Bush is lying about economy

[Guest 4Life]

Former presidential candidate Al Gore accused the Bush administration Saturday of lying to Americans about the nation's economy.

 

At a campaign event for a congressional candidate, Gore told Democrats that electing Lincoln Davis could be the difference in continuing the Bush administration's economic policies.

 

 

The Bush administration has "lied about the future liabilities they have put on our shoulders as taxpayers," Gore said.

 

The former vice president prompted a cheer when he said: "I don't care what anybody says. I think Bill Clinton and I did a damn good job."

[Guest Powerplay]

And say "Hello!" to election-time rhetoric! Let the mud-slinging begin!

[Guest Vyce]

This is so very pathetic.

 

"We.....we did a GOOD job! No! Really!

 

.....

 

....Someone please like me....."

 

It's over, Albert.

[Guest DrTom]

Wow, a Democrat accused a Republican of lying!

 

In other news, a Republican called a Democrat a "liberal!"

[Guest Some Guy]

Gore and Clinton did a damn good job at what exactly? Riding a good economy into the ground and blaming Bush? Causing scandal after scandel and blaming the Republicans? Making the country a laughing stock for 8 years? Raising taxes? Not getting socialized heathcare passed? Signing welfare reform after the Repunlicans came up with the bill and pushed it and then reading the polls to find out whether it was a good idea or not and then taking credit for it as if it was their idea?

 

Yeah great job guys!

[Guest EricMM]

Seriously.

 

Here's me saying it now. If the republicans ran a candidate that wasn't a fucking political politican like gore, bush, bush, clinton down the line of history, I'd sooooo vote for him.

 

I hate such BS. I hate spin.

[Guest Some Guy]

Too bad Lincoln is long dead, huh?

 

There will never be a non-mudslinging politician who becomes President. Although Bush did very little against Gore personally, he aimed more at Clinton in hopes to get Gore by association. That's just the way it works now a days. There will never be an actively ugly president again either.

If they were smart though the GOP and Dems would let the cable guys, O'Reilly, Donahue (if he lasts long enough), etc.. do the mudslinging for them and not dirty their hands. When the DUI story about Bush came out just before election day it made Gore look like an asshole. If that story was leaked out by his campaign to CNN a month before he would have looked more innocent, but having some backwater Maine reporter do it the Friday before the election made him look guilty. He was attacking a man who admitted he had a problem and solved it, it came across as a low blow. Just like all the adultery stuff with Clinton, although he has yet to saolve that problem.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I wouldn't doubt that Bush is lying to the american people about the economy or issues dealing with the economy, yet I would NEVER vote for Gore to fix it up in 2004. Republicrats, one in the same I tell ya...

[Guest Ripper]

Funny how Gore fought to the death to avoid assoctiation with Clinton(which probably would have won him the election) and now he is "I think Clinton did a good job".

 

So Clinton and Gore rode a good economy, at the end of the day that is what people will see. Clinton/Gore= good economy Bush Sr.and Bush Jr.=bad economy. Gore does have that to stand on...that about it, but he does get to use that.

[Guest Some Guy]

Gore/Clinton=good ecomony and then the start of a bad economy. Gore also equals stock market falling. WHen he belly ached and bitched about losing the election causing my dad among many others to lose thousands in weeks. I think my dad lost over $30,000 while that shit was going on.

[Guest 4Life]

Gore/Clinton=good ecomony and then the start of a bad economy. Gore also equals stock market falling. WHen he belly ached and bitched about losing the election causing my dad among many others to lose thousands in weeks. I think my dad lost over $30,000 while that shit was going on.

Now I see why you're so bitter. Well when depression hits (and believe me it's coming), you'll be singing a different tune.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Wow, so you're not only a soldier, you're also a better economist than the chairman of the Federal Reserve? So many accomplishments so early in life. How impressive. And you still find time to post on Internet message boards!

[Guest 4Life]

Wow, so you're not only a soldier, you're also a better economist than the chairman of the Federal Reserve? So many accomplishments so early in life. How impressive. And you still find time to post on Internet message boards!

Well you know, between defending this country and sacrificing my body, hearing and my family for YOU so you can feel free to post whatever's on your mind, I do spend some time watching news.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Sounds like you also sacrificed most of whatever little intelligence you started off with, Sparky. Not to mention your credibility - and that just took two posts. Congratulations.

[Guest 4Life]

Sounds like you also sacrificed most of whatever little intelligence you started off with, Sparky. Not to mention your credibility - and that just took two posts. Congratulations.

 

(Next time I need to engage in a discussion with someone older than 13).

This was one of those, "I don't know what to say so I'll call you uninteligent and attack you cause attack is the best defence".

[Guest Cancer Marney]

This was one of those, "I don't know what to say so I'll call you uninteligent and attack you cause attack is the best defence".

