Clinton's Portrait to Be Unveiled Monday
Stone Cold Pimple
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040612/ap_on_re_us/clinton_painting_1
Ted Kennedy
> I surely hope the artist conveys the jizz stains just right.
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040612/ap_on_re_us/clinton_painting_1
No kidding. I mean, who wants a painting of a giant bucket of shit in their office?
MysticRythyms
Best President since Kennedy.
Pretty bad huh? LOL
Actually, except for invading Yugoslavia and maintaining sanctions on Iraq, he
was pretty damn good. So he got his "willy" sucked and lied about it. Who
cares.
Bush lies every day about any number of things. And people are dead because of
it.
Ted Kennedy
Who said he was bad? I said he's a giant bucket of shit, nobody is
denying that. He lied under oath. He was impeached AND he's a giant
bucket of shit.
Stone Cold Pimple
"Ted Kennedy" <ted_k...@drunkenbastards.com> wrote in message
news:67e64634.04061...@posting.google.com...
Yeah, I fergot about that one...the only president to be found in contempt
of court. Don't say he never had an accomplishment!
Josh
hundreds of our Troops killed to settle a gruge !!!!!!!!!
Josh
On 13 Jun 2004 06:05:13 GMT, mystic...@aol.com (MysticRythyms)
wrote:
Josh
shit covered used ass plugs !!!! All he does is stick his head up big
business ass.. Aside from getting lots of galant young men, and other
people killed !!!!!!!!!! He is a Nazi, and murderer!!!!!!!!!!
On 13 Jun 2004 08:59:43 -0700, ted_k...@drunkenbastards.com (Ted
tmac
wrote:
>Bush is a mountain of cum soaked,
>shit covered used ass plugs !!!! All he does is stick his head up big
>business ass.. Aside from getting lots of galant young men, and other
>people killed !!!!!!!!!! He is a Nazi, and murderer!!!!!!!!!!
>
Who says the fine art of political debate is dead?
tmac
"Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where
Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his
expensive, pointless - but optimistic! - Moon-base program."
-- Paul Krugman
MysticRythyms
>denying that. He lied under oath. He was impeached AND he's a giant
>bucket of shit.
Did I say he wasn't? I said he's the best President since Kennedy. And I
stand by that. Doesn't mean I liked him.
REPEAT - Bush lies every day. Lies to Congress habitually, which is a Federal
Offense, a FELONY. And is impeachable offense as well. Bush runs the most
corrupt regime in US History. Reagan was # 2 in line. Compared to Reagan, and
now Bush, Richard Nixon was a perfect little angel. And back to Clitton, all
he did was lie about getting his "willy" sucked. Yes he was under oath. No I
don't approve of him lying. But unlike Reagan and now especially Bush, he
didn't get any innocent people killed with that lie.
MysticRythyms
>shit covered used ass plugs !!!! All he does is stick his head up big
>business ass.. Aside from getting lots of galant young men, and other
>people killed !!!!!!!!!! He is a Nazi, and murderer!!!!!!!!!!
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Stone Cold Pimple
news:20040614024018...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >Who said he was bad? I said he's a giant bucket of shit, nobody is
> >denying that. He lied under oath. He was impeached AND he's a giant
> >bucket of shit.
>
> Did I say he wasn't? I said he's the best President since Kennedy.
Well that's not saying a lot. Kennedy was a piece of human debris. (I
don't mean that in a bad way.)
Ted Kennedy
No, he just bombed baby milk factories to divert attention away from
his ho's
If Bush is so impeachable, then why hasn't he been impeached? Do you
not have the balls, or are you just pussies?
MaxTransUnit
>
> If Bush is so impeachable, then why hasn't he been impeached? Do you
> not have the balls, or are you just pussies?
Two reasons most likely:
1. The absence of a tax payer funded, sleasy two-bit ambulence chaser
like Ken Starr sticking his nose up the president's ass and other
affairs 24/7, or engaging in illegal wire-ups of low level Pentagon
staffers (aka Linda Tripp) who can ferrit out nasties about GDub from
his corporate whore cronies. There's plenty of dirt Dubya, but not
enough interest (read $$) to pursue it.
