Just one more reason to hate Anne Coulter
So what do you think of these idiots? What do you think of Political Talking heads?
By the way, ten points to anyone who can catch the hypocrisy in that statment of hers.
Printable View
Just one more reason to hate Anne Coulter
So what do you think of these idiots? What do you think of Political Talking heads?
By the way, ten points to anyone who can catch the hypocrisy in that statment of hers.
Hahahaha stupid!
Kill their leaders and convert to christianity... thanks, that made my day nick :D
I have long hated Anne Coulter, and I had the extreme disfortunte to meet her as she came to make trouble at a Hunter S. Thompson book signing.
She'd just released her book "How to talk to Liberals (if you have to)", and I was in line to meet Thompson in Hollywood (I didnt that night because he got sick, but I did the next night in Beverly Hills) and one person standing with us went inside to do 'recon'. He came out saying "Anne Coulter is in there talking to the owners!" when she finally came out the whole line (about three hundred people at my guess) started yelling things at her. It was great.
I dont like Coulter in the least, and Shlup's dad doesnt like Thompson in the least, so when I go over there for dinner we have very interesting conversation xD
And just to make it clear, I dont like bipartisan politics in any way. I dont like people who have nothing but bad things to say about a stance. If, for example, Coulter was only attacking people, that'd be fine. But instead she just groups liberals together and judges every one of them under that 'liberal' banner and I find that annoying and closed-minded. At least Thompson had Republican and Conservative friends and people he respected. He went at people for their policies individually, even people he generally supported when they did wrong. Coulter just seems to want to bad-mouth without thought.
She is a beautiful, magical woman.
I approve of this thread.
I used to let her piss me off, but I think she says stupid things like that on purpose in order to get attention.
I agree with you, Sephex. She still pisses me off though.
I'm really not that fond of her, I think we have enough hate-filled rhetoric from both camps to last us for quite some time, and she's certainly not helping matters.
if she were a member of EoFF, she'd be on my ignore list.
Crazy lady.
The sad thing is people generally feel more unjustified hatred for Michael Moore than they do Ann Coulter. Or maybe it's because hatred towards MM is more publicized than towards AC?
I officially just learned who Anne Coulter is, and I officially now hate her.
*Smites*
And now I will tell you my Ann Coulter story.
Fall 2003 to Spring 2004 I went to UNC Chapel Hill, which has a smashing school of journalism. Ann Coulter was invitied by the school as a special speaker on behalf of the College Republicans. She charged six thousand dollars to speak.
The school footed the bill. Granted, six grand isn't that much for a big school like that, but it was half of someone's tuition for a full semester on campus.
In March of 2004, Helen Thomas spoke in our lecture hall as a part of a special series of speakers for journalism undergrads. She charged nothing. Helen Thomas was a pioneer in journalism, specifically for women, but also for everyone else because of her directness, her honesty, and her tact.
Ann Coulter will never be half the journalist of Helen Thomas, and yet she exploits the profession, lacking integrity, intelligence, and really throws the code of ethics out the window. Mudslinger is probably the only term she's deserving of.
I now hate her even more--I want to be in Journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
Am I understanding correctly that you're majoring in it, also? I don't see how she could even be considered a journalist. :mad2:
I am also a journalism major, one of the major reasons I detest her particular brand of rhetoric. I dislike Michael Moore's slanted bias as well, but I admit I prefer him to her, since I tend liberal and thus find Moore's spiel at least amusing.
I agree with BtV, in that although both Coulter and Moore are pathetic, I prefer Moore over Coulter because I can find him to be slightly amusing.
Also, on a semi related note, I once emailed Michael Moore and told him that he and Rush Limbaugh should have a pie eating contest, in order determine which side of the political spectrum isrightcorrect.
I would pay so much to see that.Quote:
Also, on a semi related note, I once emailed Michael Moore and told him that he and Rush Limbaugh should have a pie eating contest, in order determine which side of the political spectrum isrightcorrect.
Hahaha. Typical...one quote, as out-of-context as is possible, for people to base their opinions off.
