Remember Having a Democrat President?
- Thread starter ReadyontheRight
- Start date
- Status
Sam
Member
We also had a bunch of <> idiots take over an embassy, a bundle of hijackings a president too stupid to refrain from petting a military working dog and who was attacked by a killer wabbit.
Politricksters are interested in 2 things, keeping their (bleep) and getting re elected. Bush is a bit better than Slick but not much.
Camp out on the doorstep of every elected official in the land and keep them honest.
Sam
Merry Christmas to all.
Politricksters are interested in 2 things, keeping their (bleep) and getting re elected. Bush is a bit better than Slick but not much.
Camp out on the doorstep of every elected official in the land and keep them honest.
Sam
Merry Christmas to all.
Last edited by a moderator:
longeyes
member
Clinton was in the right place at the right time: the full-flowering of the personal computing revolution and the arrival of the WWW. We had a quantum leap in productivity--and that's also been part of our problem since (fewer jobs needed in many areas).
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Just because that Kerry creature would have been a horrendously bad president doesn't make Bush good: merely the lesser of two evils.
I haven't seen a single good reason to regret my vote for Badnarik in 2004.
I haven't seen a single good reason to regret my vote for Badnarik in 2004.
longeyes said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Clinton was lucky.
Bush is unlucky.
Clinton was just at the right place at the right time. For 8 straight years.
Bush just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. For 5 straight years.
Its all about luck, right?
longeyes
member
How strong our current economy is is open to debate. Statistics suggest it's pretty robust. Do I endorse everything Bush is doing? Hardly. You can start with his inability to control spending.
But the huge leaps in productivity in the '90s weren't catalyzed by Clinton; those were set in motion years before. Was Clinton "lucky?" Lucky enough to have some prudent Republicans around (where'd they go?). Lucky enough not to have to deal with 9/11--he enjoyed the prosperity while letting the Al-Qaeda problem percolate. You can also thank Clinton for throwing open the gates that have allowed illegal immigration to become the huge thorn it is today.
But the huge leaps in productivity in the '90s weren't catalyzed by Clinton; those were set in motion years before. Was Clinton "lucky?" Lucky enough to have some prudent Republicans around (where'd they go?). Lucky enough not to have to deal with 9/11--he enjoyed the prosperity while letting the Al-Qaeda problem percolate. You can also thank Clinton for throwing open the gates that have allowed illegal immigration to become the huge thorn it is today.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"Its all about luck, right?"
Well, I'd have to say a lot of it's luck. The white-collar recession of Bush I was overwith and the dot-com bubble was beginning. That brought the bontemps to the economy. That and Greenspan's interest-rate policies. Clinton just said, "It doesn't really matter." about WTC 1 and the embassies, so I guess it didn't matter. That's the way the media took it, anyway.
We pull out of Somalia. Then, after WTC 2 we have bin Laden saying on videotape that he was encouraged to do the deal because he learned we don't have the will to retaliate.
Well, oops. New Prez.
The dot-com bubble busted, as expected. Eight trillion dollars disappeared from Nasdaq during 2000. But, here comes the housing bubble. All hail Greenspan! Low interest rates mean no savings, just speculation in the real estate market. Ya wanna guess what's coming? Ya wanna blame Bush for what's been predicted since the end of the 1990s?
You see an event this year: There are always good odds that it's a harvest for which the seeds were sown years or even decades ago.
In the last thirty or forty years, there have been few major happenings which came about completely during one president's term of office. The Carter-era inflation, which I grant was exacerbated by his advisors, began with LBJ's guns'n'butter policy. The stagflation of early Reagan I resulted in the fairly radical effort at a cure by Volcker of the 15% inflation of 1979-1982
Overall, for all it might be hard to believe, the Iraq thing is relatively small potatoes. It's outcome can have great effect on our future, but so far it's not that big a deal. Just look back...
And this terrorism problem is gonna go on for a long, long time. Just think: We'll have another two or three presidencies for second-guessing. Maybe more.
Art
Well, I'd have to say a lot of it's luck. The white-collar recession of Bush I was overwith and the dot-com bubble was beginning. That brought the bontemps to the economy. That and Greenspan's interest-rate policies. Clinton just said, "It doesn't really matter." about WTC 1 and the embassies, so I guess it didn't matter. That's the way the media took it, anyway.
