrat. So has Hitlery. Ex-presidents tend to go easy on sitting preidents, and despite what I'm sure Live Steam thinks (or viscerates), Clinton has given Bush pass after pass.

b) Clinton may be wiser than his Dumocrat peers on this, because it's still possible Bush has an intelligence ace up his sleeve that, played at the appropriate moment, will make the entire Dumocrat field look like morons. Karl Rove is perfectly capable of that.

c) Oddly enough, Clinton may simply be expressing the truth as he sees it. Sometimes that happens.

d)There's going to be a surprise in the next few months, and the Clintons are positioning themselves to take advantage. You read it here first.
two old eds????? nmClydeTri
Jul 24, 2003 5:35 AM
Now, Now, OldEd...94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 5:40 AM
Why the use of the derrogatory language with regard to the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, US Senator and Former First Lady of the US of A? I will from now refer to her as the HHRC.

Maybe I am, self-admittedly, just too damn stupid to keep up with you guys and knowing when it is appropriate and when it's not. You certainly didn't seem to have a problem using the term.

And let me admit also my ignorance with regard to Ex-pres's going easy on sitting pres's, that if Clinton has been supportive of W, then I would certainly hate to see him on the attack.
Hey call her Hitlery all you want! I think it'sOldEdScott
Jul 24, 2003 5:46 AM
hilarious. Dumocrats, Hitlery, whatever. Let the good times roll! I'll write about jackboots and Thousand Year Reichs. Then Doug will jump my ass instead of yours because he agrees with you. And the true authoritarian nature of the Right will continue to be revealed ...

By the way, you WOULD hate to see Bill on the attack. I promise you.
Man, I can see I was missed around here :O)Live Steam
Jul 24, 2003 6:18 AM
I am happy to see that you agree with me Ed. I said it quite a while ago, that there will be some intelligence and/or discovery of WMD, etc, that exonerates Bush closer to the election. The witch and Bill are clearly smart enough to stay away from the fray. Your use of the word "odd" is funny and appropriate when using Clinton and truth in the same sentence :O)

I also want to agree with you about seeing Slick Willie on the attack. I don't think there are more devious minds in politics than Bill, Hill and Carville, collectively. I am convinced Carville married Mary Matalin to get inside info on the Republicans - that's better than Watergate :O)

I'll get into the Red Threat later! Too much to catch up on here :O)
I'm waiting on tenterhooks! Can't wait to hearOldEdScott
Jul 24, 2003 6:25 AM
about the Red Storm rising!
yeah, we'll probably find WMD's in oct. 2004.rufus
Jul 24, 2003 6:43 AM
or at least that's when their existence will be revealed.
Yeah, we already have Saddam in custody, we'll just wait...94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 7:05 AM
like Reagan, to uncover that little tidbit just before the '04 election.

I am sure that GHWB (Bush 41) probably made some midnight transatlantic flight in an SR-71 to arrange for his capture.
Oh yeah, and OBL too!!!(nm)94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 7:06 AM
Bush needs those suckers at large.czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 7:43 AM
The last thing he wants is for the United States to let out a collective sigh of relief and start paying attention to the fact that thanks to Bush's gross mismanagement, their communities are starting to look a lot more like Baghdad than vice versa.
Czar, you're starting to think like aOldEdScott
Jul 24, 2003 7:48 AM
political strategist instead of a hopeless idealist. You have my condolences.
Well, remind me to not move to your community.94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 8:10 AM
The grass is very green and lush here in beautiful JAX, FL where if we are in a slow economy...WHOOOAA!!!!!Darn, another dadgum SUV, almost ran over me!

Those darn things are everywhere! I know these people aren't going to work! There must be one heck of a line at the unemployment office. Where is that darn office anyway?

Oh, yeah, I guess you didn't like the new economic news this morning either did you, Czar?

Jobless Claims Hit Five-Month Low
Thu Jul 24, 8:50 AM ET

By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The number of American workers signing up for jobless benefits plunged last week to the lowest level in five months, a fresh dose of good news for the economy's revival.

How can this be with such an inept moron in the White House? Does he get credit for this? Or now shoudl we turn more focus to Liberia?

Damn, the bad luck.
Yep, keep selling that "What bad economy?" line.czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 8:13 AM
Worked great for that last Bush we tossed out of office at the first opportunity.
"How have you personally been affected by the bad economy?"OldEdScott
Jul 24, 2003 8:20 AM
"I don't understand your question."

Great moments in Bushtory.
wow, that's amazing.rufus
Jul 24, 2003 9:09 AM
after how high they've been over the past five months, you take comfort in the fact that it's lower by a bit this month? it still means that roughly 400,000 have filed for new unemployment claims, which just means that the pace of the job loss has slowed for the time being.

company still don't have plans to add additional employees yet.
What I take comfort in is...94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 9:59 AM
the fact that the AP is reporting positive economic news.

An honest question - does the reduction in jobless claims mean that fewer people are drawing umemployment benefits? Or does this mean that 400,000 people who drew uemployment checks last month are now working? I've really never researched the answer.