Anne Coulter MAY be just slightly too extreme for my liking, but she's got a lot of stuff that I agree with. She's a brilliant writer and speaker, and she knows her stuff. Comparing her to Michael Moore, though, there's no chance. She's nowhere near as extreme, or as wrong, as Michael Moore.
One of her books is labeling all 'liberals' as traitors during the post 9/11 times. How is that not extreme? That's pretty damned extreme to me.
And seeing as I've read her books, I'm not basing my opinion on this quote, and Im sure I'm not the only one.
The ignorance of Ann Coulter is exceeded only by her stupidity.
In context, then? And I quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Coulter
EDIT:Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar
She has made plenty of asanine, and idiotic statements. This is just the one that I chose to share with you all.Quote:
Hahaha. Typical...one quote, as out-of-context as is possible, for people to base their opinions off.
I also want to mention that that last line about conversion was completely dischordant with the rest of the piece, it looks like it was thrown in there as an afterthought and doesn't fit the theme at all. For shame, Ms. Coulter, you're supposed to be a good writer.
She might be annoying and ignorant as hell...but if I could put duct tape over her mouth then I would do her.
She's very pretty. She's too skinny for my tastes though... I mean really really skinny. It's kinda gross.
I don't find it gross because I too am that skinny. I find it very normal and hot :P
She is good looking, but her vile personality negates her physical beauty. I can't even look at her without being disgusted.
I don't have cable TV and I would never watch Fox News anyways so I don't hear much of her. It works perfectly for me. Duct tape around the yapper and some sex would be awesome.
:p
Yeah, I was just about to say "What a babe."
You guys have freaky tastes.
For some reason I find very skinny guys to be hot, but very skinny girls gross me out. Go fig.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
That'd be a good point except the quote is as in-context as an excerpted quote can be, and she even defended it in this interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I like big girls..... :D ......and I think Anne Coulters FUNNY
I hate the woman with every fiber of my being.
I find her preety entretaining, I just don't take her seriously, just lay back and have a laugh. I really don't think it's worth to take idiots like that too seriously, I just happen to find them amusing. Don't you find Monty Python comedies funny? Well, this is just as stupid, only she's serious about it, and that makes it even better.
Oh, how I wish I had your attitude, Shadow Nexus.
You and me both, pal. It would do wonders for my blood pressure.
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
Oh, well, I read a lot of far right columnists for fun. For example, here in Spain we have a man called Federico Jiménez Losantos, considered more or less like Ann Coulter, only in Spanish version, wich probably also means more to the left...OK, saying Losantos has something on the left sounds preety extreme if you ever listened to him, but discovering Ann Coulter meant to me there was someone more insane than Federico Jiménez.
And well, I listen to Federico every morning, he's quite a journalism figure here, everyone I talked to considers him a complete fascist, but everyone knows him. When I was working in a factory this summer, I wanted to put him on the radio, but the rest of the workers didn't allow me to, until I showed them how it can actually be fun, just remember: laugh at it with your friends and be entretained. And on top of all, it's free, you just need a radio! It made the mornings much more entretaining.
What the hell is she ON!? I've researched Joseph McCarthy, the man was pathetic and just out for his own personal gain. How can any supposedly educated person even think something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Coulter
That's about as far as I got before I stopped reading. I'll read it all after class.
Proof that Coulter and her followers aren't educated. :rolleyes2Quote:
How can any supposedly educated person even think something like that?
*DIES*Quote:
I know he got a bad rap because there are no monuments to Joe McCarthy. Liberals had to destroy McCarthy because he exposed the entire liberal establishment as having sheltered Soviet spies.
*feels hot*Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix
:love:
You would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yggdrasil
Having just finished the rest of that interview, I now must officially say that the woman is a frothing lunatic, and I need to go clean my eyes with Drainage Fluid to stop them from burning.
She's a disgrace to all true conservatives. That's why I completely ignore her.
If this isn't all an act, then she belongs in a mental hospital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
Yeah well, I have a sense of humor.
