Open letter from Ronnie Barrett **Read**

[Purebred Redneck]

lol



I edited BTW

[fabsroman]

Was Clinton impeached and just not voted out of office? My memory is fairly foggy on that one.

PBR,

I agree that most of the country lies between conservative and liberal. One of my best friends labels himself as a conservative democrat, if that makes any sense.

As far as Clinton being continually voted back into office, I think that would be a far cry from actually happening. He might have made it for a third term, but after 9/11 and the miserable economy that we currently have, he might have had a tough time getting a fourth term. Yeah, he might have been able to fix the economy if he were in office, even though I blame the economy's current condition on him, but I seriously doubt he would have been able to stop 9/11 from happening. It would have been really interesting to see how he handled 9/11 though. I would have really loved to see if he struck back or not after 9/11. Luckily, we did not have the opportunity to see what he would have done regarding 9/11.

[Purebred Redneck]

Yeah, if my memory serves me right he was impeached...by a bunch of republicans who were just trying to stir the pot for 8 years. First time they had the opportunity since Jimmy Carter - and they did a great job of ruining him. Carter could of been a great president if the Republicans let him.
Your memory clear up now

This is interesting
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...acy010117.html

You do bring up an interesting point about how 9-11 would of been handled had it still occured. Regardless who would of been in office - Clinton, Gore, McCain, Buchanan, Bush- they would have gone into Afganistan. Of those 5 mentioned, I don't think anyone else would have even thought about going into Iraq besides Bush - given the same evidence and threat.
Now I'm not saying 9/11 was a good thing - not saying that at all. I'm not saying Bush is glad it happened.
But it sure saved Bush's butt. 9/11 was literally the best thing that could have happened for bush because he was going absolutly nowhere in both the polls and actual policies.

[fabsroman]

PBR,

You should read the entire article. I believe it says that Clintons' approval rating pretty much tracked the economy, as I have been trying to say in all my posts. If you know economics, the economy doesn't turn around over night and it always follows a cyclical pattern. Just in case you do not know what cyclical means (which you probably do), the economy cannot keep on an upward trend forever, it ebbs and flows, that is just the way it has been over the centuries. The politicians just try to make the upturns larger than the downturns.

I would have to study Clinton's economic policy better to figure out whether or not he is responsible for the upturn in the economy, but I am pretty sure that his watch was responsible for the downturn in the economy. When exactly did the stock market start taking a beating and unemployment increase? Who was in office then probably wasn't a big deal because they were at the end of their second term (i.e., Clinton).

[foto]

Clinton is in the top 5 and probably the top 3

FDR - top 5 and probably top 3

Washington - nothing real special about him...

Lincholn - I'm going to throw a bombshell and say 20-30.

HUH?
Listen to Fabsroman. Do you really believe any president has a serious impact on the economy of this country? The economy has a mind of its own and goes where it wants, the president simply takes the blame. Name one single act done by any one of your "top 5" presidents and show me how they affected the economy. FDR did absolutely nothing for the economy for all his spending. The only thing that saved us was the war and the rebuilding contracts we got when it was over.Clinton? What magical act did he perform on the economy? I'd love to know and so would Wall Street and every other person on the planet.( can anyone say stock bubble or did you all get out before Clinton's magic really blossomed. Oh wait don't tell me, you really think Priceline.com was worth a billion bucks and it was only GWs ineptitude that prevented us from realizing that dream) Presidents don't do crap as far as making the economy boom, their powers are far too small. Considering the power corporations wield in this world do you really think they are going to let one man whose put there by political parties that can be bought and sold, decide their fate? The only president in this century who might have really affected the economy and not as a result of war, was Reagan and he did it by cutting taxes and simply unbridling the engine of the economy, greed. (GW's tax cut is meaningless economically speaking but every penny less to the govt is always good in my book as its one more penny that will be better spent)

The only meaningful way to judge a president is in the tough choices he had to make and how they affect us today.
Washington risked everything, life and property and when offered even more power he refused.
Lincoln faced some of the toughest choices of all, the future of the entire country and its makeup rested on his shoulders, right or wrong, he stuck by his choice and faced it down.
Can you imagine the world today if either of them had chosen the different paths that were being offered? Where would we be today if Reagan had chosen differently? All of those easy paths were turned down by these men and that is what made them great presidents.
Clinton aTop 5? What tough choice did he make that you are so proud about? Sure, he's top five and the Captain of the Titanic was the best captain in world if you asked about two hours before it sank. He sure had a nice ship, good service and they had a real good menu selection at dinner time.

