The US, its Conspiracy, its Failures. and its LIES!

[dimebag1980]

Oops, wrong thread.

[monsoon]

Even Reagan was strongly hated when he was in office, but his legacy now seems to be (for most people) his standing up to the Soviet Union, and many attribute his policies to their eventual collapse. His tax cuts, whether you think they caused a huge deficit or not, were pretty much absorbed back into the economy 10 years later.

That is revisionist history. The Soviet Union's demise from an economic standpoint began when Nixon went to China, and then politically when the civilian government faced down the communist one. i.e. Yeltson vs Gorbacheff. Reagan was nothing but an opportunist that took credit for this.

And BTW, I voted for Reagon both times he ran for office, but this doesn't cloud my vision that he did not cause the fall of the Soviet Union.

[monsoon]

That's funny. Okay metro, I'll humor you here. Tell me... how then would you explain the '93 bombing, which happened while Clinton was President?

It's also pretty interesting that, while Bill Clinton had you liberals hypnotized by his Rudolph-esque nose and intern-charming skills, Al Qaeda had all that time to plan - completely undetected - during his administration, leading up to 9-11-01. But somehow it's Bush's fault. That lie doesn't add up.

It does add up.

I am always amused when people seek to legitimize Bush's failed actions by bringing up Clinton. And Clinton did not have the benefit of it already happening once as Bush did. Didn't Bush say he would bring leadership to the White House (in obvious reference to Clinton). Where is the leadership? He let it happen again.

Clinton did miss this. When they tried the cleric that inspried the first bombing he warned they would try again. Despite this, Bush did nothing about it. There is that old saying Fool me once, shame on you (terrorists) fool me twice shame on me (Bush)

The WTC had already been bombed. Given that Bush let it happen again is just another sign at how asleep he is at the wheels. He was simply too obsessed by getting rid of Saddam.

[damus]

fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again

[dimebag1980]

It does add up.

I am always amused when people seek to legitimize Bush's failed actions by bringing up Clinton. And Clinton did not have the benefit of it already happening once as Bush did. Didn't Bush say he would bring leadership to the White House (in obvious reference to Clinton). Where is the leadership? He let it happen again.

Clinton did miss this. When they tried the cleric that inspried the first bombing he warned they would try again. Despite this, Bush did nothing about it. There is that old saying Fool me once, shame on you (terrorists) fool me twice shame on me (Bush)

The WTC had already been bombed. Given that Bush let it happen again is just another sign at how asleep he is at the wheels. He was simply too obsessed by getting rid of Saddam.

I've never used Clinton's failures as a means of legitimizing Bush's failures. Never. I only brought up Clinton, because you can't seem to make it through a political discussion without saying how horrible Bush is and how much you miss the Clinton days. I'm glad someone misses those days, but this guy doesn't. Since you tend to want to dwell on how bad Bush is and hold Clinton up on some kind of undeserved pedestal, I mentioned his failures. As I've said before, once someone mentions something that differs from your beliefs, suddenly it's different. You can bring Clinton up in every conversation regarding Bush and it's fine. But as soon as someone who dislikes Clinton brings up his name, suddenly it's as if they've committed some kind of mortal sin.

[monsoon]

I've never used Clinton's failures as a means of legitimizing Bush's failures. Never. I only brought up Clinton, because you can't seem to make it through a political discussion without saying how horrible Bush is and how much you miss the Clinton days. I'm glad someone misses those days, but this guy doesn't. Since you tend to want to dwell on how bad Bush is and hold Clinton up on some kind of undeserved pedestal, I mentioned his failures. As I've said before, once someone mentions something that differs from your beliefs, suddenly it's different. You can bring Clinton up in every conversation regarding Bush and it's fine. But as soon as someone who dislikes Clinton brings up his name, suddenly it's as if they've committed some kind of mortal sin.

You are putting words in my mouth now. I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread where I have put Clinton up on a pedistal. If you want to debate the facts then do so, but don't assume that I think Clinton is a perfect president. If you can find any statement here that I have made about Clinton that is wrong then please post it and we will discuss it. Otherwise you are just short of getting insulting and that is not appropriate for this forum.