Wow. I can say that I don't agree with anything this woman says...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryűkishi
Also, can we keep discussion on "how hot" this person is or what you find attractive out of this thread?
The mere fact that any American could have this perspective of McCarthy literally scares me.Quote:
I know he got a bad rap because there are no monuments to Joe McCarthy. Liberals had to destroy McCarthy because he exposed the entire liberal establishment as having sheltered Soviet spies.
But it's the best part of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by RSL
I'd do 'er.
Since she's a very smart, knowledgable person, the type of women I go after, and I might just let me have a go with her if all things go smoothe. She has a really nice figureQuote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
Me too! But only with the whole leather thing, so I could hit her hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
:D
Thank you, RSL. That kind of spam shouldn't be in EotW or EoEO.
Back to Coulter - I have a new theory. I think she's just a dumb blonde that listened to too much Rush Limbaugh growing up.
That statement is just as spammy as saying she's hot! Dumb blonde statements indeed...
I'm sorry I tried to cover up your spammy outburst with a humorous comment to put the thread back on topic in an easy-going manner.
How is it "smart" to run around and call everybody not on the extreme right wing "idiots" and "traitors"? She is always pissed off and quite frankly has the linguistic abilities of a four year old.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkey3
And she looks anorexic to me.
She is extremely skinny. Maybe it's emphasized to me because when I saw her in Hollywood, she was with a very very broad man. It was a contrast situation. I wouldnt say anorexic skinny, though I would say speed-freak skinny (not that Im accusing her of doing speed, but that's the kind of skinny she looks to me).
I suppose I'll forgive you this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
So, back on topic, I don't see what's so bad about her. She makes extreme statements, but at least she's mostly right.
*tries very hard not to spam to this statement*Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I dont like her
I admittedly have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just trying to make up for spamming about her hot ass.
Stop listening to your dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I just realized that that could be taken to mean "right-wing" instead of "correct". Not sure if that's what Shlup was going for though.Quote:
but at least she's mostly right.
Just from that interview she strikes me as a raving lunatic. My (very conservative) friend really likes her, and says she's really smart but that she can be bitchy at times.
The former doesn't strike me as necessarily true, and the latter is the understatement of the century.
That's what I thought at first. Maybe I was giving Shlup too much credit. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
She's an absolute nutjob. Bill O'Reilly's more sane than she is, and he's a raving lunatic, too.Quote:
Just from that interview she strikes me as a raving lunatic. My (very conservative) friend really likes her, and says she's really smart but that she can be bitchy at times.
I've read two of her books (didnt pay for them, but read them) and not all her ideas are as extreme as the one quoted, but many of them are. But I've yet to see any of her ideas that's actually proactive instead of being able to be summed up in "omfg liberals".
For Coulter, everything is the fault of the liberals and every problem can be solved by their destruction. Seriously.
I thought of both meanings of "right" when I posted it. :p
I love how all these people can call Anne Coulter "hateful" on a thread titled "I Hate Anne Coulter". A little... ironic? Naw, that ain't the word...
Raistlin, if you'd actually read "Treason" you would know about the Venona Project. If you knew anything about the Venona Project and McCarthy's "innocent victims", you would realize that she is, once again, right.
If men could get pregnant, I would have her baby.
First of all, as far as hate goes, I'm sure no one who has up until now posted in this thread has an active hate of Anne Coulter. Personally, I dislike her practice. She has no journalistic integrity, everything she says is mudslinging and not very productive at all. Part of being a journalist, any journalist, is maintaining your integrity and doing your job right. Part of that job is to make people think, which Coulter does do, I will admit, but another part of that job is to act as a watchdog. It's why the press is considered the fifth estate in the US government system. Coulter is not a watchdog journalist, she doesn't expose anything meaningful in her work, and she is far more concerned about presenting herself as a sexy, smart ass "bitch" than as an intelligent woman with insightful, stern and pointed rebuttal to her critics.
