Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[healthmyths]

Those events NEVER occurred according to you and you call ME CRAZY?????

Now how do those events make George Bush a great president?

The dumb fuck (Bush) invaded a country that didn't attack us.

Show how stupid you are and defend that action. And I don't give a flying fuck how many dems voted for invasion. They were are as fucking stupid as the 100% of republicans who supported that awful idea.

Obama didn't vote to invade Iraq.

That alone makes him 100% smarter than ANY republican.

ARE you f...king CRAZY????

The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and ShiiteMuslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by U.S., British, and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization.[1][2]
In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 (NOTE CLINTON was president), Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Air strikes by British and American aircraft against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years. In the early 2000s (decade), the U.S. developed a contingency plan, Operation Desert Badger for dealing with pilots shot down over Iraqi no-fly zones Their records indicate that in the first seven months of 2001, there had been 370 provocations on the part of Iraq. In the seven months from October 2001 into May 2002, only 32 such provocations were recorded
Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course YOU like Obama didn't care that 144,000 children were starving per year in Iraq due to Saddam refusing to admit there were NO WMDs!
So if the leader of these children didn't care if children starved because he didn't want to admit he didn't have WMDs what would any logical person think?

So you and Obama have NO problem helping Saddam stay in power. You and Obama hated our troops so much you told the bad guys they were the good guys!

 

[Faun]

Those events NEVER occurred according to you and you call ME CRAZY?????

Now how do those events make George Bush a great president?

The dumb fuck (Bush) invaded a country that didn't attack us.

Show how stupid you are and defend that action. And I don't give a flying fuck how many dems voted for invasion. They were are as fucking stupid as the 100% of republicans who supported that awful idea.

Obama didn't vote to invade Iraq.

That alone makes him 100% smarter than ANY republican.

ARE you f...king CRAZY????

The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and ShiiteMuslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by U.S., British, and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization.[1][2]
In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 (NOTE CLINTON was president), Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Air strikes by British and American aircraft against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years. In the early 2000s (decade), the U.S. developed a contingency plan, Operation Desert Badger for dealing with pilots shot down over Iraqi no-fly zones Their records indicate that in the first seven months of 2001, there had been 370 provocations on the part of Iraq. In the seven months from October 2001 into May 2002, only 32 such provocations were recorded
Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course YOU like Obama didn't care that 144,000 children were starving per year in Iraq due to Saddam refusing to admit there were NO WMDs!
So if the leader of these children didn't care if children starved because he didn't want to admit he didn't have WMDs what would any logical person think?

So you and Obama have NO problem helping Saddam stay in power. You and Obama hated our troops so much you told the bad guys they were the good guys!

Kids were starving in Iraq sooo .... let's turn their country into killing fields.

 

[healthmyths]

Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.

Didn't you read your own link? It even says that...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

FACTS!
What President has the highest GDP increase?
Bush for 2 years
Then Clinton 5 years.

 

[Wilbur Right]

And of course YOU like Obama didn't care that 144,000 children were starving per year in Iraq due to Saddam refusing to admit there were NO WMDs!

I will type this slowly for you.

I do not give a fuck what Iraqis do to Iraqis.

If it's trading American lives to.save iraqi lives, you and your loved ones need to get your fucking hypocritical asses over to Iraq to save some kids lives. They are being killed at a rapid rate.

Get the fuck over there you care so much.

You understand now?

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?

LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!

How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.

You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!

Not at all. But I do see where it's difficult to deny a president's request to use the military not long after 9.11.

So what you're saying is that Democrats like Hillary Clinton took the easy way out instead of doing what was right...but that's the person you want to see sitting in the Oval Office?

Presidents sometimes have to do difficult things. It's the true measure of leadership. They shouldn't "lead from behind" and they shouldn't do things because it's easy!

Better her than Trump or Cruz.

Trump was against an invasion of Iraq. According to you on the left that should make him smarter than Hillary.

 

[Oldstyle]

And of course YOU like Obama didn't care that 144,000 children were starving per year in Iraq due to Saddam refusing to admit there were NO WMDs!

I will type this slowly for you.

I do not give a fuck what Iraqis do to Iraqis.

If it's trading American lives to.save iraqi lives, you and your loved ones need to get your fucking hypocritical asses over to Iraq to save some kids lives. They are being killed at a rapid rate.

Get the fuck over there you care so much.

You understand now?

