Here Gore Goes Again
- Thread starter yakky doodle
- Start date
Delilah903
New Member
Which compassionate Middle Eastern Leader was it that just recently purchased a large amount of antitoxin to chemical contaminants? Of course, he only purchased enough to cover his military personnel. I guess the inhabitants of his country are just going to have to fend for themselves!
Based on what is going on in the world, does anyone else out there think we may be living in the End Times??
End times
I remember reading stuff recently about this. I think even Reagan believed Armageddon was near, and others think that if there is going to be an Armageddon, we might as well try to bring it on while we are in a position of power. I don't remember where I saw this, but I'm pretty sure it was not any mainstream source.
Nevertheless, I think it would be bizarre to try to arrange events to fulfill a prophecy. Of course, we have a precedent. The scene of Jesus riding into Bethlehem on a donkey seems to have been arranged to match a prophecy.
For my part, I worry more about the polarization of our society. It seems to be getting harder to find middle ground on a lot of issues. I have the beginnings of a theory about this. Perhaps a new thread is in order. "Politics As Religion".
I remember reading stuff recently about this. I think even Reagan believed Armageddon was near, and others think that if there is going to be an Armageddon, we might as well try to bring it on while we are in a position of power. I don't remember where I saw this, but I'm pretty sure it was not any mainstream source.
Nevertheless, I think it would be bizarre to try to arrange events to fulfill a prophecy. Of course, we have a precedent. The scene of Jesus riding into Bethlehem on a donkey seems to have been arranged to match a prophecy.
For my part, I worry more about the polarization of our society. It seems to be getting harder to find middle ground on a lot of issues. I have the beginnings of a theory about this. Perhaps a new thread is in order. "Politics As Religion".
They've been saying this since John wrote Revelation.
Ya think?
Do it - meet you there!
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Re: End times
Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, allegedly said that there was no point in saving the National Forests for future generations, because "we don't know how many generations there will be before the coming of the Lord, anyway."
Anyway, you're right about politics as religion. I've been writing all year that political extemists view their causes as holy wars.
Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, allegedly said that there was no point in saving the National Forests for future generations, because "we don't know how many generations there will be before the coming of the Lord, anyway."
Anyway, you're right about politics as religion. I've been writing all year that political extemists view their causes as holy wars.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
dems4 and krebs..
You know, you two can go round and round forever about Iraq right up until you are willing to face the truth: The world faces the current concerns and doubts about Hussein and Iraq because of the failure of one man to do his job; Bill Clinton.
Fact: In 1990, over 80 nations signed on to kick Iraq out of Kuwait including Russia, France and just about ALL his, Hussein’s, Arab neighbors. Neither Bush I or II nor Reagan nor Newt Gingritch nor Bob Ehrlich or any other GOP boogie man you may fancy today invaded Kuwait.
Part of the deal that was agreed on by ALL was that the goal was to kick him out. Not go to Baghdad. Not specifically kill him. Not regime change. Just, and simply, kick him out of Kuwait. The job was done, spectacularly, thoroughly and justly.
Neither of you (could I be wrong?) nor your party (except Gore and a handful of others) supported even that step back then UNTIL the bullets stopped flying so it is nothing short of laughable that anyone on your side even discusses "not doing the job right the first time". Ha.
Now, the US, having done the will of the world, along with all those many allies, Iraq then AGREED to specific actions including regular and unfettered inspections in regards to eliminating certain weapons, the famous ABC's.
Clinton didn't do the job. He let it go. This is self-evident. It is where we are. He is responsible for any coming Iraqi deaths. He is responsible for any coming US deaths. He is responsible for 9/11.
His abdication of leadership in making it clear to Iraq that they must do as they agreed, not just to US but to the WORLD, and in making it clear to terrorists after the first World Trade Center attack that we will do all we can to protect our citizens is the single and whole reason we face the troubles of today.
He makes Iraq hold up their end of the deal, no problem today.
He starts a worldwide manhunt for terrorists involved in the first World Trade Center attack and the US Embassies and the USS Cole, then the second World Trade Center attack and the taking of three thousand innocent peoples lives doesn't happen. We have no department of homeland security. We have no devastating impact on the world economy. Hell, we might even have a President Gore for real instead of the fantasy so many seem to believe in.
Don't take my word for it. It's all history. It's all fact.
