Capt'nAmerica
08-08-2003, 12:52 PM
This guy didn't get elected...
View Full Version : Thank GOD
John Kennedy
08-09-2003, 03:07 PM
why do you say that?
Capt'nAmerica
08-09-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by John Kennedy
why do you say that?
After the atrocities to national security him and his buddie Bubba commited while in office thank GOD after 911 a softy like Gore wasn't in office. The dynamic duo did everything possible to cover up the terrorism promblem that faced us during the 90's..
It's been documented that Clinton/Gore were interested more in Gays in the military and environmental issue then real threats that faced and eventually boiled over resulting in the single most horrific act of terrorism on U.S soil....
- Sudan offered Bin LADEN to Clinton/Gore 3 times and they refused stating there were'nt legal grounds to indict him.. The reason they didn't have the proof was because of the limited ability the CIA & FBI had in connecting the 93 bombing to Bin Laden. That reduction in intelligence and military spending was under Clinton a democrat who's party has always favored diverting resources from the intelligence community and the military to fund the massive social programs they like to create..
- After the COLE bombing that killed 19 service men CLINTON/GORE took 3 weeks before meeting with Woosly the head of the CIA at the time, 3 weeks!!! think about that....
why do you say that?
After the atrocities to national security him and his buddie Bubba commited while in office thank GOD after 911 a softy like Gore wasn't in office. The dynamic duo did everything possible to cover up the terrorism promblem that faced us during the 90's..
It's been documented that Clinton/Gore were interested more in Gays in the military and environmental issue then real threats that faced and eventually boiled over resulting in the single most horrific act of terrorism on U.S soil....
- Sudan offered Bin LADEN to Clinton/Gore 3 times and they refused stating there were'nt legal grounds to indict him.. The reason they didn't have the proof was because of the limited ability the CIA & FBI had in connecting the 93 bombing to Bin Laden. That reduction in intelligence and military spending was under Clinton a democrat who's party has always favored diverting resources from the intelligence community and the military to fund the massive social programs they like to create..
- After the COLE bombing that killed 19 service men CLINTON/GORE took 3 weeks before meeting with Woosly the head of the CIA at the time, 3 weeks!!! think about that....
joe!
08-09-2003, 10:54 PM
what do u mean...he invented the internet..without him..we have no nightclubcity...lmao.
hes a douchebag.
hes a douchebag.
Capt'nAmerica
08-10-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by joe!
what do u mean...he invented the internet..without him..we have no nightclubcity...lmao.
douchebag.
:ROTFL Perfect..:ROTFL
The guy's a putz.:buck
what do u mean...he invented the internet..without him..we have no nightclubcity...lmao.
douchebag.
:ROTFL Perfect..:ROTFL
The guy's a putz.:buck
John Kennedy
08-10-2003, 10:13 AM
for the record I agree that he is a putz, but I just wanted to see your reasoning.......
As far as oppurtunities to capture bin laden, don't you think Bush sr had the same oppurtunities? Also to capture Saddam? If we're being technical, we can blame terrorism in the 90's solely on Bush sr. and even Reagan before him. Even til September 10 2001 Bush jr did not make it a priority to capture bin laden (he had many oppurtunities).
It's no secret that communication between the FBI CIA and the president was not good before 9/11 (this goes way before clintons term).
It's easy to drop blame but in my opinion Bush Sr. and Reagan are more responsible for terrorism than Clinton is, if we're dropping blame anywhere.
As far as oppurtunities to capture bin laden, don't you think Bush sr had the same oppurtunities? Also to capture Saddam? If we're being technical, we can blame terrorism in the 90's solely on Bush sr. and even Reagan before him. Even til September 10 2001 Bush jr did not make it a priority to capture bin laden (he had many oppurtunities).
It's no secret that communication between the FBI CIA and the president was not good before 9/11 (this goes way before clintons term).
It's easy to drop blame but in my opinion Bush Sr. and Reagan are more responsible for terrorism than Clinton is, if we're dropping blame anywhere.
.gene.
08-10-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
This guy didn't get elected...
This guy has the persona of a dimestore indian.
This guy didn't get elected...
This guy has the persona of a dimestore indian.
Capt'nAmerica
08-11-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by John Kennedy
for the record I agree that he is a putz, but I just wanted to see your reasoning.......
As far as oppurtunities to capture bin laden, don't you think Bush sr had the same oppurtunities? Also to capture Saddam? If we're being technical, we can blame terrorism in the 90's solely on Bush sr. and even Reagan before him. Even til September 10 2001 Bush jr did not make it a priority to capture bin laden (he had many oppurtunities).
It's no secret that communication between the FBI CIA and the president was not good before 9/11 (this goes way before clintons term).
It's easy to drop blame but in my opinion Bush Sr. and Reagan are more responsible for terrorism than Clinton is, if we're dropping blame anywhere.
Please.... lets get technical:)
Please provide some facts on how Bush Sr and even Reagen are to blame for today's current terrorism promblem...
for the record I agree that he is a putz, but I just wanted to see your reasoning.......
As far as oppurtunities to capture bin laden, don't you think Bush sr had the same oppurtunities? Also to capture Saddam? If we're being technical, we can blame terrorism in the 90's solely on Bush sr. and even Reagan before him. Even til September 10 2001 Bush jr did not make it a priority to capture bin laden (he had many oppurtunities).
It's no secret that communication between the FBI CIA and the president was not good before 9/11 (this goes way before clintons term).
It's easy to drop blame but in my opinion Bush Sr. and Reagan are more responsible for terrorism than Clinton is, if we're dropping blame anywhere.
Please.... lets get technical:)
Please provide some facts on how Bush Sr and even Reagen are to blame for today's current terrorism promblem...
Unclebuc
08-11-2003, 11:22 AM
I blame Dmitry and Eleni for all of these problems!!!!
Bobby2k
08-12-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Please.... lets get technical:)
Please provide some facts on how Bush Sr and even Reagen are to blame for today's current terrorism promblem...
Dont blame president clinton for the terrorism problem facing us today. Until the sep11 attacks NO president took terrorism seriously, it wasnt till after the attacks that Bush took initiatives to heighten security and go after Afghanistan. The idea that gore would have done nothing after the 9/11 attacks is just obsurd.....
Please.... lets get technical:)
Please provide some facts on how Bush Sr and even Reagen are to blame for today's current terrorism promblem...
Dont blame president clinton for the terrorism problem facing us today. Until the sep11 attacks NO president took terrorism seriously, it wasnt till after the attacks that Bush took initiatives to heighten security and go after Afghanistan. The idea that gore would have done nothing after the 9/11 attacks is just obsurd.....
John Kennedy
08-12-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Please.... lets get technical:)
Please provide some facts on how Bush Sr and even Reagen are to blame for today's current terrorism promblem...
Reagans sneaky Contra affairs in the 80s caused major resentment in the mid-east. The U.S. knew Iraq was gassing Iranians and did nothing to stop that human rights catastrophe because it was in his interests back then.
Then Bush Sr's failure to topple Saddam during the Gulf war either by direct force or by backing the Shiítes so that they can topple him themselves. They were left abandoned after the gulf war. He couldve very well begun the process of stabilizing Iraq and the region after the Gulf war, just like we did in Qatar and Kuwait. But Bush left Iraq by themselves.
Now I know the U.S. interests change with time, but to say Clinton is to blame for terrorism? We had our best chances at peace during and towards the end of the Clinton administration, but there was only so much he could do to clean up the horrible mess Bush Sr. and Reagan left behind in that region.
