If that is the case then I will say I was wrong in my thinking.
Decades of pacifism and inspection did not change anything, nor did almost 9 years of clinton policy. In fact the argument can be made that it was because of that policy we arrived at 9/11.
You can criticize Bush till you're blue in the face. But at least give him credit for trying a different tack.
Oh what's the use...
Let's all just be honest with one another. Just preface what you say with "we hate Bush because he is an illegitimate president and Gore should have won. We are very bitter and we want revenge." That would at least be an intellectually honest statement.
No. We hate Bush because of his actions while in office. The fact that he's performing just like I expected he would before he was elected is besides the point.
You're missing the point: While I am criticized as being polarized, you and others truly believe that every action Bush has taken has been wrong. It's completely ridiculous. You give Clinton credit for the 1990's economy, and do not fault him for the recession...which began before he left office. You refuse to recognize that the economy is growing and in recovery despite low unemployment, high GDP growth and markets on the rise. You cannot accept that many of the previous admins polices have contributed directly to current affairs...especially North Korea and even Iraq.
I can at least point to Clinton and say he was intelligent and well spoken. He did some good things, even though I disagreed with him on nearly everything. Some frequent posters in this thread could never speak of Bush that way. Yet somehow, I'm the blind one. OK. Gotcha.
Sigh........
Ok, one more time.........
The economy is cyclic. Clinton was elected at a time when the cycle would naturally return to " Better times ". He then made that into the longest running bull market in US history. He caught the ball and ran with it.
Bush was elected when the market was on a natural downslide. He turned that into the worst unemployment since WWII, and a much longer recession. Which we are coming out of it with ( once again ) a gigantic deficit that our children will be paying for and still lagging unemployment. He dropped the ball.
The president can't affect the cycles. He can however affect how pronounced the cycle is through the way he handles it.
Clinton wanted to pay for our debts and balance the budget ( it's been a long while since any president has been able to do that ).
Bush spent money like a drunken sailor ( ok I'll admit I got that old saying from groverat but I love the picture it paints ) on every little personal whim he had.
In a microcosmic way it's like getting out of debt, losing your job, and then using your credit cards to solve all your problems so that you're in debt for the rest of your life.
Got it now?
PS. Iraq was unnecessary ( one of those personal whims ).
N. Korea is a wildcard and it's difficult to tell what would affect them. Hey here's a thought! Maybe they would be right where they are no matter who's in office over here.
Tom DeLay, the Republican's House majority leader, promised to be less subservient to President Bush in future sessions, the Washington Times reported.
"I have not discussed this with President Bush or anyone else in the White House, and have no desire to," DeLay said.
"But if you don't set these conservative goals, you don't get conservative governance."
DeLay Wednesday plans to take the extraordinary step of introducing his own set of legislative and policy goals for this year and beyond.
CONT.
Sounds like he's forming his own Conservative Shadow Presidency.
Since SDW has been PMing me saying he doesn't believe it:
.Rep Cole with supporting Kerry=supporting Hitler (also kerry=osama)
.Post article on dean=hitler
.Hitlery Clinton
.femi-nazis
.the old famous Clinton=Hitler (or have you forgotten?)
Not to mention:
vote for dems=vote for terrorists, terrorists support kerry, liberals=terrorists.
So where's the disparity? It's that dems and liberals don't use Goebbels-like tactics to drench the media with each and every incident.
Yeah giant, those are the same things. Your examples are extremely isolated. Bush opponents commonly call him Hitler, as do prominent celebrities. You cannot possibly be comparing the above to the attacks on Bush, can you?
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.
It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.
I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"
Yeah and so was 1995.
Well, for one, John Ashcroft is not running for President, now is he? Kerry has voted against major defense iniatives and intelligence spending on many ocassions. You really need to research this guy's record. It's not just liberal, it's outright extreme. Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze bill, even as Reagan was proving that just the opposite aproach was what was needed. Kerry criticized Reagan's bombing of Libya as "disproportional". He voted against the 1991 Gulf War. He voted against the $87B war funding package, after voting FOR the war resoltution. Don't even try to paint him as "pro-national security". He's simply not.
