(For educational purposes only)

Bill Gave Us Peace and Prosperity

By Denis Hamill

www.nydailynews.com

Nine years ago, about one of four people I met in Brooklyn were either getting laid off from a job or were already out of work.

The biggest talk on everyone's mind in the saloons, diners, launderettes and unemployment offices of the city was work. If you grew up and lived in the working-class neighborhoods of the outer boroughs, you were usually defined by your work status.

Terms like "downsizing" were entering the American lexicon. Full-time jobs were being broken into two part-time jobs so employers wouldn't have to pay benefits. My first column for the Daily News in 1992 was about the subject of work, and what it meant to average New Yorkers.

"How ya doin'?" was the working class refrain. "Workin' or wha'?"

After 12 years of union-busting and voodoo Reaganomics, a lot of people were hurting. We were still reading George Bush's lips. But only those fortunate enough to have a j-o-b were paying those new taxes he swore we would never have to pay. The rest were signing for unemployment checks. Unemployment reached 7.4% and inflation was at 4.2%. The Dow Jones was as low as 2,470. Everywhere I went, people worried about work. And health insurance, rent, tuition and Christmas. Times were terrible. Unless you were a Texas oilman, like George Bush, life in America stunk.

That year, 1991, also was the year Bush did NOT win the Gulf War. I never thought we should have shed a single drop of American blood for oil, but Bush needed something to improve his approval ratings. And if the war was going to be about oil, it was at least close to his heart.

So Bush ordered up a live TV war.

Some 800,000 troops from 30 nations went after 545,000 entrenched Iraqis. And after 148 Americans were killed in battle, Kuwait was "liberated" when Iraq surrendered after 100 hours. But Bush decided not to let Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf go into Baghdad and finish the dirty job.

And so today, Saddam Hussein is still around, smirking, making an A-bomb for laughs. Hoping to use it as leverage against another oilman named George W. Bush, if we're silly enough to elect him.

That year, everybody watched the Gulf War on TV. It was all there was to do, since so many people were out of work, sitting on sofas in places like Bay Ridge and Ozone Park, tuned to CNN, waiting for the mailman to deliver the unemployment check. Which was mostly worthless in the high inflation economy.

At George Bush's side through all of this was a guy named Dick Cheney, his ultra-conservative oilman defense secretary, who this week was named by George W. Bush as his vice presidential running mate. Which was really Bush's father, with his hand up the back of Junior's shirt, saying "read my lips" all over again.

But, in 1991, after being distracted by that live reality-TV war, rooting for the home team, waving American flags, belching jingoistic anti-Arab slogans, and rallying around Bush for a half-hour, America soon went back to being out-of-work. And scrounging to make ends meet.

When the presidential election rolled around the next year, the slogan of the Democratic Party  from sea to polluted sea  was "It's the economy, stupid."

And a guy from Arkansas named Bill Clinton, whom most of us never heard of, was elected. A lot of those votes came from working-class people in places like Norwood, Red Hook and Elmhurst who were tired of signing their names on unemployment checks and praying that their kids wouldn't get sick at a time in their lives when they had no health coverage.

After four years of Clinton/Gore, the Dow went up to 6,500, unemployment dropped to 5.4% and inflation fell to 3.3%. Clinton was reelected. After eight years of Clinton/Gore, there was a very dumb scandal that didn't make anyone I know miss a day of work.

But the Dow is now over 10,000, unemployment is 4%, and inflation is 2.5%. Crime is also down nationwide in double digits.

And most importantly, no Americans are coming home in body bags to help boost anyone's approval ratings.

Many of the people who I met cashing unemployment checks nine years ago in Brooklyn, are now gainfully employed, new homeowners, bragging about their 401-K plans and playing the stock market.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush Jr. teams up with the same busted valise who helped us NOT win the Gulf War, another anti-choice, pro-gun Texas oilman, for a rerun of his father's vision of America. Their slogan might be "Read Our Lips  No More Jobs."

If Al Gore really wants to win all he needs is a simple slogan:

"Are you better off than you were eight years ago?"

Because, in places like the working-class neighborhoods of the outer boroughs, in this election, it's still the economy, stupid.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 31, 2000

Answers

just like the poor said when goldwater-ran..=vote for GOLDWATER-WASH YOUR BUTT-IN COLDWATER!!!--the repubs. are the rich-landowner,s-- keeping the GOLD -controlled!!as usual-blame everything on the poor!! oh well-the beat go"s -on.LIFE IN SATAN,S-TERRITORY!! sure glad this is temporary!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), August 01, 2000.

Cherri,

Never followed your political bent before. If this unfortunate drivel actually reflects what you think is real, well, you and Hawk need to get a room.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), August 01, 2000.

How did a whining bitch like me end up with a name like Carlos? Isn't that a man's name?

-- Carlos (always@on.the.rag), August 01, 2000.

Yes but he bombed Yugoslavia and continues the slaughter in Iraq (by upholding sanctions)

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), August 01, 2000.

Carlos, the article is by an author named Denis Hamil; used to write for the New York Daily News. Pulitzer Prize winner, if I'm not mistaken (or is that Pete Hamil? Not sure). (Yeah, the Daily News is a tabloid; but not as bad as the New York Post.)

Anyway, I was living in Brooklyn during those years. He's telling it pretty much as it was; including the sentiments that were going around at the time. Doesn't matter if you agree with the "drivel" or not; it is what is.....history. The "middle class" was almost non- existent in that area at that time ... you were either rich or you were poor (or rapidly approaching poor).