2. The tacit - or outright - support of the GOP attack mutts who were
foaming at the mouth and practically tripping over each other to do
whatever they could to Kill Bill. The Democrats are definitely turds,
but they got nuthin on the likes of D'Amato, Hyde and their ilk.
mh
wrote:
You forgot #3: an unwillingness to spend taxpayer money to do what
will be done at the polls in November.
(My guess: if W gets re-elected, his second term will be spent
fighting serious charges stemming from administration activities
associated with Abu Ghraib, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc.)
CivikMan
His economics trickled down someone's mouth if I recall...
"I actually did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it" - John
Botox Kerry
CivikMan
From which hole do you agree?
CivikMan
Mystic? That you??
CivikMan
>
>Well that's not saying a lot. Kennedy was a piece of human debris. (I
>don't mean that in a bad way.)
>
>
Actually Reagan was probably the best president since Kennedy, truthfully.
Making decisions based on popular opinion polls like Slick Willy did doesn't
make you a good president.
Stone Cold Pimple
"MaxTransUnit" <maxt...@mtu.org> wrote in message
news:40CE17...@mtu.org...
Or still even more likely,
3. There's nothing illegal going on.
Stone Cold Pimple
"CivikMan" <civi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040614171531...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >At least Willie did not employee trickle down economics.
>
> His economics trickled down someone's mouth if I recall...
While he was nuthugging to the nth degree on Kennedy earlier, he fergot to
mention...why not give JFK shit for practicing trickle down? Why only give
Reagan hell for it? (PS-Trickle down works ever time it's tried)
The Professor
news:NBozc.4037$IF3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
century.
The Professor (whether he deserves *credit* for it is another story)
--
"I don't mind being called the devil incarnate as long as it's for things
I actually believe"
Stone Cold Pimple
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
news:Xns9508B6B4B64C...@24.24.2.165...
> "Stone Cold Pimple" <pot...@af.mil> wrote in
> news:NBozc.4037$IF3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> >
> > "CivikMan" <civi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040614171531...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >> >At least Willie did not employee trickle down economics.
> >>
> >> His economics trickled down someone's mouth if I recall...
> >
> > While he was nuthugging to the nth degree on Kennedy earlier, he
> > fergot to mention...why not give JFK shit for practicing trickle down?
> > Why only give Reagan hell for it? (PS-Trickle down works ever time
> > it's tried)
>
> Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
> century.
Refresh my memory....exactly what did he do to achieve this?
CivikMan
>century.
Hasn't it also been argued whether the apparent prosperity during Clinton's
years as president was the delayed result of the Reagan/Bush years?
Rob nee Petard
> Bush is
> !!!!!!!!! He is a Nazi, and murderer!!!!!!!!!!
Clack-clack. w00t. Plonk.
Rob (!Petard)
Rob nee Petard
>> Bush is a mountain of cum soaked,
>> shit covered used ass plugs !!!! All he does is stick his head up big
>> business ass.. Aside from getting lots of galant young men, and other
>> people killed !!!!!!!!!! He is a Nazi, and murderer!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
> Who says the fine art of political debate is dead?
Welcome to "Josh n' Ken's AMR Adventure".
Or... the "ALL CAPS and Exclamation Points Gang".
Rob (!Petard)
The Professor
Oh, let's list a few. And let's all keep in mind that I'm a hard-core
libertarian.
1. Consistently low inflation rate - lower than anyone since the 50s
2. Actually succeeded in limiting the growth rate of government
3. Negotiated several key free trade agreements that increased
prosperity in the US and abroad
4. The lowest average unemployment rate in a generation (although it did
get too low in the sense that it was credit expansion-driven by the late
90s, which helped to precipitate the recession of spring 2001)
Again, how much credit he deserves isn't clear. He was smart enough to
continue to ride the good ship Greenspan. He DID push for NAFTA (and
give Algore credit here too - Gore vs. Perot was about the only time I'd
root for Gore). He did pass welfare reform. And he did ultimately sign
off on the budgets.
OTOH, he benefitted greatly from some underlying technological changes
(although he didn't adopt any policies that counteracted them) and he
also benefitted from a GOP Congress, who was only verbally committed to
many of these goals, but more importantly enabled gridlock to rule the
day, helping to keep the worst excesses of both parties (Hillary Care
for one) from becoming law.
