History Lesson: The Top 11 Most Expensive Castrophes in World History

[ishkabibble]

The list is inaccurate. the Iraq War should be #1.

Shoo Shoo, the men folk are talking here. If you dont have anything to contribute, dont let the door hit you on the way out.

Aww c'mon, mcheddadi's posts are hilarious. I expect you'll treat the conservative JFWY posts in the same fashion in the future.

[breadbox]

I was a baby in Europe and then Chernobyl happened and then my Parents took the kids stateside to "visit family" for a few months. My mom remembers people walking around with Geiger counters, scary shtuff.

[Cold_Zero]

I expect you'll treat the conservative JFWY posts in the same fashion in the future.

Help me out, who is JFWY?

[ishkabibble]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jfwy

[Cold_Zero]

Ahhhh

You should be JFWM until I had my first (whole) cup of coffee.

[Jacko3]

Thank you for proving my point. There was not a war sucking our nation dry and on top of that he came into office while the economy was booming (from the .com boom)

And that is somehow comparable to 2 airplanes crashing into the 2 world trade centers and one into the pentagon - destroying 3 buildings and severely damaging another while killing thousands of people? I think not.

But they weren't in our nation killing us.

Okay, let me ask this then, how many were building nuclear weapons and thumbing their nose at us to stop them?

Go read some history books. Clinton greatly weakened our military.

Like you said before, he was president during a booming economy, right during the time of the .com boom when millions of new businesses were introduced (ebay, google, craigslist just to name a few).

Raising taxes to reduce unemployment simply doesn't work.

You said "Thank you for proving my point. There was not a war sucking our nation dry and on top of that he came into office while the economy was booming (from the .com boom)"

My response: Clinton inherited an unemployment rate of 7.8% and then worked to reduce it below 4.8% in 8 years. I don't think it is reasonable to consider an economy with a 7.8% unemployment rate as a booming economy, would you?

You said, "And that is somehow comparable to 2 airplanes crashing into the 2 world trade centers and one into the pentagon - destroying 3 buildings and severely damaging another while killing thousands of people? I think not."

My response: A crash is a crash is a crash. An attack is an attack is an attack. Whether terrorists attack an ant-hill in the US or the Empire State building, it is still an attack and worthy of attention. Timothy McVeigh, a US citizen attacked the US. Jim Jones, a US Citizen and a crazed religious zealot, attacked and killed a US Congressman, and many americans. And, since when is one sin considered greater than the other---an attack by airplane or an attack by a truck filled with bombs?

You said, "But they weren't in our nation killing us."

My response: Russian spies stealing american information, are actually killing americans indirectly, and very slowly at that.

You asked, "Okay, let me ask this then, how many were building nuclear weapons and thumbing their nose at us to stop them?"

My response: Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.

You said, "Go read some history books. Clinton greatly weakened our military."

My response: We shall never know which was worse---whether clinton reducing the size of our military or Bush stretching the military and their capabilities very thin in two wars. This is why I earlier said, a thorough assessment may be needed to come to such a conclusion about the weakness or strength of our military. As it stands, your conclusion is factually spurious. It would appear that a book maybe helpful in re-aligning such spurious conclusions already made.

You said, "Like you said before, he was president during a booming economy, right during the time of the .com boom when millions of new businesses were introduced (ebay, google, craigslist just to name a few).

Raising taxes to reduce unemployment simply doesn't work."

My response: Economic booms do not happen on their own or overnight. They are a consequence of well thought out and implemented policies. And, like I said before, Clinton inherited an unemployment rate of about 7.8%, which is nary a reflection of an economic boom. Whether or not raising taxes works or not, is a matter of more in-depth debate. What we do know is that Clinton raised the tax rate and yet was still able to reduce unemployment rates by the time he left office. Whether there are other mediating factors between raising taxes and reducing unemployment, is a debate for another day and time.

So, where and when did you come up with these drive-by commentaries???

As always, i find your position entertaining.






Modified by Jacko3 at 10:05 AM 3/6/2009

[smockers83]

He is attempting to correct eight years of fiscal mismanagement of the previous administration.

Maybe, maybe not.

The economy is asking him to shut up for once. Every time he opens his mouth about the economy or CEOs or bonuses or corporate benefits, the stock market dives.

Until DC stabilizes, then will the economy and stocks stabilize. That will all happen when Obama shuts up for once. His attacks on Wall St and businesses are very ill timed when the economy is already doing bad. The more he attacks them, the more fear and uncertainty in the markets and economy.

It has been noted that every time Obama speaks about the economy in some way shape or form, the stock market dives.

[audtatious]

Obama is kinda like President Mamoud Amademajad. Where Amademajad's strings are pulled via the religious leaders, Obama is just a figurehead going around giving speeches while Pelosi and gang are doing what they want in Congress.

[ishkabibble]

The market is looking for any reasons to dive, Obama speech or no. It is inevitable that the S&P will hit 450 or lower; Obama is pretty much irrelevant. Stocks typically stabilize at a market P/E of 6-8 during a recession.

[audtatious]

The GOP should be number 1. They were formed to enforce slavery and have since caused all the conflicts we have today