Her writing is dull and repetitive, and when she does expose a gem of historical fact that is often overlooked in the public eye, she immediately spoils it by raving on and on and on about how all of this leads back to the evil liberals.
I refuse to respect the work of a person who lacks all integrity (both personal and professional) and who lacks one of the fundamental traits of a good journalist; objectivity.
We'll put aside the wholly unfounded and untrue claim that she lacks integrity and instead go to the most amusing part....
You refuse to respect the work of any person who lacks objectivity? I suppose that means that after Memogate you refuse to watch CBS, you can't stand Dan Rather, and after ABC's "let's help Kerry get elected" memo you don't watch them anymore either?
Spot on, actually. The only ABC news I watch is my local news, and I can't recall a time when I ever watched CBS, except during 9/11 I believe. For everything else I use the internet and various newspapers.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
I understand that the very idea of objectivity is in itself quite subjective, but entertain for a moment that we all could agree on what the term objective meant. It's my opinion that a good journalist will forgo the scoop in order to verify that his or her informants/information are completely reliable. Just because the big names in the industry don't follow these guidelines doesn't mean that they're still there and that they apply to everyone. And just because someone is a big name doesn't necessarily mean they're a "good journalist". Sensationalism is just bad all around. Another of Coulter's faults, in my opinion.
But this only my opinion. I don't tout it as fact.
Not to take this thread over, but to throw Rather under the bus is quite unfair when you consider that mistakes are made ALL the time and he actually apologized, though it took a while, while a great many other mistakes that occur, both in the media and the government happen without any sort of apology or accountability.
To look at media figures such as a Coulter or a Rather, you have to look at the bigger picture, not just isolated instances. Rather was one of the foremost members behind reporting the JFK assassination, the Civil Rights movement, both Gulf Wars, Watergate, and the fall of Communism in Germany and Russia so I think he deserves more credit than he was given.
Take care all.
The woman is incredibly rude. If you can be an incredibly rude person and still have integrity than I guess you are right. However, I would have to disagree. She says things that she herself knows arent true, just to piss people off. (I have been guilty of this in the past as well. Most of us have.)Quote:
the wholly unfounded and untrue claim that she lacks integrity
And those things would be.....?Quote:
She says things that she herself knows arent true, just to piss people off.
"All liberals are *insert your pick here*"Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
She's said so many things about "liberals" it's rediculous. If she said "liberals are silly hippee idiots", I can deal with that because it's just mere basisless opinion that's not hurting anything, but when she says stuff like "liberals would hate Muslims too if it wasn't for terrorism!" or "liberals really hate black and gay people and just lie to everyone to make it look like Republicans do so they can take over!"...it just makes me want to watch sick things happen to her newspaper photos.
Actually, she's said pretty straight-out, more than once, that the vast majority of liberals are just 'going with the flow'. It's easy, and the New York Times will love you for it.
As someone who avidly reads every word Anne Coulter writes, I can assure you that such a quote does not exist.Quote:
liberals really hate black and gay people and just lie to everyone to make it look like Republicans do so they can take over!
Gimme about half a bottle of Jack Daniels, then peek into my room about 2 in the morning.Quote:
it just makes me want to watch sick things happen to her newspaper photos.
Just kiddin', folks...
The fact that she says that liberals are what's wrong with America today can mean one of two things.
a) She's trying to be annoying to get publicity and support from the extremist right-wingers.
b) She actually believes it, in which case she's a complete and utter moron.
Umm, she didn't write them, she said them. If you think I'm making it up, go to muchosucko.com and search for the video of people hurling pies at her stupid ass after she says it. It's great. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Liberals go with the 'liberal flow'. I'll agree with that. Howver, it's the same with conservatives, they just flow in the 'conservative flow'. The average person needs someone to think for them, and thats why they 'go with the flow'. It most certainly is not a liberal exclusive thing, and to believe so shows the lack of common sense.Quote:
Actually, she's said pretty straight-out, more than once, that the vast majority of liberals are just 'going with the flow'. It's easy, and the New York Times will love you for it.
