Schnazz

Sounds good.

Quite good! Though I thought his Iowa speech was even better. And did you see the size of that victory? WuHu! He doubled Clinton's vote!

Magic, naturally.

Clinton embraced the dot-com bubble by allowing the fed rates to be high even when the burst was becoming obvious. Basically he let the well dry before anyone did anything. Instead of trying to cut rates initially, they sat back, as they felt it was too good to fall apart. No one did their homework on the economy in that administration. But the federal reserve sets the rates and it's an independent agency. If you want to blame someone for the rates, surely it should be Greenspan. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt), unemployment was at 5.0% for December of 2007 and 4.6% for 2007 over all. While this is down for the current administration from the high 2003 of 6.0%, it's not a new low. 2000 has the lowest unemployment for nearly 40 years at 4.0%. When it comes to our economy, I think we can pretty safely say that Bush has seriously harmed it. Nearly 500 billion dollars spent on war during his two terms is disastrous. And thanks for the reference!

The last recession in 2001, wasn't declared until mid-2003. You could probably look it up on an economist wiki page or something, it's a common fact that there is a big gap between implemented national policy and it's effects. Time action lag is a legitimate economic concept taught at the basic macro levels. Could you provide a reference for it? When I google "time action lag" I get exactly one response. The closest thing I can find is "action lag". http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?...mp;k=action+lag defines it as "a part of the implementation lag involving the time it takes for appropriate policies to be launched once they have been agreed to by policy makers" which would be on the scale of months, not years and would not explain why one presidents policies change the economy for the next president. It also talks about the implantation, how long it takes to act on the decisions it reaches. Again, not something would take years. I'm willing to accept that this isn't a good source, but it was the best I could find, and it's your term not mine. :)

Apparently I didn't explain myself well at all. :) The point I was trying to make was that even though people claim that there's economic effect trails presidents, certain indicators, such as unemployment, line up almost exactly with when presidents take and vacate the office, not several years afterwards. For example, during the 12 years for Reagan and Bush Sr., unemployment rose. Then during the eight years of Clinton, unemployment fell. During Bush Jr.'s first four years, unemployment rose again. If there was this trailing effect, you would expect it to kick in after the same number of years. Instead you see changes consistently quickly after a president takes office. Do you have a source for this? My understanding, and for what it's worth, Wiki agrees with me, is that a recession is a decrease in the countries GDB for two or more quarters. It shouldn't take two years to see that change. Do you have any sources for that as well? (maybe that's too broad of a concept to source) While I've heard this many times before, it always sounded like an old wives tail to me, not something that's been supported by thorough research. I don't think you can really credit or blame Clinton for the dot com bubble. It seems as though several times in the US's history, new technologies have emerged that created a nearly identical expansion and collapse. For example, the railroad expansions and industrial revolution in the 1800's and then mass production and the automobile expansion of the early 1900's. You see a pattern where a technology is introduce that can "change everything". You see an initial boost to production, efficiencies, etc... based on the new technology. People see this boost and want to cash in on it, wildly investing and trying create new uses for the technology. Since it's new, people don't know what is a good idea and what's not, so a lot of these end up failing. Enough fail, you get a tipping point, and people run like mad from the new technology. And finally, based on earlier success and failures, people figure out how to properly use the new technology, what it's limits are, etc, and it correctly gets incorporated into the economy.

Shawn Brown - Rappin' Duke

Lol, you must be kidding... Actually, yes. Humor, embrace it!

You must have gotten hit by a car at some point during your walk. You're dead. :stickpoke: Wow, look at how clever you are! You read my post, waited until I was dead, and then posted that I was dead. MaxFly, your wit truly knows no bounds.

Your concern is touching. You'll be happy to know that I'm back alive again. You are? You looked dead... Let me check, I may be mistaken... Yup, you're dead. Wasn't mistaken. I feel fine. I think I'll go for a walk.

I've heard a lot of people claim the theory that the economy is delayed from the president. So Reagan/Bush's policies created Clinton's economy. Clinton's policies created W's economy, etc... A while back I looked at unemployment (and another factor, I forget which though) in relation to who was president, it was surprising in it's clarity. I think it went back to 60's or 70's, I'm not sure, but there was a very obvious trend. Unemployment showed stead massive growth when Reagan came in and was an upward trend through his presidency and Bush Sr's. Clinton's showed steady decrease through his entire term. Then with W's presidency it started growing again. A pretty simple relationship, but interesting none the less.

I don't know about Clinton killing the economy, he presided over an incredible economy with great growth and keeping national debt in check. How did Clinton support killing innocent life? Are you referring to abortion, missile attacks, or some of the other military operations? It seems that lately it's been taboo to talk politics with folks (on the forum and just in life in general). That's too bad. Discussing politics is essential to having a strong, functional democracy. It seems that now people are so entrenched in their own views that any discussion of alternate views is taken as a personal insult. We need to be open to other ideas and let reason and debate affect us more than ideologies.

:help:

Your concern is touching. You'll be happy to know that I'm back alive again.

It's astounding how much worse the world is now compared to seven years ago.

Ice Cube - My Summer Vacation

Yup, problem is that people aren't posting there multiple times in a row or even multiple times a minute in order to gain money as you and Tim have done. My god man, really, can you conflate any more?

So basically, you're saying that posting multiple times in a short space of time simply to earn money in the battle game isn't spamming? Lol, ok. When we found out that Chief was doing it even though he was responding to posts, we labeled it as spamming. You're using the thread to post as often as possible to gain gil, and you're not spamming? Lol... delusional. Hahahaha, kind of like you just posted at 8:20, 8:24, 8:29, 8:34, and 8:35. SPAMMER! I'm responding to posts, and those posts generally consist of more than one sentence. Your posts in the music thread consisted of no more than a few words each. hahaha, man, have you ever looked in there? They are all a few words... just enough to express... are you ready for it... what you're listening to.

I read somewhere that described it like this: It's natural to look back at older music and conclude that modern music is bad by comparison. The reason is that all the bad stuff from the past gets forgotten, so all you look back at is the outstanding stuff. Forty years from now you won't be looking back at Mike Jones. You'll be looking back at Outkast and saying "Man, they where great!" I think that explains a lot of my dissatisfaction anyays. However, Big Ben gets some serious props for bringing up Chantilly Lace!

Am I missing something? I don't see I Am Legend anywhere on there. It's not under the Visual Effects category.

So basically, you're saying that posting multiple times in a short space of time simply to earn money in the battle game isn't spamming? Lol, ok. When we found out that Chief was doing it even though he was responding to posts, we labeled it as spamming. You're using the thread to post as often as possible to gain gil, and you're not spamming? Lol... delusional. Hahahaha, kind of like you just posted at 8:20, 8:24, 8:29, 8:34, and 8:35. SPAMMER!

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Slow down there man. How long is it down for?

Fugees - Killing Me Softly

Spamming? Multiple posts in the matter of a few minutes? Posting about the same song twice? Yeah, spamming. It's actually againt the forum rules. Rule 9 or 10. lol, man, you got nothen on me. What part of "What Are You Listening To?" do you not understand? Now what was it I was saying about abusing your mod privileges?

EPMD - Its My Thing