Would you have "cared" what German Nazis were doing to German Jews? Would you have cared what German Nazis did to Poles? To Russians? Would you have only cared if German Nazis attacked the US? The reason you should care about what Iraqis do to Iraqis is that Saddam Hussein's ambition was to recreate an Iraqi empire throughout the Middle East. He started with an attack on Kuwait. Would you have not cared about that? When WOULD you have decided to care?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.

You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!

Not at all. But I do see where it's difficult to deny a president's request to use the military not long after 9.11.

So what you're saying is that Democrats like Hillary Clinton took the easy way out instead of doing what was right...but that's the person you want to see sitting in the Oval Office?

Presidents sometimes have to do difficult things. It's the true measure of leadership. They shouldn't "lead from behind" and they shouldn't do things because it's easy!

Better her than Trump or Cruz.

Trump was against an invasion of Iraq. According to you on the left that should make him smarter than Hillary.

I thought antagonizing three enemy countries with 'axis of evil' speech as unnecessary and I thought it split any support we had for fighting Al-queada. Like or not I think if we want cooperation from our allies we are going to have to comply with some of their demands. It is just the way it works in the world sometimes. I don't consider the UN a place to get that cooperation so don't bring up lack of UN support because that is not a real legitimate international organization. To be fair, Bush did get a lot of our allies to help us in Iraq but the opposition to the war was so great I think it made it difficult to achieve the goals in a timely manor.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

And of course YOU like Obama didn't care that 144,000 children were starving per year in Iraq due to Saddam refusing to admit there were NO WMDs!

I will type this slowly for you.

I do not give a fuck what Iraqis do to Iraqis.

If it's trading American lives to.save iraqi lives, you and your loved ones need to get your fucking hypocritical asses over to Iraq to save some kids lives. They are being killed at a rapid rate.

Get the fuck over there you care so much.

You understand now?

Would you have "cared" what German Nazis were doing to German Jews? Would you have cared what German Nazis did to Poles? To Russians? Would you have only cared if German Nazis attacked the US? The reason you should care about what Iraqis do to Iraqis is that Saddam Hussein's ambition was to recreate an Iraqi empire throughout the Middle East. He started with an attack on Kuwait. Would you have not cared about that? When WOULD you have decided to care?

Everyone cared what happens to these people but not everyone wants to fight a war over it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.

Didn't you read your own link? It even says that...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

On a percentage basis, Faun...how much of the Clinton economy was due to the Dot Com Boom?

The truth that you so stubbornly don't want to admit is that what Bill Clinton did back then had very little to do with the economy improving. His ass just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when it did and he was lucky enough to be in his last year in office before the Dot Com Bubble broke.

Tell me one thing that Hillary Clinton is proposing that will grow the economy! She has no economic strategy for growth. She totally relies on naive liberals like yourself that expect another Clinton in the White House will engender the same results we had when Slick Willie was there!

 

[Oldstyle]

You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!

Not at all. But I do see where it's difficult to deny a president's request to use the military not long after 9.11.

So what you're saying is that Democrats like Hillary Clinton took the easy way out instead of doing what was right...but that's the person you want to see sitting in the Oval Office?

Presidents sometimes have to do difficult things. It's the true measure of leadership. They shouldn't "lead from behind" and they shouldn't do things because it's easy!

Better her than Trump or Cruz.

Trump was against an invasion of Iraq. According to you on the left that should make him smarter than Hillary.

I thought antagonizing three enemy countries with 'axis of evil' speech as unnecessary and I thought it split any support we had for fighting Al-queada. Like or not I think if we want cooperation from our allies we are going to have to comply with some of their demands. It is just the way it works in the world sometimes. I don't consider the UN a place to get that cooperation so don't bring up lack of UN support because that is not a real legitimate international organization. To be fair, Bush did get a lot of our allies to help us in Iraq but the opposition to the war was so great I think it made it difficult to achieve the goals in a timely manor.

You thought that North Korea was going to support a fight against Islamic terror if W. didn't "antagonize" them? Really?

 

[Oldstyle]

And of course YOU like Obama didn't care that 144,000 children were starving per year in Iraq due to Saddam refusing to admit there were NO WMDs!

I will type this slowly for you.

I do not give a fuck what Iraqis do to Iraqis.

If it's trading American lives to.save iraqi lives, you and your loved ones need to get your fucking hypocritical asses over to Iraq to save some kids lives. They are being killed at a rapid rate.

Get the fuck over there you care so much.

You understand now?

