Maybe you shouldn't have inhaled
Published on September 23, 2004 By d3adz0mbie In Democrat
Today was going to be either my unique perspective on racism in America, or a list of reasons why you don't like me, but there's a modicum of alzheimers running rampant on the political left these days, and it's time someone ranted a little about it.

To every supporter of Kerry, to every left wing person with an agenda, to every single person that hates the US President I ask this simple question, "Have you forgotten what the 09/11 attacks did to the US economy?" If you don't, pay attention, because every time you claim the economy is in sad shape because of President Bush, you sound like an idiot.

On September 11th, 2001, terrorists attacked the United States of America. On September 12th, 2001, The United States of America shut down for business. The stock market shut down, international foreign markets plunged. When the market re-opened the DOW sunk to horrific levels not seen in decades. Anylists worldwide predicted economic despair, and they weren't far off the mark. Construction shut down nationwide. Telecomm and tech almost froze for a full 18months after the attacks on US soil. Sector after sector of the economy took HARD hits because people were afraid to move, to drive down the street, to even invest in any market. 100's of thousands of people lost their jobs across this country and the unemployment rate soared. This country was on it's way towards a depression.

And yet, today, the country is experiencing a lower unemployment rate than when Clinton was campaigning for his second term. There are people still unemployed, their are people who are still losing jobs, but ALL the economic indicators over the past year show the US economy is experiencing a strong upward momentum. Overall, the depression didn't happen, the recession is over, companies are moving forward once again and growth is strong.

And yet almost every time I hear a political pundit for left speak publicly they attack Bush on the economy. They act like 09/11 never happened, that things weren't horribly bleak, that the USA hadn't just survived it's worst economic crisis since President Carter was in office. It makes me sick.

For you liberals, try to have some sort of self respect. Hate the President and the current administration all you want, but stop blaming the economy on the President. It weakens any other potentially legitimate arguement you may have and makes you look like jackasses.


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Sep 23, 2004

Ever hear of outsourcing?  Also, those modicum Alzheimer patients are ranting because they need stem cell research.   I agree 9/11 had an impact but you're completely blaming all economic woes on it.  Our unemployment rate is down but there still will be a big net loss in jobs.  The quality of the jobs that are being created to are weaker than what has gone.  I also think that Bush's tax cuts are only contributing to the record deficit in the U.S.  We keep writing checks loaning out our kids futures.  Those tax breaks Bush is allowing for large corporations that move our jobs overseas aren't helping either.  Does he have some power against this, sure, but where is the action?  Largely left to rhetoric. 

on Sep 23, 2004
Funny, President Bush is the first President to actually fund some level of stem cell research, yet leftist propoganda would have it that he has supressed all stem cell research.

Fact: President Bill Clinton vetoed funding for Stem Cell research on any level at least 3 times.
Fact: President Bush is the ONLY President in history to encourage federal and public funding of stem cell research.

Just because he wont support federal funding for research outside of the existing lines the left makes it sound like he hates all research because of some religious fanatacism. Stop spreading propoganda and lay out the facts people.
on Sep 23, 2004

Thanks for only sticking with stem cell research and ignoring all the other things I brought up basically making them legit.  Anyways I think Clinton was wrong as well for not funding research but Kerry says he would back it, something George Bush will not do because of his beliefs which you call religious fanatacism.  Don't think because I have a differing opinion that I am in love with Clinton my friend, it seems you generalize too much. 

on Sep 23, 2004
Actually I ignored your other comments not because they were legit, but because they were so nonsensical it was pointless adressing them.

I love the logic of "If you dont address it, it has to be true". Oh, and youre basis of Bush not funding stem cell research is simply not true. Obviously you've been blinded by propoganda... which is ok if you choose to live your life following the dictates of others.
Stop inhaling already.
on Sep 23, 2004
Ever hear of outsourcing?


Who signed NAFTA into law?

Who made the WTO a reality and supported it?

Good article, people just don't realzie how little a President controls the economy.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
on Sep 23, 2004

Reply #3 By: psychx - 9/23/2004 6:06:56 PM
Thanks for only sticking with stem cell research and ignoring all the other things I brought up basically making them legit. Anyways I think Clinton was wrong as well for not funding research but Kerry says he would back it, something George Bush will not do because of his beliefs which you call religious fanatacism. Don't think because I have a differing opinion that I am in love with Clinton my friend, it seems you generalize too much.


You need to do *more* reading on stem cell research! As an MS sufferer (that might someday be helped by the research). I can tell you *catagoricaly* that your WRONG! What he DOES NOT condone is cloneing of the human fetus primarly for the harvesting of stem cells! And that is the ONLY thing he shot down on THIS subject!
on Sep 24, 2004

but because they were so nonsensical it was pointless adressing them
So your are saying it is nonsensical to think that outsourcing is affecting the economy and the middle class in a negative light?  Is it nonsensical to consider the deficit when speaking of his illustrious tax cuts? why do I even bother...


Dr. miler I know what he has said on the subject.  I also know that he has funded it, but I think more can be done to help scientists culture more stem cell lines, with either funding or freedom to do so.  Bush created a bioethics panel to help him with these decisions which was somewhat balanced on both sides until he fired the only two supporters of stem cell research and hired advocates against it.  I'll quote it from my own article which I wrote a while ago. 