Do you honestly think Clinton would've oked any chemical warfare in the mid-east, even if it was in our interests? He did whatever was right, you know this.
Please.... lets get technical:)
Please provide some facts on how Bush Sr and even Reagen are to blame for today's current terrorism promblem...
Reagans sneaky Contra affairs in the 80s caused major resentment in the mid-east. The U.S. knew Iraq was gassing Iranians and did nothing to stop that human rights catastrophe because it was in his interests back then.
Then Bush Sr's failure to topple Saddam during the Gulf war either by direct force or by backing the Shiítes so that they can topple him themselves. They were left abandoned after the gulf war. He couldve very well begun the process of stabilizing Iraq and the region after the Gulf war, just like we did in Qatar and Kuwait. But Bush left Iraq by themselves.
Now I know the U.S. interests change with time, but to say Clinton is to blame for terrorism? We had our best chances at peace during and towards the end of the Clinton administration, but there was only so much he could do to clean up the horrible mess Bush Sr. and Reagan left behind in that region.
Do you honestly think Clinton would've oked any chemical warfare in the mid-east, even if it was in our interests? He did whatever was right, you know this.
Capt'nAmerica
08-13-2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Bobby2k
Dont blame president clinton for the terrorism problem facing us today. Until the sep11 attacks NO president took terrorism seriously, it wasnt till after the attacks that Bush took initiatives to heighten security and go after Afghanistan. The idea that gore would have done nothing after the 9/11 attacks is just obsurd.....
If Gore were in office we would still be waiting for a resolution to enter Afghanistan.. I am not blaming President Clinton for the terrorism promblem but failing to act after a number of terrorism incidents against the U.S like....
A) 1ST WTC attack in 1992.
B) U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya
C) USS COLE bombing..
I will tell you what obsurd is... That before the terrorism activity from Alqaeda showed up in the early 90's Bin Laden was just a fanatical extremists that fought with the mujahdeen against the Russains. When he planned and executed the first WTC bombing under CLINTON... he had 9 years to uproot Alqaeda and crush Bin Laden but he didn't he decided to limit our intelligence capabilities... How can you compare any other president to the incompetence and disregard for national security that took place in the oval office under Clinton.
Dont blame president clinton for the terrorism problem facing us today. Until the sep11 attacks NO president took terrorism seriously, it wasnt till after the attacks that Bush took initiatives to heighten security and go after Afghanistan. The idea that gore would have done nothing after the 9/11 attacks is just obsurd.....
If Gore were in office we would still be waiting for a resolution to enter Afghanistan.. I am not blaming President Clinton for the terrorism promblem but failing to act after a number of terrorism incidents against the U.S like....
A) 1ST WTC attack in 1992.
B) U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya
C) USS COLE bombing..
I will tell you what obsurd is... That before the terrorism activity from Alqaeda showed up in the early 90's Bin Laden was just a fanatical extremists that fought with the mujahdeen against the Russains. When he planned and executed the first WTC bombing under CLINTON... he had 9 years to uproot Alqaeda and crush Bin Laden but he didn't he decided to limit our intelligence capabilities... How can you compare any other president to the incompetence and disregard for national security that took place in the oval office under Clinton.
Capt'nAmerica
08-13-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by John Kennedy
Reagans sneaky Contra affairs in the 80s caused major resentment in the mid-east. The U.S. knew Iraq was gassing Iranians and did nothing to stop that human rights catastrophe because it was in his interests back then.
Then Bush Sr's failure to topple Saddam during the Gulf war either by direct force or by backing the Shiítes so that they can topple him themselves. They were left abandoned after the gulf war. He couldve very well begun the process of stabilizing Iraq and the region after the Gulf war, just like we did in Qatar and Kuwait. But Bush left Iraq by themselves.
Now I know the U.S. interests change with time, but to say Clinton is to blame for terrorism? We had our best chances at peace during and towards the end of the Clinton administration, but there was only so much he could do to clean up the horrible mess Bush Sr. and Reagan left behind in that region.
Do you honestly think Clinton would've oked any chemical.warfare in the mid-east, even if it was in our interests?
A) OK so you are blaming fanatical extremism on the the Iran contra incident.. interesting.. What about our support for Isreal or the good ol American scapegoat some Arab leaders use to blame their countries hardships on??? We didn't do anything to stop the gassing?? Where was the out cry from the arab world?? where was the beloved U.N. when that catastrophe occured. I find it Ironic that you would blame the gassing of the Iranians on the U.S but not on Sadam..who ordered the gassing?? Iran and Iraq were in a 10 year war and yes we were on Iraq's side because it was in our best interests but we didn't push the button Sadam did and up until the recent fall of Bahgdad the Arab world looked up to Sadam.. SO how did the gassing of the Iranians fuel terrorism???
B) OK you have a point about leaving the shiites out to dry but tht didn't fuel terorism and you have to look back at the time and the mission we set out to do.. We enter the WAR because Sadam invaded Kuwait. The mission sold to the american people was to remove Sadam from Kuwait and end his dreams of taking over the middle east. We did not set out to remove Sadam we set out to drive him from Kuwait and that was accomplished so we left..
C) It sounds like you are a staunch supporter of Clinton and judging by your screen name a Democrat. The left has always been soft on foreign policy and Clinton wasn't any diffrent. The "mess" your talking about was around even before Reagan did you forget the hostages taken and held for 1 year under Carter. They were fiinally released when Reagen was elected.
Our support for Isreal is the reason for terrorism...
Oh and and your argument Clinton "did whatever was right, you know this". How did you feel when Clinton authorised the sale of Nuclear and missile technology to CHINA??? OR when he stoos infront of the american people and lied about Monica??
Clinton was... after Carter the worst president we ever had.
Reagans sneaky Contra affairs in the 80s caused major resentment in the mid-east. The U.S. knew Iraq was gassing Iranians and did nothing to stop that human rights catastrophe because it was in his interests back then.
Then Bush Sr's failure to topple Saddam during the Gulf war either by direct force or by backing the Shiítes so that they can topple him themselves. They were left abandoned after the gulf war. He couldve very well begun the process of stabilizing Iraq and the region after the Gulf war, just like we did in Qatar and Kuwait. But Bush left Iraq by themselves.
Now I know the U.S. interests change with time, but to say Clinton is to blame for terrorism? We had our best chances at peace during and towards the end of the Clinton administration, but there was only so much he could do to clean up the horrible mess Bush Sr. and Reagan left behind in that region.
Do you honestly think Clinton would've oked any chemical.warfare in the mid-east, even if it was in our interests?
A) OK so you are blaming fanatical extremism on the the Iran contra incident.. interesting.. What about our support for Isreal or the good ol American scapegoat some Arab leaders use to blame their countries hardships on??? We didn't do anything to stop the gassing?? Where was the out cry from the arab world?? where was the beloved U.N. when that catastrophe occured. I find it Ironic that you would blame the gassing of the Iranians on the U.S but not on Sadam..who ordered the gassing?? Iran and Iraq were in a 10 year war and yes we were on Iraq's side because it was in our best interests but we didn't push the button Sadam did and up until the recent fall of Bahgdad the Arab world looked up to Sadam.. SO how did the gassing of the Iranians fuel terrorism???
B) OK you have a point about leaving the shiites out to dry but tht didn't fuel terorism and you have to look back at the time and the mission we set out to do.. We enter the WAR because Sadam invaded Kuwait. The mission sold to the american people was to remove Sadam from Kuwait and end his dreams of taking over the middle east. We did not set out to remove Sadam we set out to drive him from Kuwait and that was accomplished so we left..