The Professor (this sounds like a case for a vote for Kerry - and,
frankly, if you forced me to vote, and forced me to vote for either Bush
or Kerry, I would vote for Kerry)
Max C. Webster III
> Yes well, if that's how you feel,,, Bush is a mountain of cum soaked,
> shit covered used ass plugs !!!! All he does is stick his head up big
> business ass.. Aside from getting lots of galant young men, and other
> people killed !!!!!!!!!! He is a Nazi, and murderer!!!!!!!!!!
Say hello to Libby and Mysty on your way out.
BTW, I liked Hilary's portrait, but thought Bill's was kinda lame.
- Max -
=======
"Michael Moore is a dumb [expletive], that's what I think." - Ray Bradbury
http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/
Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
Steven Sousa
> The Professor (this sounds like a case for a vote for Kerry - and,
> frankly, if you forced me to vote, and forced me to vote for either Bush
> or Kerry, I would vote for Kerry)
It all depends on whether or not the Repubs can hold on to the Senate
majority. I shutter to think what might happen with President Kerry and
a Democratic-controlled Senate (or, gasp, even the House as well.)
I think if they had four years, they could pass Socialized Medicine.
--
Steven Sousa
Well, I've always said: there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he
really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not!
Max C. Webster III
> MaxTransUnit <maxt...@mtu.org> wrote:
>
>> Ted Kennedy wrote:
>>>
>>> If Bush is so impeachable, then why hasn't he been impeached? Do you
>>> not have the balls, or are you just pussies?
>>
>> Two reasons most likely:
>>
<< MTU's BDS nonsense snipped >>
> You forgot #3: an unwillingness to spend taxpayer money to do what
> will be done at the polls in November.
>
> (My guess: if W gets re-elected, his second term will be spent
> fighting serious charges stemming from administration activities
> associated with Abu Ghraib, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc.)
Highly unlikely because 1) there is nothing to tie Bush directly to Abu Ghraib,
nor is there anything currently there that would make any reasonable person
assume there was, and 2) the Halliburton no-bid contract was awarded under
LOGCAP by the Clinton administration, not by Dick Cheney, as administration
detractors like to claim. Quite frankly, the opposition doesn't want an
investigation in the administration's role in these two things because they
know there is nothing there -- it's better to accuse and point their fingers
and give the impression of wrong doing (kinda like you just did) than to
attempt to "prove" it and get knocked flat on their butts.
mh
III) wrote:
>mh <nosp...@undisclosedlocation.net> done said:
>
>> MaxTransUnit <maxt...@mtu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Ted Kennedy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If Bush is so impeachable, then why hasn't he been impeached? Do you
>>>> not have the balls, or are you just pussies?
>>>
>>> Two reasons most likely:
>>>
>
><< MTU's BDS nonsense snipped >>
>
>> You forgot #3: an unwillingness to spend taxpayer money to do what
>> will be done at the polls in November.
>>
>> (My guess: if W gets re-elected, his second term will be spent
>> fighting serious charges stemming from administration activities
>> associated with Abu Ghraib, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc.)
>
>Highly unlikely because 1) there is nothing to tie Bush directly to Abu Ghraib,
>nor is there anything currently there that would make any reasonable person
>assume there was, and 2) the Halliburton no-bid contract was awarded under
>LOGCAP by the Clinton administration, not by Dick Cheney, as administration
>detractors like to claim. Quite frankly, the opposition doesn't want an
>investigation in the administration's role in these two things because they
>know there is nothing there -- it's better to accuse and point their fingers
>and give the impression of wrong doing (kinda like you just did) than to
>attempt to "prove" it and get knocked flat on their butts.
>
Err, I think the jury's still out on how much Bush knew about the
techniques used at Abu Ghraib. Indeed, Ashcroft spent a couple of
hours last week not invoking executive privilige while trying to
explain why he shouldn't turn over Admin memos on the subject.
Certainly there's enough there to at least consider that some in the
Administration knew well and good what was being done. That's the kind
of stuff I'm talking about. Maybe an independent investigator *is*
required.
And I think I recall reading something about the VP's office
"coordinating" the Halliburton deal, despite their previous denials to
the contrary. Again, perhaps a more detailed investigation is called
for.
And I didn't even bring up the bit about Valerie Plame ...
