For all of you who voted for that idiot bush

[shysti]

This pisses me off to no end...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1732997

[Phantaroth]

He didn't even sign it yet...

[NewJack33]

\/\/

[Greedo017]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

[andy-akb]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

Yea, because the US debt has come and gone over the past 100 years, right? I dont care if you know what you are talking about and argue the benefit of deficit spending from an economics standpoint, but saying "democrats will always be pussies" as a post has no bearing at all. What does this have to do with anybody being a pussy? How is this sound policy, and "Sean Hannity told me so" isnt a good response.

To the OP: Id blame this on the idiots that voted in a republican "fiscally responsible" majority in the senate, although reckless spending is bipartisan.

[vqc]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

How is this sound policy, and "Sean Hannity told me so" isnt a good response.

what about "Colmes told me so"?

[vqc]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

but saying "democrats will always be pussies" as a post has no bearing at all.

To the OP: Id blame this on the idiots that voted in a republican "fiscally responsible" majority in the senate, although reckless spending is bipartisan.

democrats :: pussies
bush :: idjit

its only done so that it fits in with the OP.

I wonder how the budget wouldve been handled if world events happened exactly the same but clinton was at the helm instead of bush?

[shysti]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

but saying "democrats will always be pussies" as a post has no bearing at all.

To the OP: Id blame this on the idiots that voted in a republican "fiscally responsible" majority in the senate, although reckless spending is bipartisan.

democrats :: pussies
bush :: idjit

its only done so that it fits in with the OP.

I wonder how the budget wouldve been handled if world events happened exactly the same but clinton was at the helm instead of bush?

the books would of been balanced out, not doubled that's for sure

[andy-akb]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

How is this sound policy, and "Sean Hannity told me so" isnt a good response.

what about "Colmes told me so"?

In about the 2 minutes of speaking time he gets in a show I doubt he said all of that. I guess I personally see a difference between a response of "democrats are pussies budgets come and go" and an actual thought out post where I dont just spew random rhetoric, I dont know if Id even call that rhetoric.

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

but saying "democrats will always be pussies" as a post has no bearing at all.

To the OP: Id blame this on the idiots that voted in a republican "fiscally responsible" majority in the senate, although reckless spending is bipartisan.

democrats :: pussies
bush :: idjit

its only done so that it fits in with the OP.

I wonder how the budget wouldve been handled if world events happened exactly the same but clinton was at the helm instead of bush?

Seeing as Clinton was running a surplus, Id assume we would be in much much better shape. And would instituting a $1 Trillion+ tax cut, without decreasing spending be one of these world events?

[shysti]

He didn't even sign it yet...

Im sure he will some of that money is allocated for his war. The tyrant!

[vqc]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

but saying "democrats will always be pussies" as a post has no bearing at all.

To the OP: Id blame this on the idiots that voted in a republican "fiscally responsible" majority in the senate, although reckless spending is bipartisan.

democrats :: pussies
bush :: idjit

its only done so that it fits in with the OP.

I wonder how the budget wouldve been handled if world events happened exactly the same but clinton was at the helm instead of bush?

the books would of been balanced out, not doubled that's for sure

How are you so positive that this would be true?
Is it just becuase you believe that clinton wouldnt have gone to war and therefore that would mitigate a large portion of hte debt?

[Demiparadigm]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

but saying "democrats will always be pussies" as a post has no bearing at all.

To the OP: Id blame this on the idiots that voted in a republican "fiscally responsible" majority in the senate, although reckless spending is bipartisan.

democrats :: pussies
bush :: idjit

its only done so that it fits in with the OP.

I wonder how the budget wouldve been handled if world events happened exactly the same but clinton was at the helm instead of bush?

the books would of been balanced out, not doubled that's for sure

How are you so positive that this would be true?
Is it just becuase you believe that clinton wouldnt have gone to war and therefore that would mitigate a large portion of hte debt?

and maybe the fact that we had a budget surplus under Clinton, that was quickly spent even before the events of Sept !!, once the new administration took the helm.