Seeing as my computer can't handle Quicktime, I'm unable to watch it--but I'd love for someone else to take a look if they can and gimme the straight on it.Quote:
Umm, she didn't write them, she said them. If you think I'm making it up, go to muchosucko.com and search for the video of people hurling pies at her stupid ass after she says it. It's great.
Actually, there's a third--it's obvious. Everything that liberalism has gotten hold of has gotten worse for its influence--education, marriage, child protection, law enforcement, California, poverty, health care, and a whole host of other issues.Quote:
The fact that she says that liberals are what's wrong with America today can mean one of two things.
Hardly a fact. Conservatives have done just as much good and damage as liberals have. Also, let me remind you that the ideology of liberalism is basically progressivism, whereas conservative ideology is traditionalism. If we listened solely to the conservative mindset on all issues we'd probably not have made nearly as much progress towards equal rights as we have now (obviously more work needs to be done, but we've come a long way). If we listened solely to the liberal mindset, we'd probably be socialist, which isn't a pretty thing, nor does it work. It's a balance of both, and I assure you that the conservatives are hardly correct in all venues.Quote:
Actually, there's a third--it's obvious. Everything that liberalism has gotten hold of has gotten worse for its influence--education, marriage, child protection, law enforcement, California, poverty, health care, and a whole host of other issues.
Is the 8 hour workday a bad thing? How about the disbanding of illegal monopolies and trusts by Theodore Roosevelt? How about the 14th amendment? Womens' voting rights? Laws against discrimination? It's not a coincidence that the Supreme Court has, time and again in the past decades, typically ruled on the liberal side - they know the law and Constitution better than anyone.Quote:
Actually, there's a third--it's obvious. Everything that liberalism has gotten hold of has gotten worse for its influence--education, marriage, child protection, law enforcement, California, poverty, health care, and a whole host of other issues.
I could just as easily say everything conservatism touches has been the worse off for it - the enviroment, foreign relations, constitutional protection, big business, and many more.
And I guess the fact that the three worst depressions in US history were right after a Republican instituted their absurd economic theories on taxation is just a coincidence. :D
EDIT:
Because "Treason" is the only valid source of information, eh?Quote:
Raistlin, if you'd actually read "Treason" you would know about the Venona Project. If you knew anything about the Venona Project and McCarthy's "innocent victims", you would realize that she is, once again, right.
Blacklisting was one of the biggest outrages of domestic policy in US history. If you wish to challenge that, I'll take a visit to the library.
Bluntly, yes. If you can't bring yourself to work more than eight hours a day to provide for your family, then you've got problems.Quote:
Is the 8 hour workday a bad thing?
Are you claiming that Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal?Quote:
How about the disbanding of illegal monopolies and trusts by Theodore Roosevelt?
RepublicansQuote:
How about the 14th amendment?
Senate vote: 36 Republicans, 20 Democrats for. 8 Republicans, 17 Democrats against.Quote:
Womens' voting rights?
Bigger majority among Republicans than DemocratsQuote:
Laws against discrimination?
They're accomplishments, alright--but they're our accomplishments.
It's also no coincidence that the Surpreme Court has allowed the murder of children, used the rulings of foreign courts as basis for its own rulings, and invented rights out of a "living Constitution" right and left.Quote:
It's not a coincidence that the Supreme Court has, time and again in the past decades, typically ruled on the liberal side - they know the law and Constitution better than anyone.
Yeah, because lowering the amount of money that a government confiscates from its citizens is bound to do bad things for the economy, right?Quote:
And I guess the fact that the three worst depressions in US history were right after a Republican instituted their absurd economic theories on taxation is just a coincidence.
Because "Treason" speaks in great detail of the Venona Project. Thus, if you read "Treason" you would know about the Venona Project.Quote:
ecause "Treason" is the only valid source of information, eh?
I certainly do. Supporters of a regime more murderous than Hitler's having difficulty finding work is an accomplishment on our part, not an outrage.Quote:
Blacklisting was one of the biggest outrages of domestic policy in US history. If you wish to challenge that, I'll take a visit to the library.