The Professor
@aurora.mv.com:
> The Professor wrote:
>
>> The Professor (this sounds like a case for a vote for Kerry - and,
>> frankly, if you forced me to vote, and forced me to vote for either
Bush
>> or Kerry, I would vote for Kerry)
>
> It all depends on whether or not the Repubs can hold on to the Senate
> majority. I shutter to think what might happen with President Kerry and
> a Democratic-controlled Senate (or, gasp, even the House as well.)
>
> I think if they had four years, they could pass Socialized Medicine.
>
Fair enough. I'm assuming GOP congress. However, if I don't make any
assumption about Congress, I'd still take Kerry over Bush if forced to
vote, and forced to vote for one of them. Bush has all of Kerry's flaws
and more. And very few plusses.
The Professor (god, that's depressing)
Ted Kennedy
> news:NBozc.4037$IF3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> >
> > "CivikMan" <civi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040614171531...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >> >At least Willie did not employee trickle down economics.
> >>
> >> His economics trickled down someone's mouth if I recall...
> >
> > While he was nuthugging to the nth degree on Kennedy earlier, he
> > fergot to mention...why not give JFK shit for practicing trickle down?
> > Why only give Reagan hell for it? (PS-Trickle down works ever time
> > it's tried)
>
> Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
> century.
Do you actually believe that?
I swear, 50% of this country is too stupid to live in a free country.
Max C. Webster III
> The Professor <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message:
>
>> Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
>> century.
>
> Do you actually believe that?
Believe it? It's a fact; what's there to believe or disbelieve?
The question is, then, does WJC deserve any credit for that economic record?
After some thought, I'm going to say yes. His policies in the first two years
of his tenure were such that his party lost both the house and senate during
the first mid-term election, setting up blessed gridlock for the next six
years.
Seriously, administrations can do very little to improve on the economy as a
whole. The best they can hope for is to not do too much harm and allow the
private sector to create and grow unencumbered.
> I swear, 50% of this country is too stupid to live in a free country.
Well, the fifty percent who misread Prof probably are.
Stone Cold Pimple
You left out one word. The word "POLITICALY" should be between those other
ones.
Stone Cold Pimple
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
> "Stone Cold Pimple" <pot...@af.mil> wrote in
> news:tHpzc.8303$aG5...@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
> >
> > "The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9508B6B4B64C...@24.24.2.165...
> >> "Stone Cold Pimple" <pot...@af.mil> wrote in
> >> news:NBozc.4037$IF3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "CivikMan" <civi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:20040614171531...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >> >> >At least Willie did not employee trickle down economics.
> >> >>
> >> >> His economics trickled down someone's mouth if I recall...
> >> >
> >> > While he was nuthugging to the nth degree on Kennedy earlier, he
> >> > fergot to mention...why not give JFK shit for practicing trickle
> >> > down?
> >> > Why only give Reagan hell for it? (PS-Trickle down works ever
> >> > time
> >> > it's tried)
> >>
> >> Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
> >> century.
> >
> > Refresh my memory....exactly what did he do to achieve this?
>
> Oh, let's list a few. And let's all keep in mind that I'm a hard-core
> libertarian.
>
> 1. Consistently low inflation rate - lower than anyone since the 50s
And Clinton did this by...?
> 2. Actually succeeded in limiting the growth rate of government
And he limited it by...?
> 3. Negotiated several key free trade agreements that increased
> prosperity in the US and abroad
You mean NAFTA? Yikes!
> 4. The lowest average unemployment rate in a generation (although it did
> get too low in the sense that it was credit expansion-driven by the late
> 90s, which helped to precipitate the recession of spring 2001)
I agree. But how was this a direct result of a Clinton policy?
> Again, how much credit he deserves isn't clear.
On this I agree!
> He was smart enough to
> continue to ride the good ship Greenspan.
I also agree! He was a great trend follower and poll watcher.
>He did pass welfare reform.
On this subject I agree, he was brilliant! He took a subject he didn't
campaign on (what Democrat campaigns saying he'll CUT welfare?) and took
credit for his own. He was handed it by Congress at least 3 times. When he
saw it wasn't going away and that it ran well in the polls, he signed it and
took credit for it.
Stone Cold Pimple
"Ted Kennedy" <ted_k...@drunkenbastards.com> wrote in message
news:67e64634.04061...@posting.google.com...