Another thing that just kills me is that y'all, David Bonier and so many other squawking heads take Saddam Hussein’s word over the word of your President.
The reason why is that you don't believe any of what I just wrote. You don't believe Clinton failed us all, not in the slightest. In short, you don't believe the truth and, therefore, anything is possible.
So, by all means, continues to quibble with what our leadership wants to do in regards to Iraq. Just do it with the knowledge that absent one mans failure to do his job, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
You know, you two can go round and round forever about Iraq right up until you are willing to face the truth: The world faces the current concerns and doubts about Hussein and Iraq because of the failure of one man to do his job; Bill Clinton.
Fact: In 1990, over 80 nations signed on to kick Iraq out of Kuwait including Russia, France and just about ALL his, Hussein’s, Arab neighbors. Neither Bush I or II nor Reagan nor Newt Gingritch nor Bob Ehrlich or any other GOP boogie man you may fancy today invaded Kuwait.
Part of the deal that was agreed on by ALL was that the goal was to kick him out. Not go to Baghdad. Not specifically kill him. Not regime change. Just, and simply, kick him out of Kuwait. The job was done, spectacularly, thoroughly and justly.
Neither of you (could I be wrong?) nor your party (except Gore and a handful of others) supported even that step back then UNTIL the bullets stopped flying so it is nothing short of laughable that anyone on your side even discusses "not doing the job right the first time". Ha.
Now, the US, having done the will of the world, along with all those many allies, Iraq then AGREED to specific actions including regular and unfettered inspections in regards to eliminating certain weapons, the famous ABC's.
Clinton didn't do the job. He let it go. This is self-evident. It is where we are. He is responsible for any coming Iraqi deaths. He is responsible for any coming US deaths. He is responsible for 9/11.
His abdication of leadership in making it clear to Iraq that they must do as they agreed, not just to US but to the WORLD, and in making it clear to terrorists after the first World Trade Center attack that we will do all we can to protect our citizens is the single and whole reason we face the troubles of today.
He makes Iraq hold up their end of the deal, no problem today.
He starts a worldwide manhunt for terrorists involved in the first World Trade Center attack and the US Embassies and the USS Cole, then the second World Trade Center attack and the taking of three thousand innocent peoples lives doesn't happen. We have no department of homeland security. We have no devastating impact on the world economy. Hell, we might even have a President Gore for real instead of the fantasy so many seem to believe in.
Don't take my word for it. It's all history. It's all fact.
Another thing that just kills me is that y'all, David Bonier and so many other squawking heads take Saddam Hussein’s word over the word of your President.
The reason why is that you don't believe any of what I just wrote. You don't believe Clinton failed us all, not in the slightest. In short, you don't believe the truth and, therefore, anything is possible.
So, by all means, continues to quibble with what our leadership wants to do in regards to Iraq. Just do it with the knowledge that absent one mans failure to do his job, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
I did support the Kuwaiti deal.
I have a friend who keeps trying to tell me that Iraq has a legal claim to Kuwait, that it was stolen from them by the British. I tell him it doesn't matter. The rules today are ; Kuwait is an independant country. You mess with Kuwait, you mess with us.
I am going to refrain from talking about the alleged shortcomings of the last president to be elected by a majority of the citizens, because we've had that argument already.
Yes, Iraq agreed to certain conditions- with the UN. It was and is their deal. That is all I have been saying. I haven't been convinced that, for Bush, this is anything more than
a) a personal vendetta
b) scratching a lingering itch
c) a way to enhance his image
d) a way to get more oil
I may be wrong, but given the information that I have, those scenarios seem more likely than Iraq being an imminent threat or a terrorist source. I will admit that one big cause for doubt was removed when we did not attack right before the election. There was a time when it seemed all but certain we would go in there in October to me. Of course, the most cynical part of me says that the poll numbers must have looked good enough that they didn't feel they needed to do it.
I fully support going to the UN and lobbying for what we want. If we can convince them, fine. If we can't, I think the you have to ask the question, why? I know you will probably say that the UN does not have the US's best interests at heart, but I think that our interests must coincide with those of the rest of the world as much as possible, especially when it comes to killing.
So Larry, how will you feel if we don't attack Iraq? Is there any possible scenario for that?
I have a friend who keeps trying to tell me that Iraq has a legal claim to Kuwait, that it was stolen from them by the British. I tell him it doesn't matter. The rules today are ; Kuwait is an independant country. You mess with Kuwait, you mess with us.