And guys, as far as interpreting what they meant when they wrote the constitution, its not too hard, in fact we already know.
The dead speak to us and we can speak to those yet unborn. Its called writing and it very clear what the people meant as they wrote it all down for us and we can read about the actual debates that took place. The hard part is getting someone to care when it goes against their own wishes.

Had to post when I saw Washington and Lincoln being put down and not measuring up to the likes of Clinton.

[fabsroman]

Good post foto.

Last night at dinner, I asked my family who they thought was the best President, and they all came back with Reagan. My little brother even slamming his fist into his hand when he said Reagan. I then went on to tell them about this thread and that somebody had put down Washington and Lincoln, and they couldn't believe that. This topic actually made for a pretty good dinner topic and elicited some pretty good conversation from my brothers who usually don't talk about this type of stuff.

[Purebred Redneck]

I agree economy swings on it's own but I'm big believer that the government can prolong economic growth or make recessions shorter. There's a term for this - too bad I slept through every economics class I ever took in college.

I think Alan Greenspan is beyond genouis.

FDR did not help the economy???
The New Deals did not help the economy or people's lives?


There are a variety of programs Clinton signed that help prolong this growth.
Targeting tax cuts
Financial aid for college
Balancing the budget
Welfare reform
Family leave act
International trade
That's just off the top of my head

We've covered this a little on here back in 2000. From what I remember there was quite a few people that agreed with me. I do not think the economy was done growing when Clinton left office. I think the economy collapsed because of the "sky is falling" campaign Bush ran that year.
Everything was going great, there was a short period of decline and Bush used that moment in time to scare the public. Since Bush hit the national spotlight, the economy has gone downhill. I think had he not jumped the gun in mentioning this and using it as a strategy, I think the government could have turned it around.

[fabsroman]

I think people were saying the "sky is about to fall", Greenspan included, even while Clinton was in office. That is why I didn't dump everthing I had into the stock market and I didn't buy on credit that I couldn't pay off at the end of the month.

The economy is the way it is right now because too many people were looking thorugh rose colored glasses and they thought it would never end. Everybody was going to be rich off of the stock market, yeah right.

[Purebred Redneck]

That's what I think the problem is.

Bush told everyone to watch out because the economy is about to collapse while he was running against Gore. Then everyone like "huh? It is? I guess it is".

Consumer confidence is what makes the economy. If you believe the economy is falling, then it definatly will.

[fabsroman]

I agree that consumer confidence has a great deal to do with how well the economy is going.

According to what you are saying, people didn't believe Greenspan the genius buy believed Bush the moron. Kind of hilarious. Supposedly, the people don't like Bush, but they are willing to listen to him about the economy collapsing. Trust me when I tell you that Greenspan was saying it way before Bush was even running for the Presidency.

Personally, I have made a decent amount of money lately off of the stock market. Sold a bunch of stuff about 10 months ago after taking pretty decent gains and now everything is in the crapper again, so I am about to go on a buying spree again. Granted, I don't think I have made up what I lost when the market took the initial down turn and my retirement funds look like crap, but I am only 33 and have quite a while to worry about retiring. Hopefully, the economy will have an upswing before I have to retire. Otherwise, I better be investing a lot of money in guns and ammo to fend off the rioters.

[Purebred Redneck]

I've been looking here lately at putting a pretty good chunk of money in a variety of U.S. Eagles, Canadian maple leafs, and Swiss Bullion. I need to do some research and talk to professionals to get their opinion first. Gold is at an all time high and is in great demand. I'm wondering if I should make a short term investment - buy high and sell slightly higher. It keeps going up...
I'm thinking I might wait 3,4,5 years until it reaches a peak low again. Buy a crap load fairly cheap (maybe 300-350 oz) and just sit on it.

As long as stocks are questionable, people are going to invest in precouis metals. Man if you would of bought a **** load of gold in the 70's for 200 an oz you would feeling pretty good about now since it's about 430.