What's scary is some believe it's actually attributed to Clinton. They can
name tons of things that happend in the greedy 90's, but when it comes to
nailing it to specific policies enacted by Clinton, their eyes glaze over!
Stone Cold Pimple
> (this sounds like a case for a vote for Kerry - and,
> frankly, if you forced me to vote, and forced me to vote for either Bush
> or Kerry, I would vote for Kerry)
No, it's not that. No one is going to vote FOR Kerry. They'll vote against
Bush. I fail to understand why. Pick a subject, any subject. Kerry has
made public commentary on both sides of it. It doesn't matter what it is,
he's both for it and against it. If this is the type person you want in,
you're an idiot. (I don't mean that in a bad way.) Yep, that
Kerry....really fires up the Democratic base, doesn't he!
Max C. Webster III
> "The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
>> (this sounds like a case for a vote for Kerry - and,
>> frankly, if you forced me to vote, and forced me to vote for either Bush
>> or Kerry, I would vote for Kerry)
>
> No, it's not that. No one is going to vote FOR Kerry. They'll vote against
> Bush. I fail to understand why.
It's not that hard a subject. Most elections where one of the candidates is an
incumbent, the election is really a confidence vote. Except for the yellow dog
Replicrats who's going to vote party line no matter what, the people are really
voting on what kind of job the incumbent has done (more accurately, appears to
have done).
Geo
CivikMan wrote:
>>Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
>>century.
>
>
> Hasn't it also been argued whether the apparent prosperity during Clinton's
> years as president was the delayed result of the Reagan/Bush years?
>
Think of it this way. The economy was on the way up when Clinton got
in. And it was on the way down when he left.
Dan Iwerks
news:20040614185814...@mb-m02.aol.com:
>>Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
>>century.
>
> Hasn't it also been argued whether the apparent prosperity during
> Clinton's years as president was the delayed result of the Reagan/Bush
> years?
Yes, and rather amusingly so. Clinton, for all his personal faults, made
a number of good decisions economically. More importantly, he happened
to be president during the internet boom.
--
*****************************************************************
Dan Iwerks thinks that the beer you're drinking probably sucks.
The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me
responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot.
*****************************************************************
Dan Iwerks
Um, a highly accomplished professor of economics just gave a series of
very concrete reasons why Clinton's policies were beneficial to the
economy. Your responses to said post were "uh, uh, did not".
Sheesh. You'd think after 4 years that CDS would have faded a bit, but
apparently not.
Mike Smith
> civi...@aol.com (CivikMan) wrote in
> news:20040614185814...@mb-m02.aol.com:
>
>
>>>Actually, Clinton's economic record was among the best of the 20th
>>>century.
>>
>>Hasn't it also been argued whether the apparent prosperity during
>>Clinton's years as president was the delayed result of the Reagan/Bush
>>years?
>
> Yes, and rather amusingly so. Clinton, for all his personal faults, made
> a number of good decisions economically. More importantly, he happened
> to be president during the internet boom.
"Happened to be", yes. He didn't create it.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
>
> Um, a highly accomplished professor of economics just gave a series of
> very concrete reasons why Clinton's policies were beneficial to the
> economy.
Did I miss something? Where is this post? The Prof mentioned some good
things that happened during the Clinton presidency - then turned right
around and said "Again, how much credit he deserves isn't clear."
--
Mike Smith
Stone Cold Pimple
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:10cua72...@news.supernews.com...
Whew! I thought it was just me!
MaxTransUnit
>
> "MaxTransUnit" <maxt...@mtu.org> wrote in message
> news:40CE17...@mtu.org...
> > Ted Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > If Bush is so impeachable, then why hasn't he been impeached? Do you
> > > not have the balls, or are you just pussies?
> >
> > Two reasons most likely:
> >
> > like Ken Starr sticking his nose up the president's ass and other
> > affairs 24/7, or engaging in illegal wire-ups of low level Pentagon
> > staffers (aka Linda Tripp) who can ferrit out nasties about GDub from
> > his corporate whore cronies. There's plenty of dirt Dubya, but not
> > enough interest (read $$) to pursue it.
> >
> > 2. The tacit - or outright - support of the GOP attack mutts who were
> > foaming at the mouth and practically tripping over each other to do
> > whatever they could to Kill Bill. The Democrats are definitely turds,
> > but they got nuthin on the likes of D'Amato, Hyde and their ilk.
