The Conservatives Handbook.

[Guest]

Spin. Lie. Cheat. Lose election. Steal election. Allow U.S. to be attacked by terrorists. Cover up. Sell jobs in the White House. Lie. Cover up. Obstruct investigations. Lie.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-cheney020102.shtml

Walker in essence accused Cheney of lying about the GAO's demands. "There have been material misrepresentations of facts coming out of the White House in recent weeks," he says. In particular, Walker points to a statement Cheney made in a television interview last Sunday. "They've demanded of me that I give Henry Waxman a listing of everybody I meet with," Cheney told Fox News, "of everything that was discussed, any advice that was received, notes and minutes of those meetings."

 

[freedom]

Spin. Lie. Cheat. Lose election. Steal election. Allow U.S. to be attacked by terrorists. Cover up. Sell jobs in the White House. Lie. Cover up. Obstruct investigations. Lie. All things the Clintons and Democrats do. Now what do i win.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Now what do i win.

An award for correctly recognizing that most Pols, on both sides of the aisle, do this because we, their constiuents, reward them when they do.

People - if you want to know who is to blame for the way the Pols act, and the way the system sometimes works, then confront the people who are to blame; go into your bathroom, turn on the light...




and look long and hard into the mirror.

 

[Guru]

 

[celiaKitten]

*applause for STG*


oh and btw ..... just how do you distinguish a Conservative handjob from any other type of handjob? I mean, what's the definition.

Did anyone else wonder about that one?? Or was it just me?

 

[crystalhunting]

CONSERVATIVES GIVE HANDJOBS??????? Yikes!!!


The idea of ANY CONSERVATIVES that give hand jobs SCARES ME!!!

Kay Bailey Hutchingson giveing a handjob is even SCARIER!!





CH

 

[login]

Kay Bailey Hutchingson giveing a handjob is even SCARIER!!

I don't know about hand jobs, but just think how much time you could save. You could have anal sex and get a blow job at the same time. I mean, she's always talking out her ass. The equipment MUST be there already.

 

[WriterDom]

. Allow U.S. to be attacked by terrorists.

I don't think the terrorists that planned 9/11 for 5 years really cared what party was in power. Unless they were democrats.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: The Conservatives Handbook.

I don't think the terrorists that planned 9/11 for 5 years really cared what party was in power. Unless they were democrats.

Touche'

I always love it when people blame whatever party is in the White House for things pretty much out of their control. Of course, the party/person in the White House is not above taking credit when things go right while they are there; such as when the economy is good, despite the fact that they had little to do with it.

 

[celiaKitten]

Re: Re: Re: The Conservatives Handbook.

Touche'

I always love it when people blame whatever party is in the White House for things pretty much out of their control. Of course, the party/person in the White House is not above taking credit when things go right while they are there; such as when the economy is good, despite the fact that they had little to do with it.

Welcome to the way it works. Has it ever been anyother way?

Not in my lifetime anyhow ...

 

[Guest]

I will make it simple enough for even a right winger to understand.

President Clinton (8 years) = The best economy in the history of America, budget surpluses, relative world peace, the only real scandal involved lying about a blow job after 6 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in biased right wing investigations.

President Bush (1 year) = One of the worst economic downturns in recent history, massive deficit spending, terrorism and dead americans, war brewing around the world, Enron scandal involving hundreds of millions of dollars stolen and the biggest banktruptcy in U.S. history without any money spent by the government on investigations or any democratic committees, obstruction of justice by the vice president and lying to cover up by the president even before any investigations have started.


Talk radio can't change the truth.

 

[celiaKitten]

I will make it simple enough for even a right winger to understand.

President Clinton (8 years) = The best economy in the history of America, budget surpluses, relative world peace, the only real scandal involved lying about a blow job after 6 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in biased right wing investigations.

President Bush (1 year) = One of the worst economic downturns in recent history, massive deficit spending, terrorism and dead americans, war brewing around the world, Enron scandal involving hundreds of millions of dollars stolen and the biggest banktruptcy in U.S. history without any money spent by the government on investigations or any democratic committees, obstruction of justice by the vice president and lying to cover up by the president even before any investigations have started.


Talk radio can't change the truth.

Goddamnit! Why couldn't you have registered so I could say you kicked ass??!!???!!!???!!