[shysti]

debt's will come and go but democrats will always be pussies

but saying "democrats will always be pussies" as a post has no bearing at all.

To the OP: Id blame this on the idiots that voted in a republican "fiscally responsible" majority in the senate, although reckless spending is bipartisan.

democrats :: pussies
bush :: idjit

its only done so that it fits in with the OP.

I wonder how the budget wouldve been handled if world events happened exactly the same but clinton was at the helm instead of bush?

the books would of been balanced out, not doubled that's for sure

How are you so positive that this would be true?
Is it just becuase you believe that clinton wouldnt have gone to war and therefore that would mitigate a large portion of hte debt?

and maybe the fact that we had a budget surplus under Clinton, that was quickly spent even before the events of Sept !!, once the new administration took the helm.

Bingoo!! It's not hard to tell

[EasyT]

Last election truly was choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

[samsonite2100]

How are you so positive that this would be true?
Is it just becuase you believe that clinton wouldnt have gone to war and therefore that would mitigate a large portion of hte debt?

Any president, Democrat or Republican, would have at least invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't, however, remember Clinton making a habit of giving zillion dollar tax cuts to the wealthiest .5 % of Americans, or an idiotic 600 dollar tax cut to everyone in order to "stimulate" the economy.

Clinton, of course, was not directly responsible for the incredibly fruitful economy he presided over, but if you are arguing that there has been no significant mismanagement of the economy by King Jesus Bush II, you are out of your mind.

[EasyT]

As far as the deficit goes, they could make up some ground by legalizing online gambling.

Rather than this billion dollar industry being exiled to shady little island countries, they could allow it in the US. We'd gain a higher level of security in the sites we play at, they'd gain revenue by taxing the casinos revenue, and they could also tax the winning players.

W-2g anyone? I'm not saying it's the best thing for us players, mind you.

I'm just saying that the bulk of money feeding this multi-billion dollar industry comes from American dollars, and that the government would rather wash their hands of it than accept it and get their piece of the industry.

A politician gets more traction submitting bills to make online gambling illegal than he does submitting the opposite.

EasyT

[samsonite2100]

As far as the deficit goes, they could make up some ground by legalizing online gambling.

Yes, but the US government has a proud tradition of taking the moral high ground and not making tax money off of gambling, I mean besides horse racing, and the lottery. Which are obviously totally different since betting on horses or numbers takes skill and poker is %100 luck.

[andy-akb]

Any president, Democrat or Republican, would have at least invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't, however, remember Clinton making a habit of giving zillion dollar tax cuts to the wealthiest .5 % of Americans, or an idiotic 600 dollar tax cut to everyone in order to "stimulate" the economy.

I agree with you that anybody would have invaded Afghanistan. Clinton would not have invaded Iraq though, which is what is costing us billions every day. We are on the same page there. However, tax cuts do stimulate the economy, BUT the Bush tax cuts are not the best way of doing it. If you want tax cuts [which I think are good because taxes are currently too high, mainly due to irresponisble spending], then you have to cut spending to offset the lose of revenue. By increasing deficit spending you are weakening the US dollar, that cannot be argued. The weaker the US dollar gets in comparison to the other global economies, the higher inflation gets. Inflation is bad, deficit spending [not short term, but long term like we are seeing now] is also bad because it clearly leads to this. Basically, I agree with most of your points, just saying that in an ideal world where tax cuts are offset by spending cuts, they do stimulate the economy both in the short and long term.

EasyT:
Yes, taxing the online gambling industry would help, but not an incredible amount. I would say the biggest industry the government could create, regulate, and tax would be ending the war on drugs and instituting a taxed regime similar to that of alcohol.

[samsonite2100]

I'm not against tax cuts per se, just tax cuts that reward a tiny sliver of wealthy Americans for being wealthy.

