NCclimber

And the biggest economy in the history of the world.

No, it's a great analogy. Especially since the UN has such a sterling history of actually making a difference.

Don;t forget that foley is stil stalking little boys He is?

Considering the party of "fiscal conservatism" has given us huge deficits, I wonder why the Democrats haven't tried to present themselves as the party of "responsible government management".

What I wrote was: “It's not even worth arguing, that is a mocrocosm of the real issue; the Repubs since the 1980's have run teh debt of this country thru the roof. Fuck the Clinton surplus or not, explain how it is a good thing that teh last 26 years, minus Clinton's term have been a fiscal nightmare.” The best way to get rid of a Republican is to bring up the national deficit / debt. It’s like a pesticide. Again, for the sake of this argument, I will concede that Clinton didn’t leave a surplus, so now explain the climb from 1 trillion debt to 8.5 in 26 years, 1.5 occurring under Clinton, which he managed to turn to a zero growth after inheriting a steep increase. Then Bush 2 turned it back vertical again. I expect more, “bla, bla, bla,” but nothing cogent. If the debt increased under I term of a Repub, that means nothing by itself, but when you have 5 of 7 terms, all leading to huge increases, with the 2 in-between by the other guys leasding to curtailing that debt, you’re in a position of concession. To just add as a side note, “yea, I hate the runaway spending too.” is insufficient. What you’re saying is that it’s ok, can’t we just talk about a different area of the presidency? In a Capitalist nation, where our very survival relies more on commerce than in other countries, it’s hard to lowball the importance of fiscal well-being, but you and the Repubs are willing to do that for your moral legislation, war-mongering, classism, and what else??? Now take a look at the graphs and decipher them for us. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm If you can't even muster a rationalization of these graphs, you're not in this argument. Seemingly, it's all or nothing with you. Republicans - all bad Societies woes - all Republicans fault Good to know.

From the White House Office of Management and Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ (all in $B) FY Revenue Expenditure Surplus 1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -107.5 1997 1,579.3 1,601.2 -22.0 1998 1,721.8 1,652.6 69.2 1999 1,827.5 1,701.9 125.6 2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 236.4 2001 1,991.2 1,863.8 127.4 2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -157.8 2003 1,782.3 2,157.6 -375.3 Those are BUDGET numbers... pro forma... estimates. Not year-end figures!!! The numbers above show a surplus of over $500 Billion dollars, from '98 to '01. What happened to the federal debt over that period? Please explain why the federal debt increased over every one of those years.

I always thought that if your overall debt increased from one year to the next, you had a deficit for that year. How is this wrong? Which year since 1961 has this not been the case? How about some actual numbers showing a year end surplus???

Those supposed surpluses were merely forecasts. The last time we posted an end-of-year surplus was in the 60s. Not according to the US Treasury. How about some numbers to back that up. Here's a link: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Those supposed surpluses were merely forecasts. The last time we posted an end-of-year surplus was in the 60s. Here's a chart of the actual deficit/surplus; net gain / loss. Argue this one. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm ***blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.... It's not even worth arguing*** Perhaps, if you'd stick to actual facts, instead of making bogus claims and then trying to defend them (or admit your mistake), we could all save some time.

Lots of instances of violence against providers. No doubt, there are lots of instances of violence against abortion providers. Relatively speaking, it's miniscule compared to the amount of violence carried out by Islamic terrorists. Another thing to note is the response to these acts of violence. All forms of terrorism, in developed nations are investigated and prosecuted. In contrast, much of the violence carried out in the name of Islam, in predominantly Muslim countries, goes unaddressed by local governments.

Four deaths since Roe v. Wade. Like I said, a silly comparison.

Those supposed surpluses were merely forecasts. The last time we posted an end-of-year surplus was in the 60s. Here's a chart of the actual deficit/surplus; net gain / loss. Argue this one. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm Here's one of my favorites that depicts the debt and we know the deficits make up the debt. You are mistaken. It's a before the fact projection of the deficit/surplus. If you look closely, you'll see the last year the debt actual decreased was 1961. BTW I also have a problem with our federal debt and the huge increases that have occured over the last five years. But the claim that we realized a surplus during any year of Clinton's term is simply untrue.

