We all know that there are clear differences between the left and the right as there are differences between the Bush adminstration and the former adminstration.
The large difference by far is the governing by principle.. Bush has clearly shown this by the unpopular situation in Irag and many other issues that is required by a leader other than his popularity being judged... Clinton on the other hand governed by what the polls indicated and basically ignored the hands on type management that is needed..There were many opportunities for Clinton to do something about aggression overseas by terrorists..Again,Clinton was more concered about maintaining the economy than involving the US into a global threat that has now consumed much of the free world..All Clinton did was bomb a tent in the desert and a pill factory to show that he was capable of reaction..It has now been documented that the Clinton adminstration had an opportunity to get Bin Laden and didn't..
Liberals are so full of themselves and the 9 who are running have shown that not one of them has really the strong leadership qualities that is required,let alone fight despots around the world..Listen,liberals are the party of appeasement and when you hear from the likes of Kucinich who wants to create another department and call it the department of peace..Geez!! Give me a break, a department of peace..Does he actually think he can sit down with a bunch of terrorists and talk peace,what an idiot..Yeah right, he's got a chance..
Liberals over the years have shown time and time again that they lack the will and fortitude to take the fight to the aggressors..World War 1 and 2 have shown that..Hilter would never have gained so much power if the European left would've acted by removing him sooner,but they just ignored his heated rhetoric as just another politician..President Reagan when he challenged Russia to take down the wall,the liberals in Europe and here in the US were flabbergasted and in a state of fear and just plain typically showing no backbone...Clinton's escapade in Somalia was a complete failure for one reason and only one reason...He ran that fight rather than let the military handle it and coward.. When the going got rough and the polls showed that the people were against that skirmish he bolted...Bin Laden even stated through some paperwork that American forces gathered in Afganistan said that now that Bush is in office we can expect a heavy retaliation and by no means would he be complacent like Clinton..In other words,Bin Laden knew that Clinton had no backbone and Bush was a major obstacle and was the one that could kick his a-s-s.The US. Cole and the embassy bombings proved that... Now don't give me that crap about that we haven't found him or Saddam..It took us 5 years to get Rudolph here in the states for the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, so that doesn't hold water and those 9 Democrats that use that argument are only looking stupid and foolish.
The removel of Malosovich in Bosnia or Kosovo was right to do,but the liberals never showed any discontempt with Clinton like they do with Bush..That problem wasn't an American threat by any stretch and should've been handled by the Europeans,but those appeasers don't even have the stomach to mow their own backyards.One other point,Clinton didn't go to the UN because he knew that that lapdog outfit would never have given the approval so he went through NATO..Liberals keep harping about that Bush doesn't have an exit strategy,but Clinton said that the Americans would be out of Bosina by Christmas time and this was 10 years ago..General Clark,what the heck is he talking about..You can't make heads or tails from anything he states and is a complete misguided rambler..This guy comes on the campaign trial with rumors and hyperboles.Yeah another great potential leader..He almost started WWIII with the Russians when he was over there... Everything he says comes from cocktail parties and madeup crap from his own mind..
Democrats are losing on every front...Republicans control most governships are for the first time in 40 years changing the way medicare is run,which has always been a promising but never delivered campaign slogan by Democrats..The energy bill is going to pass for the first time in years for a major shift towards more friendly alternatives..Thank you Massachusetts for your moral clarity and showing us that liberal moral judgement will always be your dreaded hallmark and on that note alone you will become the party that was..Incidentally,I do agree with civil unions but marriage is out..Yes Democrats are extremely concerned and as with the 9 contenders for Bush's job,well good luck..Bush will get reelected and if the liberals know what is good for them they will pull that lever...Security is the main reason why Bush should stay,because terrorists would love nothing better than have a liberal to deal with..Remember when the Democrats were bashing Bush on his tax cut,well we clearly see what that is doing for the economy,which they also can't use anymore..
No folks,liberals lack the moral clarity and vision and if you want this country to move towards socialism and embark on a course of giving terrorists a seat at the table than move to France.
It's a great time in life to be a conservative and the trend is clearly becoming positive..The country and the world is on the right track and Bush did more in his first term than Clinton did in 8 years..Bush will go down in history as one of the top 5 presidents in this century if not of all time and that was Clinton's hope to do the same,but only to have gone down in shame because of the lust he had for your daughter,his only legacy..