Frankly, I'm much better off than I was back then. Can't say for sure why; could just be a natural progression of events that may or may not have happened anyway. I was unemployed at that time; I was lucky to have found a string of temp jobs, some long-term (+/- six months). If I hadn't found the job I left last August, I was going to move to San Diego.....

Funny how things happen.

(Ever see the film, Sliding Doors? Wonderful story from two perspectives: if she makes the train, or if she misses the train. Rent it if you haven't seen it.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), August 01, 2000.

He's So Fine

-- Dixie Cups (we@luv.misogynists), August 01, 2000.

Clinton only cared about his cigars. It wasn't until we finally took over the congress that things started happening. After thirty years of Democratic do-nothing rule, we got the economy turned around.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 01, 2000.

>> It wasn't until we finally took over the congress that things started happening. After thirty years of Democratic do-nothing rule, we got the economy turned around. <<

I am curious, Maria. Exactly what sort of "things" started to happen in January, 1993 (when "we" took over the Congress) and how do you credit them with turning around the economy?

My own belief is that the two tax hikes, first under Bush and then under Clinton, finally got the runaway Reagan deficit back under control, giving Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board room to lower interest rates, which they did. This financed the next investment cycle in high tech. That's where most of the job growth has been coming from in the last decade.

Inflation has been down because so much of our manufacturing has been moved offshore, at rock-bottom wages, letting a goodly chunk of the Fortune 500 keep profits obscenely high without raising prices here.

Very little of that was done by Congress. The tax hikes were, but they weren't especially popular with Republicans. In fact, raising taxes was only made possible by Ross Perot hammering away on the subject of the national debt in 1992 and convincing the middle class that something had to be done.

Without Perot, the Democrats would have dithered and split over raising taxes. As it was, the Dems barely passed it and the R's get no credit at all in that department. The repubs still want to give away all the prospective "surplus" in tax breaks for the rich instead of paying down the national debt. And it is still a numbskull idea in my opinion.

Even though Ross Perot is a certifiable loony, we owe him a big thanks for making the 1992 election revolve around a real, serious, grown-up issue, as opposed to an empty excercise in PR and posturing. With some luck, Nader will have a similar effect this time around, using campaign finance as his centerpiece issue the way Perot used the debt.

If only Nader had a billion dollars to play with out of his own pocket...

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 01, 2000.

>> Exactly what sort of "things" started to happen in January, 1993 (when "we" took over the Congress) <<

Correction: January, 1995.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 01, 2000.

Nader doesn't have a chance to do the same thing that Perot did. Not even close. Even if he did have the money, he wouldn't get any attention. Perot, thank him for the country's turn around? Right. Where do you live Brian?

Yeah, after I hit the submit, I realize that there was a "we" in that sentence. Oh well, that's what happens when I type too fast.

I remember when Clinton first got into office (maybe three or four months), my cousin commented how things were so much better. What? Didn't argue at the time but really what was being felt across the country was an attitude. The economic changes were basically a result of the previous admin's policy taking affect. Clinton wasn't in office long enough to make any policy that could take affect that quickly (even if he did actually put any policies to work).

Newt, remember him, he had the "contract with America". It wasn't until Newt came around that we started seeing some true changes. Clinton latched on to Republican ideas as if they were his own. Go-with-the-flow Clinton didn't have a original thought except for where's the next piece of axx. Even his "war" was because he wanted Hillary back, not for any sense of foreign policy.

George S. (sorry can't spell it) left Clinton because of his turn coat policies, too conservative for George's too liberal style.

Perot did nothing except split the vote. His views were nothing new that prompted any action on the adminstration's part.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 01, 2000.

>> Nader doesn't have a chance to do the same thing that Perot did. Not even close. Even if he did have the money, he wouldn't get any attention. <<

By reading this I can see your opinion, but not what it is based on. However, since Nader hasn't got Perot's billion and change, it is a moot point, I guess.

>> Perot, thank him for the country's turn around? Right. <<

Close. You mistate my premise. Perot raised the issue and waved the bloody flag over deficits when both parties wanted to duck it. He managed on the strength of that one issue to get almost 20% of the vote. In the next Congress, that issue was addressed effectively, after almost 10 years of blathering and hand-wringing, but no effective action. I do thank him for that.

>> Where do you live Brian? <<

Oregon. Why?

>> I remember when Clinton first got into office (maybe three or four months), my cousin commented how things were so much better. What? Didn't argue at the time but really what was being felt across the country was an attitude. The economic changes were basically a result of the previous admin's policy taking affect. <<

And what Bush "policy" might those be? And how did it have this effect? Even a minimal explanation of cause and effect would be better than bald assertion.

ALso, I was under the impression that earlier in this thread you were crediting the Republican control of Congress for the positive news in the economy. When Bush was in office, the Democrats controlled Congress and (you also argued) they did nothing.

Now do you argue that they were implementing Bush's policies? I am mildly puzzled.

>> Newt, remember him, he had the "contract with America". It wasn't until Newt came around that we started seeing some true changes. <<

"True", as opposed to the changes your friend noticed a few months after Clinton took office? OK. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that Bush's policy turned the economy around when Clinton took office, but the only "true" changes occured after Newt "came around". I am guessing that you mean when he became Speaker of the House instead of Minority Leader, 1995.

Refresh my memory. Exactly what changes did Newt bring about and how did they lead to the economic strength we see today? No need to be elaborate. A paragraph or two outlining Newt's achievments and how they affected inflation and the unemployment rate will be plenty.

>> Clinton latched on to Republican ideas as if they were his own... <<

And so on.... Is any of this important? Or can we just skip ahead?