I beg your pardon. Obviously, implying that I'm under 13 in no way entails calling me unintelligent. (Note the spelling, Sparky.)

 

You wanna win so bad you don't even know what you're talking about

Mmhmm. Let me see, weren't you the one who said that (although you're obviously enlisted, if anything at all) you should have a say in military strategy? Again, have you shared this opinion with General Franks? As head of CENTCOM, he might have one or two reservations. Of course, I've only met the man once, so I'm just taking a wild guess here.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Funny how Gore fought to the death to avoid assoctiation with Clinton(which probably would have won him the election) and now he is "I think Clinton did a good job".

 

So Clinton and Gore rode a good economy, at the end of the day that is what people will see. Clinton/Gore= good economy Bush Sr.and Bush Jr.=bad economy. Gore does have that to stand on...that about it, but he does get to use that.

>>>

 

 

ONE little problem:

 

ALL of the current problems with massive fraud---ALL of it began under the watch of, you guessed it, Pres. Clinton.

-=Mike

 

...Still amazed that the 1980's get attacked as a "Decade of Greed" while the 90's have avoided that label.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Gore/Clinton=good ecomony and then the start of a bad economy. Gore also equals stock market falling. WHen he belly ached and bitched about losing the election causing my dad among many others to lose thousands in weeks. I think my dad lost over $30,000 while that shit was going on.

 

Now I see why you're so bitter. Well when depression hits (and believe me it's coming), you'll be singing a different tune. >>>

 

 

Wow, almost hoping for a depression in the hopes that it might hurt Republicans?

 

Truly you are a patriot.

 

The current problems started under Clinton. Deal with it.

-=Mike

[Guest Invader3k]

Blah blah blah...the real problem is that a good deal of the Dems and Republicans in Congress are probably corrupt anyways, regardless of who is president. There needs to be term limits for Congress so we don't have career politicians who are in the pockets of corporations.

[Guest NoCalMike]

<<<ALL of the current problems with massive fraud---ALL of it began under the watch of, you guessed it, Pres. Clinton.

-=Mike>>>

 

 

You have got to be kidding me saying massive fraud in government STARTED with Clinton!?! WTF is that? As if politicians were honest engines up until 1992........give me a break.

[Guest EricMM]

Um no Mike didn't say that. But the CURRENT problems of course started or became much stronger in the last 8 years compared to the last year... Unless you want to blame Bush Sr.

 

4Life calling Marney 13 is not making you look good (*whispers* I THINK SHE SEEMS OLDER THAN 13!! I mean she doesn't sound 13, nor do 13 year olds generally meet generals. And if you meant she acted like she was thirteen, well... there's a word. Immature. USE IT!!! Actually don't. Why do you have to argue? Marney did start it, all you had to do was make your point...

 

Everyone knows all politicans spin the hell out of everything. This is not new news.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I don't believe these current problems got "stronger" in the last eight years. I think what people don't understand is that the system was created like this, thus needs to be tweaked. I think the only difference between now and say 20 years ago is maybe that the mainstream media is willing to risk more in reporting this where as before it may have been off limits.

 

I don't think Democrats are any better at handling corporate fraud than republicans and vice versa, but the problem is we the public probobaly only know a small fraction of soft money transactions going on behind closed doors, then anytime someone is accused they basically say, "it is my right to privacy, go away" The SYSTEM is corrupt, hence, the system will produce corrupt people......

[Guest Cancer Marney]

nor do 13 year olds generally meet generals

Actually I didn't meet him in any sort of official capacity. <g> It was just a social function, although we did talk shop a bit.

[Guest NoCalMike]

<<<<<<<<<Blah blah blah...the real problem is that a good deal of the Dems and Republicans in Congress are probably corrupt anyways, regardless of who is president. There needs to be term limits for Congress so we don't have career politicians who are in the pockets of corporations.>>>>>>>

 

 

-Exactly, Invader, Well Put......I totally agree(Strom Thurman, bwahahahahahaha)

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Um, let's also go over something else. The overspending that went on during the Reagon and Bush Sr. administrations actually were one of the major causes of the economic upswing during the Clinton administration. That's part of why we're getting deficet spending now. How do I know this? Well, let's just say I trust some fairly middle of the road professor I have. Reasoning? The United States always pays back its bonds with interest. That's actually where a majority of the budget goes: entitlements. Paying off bonds, social security, etc. Now, the more the gov't spends over what it has, the more bonds it issues. So, that means later on, there's more money going back into returns on those bonds, right? So, let's say this is right. Just for the sake of argument, even if you disagree with me. That would mean that the economic boom during the 90's is because of the 80's and the downturn right now is due to the "good job" Clinton and Gore did. But wait... does the economy and the President have much of anything do with each other? Hmmmmm....