>
> Or still even more likely,
>
> 3. There's nothing illegal going on.
There's always that possibility. I consider it a very remote
possibility, but it is one nonetheless. The microsecond we stop trying
to find out either way is the moment we've lost the battle for decent
government.
Stone Cold Pimple
news:l87qc0h8n64n8f1l8...@4ax.com...
> I agree hole heartedly
Dude, get help.....
Dan Iwerks
That would be the whole point of "happened to be". Stating unequivocally
that Clinton is responsible for the economic boom of the 90's would be
idiotic. Almost as idiotic as implying in some way that Reagan/Bush had
something to do with it.
norborder
>> Yes, and rather amusingly so. Clinton, for all his personal faults,
>> made a number of good decisions economically. More importantly, he
>> happened to be president during the internet boom.
>
>
> "Happened to be", yes. He didn't create it.
Right - it was his Veep who did *that* :)
The Professor
news:Xns9509802387267...@216.168.3.30:
> Yes, and rather amusingly so. Clinton, for all his personal faults,
> made a number of good decisions economically. More importantly, he
> happened to be president during the internet boom.
Careful. Some/much of that boom was artificial, created by Clinton
policies, and had MUCH to do with the recession in 2001. It's a mixed
bag.
The Professor (Bill got us drunk and W got the hangover)
Rob nee Petard
>> Yes, and rather amusingly so. Clinton, for all his personal faults, made
>> a number of good decisions economically. More importantly, he happened
>> to be president during the internet boom.
>
> "Happened to be", yes. He didn't create it.
Right, his VP did.
(Note the rare correct use of "VP".)
Rob (!Petard)
Javier Gonzalez
> Careful. Some/much of that boom was artificial, created by Clinton
> policies, and had MUCH to do with the recession in 2001. It's a mixed
> bag.
>
> The Professor (Bill got us drunk and W got the hangover)
I'd rather blame the venture capitalists who heard about this newfangled
"intarweb" and began throwing dollars at a pile of internet upstarts with
no business plan. You could go to a VC and tell him you were going to sell
gold-plated turds, and he'd laugh in oyur face. YOu say you were going to
sell them through "Teh IntarWeb" and the VCs tripped on one another trying to
give you cash. (Did anybody check out the mp3.com closure auction? US$1500
chairs, enough pingo pong tables, pool tables and arcade machines for a
score game parlors, a Hummer jeep, you name it. Just because you can program
an app that runs on "TeH Int4Rw3B" doesn't mean that you know how to run a
biznez)
kinda like the Dutch Tulip craze. A movement of amazingly stupid people doing
strange things with money :)
--
Javier Gonzalez Nicolini
Ingeniero Civil en Computacion - Universidad de Chile
The Professor
news:canmo3$sil$1...@helcaraxe.dcc.uchile.cl:
But this misses the point: the *resources* to finance those ventures had
to come from somewhere. Policies of the Clinton administration opened up
the credit spigot more so than was justfied by the underlying
fundamentals. The internet just happened to be the investment du jour
that was ready to open wide.
And if you explore the tulip craze more closely, you'll find a similar
explanation there. Virtually all "manias, panics, and crashes" have at
their root market signals distorted directly or indirectly by bad gov't
policies. Mistakes come in bunches when the signals people rely on are
screwed up.
The Professor (more if people are interested)
CivikMan
>to be president during the internet boom.
Which wasn't his doing.
CivikMan
>very concrete reasons why Clinton's policies were beneficial to the
>economy.
Which one was that? Also taking into account that colleges and universities are
politically biased against conservatism.
Stone Cold Pimple
> >More importantly, he happened
> >to be president during the internet boom.
>
> Which wasn't his doing.
But his VP helped to create the internet! Coincidence? I think not! If
this isn't a c-o-n-spiracy, I don't know what is!
The Professor
news:20040615173837...@mb-m28.aol.com:
>>Um, a highly accomplished professor of economics just gave a series of
>>very concrete reasons why Clinton's policies were beneficial to the
>>economy.
>
> Which one was that? Also taking into account that colleges and
> universities are politically biased against conservatism.
BAHAHAHAHAHA! The libertarian defends Clinton and then gets accused of
being a lefty. Hysterical.
