Cawacko

[Cancel7]

Hello!

I have just finished watching Naomi Klein kick Greenspan's ass on Democracy Now! which i watch on my computer at night a lot. I'm trying to meet her, I want her for my International Women's Day event, it will be hard for me to settle for anyone else. I might even switch teams, if she happens to be on the other side, which she could be because she is a genius it's hard to believe she'd have much use for men.

Anyway, that's all babble! Sorry, sugar high. My point is, in the course of this debate, Alan Greenspan whom you respect so well, said that he is a Libertarian Republican and Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat and "there really isn't that much difference between the two" And when pressed to state how often he agreed with Bill Clinton economically, he said "80% of the time"!

Holy shit! Now, what does this do to your opinion of both Greenspan, and Clinton?

 

[Epicurus]

Anyway, that's all babble! Sorry, sugar high. My point is, in the course of this debate, Alan Greenspan whom you respect so well, said that he is a Libertarian Republican and Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat and "there really isn't that much difference between the two" And when pressed to state how often he agreed with Bill Clinton economically, he said "80% of the time"!

Holy shit! Now, what does this do to your opinion of both Greenspan, and Clinton?

Not to speak for cawacko, but I cautiously agree with Greenspan's statement that Bill Clinton was by no means radically liberal in his economic policies.

 

[Cancel7]

Not to speak for cawacko, but I cautiously agree with Greenspan's statement that Bill Clinton was by no means radically liberal in his economic policies.

Well, me too, but to find out that a Libertarian Republican like Greenspan agreed with him 80% of the time? Wow, that's something. So the center has moved right.

 

[cawacko]

Hello!

I have just finished watching Naomi Klein kick Greenspan's ass on Democracy Now! which i watch on my computer at night a lot. I'm trying to meet her, I want her for my International Women's Day event, it will be hard for me to settle for anyone else. I might even switch teams, if she happens to be on the other side, which she could be because she is a genius it's hard to believe she'd have much use for men.

Anyway, that's all babble! Sorry, sugar high. My point is, in the course of this debate, Alan Greenspan whom you respect so well, said that he is a Libertarian Republican and Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat and "there really isn't that much difference between the two" And when pressed to state how often he agreed with Bill Clinton economically, he said "80% of the time"!

Holy shit! Now, what does this do to your opinion of both Greenspan, and Clinton?

I was aware of Greenspan being a libertarian Republican. I have an Ayn Rand book at home in which he wrote as essay for (probably from the '50's or '60's). I have always liked Greenspan but the unfortuante truth (for me) is that I do not have enough knowledge about him or his policy's to strongly argue his greatness or his poor performance.

I believe he has been accused of not doing enough during the tech bust and having his policies contribute to the current housing issues we face.

I would argue when listening to an economics debate (or any debate really) we gravitate to those who speak closer to what we believe.

As far as him saying he agreed with a high percentage of Clinton's economic policies well that is his belief.

 

[Cancel7]

I was aware of Greenspan being a libertarian Republican. I have an Ayn Rand book at home in which he wrote as essay for (probably from the '50's or '60's). I have always liked Greenspan but the unfortuante truth (for me) is that I do not have enough knowledge about him or his policy's to strongly argue his greatness or his poor performance.

I believe he has been accused of not doing enough during the tech bust and having his policies contribute to the current housing issues we face.

I would argue when listening to an economics debate (or any debate really) we gravitate to those who speak closer to what we believe.

As far as him saying he agreed with a high percentage of Clinton's economic policies well that is his belief.

Doesn't it come as a surprise to you? Clinton couldn't have been liberal for a libertarian republican to agree with him economically 80% of the time.

 

[Epicurus]

Who was trashing Clinton as liberal? I would never slur his name like that. He was centre-left at best.

 

[Cypress]

Oh Gawwd Darla,

You remember the 1990s...republicans were all but calling bill clinton a leftist and a communist. Now, after seeing the failures of Bush, Clinton is now a reasonable moderate to most GOPers. (which begs the question, why so much hatred for a return of the clintons to the white house?)

Talk about revisionist history. I think Clinton's legacy is going to be better than most people think.

 

[Lao Tse]

Doesn't it come as a surprise to you? Clinton couldn't have been liberal for a libertarian republican to agree with him economically 80% of the time.

He's just another globalist zombie, like you. AKA internatioanlist fascist. You think "free healthcare for all" isn't a gift to her fascist friends?

" FInally, a state monopoly now we can pad our expense accounts, jack up our fees, and guarantee payments to ourselves our of the public trough, and we can let service levels slide as well! " Oh what a beautiful day it will be in fascist land.

WHy are you an enabler?

Let the hate die, sister souljah.

 

[cawacko]

Doesn't it come as a surprise to you? Clinton couldn't have been liberal for a libertarian republican to agree with him economically 80% of the time.

On initial glance yeah it is a surprise.

This may or may not be an apt analogy and I throw in I am very cynical in this view.

Bush used all the rhetoric of being (at least somewhat) of a fiscal conservative before he was elected. Then when he had six years of a Republican Congress who never stopped his spending Bush spent as much as he could. Now that he faces a Democratic Congress he seems to be acting more as a fiscal conservative.

Clinton had to deal with six years of a Republican Congress which did not allow him (if he wanted to) to try and pass real liberal economic policies.

