Yahoo: Goofs mar Palin's Reagan college tribute, legal fund appeal

[Jumbo]

OT, but for the record (one more time), I actually voted for Clinton and Bush twice. Hell my first POTUS vote was Nixon in '72. I was looking hard at McCain but his "change" over recent years and the willingness to still be (foolishly?) hopeful led me the other way with Palin being the camel-debilitating straw. As I look back on all my votes over the years, "no real winning" and "regret" are two consistent themes. My ony defense is I try to make the best out of what is realistically available.

[Teller]

Man, as long as you thought about it, and really thought about it regardless of the jackass or elephant logos, then you have my respect. Major, major props to you on that.

Thanks, but I was only one of hundreds of Tailgaters who did that at the time. For all our partisan bickering, veiled insults and trash-talking, I wish the rest of the country took the DIRECTION of the country as seriously as we all do.

While it can be difficult to "think outside the box" especially in a presidential election, I have a lot more respect for a guy like Burgold than I ever will myself. (Politically and otherwise.) That man is as legit as they come. ALWAYS seeming to be able to see substance over the letter that follows someone's last name. I wish I could follow his example better, but partisanship isn't something I have an easy time letting go. In general, I do think republicans have better ideas for the direction of the country. But I fully admit I let that cloud my judgment sometimes, no matter how much I try not to.

[Teller]

My ony defense is I try to make the best out of what is realistically available.

You just gave me a thread idea. I hope you'll post in it.

[Hubbs]

While I agree that the dot com era had a lot to do with it, it is impossible to isolate that as the sole, or even main, cause of the surplus. As we saw, those websites were making fake money, and for the surplus to be what it was took a lot more than just reams of stock being sold in the private sector.

You're looking at the Internet through the lens of the stock market. Stocks are merely one factor, and, in the case of the Internet, not a particularly good one.

The Internet is one of the most important, and most world-changing, inventions in the history of mankind. Its effects on virtually every form of commerce are incalculable. As the awesome potential of this invention became understood, a lot of investments were made with a "this time it's different" mentality in terms of what was good business. When the tech bubble popped, reality set in, and we were forced to realize that even a creation that would change the world economy couldn't change basic math.

When Bush took over, a combination of factors - most of them having nothing to do with policy differences between him and Clinton - led to a whole lot of "this time it's different" investing in real estate. Sadly, real estate has been around a long time. It doesn't have the same revolutionary power that the Internet did. In terms of the arguments I've made on this board, a good deal of the growth generated by the Internet boom was, in fact, "real." Most of the growth generated by the housing boom was not. Without trying to recap pages and pages of posts I made to explain how I arrived at that conclusion, I'll simply say that it's very easy to make some good estimates about what would have happened in the early part of the past decade had a certain ****tail of elements not combined to stem the tech bust and inflate the housing bubble. The tech recession would likely have been a little more severe than the recession of the early 80's, but not as severe as what we've experienced over the past year and a half. We would have returned to strong growth in the second half of the decade, most of it of the "real" variety, rather than the unsustainable bubble variety. Bush's deficits would have started out larger and ended much smaller, while the end of Clinton's second term would have been pretty deep in the red after a few nice surpluses.

Absolutely no part of what I just wrote is intended to cast either Clinton or Bush in a negative or positive light. They both made economic decisions that I agreed with, and they both made economic decisions that I disagreed with. My point is that much, much more of economic reality - especially the timing of that reality - is beyond a president's control than Americans like to believe. And simply saying that Clinton's policies were better because he had a surplus is very far from the truth. (If it matters, I'm saying this while still thinking that Bush was a terrible president. He had some good intentions, but we all know which road those pave.)

And Bush's legacy is well-earned. We've had a terrible economy since he took office, really. A failed war and an unnecessary one, each of which costing billions a month, certainly didn't help. Coupling that with just plain stupid tax breaks also exacerbated the situation.

We've had an unsustainable economy since he took office. Most of that wasn't his doing. The wars certainly were under his control, and believe me, I'm not happy with him on that front. The tax breaks... well, let's just say that I see some bad and some good in both Bush's and Obama's policies.