Anyway, I think the short version of what you said is that if you want to have an expensive war, you need to pay for it somehow. Man, you are stuck in the 20th century. These days you can fight wars for free and w/out soldiers--no sacrifice needed!

[andy-akb]

I'm not against tax cuts per se, just tax cuts that reward a tiny sliver of wealthy Americans for being wealthy.

Anyway, I think the short version of what you said is that if you want to have an expensive war, you need to pay for it somehow. Man, you are stuck in the 20th century. These days you can fight wars for free and w/out soldiers--no sacrifice needed!

Haha, exactly.

But yea, ideally I would like to see a huge cut in taxes across the board and then an entire revamp of the tax code to get rid of all the loopholes that currently exist. Id also love to see the billions upon billions in pork spending get cut from the budget. Chances of these things happening are all veyr slim though with the current attitude in washington.

[shysti]

Well this is what God
Almighty is saying to President Bush.


Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no
more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another
war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of
your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.
Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out.
No one's speaking to you.

Mission accomplished.

Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and
walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil
company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the
next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what
you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President
could involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a
lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales
tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And
Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you
govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm
surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a
catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty
president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water
and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four
airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of
New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't
love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if
you were on the other side.

So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint

[euphoricism]

Herbert Hoover was a shitty
president

Hoover happened to be a very good president who inherited a very bad country. In fact, the country loved Hoover.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies

What? No?

the surplus

A terrorist attack and a few large national disasters will do that. The war is icing.

Four ailiners

Now we're grasping at straws. Blaming Bush for this?

Two trade centers

Blaming GW. Bush for this? Been down that road.

A piece of the pentagon

Where ARE those straws?

the City of New Olreans

A) Its still there. Lots of people in it too.
B) Are we now blaming weather patterns on Bush as well?




That was one of the largest pieces of crap I've ever read.

[spoonitnow]

It's the fourth such move increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion since Bush took office five years ago.

[andy-akb]

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies

What? No?

Yea, the world loves us, dont they?

the surplus

A terrorist attack and a few large national disasters will do that. The war is icing.

A several hundred billion dollar war is "icing on the cake?" This sounds like quite the cake. What about the several trillion $ tax cuts? Candles on the cake? The pork filled transportation bill, sprinkles? Seriously, yea the terrorist attacks hurt us economically, and so did the natural disasters, but to say that is the cause of the loss of the surplus is ridiculous. Lets completely forget the spending policies of this administration.

the City of New Olreans

A) Its still there. Lots of people in it too.
B) Are we now blaming weather patterns on Bush as well?

I dont think we can blame this entirely on Bush, it was a fairly of government on all levels. However, the head of FEMA was a crony of Bush who had no experience on the job. That didnt make the cleanup any easier. And the cutting of funds to rebuild the leveys also didnt help.

That was one of the largest pieces of crap I've ever read.

Thanks for shining the light on all of this confusing polytiks stuff with your one liners.

[shysti]

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies

What? No?

Yea, the world loves us, dont they?

the surplus

A terrorist attack and a few large national disasters will do that. The war is icing.

A several hundred billion dollar war is "icing on the cake?" This sounds like quite the cake. What about the several trillion $ tax cuts? Candles on the cake? The pork filled transportation bill, sprinkles? Seriously, yea the terrorist attacks hurt us economically, and so did the natural disasters, but to say that is the cause of the loss of the surplus is ridiculous. Lets completely forget the spending policies of this administration.

the City of New Olreans

A) Its still there. Lots of people in it too.
B) Are we now blaming weather patterns on Bush as well?

I dont think we can blame this entirely on Bush, it was a fairly of government on all levels. However, the head of FEMA was a crony of Bush who had no experience on the job. That didnt make the cleanup any easier. And the cutting of funds to rebuild the leveys also didnt help.

That was one of the largest pieces of crap I've ever read.