C) It sounds like you are a staunch supporter of Clinton and judging by your screen name a Democrat. The left has always been soft on foreign policy and Clinton wasn't any diffrent. The "mess" your talking about was around even before Reagan did you forget the hostages taken and held for 1 year under Carter. They were fiinally released when Reagen was elected.
Our support for Isreal is the reason for terrorism...
Oh and and your argument Clinton "did whatever was right, you know this". How did you feel when Clinton authorised the sale of Nuclear and missile technology to CHINA??? OR when he stoos infront of the american people and lied about Monica??
Clinton was... after Carter the worst president we ever had.
Bobby2k
08-13-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
If Gore were in office we would still be waiting for a resolution to enter Afghanistan.. I am not blaming President Clinton for the terrorism promblem but failing to act after a number of terrorism incidents against the U.S like....
A) 1ST WTC attack in 1992.
B) U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya
C) USS COLE bombing..
I will tell you what obsurd is... That before the terrorism activity from Alqaeda showed up in the early 90's Bin Laden was just a fanatical extremists that fought with the mujahdeen against the Russains. When he planned and executed the first WTC bombing under CLINTON... he had 9 years to uproot Alqaeda and crush Bin Laden but he didn't he decided to limit our intelligence capabilities... How can you compare any other president to the incompetence and disregard for national security that took place in the oval office under Clinton.
When Bush Jr. first came into office did he do one thing to try to go after Bin Laden??? If your going to blame clinton for neglecting the Alqueda problem then you have to say the same about George W because frankly he knew as well about what Alqueda had done in the past and that they were plotting more attacks. The fact is both Clinton and Bush neglected the problem so u cant start doint the partisan thing and pointing fingers at people because the fact is alqueda is the group to blame for the attacks not Bill Clinton and the democrats. And the claim that we would still be waiting on a resolution in Afghanistan is simply a baseless assumption that has no fact to it other than your dislike and desire to brand Gore and democrats as pacifists. I think in the partisan quarreling that goes on these days people just exagerate on both sides way too much.
If Gore were in office we would still be waiting for a resolution to enter Afghanistan.. I am not blaming President Clinton for the terrorism promblem but failing to act after a number of terrorism incidents against the U.S like....
A) 1ST WTC attack in 1992.
B) U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya
C) USS COLE bombing..
I will tell you what obsurd is... That before the terrorism activity from Alqaeda showed up in the early 90's Bin Laden was just a fanatical extremists that fought with the mujahdeen against the Russains. When he planned and executed the first WTC bombing under CLINTON... he had 9 years to uproot Alqaeda and crush Bin Laden but he didn't he decided to limit our intelligence capabilities... How can you compare any other president to the incompetence and disregard for national security that took place in the oval office under Clinton.
When Bush Jr. first came into office did he do one thing to try to go after Bin Laden??? If your going to blame clinton for neglecting the Alqueda problem then you have to say the same about George W because frankly he knew as well about what Alqueda had done in the past and that they were plotting more attacks. The fact is both Clinton and Bush neglected the problem so u cant start doint the partisan thing and pointing fingers at people because the fact is alqueda is the group to blame for the attacks not Bill Clinton and the democrats. And the claim that we would still be waiting on a resolution in Afghanistan is simply a baseless assumption that has no fact to it other than your dislike and desire to brand Gore and democrats as pacifists. I think in the partisan quarreling that goes on these days people just exagerate on both sides way too much.
Capt'nAmerica
08-13-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Bobby2k
When Bush Jr. first came into office did he do one thing to try to go after Bin Laden??? If your going to blame clinton for neglecting the Alqueda problem then you have to say the same about George W because frankly he knew as well about what Alqueda had done in the past and that they were plotting more attacks. The fact is both Clinton and Bush neglected the problem so u cant start doint the partisan thing and pointing fingers at people because the fact is alqueda is the group to blame for the attacks not Bill Clinton and the democrats. And the claim that we would still be waiting on a resolution in Afghanistan is simply a baseless assumption that has no fact to it other than your dislike and desire to brand Gore and democrats as pacifists. I think in the partisan quarreling that goes on these days people just exagerate on both sides way too much.
Gore and the left aren't pacifists??? Didn't the 12 years of Sadam wipping his ass with 17 resolutions and the UN doing nothing with the blessing of the Clinton administration show you that the left are a teethless dogs when it comes to national security and foreign policy.. The following incidents with no retaliation proved to the world that we weren't only vulnerable but didn't care..
WTC I bombing ....1993
Khobar Towers in June 1996
Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya
and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania --
August 7, 1998
U.S.S COLE. OCT 12TH 2000..
The above BUBBA took 3 weeks to meet with Woosley the head of the CIA that doesn't show you he his a bungelling fool??
911 HAPPENED AND THE US HAS BEEN KICKING ASS AND ASKING QUESTIONS LATER
That my freind is the diffrence between being a super-power and calling the shots or pussy footing around a promblem and getting slapped with our pants down..
When Bush Jr. first came into office did he do one thing to try to go after Bin Laden??? If your going to blame clinton for neglecting the Alqueda problem then you have to say the same about George W because frankly he knew as well about what Alqueda had done in the past and that they were plotting more attacks. The fact is both Clinton and Bush neglected the problem so u cant start doint the partisan thing and pointing fingers at people because the fact is alqueda is the group to blame for the attacks not Bill Clinton and the democrats. And the claim that we would still be waiting on a resolution in Afghanistan is simply a baseless assumption that has no fact to it other than your dislike and desire to brand Gore and democrats as pacifists. I think in the partisan quarreling that goes on these days people just exagerate on both sides way too much.
Gore and the left aren't pacifists??? Didn't the 12 years of Sadam wipping his ass with 17 resolutions and the UN doing nothing with the blessing of the Clinton administration show you that the left are a teethless dogs when it comes to national security and foreign policy.. The following incidents with no retaliation proved to the world that we weren't only vulnerable but didn't care..
WTC I bombing ....1993
Khobar Towers in June 1996
Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya
and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania --
August 7, 1998
U.S.S COLE. OCT 12TH 2000..
The above BUBBA took 3 weeks to meet with Woosley the head of the CIA that doesn't show you he his a bungelling fool??
911 HAPPENED AND THE US HAS BEEN KICKING ASS AND ASKING QUESTIONS LATER
That my freind is the diffrence between being a super-power and calling the shots or pussy footing around a promblem and getting slapped with our pants down..
John Kennedy
08-13-2003, 04:30 PM
Did Reagan or Bush do anything to retaliate Pan Am 103? or the TWA bombing before that? You can't bring up specific insidents because any president wouldve done the same thing Clinton did which was not much. Reagan did shit, Bush Sr. did shit, and only Bush Sr now is trying to get the job done because of the scale of 9/11 and the new doors it opened. It's a NEW WORLD! No president before had the foresight to predict something of that scale was possible.
And although Bush Jr. had the most imminent threat in front of him, you still can't blame him because he still didn't imagine the scale. They hit us good and hard and very unexpectedly, let's just leave it at that.
You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.
I only brought up points from the past because I don't understand how you can single out Clinton as being responsible for any of this, if anyone.
Come on I know you were a happier camper when Clinton was president, don't get tangled up under that flag of yours! Those massive social programs? We're a rich country we should have massive social programs! It wasn't like we're a bunch of communists because of it. Programs for small businesses, healthcare, support for states, these are all things a successful country NEEDS, they are not just luxuries.
And although Bush Jr. had the most imminent threat in front of him, you still can't blame him because he still didn't imagine the scale. They hit us good and hard and very unexpectedly, let's just leave it at that.
You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.
