Maggie's Farm

Lefties see politics in everything so they are blind to the reality that there's nothing political about anything ISIS or any of the other Islamic terrorist groups do. It doesn't matter what you say, whether you get a Global Climate Change deal in Paris, close Gitmo, or anything else, their motivation is religious/cultural. ISIS/Al Qaeda/Boco Haram/Iran/name your terrorist group can explain how they will kill all the infidels till they are blue in the face and it won't make a dent in the leftie mindset.

ISIS was truly the JV team till Obummer created a power vacuum by withdrawing from Iraq.

Not to you and your lefty friends and that is why Obummer has only made the situation worse. The fact is they claim they are doing what the Koran commands them to do: kill infidels. The only thing we in the West can do to get them to stop trying to kill us is embrace their flavor of Islam.

Re: Tri-state ware on business



That's not a bug, that's a feature. Eventually everybody will end up depending on the government for goods, services, and jobs.

Re: yoga

Putting aside the ridiculousness of uppity-ups at the University of Ottawa (incredibly, the 'home' of Janis Fiamengo who actually does use her brain and was recently featured here on Maggies. See her wonderful videos here https://www.youtube.com/user/StudioBrule) whose mental yoga negatively equates real yoga from India with the British colonialism of India (does your head hurt yet?), one might wonder just how bad British colonialism was for the Indians.

Without denying that there were some bad aspects of British rule, it needs to be said that some the primitive Indian customs were dangerous to the public health and any attempt to reform them to a more modern lifestyle was a very positive thing for which the Brits should be applauded and not scorned.

You're correct that the pubbies were hyperbolic in their criticism of Clinton's tax increases. Something that is common to both parties, but for my money, the Dem's get more hyperbolic about more things than the pubbies.

As far as the economy was concerned, Clinton (and Bush Sr.) rode on Reagan's coat tails as well as the tech revolution. Clinton famously claimed "it's economy, stupid" when in reality the shallow recession was already melting away. Before the election, the economy was growing at greater than 6%.

After the pubbies took over the House and Senate, Clinton claimed he had a deep understanding of the budget saying that $200B deficits as far as the eye could see was the best that could be done. It wasn't till the pubbies forced the issue that the budget was eventually balanced.

Z: They were simply wrong.

How gracious of you!

Let's see Clinton was wrong either when he said he understood the budget or that there had to be $200B deficits for the foreseeable future or both. The fact remains, he was certainly not solely or even mainly for the great economy in the '90s nor was he responsible for the balanced budget

He was wrong when he predicted carnage from welfare reform.

He was wrong when he said he didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky and that anything depends on the definition of the word 'is.' That's not to mention all the misogynistic things his people did to those accusing him of sexual harassment or rape. I know you Clintonistas would dispute that those women are being honest, but as Hillary recently said (via tweet):
.

Z: You suggested they were hyperbolic, but they were hyperbolic with the wrong sign. Instead of the economy collapsing, it began the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern U.S. history.

I didn't suggest they were hyperbolic. I said they were. Maybe you forgot that I also recounted that the democrats said that the poor were going to starve if welfare reform was enacted. You do remember that they didn't, right? Then there was Bill Clinton, who studied under the racist Senator Fulbright, who said he remember black churches burning in Arkansas - when there were none that burned since he was born. But maybe the crowning achievement of Democrats being 'hyperbolic' is when they had ads saying that more black churches would if a pubbie was elected president. Not only was that hyperbolic and not only it was wrong, but it was a blood libel. None of this is surprising given that they lie about their own history by saying that for 200 years they have been the party of civil rights. Give it up - you have no room to talk.

Z: Huh? Clinton's 1996 budget proposed deficits, but that doesn't mean that further cuts weren't intended. Welfare reform was still on the table, and was something Clinton had promised during the campaign.

Are you this clueless? Did you read what I said or are you just picking out a single sentence to erase any context and then argue with that? I explained that Clinton had no intention of balancing the budget. He said that he could not see a way to reduce the deficit below $200B/year for his entire presidency (and presumably beyond). As for welfare reform, he promised it, vetoed it twice and then signed basically the same bill he vetoed twice before. That speaks to REAL commitment!

Z: There were a lot of factors involved, which did include deregulation of the Internet spearheaded by Gore when he was in the Senate, the reduction in deficits resulting in increased confidence in the U.S.'s ability to manage its economy; plus all the normal advantages of the U.S. economy, natural resources, educated and motivated workforce, and robust markets.

The Internet was and is a huge driver of the economy - partially because it was unregulated - so Gore deserves some credit (no need to thank me!), but the tax cuts and the deregulation of the '80s was what got the ball rolling. The re-regulation of this administration is running that ball into a ditch.

Z: You are revealing the weakness of your position by point to an obvious political distraction.

No, I'm being gracious by comparing Clinton's self serving lies about his sexual harassment (feminist definition) of Lewinsky to Republicans being hyperbolic about tax cuts. Of course, he wasn't being hyperbolic or even wrong. He was lying to save his own skin (legal and political). Having the truth of Lewinsky (not to mention, Willey, Broaddrick, and how many others) come out would have been very damaging to his defense in Paula Jones's suit. The potential political damage was obvious. He was and continues to be the lowest of the low.

He did it only when he had no choice. He vetoed welfare reform twice and he was satisfied with $200B deficits for his entire term. You are deluded.

All three boils were essentially the same. He bowed to political pressure to sign it the last time.

Whatever... Just the threat of reform caused up to 50% of those on the welfare rolls in some cities to leave welfare and get a job before any law was passed.

So why didn't he submit a balanced budget?