Thanks for shining the light on all of this confusing polytiks stuff with your one liners.

haha thanks you pretty much summed up my reply for me, thanks lol

[spoonitnow]

Fuck Bush.

[Greedo017]

Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban
Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama’s staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out
America won’t turn and run once the fighting has begun
Libya turns over nukes, Lebanese want freedom, too
Syria is forced to leave, don’t you know that all this means

Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Democracy is on the way, hitting like a tidal wave
All over the middle east, dictators walk with shaky knees
Don’t know what they’re gonna do,
their worst nightmare is coming true
They fear the domino effect, they’re all wondering who’s next

Ted Kennedy – wrong!
Cindy Sheehan – wrong!
France – wrong!
Zell Miller – right!

Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive
Angry liberals can't believe it's cause of W's policies
Unemployment's staying down, Democrats are wondering how
Revenue is going up, can you say "Tax Cuts"

Cheney was right, Condi was right,
Rummy was right, Blair was right
You were right, we were right, “The Right” was right and
Bush was right

[Bmxicle]

Its too bad cause canada is gonna go down with you guys when the shit hits the fan.

[andy-akb]

Another insightful post from Greed0017, actually a somewhat funny name considering the topic. What does posting song lyrics have anything to do with this topic? Off the top of your head who is Zell Miller and why is he right? If your answer is anything but "a political tool who was near retirement and wanted to leave with a bang" then you are wrong. Oh in why dont they mention Iran and North Korea in your song? What about Sudan? The Congo?

[Greedo017]

[!Luck]

He didn't even sign it yet..."

Has he ever not signed something?

[Warpe]

As a Canadian, I'm refraining from posting in this thr--....er...um...forget I said anything.

[Phantaroth]

No but I'm just saying it seems a bit silly to start a thread talking about Bush being an idiot and then post a link to a bill passed by Congress not yet signed by the President....

[shysti]

No but I'm just saying it seems a bit silly to start a thread talking about Bush being an idiot and then post a link to a bill passed by Congress not yet signed by the President....

Look closer, who's administration is the cause of this bill?

Then repost. Thanks

[Miffed22001]

wasnt america in a boom during the clinton era and was effectivly in a recession when Bush took over and probably still is?
So wtf would clinton do any different on domestic issues?
he just would nt have gone to war over all this: hed have nuked 'em or got some peace going. Afterall, who got the middle east and irish peace processes underway?
I dont remember bill bombing anyone but monica

[spoonitnow]

wasnt america in a boom during the clinton era and was effectivly in a recession when Bush took over and probably still is?
So wtf would clinton do any different on domestic issues?
he just would nt have gone to war over all this: hed have nuked 'em or got some peace going. Afterall, who got the middle east and irish peace processes underway?
I dont remember bill bombing anyone but monica

I'd hit it

[euphoricism]

I dont remember bill bombing anyone but monica

Nope, he cut and ran, pissing off a good large portion of the armed forces in a fairly similar situation to that is going on in iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu

Note the interesting terrorist ties there, as well.

[Greedo017]

actually america's economy is doing quite well. and, the recession began before bush took office/as he took office. yea, you can argue over the debt, economy is still doing well though.

While speaking at the Pentagon, the President warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

how can you disagree with that

[samsonite2100]

Well, I could say that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Sudan, off the top of my head, are either greater risks on the nuclear front and/or more active supporters of terrorism than Saddam ever was. I might point out that Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, whose primary goal is to create a fundamentalist Muslim caliphate to rule the entire Middle East, was an avowed enemy of Saddam's areligious Baathist regime. Finally, you might ask yourself if the guy you're quoting might have some personal interest in enlarging Saddam's threat level ex post facto.

That's how I disagree with that.

[Phantaroth]

I understand why they passed this bill, but the problem is obviously equally or MORE SO resting on the other portions of federal government then just President Bush.