[Jumbo]

Thanks, but I was only one of hundreds of Tailgaters who did that at the time. For all our partisan bickering, veiled insults and trash-talking, I wish the rest of the country took the DIRECTION of the country as seriously as we all do.

While it can be difficult to "think outside the box" especially in a presidential election, I have a lot more respect for a guy like Burgold than I ever will myself. (Politically and otherwise.) That man is as legit as they come. ALWAYS seeming to be able to see substance over the letter that follows someone's last name. I wish I could follow his example better, but partisanship isn't something I have an easy time letting go. In general, I do think republicans have better ideas for the direction of the country. But I fully admit I let that cloud my judgment sometimes, no matter how much I try not to.

I wish more people showed such a described interest in insight, perceptive self-assessment, and developing more conscious awareness of both internal and external behaviors. I also wish I was filthy rich. At least I got half of that last part right.

[NewCliche21]

You're looking at the Internet through the lens of the stock market. Stocks are merely one factor, and, in the case of the Internet, not a particularly good one.

The Internet is one of the most important, and most world-changing, inventions in the history of mankind. Its effects on virtually every form of commerce are incalculable. As the awesome potential of this invention became understood, a lot of investments were made with a "this time it's different" mentality in terms of what was good business. When the tech bubble popped, reality set in, and we were forced to realize that even a creation that would change the world economy couldn't change basic math.

When Bush took over, a combination of factors - most of them having nothing to do with policy differences between him and Clinton - led to a whole lot of "this time it's different" investing in real estate. Sadly, real estate has been around a long time. It doesn't have the same revolutionary power that the Internet did. In terms of the arguments I've made on this board, a good deal of the growth generated by the Internet boom was, in fact, "real." Most of the growth generated by the housing boom was not. Without trying to recap pages and pages of posts I made to explain how I arrived at that conclusion, I'll simply say that it's very easy to make some good estimates about what would have happened in the early part of the past decade had a certain ****tail of elements not combined to stem the tech bust and inflate the housing bubble. The tech recession would likely have been a little more severe than the recession of the early 80's, but not as severe as what we've experienced over the past year and a half. We would have returned to strong growth in the second half of the decade, most of it of the "real" variety, rather than the unsustainable bubble variety. Bush's deficits would have started out larger and ended much smaller, while the end of Clinton's second term would have been pretty deep in the red after a few nice surpluses.

Absolutely no part of what I just wrote is intended to cast either Clinton or Bush in a negative or positive light. They both made economic decisions that I agreed with, and they both made economic decisions that I disagreed with. My point is that much, much more of economic reality - especially the timing of that reality - is beyond a president's control than Americans like to believe. And simply saying that Clinton's policies were better because he had a surplus is very far from the truth. (If it matters, I'm saying this while still thinking that Bush was a terrible president. He had some good intentions, but we all know which road those pave.)

We've had an unsustainable economy since he took office. Most of that wasn't his doing. The wars certainly were under his control, and believe me, I'm not happy with him on that front. The tax breaks... well, let's just say that I see some bad and some good in both Bush's and Obama's policies.

Dude, I don't agree with everything that you wrote, but I'll concede this one to you based on your apparent wealth (pun?) of knowledge. Well played, sir!

[Burgold]

Thanks, but I was only one of hundreds of Tailgaters who did that at the time. For all our partisan bickering, veiled insults and trash-talking, I wish the rest of the country took the DIRECTION of the country as seriously as we all do.

I appreciate this. I've been accused of being partisan so much recently that it's nice to be viewed as a non-villain.

I also think that you under-sell yourself. You have your blinders as we all do, but you generally have an open ear and mind... and a wicked sense of humor.

[IHOPSkins]

I feel cheated

Tuned into this thread to watch the Action/Murder Mystery.......But It ends with a Love story

[Burgold]

That's okay. It was billed as a comedy. Who writes an action/murder/mystery and titles it "Goof?"

[Heisenberg]

H_H I'm not sure why you appear to have taken such offense to my post.

It was made completely in jest and I even remembered the smileys this time.