If it means that 400K more people are working this week that weren't working last week, then your response strikes me as the typical liberal view of "Why are you talking about this positive tidbit of news, don't you know that there are people suffering throughout the world? Let's forget about unemployment and let's find something else to complain about."

The left would find something to moan and groan about I don't care if the unemployment rate went to 1%.

And with the increased length of time that one can draw unemployment benefits, why should one strive get a new job? Do a couple of internet searchs at the library, go on a couple of interviews and lay back and watch Oprah or Dr. Phil.

You and I both know that there is a large portion of the unemployed who do not want to work. Some will take jobs long enough to draw more benefits. Look at your classified pages alone. There are so many listings for skilled as well as unskilled positions it's not funny. We have put into place systems (so many systems) that discourage people from working. And don't give me the old sarcastic line about, "yeah, sure, there's alot of dignity in drawing an unemployment benefit." Getting something for nothing will reduce the most dignified to the depths of pond scum. Just look inside the beltway.
I believe it means a smaller <i>increase</i> in claims.czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 10:16 AM
IOW, there were fewer newly unemployed filing initial claims.

But by all means, keep trumpeting that "Jobs aplenty, only the lazy are unemployed" jazz.
What I take comfort in is...bboc
Jul 24, 2003 11:00 AM
The econony is great, never been better. No shortage of jobs here. People are just lazy, and unemployment benefits are to blame. BWaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your head is buried in the sand.
Why can't you folks handle the truth?94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 1:21 PM
Because expecting anything of anyone except the rightwing, fillintheblank, is to be intolerant.

America is full of lazy people. If they would only see the opportumities and seize them, the world would be a different place.

Look at those who come here and screw it up for everyone else, those who come with not more than a few bucks in their pockets and not knowing the language, and become self-sufficient in relatively short periods of time.

True story from 2000 - person walks in my tax office, having moved here from Russia in 1992. Hardly knew the language. Spent everything they had to get here. Now we are about 8½ years later. I am preparing her and her husband's joint tax return when I came upon a Form 1099-INT (some may recognize that as the form on which interest income is reported).

The amount of reportable interest was about $2200. Now this is from a credit union savings account. You know what credit unions were paying a couple of years ago? Maybe 2-2½%. See where I am going here? That meant that in about 8-8½ years, Paulina and her husband had saved over $100,000. And the darnest part is that they also had a home that was totally paid for!!!!!!! True, it wasn't a home in the high rent district, it was a home in an older neighborhood that they paid about $60,000 for and it was paid for with over $100,000 in the bank! These people would not stoop to the depths of mooching off the the govt. trough. The truth is the truth. I believe it is the left who has their collective heads in the sand. Those damn immigrants who come here and succeed. How dare them!!!!

The government isn't the answer to all of the world's ills.

You damn right, alot of people are just lazy!!!

Oh, let me guess, Paulina is now listed among the wealthy, right? Oops, I mean, correct. I know you lefties don't like the word "right".
Why can't you?czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 2:12 PM
2 million + people have lost their jobs since Bush took office (not that it is his fault, mind you, he has no responsibility for the state of the union). Those were not lazy moochers. Those were people who had jobs that were pulled our from under them.
You know somebody that moved to Americabboc
Jul 24, 2003 2:22 PM
and made money. Therefore the economy is great.

I know someone that got laid off (not lazy). I guess the economy must be bad.

But then again...... I have a job and just got a raise, so the economy must be good.

Buuuut..... My sister just graduated from college and can't find a job, so the economy must be bad.

But.... Bill Gates has a job and is still rich, so the economy must be good.

Seems to me that one example is meaningless.
no, they moved to America and worked!!!!94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 6:31 PM
2 and 3 jobs each. And not in high corporate towers. They worked as laborers, cleaning staff, the lowest on the economic totem pole.

Did your "someone" find a new job or did that person draw unemployment benefits for 26 weeks?

What was your sister's field of study? Answer will likely uncover the problem or perhaps she is too selective in her job search? I find that lots of people go to school without a thought that one day those skills will need to be marketable to someone willing to pay for those skills. Maybe hers aren't.

Of course the example is meaningless, because it means that someone came her and doesn't need the doggone government to survive. How dare that arrogant do-gooder, to earn their own way without mooching. What is this country coming to?
it means...rufus
Jul 24, 2003 3:27 PM
that, hypothetically, last week, 465,000 filed for first time unemployment benefits. this week, only 400,000 filed. so people are still losing jobs, just the rate of the loss is slowing.
Don't you mean the rate of <i>laziness</i> is slowing?czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 3:38 PM
That seems like the obvious conclusion to me.
Czar, you seem to be pretty much in the know...94Nole
Jul 24, 2003 6:23 PM
Just wondering, are there stats that indicate the average length of time that those who file for unemployment claims actually receive the benefits?
No idea, but you can look here. . .czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 8:08 AM

I avoid browsing government sites as much as possible.
yup, W got the collar nmDougSloan
Jul 24, 2003 7:16 AM