I am going to refrain from talking about the alleged shortcomings of the last president to be elected by a majority of the citizens, because we've had that argument already.
Yes, Iraq agreed to certain conditions- with the UN. It was and is their deal. That is all I have been saying. I haven't been convinced that, for Bush, this is anything more than
a) a personal vendetta
b) scratching a lingering itch
c) a way to enhance his image
d) a way to get more oil
I may be wrong, but given the information that I have, those scenarios seem more likely than Iraq being an imminent threat or a terrorist source. I will admit that one big cause for doubt was removed when we did not attack right before the election. There was a time when it seemed all but certain we would go in there in October to me. Of course, the most cynical part of me says that the poll numbers must have looked good enough that they didn't feel they needed to do it.
I fully support going to the UN and lobbying for what we want. If we can convince them, fine. If we can't, I think the you have to ask the question, why? I know you will probably say that the UN does not have the US's best interests at heart, but I think that our interests must coincide with those of the rest of the world as much as possible, especially when it comes to killing.
So Larry, how will you feel if we don't attack Iraq? Is there any possible scenario for that?
That's right, Clinton is Responsible for Everything
President Clinton, a great American leader, is the man that is responsible for 9/11. Yes, you heard right. He is. Come on, what leads you to believe this? Clinton pushed for inspections, he was turned down, we tried. He understood that we could not pick a fight over such a trivial issue. We cannot fight each nation that violates UN law. Anyway, America was not in the best shape. We had more people that were out of jobs than there were in the Depression, the highest amount of children living in poverty in history, and a national deficit that was climbing by the day. How could we make our home safe for the average working man while fighting a war overseas over violation of UN law?
Is Iraq really that much of a threat? Should we stop everything and just kill them? You know 9/11 occurred due to a small terrorist organization that does not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is just an anthill in the middle of nowhere.
As for Clinton causing 9/11, how can you substantiate that claim? Hatred of the man? Or maybe the inferiority complex that all right-wingers feel because that dumb, immoral southerner beat you twice? Clinton authorized the bombing of terrorist training camps in Afganistan during the late 1990s. He authorized Operation Desert Fox in Iraq in 1997 when the economy was better and he determined that bombing the nation would make them comply with UN law. This did occur too, albeit only for a short time. He found the people responsible for the first WTC bombing.
How about Bush the 43, who ignored warnings that bin Laden would strike? Come on, did you pay attention at all when Congress held their sessions concernig 9/11 and the missed warnings? Guess what, nobody in the State Department, or FBI, or CIA felt that the warnings deserved merit. If it was so obvious that bin Laden would strike using airplanes as bombs why didn't your conservative president stop it? I'm saying, if he could not see it, how could Clinton have seen it? Why is he more responsible? 9/11 occurred because us Americans just did not think that such an awful thing could ever occur here. It was not Bush's, Clinton's, or any government official's fault that it occcurred. STOP BLAMING ALL THE PROBLEMS IN AMERICA ON CLINTON!! Presidential historians disagree with you and don't dismiss the findings of these men with PhD's because "oh, there just liberal elitests."
President Clinton, a great American leader, is the man that is responsible for 9/11. Yes, you heard right. He is. Come on, what leads you to believe this? Clinton pushed for inspections, he was turned down, we tried. He understood that we could not pick a fight over such a trivial issue. We cannot fight each nation that violates UN law. Anyway, America was not in the best shape. We had more people that were out of jobs than there were in the Depression, the highest amount of children living in poverty in history, and a national deficit that was climbing by the day. How could we make our home safe for the average working man while fighting a war overseas over violation of UN law?
Is Iraq really that much of a threat? Should we stop everything and just kill them? You know 9/11 occurred due to a small terrorist organization that does not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is just an anthill in the middle of nowhere.
As for Clinton causing 9/11, how can you substantiate that claim? Hatred of the man? Or maybe the inferiority complex that all right-wingers feel because that dumb, immoral southerner beat you twice? Clinton authorized the bombing of terrorist training camps in Afganistan during the late 1990s. He authorized Operation Desert Fox in Iraq in 1997 when the economy was better and he determined that bombing the nation would make them comply with UN law. This did occur too, albeit only for a short time. He found the people responsible for the first WTC bombing.