It's futile to link the Republicans of Lincoln's time with modern Republicans. There has been massive political realignment between the 1860's and the present. Further, your statistics are representative of the major political parties before any such realignments took place. The womens' vote information you cite is from 1919-1920. There has been political realignment since then, and to compare the modern parties with those of the past is folly. As to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it swung the South towards the Republicans. By your own information, the change is apparent.
Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal in many ways. If you'll recall, he was followed in the presidency by Taft. After that, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson became president, in an election where Taft was the Republican candidate and Roosevelt the Progressive (better known as Bull Moose) candidate. Taft was the conservative force in the Republican ranks; Roosevelt was unquestionably more liberal.
The 8-hour workyday does not prohibit working more - it merely mandates that companies pay overtime for extra hours.Quote:
Bluntly, yes. If you can't bring yourself to work more than eight hours a day to provide for your family, then you've got problems.
I'm stating that Teddy's anti-trust campaigning was liberal. Whether he was liberal or not is irrelevant - the action was.Quote:
Are you claiming that Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal?
Republican is not defined by conservative, nor is Democrat defined by liberal - especially way back in the 1860s. Many of Lincoln's ideas were liberal.Quote:
Republicans
Again, almost a century ago, politics was different.Quote:
Senate vote: 36 Republicans, 20 Democrats for. 8 Republicans, 17 Democrats against.
I'm focusing on "liberal and conservative" whereas you're focusing on the narrower and more specific "Republican and Democrat." They are not the same.Quote:
Bigger majority among Republicans than Democrats
They're accomplishments, alright--but they're our accomplishments.
Ah, because judges who know the law left and right obviously are wrong. Even Republicans in the Supreme Court have ruled on the liberal side - that's not a coincidence.Quote:
It's also no coincidence that the Surpreme Court has allowed the murder of children, used the rulings of foreign courts as basis for its own rulings, and invented rights out of a "living Constitution" right and left.
Three times in this nation's history has "Reagenomics" or "the trickle-down effect" taxation policy been instituted - all three times followed by horrible recessions. You claim that Communism is evil because nothing but bad things have happened as a result of it - how can you argue against me saying that Reagenomics are foolish because bad things happened as a result of it?Quote:
Yeah, because lowering the amount of money that a government confiscates from its citizens is bound to do bad things for the economy, right?
There are numerous other sources about McCarthyism.Quote:
Because "Treason" speaks in great detail of the Venona Project. Thus, if you read "Treason" you would know about the Venona Project.
Wha? How does upholding the right for people to believe what they wish supporting the Soviet Union?Quote:
Supporters of a regime more murderous than Hitler's having difficulty finding work is an accomplishment on our part, not an outrage.
Really? Well, let's go with the real "Reaganomics", the policies that Reagan himself set up, and Bush Sr. followed. It's been apparent throughout history that economic changes take a few years to have their main influence. After Reagan left, and even after Bush Sr. left, the economy did great. Wonderful. Granted, part of that should be credited to the "dot com boom", but a large part should also be credited to Reagan and his policies. Clinton, on the other hand, reversed Reagan's policies, and what was happening by the end of Clinton's term? That's right, a major recession. A recession that Bush Jr. inherited, and, of course, was blamed for, when Bush had nothing to do with it. The nation thrived because of the economic changes that Reagan made, and sufferred because of the economic changes that Clinton made. Looks like "Reaganomics" works pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
EDIT: And what's happening now? The economy is doing much better, since the recession that Clinton brought upon us and 9/11, and we're on the rebound.
It's simple. Let people keep more of the money they earn. If we continue on the subject of economics and taxes, I'll look up an article that compares taxes to a casual lunch between friends. It's pretty good, if I do say so myself. Not that I wrote it or anything.
I'll probably add more later, just wanted to address this issue for now.
