Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 In new england after the market crashed in 87, and the interest rates went up the region slowly died economically. Between the construction job losses and tech job losses, digital corp, wang corp,raytheon, lockheed sanders. I seen shopping malls that were boarded up. Plenty of work for auctioneers. 591654[/snapback] Same with WNY. Both were abberations compared to the rest of the country as a whole, and neither had to do with the crash of '87.
EC-Bills Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 If the Dems are like Barbrady, who is the Chicken F*cker? 591650[/snapback]
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 IN 87 the stock market lossed 300 points, interest rates went up and building boom crumbled, along with the tech jobs. While bush 1 was in office were tough times economically. Those were some bad times. Whatever clinton did or did'nt do, the working world was fantastic. 591118[/snapback] Must...not...respond....Must...not.......
TheMadCap Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 I don't think there is any way either of those two zeros gets thier respective party nominations. I think Repubs want to distance themselves from 'the chimp" and his ability to completely polarize the known world. And if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate that abomination, they deserve to lose yet again. I think they might actually realize that she too is to polarizing of a candidate. At least, for all humanity, this is what I hope for....
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 And if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate that abomination, they deserve to lose yet again. I think they might actually realize that she too is to polarizing of a candidate. 592399[/snapback] Except for the theory that Hillary, being at least nominally female, won't polarize women voters...so there's 50% right there (in theory. In practice, most die-hard conservative women wouldn't vote for her, so it's probably more like 35%...but it's still a good chunk of votes). And THAT is what disgusts me about the process. Hillary's a good candidate...because she has a vagina.
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 And THAT is what disgusts me about the process. Hillary's a good candidate...because she has a vagina. 592432[/snapback] Because there's speculation that she has a vagina.
Recommended Posts