[hood]

The thing about this war that I hate is that it is a war and our troops are not allowed to fight as such. The enemy does not follow international law, and neither should we considering they don't. It puts us at a disadvantage from the onset. Didn't we take away peoples' freedoms in post-Nazi Germany for a few years during "de-Nazification"? We seriously need to put that country on lock down for a little...

My opinion is that either the Us start fighting a full scale war, using all the dirty tactics such as carpet bombing and wiping out entire towns in neighborhoods, or we pull out. Of course pulling out isn't much of an option because we can't take out a government and allow a country to fall completely into anarchy. And we won't fight a full scale war, one in which civilians and infastructure are considered legitimate targets. That's the only way to win a war, thats why we swept through and won WWI and WWII, we weren't losing or civilians and our homeland wasn't being destroyed. Without completely destrying infastructure, and killing large numbers of people you can't win a war. So we will likely be in Iraq for a very long time, with little or no progress.

Don't forget all the other disasters that happened back then... the embassy bombings, the cole bombing. There was Janet Reno's brutal crusade against gun rights, which led to the reaction by militant extremist Timothy McVeigh. I'm not saying Bush would've done any better, but Clinton had the opportunity to take out bin Laden when he was President. I guess he was either too busy with an intern or had to wait for his pollsters to get back with what the American public wanted him to do...

We have followed the most scandal filled presidency to one with not as many scandals, but two of the biggest disasters in US history. One of which was handled pitifully on the local, state, and federal levels. The other of which was dealt with in historically great fashion at all levels.

Clinton did make some attempts to take out Bin Laden, but he was to busy building our economy, erasing our national debt and doing great things in our own country to spend billions on a feable effort, taking out Bin Laden would do nothing, besides Bush has been spending an awful lot of time and money trying to find him with no success, do you think Clinton would do any better.

Your trying to say that Clinton had more scandals than Bush???

I've never used Clinton's failures as a means of legitimizing Bush's failures. Never. I only brought up Clinton, because you can't seem to make it through a political discussion without saying how horrible Bush is and how much you miss the Clinton days. I'm glad someone misses those days, but this guy doesn't. Since you tend to want to dwell on how bad Bush is and hold Clinton up on some kind of undeserved pedestal, I mentioned his failures. As I've said before, once someone mentions something that differs from your beliefs, suddenly it's different. You can bring Clinton up in every conversation regarding Bush and it's fine. But as soon as someone who dislikes Clinton brings up his name, suddenly it's as if they've committed some kind of mortal sin.

You used Clintons failures to legitimize Bush's in at least one of your posts above. And BTW, I think Clinton's pedastal is deserved, I was in much better shape, especially financially, when Clinton was in office.

[PghUSA]

I think the question some of us disgruntled conservatives are left with metro is why the Democrats have failed to present a viable alternative to "the worst president since Hoover". If Bush is so bad (and he ain't no Reagan) why don't we already have his replacement or a replacement congress lined up?

[hood]

I think the question some of us disgruntled conservatives are left with metro is why the Democrats have failed to present a viable alternative to "the worst president since Hoover". If Bush is so bad (and he ain't no Reagan) why don't we already have his replacement or a replacement congress lined up?

Because the Democrats are a pitiful excuse for a party, their weak cowardly and refuse to come up with any real alternatives. They should of easily won the presidency in 2004, but they didn't and still don't, have a real plan for this country. There is a good chance that the Democrats will take the house and/or the senate in 2006, but I'm not happy at all about the weak, unorganzied, spineless stance of the party. We desperately need a real, viable third party.

[dimebag1980]

You are putting words in my mouth now. I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread where I have put Clinton up on a pedistal. If you want to debate the facts then do so, but don't assume that I think Clinton is a perfect president. If you can find any statement here that I have made about Clinton that is wrong then please post it and we will discuss it. Otherwise you are just short of getting insulting and that is not appropriate for this forum.

Just short of insulting, maybe. Insulting? No. No more insulting than you have been. If you can't take the heat, buddy, don't debate me. I've contributed a lot in certain areas of this website (including this topic) and was even considering contributing money to this website. If you don't want me here just because you can dish it out but not take it, then you tell me and I'll gladly carry my ass. I'd prefer not to stick around somewhere I'm not wanted.