 

[Guru]

 

[Young Knave]

Don't blame me. I voted for Nader.

An award for correctly recognizing that most Pols, on both sides of the aisle, do this because we, their constiuents, reward them when they do.

People - if you want to know who is to blame for the way the Pols act, and the way the system sometimes works, then confront the people who are to blame; go into your bathroom, turn on the light...




and look long and hard into the mirror.

 

[Young Knave]

President Bush (1 year) = One of the worst economic downturns in recent history, massive deficit spending, terrorism and dead americans, war brewing around the world, Enron scandal involving hundreds of millions of dollars stolen and the biggest banktruptcy in U.S. history without any money spent by the government on investigations or any democratic committees, obstruction of justice by the vice president and lying to cover up by the president even before any investigations have started.

But Bush is a brilliant, elequent, bold leader of impeccable ethics and honesty. Or at least that's what the "liberal" media's been telling me! Now I'm real confused.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I will make it simple enough for even a right winger to understand.

You talking to me? I thought so. I think you have me mistaken for a "right winger" - I am a true Liberal (as in Libertarian).

I will make it simple enough for even an unregistered troll to understand:

Very little the government does, especially any resident of the White House has any effect on the economy. The economy during the Clinton admin took off before the election that put him into office even took place. The economy started a downturn before he left office, in part due to the Fed slamming on the brakes too hard by raising the interest rates while Clinton was in office.

Like I said - some people just love to blame people for things out of their control, or take credit for things they had little to do with.

Think of the economy as a really HUGE lead ball; pushing it one way or another has little effect on its momentum, but eventually it will move that way - a little. The economy was rolling towards good times for quite a while before anybody even voted for Clinton and he just went along for the ride - and took credit for it within one week of being in office as I remember - talk about spin; up until he was elected his camp said the economy was trash, but then as soon as he was elected it magically turned around. I don't remember for sure, but I think he might have even taken credit for the economy before he got into office.

The Fed policy of raising interest rates for over a year before Clinton left office, with an eye of slowing down the economy and reigning in the "over-enthusiastic" stock market.

Well, the Fed did just that; Greenspan slammed on the brakes and sent people like me through the windshield. But of course, since Clinton was in office, it is all Bush's fault.

Look, I am not a Bush fan, and I am not a Conservative, but neither am I a Clinton fan. I didn't vote for Clinton, Bush or Gore; I voted Libertarian.

What I know is that the real world is not as simplistic as you present it, or would have people believe.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Goddamnit! Why couldn't you have registered so I could say you kicked ass??!!???!!!???!!

Yeah, his own; it was a very stupid and simplistic reply.

Later, I am out of this thread - all I hear here is rhetoric, not discourse.

 

[p_p_man]

*applause for STG*


oh and btw ..... just how do you distinguish a Conservative handjob from any other type of handjob? I mean, what's the definition.

Did anyone else wonder about that one?? Or was it just me?

The Conservatives use their right hands, the Liberals their left, and the "Don't Knows" take a cold shower...

 

[JazzManJim]

I will make it simple enough for even a right winger to understand.

President Clinton (8 years) = The best economy in the history of America, budget surpluses, relative world peace, the only real scandal involved lying about a blow job after 6 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in biased right wing investigations.

President Bush (1 year) = One of the worst economic downturns in recent history, massive deficit spending, terrorism and dead americans, war brewing around the world, Enron scandal involving hundreds of millions of dollars stolen and the biggest banktruptcy in U.S. history without any money spent by the government on investigations or any democratic committees, obstruction of justice by the vice president and lying to cover up by the president even before any investigations have started.


Talk radio can't change the truth.

Christ I hate people, much less do their homework before they spout off.

First, the economy. Under the Clinton Administration, growth was good, but, compared to other periods of history, only so-so. The largest growth increase was 2.6 percent and that came in his fifth year. Look it up. There were at least four other periods of history where economic growth was better, and markedly so: During WW2, the decade just before the Great Depression, During Kennedy's Presidency, and during Reagan's Presidency. In fact, the 1980's averaged a 3.2 growth increase each year.

Second, the budget surpluses. All I'll say to that is take a look at how the short-term (5-10 year) loans were refinanced to floating rate loans, which jacked down the interest payments markedly, but left them open to whatever interest rate exists once they have to be refinanced. Dangerous stuff, but it flew.