The Professor (it was me Civik)
CivikMan
>> universities are politically biased against conservatism.
>
>BAHAHAHAHAHA! The libertarian defends Clinton and then gets accused of
>being a lefty. Hysterical.
Well, that is a fact about colleges and universities across the country. But I
wasn't acusing anyone personally of being a lefty.
The Professor
news:20040615230325...@mb-m22.aol.com:
>>> Which one was that? Also taking into account that colleges and
>>> universities are politically biased against conservatism.
>>
>>BAHAHAHAHAHA! The libertarian defends Clinton and then gets accused
>>of being a lefty. Hysterical.
>
> Well, that is a fact about colleges and universities across the
> country. But I wasn't acusing anyone personally of being a lefty.
That's okay, I don't mind such an "accusation" - in fact, I kinda like
it.
The Professor (calls 'em as I sees 'em)
Dan Iwerks
news:20040615173558...@mb-m28.aol.com:
>>More importantly, he happened
>>to be president during the internet boom.
>
> Which wasn't his doing.
Yep, just "happened". The notion that a president is responsible for the
economic success of the nation is pretty damn silly. Asserting that
Clinton's responsible for the 90's boom makes almost as little sense as
saying it's a holdover from Reagan's policies. Right place, right time.
Clinton had the foresight to make enough decent decisions to not screw
stuff up.
Max C. Webster III
>>> More importantly, he happened to be president during the internet boom.
>>
>> Which wasn't his doing.
>
> Yep, just "happened". The notion that a president is responsible for the
> economic success of the nation is pretty damn silly. Asserting that
> Clinton's responsible for the 90's boom makes almost as little sense as
> saying it's a holdover from Reagan's policies. Right place, right time.
> Clinton had the foresight to make enough decent decisions to not screw
> stuff up.
Agreed . . . accept for one minor point. Clinton's austerity programs at the
beginning of his term nearly throttled the recovery. I think it was that,
coupled with the GOP's successful "Contract with America" strategy, that lost
congress for the Dems in the 1994 mid-term elections.
But your main point is valid. The government can do (or not do) things to
*not* harm the economy, but very little to actually control when the good and
bad economic cycles occur.
Rob nee Petard
> Agreed . . . accept for one minor point.
Just 'cause it's Maxx...
I think you were after "except", there, bro. ;-)
Rob (!Petard)
Max C. Webster III
Where did I put that Dilbert cartoon?
I'm not Prof. I routinely use wrong words and misspell right ones. You don't
need to point them out. Remember, I'm the guy who had a typo in his .sig file
for six months before I noticed it!
Okay, maybe you *do* need to point them out! :-P
I'm going to blame that one on my spellchecker (more accurately, my habit of
accepting the first replacement choice). That error is too silly to even begin
to defend. The homophones with which I usually have the most trouble are, um,
ah, damn, I can't remember them now -- one's a verb, the other's a noun, and
every time I have to use one, I have to stop and think about which I mean.
zach
> Dan Iwerks <dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom> done said:
>
> >>> More importantly, he happened to be president during the internet boom.
> >>
> >> Which wasn't his doing.
> >
> > Yep, just "happened". The notion that a president is responsible for the
> > economic success of the nation is pretty damn silly. Asserting that
> > Clinton's responsible for the 90's boom makes almost as little sense as
> > saying it's a holdover from Reagan's policies. Right place, right time.
> > Clinton had the foresight to make enough decent decisions to not screw
> > stuff up.
>
> Agreed . . . accept for one minor point. Clinton's austerity programs at the
> beginning of his term nearly throttled the recovery. I think it was that,
> coupled with the GOP's successful "Contract with America" strategy, that lost
> congress for the Dems in the 1994 mid-term elections.
>
> But your main point is valid. The government can do (or not do) things to
> *not* harm the economy, but very little to actually control when the good and
> bad economic cycles occur.
So do you think fiscal policy is totally ineffective? How about trade
policies (since Clinton seemed to be on the same page as the
globalist, One World Order types?)?
Max C. Webster III
>>>>> More importantly, he happened to be president during the internet boom.
>>>>
>>>> Which wasn't his doing.
>>>
>>> Yep, just "happened". The notion that a president is responsible for the
>>>
>>> economic success of the nation is pretty damn silly. Asserting that
>>> Clinton's responsible for the 90's boom makes almost as little sense as
>>> saying it's a holdover from Reagan's policies. Right place, right time.
