Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
why that was nice
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PollyCranopolis" data-source="post: 3503578" data-attributes="member: 553423"><p>Well, regarding terrorism, the Clinton legacy cannot be dismissed in any analysis of 9/11. In 1997, the CIA updated its intelligence estimate to ensure bin Laden appeared on its very first page as an emerging threat, saying that his growing movement might translate into attacks on U.S. soil. The man who was running the show when the CIA made these assessments? Clinton, of course. The United States was struck repeatedly under his watch, and our inaction did not go unnoticed. Despite the apparent involvement of both Iraq and al Qaeda, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was treated as a police matter, not as the international terrorist attack it was. The Khobar Towers U.S. military housing complex was bombed by Islamic extremists three years later, and the United States did nothing. When al Qaeda killed more than 200 people in 1998 by blowing up two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, Clinton’s “response” was bombing empty training camps in Afghanistan and somebody else’s pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. And when 17 servicemen were killed and 39 injured in what could only be construed as an act of war on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the response was an FBI investigation. Could more have been done before 9/11? Absolutely. The United States could have used more force to punish those who attack us, and in the process, possibly deter future attacks. Or we could have aggressively pursued the threat posed by radical Islam, particularly inside our borders. But considering the cry over racial profiling even after 9/11, almost any such efforts would have been squashed by the P.C. police. The historical record should make it clear to anyone not blinded by partisanship that Bush is not to blame for 9/11. Neither is Clinton, though. The terrorists are.</p><p></p><p>And I'm no economist by any means, but of course there are many outside factors to consider..</p><p></p><p>Dot Com bubble..</p><p></p><p>Real estate bubble...</p><p></p><p>Clinton affected the economy by cutting the military and tolerating multiple attacks, Bush affected the economy by cutting taxes to raise revenue to re-build the military. Which would you choose? I mean, they were both very good economies.</p><p></p><p>The Economy -</p><p></p><p>GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:</p><p></p><p>Unemployment Rate -</p><p></p><p>Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)</p><p></p><p>Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease</p><p></p><p>Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)</p><p></p><p>Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change</p><p></p><p>Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -</p><p></p><p>2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)</p><p></p><p>1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)</p><p></p><p>1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)</p><p></p><p>Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -</p><p></p><p>2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)</p><p></p><p>1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)</p><p></p><p>1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)</p><p></p><p>Homeownership Rate -</p><p></p><p>GWBush's 1st three years:</p><p></p><p>4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)</p><p></p><p>4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)</p><p></p><p>Difference: +1.1%</p><p></p><p>Bill Clinton's 1st three years:</p><p></p><p>4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)</p><p></p><p>4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)</p><p></p><p>Difference: +0.7%</p><p></p><p>Inflation Rate -</p><p></p><p>GWBush's 1st three years:</p><p></p><p>Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)</p><p></p><p>Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)</p><p></p><p>Difference: 1.8% Decrease</p><p></p><p>Bill Clinton's 1st three years:</p><p></p><p>Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)</p><p></p><p>Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)</p><p></p><p>Difference: 0.53% Decrease</p><p></p><p>Obviously most of this includes numbers only from the first 3 years of each term. The majority was pulled from <a href="http://www.census.gov." target="_blank">http://www.census.gov.</a> Of course one would like to see a comparison including Clinton's full term, and the projected remainder of GW's before jumping to conclusions....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PollyCranopolis, post: 3503578, member: 553423"] Well, regarding terrorism, the Clinton legacy cannot be dismissed in any analysis of 9/11. In 1997, the CIA updated its intelligence estimate to ensure bin Laden appeared on its very first page as an emerging threat, saying that his growing movement might translate into attacks on U.S. soil. The man who was running the show when the CIA made these assessments? Clinton, of course. The United States was struck repeatedly under his watch, and our inaction did not go unnoticed. Despite the apparent involvement of both Iraq and al Qaeda, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was treated as a police matter, not as the international terrorist attack it was. The Khobar Towers U.S. military housing complex was bombed by Islamic extremists three years later, and the United States did nothing. When al Qaeda killed more than 200 people in 1998 by blowing up two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, Clinton’s “response” was bombing empty training camps in Afghanistan and somebody else’s pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. And when 17 servicemen were killed and 39 injured in what could only be construed as an act of war on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the response was an FBI investigation. Could more have been done before 9/11? Absolutely. The United States could have used more force to punish those who attack us, and in the process, possibly deter future attacks. Or we could have aggressively pursued the threat posed by radical Islam, particularly inside our borders. But considering the cry over racial profiling even after 9/11, almost any such efforts would have been squashed by the P.C. police. The historical record should make it clear to anyone not blinded by partisanship that Bush is not to blame for 9/11. Neither is Clinton, though. The terrorists are. And I'm no economist by any means, but of course there are many outside factors to consider.. Dot Com bubble.. Real estate bubble... Clinton affected the economy by cutting the military and tolerating multiple attacks, Bush affected the economy by cutting taxes to raise revenue to re-build the military. Which would you choose? I mean, they were both very good economies. The Economy - GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years: Unemployment Rate - Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years) Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years) Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) - 2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years) 1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years) 1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years) Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) - 2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years) 1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years) 1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years) Homeownership Rate - GWBush's 1st three years: 4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush) 4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush) Difference: +1.1% Bill Clinton's 1st three years: 4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton) 4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton) Difference: +0.7% Inflation Rate - GWBush's 1st three years: Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush) Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush) Difference: 1.8% Decrease Bill Clinton's 1st three years: Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton) Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton) Difference: 0.53% Decrease Obviously most of this includes numbers only from the first 3 years of each term. The majority was pulled from [URL="http://www.census.gov."]http://www.census.gov.[/URL] Of course one would like to see a comparison including Clinton's full term, and the projected remainder of GW's before jumping to conclusions.... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
why that was nice
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