Third, the world peace. I suppose we've forgotten Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia.

Fourth, scandals. Nice to have admitted the Lewinski affair, but you might have forgotten Whitewater, or the crimes which overturned the original Cabinet (Ron Brown, anyone? The Secretary of HUD? Hmmm????).

Fifth, the right wing investigations. Take a look at the Iran-Contra investigation closely. Check the price tag. The numbers might surprise you.

Fact is, there's never been a "clean Presidency". There never will. At least I'll wait until the President gets a couple years under his belt to judge his performance.

As for the economy, it is true that an administration can influence it, heavily. That influence, though, is rarely immediate. It usually takes at least a full fiscal year, and more like two, to take any effect, and the effects usually don't kick in fully until Year 3. Take, for instance, the first Bush's recession. What caused it? Well, economists now name the leading cause of that debacle to be Bush's raising of the Capital Gains Tax. Up to that point, one of the big driving forces in the economy was real estate - investing in and selling of. Increasing the CGT caused those investing in it to find other, safer places to put their money where they wouldn't be raped for taxes. As a result, the real estate market crashed hard, and the money flowing through the economy almost disappeared. No money flow, no money for everyone. Stores don't sell shit, employees get laid off, no one expands (thus no new buildings get built or equipment gets bought). Money gets sheltered in very safe places and does absolutely nothing. That's what a President can do to an economy. Economists who are honest about how things work admit freely that the best thing a government can do to an economy is to let the money flow as it will. That way it gets a small chunk of more dollars and more money makes its way to more people.

 

[Young Knave]

1. You didn't completely refute the point about the economy. If you're numbers are right, the Clinton economy was still considerably better than so-so, though admitadly not the "best in American history."

2. Regarding the budget surplus, I pretty much agree with you there. It is an illusion. It was achieved by the looting of the social security trust fund, and we young folks are going to have to pay for it when those baby boomers start retiring and they start clamoring for their government goodies. "conservatives" and liberals alike.

3. Can't argue with your points on world peace either. Though I think Clinton was right that we are going to have to be involved in the middle east whether we like it or not. Bush's "it's none of our beeswax" stance didn't last very long, did it?

4. and 5. The crimes of the Clinton administration strike me as being small potatoes compared to what Reagan/Bush I did. Not that what Clinton did was right or acceptable, but it wasn't exactly unusual for our politicians. I dare say most of congress was guilty of the same sort of stuff, democrats and republicans alike. I will give the GOP credit for having some major cahones, going after Clinton for pardons and shady business dealings and the like, considering most of them were vulnerable to the same accusations. Just look at the histories of Gingrich and Hyde for example.

Christ I hate people, much less do their homework before they spout off.

First, the economy. Under the Clinton Administration, growth was good, but, compared to other periods of history, only so-so. The largest growth increase was 2.6 percent and that came in his fifth year. Look it up. There were at least four other periods of history where economic growth was better, and markedly so: During WW2, the decade just before the Great Depression, During Kennedy's Presidency, and during Reagan's Presidency. In fact, the 1980's averaged a 3.2 growth increase each year.

Second, the budget surpluses. All I'll say to that is take a look at how the short-term (5-10 year) loans were refinanced to floating rate loans, which jacked down the interest payments markedly, but left them open to whatever interest rate exists once they have to be refinanced. Dangerous stuff, but it flew.

Third, the world peace. I suppose we've forgotten Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia.

Fourth, scandals. Nice to have admitted the Lewinski affair, but you might have forgotten Whitewater, or the crimes which overturned the original Cabinet (Ron Brown, anyone? The Secretary of HUD? Hmmm????).

Fifth, the right wing investigations. Take a look at the Iran-Contra investigation closely. Check the price tag. The numbers might surprise you.

Fact is, there's never been a "clean Presidency". There never will. At least I'll wait until the President gets a couple years under his belt to judge his performance.

