Clinton Ran a tight budget. Acted more conservative then conservatives did. The guy we have now is a fool with our money. So to deflect interest from Iraq and poor money management. He talks about S S.
MoveOn.org
- Thread starter ferdville
- Start date
dtb, who is more important to the country, the ny times and bill clinton OR the bush administration?DOGS THAT BARK said:
with the answer being as obvious as it is, why do waste your time on the times and clinton? it's as if you are afraid to admit the failures and/or corruption of the current administration (you know - the ones who have been in power the last 4.5 years - the ones who got us into iraq, massive deficits, etc etc).
spending all your time bashing the media is simply a "distraction" from what actually matters.
I totally agree that Clinton was far more a centrist than W. Don 't think it is even close.I keep seeing things in the news that tend to point to continued gains by the GOP. But most of the people I know that voted for W, myself included, are anything but optimistic about the path he is taking.
Would not argue Bill was not liberal and as far as a lot of his politics other than defence I would give him above ave grade especially welfare reforms but as far as tight budget you better credit the house majorities GOP contract with America-forget it when they are in power. Don't delieve I've ever dogged Bill on politics other than defence--its his character I've had a prob with.
"dtb, who is more important to the country, the ny times and bill clinton OR the bush administration?
with the answer being as obvious as it is, why do waste your time on the times and clinton? it's as if you are afraid to admit the failures and/or corruption of the current administration (you know - the ones who have been in power the last 4.5 years - the ones who got us into iraq, massive deficits, etc etc).
spending all your time bashing the media is simply a "distraction" from what actually matters."
The media is VERY instumental on war on terror--the deficeit -911-and war all go hand in hand---if you look at election results I think you will see most thought after 911 to sit back and do nothing was not the answer.
Typical liberals complain but have no solutions--heres your chance---following 911 and recession it put us in what would have been your plan without running a deficiet.Any of you have an answer--didn't think so.
Next give me a time that we were invovled in any war that we didn't run deficeit?
"dtb, who is more important to the country, the ny times and bill clinton OR the bush administration?
with the answer being as obvious as it is, why do waste your time on the times and clinton? it's as if you are afraid to admit the failures and/or corruption of the current administration (you know - the ones who have been in power the last 4.5 years - the ones who got us into iraq, massive deficits, etc etc).
spending all your time bashing the media is simply a "distraction" from what actually matters."
The media is VERY instumental on war on terror--the deficeit -911-and war all go hand in hand---if you look at election results I think you will see most thought after 911 to sit back and do nothing was not the answer.
Typical liberals complain but have no solutions--heres your chance---following 911 and recession it put us in what would have been your plan without running a deficiet.Any of you have an answer--didn't think so.
Next give me a time that we were invovled in any war that we didn't run deficeit?
Last edited:
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Give me a time that we were at war, let alone involved in two wars, that we had a tax cut.
Simple answer. Do what takes in Afghanistan at whatever costs. Make Bin Laden the next biggest priority. Stay the course with Iraq at no additional cost yet. NO TAX CUTS - that was absolutely ridiculous.DOGS THAT BARK said:
Deficit - yeah there would probably be some, but it would be manageable and more temporary. We wouldn't be overextended militarily either. We'd likely have caught Bin Laden, and Afghanistan would be in a better place. We'd have more allies in the war on terror and be more prepared financially and strategically for the next thing that will inevitably happen.
Everytime one of you bitches about L-words or myself never offering solutions, I always provide a solution. Myabe it's time to open your eyes and read the answers.
The answers do not lie in complaints about the NY Times.
DOGS THAT BARK said:
And who, exactly, thought we should sit back and do nothing? Probably the same ghosts who were protesting 'on all the major college compuses,' as one of your articles stated. Or the same ghosts that are 'spitting on troops' and rallying against them, as you have stated many times.
Do you have any problem with the 'answers' that Bush came up with in regard to the deficit?
1. Cut taxes.
2. Pour a billion a week into a war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Those are two huge things that he did to exacerbate the problem.
Once again we have a case of somebody asking for answers, or solutions, to bail out f*ck-ups by this admin.
Let me take a term from Limbaugh-Land:
Ditto smurphy!
Ditto kosar!
Ditto, ditto, ditto. The answers are not hard to see.
I must admit I supported the war in Iraq because I believed Bush on the WMDs. ( Kind of like Kerry and many Democrats ). Then I find out the :cursin: made it all up! I rallied behind ole W and defended the Iraq action, never doubting that the President would take such an action unless Iraq was a dangerous threat. My wife always believed it was BS from the beginning so I have to eat crow at home every time there are more casualties there. I still support our troops like probably everyone here and 9-11 still pisses me off big time.
BUT...I will NEVER make the mistake of believing anything this bunch says again. If they told me the sky was blue I wouldn't buy it.
Ditto smurphy!
Ditto kosar!
Ditto, ditto, ditto. The answers are not hard to see.
I must admit I supported the war in Iraq because I believed Bush on the WMDs. ( Kind of like Kerry and many Democrats ). Then I find out the :cursin: made it all up! I rallied behind ole W and defended the Iraq action, never doubting that the President would take such an action unless Iraq was a dangerous threat. My wife always believed it was BS from the beginning so I have to eat crow at home every time there are more casualties there. I still support our troops like probably everyone here and 9-11 still pisses me off big time.