>> Perot did nothing except split the vote. His views were nothing new that prompted any action on the adminstration's part. <<

Well, in 1992, Clinton promised a "middle class tax cut" in just about every speech he made right up to November. On th other hand, Bush ran on his record (those "policies" you now credit with turning things around in 1993) and was soundly trounced.

While Perot's views may not have been new, they hadn't ever been put to a vote in such a clear way. So many people jumped off the major party's ships that you could see them bobbing like corks.

So, if Perot's substantial showing had no effect on Clinton, what happened to that tax cut he promised? Any explanation based on political reality will be happily accepted.

P.S. Any explanation that attempts to explain this glaring about-face as simply "Clinton being Clinton - a perfidous bastard" will be laughed at. Willy may be a perfidous bastard, but he doesn't lose many points when it comes to being shrewd. He whalloped Newt right out of town, Maria, right when the Republicans were impeaching him. That man is no slouch at politics.

He abandoned the tax cut for a good political reason. How do you explain it?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 01, 2000.

Brian I can see I pushed a couple of your buttons.

>> Nader doesn't have a chance to do the same thing that Perot did. Not even close. Even if he did have the money, he wouldn't get any attention. << By reading this I can see your opinion, but not what it is based on. However, since Nader hasn't got Perot's billion and change, it is a moot point, I guess.

Yes it's moot. But if you have some proof as to your to your stand please add it. "With some luck, Nader will have a similar effect this time around, using campaign finance as his centerpiece issue the way Perot used the debt." It seems wer're talking lots of what if's and you only have your opinion.

"You mistate my premise. " Sorry I don't. Perot didn't raise any bloody flag. He got 20% of the vote because people didn't want the other two. You are making more of this than need be. My opinion, Brian just as you're entitled to yours.

I asked where you lived because I thought you lived in Canada. No cutting meant here.

Sorry I don't have time right now to answer the rest of your rantings. Just a real quick comment. Get a grip. Policies don't see any results right away; it takes time. Sorry I have no proof, just observations. It's sorta like implementing development changes; it doesn't happen over night. If you have proof of the contradiction, please add it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 01, 2000.

>> Policies don't see any results right away; it takes time. <<

Yes. You are right. Very shrewd observation, that one.

But, in my opinion, the two spheres of government policy that really move an economy are fiscal policy and monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Board controls monetary policy. The Congress controls fiscal policy. George Bush didn't control either one. So he could not (in my opinion) have instituted much of any policy that did squat to turn around the economy in 1993.

(The Administrative branch does control foreign policy, if that is any consolation.)

As for Congress under the Republicans being responsible for the economic expansion, that brings me back to:

>> Policies don't see any results right away; it takes time. <<

So, let's just assume that in 1995 Newt put some kind of new fiscal policy into place that benefitted the economy. You still haven't said what this wonderful policy consisted of, but we'll pass over that detail and assume a wonderful new policy was put in place.

So, how long did it take (in your opinion) for this "new" fiscal policy of Newt Gringrich to show results? A year? Two years?

Let's be generous and say it took just one year. That would put the first results of this policy into 1996. Right? Of course, this expansion started before 1996.

So, why do you credit the expansion exclusively to the Republicans controlling Congress? ...Aside from the fact that you think Republicans are wonderful people who deserve credit for having wonderful policies.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 01, 2000.

Patricia--

I never saw "Sliding Doors" but I did see "Run, Lola, Run". Similar idea. It's interesting, even spooky, how our lives and world history are hugely affected by the smallest perturbations.

-- (lars@indy.net), August 01, 2000.

Maria--

A Republican woman? I have seen another woman on this forum (no names) refer to Republican women and Republican blacks as oxymorons.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 01, 2000.

Lars, I was wondering how long it would take you to recall that little tidbit :-)

I said they SHOULD be oxymorons. But that's JMO.

Are you secretly a curmudgeon? Not knowing your age, I would guess yes [g].

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), August 01, 2000.

Help here Patricia,

Splain please why you would say the terms "Republican women" & "Republican blacks", well, "SHOULD" be consider oxymoronic?

ps: Backhoe available here but doubt you'll need it.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), August 01, 2000.

Patricia--

My memory fails. I should file old posts, cross-referenced 8 ways like cpr does.

I can't even remember my age, but Bess Myerson thinks I am studly.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 02, 2000.

Carlos, it was a (pretty bad, it would seem) joke, but one that I wholeheartedly used to believe, and still do to a certain extent. Can you sit there and tell me with a straight face (?!) that the Republican Party -- in the past -- has ever represented anyone outside of White, Middle to Upper Class Men?

Didn't think so ;-)

Lars, if you saved and cross-referenced everything, you'd need a network (I used to do that a couple of years ago as part of my job, which is why I now cringe at the very thought.....what made it worse was that no one ever looked at my "library" and no one ever used the Intranet I set up to house and catalogue it...talk about *sigh*).
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), August 02, 2000.

Brian, I remember now, you're the tree-hugger who believes that our forests are depleting at astronomical rates, regardless of the fact that we seem to be surviving now. And according to the officials, we have too much forest, fueling our wild fires across the west.

But back to politics You seem to not want to give any credit to the Republicans in the current economic situation. You think it lies with the cigar smoking (er ah sucking) prez. I heard NPR (that picko commie joking, just joking) radio station support my view of "euphoria" when Clinton took office. They, as a matter of fact, gave three reasons the economy was looking good; one of them attributed to the former prez. I can't remember the numbers but they weighted each of these reasons on the size of their effect. At no time did they say it was because the esteemed President Clinton was doing such a wonderful job.

