“Clean up” as in “steal all of the stuff in the White House”.
This is a joke right?
I love ammo. Bookmarking to send to the under 30 crowd.
Bush had to clean up all the pizza stains in the WH when he took office. Clinton’s verminn left it like a pigsty.
|
One way or the other Clinton is always following Bush......
LLS
Had the economy been as strong as it is now with a year to go before election 1992, the elder Bush would’ve won in a Reaganesque landslide.
The two economies aren’t comparable.
There is one thing Bubba didn’t have to contend with in 1992: The Internet. Everything she says is deconstructed within seconds after it leaves her lips. She cannot stand scrutiny in the old media. She cannot withstand scrutiny in the new.......
Any economic boom falsely attributed to Slick was due to his being forced at times, to adhere to largly conservative principles.
If the Beast is elected she will find it impossible to match, let alone “clean up” (clean up what specifically, witch?) after the the robust economic growth ignited by the first term Bush tax-cuts.
Implementing any shade of socialism will “clean up” the economy in the same way that a projectile spew of vomit that missed the sink, cleans up the bathroom.
Hillary still wishes someone had “cleaned up” Monica’s blue dress.
...well if we learned anything from the first eight years of Clinton, they’re really good at changing the numbers and making it look like things are going better than they really are...
Clinton...the POS between the Bushes.
ping
Why mess with the economy that was totally good under the 7 years of President Bush?
Further verification that Hillary is a liar.
The lie that just keeps on giving - Clinton inherited a growing economy and passed on a slowing economy.
bttt
For the top Democratic candidates, the difference was even more striking: Barack Obama received coverage that was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative, and Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. On the other hand, only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive and 40 percent negative.
You can cite statistics like that until the cows come home, but it goes right over people's heads because we have all been brainwashed with the propaganda that journalism is objective - and people just don't see why journalism should be slanted, or why journalism should be all slanting the same way.There are reasons, actually pretty simple reasons, why this is the case. First, "Why would the various newspapers and broadcast networks be unified?" The answer to that is that newspapers in the founding era were diverse, and they did not have efficient means of gathering news which the rest of the population did not hear first from other sources. That changed with "the wire" - the (1848) advent of the Associated Press. The AP succeeded in monopolizing the transmission of news by telegraph - and when its monopoly was questioned on the grounds that it produced a concentration of propaganda power, the AP sold the story that the AP was "objective."
The AP transformed the newspaper business into a true news business delivering information which was not otherwise available to the general public. But, all protestations of objectivity notwithstanding, the Associated Press has one inherent bias: that the news - simply because it is new and known first by the AP - is important. What if the news wasn't important?
The reality is that on a typical day you probably cannot remember anything in the newspaper from exactly 5 years ago. There is only so much going on that is actually important, and reported daily developments ordinarily are of no enduring significance. And that means that the Associated Press in general, and the journalistic outlets which it supplies in particular, are inherently superficial. They are also generally negative, because the most dramatic changes are typically negative changes - simply because it is more dramatic to realize that a house burned down in less than a day than it is to understand that the nation's building contractors finish new houses every day, too. But there is less drama in the completion of ten months-long house construction projects than there is in the surprise demolition of the fruits of one such project.
In addition, since journalism is simply talk, journalism has an inherent tendency to promote criticism at the expense of action - to denigrate and second guess the businessman, the policeman, and the soldier. And to puff up the teacher, the plaintiff lawyer, the union leader, and the second-guessing politician by assigning them the favorable label of "progressive."