Quote from: Demonoid;244464After having a credit card stolen online, I've put in some security measures. One of them caused that / problem on some servers.

I hope someday you have a credit card stolen so you can see what it's like.

PS your TeeHee smiley? Only a total gayboy would use that.

What an odd liberal you are. Wishing harm on someone and calling them gay.

:Violent_sterb184:   :violent-smiley-078:

Quote from: CavScout;244385I suppose you then think Bill Clinton "lucked" into a budget surplus while riding the tech industry bubble?

well, you're not a total dick, I agree with you on this issue. Look at the facts:

Ronald Reagan: Fiscal conservative: 200 billion dollar deficit.
George Bush I: Fiscal conservative: 300 billion dollar deficit.
Bill Clinton: Tax and spend lib'rul: 200 billion dollar surplus.
George Bush II: Fiscal Conservative: 487 billion dollar deficit and no end in sight.
John mccain: Fiscal conservative: What do the odds say?

Oh, as to clinton "lucking" into the surplus due to the tech boom? Well, oil companies are having a record boom period on profits, so if that logic worked shouldn't we be having a surplus?

Quote from: CavScout;244468What an odd liberal you are. Wishing harm on someone and calling them gay.

:Violent_sterb184:   :violent-smiley-078:

I'm the kind of liberal who has a bumper sticker that says "Don't ban guns! We need them to shoot the neocons with!" and who's willing to tell certain groups to quit blaming their problems on the majority.

Quote from: Demonoid;244461The proof I have is it happened, it's on video, it's documented and if you want to claim it didn't happen, YOU find the proof it didn't.

So where is this documented video you keep blathering about?

You're the one who made the claim, you get to provide the proof.

Quote from: Demonoid;244471I'm the kind of liberal who has a bumper sticker that says "Don't ban guns! We need them to shoot the neocons with!" and who's willing to tell certain groups to quit blaming their problems on the majority.

I dub thee, Sir Adkinson of theRPGSite.

Quote from: Demonoid;244469well, you're not a total dick, I agree with you on this issue. Look at the facts:

Ronald Reagan: Fiscal conservative: 200 billion dollar deficit.
George Bush I: Fiscal conservative: 300 billion dollar deficit.
Bill Clinton: Tax and spend lib'rul: 200 billion dollar surplus.
George Bush II: Fiscal Conservative: 487 billion dollar deficit and no end in sight.
John mccain: Fiscal conservative: What do the odds say?

You do know that the national debt has increased under every one of the Presidents listed, right? Was at something like 4,186 trillion when he entered and 5,735 trillion when he left. Only a 37% increase. The current Bush certainly hasn't done better, taking 5,735 trillion to 9,194 trillion, a bad 59% increase.

So Clinton didn't increase the debt as much, but lets not kid ourselves that there was a surplus.

Quote from: Demonoid;244469Oh, as to clinton "lucking" into the surplus due to the tech boom? Well, oil companies are having a record boom period on profits, so if that logic worked shouldn't we be having a surplus?

Under Clinton, the economy as a whole was on the up swing, that is simply not the case today.

Quote from: jeff37923;244477So where is this documented video you keep blathering about?

You're the one who made the claim, you get to provide the proof.

If it was Limbaugh, this is what I've found:

Link

Pretty lame stunt if you ask me.

Quote from: HinterWelt;244452Yes.

Bill

Edit: also Jews. I imagine anyone who worships a Sky Fairy. Just Christians have the gay Hippie Son.

Flying Zombie.  Christians have the Flying Zombie.

Seriously.  Jesus rose from the dead with his wounds unhealed.  Thomas stuck his hands inside his wounds.  That's not resurrection, that's ZOMBIFICATION.

And then he FLEW AWAY.  To OUTER SPACE!!!!

Flying Zombie.

Quote from: Demonoid;244469Oh, as to clinton "lucking" into the surplus due to the tech boom? Well, oil companies are having a record boom period on profits, so if that logic worked shouldn't we be having a surplus?

It's worth noting that while the Clinton administration played a very prominent role in creating the tech bubble.  Al Gore's leadership on transforming the internet from a military/academic network into a commercial network that was readily accessible to the public is what drove the tech-bubble.

The massive sales of home PCs, the growth of Microsoft, the explosion of web-service companies, all of these were not accidents, they were carefully encouraged and supported by the actions of Clinton Administration, mostly as a result of Al Gore.

We could be experiencing another such boom right now, if Al Gore were president.  Alas, we're eight years behind the curve.  Luckily both McCain and Obama have expressed support for government support in developing green technologies to combat  global pollution/warming, which I strongly believe will be the next major market of economic growth.  Were Al gore president, we would already be seeing the results of a Green Boom.

Quote from: Jackalope;244095Q: Please state on action Palin had taken as the head of the Alaska National Guard.
A: She visited a military hospital in Germany.

