Keeping up with the Clintons - Page 2

*graphicgr8s* · 11-03-2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Who's poking fun at him? He did it all himself...

A politician can do nothing right... so the Clintons just won't be seen in most Republican's eyes as anything more than a lying, cheating, absurd lot of people. But pure & simple, there is simply no comparison between the quality of leadership from Bill to GWB.

Other examples?
Clinton vs. Bush? No Contest!
Graphic: Bush vs. Clinton: Whose Economy Was Better?
eRiposte Politics - Bush vs. Clinton/Gore

Or how about this?
Bush's lies vs. Clinton's lies - Salon.com

Granted, I lost a lot of respect for Hillary in her campaign against Obama in the primaries, but she does have clout and some know-how - much more than some...

So a bunch of liberal based "facts".

Clinton benefited from the peacetime dividend. Of course he also didn't do any "maintenance" so Bush had to rebuild and repair. And because of Slick's inaction we of course had the incident on 9-11-01.

And looking at one of your links above even though people had higher wages during Slick people had more to spend during Bush. Just because you make more doesn't mean you have more. Taxes were also higher under Slick. And they will be much much higher during the Big O's reign.

*Ash* · 11-03-2009, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

So a bunch of liberal based "facts".

Clinton benefited from the peacetime dividend. Of course he also didn't do any "maintenance" so Bush had to rebuild and repair. And because of Slick's inaction we of course had the incident on 9-11-01.

And looking at one of your links above even though people had higher wages during Slick people had more to spend during Bush. Just because you make more doesn't mean you have more. Taxes were also higher under Slick. And they will be much much higher during the Big O's reign.

Easy to blame someone for 9/11 in hindsight...

Those figures are all just tips off the iceberg - believe me, I know that income doesn't equal overall wealth.
So what if taxes are higher? You can't make any changes if you don't have the means to do so.

But there's always gonna be an excuse for GWB's shortcomings....

Gooshin · 11-03-2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

And because of Slick's inaction we of course had the incident on 9-11-01.

wow!

talk about hyperbole

*graphicgr8s* · 11-03-2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Wouldn't have expected any different a response from a staunch republican...
Easy to blame someone for 9/11 in hindsight...

Those figures are all just tips off the iceberg - believe me, I know that income doesn't equal overall wealth.
So what if taxes are higher? You can't make any changes if you don't have the means to do so.

But there's always gonna be an excuse for GWB's shortcomings....

You have now insulted me. I should report your post.

As for Bush. I did vote for him but look at what he ran against. Algore and John "Swift Boat" Kerry. And Bush was the best out of the 3. (Yes I realize that all three did not run at the same time) I have a feeling that Bush will be remembered a little more favorably than what you think now however.

Clinton couldn't do much damage after control went to Republicans and he actually became a little more centrist. The Big O on the other hand is most assuredly a socialist and I just don't see him getting right.

Please don't call me a republican. I am a Staunch Conservative. The republican party has none of my beliefs at the present time.

*Ash* · 11-03-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

You have now insulted me. I should report your post.

As for Bush. I did vote for him but look at what he ran against. Algore and John "Swift Boat" Kerry. And Bush was the best out of the 3. (Yes I realize that all three did not run at the same time) I have a feeling that Bush will be remembered a little more favorably than what you think now however.

Clinton couldn't do much damage after control went to Republicans and he actually became a little more centrist. The Big O on the other hand is most assuredly a socialist and I just don't see him getting right.

Please don't call me a republican. I am a Staunch Conservative. The republican party has none of my beliefs at the present time.

You may report me if you wish, George. But I will apologise if you felt insulted - I'd no intention of doing so. My labelling you as a staunch republican may be misguided. Comment retracted. But I'm confused. Difference between republican and conservative, please?

It's a recurring theme, though: everything the liberals/democrats do is wrong and vice versa for the conservatives/republicans...

*deadwolfbones* · 11-03-2009, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Then I'm confused. US politics is obviously not my forte. Difference between republican and conservative, please?

The difference is the Republican party looks like a bunch of loons, so those with the slightest shred of dignity are trying to distance themselves by shifting the label to conservative or in some cases libertarian.

*deadwolfbones* · 11-03-2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

So a bunch of liberal based "facts".

PPI's mission arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces re-shaping our society and economy. The Institute advocates a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the Information Age and points to a "third way" beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government. The Institute envisions government as society's servant, not its master -- as a catalyst for a broader civic enterprise controlled by and responsive to the needs of citizens and the communities where they live and work.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a think tank in the United States, founded in 1989 and affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, which styles itself as promoting the ideas of "New Democrats." It covers a very wide range of issues and describes itself as centrist, although progressive critics frequently describe it as conservative, neoconservative, or neoliberal.

