Originally posted by CompassCall

No president (including Clinton) really controls the economy for good or bad; he can only sign what the Congress send him. The consumer controls the economy. The consumer (hence the economy) can be encouraged with tax cuts and low interest rates and discouraged with high taxes, high interest rates, political instability, and the negative liberal/socialist press.

Sure, when a Democrat presides over economic boom you say government has nothing to do with it. Yet when good economies happen when a Republican is in office, it’s because of good policies right? Name one single good thing Bush Jr did for the economy.

Bill Clinton did a lot of good things for the economy. Chiefly he balanced the budget and cut government spending way down. I worked for government programs at the time and remember many programs getting cut 90% or terminated all together. Clinton turned his party into a fiscal responsibility watchdog and fundamentally changed American politics.

Some of you may not remember but that was the cornerstone of the old GOP. The new Republican party is more big-government, military adventurist than its ever been. Little wonder some old timers defected.

The other thing Clinton did for the economy, he prevented the global economic meltdown of the 90’s from reaching American shores. Clinton’s team did a great job insulating US from the Asian crisis, was smart not to involve itself when Russia defaulted, and even smarter when it did bail out Mexico. Had Clinton taken the wrong course of action the US economy would have taken some serious hurt. For this the average citizen went largely unoticed.

The Repulicans would have you believe Clinton was the worest president ever because he lied about a *******. Gingrich won the Congress alright, he abused legislative authority and damaged the consitutional balance of the three branches to do it. Schwartzenegger was right about one thing, the Clinton impeachment was a Republican disgrace.

The only thing different from what the Chinese are doing and what European colonialists did is about 100 years of pacification.

I dare say within 50 years Tibetan independence would be as forgotten as the plight of Queen Liliuokalani.

There is absolutly no moral difference either case. If anything the Sinification of Tibet has been less bloody and culturally destructive than those before. Weak civilizations are doomed to be displaced. The process isn’t pretty, but few “great” nations are guiltless of that crime. It’s ironic the loudest supporters of Tibetan independence are those who live on misbegotten land themselves.

It’s so easy to rationalize.

Well what about Hawaii, California, Texas, all of Australia for that matter. None of these acquired territories have anymore legitimacy than the Chinese annex of Tibet, probably a lot less actually.

Nothing says evil like an Englishman eating eggs in a cup.

I think it’s the suppressed, measured and calculating mannerism that gives the threat it’s authenticity.

War, Plague, Famine, Death.

The end time is near.

What is it with old timers and Cadillacs? 😉

Seriously that is a very cool car (er Grand Tourer), to maintain emissions standards, it only uses half its cylinders like a v-8 for civilized cruising. When you need the 1000 horses the other half of the engine kicks in. Closest thing to the Batmobile.

RE: What is the most risque food you have ever eaten?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-02-03 AT 06:37 AM (GMT)]I have eaten dog. It’s got a hard to describe gamey flavor, not as bad as mutton, but with a coarser texture.