"On to the topic I was reading articles on wired.com when I came across an interesting one which I did not know about pertaining to stem cell research. It seems our most esteemed president bush has made yet another folly. On Friday February 27th, apparently White House personel made a phone call to Elizabeth Blackburn, a professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California and to William May, a former Bioethics professor at Southern Methodist University, and informed them that they were no longer needed. They both are on the president's Bioethics panel that looks into Stem Cell research the science and the ethics behind it. Both were advocates for stem cell research and the therapies that it could provide. William May is a scholar of Religion and Christian ethics. They both agreed that stem cell research should not be in remission due to ethics or morals. With obvious reasoning behind their replacements the actual people to take over their positions are Benjamin Carson director of Pediatic Neurosurgery at John Hopkins University, Peter Lawler, professor of government at Berry College and Diana Schaub, a political-science professor at Loyola College in Maryland. They are all for the most part actively against stem cell research and cloning. Benjamin Carson one of the replacements most notable quotes is his reference to stem cell research as "the evil of the willful destruction of innocent human life," which is a definite indicator for someone who doesn't care for the advancement of Stem Cell research. Now with all this taken into mind what struck me as peculiar is, how is this a clear and balance representation of ethics on both sides of the spectrum to aid in the presidents decisions on cloning and stem cell research?
To me it makes complete sense. The president has been criticized for molding his advisors to fit what he wants to do with his administration, this is just another obvious representation of how he distorts facts to get everything and anything he wants. For the most part this move of replacing the two advisors will make the panel unanimously oppose stem cell research and cloning. I like to know both sides of an argument before I make a decision that's what's known as unbiased. "


 

on Sep 24, 2004
So your are saying it is nonsensical to think that outsourcing is affecting the economy and the middle class in a negative light?


Who signed NAFTA into law?

Who made the WTO a reality and supported it?


- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
on Sep 24, 2004

Reply #7 By: psychx - 9/24/2004 12:27:50 PM
but because they were so nonsensical it was pointless adressing them
So your are saying it is nonsensical to think that outsourcing is affecting the economy and the middle class in a negative light? Is it nonsensical to consider the deficit when speaking of his illustrious tax cuts? why do I even bother...


Dr. miler I know what he has said on the subject. I also know that he has funded it, but I think more can be done to help scientists culture more stem cell lines, with either funding or freedom to do so. Bush created a bioethics panel to help him with these decisions which was somewhat balanced on both sides until he fired the only two supporters of stem cell research and hired advocates against it. I'll quote it from my own article which I wrote a while ago.


Yeah, he funded it....to the tune of 20 *billion* dollars! No small potatoes in my book! You may or may not know what he said, I don't know. But I *will* tell you this. The laws on this issue do not support your facts, they support mine! Check the link, read it and we'll talk some more *after* that.
Link

on Sep 24, 2004
Elizabeth Blackburn, a professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California and to William May, a former Bioethics professor at Southern Methodist University, and informed them that they were no longer needed. They both are on the president's Bioethics panel that looks into Stem Cell research the science and the ethics behind it. Both were advocates for stem cell research and the therapies that it could provide. William May is a scholar of Religion and Christian ethics. They both agreed that stem cell research should not be in remission due to ethics or morals. With obvious reasoning behind their replacements the actual people to take over their positions are Benjamin Carson director of Pediatic Neurosurgery at John Hopkins University, Peter Lawler, professor of government at Berry College and Diana Schaub, a political-science professor at Loyola College in Maryland. They are all for the most part actively against stem cell research and cloning. Benjamin Carson one of the replacements most notable quotes is his reference to stem cell research as "the evil of the willful destruction of innocent human life," which is a definite indicator for someone who doesn't care for the advancement of Stem Cell research. Now with all this taken into mind what struck me as peculiar is, how is this a clear and balance representation of ethics on both sides of the spectrum to aid in the presidents decisions on cloning and stem cell research?


Even your OWN blog supports what I said. They were replaced because they were in *favor* of cloneing specificaly for the purpose of harvesting stem cells
on Sep 24, 2004
d3adz0mbie, Grim Xiozan, drmiler, I like the way you think. Let's all have a beer sometime.
on Sep 24, 2004

Reply #11 By: Rightwinger - 9/24/2004 2:22:02 PM
d3adz0mbie, Grim Xiozan, drmiler, I like the way you think. Let's all have a beer sometime


If you *ever* make it to Pittsburgh, let me know! It'll be on me!
on Sep 24, 2004
psychx, since you seem so ready to blame Bush for the economy, feel free to let us know anything you think he did that harmed the economy.
on Sep 24, 2004
Re: Draginol

Well, the tax cut I got last in two years obiviouly harmed my bottom line (NOT). I was one of the many thousands who lost their job in the economic down turn after 09/11/01. I remember well. When I first saw the plane hitting the towers, two thoughts went throught my head, we're going to nuke someone, and the economy is going to be drag down to depression level. Neither come to pass, for which I'm greatful.
on Sep 24, 2004
The biggest cause of the recessionw wasn't 9/11. It's just easier to blame that.  The biggest cause was the tech bubble bursting. Several TRILLION dollars evaporated as a result which tried up venture capital and business investment for a couple of years. It's starting to come back but it's going to be awhile.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last