I only brought up points from the past because I don't understand how you can single out Clinton as being responsible for any of this, if anyone.
Come on I know you were a happier camper when Clinton was president, don't get tangled up under that flag of yours! Those massive social programs? We're a rich country we should have massive social programs! It wasn't like we're a bunch of communists because of it. Programs for small businesses, healthcare, support for states, these are all things a successful country NEEDS, they are not just luxuries.
Bobby2k
08-13-2003, 05:10 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Gore and the left aren't pacifists??? Didn't the 12 years of Sadam wipping his ass with 17 resolutions and the UN doing nothing with the blessing of the Clinton administration show you that the left are a teethless dogs when it comes to national security and foreign policy.. The following incidents with no retaliation proved to the world that we weren't only vulnerable but didn't care..
WTC I bombing ....1993
Khobar Towers in June 1996
Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya
and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania --
August 7, 1998
U.S.S COLE. OCT 12TH 2000..
The above BUBBA took 3 weeks to meet with Woosley the head of the CIA that doesn't show you he his a bungelling fool??
911 HAPPENED AND THE US HAS BEEN KICKING ASS AND ASKING QUESTIONS LATER
That my freind is the diffrence between being a super-power and calling the shots or pussy footing around a promblem and getting slapped with our pants down.. [/QUOTe
Terrorism of course was a big concern to Bush from the moment he came into office right???? After the fact everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else yet during the time of these attacks not one person was complaining about how the clinton administration handled the situation because in fact noone believed in the sevverity of it. The fact is the severity of 9/11 changed the US policy not Bush coming into office. If u really think that taking over Iraq and placing more troops in the middle east will help prevent terrorism then talk to the israeli's....
Gore and the left aren't pacifists??? Didn't the 12 years of Sadam wipping his ass with 17 resolutions and the UN doing nothing with the blessing of the Clinton administration show you that the left are a teethless dogs when it comes to national security and foreign policy.. The following incidents with no retaliation proved to the world that we weren't only vulnerable but didn't care..
WTC I bombing ....1993
Khobar Towers in June 1996
Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya
and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania --
August 7, 1998
U.S.S COLE. OCT 12TH 2000..
The above BUBBA took 3 weeks to meet with Woosley the head of the CIA that doesn't show you he his a bungelling fool??
911 HAPPENED AND THE US HAS BEEN KICKING ASS AND ASKING QUESTIONS LATER
That my freind is the diffrence between being a super-power and calling the shots or pussy footing around a promblem and getting slapped with our pants down.. [/QUOTe
Terrorism of course was a big concern to Bush from the moment he came into office right???? After the fact everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else yet during the time of these attacks not one person was complaining about how the clinton administration handled the situation because in fact noone believed in the sevverity of it. The fact is the severity of 9/11 changed the US policy not Bush coming into office. If u really think that taking over Iraq and placing more troops in the middle east will help prevent terrorism then talk to the israeli's....
Capt'nAmerica
08-14-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by John Kennedy
Did Reagan or Bush do anything to retaliate Pan Am 103? or the TWA bombing before that? You can't bring up specific insidents because any president wouldve done the same thing Clinton did which was not much. Reagan did shit, Bush Sr. did shit, and only Bush Sr now is trying to get the job done because of the scale of 9/11 and the new doors it opened. It's a NEW WORLD! No president before had the foresight to predict something of that scale was possible.
And although Bush Jr. had the most imminent threat in front of him, you still can't blame him because he still didn't imagine the scale. They hit us good and hard and very unexpectedly, let's just leave it at that.
You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.
I only brought up points from the past because I don't understand how you can single out Clinton as being responsible for any of this, if anyone.
Come on I know you were a happier camper when Clinton was president, don't get tangled up under that flag of yours! Those massive social programs? We're a rich country we should have massive social programs! It wasn't like we're a bunch of communists because of it. Programs for small businesses, healthcare, support for states, these are all things a successful country NEEDS, they are not just luxuries.
OK lets go over the facts..
PANAM flight 103 blew up over Scotland on Dec 21st 1988. Scotland has persucuted the two men responsible and along with massive econmic sanctions Lybia has set up a 2 billion fund to pay families of the victims of flight 103.
Did we forget that the U.S was fighting another war at the time??
Didn't being on the brink of nuclear war with the former Soviet Union hold precedent to all out war with lybia?? If my memory serves me right Reagen sent F14's to Lybia and bombed Qadafi's home killing one of his children since then I bet LYBIA has thought twice about sponsiring terrorism.
John you are correct, NOONE knew that they were going to fly planes into the WTC but more could have been done.. Did you ever think that the Monica scandal actually helped Alqeada plot and execute the 911 attacks?? Some former advisors of Clinton think so one of them is Dick Morris. Dick even said that Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against American troops at the Khobar Towers - and he ignored the warning that wasn't a general warningthat was direct acurate from a reliable source. I know the U.S gets thousands of threats each day and we can't possibly act on every one but come on man this guy dropped the ball BIG TIME even his closesst aids and former military and dept of defense officials are saying so.
Now this brings me to your rebuttal of Clinton taking 3 weeks to meet with the CIA.. in which you said...
****You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.********
John take a good look at this statement. USS COLE gets attacked and 18 AMERICAN sailors die and in your eyes it was ok that it took him 3 weeks to meet with the head of the CIA to discuss a blatant attack agianst us OVERSEAS that's just lunacy..
That's like BLOOMBERG taking 3 weeks toi meet with Kelly to discuss a sinking of a S.I. FERRY boat.
Now some social programs are needed such as good health care not free.. but good health care and the latest reforms to malpractice awardings is a good start. Support for small business is cutting taxes nothing else and that my freind is what republicans stand for less government is always better. What I don't favor is paying welfare to a perfectly healthy individual who finds working in McDonalds to petty so they choose to go on welfare. The U.S. is the greatest country in the world because we beleive for the most part that every individual is responsible for their own destiny and whether you attend HARVARD or a community college you can acheive what your parents didn't plain and simple..
Times may have been better in the 90's because of a RECORD runup of the stock market and record growth(Clinton had nothing to do with this) but that was then this is now and I stand by my original statement.... THANK GOD GORE DIDN'T GET ELECTED.
Did Reagan or Bush do anything to retaliate Pan Am 103? or the TWA bombing before that? You can't bring up specific insidents because any president wouldve done the same thing Clinton did which was not much. Reagan did shit, Bush Sr. did shit, and only Bush Sr now is trying to get the job done because of the scale of 9/11 and the new doors it opened. It's a NEW WORLD! No president before had the foresight to predict something of that scale was possible.
And although Bush Jr. had the most imminent threat in front of him, you still can't blame him because he still didn't imagine the scale. They hit us good and hard and very unexpectedly, let's just leave it at that.
You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.
I only brought up points from the past because I don't understand how you can single out Clinton as being responsible for any of this, if anyone.
Come on I know you were a happier camper when Clinton was president, don't get tangled up under that flag of yours! Those massive social programs? We're a rich country we should have massive social programs! It wasn't like we're a bunch of communists because of it. Programs for small businesses, healthcare, support for states, these are all things a successful country NEEDS, they are not just luxuries.
OK lets go over the facts..
PANAM flight 103 blew up over Scotland on Dec 21st 1988. Scotland has persucuted the two men responsible and along with massive econmic sanctions Lybia has set up a 2 billion fund to pay families of the victims of flight 103.
Did we forget that the U.S was fighting another war at the time??