Let's see when Clinton got into office: he took back the pledge on gays (I knew that would never fly in the military); his health care went nowhere (thank God, it would have been the downfall of our country); and he (and the true president, his wife ) was responsible for confiscating FBI files, travel-gate, and a slue of other fiascos. Newt and the newly acquired Republican Congress began with balancing the budget. Pretty good considering that the thirty-year Democratic Congress couldn't do anything but spend. This was the beginning policy that started to turn around our economy. As I stated above, Clinton, as you so appropriately referred to him as the shrewd politician, jumped on the bandwagon. He began to look like a repub. So much so, George had enough. Poor George first he had to squash the scandals constantly cleaning up after the little affairs. Turning red coat was the last straw. George left him.

And Brian, I also believe that Greenspan had more to do with the economy than prez Clinton. So your evaluation of my opinion is not quite accurate. It would be more accurate to say that I believe that Clinton had nothing to do with our present state. Just about anyone but Clinton. Because you see, Clinton is a worthless piece of red neck crap, a sociopath liar.

Clinton ran Newt out of town? Give me a break. Brian, didn't you get the Y2K thing wrong also?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 02, 2000.

>> Clinton ran Newt out of town? Give me a break. <<

Oh, yes. Now I remember. After running for reelection and winning, Newt was suddenly overcome by a desire to give up his seat and the speakership a few weeks after the election, because he wanted to spend more time with his family and catch up on his reading.

Of course, there was the fact that Clinton spent tens of millions of dollars in tv ads, tying Dole to Newt in every one of them, so that he cleverly framed the 1996 election as a referendum on how voters felt about Newt. When Clinton won, it hurt Newt with his Republican troops in the House, but it didn't sweep Newt away.

Seems to me that Newt and Willy went toe to toe over the budget and "shutting the government down". Twice. Each one was on tv every night for weeks, crooning their own version of the story. The people backed Willy and Newt was hurt even worse with his troops, who expected victory and got a public whupping. Twice.

So, it turned out the Democrats mimicked Clinton and ran their entire strategy for the 1998 campaign as another referendum on Newt and the House barely missed reverting back to the Democrats. The House Republicans also noticed that Clinton, even in the middle of his impeachment over the Lewinsky scandal, had approval ratings that were triple what Newt's were and rising, the troops who survived the 1998 debacle tossed Newt overboard as more of a liability than an asset.

But that could just be me misremembering the story.

BTW, I see my tree-hugging offends you. Sorry. I will endeavor to just pat them affectionately on the rump whenever you are around.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 02, 2000.

HAHAHA Brian, no I'm not offended by your tree hugging. Make love to as many trees as you like; whatever floats your boat. Just a warning: trees can give you splinters.

So we moved on from economic policies to the scandals. I'm reminded of the interview Hillary gave on a morning talk show about how the "enemies" are doing this to Bill. She proved that she only saw what she wanted to see. She believed that Bill didn't have sex with that woman, Monica. Bill does have his legacy.

Bill knows how to make friends; he does it so well. And Republicans are not known for having this attribute. "Went to toe to toe" was a popularity contest, nothing about issues or policies. Polls don't tell the whole story; you should know that, Brian, from the Y2K polls. I never pay much attention to polls or popularity contests for that matter. I believe that it was extremely exhausting to deal with the Clintons (the most devious couple of low lifes ever in politics and referring back to the "forgiveness" thread, they will also find their karma) and Newt gave up; I can't blame him for that, George S did too. I thought that Newt would continue to speak up but alas I was wrong about that.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 02, 2000.

{Hushed silence}

Maria.... is.... wrong?

{Two years of antagonism erupt in hysterical laughterfest}

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 02, 2000.

Cherri you are in a world of your on! I do not support dem or rep because neither care about people who have lost their jobs. People who have been working for thirty years for on company and this company wenth to china and they are lost. Their unimploiment runs out they can't find jobs and they know longer count.

-- Et (bnevile@zebra.net), August 03, 2000.

Hey Lisa, I'm ready for my kiss.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2000.

Maria:

This is just my observation, so I hope you're not offended when I suggest that you're not ready for prime time in political discussions.

In almost every post you've made on this thread, your thoughts were limited to Clinton and cigars, Clinton not having an original thought beyond [something about axxes], Clinton just a redneck, credit ANYONE but HIM, etc. You are apparently unaware of all the sexual scandals that have followed Newt [and continue to follow Newt with him now divorcing his second wife to marry the woman with whom he's NOW having an affair.] Brian didn't mention any of Newt's scandals, yet your last post stated:

"So we moved on from economic policies to the scandals. I'm reminded of the interview Hillary gave on a morning talk show about how the "enemies" are doing this to Bill. She proved that she only saw what she wanted to see. She believed that Bill didn't have sex with that woman, Monica. Bill does have his legacy."

You must have missed all the jokes about Bill using the Newt excuse when he said that he didn't consider fellatio sex.

I don't think Hillary is the only one seeing only what she wants to see. In addition, I consider bringing opinions on the unfolding of Y2k and/or bringing environmental concerns into a political argument reflective of YOUR inability to discuss the issue at hand, which is/was how the economy is better 8 years later [not MONTHS later, as your relative example described.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Anita, please check your reading (scanning) capability. When you state, "your thoughts were limited to Clinton and cigars", then I can only assume you ignored most of my points. That's fine, it's your prerogative. To answer conclusively and succinctly (obviously you can't read too many words at once) the question as to if we're better off than eight years ago, I'd say no. Things didn't turn around eight years ago, when Clinton got into office. Things turned around within the last four years, only after Republicans took over Congress.

As to Newt's affairs, your point is?

By the way who made you the discussion goddess on how to respond on this forum? Are you now making the rules on debating on political threads or does this apply to all threads? I'm not allowed to give my opinion on politics and must present my discussions to your satisfaction. How pompous of you. Do you like trees, Anita?