How about Bush the 43, who ignored warnings that bin Laden would strike? Come on, did you pay attention at all when Congress held their sessions concernig 9/11 and the missed warnings? Guess what, nobody in the State Department, or FBI, or CIA felt that the warnings deserved merit. If it was so obvious that bin Laden would strike using airplanes as bombs why didn't your conservative president stop it? I'm saying, if he could not see it, how could Clinton have seen it? Why is he more responsible? 9/11 occurred because us Americans just did not think that such an awful thing could ever occur here. It was not Bush's, Clinton's, or any government official's fault that it occcurred. STOP BLAMING ALL THE PROBLEMS IN AMERICA ON CLINTON!! Presidential historians disagree with you and don't dismiss the findings of these men with PhD's because "oh, there just liberal elitests."
Re: That's right, Clinton is Responsible for Everything
Also get your facts straight, Operation Dessert Fox was carried out in December 1998. It also was too little and accomplished nothing other then getting many to see us as cowards lobbing in explosives while safely hiding in the shadows out of harm’s way. This operation was followed shortly with the attack on the USS Cole, by Al Qaeda, which your all time great American President did nothing about. This same man who refused to communicate with the Yemenis when they said they had information regarding terrorist activities aimed at our interests. The intelligence and national defense failures over his tenure directly led to the 9/11 attacks.
Bush inherited these failures when he took office but the devastation was done during the proceeding eight years. Which is why the warnings weren’t being regarded as anything to worry about. The structure of our intelligence agencies, that generated the daily briefings for the President, was staffed by personnel from the Clinton days. The top had changed but the working structure below upper management was still operating as they had been directed under Clinton. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was finally showing up in the briefings for Bush. I wonder how often Clinton was briefed about them. If he was, then we know what he did, absolutely nothing.
At least we now have a President that has seen some things that need to be done for our survival and is doing them instead of playing with the ladies like your boy liked to do. Being a great American President is more then just getting re-elected and surviving an impeachment.
Come on Demsformd, no fair making me laugh so hard on a Saturday morning. “Great American leader”, by whose standard? I agree with Larry to a certain extent about Clinton being a part of why 9/11 happened. Clinton was disengaged from foreign affairs throughout his tenure as our President. I guess he was too busy with his domestic relationships to worry about the world and his job. After all, Congress authorized him to take whatever action necessary to bring Iraq into compliance and what did Billy-boy do? Pulled out the inspectors and lobbed four days worth of cruise missiles at the Iraqis and then nothing else. Not a very sound plan if he was intent on bringing about compliance. If you consider violation of (at that time) 16 UN Resolutions a trivial matter then it explains why you think Clinton was a great American President.
Now wait a second, haven’t you been harping on how great of shape America was in before Bush was elected. If it was in such great shape why are you now saying it wasn’t? I presume that this is just more liberal spin used to further your point.
Also get your facts straight, Operation Dessert Fox was carried out in December 1998. It also was too little and accomplished nothing other then getting many to see us as cowards lobbing in explosives while safely hiding in the shadows out of harm’s way. This operation was followed shortly with the attack on the USS Cole, by Al Qaeda, which your all time great American President did nothing about. This same man who refused to communicate with the Yemenis when they said they had information regarding terrorist activities aimed at our interests. The intelligence and national defense failures over his tenure directly led to the 9/11 attacks.
Bush inherited these failures when he took office but the devastation was done during the proceeding eight years. Which is why the warnings weren’t being regarded as anything to worry about. The structure of our intelligence agencies, that generated the daily briefings for the President, was staffed by personnel from the Clinton days. The top had changed but the working structure below upper management was still operating as they had been directed under Clinton. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was finally showing up in the briefings for Bush. I wonder how often Clinton was briefed about them. If he was, then we know what he did, absolutely nothing.
At least we now have a President that has seen some things that need to be done for our survival and is doing them instead of playing with the ladies like your boy liked to do. Being a great American President is more then just getting re-elected and surviving an impeachment.
H
Heretic
Guest
Clinton may not have been the cause for 9-11 but he certianly did nothing after other terrorist attacks.
It amazes me that if Clinton and Bush did the exact same thing one group of people would praise Clinton and condemn Bush. I voted for Clinton in 92, but not in 96. I didnt vote for Bush in 2000 but I think I will in 2004 so far he has done a good job in my eyes, he does need to take a little tougher stance on Saddam in my opinion.