[fabsroman]

Gold would have been a terrible investment if it was at 200 in the 70's and it is only at 430 now. That means that over 30 years you barely doubled your money, which according to the rule of 77, you barely made more than 2% on your investment over those 30 years. If a person gets a 7% return, he should double his money in 11 years and quadruple it in 22 years. In 33 years, his initial investment should be 8 times what it initially was. That means that gold would have to be at $1,600 an oz. to be worth something.

When the stock market goes bad, a lot of people invest in real estate. My brothers bought a place together almost 7 years ago and it has doubled in value over that time. They spent $195,000 for it and it is worth over $400,000 now. So, they got about a 10% return on their investment over the 7 years. Problem is that they live in the house and cannot realize the gain. The other problem is that real estate is just like the stock market. It is probably on a bubble right now as people are willing to invest more in the market because if the market goes any lower the entire country will be in trouble. Plus, real estate is rather risky now because it has been going up way too fast that normal people cannot even afford a house to live in, much less invest in rental properties or investment properties.

[iwerk2hard]

PBR wrote:

He's not in jail because the cops haven't caught him in the act. He could just be the biggest liar on the planet and have all those guns in his basement.

People have been convicted of murder with no corpse. This guy presented some pretty good evidence against himself, a bit of follow-up should uncover enough factual evidence to get a conviction on some charges.


Fabs wrote:

There was almost no difference between the military guns and civilian guns during the Revolutionary War; however, there is a significant difference between military and civilian weapons of today. Things change over 200+ years and I would hate to think that almost every Tom, Dick & Harry could have a M249 chain gun in their basement if they have the money.

My point is that the second ammendment was intended to put the masses on equal ground. Yes things have changed, and in a lot more areas than firearms and weaponry. Let's not be too quick to start giving up what we still have. The roots lie in the likes of 50 caliber single shot rifles. Muzzle loaders rather than bolt action, significantly less power than modern rifles, but still the heritage has carried through to the level of todays civilian arms. And how many of todays civilian arms are direct descendants of military arms?


Now that there has been discussion about drinking habits, political party affiliations and reasons, the difficulty of determining who were the best and worst presidents, the fact that Bill Clinton happened to take office as the economy started booming, $425.00 per troy ounce is an all time high for gold even though it was over $610.00 per troy ounce in 1980, the rule of 77, better investments and a whole slew of other random thoughts, would anyone be interested in starting a thread discussing the "Open letter from Ronnie Barrett" that was brought to our attention by TreeDoc?

[fabsroman]

I thought this was a thread discussing the "Open letter from Ronnie Barrett" that was brought to our attention by TreeDoc. LOL Would you like to enter the chatroom and discuss it? If so, I am around almost all day and night today unless the fiance finds a mattress that she likes and wants me to go take a look at it.

All kidding aside, convictions for murder without a dead body are based on what we call circumstantial evidence. There is very little direct evidence in a murder trial unless the police are lucky enough to find a person that actually witnessed the murder or if the police were lucky enough to witness the murder. Even a dead body isn't really direct evidence because all it shows it that somebody was killed, it has to be connected to the killer either through direct or circumstantial evidence.

I agree that we shouldn't give up anything that we have right now. In fact, I think they should slacken some of the concealed carry laws, but that probably wouldn't happen in Maryland.

[foto]

PBR I'll just note that as far as FDR and the NEW DEAL was concerned, go look back at the numbers, unemployment, housing, etc, basically the economy in general and you'll see the total ineffectiveness of his programs. Look for yourself.They were more like busy work to make people think the govt was doing something. Nothing changed till the war and the destruction of Europe. On the other hand at least we did get some good public works projects out of it though we did pay for them dearly and continue to do so today.

And as for rest, maybe you should rethink what those programs are really doing. Too many topics here for a political minded guy like me to single out just one. Giving away money or lending money to students to pay back later doesn't help the economy. Forcing an employer to pay workers who aren't working is not a way to make money. As far as a balanced budget we are a debtor nation, we owe trillions and trillions of dollars and will never be able to pay it back without cutting SS and other entitlements. Too many topics and don't want to go on a political rant, better to stay away remain calm. Going to hit the trout streams this weekend and maybe try for a turkey on Sunday. take care all.