>>>
>>> Clinton had the foresight to make enough decent decisions to not screw
>>> stuff up.
>>
>> Agreed . . . accept for one minor point. Clinton's austerity programs at
>> the beginning of his term nearly throttled the recovery. I think it was
>> that, coupled with the GOP's successful "Contract with America" strategy,
>> that lost congress for the Dems in the 1994 mid-term elections.
>>
>> But your main point is valid. The government can do (or not do) things to
>> *not* harm the economy, but very little to actually control when the good
>> and bad economic cycles occur.
>
> So do you think fiscal policy is totally ineffective? How about trade
> policies (since Clinton seemed to be on the same page as the
> globalist, One World Order types?)?
Unless the government does something completely crazy, irrational and
unexpected (and the move entirely too slow to do truly do that), the markets,
national and local, have already anticipated it and adjusted for it. Aside
from controlling the money supply (not just interest rates but taxes,
subsidies, etc.), there's not much they can do to effect the real economy.
rich hammett
> victorth...@netscape.net (zach) done said:
>>>>>> More importantly, he happened to be president during the internet boom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which wasn't his doing.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, just "happened". The notion that a president is responsible for the
>>>>
>>>> economic success of the nation is pretty damn silly. Asserting that
>>>> Clinton's responsible for the 90's boom makes almost as little sense as
>>>> saying it's a holdover from Reagan's policies. Right place, right time.
>>>>
>>>> Clinton had the foresight to make enough decent decisions to not screw
>>>> stuff up.
>>>
>>> Agreed . . . accept for one minor point. Clinton's austerity programs at
>>> the beginning of his term nearly throttled the recovery. I think it was
>>> that, coupled with the GOP's successful "Contract with America" strategy,
>>> that lost congress for the Dems in the 1994 mid-term elections.
>>>
>>> But your main point is valid. The government can do (or not do) things to
>>> *not* harm the economy, but very little to actually control when the good
>>> and bad economic cycles occur.
>>
>> So do you think fiscal policy is totally ineffective? How about trade
>> policies (since Clinton seemed to be on the same page as the
>> globalist, One World Order types?)?
> Unless the government does something completely crazy, irrational and
> unexpected (and the move entirely too slow to do truly do that), the markets,
> national and local, have already anticipated it and adjusted for it. Aside
> from controlling the money supply (not just interest rates but taxes,
> subsidies, etc.), there's not much they can do to effect the real economy.
I don't think you really believe that. All sorts of govt regulation
and taxation distort markets considerably.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
CivikMan
>stuff up.
Right. He screwed White House interns instead :-)
zach
I think he's saying that those things are already factored into the
mix since they are well known, since the market (meaning, the Street)
is forward looking by at least 3 quarters. Forward looking into the
natural (or unnatural, e.g., the world wide economic slowdown ripple
effect from 9/11) business cycle.
Max C. Webster III
>>>>> But your main point is valid. The government can do (or not do) things
>>>>> to *not* harm the economy, but very little to actually control when the
>>>>> good and bad economic cycles occur.
>>>>
>>>> So do you think fiscal policy is totally ineffective? How about trade
>>>> policies (since Clinton seemed to be on the same page as the
>>>> globalist, One World Order types?)?
>>
>>> Unless the government does something completely crazy, irrational and
>>> unexpected (and the move entirely too slow to do truly do that), the
>>> markets, national and local, have already anticipated it and adjusted for
>>> it. Aside from controlling the money supply (not just interest rates but
>>> taxes, subsidies, etc.), there's not much they can do to effect the real
>>> economy.
>>
>> I don't think you really believe that. All sorts of govt regulation
>> and taxation distort markets considerably.
>
> I think he's saying that those things are already factored into the
> mix since they are well known, since the market (meaning, the Street)
> is forward looking by at least 3 quarters. Forward looking into the
> natural (or unnatural, e.g., the world wide economic slowdown ripple
> effect from 9/11) business cycle.
Pretty much, except that when I use the term "markets" I'm not referring
exclusively to stock markets but to the economy as a whole.
There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and when the later happens . . .
whoa, Nellie, all bets are off.
rich hammett
But they are known, and reacted to, as you say, not completely
ineffective.