Part of me thinks Clinton is actually more conservative economically than he's given credit for and part of me thinks he acted this way as President because it helped him get re-elected and kept him popular.

I'm trying to be honest as I respond knowing I have biases.

 

[Epicurus]

Oh Gawwd Darla,

You remember the 1990s...republicans were all but calling bill clinton a leftist and a communist. Now, after seeing the failures of Bush, Clinton is now a reasonable moderate to most GOPers. (which begs the question, why so much hatred for a return of the clintons to the white house?)

Talk about revisionist history. I think Clinton's legacy is going to be better than most people think.

Bill is not to be confused with Hillary.

 

[Cypress]

Bill is not to be confused with Hillary.

warren, I think you're too young to remember that absolute, stark raving mad hatred of bill clinton, by the overwhelming majority of the republican party in the 1990s.

Its actually quite funny these days to hear almost all republicans refer to him as a reasonable centrist.

 

[Epicurus]

warren, I think you're too young to remember that absolute, stark raving mad hatred of bill clinton, by the overwhelming majority of the republican party in the 1990s.

Its actually quite funny these days to hear almost all republicans refer to him as a reasonable centrist.

My first memories of politics were the impeachment hearings. I'll admit I'm a bit fuzzy on the early nineties.

Edit: Not true actually now that I think about it. I followed the 1996 race as closely as an 8 year old could lol.

 

[cawacko]

My first memories of politics were the impeachment hearings. I'll admit I'm a bit fuzzy on the early nineties.

This hatred of Clinton is no different than the hatred of Bush you see now.

 

[Epicurus]

This hatred of Clinton is no different than the hatred of Bush you see now.

The Bush shit is weird. I thought I despised Bush until I started debating on FP.com and JPP. They literally loathe every single breath the man has ever taken. Were the 90s like this with Clinton?

 

[Cypress]

This hatred of Clinton is no different than the hatred of Bush you see now.

Yeah it is. Clinton was a competent, skilled technocrat and diplomat who turned out to be a decent president, on balance. In short, there really was no reason to "hate" him.

Bush, on the other hand, squandered a fiscal surplus, diverted us into the worst foreign policy disaster in america's history, destroyed america's reputation and credibility, ruined our alliances, and presided over fiscal mismanagment rarely seen in our history. In short, there's plenty of reasons to hate him.

 

[uscitizen]

warren, I think you're too young to remember that absolute, stark raving mad hatred of bill clinton, by the overwhelming majority of the republican party in the 1990s.

Its actually quite funny these days to hear almost all republicans refer to him as a reasonable centrist.

I remember well. The hatred was so rabid that not too many dems would even admit to having voted for Clinton.

 

[Cancel7]

He's just another globalist zombie, like you. AKA internatioanlist fascist. You think "free healthcare for all" isn't a gift to her fascist friends?

" FInally, a state monopoly now we can pad our expense accounts, jack up our fees, and guarantee payments to ourselves our of the public trough, and we can let service levels slide as well! " Oh what a beautiful day it will be in fascist land.

WHy are you an enabler?

Let the hate die, sister souljah.

No I still won't have sex with you, sorry.

 

[Cancel7]

On initial glance yeah it is a surprise.

This may or may not be an apt analogy and I throw in I am very cynical in this view.

Bush used all the rhetoric of being (at least somewhat) of a fiscal conservative before he was elected. Then when he had six years of a Republican Congress who never stopped his spending Bush spent as much as he could. Now that he faces a Democratic Congress he seems to be acting more as a fiscal conservative.

Clinton had to deal with six years of a Republican Congress which did not allow him (if he wanted to) to try and pass real liberal economic policies.

Part of me thinks Clinton is actually more conservative economically than he's given credit for and part of me thinks he acted this way as President because it helped him get re-elected and kept him popular.

I'm trying to be honest as I respond knowing I have biases.

I think that's a pretty fair assesment actually! Shocking. lol

 

[cawacko]

The Bush shit is weird. I thought I despised Bush until I started debating on FP.com and JPP. They literally loathe every single breath the man has ever taken. Were the 90s like this with Clinton?

To a degree yes. There were definitely people (on the right) that despised Clinton and everything he did.

Was it the same as today with Bush? Hard to say in the sense I think each person might view that differently based on their personal biases.

 

[Epicurus]

To a degree yes. There were definitely people (on the right) that despised Clinton and everything he did.

Was it the same as today with Bush? Hard to say in the sense I think each person might view that differently based on their personal biases.

Well from the second Bush took office there was a significant portion of the electorate that already hated him. These are the people who will suffer no good to be spoken of George Bush. To them he is either an evil genius bent on dominating America and enslaving the world or an incompetent fool unable to speak a coherent sentence or articulate a simple thought. These are the people I do not trust.

When Bush was running in 2000, he ran on a very good platform which included stepping back as world policeman, no nation building, Social Security reform, and tax cuts. Ignoring that none of this came to pass, this broadly accepted agenda is relatively uncontroversial, yet a large chunk of voters chose to reject Bush in 2000 based on only that information. I don't trust anyone who rejects those ideas so categorically.

I see the smarter voters as the ones who supported Bush initially but quickly realized that his rhetoric did not match his actions and backed away from him. I'm sure many liberals will be quick to claim that they saw Bush for what he was in 2000, but I don't see that as realistic.