BUT...I will NEVER make the mistake of believing anything this bunch says again. If they told me the sky was blue I wouldn't buy it.
I think tax cut is legitamate gripe---
UBL demise is of little importance--its a matter of time--however he has been rendered in effective and he is small cog in wheel.
They aren't ghost Matt there still out there in liberal media and liberal politicians every day aiding and abetting the enemy.
I don't think I have to name names as I am sure you understand what I'm saying.
UBL demise is of little importance--its a matter of time--however he has been rendered in effective and he is small cog in wheel.
They aren't ghost Matt there still out there in liberal media and liberal politicians every day aiding and abetting the enemy.
I don't think I have to name names as I am sure you understand what I'm saying.
I don't think there is much argument by anyone here that Ted Kennedy is a bit of a disgrace and should go.
"Aiding and abetting the enemy" bothers me too. I believe the Bush administration itself has aided and abetted to a very dangerous level. Kissing Saudi butt aids and abets. Opening up Iraq to every terror group with gripe aids and abets. Bad strategy aids and abets. Sacrificing border safety for the profit of illegal labor aids and abets. The list of Dubya's aiding and abetting goes on and on IMO.
"Aiding and abetting the enemy" bothers me too. I believe the Bush administration itself has aided and abetted to a very dangerous level. Kissing Saudi butt aids and abets. Opening up Iraq to every terror group with gripe aids and abets. Bad strategy aids and abets. Sacrificing border safety for the profit of illegal labor aids and abets. The list of Dubya's aiding and abetting goes on and on IMO.
No one has aided and abetted the enemy like the Bush Administration by holding hands with Saudi Arabia and not holding them accountable for financing terror and not holding them accountable for human rights. Kennedy is definitly off the wall but no different than wacko right wingers like DeLay and Lott, but obviously the people in their states like these guys as they keep sending them back so they must feel they are representing them well. Personally, I would like to see all extremeists like Kennedy and DeLay removed from government as they contribute very little.
yep not holding Saudi accountable for human rights and financing is right up there-with calling our troops nazis--wanting to give terrorist attorneys--making sure their religious rights are not violated in prison--putting prison scandal on front page for 43 days and ACLU now sueing to put more in circulation--
If you agree Algazeera is aiding terrorist and they continuely quote our liberal polticians and liberal media you'd have to have a Kool Aid overdose to not see the parralells
and as far as financing--tough to do when you got liberal judges trying to hinder it--
"Fri Jul 29,11:43 PM ET
LOS ANGELES, United States (AFP) - A US federal judge has ruled some provisions of the USA Patriot Act that target funding and assistance to overseas terrorist groups as unconstitutionally vague.
If you agree Algazeera is aiding terrorist and they continuely quote our liberal polticians and liberal media you'd have to have a Kool Aid overdose to not see the parralells
and as far as financing--tough to do when you got liberal judges trying to hinder it--
"Fri Jul 29,11:43 PM ET
LOS ANGELES, United States (AFP) - A US federal judge has ruled some provisions of the USA Patriot Act that target funding and assistance to overseas terrorist groups as unconstitutionally vague.
Last edited:
More than likely you have drank way too much of the Limbaugh Codeine flavored Kool Aid since you cannot or will not hold this administration accountable for not taking on the root of terrorism which resides in Saudi Arabia. Insuring a prisoners religious rights or calling someone names has resulted in zero deaths whereas our problem with terrorism and where the financing of the terrorism has resulted in thousands of deaths which can be traced right to Saudi Arabia. Getting worked up about one out of touch extremist calling the troops Nazi's is a waste of time and worthless, you should be more upset with the administrations lack of planning that has cost our troops more lives than any name calling.
Any other administrations prior to W that took on this root of terrorism? I don't think it suddenly sprouted the day W took office. I don't like W at all and he has done a horrible job in Iraq. But we have been courting Saudi Arabia for a long time and he is not the first who has ignored what is happening there. It isn't hard to find things to blame him for, but at least share the blame on that one.
Ferdville,
While your point is extremely valid and very sensible the fact is that no other president had a open wallet as Bush had after 9/11 to strangle the root of terrorism, but while I applaud him for going into Afghanistan he gets thumbs down for invading a country that cannot be linked to any form of terrorism against the United States. Now if he would of went after Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates then he could of severely damaged the terrorists ability to finance and organize and at the same time possibly given the Saudi citizens some human rights. You are absolutely on the money that more should of been done in the past especially after the Cole bombings but at no time in modern history was a president given such freedom to wage a war on terror as Bush and he choose to use his capital on a country that had no link to terrorism.
While your point is extremely valid and very sensible the fact is that no other president had a open wallet as Bush had after 9/11 to strangle the root of terrorism, but while I applaud him for going into Afghanistan he gets thumbs down for invading a country that cannot be linked to any form of terrorism against the United States. Now if he would of went after Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates then he could of severely damaged the terrorists ability to finance and organize and at the same time possibly given the Saudi citizens some human rights. You are absolutely on the money that more should of been done in the past especially after the Cole bombings but at no time in modern history was a president given such freedom to wage a war on terror as Bush and he choose to use his capital on a country that had no link to terrorism.