So tell me where you can irrefutably a single one of my points.
Dishonest? Check (exaggeration of WOMD threat and linking Saddam to 9/11 most obvious).
Warmongering? Check (the UN said "not yet" and they chose to act anyway).
Judeo-Christian American supremists? (check on all counts -- they certainly believe America holds the high ground, even when they're attacking other countries who have not been proven to be a threat beyond reasonable doubt).
Incapable of social tolerance? (check -- anti LBGT equality, support racial profiling, anti-choice).
Incapable of socioeconomic empathy? (check -- biggest tax cut to the rich in history, while the middle and lower classes received almost nothing in percentile comparison).
Incapable of environmental concern? (check -- pulled out of Kyoto, rolled back or reduced the scale of dozens of energy saving and pollution reducing initiatives).
Now compare this to Clinton, please.
Dishonest? No evidence of your claim.
Warmongering? 17 UN resolutions.
Judeo-Christian American Supremists: Are you saying we don't hold the high ground? Hmmm. you sound Kerry himself.
Incapable of social tolerance: LGBT equality as manadated by WHAT? Racial profiling for terror purposes....wait for it....WORKS. Anti-choice? Gee jimmac, imagine this: NOT EVERYONE AGREES IT SHOULD BE A CHOICE. It's called a debate. I just love when those who don't support murder-at-will are called "anti-choice".
Socioeconomic "empathy": Here we go again "Bush hates the poor". Nevermind that the bottom tax bracket was reduced 5 marginal points. Each and every American who pays taxes got tax relief....including you and I. My rate has gone from 28% to 25%.
Environment: Kyoto is an anti-American pile of shit. It exempts 80% of the world's biggest polluters because they are "developing". "Bush hates the environment". Really now jimmac...it's a bit old.
In fact, compare the search for "clinton hitler" with "bush hitler." With the latter, almost every hit is something denouncing the comparison, whereas every hit I saw when scanning "clinton hitler" was an actual attack.
In fact, compare the search for "clinton hitler" with "bush hitler." With the latter, almost every hit is something denouncing the comparison, whereas every hit I saw when scanning "clinton hitler" was an actual attack.
Whatever. Are you honestly basing you claim on a Google search? Funny, it seems you were the first one attacking me when I did a similar search for news articles with the labels "liberal" and "conservative"....proving that the latter is used twice as often.
[i]Don't even try to paint him as "pro-national security". He's simply not. [/B]
This is simply assinine. Are you suggesting that John Kerry is "anti-national security"? To say someone is not "pro-national security" suggests that one prefers a lack of security. This use of labels is a great trick played by fearmongers on both sides, but I'd hope easy labels are eschewed by the presumably educated people on this board.
Furthermore, you're right, John Aschroft isn't running for Prez., but he holds a position of trust and power in the current administration and is therefore a comp. - Bush is responsible for his nomination to the post and bears responsibility for his choice. Also, as the chief law enforcement officer in the country, I would argue that Ashcroft's lapse in judgment about security is every bit as eggregious as Kerry's, if Kerry's is eggregious at all.
The economy is cyclic. Clinton was elected at a time when the cycle would naturally return to " Better times ". He then made that into the longest running bull market in US history. He caught the ball and ran with it.
Bush was elected when the market was on a natural downslide. He turned that into the worst unemployment since WWII, and a much longer recession. Which we are coming out of it with ( once again ) a gigantic deficit that our children will be paying for and still lagging unemployment. He dropped the ball.
The president can't affect the cycles. He can however affect how pronounced the cycle is through the way he handles it.
Clinton wanted to pay for our debts and balance the budget ( it's been a long while since any president has been able to do that ).