Didn't being on the brink of nuclear war with the former Soviet Union hold precedent to all out war with lybia?? If my memory serves me right Reagen sent F14's to Lybia and bombed Qadafi's home killing one of his children since then I bet LYBIA has thought twice about sponsiring terrorism.
John you are correct, NOONE knew that they were going to fly planes into the WTC but more could have been done.. Did you ever think that the Monica scandal actually helped Alqeada plot and execute the 911 attacks?? Some former advisors of Clinton think so one of them is Dick Morris. Dick even said that Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against American troops at the Khobar Towers - and he ignored the warning that wasn't a general warningthat was direct acurate from a reliable source. I know the U.S gets thousands of threats each day and we can't possibly act on every one but come on man this guy dropped the ball BIG TIME even his closesst aids and former military and dept of defense officials are saying so.
Now this brings me to your rebuttal of Clinton taking 3 weeks to meet with the CIA.. in which you said...
****You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.********
John take a good look at this statement. USS COLE gets attacked and 18 AMERICAN sailors die and in your eyes it was ok that it took him 3 weeks to meet with the head of the CIA to discuss a blatant attack agianst us OVERSEAS that's just lunacy..
That's like BLOOMBERG taking 3 weeks toi meet with Kelly to discuss a sinking of a S.I. FERRY boat.
Now some social programs are needed such as good health care not free.. but good health care and the latest reforms to malpractice awardings is a good start. Support for small business is cutting taxes nothing else and that my freind is what republicans stand for less government is always better. What I don't favor is paying welfare to a perfectly healthy individual who finds working in McDonalds to petty so they choose to go on welfare. The U.S. is the greatest country in the world because we beleive for the most part that every individual is responsible for their own destiny and whether you attend HARVARD or a community college you can acheive what your parents didn't plain and simple..
Times may have been better in the 90's because of a RECORD runup of the stock market and record growth(Clinton had nothing to do with this) but that was then this is now and I stand by my original statement.... THANK GOD GORE DIDN'T GET ELECTED.
Bobby2k
08-14-2003, 11:17 PM
What you fail to address is that these problems were neglected by the Bush administration as well until 9/11/01. These attacks that you stated that Clinton failed to address properly, this may be true. I ask you now when Bush came into office what did he do prior to 9/11 to address this issue? Absolutely nothing because the fact is everyone underestimated the threat in which terrorism posed on the US.
Capt'nAmerica
08-15-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Bobby2k
What you fail to address is that these problems were neglected by the Bush administration as well until 9/11/01. These attacks that you stated that Clinton failed to address properly, this may be true. I ask you now when Bush came into office what did he do prior to 9/11 to address this issue? Absolutely nothing because the fact is everyone underestimated the threat in which terrorism posed on the US.
Granted we did live in la-la land BUT what you fail to realize that those terrorist attacks happened on Clinton's watch and he ignored the threat plain and simple... you can't spin in any other way.. I will point out again...
WTC I bombing ....1993
Khobar Towers in June 1996
Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya
and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania --
August 7, 1998
U.S.S COLE. OCT 12TH 2000..
What did he do??? He showed his cock to a intern and we were the laughing stock of the world... oh I forgot he lobbed 1 tomahawk to afghanistan BIG fucking deal...
How can a new president come in and address a promblem the former president was supposed to fix or even covered up .. Bush even addressed this in one of his speeches for Iraq, that the war on terror is in front of us now and he won't rely on passing the buck to another president to crush the imminent threat of terrorism and it's unquenchnable thirst to destroy the U.S. of A.
Call him a cowboy if you want but that's what we need to cut the head off of this beast...
What you fail to address is that these problems were neglected by the Bush administration as well until 9/11/01. These attacks that you stated that Clinton failed to address properly, this may be true. I ask you now when Bush came into office what did he do prior to 9/11 to address this issue? Absolutely nothing because the fact is everyone underestimated the threat in which terrorism posed on the US.
Granted we did live in la-la land BUT what you fail to realize that those terrorist attacks happened on Clinton's watch and he ignored the threat plain and simple... you can't spin in any other way.. I will point out again...
WTC I bombing ....1993
Khobar Towers in June 1996
Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya
and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania --
August 7, 1998
U.S.S COLE. OCT 12TH 2000..
What did he do??? He showed his cock to a intern and we were the laughing stock of the world... oh I forgot he lobbed 1 tomahawk to afghanistan BIG fucking deal...
How can a new president come in and address a promblem the former president was supposed to fix or even covered up .. Bush even addressed this in one of his speeches for Iraq, that the war on terror is in front of us now and he won't rely on passing the buck to another president to crush the imminent threat of terrorism and it's unquenchnable thirst to destroy the U.S. of A.
Call him a cowboy if you want but that's what we need to cut the head off of this beast...
Capt'nAmerica
08-15-2003, 08:49 AM
:D
John Kennedy
08-15-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
OK lets go over the facts..
PANAM flight 103 blew up over Scotland on Dec 21st 1988. Scotland has persucuted the two men responsible and along with massive econmic sanctions Lybia has set up a 2 billion fund to pay families of the victims of flight 103.
Did we forget that the U.S was fighting another war at the time??
Didn't being on the brink of nuclear war with the former Soviet Union hold precedent to all out war with lybia?? If my memory serves me right Reagen sent F14's to Lybia and bombed Qadafi's home killing one of his children since then I bet LYBIA has thought twice about sponsiring terrorism.
John you are correct, NOONE knew that they were going to fly planes into the WTC but more could have been done.. Did you ever think that the Monica scandal actually helped Alqeada plot and execute the 911 attacks?? Some former advisors of Clinton think so one of them is Dick Morris. Dick even said that Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against American troops at the Khobar Towers - and he ignored the warning that wasn't a general warningthat was direct acurate from a reliable source. I know the U.S gets thousands of threats each day and we can't possibly act on every one but come on man this guy dropped the ball BIG TIME even his closesst aids and former military and dept of defense officials are saying so.
Now this brings me to your rebuttal of Clinton taking 3 weeks to meet with the CIA.. in which you said...
****You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.********
John take a good look at this statement. USS COLE gets attacked and 18 AMERICAN sailors die and in your eyes it was ok that it took him 3 weeks to meet with the head of the CIA to discuss a blatant attack agianst us OVERSEAS that's just lunacy..
That's like BLOOMBERG taking 3 weeks toi meet with Kelly to discuss a sinking of a S.I. FERRY boat.
Now some social programs are needed such as good health care not free.. but good health care and the latest reforms to malpractice awardings is a good start. Support for small business is cutting taxes nothing else and that my freind is what republicans stand for less government is always better. What I don't favor is paying welfare to a perfectly healthy individual who finds working in McDonalds to petty so they choose to go on welfare. The U.S. is the greatest country in the world because we beleive for the most part that every individual is responsible for their own destiny and whether you attend HARVARD or a community college you can acheive what your parents didn't plain and simple..
Times may have been better in the 90's because of a RECORD runup of the stock market and record growth(Clinton had nothing to do with this) but that was then this is now and I stand by my original statement.... THANK GOD GORE DIDN'T GET ELECTED.
OK so now we had a bigger priority back in the 80's so thats why we couldnt fight with Libya.. ok. The cold war really stifled us, we couldn't get anything done, sure. The excuses keep flowing when it's convenient.
Clinton had nothing to do with the growth? lol... Tell me how cutting taxes help a small business? Cutting taxes (especially during a recession) helps no one but those who are already established. Does nothing for a startup or a small growing business. Its barely an issue at the beginning. Within 2 months after he was first elected consumer confidence went up significantly. Do you think that has nothing to do with turning an economy around? Those tax refund checks won't do anything, trust me. SBA programs, incentives to banks to loan out more (not just a low rate), a strong federal backing to state and local programs, these are things that help turn an economy around. The small businesses and working class is what fuels this economy, despite what the far right may have you think.
