http://www.termlimits.org/Press/Press_Releases/20000524.html 

http://www.clw.org/election/attackadtext.html 

http://orion.csuchico.edu/Pages/Volume33Issue10/Opinion/WWiwcfCali.html 

http://wvhc.drw.net/VoiceMay01/Misc.May01Voice.htm 

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/27/michigan.governor/ 


http://www.rhythmandgroove.net/features/feature_twim%20_02-10-20.htm  (references the drug=support terrorism)

Do a search cheeky monkey.

Retard, had to give your post some thought. I get the gyst of your point. But is it wise, if you expect a recession, to give a surplus back to the taxpayers? And if you expect to submit budgets with deficits, to give taxcuts? Is it wise? Or is it politics?

The reason Clinton was succesful was part luck. He closed half of the military bases, raised taxes and had the luck of the computer revolution during his terms in office.

Any president that was in office during the rise of the computer would have benefited from it. Computers made just about every industry more efficiant than ever.

The people, not the government made the economy thrive! Without creative people and new inventions and Ideas the economy wouldnt have been as good as it was.

Bush's tax cuts will allow funds to be used for more research an development. This will bring new ideas and products to stimulate the economy. That will create more jobs and should help reduce the deficit with more people paying taxes.

Individual tax breaks will allow folks to be able to afford some of the new products that will come out. This will also help the deficit with sales taxes spent on these products.

Mag

Mag, Hmmmm...let me think about what you said about Reagan. "Reagan stimulated the economy and it worked".
Pre-Reagan the nation debt was approx. 750 billion,after Reagan left office it was 2 TRILLION. Ya,I guess he did stimulate the economy. Voodoo economics does work indeed,LOL. X

Mean, Good try!

Your links are all left wing sources.

1. The first link speaks of smears by Nethercutt, from washingtons 5th district, but doesnt even give just one example of what they were. Strike one!

2. Second link is The council for a Livable world, this is a left wing organization which puts a spin on every article they have. They arent a nuetral news source, they are in support of all democrats! They dont speak favorably of even one Republican. Strike two!

3. This isnt an ad. this is an article by Mark Sikard, a humanities student and democrat giving his own opinions. Stike three.

4. This isnt even an ad. Its a news story by a left wing newspaper. This article never called the President by his name(Bush). They kept calling him several times the shrub! Does this sound like a nuetral source! no! It was about a black lung case. Strike 4!

5. This is a CNN(communist news network) article. Its about Geoffrey Fieger. He was upset about statements that Incumbent John Engler stated. He claims that Engler brought up court cases that he was a part of in the past. Fieger is a defence attorney, he said that it was mean spirited to bring up cases he was a part of.
This attorney will defend ANYBODY no matter how bad the client is. He deserves critisism. There were no lies, but Fieger said the statements were taken out of context, and from old cases. If any of you have seen him on CNN you would recognize him. He is a bad guy and the voters saw this, he lost the election and is pissed. Strike 5!

Mean, you will have to do much better than this! I dont think you can! You arent dealing with a dumb****, I will check your leftist sources and uncover your lies so everyone can see them. Try some nuetral sources, for a change!

Mag

Magnafide

"You arent dealing with a dumb****"


The lad doth protest too much, methinks

xrundog,
it is wise to give tax cuts to taxpayers to hold up consumer spending but it had two down falls.
A. 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes and we all got $300. The average tax payer who got the money applied it to debt rather than giving it to a retailer where it turns over 8 times.
B. Believe it or not if they would have given it back proportionately to what was paid in... in the end the rich were probably more likely to reinvest it in the econeomy through the businesses they own and the goods they buy. You see the rich aren't broke so excess income generally will be spent either personally or through business upgrades (which have been on hold for two years. Not so with the poor.
Hindsight is 20/20
Just my thoughts,
Retard

I understand. I guess time will tell. One of the interesting things about our system of Gov. is that with high turnover in the upper echelons, they can take credit for things initiated by others. Or blame somebody else for things that are their fault. I guess I have an unrealistic expectation of Gov. to budget like I do. I ALWAYS have money put aside for unexpected expenditure. And I pay my bills before they are due.I know. The theory is completely different. Deficit spending when nobody can really predict what the economy will do, seems risky.
Mag, what about the ads that ran aginst Dukakis regarding Willie Horton. Reps made it sound as if Dukakis had personally put him on the street and handed him a knife. Pretty nasty! The implication was that Dukakis would flood the nation with violent felons.

xrundog,
One quick note. The $300 would have been poured back in to the economy if the average citizen wasn't overburdened with credit card debt. That is a subject that hasn't been addressed yet that prior history can't tell us how to manage as a nation. It may be an economy breaker in time.
Retard

Slam campaign, scare ads, and discrediting the opponent are campaign techniques. Effictive ones at that. To say Republicans don't use this technique would make them martyrs for their cause. And it makes you naive.
I live in the Chicago area, this past election was nothing but slam campaign on both sides.
An interesting observation is that you discredit opinions so flipantly. Anything stated by someone who is not right next to you on your skewed political views has no say or is always incorrect. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, we all do. It's our right to voice that opinion. It is also your right not to listen to others opinions. It makes you narrow minded, but it's your right.

http://www.david-sadler.org/  after loss scare tactics.

http://www.joebirkett.com/  These two never spoke on issue, just discredited each other the entire time. No issues addressed

http://www.henryhyde.org/  Scare tactics, subtle but still plays on the fears

Forget about ads intended for mature audiences. In the last elections here in Massachusetts, I know of MORE THAN one school district where the teachers spoke about the candidates for governor. And they warned that unless Shannon OBrien (D) won the state would lose all funding for their school activities.
And that was told to 2nd and 3rd graders!!
My point?
That although BOTH parties indulge in scare tactics when campaigning, only the left wing freaks who vote democratic carry that tactic into situations where they don't belong.

Do ya feel the love in this room?..."dumb****, retard, etc"...LMAO!

tailgater


"That although BOTH parties indulge in scare tactics when campaigning, only the left wing freaks who vote democratic carry that tactic into situations where they don't belong."


i'm not going to give you any facts or specifics, you're either not aware of them or you won't believe the truth.

that is your business and you have the inalianable
(love that word) right to believe whatever you do.

unfortunately, you are flat out completely wrong.