clinton lovers?

LadyT said:
My peers were doing just fine.
Click to expand...

the market peaked in March 2000. Then the dot-com crash started with the recession hitting at the beggining of 2001. So even the though the economy was turning downwards many people might not have felt the effect until middle to late '01.
 
Desh said:
Now take a look at the Republican field and tell me how any of those hacks are more qualified than Hilary?

Im not even going to vote for her in the primaries but shes got the whole R field beat.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

I'm not buying the poor little "wifey" BS about Hillary. I'm not voting for her in the primary, but on balance, she shreds most of the Democratic men in those debates. And its going to be silly how bad she would grind Huckleberry, Grandpa Fred, or Rudy under her toes in a one on one debate. Just as an objective matter of capability and intellectual firepower, she could run laps around most of the men in the field.

I'm still not voting for her. :)
 
cawacko said:
the market peaked in March 2000. Then the dot-com crash started with the recession hitting at the beggining of 2001. So even the though the economy was turning downwards many people might not have felt the effect until middle to late '01.
Click to expand...


Anyone who voted for Bush twice, is automatically disqualified from criticizing the performance of Bill Clinton as prez.

Sorry.
 
cawacko said:
the market peaked in March 2000. Then the dot-com crash started with the recession hitting at the beggining of 2001. So even the though the economy was turning downwards many people might not have felt the effect until middle to late '01.
Click to expand...

yeah. I didn't feel any effects until Bush took over.
 
Cypress said:
Anyone who voted for Bush twice, is automatically disqualified from criticizing the performance of Bill Clinton as prez.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Yeah right! Notice all I did was state economic facts. I didn't even bring politicians in to it. Such a novel concept.
 
Superfreak said:
Clinton was certainly better than both Bush's, but he was not on par with Reagan. Clinton would however be third on my list behind Ike and Reagan of Presidents in the past century.
Click to expand...

You're right he wasn't. He was way better. He was a lot more fiscally and socially responsible.
 
LadyT said:
yeah. I didn't feel any effects until Bush took over.
Click to expand...

you would have felt the same effects if Gore or Nader won as well. The economy was headed downward after the bubble burst and no politician was going to stop it.
 
Dungheap said:
I thought you hate deficit spenders. Reagan was the worst. What gives?
Click to expand...

Well given the vast majority were deficit spenders, I still have to break them down. Reagan was most certainly not the worst. He added $1.6 trillion to the debt as did Clinton. The two Bushs were the worst culprits.... especially the current one.
 
cawacko said:
you would have felt the same effects if Gore or Nader won as well. The economy was headed downward after the bubble burst and no politician was going to stop it.
Click to expand...

Allegedly. However, a big dropped occured after 9/11, and I'm 95% certain the democrats would have taken a report seriously that read, "Bin Laden Plans to Attack on US Soil.".
 
Superfreak said:
Well given the vast majority were deficit spenders, I still have to break them down. Reagan was most certainly not the worst. He added $1.6 trillion to the debt as did Clinton. The two Bushs were the worst culprits.... especially the current one.
Click to expand...

actual dollars or adjusted for inflation? If so I'd like to see links. And are you talking about the federal debt or the national debt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top