[damus]

Clinton did make some attempts to take out Bin Laden, but he was to busy building our economy, erasing our national debt and doing great things in our own country to spend billions on a feable effort, taking out Bin Laden would do nothing, besides Bush has been spending an awful lot of time and money trying to find him with no success, do you think Clinton would do any better.

Your trying to say that Clinton had more scandals than Bush???

Please elaborate into Bush's scandals. Clinton had Chinagate, Monicagate, Whitewater, Pardongate, Travelgate, selling out the Lincoln bedroom.

A not so scadelous, but more pathetic thing, he was too into polls. He relied on polls so much he went on vacation based upon what the American public would like. Ditto for the dog.

I'm probably missing a few, and I left out the Janet Reno anti gun crusades against the constitution.

How many scandals, and how many of such signifigance, have been tied to bush and how credible are they? Clinton was corrupt, plain and simple.

You used Clintons failures to legitimize Bush's in at least one of your posts above. And BTW, I think Clinton's pedastal is deserved, I was in much better shape, especially financially, when Clinton was in office.

Keep in mind that the economy was a bubble... between accounting scandals and the stock market bubble there was a lot of wealth floating around that wasn't really there. I think the economy is doing pretty damn well considering what I just mentioned, September 11, Katrina, and the oil crisis (which is exasperated by increased demand in developing countries). Let me also say that each President legitimately failed in many areas. You cannot take that away from them.

[runawayjim]

I think the question some of us disgruntled conservatives are left with metro is why the Democrats have failed to present a viable alternative to "the worst president since Hoover". If Bush is so bad (and he ain't no Reagan) why don't we already have his replacement or a replacement congress lined up?

they have presented viable alternatives to bush... kerry might not have been much better, but he would have been an improvement. of course there was the whole thing with gore, in which case, we might not be having this discussion.

i'm all for hillary or gore in 2008.

Please elaborate into Bush's scandals. Clinton had Chinagate, Monicagate, Whitewater, Pardongate, Travelgate, selling out the Lincoln bedroom.

A not so scadelous, but more pathetic thing, he was too into polls. He relied on polls so much he went on vacation based upon what the American public would like. Ditto for the dog.

I'm probably missing a few, and I left out the Janet Reno anti gun crusades against the constitution.

How many scandals, and how many of such signifigance, have been tied to bush and how credible are they? Clinton was corrupt, plain and simple.

Keep in mind that the economy was a bubble... between accounting scandals and the stock market bubble there was a lot of wealth floating around that wasn't really there. I think the economy is doing pretty damn well considering what I just mentioned, September 11, Katrina, and the oil crisis (which is exasperated by increased demand in developing countries). Let me also say that each President legitimately failed in many areas. You cannot take that away from them.

clinton was impeached because he lied about a blowjob, something that should have never gotten the media attention it did. bush has the media in his pocket, so we don't hear about all the crap that's going on. how about this big hoax of a war for instance?

do any of you realize that going after bin laden is pointless? someone else will take his place. how about we figure out why they attacked us in the first place? i bet it has somethign to do with israel...

[damus]

Gore maybe, I would never support Hillary. As Imus says, she is Satan. What about Rudy G.? He's moderate socially, a hardliner on crime, and seemed to do pretty well bringing more business to New York...

[runawayjim]

Gore maybe, I would never support Hillary. As Imus says, she is Satan. What about Rudy G.? He's moderate socially, a hardliner on crime, and seemed to do pretty well bringing more business to New York...

i believe he'd also favor the gay marriage ban. i don't like that. he cleaned up new york, but he's not ready for president... i'd need to see him in m ore of a federal role.

[GRDadof3]

My opinion is that either the Us start fighting a full scale war, using all the dirty tactics such as carpet bombing and wiping out entire towns in neighborhoods, or we pull out. Of course pulling out isn't much of an option because we can't take out a government and allow a country to fall completely into anarchy. And we won't fight a full scale war, one in which civilians and infastructure are considered legitimate targets. That's the only way to win a war, thats why we swept through and won WWI and WWII, we weren't losing or civilians and our homeland wasn't being destroyed. Without completely destrying infastructure, and killing large numbers of people you can't win a war. So we will likely be in Iraq for a very long time, with little or no progress.

Clinton did make some attempts to take out Bin Laden, but he was to busy building our economy, erasing our national debt and doing great things in our own country to spend billions on a feable effort, taking out Bin Laden would do nothing, besides Bush has been spending an awful lot of time and money trying to find him with no success, do you think Clinton would do any better.