What do you call bombing Kosovo right before an impechement hearing? Um I call it a distraction. We invaded more countries under Clinton than any president since FDR (there WW2 was going on and it wasn't a bad thing).
As a great leader please tell me one thing that Clinton did. The years from 1994-1999 were more or less golden years, but the administration accomolished nothing. We had that so called surplus because the Senate and House were too dead locked to pass any spending bills so the money just sat.
As far as getting more oil I find that a fallacy, sure it would mean more oil, BUT look at the oil companies profit margins. In years where OPEC restricted oil flow and oil was scarce oil companies posted RECORD PROFITS, please explain this one.
Russia doesn't want Iraq to start pumping more oil because it will lower prices and HURT their economy, but they do want free trade with Iraq restored because they have many vested interests there (carpet baggers, maybe?).
I think you will ignore just about everything I posted because when someone presents raw facts that cant be disputed you just go back to name calling and conspiracy theories.
It amazes me that if Clinton and Bush did the exact same thing one group of people would praise Clinton and condemn Bush. I voted for Clinton in 92, but not in 96. I didnt vote for Bush in 2000 but I think I will in 2004 so far he has done a good job in my eyes, he does need to take a little tougher stance on Saddam in my opinion.
What do you call bombing Kosovo right before an impechement hearing? Um I call it a distraction. We invaded more countries under Clinton than any president since FDR (there WW2 was going on and it wasn't a bad thing).
As a great leader please tell me one thing that Clinton did. The years from 1994-1999 were more or less golden years, but the administration accomolished nothing. We had that so called surplus because the Senate and House were too dead locked to pass any spending bills so the money just sat.
As far as getting more oil I find that a fallacy, sure it would mean more oil, BUT look at the oil companies profit margins. In years where OPEC restricted oil flow and oil was scarce oil companies posted RECORD PROFITS, please explain this one.
Russia doesn't want Iraq to start pumping more oil because it will lower prices and HURT their economy, but they do want free trade with Iraq restored because they have many vested interests there (carpet baggers, maybe?).
I think you will ignore just about everything I posted because when someone presents raw facts that cant be disputed you just go back to name calling and conspiracy theories.
H
Heretic
Guest
When you try to kill certian people and not others its naturally going to cost more than if you just want to indiscrimantly kill people.
If we didnt care who we killed Im sure we could get off pretty cheap. Load up a C130 with some big rocks and start dumping them out over populated areas...cheap and effective. But personally I think we should be dropping pig carcasses on them so that they are denied paradise
If we didnt care who we killed Im sure we could get off pretty cheap. Load up a C130 with some big rocks and start dumping them out over populated areas...cheap and effective. But personally I think we should be dropping pig carcasses on them so that they are denied paradise
H
Heretic
Guest
Yea, wars today have almost no casualties compared to say WW2 or even Vietnam. Its war for Gods sake, you try to avoid it but sometimes you can't, sometimes it even saves lives. Im sure that if we killed Saddam in 1990 we would have saved countless Iraqi lives.
Clinton Accomplishments
Largest economic expansion since the 1960s
Lowest unemployment rate in history
A decreased national debt
A budget surplus (which the GOP wanted to destroy by giving the rich a tax cut, well they did anyway.)
The lowest amount of people on the welfare rolls in history
An abortion rate lower than what was under Reagan or Bush
Lower crime
NO LONG-TERM WARS
The list is endless... A gallup poll showed that Clinton had job-approval ratings in the 60s. A poll conducted after he left office rated him as the second choice that people had for best president in history after Kennedy (another Democrat). A recent survey of presidential historians rated him as the most successful president of the last quarter of the century.
How did he ignore foreign affairs? He spent the amount of time on the issue that was required. Like I said, in 1993 our nation was in shambles. Why should we attack a foreign enemy that posed no serious threat to us while people at home suffered terrible hardship? Clinton helped so many American families and American workers. He acted in foreign affairs when he needed to and dealt with situations very efficiently.
Here's some more about you Republicans helping bin Laden out. We funded their war against the Soviet Union and Donald Rumsfeld actually met the man in the early 80s. Maybe if Reagan didn't give bin Laden any aid, we would not be having this conversation.
Largest economic expansion since the 1960s
Lowest unemployment rate in history
A decreased national debt
A budget surplus (which the GOP wanted to destroy by giving the rich a tax cut, well they did anyway.)
