German economy slumps

[Giancarlo]

Strange. He passes his budget plan in late 2001. In 2002, our economy goes down. You kind of contradicted yourself.

The economy went down in 2000. You are the one contradicting yourself. At least I'm not the walking contradiction man.

http://quotedword.com/2000Recession.html

"The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
"We have discussed it already and there seems to be some inclination to move the date" to some time in the last three months of 2000, said Victor Zarnowitz. He is a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee, which determines the widely accepted start and end dates to U.S. recessions.

The seven-member panel had earlier decided that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. President Bush took office in January 2001.

NBER is a private, nonprofit economic research group. Zarnowitz, an economist with the Conference Board, another private research group, said the dating decision will be nonpolitical, based solely on recently revised government economic data.

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2004; 1:34 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38826-2004Jan22¬Found=true"

UC Berkeley is ranked top among the UC system, UCLA is second, and Barbara and San diego are tied for third.

Pay more, you get more. That simple. If UCB is ranked the top, you should pay more for it. Again, you aren't speaking too accurately because you are much too young to know about this.

 

[rakedog]

2 million dead iraqis isn't enough for you. How many would have to die so you can wake up and open your eyes? Same thing goes to you rakedog. Maybe if you understood the reality, you would do what is right and support the war.

Saddam wasn't personally responsible for those 2 million. There was a war between Iran and Iraq. Saddam was a horrible man who did murder his own people in gas chambers to silience rebels, but he was not responsible for 2 million murders. There are several middle east violence factors that added to that. And let me ask you, there is a genocide in Sudan right now, and a genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago. Why haven't we done anything about those?

I mean, bringing democracy to Iraq is very good, but considering that Bush said that there were WOMD's and that they were connected to the terrorists, both of which are lies that Bush used to justify the war...

He should have said from the very start.. we are there to bring peace (hasn't happened) and democracy (has happened) to Iraq.

 

[rakedog]

Pay more, you get more. That simple. If UCB is ranked the top, you should pay more for it. Again, you aren't speaking too accurately because you are much too young to know about this.

Um... You were attacking me saying that I was an idiot when I said UCB is better then UCSD in terms of education... Now you say this.. hmmm.

Dude. There was a surplus before Bush's budget plan. There was a deficit after bush's plan. But that doesn't really matter.. One man can't really change the economy, so we can't truly blame bush for that one.

 

[NOFX]

Rakedog I gotta say how impressed I am with your debating. You would whip me into a fine paste. Keep it up.

 

[Giancarlo]

Saddam was in fact responsible for those two million deaths, as the majority of those were caused by his own regime. The deaths that occurred in the Iraqi/Iranian war is classified as an external bloodbath, because it wasn't an internal bloodbath committed by Saddam's security forces. He was responsible for the deaths of 2,000,000. And you will not deny that. There have been confirmation of that number by various human rights organizations and the US military. A genocide in Sudan right now? I just disproved that argument. The Darfur peace settlement will proceed.

Bringing democracy to Iraq was long overdue in my eyes. And I do believe the WMD reason was perfectly logical. These weren't lies but miscalculations. Even I took evidence which FAS.org published before the war... and thought it was totally logical And yes Saddam's regime was connected to terrorist groups like Ansar-Al-Islam. That's not a lie. If you want to go into a liberal denial about the facts, then fine with me.

Bush also said he was there to bring democracy to Iraq in the beginning.

 

[Giancarlo]

Um... You were attacking me saying that I was an idiot when I said UCB is better then UCSD in terms of education... Now you say this.. hmmm.

I'm not saying which is better or not, I'm saying you should pay for what you get.

Dude. There was a surplus before Bush's budget plan. There was a deficit after bush's plan. But that doesn't really matter.. One man can't really change the economy, so we can't truly blame bush for that one.

Wrong again. The surplus was showing signs of decline in the three final months of 2000 when there contractions occurring. The deficit was not the cause of Bush's fiscal plan. And yes one man and his team can change the economy.. he has an economic team to pass legislation impacting different elements of the economy.

NOFX, I'm far better then he is.

 

[rakedog]

Who cares if it's logical or not... THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN IRAQ. We didn't have evidence strong enough to prove that, but we went in under the impression that we were going to stop Saddam from nuking the world. Funny, we have korea and iran with nuclear powers, but No, we go into Iraq. And plus, as soon as the whole WMD picture started to fall apart, Bush cheerfully never mentioned it again, and only talked about democracy in Iraq.

 

[Giancarlo]

Who cares if it's logical or not... THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN IRAQ. We didn't have evidence strong enough to prove that, but we went in under the impression that we were going to stop Saddam from nuking the world. Funny, we have korea and iran with nuclear powers, but No, we go into Iraq. And plus, as soon as the whole WMD picture started to fall apart, Bush cheerfully never mentioned it again, and only talked about democracy in Iraq.

There was pretty decent evidence before the war to indicate that Saddam did have WMDs. Now, I don't give a flying shit. Pardon my french. But I don't care if Saddam had them or not. I was for the war in Iraq for far greater reasons like George Bush. To get rid of Saddam and establish a democracy. If you can't accept that, then that is your own issue. If you want to get wrapped in the past and blow things out of proportion, which you on the left are famous for doing, then fine. You people are a reason why I became a libertarian.

 

[rakedog]

And yet, no matter what bills bush supported, economy in 2002/2003 was bad. And the deficit still dropped in 2004. But at least we are getting the jobs back and the US dollar is growing again. That's a good thing...

And yes one man and his team can change the economy..

For the better or for the worse? Lol.

NOFX, I'm far better then he is.

No, you just think that your opinion is supirior to mine. Being modest is not something anyone should do..

 

[rakedog]

There was pretty decent evidence before the war to indicate that Saddam did have WMDs. Now, I don't give a flying shit. Pardon my french. But I don't care if Saddam had them or not. I was for the war in Iraq for far greater reasons like George Bush. To get rid of Saddam and establish a democracy. If you can't accept that, then that is your own issue. If you want to get wrapped in the past and blow things out of proportion, which you on the left are famous for doing, then fine. You people are a reason why I became a libertarian.

Right. But there were still no WMD. So you can't deny that Bush miscalculated big time. Freedom is the only part of the war that I agree with... Bush exadderated the part about Saddam being a global world threat.

But now we have all these people getting blown up and assasined.