[pgil]

also there is video footage of president bush being warned that the levies in new orleans will most likely break if/when katrina hits. then later after the levies break and lots of poor minorities are dead or living in horrible conditions, he says that he had no idea that the levies were in danger of breaking. seems like a lot of money and people/property could have been spared if he had acted before Katrina hit to reinforce the levies.

[andy-akb]

actually america's economy is doing quite well. and, the recession began before bush took office/as he took office. yea, you can argue over the debt, economy is still doing well though.

Lets think of this like poker. The economy is currently doing well, stock market is strong, etc, but dont be so results oriented. Long term these policies are going to hurt our economy especially in relation to our global economic standing. I dont think anybody is trying to blame the recession on Bush, atleast Im not.

While speaking at the Pentagon, the President warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Nice job tossing in a quote from Bill Clinton without saying it was by him. Anyways, Operation Desert Fox was "in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." Clinton attacked with a three day air strike campagin which resulted in a cease fire and 0 American deaths and minimal Iraqi casualties. Bush went in with the full strength of our army who dont see an end in sight and have lost over 1000 of their own men, and killed countless thousands of Iraqis.

how can you disagree with that

fairly easily.

Nope, he cut and ran, pissing off a good large portion of the armed forces in a fairly similar situation to that is going on in iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu

Note the interesting terrorist ties there, as well.

Yea, Somalia was a failure, but are you honestly saying we shouldnt have done anything there? That was more of a dire situation than Iraq ever was [leading to the most recent invasion] or will be. From the article you just posted:

"Operation Provide Relief began in August, 1992, when the White House announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people were deployed to Mombasa, Kenya during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia, to reduce reliance on truck convoys. One member of the 86th Supply Squadron was deployed with the ground support contingent, USAFE's only contribution to the operation. The Air Force C-130s delivered 48,000 tons of food and medical supplies in six months to international humanitarian organizations trying to help the over three million starving people in the country. When this proved inadequate to stop the massive death and displacement of the Somali people (500,000 dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced), the U.S. in December, 1992, launched a major coalition operation, Operation Restore Hope, to assist and protect humanitarian activities, under which the United States would assume the unified command of the new operation, in accordance with resolution 794(1992)."

What a horrible, horrible idea. And there is one main difference between Somalia and Iraq. Clinton ordered the troops out of there and "hesitated to use U.S. ground troops in fighting Serbian military and para-military ground forces in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999, out of fear of losing American soldiers in combat, as well as fear of repeating what happened in Mogadishu in 1993." Learning from your mistakes, what an idiot that Clinton was.

[euphoricism]

Yea, Somalia was a failure, but are you honestly saying we shouldnt have done anything there? That was more of a dire situation than Iraq ever was [leading to the most recent invasion] or will be. From the article you just posted:

"Operation Provide Relief began in August, 1992, when the White House announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people were deployed to Mombasa, Kenya during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia, to reduce reliance on truck convoys. One member of the 86th Supply Squadron was deployed with the ground support contingent, USAFE's only contribution to the operation. The Air Force C-130s delivered 48,000 tons of food and medical supplies in six months to international humanitarian organizations trying to help the over three million starving people in the country. When this proved inadequate to stop the massive death and displacement of the Somali people (500,000 dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced), the U.S. in December, 1992, launched a major coalition operation, Operation Restore Hope, to assist and protect humanitarian activities, under which the United States would assume the unified command of the new operation, in accordance with resolution 794(1992)."

What a horrible, horrible idea. And there is one main difference between Somalia and Iraq. Clinton ordered the troops out of there and "hesitated to use U.S. ground troops in fighting Serbian military and para-military ground forces in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999, out of fear of losing American soldiers in combat, as well as fear of repeating what happened in Mogadishu in 1993." Learning from your mistakes, what an idiot that Clinton was.

