Quote Originally Posted by SmokinDVM
Yes, and look how quickly they f'ed it up.
And, according to prevailing neocon "logic", the prosperity immediately following the Dems loss of Congressional control would have to be attributed to the Dems.
Read the post, the prosperity I attributed to neither Dem nor Repub, government had little to do with it, except maybe science and research grants made during the 70's and 80's, and even then, still very little to do with it. But, the balancing of the budget was the result of a republican congress and senate with Clinton getting the credit for not playing partisan games and signing off. I may care nothing for Clinton as a virtuous person, I may think very little of his foreign policy (talk to anybody involved with Russia and how Clinton did with that), but when it came to getting a republican legislature to work with a democratic executive, he did a very good job.

On an aside I don't care what particular sides say neo-con, whack job blabbering liberals, for all I care they can both go kiss my ass, and anyone who argues strictly along those lines can too, I prefer independent thinkers who can think about issues, not parties when it comes to actual debate on particular issues. I don't care what this or that group says (their prevailing logic), I care what you'll say. If it lines up with good reason, I'm in your boat, if I find fault, I'll stay in mine. Either way, let us not muck up true political or historical discussion with the lines parties want to draw or the media wants to draw. They're the only ones who need those lines, if they didn't exist papers wouldn't sell and people wouldn't donate so easily to this or that group, and when it comes to the media and politicians, only one thing drives them these days, money. So, screw the way the want us to talk about politics.