I'd like to point out that Clinton saw economic boom in his second term. The logic is usually "the effects of a president's work aren't felt until after their term" or something like that. If such was a case then would it not be that Clinton instigated his own economic boom in his first term and reaped the rewards in his second? Also, while a recession is always going to follow a boom, were George Bush's policies actually working, would we not be experiencing at least a stronger economic recovery than we are now?
And on the matter of the work day, are you aware that people in Europe don't work nearly as much as we Americans do? And are you aware that they're living longer and less stressful lives than we are? We aren't farmers or hunter/gatherers anymore, with modern technology we don't NEED to work as much as we do.
In reality, there is little that any President knows or can do to stimulate the economy, as even economists have admitted time and time again, that though they can predict what they think might happen, they know very little about what actually causes the valleys and peaks.
Thus, "Reaganomics" and its usefulness is really a matter not of whether it worked or not, but of your political affiliation.
Take care all.
It is? Clinton brought a recession upon us? Unicorns live in the center of the Pentagon?Quote:
EDIT: And what's happening now? The economy is doing much better, since the recession that Clinton brought upon us and 9/11, and we're on the rebound.
When did all this happen? o___O
I guess it's just coincidence that Clinton's changes took almost 9 years to have an adverse affect - after he was out of office for nearly a year. Economic changes, especially with such enormous changes of policy, typically happen much sooner than that.Quote:
Really? Well, let's go with the real "Reaganomics", the policies that Reagan himself set up, and Bush Sr. followed. It's been apparent throughout history that economic changes take a few years to have their main influence. After Reagan left, and even after Bush Sr. left, the economy did great. Wonderful. Granted, part of that should be credited to the "dot com boom", but a large part should also be credited to Reagan and his policies. Clinton, on the other hand, reversed Reagan's policies, and what was happening by the end of Clinton's term? That's right, a major recession. A recession that Bush Jr. inherited, and, of course, was blamed for, when Bush had nothing to do with it. The nation thrived because of the economic changes that Reagan made, and sufferred because of the economic changes that Clinton made. Looks like "Reaganomics" works pretty well.
Anyway, the first time what is now known as "Reaganomics" was put into use in the early 1920s by the first of three Republican presidents...anybody remember what happened in 1929?
Of course, the Great Depression was not caused solely by Reaganomics, but also a severe influx of credit and stock-marketing with little to no regulations...who completely revamped our economic policies which allowed us to climb out of that? Oh yeah, FDR, a Democrat.
DMKA -- Yes, Clinton brought a recession, and the economy is improving now. If you don't/didn't see that, you can't be helped by anybody other than yourself, and you need to crawl out from under the rock and open your eyes.
Raistlin -- The recession began during Clinton's second term, not a year after. It only worsened after 9/11, eight months after Clinton left. Clinton was at least smart enough to leave the economy be for the first couple years and gather the praise that Reagan and Bush Sr. earned, but Clinton was not yet out of office by the time the recession that he caused took affect.
I'd like to see some sources. The economy didn't begin improving until after Iraq.Quote:
DMKA -- Yes, Clinton brought a recession, and the economy is improving now. If you don't/didn't see that, you can't be helped by anybody other than yourself, and you need to crawl out from under the rock and open your eyes.
Raistlin -- The recession began during Clinton's second term, not a year after. It only worsened after 9/11, eight months after Clinton left. Clinton was at least smart enough to leave the economy be for the first couple years and gather the praise that Reagan and Bush Sr. earned, but Clinton was not yet out of office by the time the recession that he caused took affect.
And the economy is hardly good, as evidenced by the fact that I still can't get a job and the stock market is still going down the tubes.
Sorry to revive the thread, but I just found this.
Now, you know what woulda been cool? If the guy had done something intelligent rather than make crude sexual remarks. It's also probably dumbasses like this that help reinforce her opinions on liberals.
I've seen that quote, and it's pretty much inapplicable to taxes - while the rich friend may not have to show up for lunch, there's nowhere the rich guy can go where he won't be taxed. As the old quote goes, there's only two things that are certain in life: death, and taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
http://www29.websamba.com/TheAbomina...ublemakers.mov
There, it's on my own server now. Much better.