And you seem to have this idea of Democrats as lazy bums who like to offer tax money to the poor and hang out while they collect welfare. This is not the case. There is indeed a far left that is disgusting and irresponsible, and shouldnt be in power, but a responsible leadership, one that uses tax dollars wisely and to help the country flourish, and isn't reckless with the heart and soul of this country (the working class), and that makes sure everyone in our country is accounted for and not forgotten, that's what a true democratic leadership is about.
This shifting blame thing is typical. Republicans have no idea what it is to build up a country and keep it running from the ground up, they only know how to help the top and they have this ridiculous theory that when the rich are at their richest then the country is doing well. And then they blame something like a blowjob as Clintons excuse for not solving terror, when they were the ones who put this scandal at the top of their priority list. You have to be kidding me. Republicans are detatched from reality, plain and simple.
And that great big Monica scandal... who do you think was making such a big deal out of it? It was your beloved Republican congress. They made it their duty to blaspheme Clinton and put all other issues aside until they accomplished their goal of getting Clinton out of office. They didn't succeed, but they made it their first priority during his entire tenure.
Like Bloomberg the other day was on the news (in response to the new horrid stench of this city) saying, and I quote "I don't know where all the sanitation money went, but I'll find out"... sure guy.
OK lets go over the facts..
PANAM flight 103 blew up over Scotland on Dec 21st 1988. Scotland has persucuted the two men responsible and along with massive econmic sanctions Lybia has set up a 2 billion fund to pay families of the victims of flight 103.
Did we forget that the U.S was fighting another war at the time??
Didn't being on the brink of nuclear war with the former Soviet Union hold precedent to all out war with lybia?? If my memory serves me right Reagen sent F14's to Lybia and bombed Qadafi's home killing one of his children since then I bet LYBIA has thought twice about sponsiring terrorism.
John you are correct, NOONE knew that they were going to fly planes into the WTC but more could have been done.. Did you ever think that the Monica scandal actually helped Alqeada plot and execute the 911 attacks?? Some former advisors of Clinton think so one of them is Dick Morris. Dick even said that Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against American troops at the Khobar Towers - and he ignored the warning that wasn't a general warningthat was direct acurate from a reliable source. I know the U.S gets thousands of threats each day and we can't possibly act on every one but come on man this guy dropped the ball BIG TIME even his closesst aids and former military and dept of defense officials are saying so.
Now this brings me to your rebuttal of Clinton taking 3 weeks to meet with the CIA.. in which you said...
****You keep bringing up the CIA meeting after the Cole but Bush Jr was no more communicative with his CIA and FBA than Clinton was, so that point is moot.********
John take a good look at this statement. USS COLE gets attacked and 18 AMERICAN sailors die and in your eyes it was ok that it took him 3 weeks to meet with the head of the CIA to discuss a blatant attack agianst us OVERSEAS that's just lunacy..
That's like BLOOMBERG taking 3 weeks toi meet with Kelly to discuss a sinking of a S.I. FERRY boat.
Now some social programs are needed such as good health care not free.. but good health care and the latest reforms to malpractice awardings is a good start. Support for small business is cutting taxes nothing else and that my freind is what republicans stand for less government is always better. What I don't favor is paying welfare to a perfectly healthy individual who finds working in McDonalds to petty so they choose to go on welfare. The U.S. is the greatest country in the world because we beleive for the most part that every individual is responsible for their own destiny and whether you attend HARVARD or a community college you can acheive what your parents didn't plain and simple..
Times may have been better in the 90's because of a RECORD runup of the stock market and record growth(Clinton had nothing to do with this) but that was then this is now and I stand by my original statement.... THANK GOD GORE DIDN'T GET ELECTED.
OK so now we had a bigger priority back in the 80's so thats why we couldnt fight with Libya.. ok. The cold war really stifled us, we couldn't get anything done, sure. The excuses keep flowing when it's convenient.
Clinton had nothing to do with the growth? lol... Tell me how cutting taxes help a small business? Cutting taxes (especially during a recession) helps no one but those who are already established. Does nothing for a startup or a small growing business. Its barely an issue at the beginning. Within 2 months after he was first elected consumer confidence went up significantly. Do you think that has nothing to do with turning an economy around? Those tax refund checks won't do anything, trust me. SBA programs, incentives to banks to loan out more (not just a low rate), a strong federal backing to state and local programs, these are things that help turn an economy around. The small businesses and working class is what fuels this economy, despite what the far right may have you think.
And you seem to have this idea of Democrats as lazy bums who like to offer tax money to the poor and hang out while they collect welfare. This is not the case. There is indeed a far left that is disgusting and irresponsible, and shouldnt be in power, but a responsible leadership, one that uses tax dollars wisely and to help the country flourish, and isn't reckless with the heart and soul of this country (the working class), and that makes sure everyone in our country is accounted for and not forgotten, that's what a true democratic leadership is about.
This shifting blame thing is typical. Republicans have no idea what it is to build up a country and keep it running from the ground up, they only know how to help the top and they have this ridiculous theory that when the rich are at their richest then the country is doing well. And then they blame something like a blowjob as Clintons excuse for not solving terror, when they were the ones who put this scandal at the top of their priority list. You have to be kidding me. Republicans are detatched from reality, plain and simple.
And that great big Monica scandal... who do you think was making such a big deal out of it? It was your beloved Republican congress. They made it their duty to blaspheme Clinton and put all other issues aside until they accomplished their goal of getting Clinton out of office. They didn't succeed, but they made it their first priority during his entire tenure.
Like Bloomberg the other day was on the news (in response to the new horrid stench of this city) saying, and I quote "I don't know where all the sanitation money went, but I'll find out"... sure guy.
Capt'nAmerica
08-15-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by John Kennedy
OK so now we had a bigger priority back in the 80's so thats why we couldnt fight with Libya.. ok. The cold war really stifled us, we couldn't get anything done, sure. The excuses keep flowing when it's convenient.
Clinton had nothing to do with the growth? lol... Tell me how cutting taxes help a small business? Cutting taxes (especially during a recession) helps no one but those who are already established. Does nothing for a startup or a small growing business. Its barely an issue at the beginning. Within 2 months after he was first elected consumer confidence went up significantly. Do you think that has nothing to do with turning an economy around? Those tax refund checks won't do anything, trust me. SBA programs, incentives to banks to loan out more (not just a low rate), a strong federal backing to state and local programs, these are things that help turn an economy around. The small businesses and working class is what fuels this economy, despite what the far right may have you think.
And you seem to have this idea of Democrats as lazy bums who like to offer tax money to the poor and hang out while they collect welfare. This is not the case. There is indeed a far left that is disgusting and irresponsible, and shouldnt be in power, but a responsible leadership, one that uses tax dollars wisely and to help the country flourish, and isn't reckless with the heart and soul of this country (the working class), and that makes sure everyone in our country is accounted for and not forgotten, that's what a true democratic leadership is about.
This shifting blame thing is typical. Republicans have no idea what it is to build up a country and keep it running from the ground up, they only know how to help the top and they have this ridiculous theory that when the rich are at their richest then the country is doing well. And then they blame something like a blowjob as Clintons excuse for not solving terror, when they were the ones who put this scandal at the top of their priority list. You have to be kidding me. Republicans are detatched from reality, plain and simple.