And Anita I hope you don't take offense but you're not ready to go prime time on "women in the military" discussions. You never did address my point except to direct me to endless Internet articles forcing me to decipher your point. If you recall I just stopped responding on that thread, simply mystified by your lack of discussion prowess. However, I thought it best not to state my opinion.

Finally, your input is appreciated. And please don't misconstrue my response to you. I'm not offended by your critique; just amazed by the size of your ego.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2000.

Link

8/02/00 10:55 p.m. Shays Shocker Clinton Raped Broaddrick Twice.

By NR staff onnecticut Rep. Chris Shays said on a talk radio show Wednesday that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice.

Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators.

Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling:

"I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

And Shays voted against impeachment!

-- Dumb Broad (we@elected.sociopath), August 03, 2000.

Maria:

Anita, please check your reading (scanning) capability. When you state, "your thoughts were limited to Clinton and cigars", then I can only assume you ignored most of my points. That's fine, it's your prerogative. To answer conclusively and succinctly (obviously you can't read too many words at once) the question as to if we're better off than eight years ago, I'd say no. Things didn't turn around eight years ago, when Clinton got into office. Things turned around within the last four years, only after Republicans took over Congress.

I didn't ignore your points, but your prejudices were openly offered regarding your hatred of Clinton, and each post reiterated this hatred. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't hate Clinton, but suggesting that your hatred of the man shouldn't interfere with your objectivity regarding what was accomplished during the Clinton administration. Since cause and effect is difficult to pinpoint [as we're discussing on Stephen's forum], I cannot [and have not] said with certainly that what happened was due to Clinton or due to the Republican Congress. As to Newt's affairs, your point is?

My point is that he was/is the KING of blow-jobs and coined the "it isn't sex if" excuse. He was/is also the KING of extramarital affairs, yet your posts only reference Clinton as a guilty party. My point is that Brian didn't bring up anything about Newt in the sexual arena, but that you made several references to those of Clinton and then went on to suggest that the topic had changed from economics to scandal. By the way who made you the discussion goddess on how to respond on this forum? Are you now making the rules on debating on political threads or does this apply to all threads? I'm not allowed to give my opinion on politics and must present my discussions to your satisfaction. How pompous of you. Do you like trees, Anita?

Yes...I DO like trees, although I don't consider them possible sexual partners. And Anita I hope you don't take offense but you're not ready to go prime time on "women in the military" discussions. You never did address my point except to direct me to endless Internet articles forcing me to decipher your point. If you recall I just stopped responding on that thread, simply mystified by your lack of discussion prowess. However, I thought it best not to state my opinion.

Again, Maria, you're looking at my offering on another topic and suggesting that because my opinion differed from yours on that topic, I'm proven to be wrong in every area. I certainly understand that both you and Cherri began your careers in the military many years ago. Neither of you have experienced combat with the current generation of young people. Perhaps both of you have experienced discrimination due to folks who used their own subjective experiences to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed in the fields of men." Yesterday's woman is/was NOT the same as today's woman. MY point was that yesterday's MAN is NOT the same as today's man. Since I've not had experience in the military, I linked to threads written by women recently in the military. Finally, your input is appreciated. And please don't misconstrue my response to you. I'm not offended by your critique; just amazed by the size of your ego.

My lack of ego is perhaps only exceeded by my lack of emotion on many topics that drive others to see only the side they've chosen to see. I DO speak openly with my opinions on what I see, but I TRY to form my side of each debate with points and links as backup.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Anita, "...because my opinion differed from yours on that topic, I'm proven to be wrong in every area". When and where did I say this? How did I even imply that your difference in opinion made you wrong. You have no experience in the military so you don't know first hand anything about. But that doesn't prove you are wrong just that you are not willing to accept an opinion from someone who does have experience with that topic. Again I think your ego and your willingness to "read up" on the topic made you believe that you didn't need to "hear" the other side of it.

You never addressed the fact that women and men in stressed situations don't work. Yes you continued to talk about how women are as good as men, how women have changed.

Anita wrote, "Neither of you have experienced combat with the current generation of young people." And neither have you... So, your opinion counts more than our opinions. What does this have to do with it? I see the following statement clarifies that the current generation is somehow different. Well, not really... Women haven't changed that much in 10,000 years. We're still (for the most part) attracted to men. 10,000 years will not change the basic attraction between the sexes.

"Perhaps both of you have experienced discrimination due to folks who used their own subjective experiences to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed in the fields of men."" Please don't assume my experiences included discrimination; they didn't. Quite the opposite, I was treated exactly as any other in the military, no discrimination whatsoever. Promotions and rankings based on accomplishments, not sex. My opinions don't come from other people saying that "Women shouldn't be allowed in the fields of men." Please Anita, give me more credit than that. If you haven't concluded much from my postings, please see that I do have a mind of my own.

Back to Clinton... Absolutely I can't hide my hatred for the man and his wife. (I guess calling them low lifes was your clue. Glad to see you picked up on it.) But that's my point. His administration did nothing. His legacy is how he change the meaning of the statement "Have a cigar".

The beginning states Clinton's responsible for peace. So that's why he sent troops overseas? For the peace, geez and I thought it was because he wanted to get back into Hillary's good graces. Look Anita, Of course we can't say with certainty; it's all about opinions. And I can see you are full of them.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2000.

"Brian, I remember now, you're the tree-hugger who believes that our forests are depleting at astronomical rates, regardless of the fact that we seem to be surviving now. And according to the officials, we have too much forest, fueling our wild fires across the west."