Bush spent money like a drunken sailor ( ok I'll admit I got that old saying from groverat but I love the picture it paints ) on every little personal whim he had.
In a microcosmic way it's like getting out of debt, losing your job, and then using your credit cards to solve all your problems so that you're in debt for the rest of your life.
Got it now?
PS. Iraq was unnecessary ( one of those personal whims ).
N. Korea is a wildcard and it's difficult to tell what would affect them. Hey here's a thought! Maybe they would be right where they are no matter who's in office over here.
1. What did Clinton do to run with the ball as you put it? Raise taxes?
2. What did Bush to cause a recession? (BTW, it doesn;t matter how times I post this, you don't listen: UNEMPLOYMENT WAS NEVER "THE HIGHEST" SINCE WWII....NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. It didn't even reach 1991 recession levels. Your statement is patently false.
3. Please show me how balancing the budget (accomplished by the Republican Congress in part) helped the economy and unemployment. It didn't. It's nearly a separate issue.
Kyoto is not an 'anti-American pile of shit'. All the EU states are adhering to the figures on C02 emissions anyway, even though America isn't. Sweden and the UK are doing the best, Denmark the worst- they're something like 15% behind.
America, which is the world's biggest polluter, is 30% off its Kyoto targets. While this is something for another thread, I really don't understand where this 'Kyoto is anti-American' nonsense comes from.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
If that is the case then I will say I was wrong in my thinking.
Decades of pacifism and inspection did not change anything, nor did almost 9 years of clinton policy. In fact the argument can be made that it was because of that policy we arrived at 9/11.
You can criticize Bush till you're blue in the face. But at least give him credit for trying a different tack.
Oh what's the use...
Let's all just be honest with one another. Just preface what you say with "we hate Bush because he is an illegitimate president and Gore should have won. We are very bitter and we want revenge." That would at least be an intellectually honest statement.
No. We hate Bush because of his actions while in office. The fact that he's performing just like I expected he would before he was elected is besides the point.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're missing the point: While I am criticized as being polarized, you and others truly believe that every action Bush has taken has been wrong. It's completely ridiculous. You give Clinton credit for the 1990's economy, and do not fault him for the recession...which began before he left office. You refuse to recognize that the economy is growing and in recovery despite low unemployment, high GDP growth and markets on the rise. You cannot accept that many of the previous admins polices have contributed directly to current affairs...especially North Korea and even Iraq.
I can at least point to Clinton and say he was intelligent and well spoken. He did some good things, even though I disagreed with him on nearly everything. Some frequent posters in this thread could never speak of Bush that way. Yet somehow, I'm the blind one. OK. Gotcha.
Sigh........
Ok, one more time.........
The economy is cyclic. Clinton was elected at a time when the cycle would naturally return to " Better times ". He then made that into the longest running bull market in US history. He caught the ball and ran with it.
Bush was elected when the market was on a natural downslide. He turned that into the worst unemployment since WWII, and a much longer recession. Which we are coming out of it with ( once again ) a gigantic deficit that our children will be paying for and still lagging unemployment. He dropped the ball.
The president can't affect the cycles. He can however affect how pronounced the cycle is through the way he handles it.
Clinton wanted to pay for our debts and balance the budget ( it's been a long while since any president has been able to do that ).
Bush spent money like a drunken sailor ( ok I'll admit I got that old saying from groverat but I love the picture it paints ) on every little personal whim he had.
In a microcosmic way it's like getting out of debt, losing your job, and then using your credit cards to solve all your problems so that you're in debt for the rest of your life.
Got it now?
PS. Iraq was unnecessary ( one of those personal whims ).
N. Korea is a wildcard and it's difficult to tell what would affect them. Hey here's a thought! Maybe they would be right where they are no matter who's in office over here.
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible President and needs to go back to his hobby ranch and clear some brush.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...3358-2193r.htm
Tom DeLay, the Republican's House majority leader, promised to be less subservient to President Bush in future sessions, the Washington Times reported.