And that great big Monica scandal... who do you think was making such a big deal out of it? It was your beloved Republican congress. They made it their duty to blaspheme Clinton and put all other issues aside until they accomplished their goal of getting Clinton out of office. They didn't succeed, but they made it their first priority during his entire tenure.
Like Bloomberg the other day was on the news (in response to the new horrid stench of this city) saying, and I quote "I don't know where all the sanitation money went, but I'll find out"... sure guy.
John..
We did answer back to lybia we sent F-14's to Qadafi's house and killed his kids... did you hear anything else from that scumbag after that?? Al-qaeda is a bigger promblem that came into fruition in the early 90'S.. We have difrent views so lets address another part of you argument and relentless cheerleading for one of the most impotent toothless presidents of all time....
Let me let you in on something CLINTON HAD NOTHING... TO DO WITH THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF THE 90'S....
The stock market rose to 13k because of the big bet by institutions,401k plans and every mom and pop opening an ameritrade account to dump the family savings into the stock market on technology/internet stocks.. That coupled with the cyclical economic expansion which is due to happen without monetary or fiscal stimulous caused the record growth... it's economics 101 what goes up most come down and vice/versa. Monetary and fiscal policy only speed up the process.
Now you often hear from the left that BUSH caused the recession which is completely false, it started it's decline in 2000 after Greenspan and Co started raising interest rates to fight off inflation. I won't blame Clinton for the recession because I don't credit him for the expansion so the blame is not warrented... But BUBBA had NOTHING TO DO with that growth, he actually exploited that economic expansion by raising taxes in the mid 90's.
Now to tax cuts... How does putting more money in a buisness owners hand to either expand or invest not help the country "flourish"?? I help a family memeber with his business and up until recently he was getting killed with taxes, now he has extra cash to spend either personally or in his business, either way cash is still being put back into the economy increasing demand for goods and services and ultimately put people back to work isn't that the goal?? The working class you talk about is who got the recent tax cut or are you on that bandwagon that it only helped "the rich"?? When the top 50% pay 96%percent of taxes I think they deserve a bigger peice of the tax cut pie it's only fair..
Republicans don't know how to rebuild a country? hmmm interesting point. What did Reagen do in the 80's after Carter ran this country and our miltary into the ground?? Now before you go barking that Reagen caused record deficits look back at that time for a minute. We had a republican President and a democratic Congress which meant when the end result of people going back to work after the cuts resulted in increased gov't revenue the democrats in Congress turned around and increased spending ABOVE and beyond what was needed.... that's why we had record deficits...
Clinton was impeached because he went on NATIONAL live television and lied his balls off to millions of americans. Even after the pardon debacle how can you have respect for that guy??
OK so now we had a bigger priority back in the 80's so thats why we couldnt fight with Libya.. ok. The cold war really stifled us, we couldn't get anything done, sure. The excuses keep flowing when it's convenient.
Clinton had nothing to do with the growth? lol... Tell me how cutting taxes help a small business? Cutting taxes (especially during a recession) helps no one but those who are already established. Does nothing for a startup or a small growing business. Its barely an issue at the beginning. Within 2 months after he was first elected consumer confidence went up significantly. Do you think that has nothing to do with turning an economy around? Those tax refund checks won't do anything, trust me. SBA programs, incentives to banks to loan out more (not just a low rate), a strong federal backing to state and local programs, these are things that help turn an economy around. The small businesses and working class is what fuels this economy, despite what the far right may have you think.
And you seem to have this idea of Democrats as lazy bums who like to offer tax money to the poor and hang out while they collect welfare. This is not the case. There is indeed a far left that is disgusting and irresponsible, and shouldnt be in power, but a responsible leadership, one that uses tax dollars wisely and to help the country flourish, and isn't reckless with the heart and soul of this country (the working class), and that makes sure everyone in our country is accounted for and not forgotten, that's what a true democratic leadership is about.
This shifting blame thing is typical. Republicans have no idea what it is to build up a country and keep it running from the ground up, they only know how to help the top and they have this ridiculous theory that when the rich are at their richest then the country is doing well. And then they blame something like a blowjob as Clintons excuse for not solving terror, when they were the ones who put this scandal at the top of their priority list. You have to be kidding me. Republicans are detatched from reality, plain and simple.
And that great big Monica scandal... who do you think was making such a big deal out of it? It was your beloved Republican congress. They made it their duty to blaspheme Clinton and put all other issues aside until they accomplished their goal of getting Clinton out of office. They didn't succeed, but they made it their first priority during his entire tenure.
Like Bloomberg the other day was on the news (in response to the new horrid stench of this city) saying, and I quote "I don't know where all the sanitation money went, but I'll find out"... sure guy.
John..
We did answer back to lybia we sent F-14's to Qadafi's house and killed his kids... did you hear anything else from that scumbag after that?? Al-qaeda is a bigger promblem that came into fruition in the early 90'S.. We have difrent views so lets address another part of you argument and relentless cheerleading for one of the most impotent toothless presidents of all time....
Let me let you in on something CLINTON HAD NOTHING... TO DO WITH THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF THE 90'S....
The stock market rose to 13k because of the big bet by institutions,401k plans and every mom and pop opening an ameritrade account to dump the family savings into the stock market on technology/internet stocks.. That coupled with the cyclical economic expansion which is due to happen without monetary or fiscal stimulous caused the record growth... it's economics 101 what goes up most come down and vice/versa. Monetary and fiscal policy only speed up the process.
Now you often hear from the left that BUSH caused the recession which is completely false, it started it's decline in 2000 after Greenspan and Co started raising interest rates to fight off inflation. I won't blame Clinton for the recession because I don't credit him for the expansion so the blame is not warrented... But BUBBA had NOTHING TO DO with that growth, he actually exploited that economic expansion by raising taxes in the mid 90's.
Now to tax cuts... How does putting more money in a buisness owners hand to either expand or invest not help the country "flourish"?? I help a family memeber with his business and up until recently he was getting killed with taxes, now he has extra cash to spend either personally or in his business, either way cash is still being put back into the economy increasing demand for goods and services and ultimately put people back to work isn't that the goal?? The working class you talk about is who got the recent tax cut or are you on that bandwagon that it only helped "the rich"?? When the top 50% pay 96%percent of taxes I think they deserve a bigger peice of the tax cut pie it's only fair..
Republicans don't know how to rebuild a country? hmmm interesting point. What did Reagen do in the 80's after Carter ran this country and our miltary into the ground?? Now before you go barking that Reagen caused record deficits look back at that time for a minute. We had a republican President and a democratic Congress which meant when the end result of people going back to work after the cuts resulted in increased gov't revenue the democrats in Congress turned around and increased spending ABOVE and beyond what was needed.... that's why we had record deficits...
Clinton was impeached because he went on NATIONAL live television and lied his balls off to millions of americans. Even after the pardon debacle how can you have respect for that guy??
John Kennedy
08-15-2003, 08:08 PM
When I say economic growth I'm not just talking about the stock market going up. I'm talking about govt backing for sba programs, incentives to banks, and also more federal backing to states and local govts (which we are losing by the minute now). All of this contributes to a healthy economy.
No one said bush caused the recession but he's not doing a thing to help turn things around. Tax cuts on stock dividend payouts? Yea that might help create more jobs.
So now you blame the democratic congress during Reagans term lol... you should have a lot to say about the republican congress during Clintons term then.. Clinton didnt decide to just walk on TV one day and discuss his sexual life... that was the result of a republican run investigation to get him up there and put him on the spot. Thats what the republican congress spent those 8 yrs doing because he was a threat to the republican party. Republicans are scumbags plain and simple.