"Clinton ran Newt out of town? Give me a break. Brian, didn't you get the Y2K thing wrong also?"

"Do you like trees, Anita?"

"And Anita I hope you don't take offense but you're not ready to go prime time on "women in the military"

"Anita, "...because my opinion differed from yours on that topic, I'm proven to be wrong in every area". When and where did I say this? How did I even imply that your difference in opinion made you wrong."

Maria, I offer the above as implications that you feel that anyone that disagrees with your opinions on ONE subject is wrong if they disagree with you on OTHER subjects.

"The beginning states Clinton's responsible for peace. So that's why he sent troops overseas? For the peace, geez and I thought it was because he wanted to get back into Hillary's good graces. Look Anita, Of course we can't say with certainty; it's all about opinions. And I can see you are full of them. "

Did we watch our troops come home in body-bags?

Yes, indeed I have opinions. You do as well. I've never suggested that mine were better than yours. I've simply suggested that you haven't explored politics enough to state an unbiased opinion. [THAT's an opinion, too.]

I'm no fan of Clinton, but your biases are hanging out like a shirt- tail at a formal dinner.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Proven wrong in every area? My my aren't we testy. So what if I bring up some out of topic areas! Oh I forgot I broke one of your "how to discuss" rules. So sorry.

And you still haven't addressed "women in combat" but hey that's your prerogative. You truly are a pompous ass. I thought it when you stated you wouldn't vote for Bush because you could out-debate him, now I know it. What an ego and now I see it for what it really is. Oh wait do I need to define the word is?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2000.

Oh and Anita you really need to lighten up. So serious debating, "let me research the internet to find articles to support my view, but of course I don't get excited as others do, I can see both sides of the debate."

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2000.

Maria:

I think we've both expressed our opinions enough to this audience. I won't bother to engage you again. I found myself in a discussion not so long ago regarding how some of us could agree on the unfolding of Y2k yet disagree vehemently on other things in life after the CDC. IMO, there never was a correlation between consistencies on the one versus the other.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Anita, it might help to do some creative visualization when engaging Maria in debate. Imagine she is your youngest aunt sitting in an overstuffed chair, with a basket of yarn next to it, knitting away at an afghan. From time to time she looks at you over the tops of her eyeglasses and delivers her political or other opinions. You wait until she finishes before you answer.

Sometimes she gets involved with the talk and drops a stitch. Sometimes she gets involved with the afghan and drops the thread. It all makes the same amount of difference in the end.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 03, 2000.

BWAWAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

.....I don't mean to be overbearing or anything, but this political discussion has got to be one of the most rooted in naivete that I have had the pleasure of seeing!

.....The fed is responsible for the economy; not the administration, not the congress or anyone else. The money spigots are opened and closed at the whim of the international bankers; same with the expansion and contraction of credit. But that's okay, you just keep believing in fairy tales the way the polytick folks want you to, and we'll never get this ship righted.

.....I now see why you don't discuss politics very often, Anita; (G), but I'll leave you ladies to further this fictionalized debate, and I'm including you, as well, Brian... (are you sure it isn't Brianna)?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), August 03, 2000.

>> The fed is responsible for the economy; not the administration, not the congress or anyone else. The money spigots are opened and closed at the whim of the international bankers... <<

Okey-dokey, Patrick. We can't all be sophisticates like you.

I can see your point. One morning an international banker just gets a whim (your word, not mine) to close a "money spigot", and sure enough, there she closes with a deft twist of the wrist. On. Off.

What a clean concept! What a beautiful theory!

No need for any messy reasons for anything to happen in the economy. It's all based on a whim (your word, not mine). We are just the playthings of the gods (read: international bankers). They kill or spare us on a whim. I am really impressed!

>> But that's okay, you just keep believing in fairy tales the way the polytick folks want you to, and we'll never get this ship righted. <<

Oh, but now I want to stop believing in fairy tales! It seems so... unbecoming, somehow. And you seem like just the person to dish out the straight scoop. Like f'rinstance, what we have to do to get the "ship righted". Yeah! That's a good start!

So, tell me what to do. [Whines and wriggles like an eager puppy.] I want to know! Tell me what to do! Tell me what to do! Tell me what to do! Tell me what to do! Tell me what to do!

I insist!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 03, 2000.

Brian:

"It all makes the same amount of difference in the end."

If nothing else, I understand what you said here, and that's one of the reasons why I reserve my emotions for real life. IMO, Maria felt some sortof allegiance existed between us because we were both pollies prior to Y2k's unfolding and she chose not to express herself completely regarding my opinions on the appropriate threads at the appropriate time. Again, IMO, it all kinda grew and festered until she felt I'd attacked her in this thread and it all came out.

I'm pleased that you brought up visualization, however. I've found it to be a great healer. When my son had a mole removed from his leg, I asked the doctor if my son and I would be allowed to talk during the "operation", or whether the only conversation would be hers. She agreed to allow my son and I converse, and we went off to the rain forest [both speaking aloud], with only one slight interjection by the doctor's assistant who said, "I THINK you're talking hippopotamus there." When the surgery was done, the surgeon gently suggested that we return "home." Upon her return she said, "I've never encountered such a relaxed patient. What do you call that?" I said, "Visualization." My son then looked at his leg [which was already bandaided] and asked, "Can I look at it?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Brianna...

.....Since this is the unc forum, I trust my one-time lapse against my language policy will be forgiven; but you could begin by taking your mockingly condescending tone and childlike foolish antics and shove them up your ass; that is, once you get your head out of the way.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), August 03, 2000.