The lowest amount of people on the welfare rolls in history
An abortion rate lower than what was under Reagan or Bush
Lower crime
NO LONG-TERM WARS
The list is endless... A gallup poll showed that Clinton had job-approval ratings in the 60s. A poll conducted after he left office rated him as the second choice that people had for best president in history after Kennedy (another Democrat). A recent survey of presidential historians rated him as the most successful president of the last quarter of the century.
How did he ignore foreign affairs? He spent the amount of time on the issue that was required. Like I said, in 1993 our nation was in shambles. Why should we attack a foreign enemy that posed no serious threat to us while people at home suffered terrible hardship? Clinton helped so many American families and American workers. He acted in foreign affairs when he needed to and dealt with situations very efficiently.
Here's some more about you Republicans helping bin Laden out. We funded their war against the Soviet Union and Donald Rumsfeld actually met the man in the early 80s. Maybe if Reagan didn't give bin Laden any aid, we would not be having this conversation.
It always irritates me when I hear Democrats say stupid things like "tax cuts for the rich". #1, poor people don't even PAY taxes, so why should they get a cut? #2, if you think someone making $40K a year is "rich", you're in some serious financial straits. #3, since like 5% of the top income-earners pay 90-something% of the taxes, why shouldn't they get a cut?
Dems, you act like wealthy people keep all their money stashed in a mattress or something. They don't - they spend it, thereby spreading it around. They buy a new car, which puts money in the pocket of the dealer and the salesperson. They buy a new house, which helps the RE agent. They give more to charity. etc etc etc.
And I'm going to run down your numbers as well - I heard the same spin on CNN but the wording of it made me suspicious. But I agree with you about Reagan giving aid - he should have just bombed the whole stinking place instead of spending our money to put another set of freaks in place.
Dems, you act like wealthy people keep all their money stashed in a mattress or something. They don't - they spend it, thereby spreading it around. They buy a new car, which puts money in the pocket of the dealer and the salesperson. They buy a new house, which helps the RE agent. They give more to charity. etc etc etc.
And I'm going to run down your numbers as well - I heard the same spin on CNN but the wording of it made me suspicious. But I agree with you about Reagan giving aid - he should have just bombed the whole stinking place instead of spending our money to put another set of freaks in place.
H
Heretic
Guest
Ok here are the facts, look them up if you like.
In 1992 the economic expansion began, yet Clinton didnt take office until 1993, in 2000 the economy started to take an apparent downturn....Clinton was president until January 2001.....
Now I don't suscribe to the President having much at all to do with the state of the economy, much of what fueled the economic expansion was the PC/Internet explosion (oh wait did Al Gore invent the internet....) and the surplus of very high paying jobs to take care of the Y2k problem, these people started at $80 an hour. Then after these people were no longer needed and the general population finally realized they were not going to get rich quick with internet stocks things started slowing down. To compound this much of what fueled a Bull Market was falsified earning statements and when these errors were finally brought to light thousands lost their jobs and Billions of dollars were lost from investors.
There was a surplus because no spending bills made it through congress it was so deadlocked, so in short Clintons success came out of his ineffectiveness to actually get anything done.
In 1992 the economic expansion began, yet Clinton didnt take office until 1993, in 2000 the economy started to take an apparent downturn....Clinton was president until January 2001.....
Now I don't suscribe to the President having much at all to do with the state of the economy, much of what fueled the economic expansion was the PC/Internet explosion (oh wait did Al Gore invent the internet....) and the surplus of very high paying jobs to take care of the Y2k problem, these people started at $80 an hour. Then after these people were no longer needed and the general population finally realized they were not going to get rich quick with internet stocks things started slowing down. To compound this much of what fueled a Bull Market was falsified earning statements and when these errors were finally brought to light thousands lost their jobs and Billions of dollars were lost from investors.
There was a surplus because no spending bills made it through congress it was so deadlocked, so in short Clintons success came out of his ineffectiveness to actually get anything done.
H
Heretic
Guest
MGKrebs what do you consider rich? $50k/year $100k/year?
The current tax system is very unfair to people living in very expensive areas. In say Wyoming $100k a year and your a king but in Southern California $100 a year and you are below average.
The current tax system is very unfair to people living in very expensive areas. In say Wyoming $100k a year and your a king but in Southern California $100 a year and you are below average.