Your trying to say that Clinton had more scandals than Bush???

You used Clintons failures to legitimize Bush's in at least one of your posts above. And BTW, I think Clinton's pedastal is deserved, I was in much better shape, especially financially, when Clinton was in office.

No offense hood, but didn't you mention that you were 18 yrs old in one of the Michigan threads? You were better off financially when Clinton was in office 7+ years ago?

Clinton was not responsible for erasing the debt. It was due to increased revenues from a robust economy fed by the exploding tech and dot com industries in the late 90's.

[damus]

clinton was impeached because he lied about a blowjob, something that should have never gotten the media attention it did. bush has the media in his pocket, so we don't hear about all the crap that's going on. how about this big hoax of a war for instance?

He lied under oath. Bush would get the same treatment...

How does Bush have the media in his pocket? Aside from Fox News, a couple editorial pages, and the right wing radio programs he has NOTHING. The NY Times (among other papers), NBC/CBS/ABC news, half of the staff on MessNBC are all liberal (they also have Scarborough and the boy tied geek). The press corps in Washington.. liberal. He hasn't had the same frequency of scandals... period.

The war in Iraq is not a scandal. He used the same intelligence that Clinton had to go in. There was something of a scandal reported in the news about "Nucular" materials being sold to or by a country in Africa.

I would put NAFTA and the gun control laws enacted in the Clinton years as bigger "scandals" than the war. The former two actually go against the constitution.

on edit: yes, the Patriot Act, etc.... they're just different attacks on the constitution.

Again, less scandelous, but still not a good President.

[runawayjim]

He lied under oath. Bush would get the same treatment...

How does Bush have the media in his pocket? Aside from Fox News, a couple editorial pages, and the right wing radio programs he has NOTHING. The NY Times (among other papers), NBC/CBS/ABC news, half of the staff on MessNBC are all liberal (they also have Scarborough and the boy tied geek). The press corps in Washington.. liberal. He hasn't had the same frequency of scandals... period.

The war in Iraq is not a scandal. He used the same intelligence that Clinton had to go in. There was something of a scandal reported in the news about "Nucular" materials being sold to or by a country in Africa.

I would put NAFTA and the gun control laws enacted in the Clinton years as bigger "scandals" than the war. The former two actually go against the constitution.

on edit: yes, the Patriot Act, etc.... they're just different attacks on the constitution.

Again, less scandelous, but still not a good President.

i have no problems with gun control. i don't understand why a normal citizen would need to carry an assault rifle. care to explain?

and clinton should not have been under oath to begin with. the idiot republicans wanted something to oust him, so they used that. it was a bunch of BS and should never have even been brought public. clinton was a great president. the monica thing was ridiculous. i can't believe people still bring it up as a scandal.

[damus]

i have no problems with gun control. i don't understand why a normal citizen would need to carry an assault rifle. care to explain?

and clinton should not have been under oath to begin with. the idiot republicans wanted something to oust him, so they used that. it was a bunch of BS and should never have even been brought public. clinton was a great president. the monica thing was ridiculous. i can't believe people still bring it up as a scandal.

A scandal is a scandal.

The 2nd ammendment was not put there so people could protect themselves from their neighbors or hunt for food. It was put there so the people could take back the government if it overstepped its bounds. It was the most important amendment in the bill of rights, in my opinion. Sure, I don't think everyone should have nuclear weapons, but look how well the Iraqi guerilla terrorists are doing over there.

If you wanna get into crime, just look at Australia. Soon after people were required to store ammunition and guns a certain distance from each other in locked boxes (Lockboxes, if you would), home invasions went from an unheard of crime to a pretty serious one. One country in Europe, Switzerland I believe, actually requires all male citizens to join the military, and to store an automatic weapon at their homes, and it has relatively no crime compared to us. Just like with drugs, you're putting guns on the black market and the bad guys don't follow the law.

[monsoon]

No offense hood, but didn't you mention that you were 18 yrs old in one of the Michigan threads? You were better off financially when Clinton was in office 7+ years ago?

LOL! You know I've argued in the past to raise the minimum age on the forum to 21.

I think it is time to close this thread before it degrades any further.