Patrick:

I'm sure you feel better now that you've had your outbursts. You have no need to worry about being a one-time or XX-time offender on this forum. Posts are preserved here, and everyone/anyone can look at the posts and make their own decisions on the rational of the poster.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

I hate it when that happens. Patrick, please throw an 'e' at the end of rational if you'd like my last post to make more sense.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Okay, Anita...

....."e"

.....That was completely out of character for me; but folks can search high and low, and the only cussword they'll find is that one above... I believe...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), August 03, 2000.

So that's why he sent troops overseas? For the peace, geez and I thought it was because he wanted to get back into Hillary's good graces.

You mean there weren't those hundreds (thousands) of bodies in mass graves over in Cosivo? Or that Clinton was responsible in some way for the atrosities that were occuring, or that he UN was going out of their way to help him get back in Hillary's good graces.

When people are fanatic in their belief's they tend to be blind to anything that would show them otherwise, kinda like some people were in Y2K.

Newt had run his campaign on "Family values". It was about the only thing he could use against his opponent, a woman, saying she was breaking up her family by trying to go to DC. The first thing he did was dump his sick wife after he won the election, while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. Also the fact that he had been caught getting a blow job in a car by an aid and his own daughters. If the repub's were not aware of this fact, they soon became aware of it and others after "someone" provided this information to over half of them.

He had gotten through his innappropriate campaign practices, but with everyone screaming about Clinton and Monica, his own transgressions were a BIG liability that could not be explained away with any justification by his own party. Clinton didn't have to do anything to him, he did it all to himself.

Don't assume my party beliefs because of what I post. But I believe in intellectual honesty and will not "pretend" that what is "put on" is real.

Those people in Washington are supposed to represent us, they are more concerned about getting to where they are than what we, the people want.

The Repub convention was so overwhelmingly phoney and manipulated that it was an insult to the American people.

The repub's know that if they used Newt's tactics of attacking the other party blatently and openly that the people who were discusted over their behavior from the last two elections and of the public airing the monica situation would be reminded and would attack them for this behavior. They have cleverly kept the loudest critics of Clintons behavior out of the convention

Sex in politics is not new, why does Clinton's situation with Monica negate every other action he has performed while in the white house? Yes, I was sick of hearing about it too, and especially mad because my children were forced to hear about it, but place the blame for that where it belongs, on those who manipulated the situation so that it was aired so publicly and for so long. Why is it you had not heard of Newt doing worse? Because it was made a political issue to have it aired for over a year.

As for the Republican convention, don't pretend that every step has been planned, every non white, every physically handicapped and every female wasn't stratigly placed this past week. Bush gets off a plane and stopps by his limo to talk animatedly to two non-whites before he gets in the car, his 14 year old nephew's mention of "bringing respect back to the office of the presidency" was so obviously rehearsed, (Same exact words repeated by many others) there had to have been a group of statements that were decided on that were to be used by people to make sure they were heard by the largest audience possible.

The entire convention is a joke and backfired because minorities, disabled and parents of small children are outraged over the difference between what Bush has done in Texas and the "show" he is putting on. It was an insult to the intellegence of everyone, and showed he considers members of the groups he showcased as stupid enough to fall for this farce.

It was not a republican convention, it was a well planned and choriagraphed George W Bush show.

If you fall for everything either party had done or said hook line and sinker, I can only feel as sorry for you as I did for those who fell for TEOTWAWKI the same way.

Guess we just have to wait to see what goes on in the Democratic primary.

Bringing up how Anita believes about women in combat has nothing to do with politics, she believes with the information she has or can gain. Not been in the military, I feel she cannot understand to the degree that we do and accept her right to believe as she chooses and do not consider it a fault on her part.

I choose to disagree with others without resenting them as people for it.

It is not up to me to tell you what to do.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 03, 2000.

>> you could begin by taking your mockingly condescending tone and childlike foolish antics and shove them up your ass <<

Damn, Patrick! And here I was, all ready to join the cognescenti of international banking! My bad luck! And my ass is tingling, too. Is this normal?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 03, 2000.

Brianna...

.....My guess is that you were always the class clown. How simple does one have to be to not understand the correlation between money and power? Hard to imagine; but if you only wish to be a cut-up, then you'll be destined to blindly falling in line with tree-huugers, and the politically naive to the point that all you have to offer is the useless drivel that has so customarily appeared above your name. Do you really consider yourself intelligent, or are you quite aware that it's only your "front"?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), August 04, 2000.

>> How simple does one have to be to not understand the correlation between money and power? <<

But, Paaa-trick! [He whines.] I doooo understand the correlation between money and power. Really. I do.

What I don't understand about what you came shlepping into this thread to chastise me about, and tut-tut at Anita and Maria over (not to mention striking a damned arrogant pose while doing so) is this:

1) How you came to lame conclusion that the Congress has no responsibility for the economy, when they control how a budget of over 1.5 trillion dollars is spent. And they write the tax laws. And they ratify the President's choices for all sitting members of the Federal Reserve Board. And more.

2) How it came about that "the fed is responsible for the economy", but at the same time "the international bankers" appear to be pulling all the strings in your stupid little scenario? How can both be true? And how does it happen. Name names. I dare you.

2) Why you think my name is "Brianna".

So please, explain all these to my "naive" self and all us other "naive" participants in this thread, because so far you haven't said one god damn thing worth blowing out my nose.

If you do make a credible accounting of your opinions and their basis, then I promise to stop clowning around with you and come to grips with your arguments like a thinking person. Otherwise, why the bleeping hell should I bother?

If you don't explain yourself and just lob some more ad hominems around and pretend you are just too cool to be bothered, then as far as I am concerned you can just shut your cake hole, Patty, because you are a smirking, ignorant bastard and a comb-over excuse for the patriot you pretend to imitate.