"I have not discussed this with President Bush or anyone else in the White House, and have no desire to," DeLay said.
"But if you don't set these conservative goals, you don't get conservative governance."
DeLay Wednesday plans to take the extraordinary step of introducing his own set of legislative and policy goals for this year and beyond.
CONT.
Sounds like he's forming his own Conservative Shadow Presidency.
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible President and needs to go back to his hobby ranch and clear some brush.
This where you should have stopped:
"I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible President"
But you cannot help yourself can you?
Originally posted by NaplesX
What part or where is Coatsville? I'm from a little town in the center of the state called Clearfield. near State College
Halfway between Lancaster and Philadelphia, off Route 30.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Tom Delay is even distancing himself from Bush! hehe
Sounds like he's forming his own Conservative Shadow Presidency.
Maybe he just plans to lay down a strict conservative agenda to make Bush appear more moderate... te hehe
Originally posted by giant
Since SDW has been PMing me saying he doesn't believe it:
.Rep Cole with supporting Kerry=supporting Hitler (also kerry=osama)
.Post article on dean=hitler
.Hitlery Clinton
.femi-nazis
.the old famous Clinton=Hitler (or have you forgotten?)
Not to mention:
vote for dems=vote for terrorists, terrorists support kerry, liberals=terrorists.
So where's the disparity? It's that dems and liberals don't use Goebbels-like tactics to drench the media with each and every incident.
Yeah giant, those are the same things.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.
But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.
It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.
I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"
Yeah and so was 1995.
Well, for one, John Ashcroft is not running for President, now is he? Kerry has voted against major defense iniatives and intelligence spending on many ocassions. You really need to research this guy's record. It's not just liberal, it's outright extreme. Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze bill, even as Reagan was proving that just the opposite aproach was what was needed. Kerry criticized Reagan's bombing of Libya as "disproportional". He voted against the 1991 Gulf War. He voted against the $87B war funding package, after voting FOR the war resoltution. Don't even try to paint him as "pro-national security". He's simply not.
Originally posted by tonton
I'll pull a Scott here...
So tell me where you can irrefutably a single one of my points.
Dishonest? Check (exaggeration of WOMD threat and linking Saddam to 9/11 most obvious).
Warmongering? Check (the UN said "not yet" and they chose to act anyway).
Judeo-Christian American supremists? (check on all counts -- they certainly believe America holds the high ground, even when they're attacking other countries who have not been proven to be a threat beyond reasonable doubt).
Incapable of social tolerance? (check -- anti LBGT equality, support racial profiling, anti-choice).
Incapable of socioeconomic empathy? (check -- biggest tax cut to the rich in history, while the middle and lower classes received almost nothing in percentile comparison).
Incapable of environmental concern? (check -- pulled out of Kyoto, rolled back or reduced the scale of dozens of energy saving and pollution reducing initiatives).
Now compare this to Clinton, please.
Dishonest? No evidence of your claim.
Warmongering? 17 UN resolutions.
Judeo-Christian American Supremists: Are you saying we don't hold the high ground? Hmmm. you sound Kerry himself.
Incapable of social tolerance: LGBT equality as manadated by WHAT? Racial profiling for terror purposes....wait for it....WORKS. Anti-choice? Gee jimmac, imagine this: NOT EVERYONE AGREES IT SHOULD BE A CHOICE. It's called a debate. I just love when those who don't support murder-at-will are called "anti-choice".
Socioeconomic "empathy": Here we go again "Bush hates the poor". Nevermind that the bottom tax bracket was reduced 5 marginal points. Each and every American who pays taxes got tax relief....including you and I. My rate has gone from 28% to 25%.