Have a good day
ET
The large difference by far is the governing by principle.. Bush has clearly shown this by the unpopular situation in Irag and many other issues that is required by a leader other than his popularity being judged... Clinton on the other hand governed by what the polls indicated and basically ignored the hands on type management that is needed..There were many opportunities for Clinton to do something about aggression overseas by terrorists..Again,Clinton was more concered about maintaining the economy than involving the US into a global threat that has now consumed much of the free world..All Clinton did was bomb a tent in the desert and a pill factory to show that he was capable of reaction..It has now been documented that the Clinton adminstration had an opportunity to get Bin Laden and didn't..
Liberals are so full of themselves and the 9 who are running have shown that not one of them has really the strong leadership qualities that is required,let alone fight despots around the world..Listen,liberals are the party of appeasement and when you hear from the likes of Kucinich who wants to create another department and call it the department of peace..Geez!! Give me a break, a department of peace..Does he actually think he can sit down with a bunch of terrorists and talk peace,what an idiot..Yeah right, he's got a chance..
Liberals over the years have shown time and time again that they lack the will and fortitude to take the fight to the aggressors..World War 1 and 2 have shown that..Hilter would never have gained so much power if the European left would've acted by removing him sooner,but they just ignored his heated rhetoric as just another politician..President Reagan when he challenged Russia to take down the wall,the liberals in Europe and here in the US were flabbergasted and in a state of fear and just plain typically showing no backbone...Clinton's escapade in Somalia was a complete failure for one reason and only one reason...He ran that fight rather than let the military handle it and coward.. When the going got rough and the polls showed that the people were against that skirmish he bolted...Bin Laden even stated through some paperwork that American forces gathered in Afganistan said that now that Bush is in office we can expect a heavy retaliation and by no means would he be complacent like Clinton..In other words,Bin Laden knew that Clinton had no backbone and Bush was a major obstacle and was the one that could kick his a-s-s.The US. Cole and the embassy bombings proved that... Now don't give me that crap about that we haven't found him or Saddam..It took us 5 years to get Rudolph here in the states for the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, so that doesn't hold water and those 9 Democrats that use that argument are only looking stupid and foolish.
The removel of Malosovich in Bosnia or Kosovo was right to do,but the liberals never showed any discontempt with Clinton like they do with Bush..That problem wasn't an American threat by any stretch and should've been handled by the Europeans,but those appeasers don't even have the stomach to mow their own backyards.One other point,Clinton didn't go to the UN because he knew that that lapdog outfit would never have given the approval so he went through NATO..Liberals keep harping about that Bush doesn't have an exit strategy,but Clinton said that the Americans would be out of Bosina by Christmas time and this was 10 years ago..General Clark,what the heck is he talking about..You can't make heads or tails from anything he states and is a complete misguided rambler..This guy comes on the campaign trial with rumors and hyperboles.Yeah another great potential leader..He almost started WWIII with the Russians when he was over there... Everything he says comes from cocktail parties and madeup crap from his own mind..
Democrats are losing on every front...Republicans control most governships are for the first time in 40 years changing the way medicare is run,which has always been a promising but never delivered campaign slogan by Democrats..The energy bill is going to pass for the first time in years for a major shift towards more friendly alternatives..Thank you Massachusetts for your moral clarity and showing us that liberal moral judgement will always be your dreaded hallmark and on that note alone you will become the party that was..Incidentally,I do agree with civil unions but marriage is out..Yes Democrats are extremely concerned and as with the 9 contenders for Bush's job,well good luck..Bush will get reelected and if the liberals know what is good for them they will pull that lever...Security is the main reason why Bush should stay,because terrorists would love nothing better than have a liberal to deal with..Remember when the Democrats were bashing Bush on his tax cut,well we clearly see what that is doing for the economy,which they also can't use anymore..
No folks,liberals lack the moral clarity and vision and if you want this country to move towards socialism and embark on a course of giving terrorists a seat at the table than move to France.
It's a great time in life to be a conservative and the trend is clearly becoming positive..The country and the world is on the right track and Bush did more in his first term than Clinton did in 8 years..Bush will go down in history as one of the top 5 presidents in this century if not of all time and that was Clinton's hope to do the same,but only to have gone down in shame because of the lust he had for your daughter,his only legacy..
Have a good day
ET