So put up or shut up, "Patrick Henry", you poor excuse for a decorative plant. Your choice.

[Ooops! Have I... gone too far?] [Ominous soap opera music fades out. Roll credits.]

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 04, 2000.

mutters darkly to himself... stupid tags. Oughta be a law.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 04, 2000.

"But, Paaa-trick! [He whines.] I doooo understand the correlation between money and power. Really. I do."

.....Then what is you problem, running out of clown material?

"What I don't understand about what you came shlepping into this thread to chastise me about, and tut-tut at Anita and Maria over (not to mention striking a damned arrogant pose while doing so) is this:

1) How you came to lame conclusion that the Congress has no responsibility for the economy, when they control how a budget of over 1.5 trillion dollars is spent. And they write the tax laws. And they ratify the President's choices for all sitting members of the Federal Reserve Board. And more."

.....Read above, Brianna; I said the fed controlled the money spigots, which is to say the expansion and contraction of the money supply, as well as the expansion and contraction of available credit. A child could understand this, Brianna, why do you think you have such difficulty?

"2) How it came about that "the fed is responsible for the economy", but at the same time "the international bankers" appear to be pulling all the strings in your stupid little scenario? How can both be true? And how does it happen. Name names. I dare you."

.....The "fed" is privately owned by said bankers, and it matters not one wit what a purchased and therefore compromised congressman does or doesn't do. Stupid little scenario? You've been victim of it your entire life, Brianna; that you aren't learned enough to know these things is your problem, not mine, but if you choose to "shoot the messenger" as it were, be my unlearned guest. You want names? These are well hidden from public view, and I understand completely why you haven't found the information; they hide these facts in books! Do some homework for yourself; the names are hiding in plain sight...

"2) Why you think my name is "Brianna"."

.....I just can't believe that you're really a man; you certainly show enough signs of emasculation; perhaps your glands are just producing too much estrogen, sweetie.

"So please, explain all these to my "naive" self and all us other "naive" participants in this thread, because so far you haven't said one god damn thing worth blowing out my nose."

.....As if you, with your towering intellect would recognize such when you see it; I could explain it fully, in irrefutable terms, but it would be lost on you, Brianna... The only way you'll learn anything is to do the legwork yourself, but I really don't expect that to happen... you shun such exercises in favor of running around with your puffed up rhetoric, and ridiculing demeanor, expecting that to remove the burden of true knowledge from your obviously overly narrow shoulders. That's fine by me, remain shrouded in ignorance; but don't come on board spouting your hogwash expecting me to educate you. Get off your seat and try the library, oh he-of-the-Bozo- pursuasion.

"If you do make a credible accounting of your opinions and their basis, then I promise to stop clowning around with you and come to grips with your arguments like a thinking person. Otherwise, why the bleeping hell should I bother?"

.....Your first error was to assume this was mere opinion when presented with fact; that you don't recognize one when you spot one is predictable of someone that is "like a thinking person" as opposed to actually being one.

"If you don't explain yourself and just lob some more ad hominems around and pretend you are just too cool to be bothered, then as far as I am concerned you can just shut your cake hole, Patty, because you are a smirking, ignorant bastard and a comb-over excuse for the patriot you pretend to imitate."

.....This one is actually kinda funny, Brianna; there were no ad homs lobbed; I just think you learned some new words on the net, and just can't stop using them. I don't "pretend" anything, lady, my name is my name by birthright.

"So put up or shut up, "Patrick Henry", you poor excuse for a decorative plant. Your choice."

.....This is beneath a response...

"[Ooops! Have I... gone too far?] [Ominous soap opera music fades out. Roll credits.]"

.....Likewise...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), August 04, 2000.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

Patrick,
I am baffled as to why you refrain from citing evidence to support your position, and how you could be shocked by the provocative effect of telling people that they're naive and they should do their own research.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), August 04, 2000.

"and how you could be shocked by the provocative effect of telling people that they're naive and they should do their own research."

.....Therein lies the problem, David; this information is readily available to anyone that goes looking for it, (think financial forms for the fed; think government agencies in the "white pages" and why the fed isn't listed under US Government). Why should I do Brianna's research? If he's too lazy to do so, let him remain ignorant...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), August 04, 2000.

Why should I do Brianna's research?

Because it would prove your point.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 04, 2000.

Patrick,
The number of non-mainstream (though not necessarily invalid) opinions voiced on this forum is much too large for anyone to personally investigate all of them. I don't think it unreasonable to want some assurance that one won't be pursuing a wild goose.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), August 05, 2000.

Cherri wrote, "Bringing up how Anita believes about women in combat has nothing to do with politics, she believes with the information she has or can gain."

That's true, it has nothing to do with politics but it has to do with her comment that I'm not ready for prime time debate. It's that people in glass houses thing.

Cherri wrote, "Not been in the military, I feel she cannot understand to the degree that we do and accept her right to believe as she chooses and do not consider it a fault on her part. "

But that's the point. She thinks that she debates with clarity and objectivity. That because I have been in the military, I can't be objective that women belong in combat, with the statement "Perhaps both of you have experienced discrimination due to folks who used their own subjective experiences to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed in the fields of men." With this statement she implies that my view and objectivity has been clouded by my experiences. But of course, hers are not clouded, she sees both sides of the issue.

Is that illogical or what? We all have our opinions that are shaped by our experiences. We "debate" based on our opinions, of what we've read and done. If someone points to an article, the next person with an opposing view can rip into it. Does that form the basis for debate, no. It's all about opinions. If anyone thinks they are debating on this forum, they are welcome to their illusions.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 05, 2000.