*graphicgr8s* · 11-03-2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

You may report me, George. I'm at fault. But I will apologise if you felt insulted - absolutely had no intention of doing so. My labelling you as a staunch republican seems to have been misguided. Comment retracted. Then I'm confused. US politics is obviously not my forte. Difference between republican and conservative, please?

Nonetheless, it seems a recurring theme, though, that everything the liberals/democrats do is wrong and vice versa for the conservatives/republicans...

Well as a conservative one thing I believe in is fiscal responsibility. And doing the right thing. Even if it's not in my personal best interest. I also believe in the adage about teaching a man to fish or giving a man a fish. And I sure don't believe in these "entitlement" plans. Why is anyone entitled to my money? And there should be term limits for all positions. I don't believe we can tax our way out of this mess. In fact just the opposite holds true. They are going to find that the taxes they want to bring on still won't be enough to fund all they want to do. Corporations will spend more time trying to find ways to avoid paying taxes than they will on investing in new jobs and equipment. It's been proven many times over.

Right now as the repubican party stands there just isn't much difference between them and a liberal/socialist. They're spending/have spent/ as fast as many democrats. And that's not right.

I know my "isms" haven't changed. But the repubican parties sure has. When they get back to what they once believed in I'll be back in the fold. Until then I remain a Conservative.

flippedgazelle · 11-03-2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Clinton benefited from the peacetime dividend. Of course he also didn't do any "maintenance" so Bush had to rebuild and repair. And because Reagan and Bush 1 armed Al-Qaeda we of course had the disaster on 9-11-01.

There, fixed that for ya!

*graphicgr8s* · 11-03-2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by flippedgazelle

There, fixed that for ya!

Didn't need any fixing at all. Of course Slick had Osama in his sights and did nothing. Again. Except when he bombed a country or two because he needed to divert attention from his little sexual parlays.

flippedgazelle · 11-03-2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Didn't need any fixing at all. Of course Slick had Osama in his sights and did nothing. Again. Except when he bombed a country or two because he needed to divert attention from his little sexual parlays.

Willie was confused because of all the "made in America" tags on the weapons Osama had.

I don't think there is much negative to be said about US involvement in that little incident in and around Kosovo.

*Ash* · 11-03-2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Didn't need any fixing at all. Of course Slick had Osama in his sights and did nothing. Again. Except when he bombed a country or two because he needed to divert attention from his little sexual parlays.

Do you really believe Osama is where the buck stops for terrorism, even for al-Qa'eda?

*Ash* · 11-03-2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by deadwolfbones

The difference is the Republican party looks like a bunch of loons, so those with the slightest shred of dignity are trying to distance themselves by shifting the label to conservative or in some cases libertarian.

i.e. there's no difference in belief systems... just that one group of conservatives are in the public eye, and the other one not...?

*Ash* · 11-03-2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Well as a conservative one thing I believe in is fiscal responsibility. And doing the right thing. Even if it's not in my personal best interest. I also believe in the adage about teaching a man to fish or giving a man a fish. And I sure don't believe in these "entitlement" plans. Why is anyone entitled to my money? And there should be term limits for all positions. I don't believe we can tax our way out of this mess. In fact just the opposite holds true. They are going to find that the taxes they want to bring on still won't be enough to fund all they want to do. Corporations will spend more time trying to find ways to avoid paying taxes than they will on investing in new jobs and equipment. It's been proven many times over.

Right now as the repubican party stands there just isn't much difference between them and a liberal/socialist. They're spending/have spent/ as fast as many democrats. And that's not right.

I know my "isms" haven't changed. But the repubican parties sure has. When they get back to what they once believed in I'll be back in the fold. Until then I remain a Conservative.

Republicans liberal? socialist? Is spending money equating to liberalism?
Tax is government's 'entitlement' to seeing infrastructure built, amongst other things. You would like to see the abolition of income tax? In favour of what?

flippedgazelle · 11-03-2009, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Republicans liberal? socialist? Is spending money equating to liberalism?

Yup. That's why so many Repub- err, Staunch Conservatives - were upset with the previous regime. The bail-out of Wall St., AIG, etc. is antithetical to their doctrine.

In a funny kind of reversal, many Americans (like me) were upset of Bush/Cheney's "unPatriot Act" because it smacks of fascism and impinges on some fundamental American rights. So what happens? Obama is using some of the authority granted by the "unPatriot Act". Go figure...