I think youre attempting to be sarcastic with the "What a horrible, horrible idea" part, but I really can't tell because its kind of nonsensical. Anyway, it was a really good, good, idea to send troops there (with a semi-dictatorship - in this case a group of warlords - ruling with an iron hand, keeping the citizens in line with the threat of torture and death by starvation. Sound familiar..?) Troops were sent to try and stabilize the area. If you don't see the obvious parallels, I can't help you.

However, lets remember that clinton was inaugurated in '93, and had nothing to do with the creation of Operation Restore Hope in '92. Nope, that was a republican president, Raegan. Woops.

In fact the only thing Clinton did do for Operation Restore Hope was end it after the first battle. He cut and run, leaving the area destabilized. Essentially the same thing that would happen in Iraq. The parallels are astounding.

The thing was, clinton wasn't an "idiot for learning from his mistakes" as you so aptly put it. He made the mistake, and then he perpetuated it. There is no way we should have left. Theres no way we should leave now.

[samsonite2100]

You people realize it's possible for Clinton and Bush both to be shitty, right?

Clinton's handling of Rwanda and Somalia=shitty.

Bush handling of Iraq=also shitty, although shitty on a much larger scale.

[andy-akb]

You people realize it's possible for Clinton and Bush both to be shitty, right?

Clinton's handling of Rwanda and Somalia=shitty.

Bush handling of Iraq=also shitty, although shitty on a much larger scale.

Exactly, I agree with that. Clinton [and the entire global community] fucked up in Rwanda, and Somalia was a mistake too. Bush messed up in Iraq; however, the motivation for entering was misguided when I dont think you can say the same for Somalia. I know what you are saying though, people often counter the cliche "bush is bad" arguments with things about Clinton as though politics is a zero sum game where if you can counter one wrong with another, it is automatically ok.

[samsonite2100]

Bush messed up in Iraq; however, the motivation for entering was misguided when I dont think you can say the same for Somalia.

Bush vs. Clinton is an interesting contrast in failings. I do believe that Bush (but mainly, his neocon puppetmasters) have what they consider to be a moral worldview, however unrealistic, that they try to base policy on. Their problem is, they fuck up everything they touch. Also, they're a bunch of arrogant congenital liars who believe the end always justifies the means.

Clinton, OTOH, was a supremely capable and learned president that did a good job policy-wise. His problem was that he had no moral compass and made almost every decision based on political gain. Clinton (and to be fair, the UN and Europe) basically allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be exterminated b/c US opinion polls showed a majority of Americans didn't want any African involvement post Mogadishu.

Actually, Clinton was an arrogant congenital liar, too, so I guess they have that in common. Along w/ most politicians...

[andy-akb]

Bush vs. Clinton is an interesting contrast in failings. I do believe that Bush (but mainly, his neocon puppetmasters) have what they consider to be a moral worldview, however unrealistic, that they try to base policy on. Their problem is, they fuck up everything they touch. Also, they're a bunch of arrogant congenital liars who believe the end always justifies the means.

I would say that this administration views themselves as saviors and the rest of the world as savages and that it is their duty to "civilize" everybody.

Clinton, OTOH, was a supremely capable and learned president that did a good job policy-wise. His problem was that he had no moral compass and made almost every decision based on political gain. Clinton (and to be fair, the UN and Europe) basically allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be exterminated b/c US opinion polls showed a majority of Americans didn't want any African involvement post Mogadishu.

Actually, Clinton was an arrogant congenital liar, too, so I guess they have that in common. Along w/ most politicians...

Clinton was a political genius and if it werent for the 22nd amendment he would still be president today. He had no morals in his personal life, and yes most of his decisions were politically motivated, but that kept us out of the trouble that this administration has gotten us into with their holier than thou attitude. Rwanda was a huge fuck up on all levels, and I dont think anybody disagrees with that.

The big thing I disagree with though is calling Clinton arrogant, the man is anything but. Having personally met him several times I can assure you he is much more down to earth than any of the other "big name" politicians, much more so than either Kerry or Bush. From my perspective, I havent met too many politicians that Ive deemed to be arrogant the only one that really sticks out in my mind is RFK Jr.

