Clinton good, Bush bad

[mattp]

I am awaiting scathing response from KK, histrionics from Fairweather, and some long winded thing I cannot understand from JayB.

 

Greenspan gives Bill Clinton high marks.....gives Bush an "F ...

[No. 13 Baby]

Watch this space for the words "disgruntled former employee."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I am awaiting scathing response from KK, histrionics from Fairweather, and some long winded thing I cannot understand from JayB.

 

Greenspan gives Bill Clinton high marks.....gives Bush an "F ...

 

"arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint."

 

ummm, I think everyone you mention above has acknowledged this as fact. "fiscal constraint" and Bush are like oil and water

 

[StevenSeagal]

I am awaiting scathing response from KK, histrionics from Fairweather, and some long winded thing I cannot understand from JayB.

 

Greenspan gives Bill Clinton high marks.....gives Bush an "F ...

 

"arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint."

 

ummm, I think everyone you mention above has acknowledged this as fact. "fiscal constraint" and Bush are like oil and water

 

What it's matter how much he spends? He's keeping us safe isn't he? So which one are you, a commie or a terrorist?

 

By the way, you forgot to capitalize "Ummm", and there's no period at the end of your sentence. Not that I really noticed.

 

[Dechristo]

[mattp]

ummm, I think everyone you mention above has acknowledged this as fact.

 

Clinton good / Bush bad?

 

this thread is not about reliance on middle east oil. it's about reliance on oil period and the prediction that it will dry up.

 

In another thread, you complained that somebody's post did not reply to what you thought you were asking. Are you now thinking that "topics don't matter?"

[Adam13]

Dont you understand???? You're wrong, not matter what you say or how you word it, if you disagree with them you are either a communist or terrorist.

[mattp]

".... if you disagree with them you are either a communist or terrorist..." or maybe just an assclown?

[Adam13]

Was that supposed to be something personal, because i was being sarcastic. I agree with you

[billcoe]

"Clinton good, Bush bad"

 

Oh look, bears actually do shit in the woods!

 

Oh look, the sky is blue.

 

Oh look, backrubs feel good.

 

Oh look, the Pope is Catholic.

 

Oh look, the republicans are bankrupting our country for no apparent reason.

 

Oh look..................

[Adam13]

They are bunkrupting our nation so that they can make more money for themselves.

[ashw_justin]

Let's be fair now, 48% of us asked for it. (That is if you don't count non-voters.)

[underworld]

oh look, another cc.com stroke-each-other-athon...

[Fairweather]

Not too surprised he comes down hard on Bush. Even Republicans have accused GWB of spending like a "drunken sailor". I am surprised that he gives Clinton high marks. Maybe something worth reconsidering in that regard. But here's the deal: You cite Greenspan when it suits your political agenda - despite the fact that you claim to have none. Here is a quote from the same article summarizing the thrust of Greenspan's book. Let's see if you, Jim, Crux, still agree with Greenspan's genius:

 

"His theme is the unequaled power of free-market capitalism..."

 

I do.

[Fairweather]

Let's be fair now, 48% of us asked for it. (That is if you don't count non-voters.)

 

Like those who "registered" under ACORN?

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-13-2004/0002275937&EDATE

[ashw_justin]

However you explain it, election victories awarded based on margins far less than can be expected by error due to randomness (or "thousands" of fraudulent voters) can not be considered legitimate. A complete revote was probably appropriate. Or in that particular case, had they thought ahead, an instant-runoff elimination of minor candidates would have yielded a clear and statistically significant majority (assuming that 500,000 wasn't enough), and president-elect legitimately chosen by his people.

 

But anyway, a minority of the voting public can now conveniently distribute the burden of its poor decision among the rest of us. (I'm not saying that only one of the choices was poor, but at least we could have made our poor decision as decisive majority.)

[mattp]

Was that supposed to be something personal, because i was being sarcastic. I agree with you

 

I was referring to the fact that KK routinely calls people "assclowns" when he disagrees with them.

[mattp]

But here's the deal: You cite Greenspan when it suits your political agenda - despite the fact that you claim to have none.

 

Here is the deal: I am not "citing" Greenspan to suit a political agenda so much as to see how the personalities here at cc.com will respond. I made that point in my initial post, above. Second of all, when did I or anyone else around here claim not to have a political agenda? You are approaching histrionics here.

 

 

As to your quote that Greenspan's theme (for a significant part of the book) is the unequaled power of free-market capitalism, what response would you like? Clearly, you and I differ as to how much we say we believe the government should intervene in the free market, but in reality it may be more that we disagree as to what type of government intervention is needed to curb the problems that occur in a free market. If I'm not mistaken, you'd advocate for restrictions on liability exposure, for example, you've been in support of this war that Greenspan says is clearly all about oil, and i'm sure if I thought about it I could find other areas you support GREATER government involvment than I do.

[Adam13]

I realized that when i thought about it longer, my bad.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Was that supposed to be something personal, because i was being sarcastic. I agree with you

 

I was referring to the fact that KK routinely calls people "assclowns" when he disagrees with them.

 

I call people ask clowns when they deserve it.

 

There are plenty of people I disagree with upon whom I do not bestow this appellation.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

ummm, I think everyone you mention above has acknowledged this as fact.

 

Clinton good / Bush bad?

 

I have a more nuanced view. You know nuance? Isn't that what you leftists are supposed to be? The irony is unbelievable today.

 

[mattp]

The nuance in your opinions of Clinton has largely escaped me. Do you have any other comment on this summary of Greenspan's book?

[Fairweather]

However you explain it, election victories awarded based on margins far less than can be expected by error due to randomness (or "thousands" of fraudulent voters) can not be considered legitimate. A complete revote was probably appropriate. Or in that particular case, had they thought ahead, an instant-runoff elimination of minor candidates would have yielded a clear and statistically significant majority (assuming that 500,000 wasn't enough), and president-elect legitimately chosen by his people.

 

But anyway, a minority of the voting public can now conveniently distribute the burden of its poor decision among the rest of us. (I'm not saying that only one of the choices was poor, but at least we could have made our poor decision as decisive majority.)

 

Better stick to Sig Figs, Avogadro's, Dimensional Analysis, and Stoichiometry, Justin. Because, clearly, statistics are not your strong suit.

 

Addendum: Does your hypothesis above apply the the Washington State Gubernatorial Election of 2004 as well?

[ashw_justin]

I guess I just have to laugh that one off and assume that your ad hominemania is supposed to be a substitute for a lesson in statistics that you are unable to give.

 

And yes, it most certainly does apply to the WA state gubernatorial election. I think a lot of people were calling for a re-vote and that would have been the democratic thing to do, not to mention that it would decrease false positives and increase turnout.

[Fairweather]

Good answers all around. Unfortunately, neither the Washington State nor the United States Constitution allow it. Strange that none of the usual suspects here were upset enough to revisit the topic vis a vis Gregoire as endlessly as they do GWB 2000. Can you imagine what a campaign post-deadlock would look like? I think new lows would be established in short order. Edited September 17, 2007 by Fairweather