We pull out of Somalia. Then, after WTC 2 we have bin Laden saying on videotape that he was encouraged to do the deal because he learned we don't have the will to retaliate.
Well, oops. New Prez.
The dot-com bubble busted, as expected. Eight trillion dollars disappeared from Nasdaq during 2000. But, here comes the housing bubble. All hail Greenspan! Low interest rates mean no savings, just speculation in the real estate market. Ya wanna guess what's coming? Ya wanna blame Bush for what's been predicted since the end of the 1990s?
You see an event this year: There are always good odds that it's a harvest for which the seeds were sown years or even decades ago.
In the last thirty or forty years, there have been few major happenings which came about completely during one president's term of office. The Carter-era inflation, which I grant was exacerbated by his advisors, began with LBJ's guns'n'butter policy. The stagflation of early Reagan I resulted in the fairly radical effort at a cure by Volcker of the 15% inflation of 1979-1982
Overall, for all it might be hard to believe, the Iraq thing is relatively small potatoes. It's outcome can have great effect on our future, but so far it's not that big a deal. Just look back...
And this terrorism problem is gonna go on for a long, long time. Just think: We'll have another two or three presidencies for second-guessing. Maybe more.
Art
gimme a break. At least be consistent. If Bush's bad times were caused by Clinton, then Carter caused Reagan's prosperity.Art Eatman said:
If Carter's recession was somone else's fault, it was Ford and Nixon's fault (you really think the problems went on hiatus during the Republican interim?
). This is the same lame-a$$ arguement every ditto-head made to explain the prosperity under Clinton. They shut up everytime I'd use their logic to credit Carter for Reagan's success that won him re-election in '84. To hear those folks tell it, Hoover got us through the depression.
-David
Phyphor
Member
Barbara said:
+Infinite
longeyes
member
the mind boggles
Carter and prosperity in the same sentence???
Carter and prosperity in the same sentence???
Last edited:
CAnnoneer
Member
Clinton is certainly a mixed bag, but overall I consider him quite more competent than Bush. Also, he lied about his sexual affairs, while Bush lied about national security. No amount of wiggling around changes that fact and there can be no rationalizations that can adequately justify such an action in a society that prides itself on its democratic values.
I and most other normal contemporary people do not give a damn how many interns POTUS bangs, but care a whole lot about POTUS and his cabinet creating some extremely disturbing precendents in both domestic and foreign policy and the way DC does business in general. That is the kind of damage that is here to stay and would prove exceedingly difficult to undo.
At best, IMO GWB is the wrong flawed man at the wrong place at the wrong time botching most issues and managing to get only a couple of things right through no intellectual credit of his own.
I and most other normal contemporary people do not give a damn how many interns POTUS bangs, but care a whole lot about POTUS and his cabinet creating some extremely disturbing precendents in both domestic and foreign policy and the way DC does business in general. That is the kind of damage that is here to stay and would prove exceedingly difficult to undo.
At best, IMO GWB is the wrong flawed man at the wrong place at the wrong time botching most issues and managing to get only a couple of things right through no intellectual credit of his own.
GoRon
Member
Bush lied and people died, I see you still are buying the leftist tripe that Bush lied.
When Presidents lie they get impeached or quit ie. Cinton, Nixon.
And you guys giving credit to Clinton for "his" economy, does that mean you believe higher tax rates lead to prosperity?
Lone_Gunman
Member
No, impeachment only happens with the opposing party is in control of Congress, and has very little to do with lying.
If you think Clinton and Nixon are the only two president to have misrepresented the truth, then you must be smoking crack.
I think it would be pretty easy to find examples where most presidents since WWII lied about one thing or another.
ReadyontheRight
Member
Bingo -- Regardless of who is in there.
As far as the prosperity of the 1990s. How can you seriously think it has much to do with the government? It probably has something to do with Reagan's policies of getting out of the way of the entrepreneur and reducing taxes, but IMHO the prosperity of the 1990s was primarily due to every single business in the world upgrading or buying new computers to fix the Y2K computer bug. We avoided computer crashes not because there was no issue, not because the government stepped in, but because each and every business owner and government manager spent money to fix the problem. Buying a lot of software and services in the meantime.