[samsonite2100]

I would say that this administration views themselves as saviors and the rest of the world as savages and that it is their duty to "civilize" everybody.

I agree

He had no morals in his personal life, and yes most of his decisions were politically motivated, but that kept us out of the trouble that this administration has gotten us into with their holier than thou attitude.

There's definitely an argument to be had about whether our foreign policy's guiding mandate should be to "keep us out of trouble." I think we agree about Iraq, but Rwanda would have been trouble worth getting into, IMO. I'm with you in the sense that given a choice between a crusading idiot and a pragmatic isolationist, I know which one I'm choosing.

The big thing I disagree with though is calling Clinton arrogant, the man is anything but. Having personally met him several times I can assure you he is much more down to earth than any of the other "big name" politicians, much more so than either Kerry or Bush. From my perspective, I havent met too many politicians that Ive deemed to be arrogant the only one that really sticks out in my mind is RFK Jr.

I believe anyone who sees themselves as fit to run the free world must have a pretty large amount of ego-driven arrogance. Furthermore, it takes a special kind of arrogance to get blown in the Lincoln Library.

That said, Bush is the worst. I want to punch him in his smirking piehole.

[andy-akb]

I believe anyone who sees themselves as fit to run the free world must have a pretty large amount of ego-driven arrogance. Furthermore, it takes a special kind of arrogance to get blown in the Lincoln Library.

Clinton doesnt talk down to people and truly engages in a conversation and doesnt act as though he has to. He is an all around nice guy, his political aspirations I think have less to do with arrogance and more to do with his constant striving to succeed. I dont think you have to be arrogant to get a blowjob in your house.

That said, Bush is the worst. I want to punch him in his smirking piehole.

Bush has a smug attitude about him that really irritates people, and its understandable why.

[samsonite2100]

I dont think you have to be arrogant to get a blowjob in your house.

Clinton didn't own the White House while he was in office. It was his residence, yes, but to get sucked off by an intern in the most hallowed ground in American politics displays a blatant disregard for morals/tradition/history/etc. Behavior like this, especially repeated over time, is commonly known as "arrogance."

Not that I gave or give a shit about it, but let's get real.

[shysti]

I would say that this administration views themselves as saviors and the rest of the world as savages and that it is their duty to "civilize" everybody.

I agree

He had no morals in his personal life, and yes most of his decisions were politically motivated, but that kept us out of the trouble that this administration has gotten us into with their holier than thou attitude.

There's definitely an argument to be had about whether our foreign policy's guiding mandate should be to "keep us out of trouble." I think we agree about Iraq, but Rwanda would have been trouble worth getting into, IMO. I'm with you in the sense that given a choice between a crusading idiot and a pragmatic isolationist, I know which one I'm choosing.

The big thing I disagree with though is calling Clinton arrogant, the man is anything but. Having personally met him several times I can assure you he is much more down to earth than any of the other "big name" politicians, much more so than either Kerry or Bush. From my perspective, I havent met too many politicians that Ive deemed to be arrogant the only one that really sticks out in my mind is RFK Jr.

I believe anyone who sees themselves as fit to run the free world must have a pretty large amount of ego-driven arrogance. Furthermore, it takes a special kind of arrogance to get blown in the Lincoln Library.

That said, Bush is the worst. I want to punch him in his smirking piehole.

"That said, Bush is the worst. I want to punch him in his smirking piehole." - Best Quote Ever

[shysti]

I dont think you have to be arrogant to get a blowjob in your house.

Clinton didn't own the White House while he was in office. It was his residence, yes, but to get sucked off by an intern in the most hallowed ground in American politics displays a blatant disregard for morals/tradition/history/etc. Behavior like this, especially repeated over time, is commonly known as "arrogance."

Not that I gave or give a shit about it, but let's get real.