Would you have "cared" what German Nazis were doing to German Jews? Would you have cared what German Nazis did to Poles? To Russians? Would you have only cared if German Nazis attacked the US? The reason you should care about what Iraqis do to Iraqis is that Saddam Hussein's ambition was to recreate an Iraqi empire throughout the Middle East. He started with an attack on Kuwait. Would you have not cared about that? When WOULD you have decided to care?

Everyone cared what happens to these people but not everyone wants to fight a war over it.

When someone's doing what Saddam Hussein was doing...fighting a small war can prevent having to fight a much larger one. I had no problem whatsoever with our going into Iraq to remove Saddam. My problem is that I don't think we had a clue what we were doing after he was removed. We totally gutted the existing power structure in Iraq basically removing anyone who was in the Baathist Party from positions of authority and also removing the entire Iraqi military command. Saddam Hussein and his sons were the problem in Iraq...they were the ones we should have removed and we should have done so without damaging anymore of the Iraqi power structure than was absolutely necessary.

 

[healthmyths]

And of course YOU like Obama didn't care that 144,000 children were starving per year in Iraq due to Saddam refusing to admit there were NO WMDs!

I will type this slowly for you.

I do not give a fuck what Iraqis do to Iraqis.

If it's trading American lives to.save iraqi lives, you and your loved ones need to get your fucking hypocritical asses over to Iraq to save some kids lives. They are being killed at a rapid rate.

Get the fuck over there you care so much.

You understand now?

Would you have "cared" what German Nazis were doing to German Jews? Would you have cared what German Nazis did to Poles? To Russians? Would you have only cared if German Nazis attacked the US? The reason you should care about what Iraqis do to Iraqis is that Saddam Hussein's ambition was to recreate an Iraqi empire throughout the Middle East. He started with an attack on Kuwait. Would you have not cared about that? When WOULD you have decided to care?

Everyone cared what happens to these people but not everyone wants to fight a war over it.

When someone's doing what Saddam Hussein was doing...fighting a small war can prevent having to fight a much larger one. I had no problem whatsoever with our going into Iraq to remove Saddam. My problem is that I don't think we had a clue what we were doing after he was removed. We totally gutted the existing power structure in Iraq basically removing anyone who was in the Baathist Party from positions of authority and also removing the entire Iraqi military command. Saddam Hussein and his sons were the problem in Iraq...they were the ones we should have removed and we should have done so without damaging anymore of the Iraqi power structure than was absolutely necessary.

You are right about the problem with Baathist etc. was a mistake no question.
The bigger problems were the following:
1) The MSM /Democrats putting unreal pressure on total removal of troops immediately. Why not one of us didn't bring to the Dems/MSM's attention that we
STILL have 150,000 troops in Asia/Europe 70 years after WWII! Good military planning states clearly you can't leave the enemy intact as we did for ISIS to
fill the vacuum. There was peace in Iraq for several years. People were prospering. But with NO help stationed troops as the SOFA stipulated and Obama didn't
uphold... ISIS came in.
2) The MSM/Democrats endorsing encouraging barbarians to use the following types of recruitment material to continue insurgency!
Here is proof that statements by Obama and others directly helped "embolden" the barbarians in Iraq...kill thousands of people by the barbarians!
These statements:
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Now I'm going to prove that the above statements were more of a recruiting tool of terrorists because these comments have been shown to increase violence!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
But very very few people including people like you seemed to ignore these traitorous comments!

These two issues totally allowed barbarians to kill Americans and when troops were removed the space was filled with I guess what people like you
seemed to encourage when the above idiots made these statements and NOT ONE MSM held their feet to the fire as it was totally wrong!
Since that time Obama now seems to recognize how destructive his statements were when he recently stated:
Obama: Let's Face It, These Republicans Are Practically ISIS Recruiters
Guy Benson | Nov 18, 2015 Obama: Let's Face It, These Republicans Are Practically ISIS Recruiters
This from the same guy that called our troops civilian killers!

 

[Faun]

Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.

Didn't you read your own link? It even says that...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

FACTS!
What President has the highest GDP increase?
Bush for 2 years
Then Clinton 5 years.

View attachment 70639

First and foremost, I'm glad to see you hold Duhbya responsible for the Great Recession.

Your tacit confession aside, you're an idiot for referencing nominal figures when you should be using real figures .... you moronically attributed 10 years to Clinton when he was president for 8 years ... and you're dumb enough to think you made a point by showing Obama coming in last with 2009 figures which were actually weighed down heavily by Bush's Great Recession.

