I hate to tell you this, but your bloviation has only gotten worse. I seem to have noticed a couple of personal insults while I was selecting the text, so I could paste it to Word, so I could find out how much bandwidth you'd wasted with your latest post, but I didn't really notice. You see, I have better things to do with my time than bother to sift through a three-page-post in which you didn't bother to use more than one quote tag, which is yet more cut-and-paste from leftist web sites which are about as credible as the National Enquirer.

Your post in this thread wherein you list the relative merits of Bush and Clinton is full of distortions and outright lies. (They are not your distortions and outright lies, as you cut and pasted them from someplace else.) Every perfidious act that text accuses Bush of--every one!--can only be seriously made by someone who is so blinded by hatred for Bush and his administration that they are incapable of recognizing the facts when they are presented.

Someone brought up those very points in another thread on this forum, and they were answered by several Bush supporters. I'm not particularly interested in typing out, again, a point-by-point rebuttal to them--the people who are not blinded by hatred for Bush already understand that, for example, "first president in history to enter office with a criminal record" is just liberal hyperbole...and the people who say, "Yeah! Yeah!" to that leftist tripe will not listen to any explanation that mitigates their outrage.

The length is what's wrong. I don't think I've ever seen you make a point cogently and quickly; like any lawyer the instant your viewpoint is challenged you attempt to bury the challenger in a torrent of propaganda.

You are totally incorrect in your views of conservatism. You are so incredibly wrong that I don't see the point in trying to explain to you WHY you are wrong; you will not believe me. What you call "inflexibility" and "intolerance" are merely the typical liberal Democrat party-line definitions of conservatism. I could probably write a post long enough to have come from you on the subject of why conservatism is NOT inflexible and intolerant, but again, you would dismiss it...so why should I bother?

You state that Clinton "inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years". Not true. The recession of 1991 was over before the 1992 elections. The economy in 1999-2000 was showing much more than "signs of slight downturn" as you assert--the Dot-Com bust was in full swing during that time, and in the winter of 2000 there was a serious shortage of natural gas--not Clinton's fault, but it contributed to a seriously waning economy.
EDIT: The Dow-Jones average had already fallen a fair piece from its record high of 13,000-odd long before Bush was even certified as the winner of the election. IIRC even before the election was held. /EDIT

Greenspan lowered interest rates throughout all the years of the Clinton presidency. He did that to keep the economy from stagnating. Lower interest rates=cheap money=more money available for capital investment. Higher interest rates=more expensive money=less money available for capital investments. It is no accident that the economy (AFTER the Bush tax cuts by the way) is now booming, and that Greenspan is now contemplating hiking the Fed rate (if he hasn't done so already).

As I said, your posts are 90% wrong, and TEDIOUS in their incorrectness. You posted THREE PAGES of JUNK for crying out loud.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20031205.shtml

Charles Krauthammer on "Bush Derangement Syndrome"--better read it; you show every sign of having it.

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/07/Hystericallyshriekingleft.shtml

...and your days of bloviation (however fruitful) are numbered.

Ed

HA!! That figures!

I'm voting "nay" but I expect the Democrats to sue for a recount... ----^---- << dimpled chad emoticon!!!

Ed is bloviating.

They were having reaction to Clinton's book from the "women" in his life.

Kathleen Willey was particularly scathing of Clinton because Clinton called her a liar. Actually, he called them all liars. But Paula Jones just laughingly scoffed at him, and Flowers just kind of eye rolled, like yeah, he is believable.

Hey, this should tell you something about Clinton's legacy:

a woman like Paula Jones has more credibility and is less likely to be lying than a former president of the United States.

“Really? I'm willing to put it to a vote. All those who think I am a "coward" signify by saying "Aye". All those who think I'm Back is a self- egrandizing ass signify by saying, "Nay".”

Just like you should not submit your age/birth date without first checking your driver’s license, you should also not use large words with first ensuring you’re even close to correct with the spelling. Although you’re wrong, you meant to write, ‘aggrandizing.’

So just keep turning to the rating system (now some silly vote) and avoiding the issues, hence coward. Todd, go back and support your Great Depression assertions and let’s get off this name game. I don’t see it happening….. :rolleyess:

Sounds as though you are self-minimizing......