No lets get real, as a man you are telling me you would turn down a bj in the oval office? That behavior to me is very human. Yes he's our president, yes he works hard, and I'll be damn if the man doesn't deserve a damn blow job!

[samsonite2100]

touche

[andy-akb]

I dont think you have to be arrogant to get a blowjob in your house.

Clinton didn't own the White House while he was in office. It was his residence, yes, but to get sucked off by an intern in the most hallowed ground in American politics displays a blatant disregard for morals/tradition/history/etc. Behavior like this, especially repeated over time, is commonly known as "arrogance."

Not that I gave or give a shit about it, but let's get real.

Arrogance: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner

Having met Clinton several times I can assure you he does not carry an impression of superiority and is anything but overbearing. Question his morals, question his "blatant disregard for tradition" but the man is simply not arrogant and Ive never heard anybody who has met him characterize him as such.

[eeeee]

This thread should have been titled
"Fawning over that great guy, Clinton, and giving him a blow job."
Is that too long for a thread title?

[Greedo017]

It is my belief that before the war, it was widely accepted that iraq probably had terrorist links, almost certainly had weapons of mass desctruction or was attempting to make them, and was deserving of invasion. the world in turn has been results oriented in its abandoning of bush now that the wmd's and the terrorist links weren't true. that's just my opinion.

i can't defend bush about a lot of stuff. obviously he's not a great president. my main problem is i think people take it too far. he is far from being as pathetic as most would make him seem.

[spoonitnow]

Fuck Bush.

[Sprayed]

It is my belief that before the war, it was widely accepted that iraq probably had terrorist links, almost certainly had weapons of mass desctruction or was attempting to make them, and was deserving of invasion. the world in turn has been results oriented in its abandoning of bush now that the wmd's and the terrorist links weren't true. that's just my opinion.

i can't defend bush about a lot of stuff. obviously he's not a great president. my main problem is i think people take it too far. he is far from being as pathetic as most would make him seem.

You don't invade a country on assumptions and let thousands of innocent lives die on your assumption. War isn't poker. I think it's wise to be results oriented in this situation. If attacking a country on assumptions alone was ok, why aren't we attacking North Korea, Iran, and China?

[Greedo017]

a. why would we attack china?
b. we aren't attacking north korea or iran because they did not go against a decade worth of mandates telling them to comply like iraq did. diplomacy has potential with iran and north korea, it did not with iraq. If they head down the iraq road they will be attacked also.
c. we can go back and forth a lot about whether or not its ok to go to war based on reasonable assumptions. every war is based on at least some assumptions, its more important to decide the degree of liklihood imo.

[Sprayed]

I work in the intel industry and I can tell you they don't make decisions based upon assumptions alone. Bush had his reasons and it wasn't because of mass destruction devises or terrorism relations. North Korea is much more a threat than any other country, but we won't attack them because of their military power.

Don't be blind about China. With their economic control and being a communist state, they are much more a threat than ever before.

[pgil]

and if your justification for war was a refusal to comply with UN security council resolutions, then the US should invade israel, since israel is in violation of more resolutions for a longer period than iraq ever was.

[Pelion]

It is my belief that before the war, it was widely accepted that iraq probably had terrorist links, almost certainly had weapons of mass desctruction or was attempting to make them

With all due respect it doesnt matter what your belief is. The CIAs belief, and the UN wepons inspectors belief and the beliefs of anyone else involved was that there probably werent WMDs and there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It reminds me of when the US and UK governments went on about finding a big terrorist training camp in northern afghanistan. . . they left out the part where it was in northern alliance territory (i.e. their allies territory).

It was flat out bullshit from start to finish, and noone with access to any intelligence actually believed there were WMDs or terrorist links. It wouldnt surprise me if Iraq was trying to get hold of WMDs but they were years off and there were weapons inspectors inside the country searching. They were only recalled so we could start bombing the country.

[Greedo017]

You have opened my eyes!!!11!!1!