Good point, Scooby. Has anybody seen any studies on the amount/percentage of oil revenues that are used to build infrastructures and develop self-sufficient economies in the predominantly muslim, oil rich, middle eastern countries? With the billions of net profits these countries bring in, I can't help wondering why most of them remain relatively undeveloped.

Those supposed surpluses were merely forecasts. The last time we posted an end-of-year surplus was in the 60s.

I think they are more into "do as I say" rather than "do as I do". The only way they resign is if they are being being prosecuted or in some cases going to jail is seems. You mean like Foley? In contrast, let's look at William Jefferson.

This kind of comparison is silly. How many people have died as a result of terrorism by Christians? Regarding abortion clinic bombings, I think the number is a low single digit one. How about deaths since 9/11 due to acts of Islamic terrorism? I'm guessing it's in the thousands. Comparing the two is like comparing a paper cut to a compound fracture.

Earth to Lucky... Earth to Lucky... Come in Lucky. "the republican members here and in general are defending Foley"? You've got to be kidding! Several people have tried to clarify what he did, in contrast to the dishonest condemnations made by others. I can't recall any instance where someone has actually defended him. Your comparison using Lieberman is laughable. He is not being policed for unethical behavior. He's being attacked for not toeing the party line.

You seem to be overlooking that we just went through the second largest recession since the Great Depression. It came after the greatest bull market in history. Yes, taking out the highs from 2000 is a big deal. And let's not overlook how the economy done over the last four years. From what I see, it's doing great. What always amazes me is how much Clinton's "budget surpluses" get tossed around. Those are essentially made up numbers... pretend surplus... that were never realized. Pro formas are great, but what matters are the actual results.

It turns out this was a bit of an overstatement. I did a little looking around and found a collection of surveys on Presidential greatness, given to history scholars over the last 58 years. All presidents before Truman were in 12 polls. Dubya was only in two. Based on the average scores, Carter came in 13th (tied with Gerald Ford) out of 17 presidents of the last century. Coolidge and Nixon were close behind, with the esteemed Warren G. Harding ranking as the worst President in history. So Carter placed in the bottom third, but not dead last. Anyone know when he's going to Iran?

You forgot his blunders regarding Cuba, Somalia and Bosnia. No doubt, his efforts with Habitat for Humanity outshine any other ex-Presidents achievements. IMO this contribution is more than offset by his unathorized meddling abroad.

Some might even call it a double standard.

It does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives. Conversely, Republicans caught red-handed know they shouldn't wait around to see who defends them.

Overall, who had a worse presidency? Even Nixon, with the heavy shame of Watergate, accomplished a great deal. Looking at Clinton and his impeachment, I bet history will place him in the top five of the last century. With Carter, we had huge inflation, historically high interest rates, a major energy crisis and a horrible foreign policy record. Iran is the most notable. Boycotting the Summer Olympics really stuck to one particular group - out athletes. Right out of the gate, he alienated himself from his own party in Congress. He felt the need to fire his entire cabinet. Not exactly compelling leadership. Again, who was worse?

Jimmy Carter's presidency may go down in history as the worst of the 20th Century. As far as ex-Presidents meddling in foreign affairs, contrary to the wishes of the sitting President - he stands in a class all his own.

Last week I posted a list of former Democratic Congressmen who have been, are or will be in prison. You assumed they were part of the "clinton Death list". I, in turn, assumed you had no idea of the significance of the list - Democrats doing prison time. It's easy to throw out negative labels and pretend your preferred party is so much better, but when you look at who has been convicted(key word) the corruption label seems more apt for the Democrats. That shows how you researched my reply. I researched 2 of the names and gave details, then asked what your point is. I assume it's again, Our guys are scum, but so are yours. You can;t understand that that doesn;t work. At the end of the day your guys are still scum and they are the ones in power. I don;t have to defend the actions of the minority, it doesn't matter when they don't have a voice. Furthermore, the left is about tolerance for those who have different lifestyles or are fuck-ups (for example education in prison, etc), the right is about intolerance for anything from the straight and narrow (for example Foley's homophone 28th Amendment & the laws increasing penalties for child molesters). Get it? When you call people out and then commit what you've been called out for, you are many times more susceptable to ridicule and hudgment. Are you saying that ethical, honorable behavior should only apply to the party in power.... that members/supporters of the minority are somehow exempt from the same level of decorum? You seem to expect a standard from others that you are unwilling to apply to yourself.