The question is asking for command experience, and you give an example of a photo op, and then go on to criticize Obama for not engaging in the same photo op.

I answered the question, which was an action Palin has taken as the head of the Alaska National Guard.  She went abroad and visited them.  Visiting the military hospital is not simply a photo op to the people there but I guess that's easy to forget if you are only interested in the publicity angle.

Quote from: Jackalope;244095In John's world, it's reasonable to suggest that a random supporter of Barack Obama should be able to list his qualifications in the same way that John McCain's campaign manager should be able to list the qualifications of McCain's VP pick.

He wasn't asked to list her qualifications.  He was being asked a very narrow question about what's she's done.  Her role as the head of Alaska's National Guard is not her only or even chief qualification for being picked.  Do you expect him to be able to answer when she lost her first baby tooth, too?

Quote from: CavScout;244487If it was Limbaugh, this is what I've found:

Link

Pretty lame stunt if you ask me.

I agree that it sounds like a pretty lame stunt, and shame on you for doing Demonoid's homework for him, but where is the video of this? Your first sentence of "If it was Limbaugh" applies here. The report of this incident was most recently claimed by Media Matters who got it from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (from an article dated 1994) who themselves got it from Columnist Molly Ivins (Arizona Republic 10/17/93).

But there is still no video proof of this.

And when you try to research Molly Ivins you learn she was a syndicated political columnist who died in 2007. Of note is this excerpt from her tribute.

Molly Ivans Tribute

Quote from: Molly Ivans TributeIn the coming days, much will be made of Molly's contributions to the liberal cause.

Molly Ivins is gone, and her words will never grace these pages again -- for this, we will mourn. But Molly wasn't the type of woman who would want us to grieve. More likely, she'd say something like, "Hang in there, keep fightin' for freedom, raise more hell, and don't forget to laugh, too."

So I still wonder and wish to see the video evidence, because the more I dig, the more I question it actually happened. Because it could have been reported just to "raise more hell".

Limbaugh did make the crack about Chelsea on his TV show - actually, he didn't SAY anything, he was talking about the White House dog and a pic of Chelsea flashed on the screen behind him for a couple of seconds. I saw it when it happened, and he later apologized for it. And it was 15 years ago, but apparently a one-shot crack in poor taste is a lifetime sentence.

Quote from: Werekoala;244528Limbaugh did make the crack about Chelsea on his TV show - actually, he didn't SAY anything, he was talking about the White House dog and a pic of Chelsea flashed on the screen behind him for a couple of seconds. I saw it when it happened, and he later apologized for it. And it was 15 years ago, but apparently a one-shot crack in poor taste is a lifetime sentence.

Yeah, I remember watching that.  It was his very first episode, if I recall correctly (that's why I was watching).  He started by introducing the "new President" (flash photo of Bill Clinton), the "new First Lady" (flash photo of Hillary Clinton), and the "new First Dog" (flash photo of 13 year old, gangly, acned Chelsea Clinton).

Truly a high point in American political discourse.

Quote from: jeff37923;244526I agree that it sounds like a pretty lame stunt, and shame on you for doing Demonoid's homework for him, but where is the video of this? Your first sentence of "If it was Limbaugh" applies here. The report of this incident was most recently claimed by Media Matters who got it from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (from an article dated 1994) who themselves got it from Columnist Molly Ivins (Arizona Republic 10/17/93).

But there is still no video proof of this.

And when you try to research Molly Ivins you learn she was a syndicated political columnist who died in 2007. Of note is this excerpt from her tribute.

Molly Ivans Tribute

So I still wonder and wish to see the video evidence, because the more I dig, the more I question it actually happened. Because it could have been reported just to "raise more hell".

It looks very likely to have happened to me. Limbaugh says alot of stupid shit.

Quote from: CavScout;244486You do know that the national debt has increased under every one of the Presidents listed, right? Was at something like 4,186 trillion when he entered and 5,735 trillion when he left. Only a 37% increase. The current Bush certainly hasn't done better, taking 5,735 trillion to 9,194 trillion, a bad 59% increase.

So Clinton didn't increase the debt as much, but lets not kid ourselves that there was a surplus.

I would guess that he was referring to the debt as a percentage of GDP.  It is perhaps deceptive to call this a surplus, when really the raw dollars still increased.  


Something that President's can do something about is government spending, cf. www.usgovernmentspending.com .  Under Clinton, spending went from $2.3 trillion (37.8% GDP) to $3.2 trillion (33.4% GDP) -- an increase of +38% in raw dollars, but a decrease in percent of GDP.  Under Bush, spending has gone up to $5.2 trillion (36.6% GDP), or +61% in raw dollars as well as in percent of GDP.  

Quote from: CavScout;244486Under Clinton, the economy as a whole was on the up swing, that is simply not the case today.

True.  I still think Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.