No one said bush caused the recession but he's not doing a thing to help turn things around. Tax cuts on stock dividend payouts? Yea that might help create more jobs.
So now you blame the democratic congress during Reagans term lol... you should have a lot to say about the republican congress during Clintons term then.. Clinton didnt decide to just walk on TV one day and discuss his sexual life... that was the result of a republican run investigation to get him up there and put him on the spot. Thats what the republican congress spent those 8 yrs doing because he was a threat to the republican party. Republicans are scumbags plain and simple.
Capt'nAmerica
08-16-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by John Kennedy
When I say economic growth I'm not just talking about the stock market going up. I'm talking about govt backing for sba programs, incentives to banks, and also more federal backing to states and local govts (which we are losing by the minute now). All of this contributes to a healthy economy.
No one said bush caused the recession but he's not doing a thing to help turn things around. Tax cuts on stock dividend payouts? Yea that might help create more jobs.
So now you blame the democratic congress during Reagans term lol... you should have a lot to say about the republican congress during Clintons term then.. Clinton didnt decide to just walk on TV one day and discuss his sexual life... that was the result of a republican run investigation to get him up there and put him on the spot. Thats what the republican congress spent those 8 yrs doing because he was a threat to the republican party. Republicans are scumbags plain and simple.
Why only disect a small part of the tax cut?? Why not mention other parts like the cut in the marginal tax rate that will help our economy by putting some money back into the driving force that's kept us afloat up until now, THE CONSUMER?
Don't dismiss the importance of the Stock market as a leading contributor to, and in the same way a result of, a striving economy. The stock market creats a wealth factor in the CONSUMER so healthy prices mean healthy spending consumers which then translate to improved corporate profits and keep people working see the pattern??
Cutting stock dividends will entice more companies to declare dividends just like Microsoft and other tech companies which announced they will declare dividends in thr future making them more attractive to institutions and pesions funds thus creating demand and sustaining healthy stock prices.
The market itself has risen 19% off it's lows of Oct 2002 on the anticipation of a second half recovery and judging by the latest positive economic news we just might be there. A recovery in the economy by strengthning a soft labor market is key to a positive economic climate this happends, Bush is bulletproof in 2004.
John,
The republican congress ran by Newt Gingrich held Bubba accountable for his warped policies and deception were able to balance the budget when they controlled the house. The current deficit of 500 billion to our 7 trillion dollar economy is like a 50k credit card bill to a person making 700k.. I don't think it's a great cause of concern. Granted some state municipalities fininacial health is bad but a recovering labor market in those states will correct that. I WILLl point something out that Califorinia which is 38 billion in the hole and is being ran by Gray Davis who is a democrat and didn't have 2 skyscrapers drop on his state so that should tell you something about the lavish spending by the left for rediculous social programs. like health benefits for ILLEGAL aliens.
Republicans aren't scumbags Clinton was a lowlife who just escaped incarceration numerous times but he def got impeached this is where he belongs:)
When I say economic growth I'm not just talking about the stock market going up. I'm talking about govt backing for sba programs, incentives to banks, and also more federal backing to states and local govts (which we are losing by the minute now). All of this contributes to a healthy economy.
No one said bush caused the recession but he's not doing a thing to help turn things around. Tax cuts on stock dividend payouts? Yea that might help create more jobs.
So now you blame the democratic congress during Reagans term lol... you should have a lot to say about the republican congress during Clintons term then.. Clinton didnt decide to just walk on TV one day and discuss his sexual life... that was the result of a republican run investigation to get him up there and put him on the spot. Thats what the republican congress spent those 8 yrs doing because he was a threat to the republican party. Republicans are scumbags plain and simple.
Why only disect a small part of the tax cut?? Why not mention other parts like the cut in the marginal tax rate that will help our economy by putting some money back into the driving force that's kept us afloat up until now, THE CONSUMER?
Don't dismiss the importance of the Stock market as a leading contributor to, and in the same way a result of, a striving economy. The stock market creats a wealth factor in the CONSUMER so healthy prices mean healthy spending consumers which then translate to improved corporate profits and keep people working see the pattern??
Cutting stock dividends will entice more companies to declare dividends just like Microsoft and other tech companies which announced they will declare dividends in thr future making them more attractive to institutions and pesions funds thus creating demand and sustaining healthy stock prices.
The market itself has risen 19% off it's lows of Oct 2002 on the anticipation of a second half recovery and judging by the latest positive economic news we just might be there. A recovery in the economy by strengthning a soft labor market is key to a positive economic climate this happends, Bush is bulletproof in 2004.
John,
The republican congress ran by Newt Gingrich held Bubba accountable for his warped policies and deception were able to balance the budget when they controlled the house. The current deficit of 500 billion to our 7 trillion dollar economy is like a 50k credit card bill to a person making 700k.. I don't think it's a great cause of concern. Granted some state municipalities fininacial health is bad but a recovering labor market in those states will correct that. I WILLl point something out that Califorinia which is 38 billion in the hole and is being ran by Gray Davis who is a democrat and didn't have 2 skyscrapers drop on his state so that should tell you something about the lavish spending by the left for rediculous social programs. like health benefits for ILLEGAL aliens.
Republicans aren't scumbags Clinton was a lowlife who just escaped incarceration numerous times but he def got impeached this is where he belongs:)
John Kennedy
08-16-2003, 12:46 PM
I just dont agree with that *from the top down* fiscal policy. Grey Davis is trash, as are many democrats, as are many republicans. I'm definitely not one to blindly support a party so don't get me wrong, but the fiscal policy that boosts corporate profits first and then expects everything else to fall into place, imo, is the wrong path to a recovery. That's just my stance. I understand that the deficit is workable, given that bush is done slashing now.. but I think another path taken would have had is in a much better state right now. I guess we'll just wait and see.
Bobby2k
08-17-2003, 12:15 PM
In talking about fiscal policies you can't point out a screwup like Gray Davis as the proof of the failure of fiscal policies of democrats. Truthfully how many of u out their are really being helped by the tax break you are getting?
Capt'nAmerica
08-21-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Bobby2k
In talking about fiscal policies you can't point out a screwup like Gray Davis as the proof of the failure of fiscal policies of democrats. Truthfully how many of u out their are really being helped by the tax break you are getting?
I am.
It's my money... I wake up every morning and drag my ass to work plain and simple so I deserve the tax break..
Do you oppose the tax break???
If so why?
In talking about fiscal policies you can't point out a screwup like Gray Davis as the proof of the failure of fiscal policies of democrats. Truthfully how many of u out their are really being helped by the tax break you are getting?
I am.
It's my money... I wake up every morning and drag my ass to work plain and simple so I deserve the tax break..
Do you oppose the tax break???
If so why?
Bobby2k
08-22-2003, 01:22 PM
I oppose it for this reason: Not even gonna get into the dividend part cause that just gets argued back and forth and its not the main part of it. That fact is the tax cut gave the biggest break to the people who do not need the biggest break. The tax cut was an across the board %2 decrease for all income brackets except which one? oh the 311,951 and above tax filers who got a %3.6 decrease because of course people making this much money need the biggest "break". The fact is I am not against a tax break during a recessionary period what i would have like to see is a regressive tax cut not a progressive one. I don't believe in the whole Reagonomics principles where giving money to the suppliers trickles down. I believe that if u give money and jobs to the middle and lower income classes who are the center of demand in the economy they will have assets in order to start buying washers and dryers, cloths, go out to eat etc. this i feel leads to economic recovery. I really dont have the time to fully explain my dislikes for supply-side economics right now so it might seem a bit vague my reasons in some areas please comment back if u want me to further explain.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.5 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.