As for the economy, it is true that an administration can influence it, heavily. That influence, though, is rarely immediate. It usually takes at least a full fiscal year, and more like two, to take any effect, and the effects usually don't kick in fully until Year 3. Take, for instance, the first Bush's recession. What caused it? Well, economists now name the leading cause of that debacle to be Bush's raising of the Capital Gains Tax. Up to that point, one of the big driving forces in the economy was real estate - investing in and selling of. Increasing the CGT caused those investing in it to find other, safer places to put their money where they wouldn't be raped for taxes. As a result, the real estate market crashed hard, and the money flowing through the economy almost disappeared. No money flow, no money for everyone. Stores don't sell shit, employees get laid off, no one expands (thus no new buildings get built or equipment gets bought). Money gets sheltered in very safe places and does absolutely nothing. That's what a President can do to an economy. Economists who are honest about how things work admit freely that the best thing a government can do to an economy is to let the money flow as it will. That way it gets a small chunk of more dollars and more money makes its way to more people.

 

[Cheyenne]

I will make it simple enough for even a right winger to understand.

President Clinton (8 years) = The best economy in the history of America, budget surpluses, relative world peace, the only real scandal involved lying about a blow job after 6 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in biased right wing investigations.

"The only real scandal?" LMAO! Don't get out much, do ya? You must have missed reading a few newspapers along the way.

Thanks for the laugh though, best one I've had this morning!

 

[JazzManJim]

1. You didn't completely refute the point about the economy. If you're numbers are right, the Clinton economy was still considerably better than so-so, though admitadly not the "best in American history."

You're right. All I really wanted to refute was the "Clinton economy was the very bestest economy ever!" pap that gets spewed. It wasn't entirely bad, then, but it was nowhere near what it could have been, given the upswing we were hitting 'round about 1991 or so. Hell, according to the numbers, the accursed Reagan out-economied Clinton, though it'd give them apoplexy to say so

2. Regarding the budget surplus, I pretty much agree with you there. It is an illusion. It was achieved by the looting of the social security trust fund, and we young folks are going to have to pay for it when those baby boomers start retiring and they start clamoring for their government goodies. "conservatives" and liberals alike.

And that's an illusion we still don't seem to be able to face. There is no "lockbox" for Social Security. There never was, from the very founding of the fund. That's the scary thing about the SocSec rhetoric, from both parties. The fact is that in about 15 years we're going to be up shit's creek with no paddles anywhere in sight because the fund is going to be insolvent. Period. No short-term bailout is going to help it. We won't be able to pay in enough to cover the payouts. Some of the numbers I recall hearing is that SocSec requires 10-12 paying for 1 paying out. When the Baby-Boomers hit, that number drops to 2 to 1.

Boom.

3. Can't argue with your points on world peace either. Though I think Clinton was right that we are going to have to be involved in the middle east whether we like it or not. Bush's "it's none of our beeswax" stance didn't last very long, did it?

I can't honestly bag on Bush for his stance at the beginning. The Middle East right now is a couple of kids very agry at each other, with us playing the role of Recess Monitor, making sure they don't fight. I'd be just as happy if they slugged it out right now. If Sharon wants to cap Arafat, I say "Fine". If Arafat wants to keep doing what he's spent 30 years doing, he deserves the Israeli tanks rolling over him. I believe that Bush thought that the peace that Clinton was supposed to have brokered before he left office would hold up. I suppose he believed that Arafat wouldn't be the lying bastard he's been for a very long time.

4. and 5. The crimes of the Clinton administration strike me as being small potatoes compared to what Reagan/Bush I did. Not that what Clinton did was right or acceptable, but it wasn't exactly unusual for our politicians. I dare say most of congress was guilty of the same sort of stuff, democrats and republicans alike. I will give the GOP credit for having some major cahones, going after Clinton for pardons and shady business dealings and the like, considering most of them were vulnerable to the same accusations. Just look at the histories of Gingrich and Hyde for example.

Well, having done a whole lot of reading as the scandals of the last 20 years have unfolded, I can say two things. First, the scandals of the Reagan/Bush era never materialized into any serious indictments (though I do recall one during Iran/Contra), nor do I recall seeing so many Cabinet members having to flee office while the law sniffed their backtrails so carefully.

Second, it's absolutely true that politicians are dirty. We've earned just that for our apathy, and our continued settling for that kind of behavior. Neither party can sling mud without it being slung back. The best they can do is to say "At least I'm not doing anything I could go to jail for", which is something stupid the Democrats have done lately. Why they've allowed such amazingly silly lapses of political sense is beyond me, but it's cost them and it'll continue to do so. The Republicans aren't far behind, but at least they're staying out of jail.


[/B][/QUOTE]