Good job.

 

[Faun]

How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.

You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!

Not at all. But I do see where it's difficult to deny a president's request to use the military not long after 9.11.

So what you're saying is that Democrats like Hillary Clinton took the easy way out instead of doing what was right...but that's the person you want to see sitting in the Oval Office?

Presidents sometimes have to do difficult things. It's the true measure of leadership. They shouldn't "lead from behind" and they shouldn't do things because it's easy!

Better her than Trump or Cruz.

Trump was against an invasion of Iraq. According to you on the left that should make him smarter than Hillary.

No he wasn't. He says that now and you're gullible enough to believe him; but that's not what he said at the time...

Q: Are you for invading Iraq?

A: Yeah, I guess so.

@1:40

 

[Faun]

Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.

Didn't you read your own link? It even says that...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

On a percentage basis, Faun...how much of the Clinton economy was due to the Dot Com Boom?

The truth that you so stubbornly don't want to admit is that what Bill Clinton did back then had very little to do with the economy improving. His ass just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when it did and he was lucky enough to be in his last year in office before the Dot Com Bubble broke.

Tell me one thing that Hillary Clinton is proposing that will grow the economy! She has no economic strategy for growth. She totally relies on naive liberals like yourself that expect another Clinton in the White House will engender the same results we had when Slick Willie was there!

Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I said?

 

[Oldstyle]

When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.

Didn't you read your own link? It even says that...

​

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

On a percentage basis, Faun...how much of the Clinton economy was due to the Dot Com Boom?

The truth that you so stubbornly don't want to admit is that what Bill Clinton did back then had very little to do with the economy improving. His ass just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when it did and he was lucky enough to be in his last year in office before the Dot Com Bubble broke.

Tell me one thing that Hillary Clinton is proposing that will grow the economy! She has no economic strategy for growth. She totally relies on naive liberals like yourself that expect another Clinton in the White House will engender the same results we had when Slick Willie was there!

Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I said?

Why would I apologize for pointing out how you refuse to admit that Clinton's economic numbers had everything to do with the Dot Com Boom and absolutely nothing to do with his raising taxes?

 

[Oldstyle]

And I ask again...what plan of Hillary Clinton's have you heard to grow the economy?

You can't answer THAT any more than you could explain why Bill Clinton is now calling for a cut to corporate tax rates!

 

[Faun]

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

On a percentage basis, Faun...how much of the Clinton economy was due to the Dot Com Boom?

The truth that you so stubbornly don't want to admit is that what Bill Clinton did back then had very little to do with the economy improving. His ass just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when it did and he was lucky enough to be in his last year in office before the Dot Com Bubble broke.

Tell me one thing that Hillary Clinton is proposing that will grow the economy! She has no economic strategy for growth. She totally relies on naive liberals like yourself that expect another Clinton in the White House will engender the same results we had when Slick Willie was there!

Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I said?

Why would I apologize for pointing out how you refuse to admit that Clinton's economic numbers had everything to do with the Dot Com Boom and absolutely nothing to do with his raising taxes?

prove it...

 

[Political Junky]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

Never, they're very good at lying and rewriting history.

 

[healthmyths]

When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.

Didn't you read your own link? It even says that...

​

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

FACTS!
What President has the highest GDP increase?
Bush for 2 years
Then Clinton 5 years.

View attachment 70639

First and foremost, I'm glad to see you hold Duhbya responsible for the Great Recession.

Your tacit confession aside, you're an idiot for referencing nominal figures when you should be using real figures .... you moronically attributed 10 years to Clinton when he was president for 8 years ... and you're dumb enough to think you made a point by showing Obama coming in last with 2009 figures which were actually weighed down heavily by Bush's Great Recession.

Good job.

See I'm an honest person and unlike most people like YOU I can admit I made a mistake and thank you for catching it!
I'm the better person though because I can admit a mistake so...
You are right!
I counted 10 years for Clinton!
So here is the correct number.
George W. Bush had the 1st, 2nd and 8th highest growth in GDP of the top 10.
Clinton had 3,4,5,6,9,10th highest again after Bush.
Bush 41 had the 7th highest.
Plus according to other people the recession didn't start until Obama took office!

Whether I'm "dumb" enough is debatable.
There is no DEBATE that Obama as President in 2009 had a 2% loss in GDP.
The highest in the 69 years since the GDP measure was started in 1947.
That is a FACT!