More power to everyone working on the two party "bug". When I'm shown a path toward stronger Libertarian/Constitution philosophies that doesn't hand power to those who would take away our RKBA, I'll join. For now, I'll go with the strong party that has the fewest weasels dancing in the blood of gunshot victims to take away my rights.
Merry Christmas! And thank you all for the engaging debate. Thank the lord for the freedom of invention and expression we have here in the USA. May it expand to all of humanity.
BigFatKen
Member
Good enough is good.
Always remember the worst enemy of the good is the perfect. I did not care for some of what George H. W.Bush, 41, did concerning firearms. I voted for Perot.
I will be forever sorry that in some small way I helped get "The Impeached One" into power. I try to never say his name.
As one of the 541 people extra who put President Bush into office in 2000 in Florida, I hope, to some small degree, that I have made ammends for my transgression of the past. I know their were millions more but that is how I like to word it.
Concerning the people who may have mismarked their ballots in 2000 I say; God (or Allah, YHWH, Jehovah or to whomever you pray to) ,works in mysterious ways.
Always remember the worst enemy of the good is the perfect. I did not care for some of what George H. W.Bush, 41, did concerning firearms. I voted for Perot.
I will be forever sorry that in some small way I helped get "The Impeached One" into power. I try to never say his name.
As one of the 541 people extra who put President Bush into office in 2000 in Florida, I hope, to some small degree, that I have made ammends for my transgression of the past. I know their were millions more but that is how I like to word it.
Concerning the people who may have mismarked their ballots in 2000 I say; God (or Allah, YHWH, Jehovah or to whomever you pray to) ,works in mysterious ways.
Nanook
Member
I used to like the old saying that a gunowner voting democratic is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
Then I realized how little difference there is between the two parties.
I'm hoping a viable third party can run and win in enough states to make a difference, as unlikely as that seems.
Then I realized how little difference there is between the two parties.
I'm hoping a viable third party can run and win in enough states to make a difference, as unlikely as that seems.
yonderway
Member
ArmedBear said:
Gridlock is good.
Anything to keep these corrupt Washington fat cats from trying to squeeze tax payers for their local pet projects (which really should be funded at the state, not federal, level anyway). If we can't get them to roll back all the stupid crap they've already buried us up over our heads in, at least let's try to keep them from piling any more on.
yonderway
Member
BigFatKen said:
Thank you. So instead of killing our second amendment, you've killed several others instead. The lesser of two evils is always evil. Anyone who uses mob mentality justification for their vote deserves to have restless nights.
The Drew
Member
GoRon said:
Amazingly Clinton didnt start 2 wars, and curtail americans civil liberties in response...
At the time I just thought it was because he had a weak foreign policy...
Now, I think it might've been the better tact...
CAnnoneer
Member
GoRon said:
Impeachment is based on votes. People have wanted to impeach GWB for a very long time, but they know they don't stand a chance with the R controlling both chambers. Besides, any such attempt will be cast as "unpatriotic" by the neo-con rovian bullies.
As far as lying, if only the admin can be trusted, assemble the picture from their own statements, including from "the horse's mouth" starting from before Iraq and progressing month by month until today. If that exercise does not change your opinion, nothing can.
GoRon
Member
Or I can just look at the Iraq War Resolution voted on in the Congress and see that all justifications for war were on the table from the beginning.
If reading the actual document and not left wing media/blogs "does not change your opinion,nothing can".
GoRon
Member
Oh yea, that worked out brilliant ie. 9/11
CAnnoneer
Member
GoRon said:
You are dancing, and you know it. The resolution is a piece of paper drawn by a globalist organization that has obvious anti-American agenda.
If you follow the exercise I suggested, you would see a transition from:
1) "We have excellent secure confirmed incontrovertible intelligence that unequivocally shows..."
to
2) "Indeed the intelligence was faulty."
Couple that to testimony from CIA people that they warned at the time that the intelligence was low-quality. If they were warned, why did POTUS and cabinet members come on TV time after time regurgitating #1 ? How much exaggeration and misleading becomes a lie? Or we have to go into semantics like Clinton did?
- Status