Environment: Kyoto is an anti-American pile of shit. It exempts 80% of the world's biggest polluters because they are "developing". "Bush hates the environment". Really now jimmac...it's a bit old.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yeah giant, those are the same things.
http://www.google.com/search?q=hitle...utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search
In fact, compare the search for "clinton hitler" with "bush hitler." With the latter, almost every hit is something denouncing the comparison, whereas every hit I saw when scanning "clinton hitler" was an actual attack.
Originally posted by giant
http://www.google.com/search?q=hitle...utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search
In fact, compare the search for "clinton hitler" with "bush hitler." With the latter, almost every hit is something denouncing the comparison, whereas every hit I saw when scanning "clinton hitler" was an actual attack.
Whatever. Are you honestly basing you claim on a Google search? Funny, it seems you were the first one attacking me when I did a similar search for news articles with the labels "liberal" and "conservative"....proving that the latter is used twice as often.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What part or where is Coatsville? I'm from a little town in the center of the state called Clearfield. near State College
Halfway between Lancaster and Philadelphia, off Route 30.
Maybe you should meet for coffee. You could get to know eachother better.
[i]Don't even try to paint him as "pro-national security". He's simply not. [/B]
This is simply assinine. Are you suggesting that John Kerry is "anti-national security"? To say someone is not "pro-national security" suggests that one prefers a lack of security. This use of labels is a great trick played by fearmongers on both sides, but I'd hope easy labels are eschewed by the presumably educated people on this board.
Furthermore, you're right, John Aschroft isn't running for Prez., but he holds a position of trust and power in the current administration and is therefore a comp. - Bush is responsible for his nomination to the post and bears responsibility for his choice. Also, as the chief law enforcement officer in the country, I would argue that Ashcroft's lapse in judgment about security is every bit as eggregious as Kerry's, if Kerry's is eggregious at all.
-thoth
SDW2001 wrote on 03-09-2004 08:12 AM:
giant,
...Show me who compared a Democrat to Hitler, and I'll be satisfied. If you can't, then I suggest you back off.
I already showed you a whole, whole bunch, kiddo.
Originally posted by giant
Halfway between Lancaster and Philadelphia, off Route 30.
Maybe you should meet for coffee. You could get to know eachother better.
Well thanks, that is a great idea.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sigh........
Ok, one more time.........
The economy is cyclic. Clinton was elected at a time when the cycle would naturally return to " Better times ". He then made that into the longest running bull market in US history. He caught the ball and ran with it.
Bush was elected when the market was on a natural downslide. He turned that into the worst unemployment since WWII, and a much longer recession. Which we are coming out of it with ( once again ) a gigantic deficit that our children will be paying for and still lagging unemployment. He dropped the ball.
The president can't affect the cycles. He can however affect how pronounced the cycle is through the way he handles it.
Clinton wanted to pay for our debts and balance the budget ( it's been a long while since any president has been able to do that ).
Bush spent money like a drunken sailor ( ok I'll admit I got that old saying from groverat but I love the picture it paints ) on every little personal whim he had.
In a microcosmic way it's like getting out of debt, losing your job, and then using your credit cards to solve all your problems so that you're in debt for the rest of your life.
Got it now?
PS. Iraq was unnecessary ( one of those personal whims ).
N. Korea is a wildcard and it's difficult to tell what would affect them. Hey here's a thought! Maybe they would be right where they are no matter who's in office over here.
1. What did Clinton do to run with the ball as you put it? Raise taxes?
2. What did Bush to cause a recession? (BTW, it doesn;t matter how times I post this, you don't listen: UNEMPLOYMENT WAS NEVER "THE HIGHEST" SINCE WWII....NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. It didn't even reach 1991 recession levels. Your statement is patently false.
3. Please show me how balancing the budget (accomplished by the Republican Congress in part) helped the economy and unemployment. It didn't. It's nearly a separate issue.
America, which is the world's biggest polluter, is 30% off its Kyoto targets. While this is something for another thread, I really don't understand where this 'Kyoto is anti-American' nonsense comes from.