But if they did say it, then they were wrong. Of course. When the CATO institute agrees with you, you're all for using them as a legitimate source. When they don't agree? "They're wrong."
LOL.
CATO's analysis was based on sheer growth of government. Government grew less in the 8 years of Clinton/Gore then it has already in two years of Bush/Cheney.
Clinton was second to Reagan in government Growth. Bush isn't even in the top 5.
Heck, I provided a link above that flatly contradicted your own bizarre claims
No you didn't. You provided a link to an article which agreed with Bush's stance on the ICC. Bush didn't kill the ICC. That is rubbish and you know it. What he did was to say he wouldn't sign it unless they agreed not to prosecute American soldiers for the first few years.
Furthermore, Bush doesn't have the authority to unilaterally sign treaties without first getting Senate aproval.
Heck, I provided a link above that flatly contradicted your own bizarre claims - Southack
"No you didn't. You provided a link to an article which agreed with Bush's stance on the ICC. Bush didn't kill the ICC. That is rubbish and you know it."
If you will refer back to my post #114, you might be able to comprehend that I said that Bush pulled the U.S. out of the ICC, which he did, and I cited the CATO link to further back that point up, and both of THOSE items combine to flatly debunk your own claim in post #159 that went like this:
Bush pulled the U.S. out of the International (Socialist) Criminal Court, for another. - Southack
"No he didn't." - Demidog
Not that I expect you to admit that you've been proven wrong yet again, but you have been once again proven wrong (with sources - something which you can't manage to produce to support your own wild-eyed rants).