In your opinion were the 90s more conservative or liberal?
- Thread starter SithSolo1
- Start date
I was much more conservative, I'd rather have goverment officals that are compentent in making decisions involving the lives of billions. Suffice to say, I used to beileve what my goverment told me.
Right in the middle, in my opinion. Democratic president and Republican Congress worked well together.
Same as today. In the 90's, we were sleeping. Literally. There was no concern for international affairs, especially dealing with terrorism, it was a time of joy. People did very well during that period, and we all know why. Is there a way you can tell whether that decade was more conservative or liberal than today?
I was a big fan of Clinton in the 90's. His economic decisions were fine, Al Gore did the usual thing he does, you had Hillary running around. Things were okay. But I failed to even notice the way Clinton conducted his foreign policy during his reign. It took 9/11 to make me realize the errors. We showed weakness towards Saddam Hussein under Clinton. Yes, he did bomb Iraq during his impeachment, but that didn't accomplish a thing. Remember, this is the man who invited the terrorist Yasser Arafat many times to the White House.
We need answers for the failure of Clinton's foreign policy which directly led up to 9/11. There is no other way around it.
Of course, the Clinton true-believers will deny and duck. But that will not make his miserable failures go away.
Another difference between then and now is our privacy. Did you know that there are dozens of cameras throughout many parts of New York City or Washington DC or any other major city? They virtually monitor every building, every person and every street. That scares me. Our privacy is being lost day by day. And of course, travel was much better in the 90's. I wouldn't know, since I don't fly much. But I remember it wasn't as absurd as it is now.
I don't think I have still answered your question about the 90s being more liberal or conservative. I can tell you that basically, I'm a liberal with a pro-America viewpoint. I believe that the 90s were a mixed bag, generally good. But we cannot forget the foreign policy blunders of that period. The way I see it is that I want America's interests to be at the forefront. America first.
One more positive thing from the 90s is that we weren't as divided a country as we are now. The atmosphere was a bit more friendlier and people weren't divided among partisan lines as they are now. I think 9/11 and our foreign policy differences may have led to that.
The 90s were great, yet we also squandered many opportunities. We squandered the chance to get Bin Laden. After the 80s and the fall of USSR, we basically became a country which abandoned any significant espionage activities and that is coming back to bite us.
Oh about your question ...
. I don't exactly know how to answer it since I'm a liberal yet very pro-America. So I often disagree with many liberals and of course, the conservatives. We are certainly more conservative now than the 90s. Although fiscally, we have taken a major step backwards. You can easily tell that is the case.
Stem cell research is being significantly cut back by the Bush administration. He removed two members of the board to overlook the stem cell case and replaced them with the two that he agreed with. I'm sure there were cases similar to the Terri Schiavo case in the 90s, but we didn't hear from them. It tells you that people with fundamentaist pro-life views are becoming more prevalent in our society. Also remember that "giving head" became a widspread word in the 90s, thanks to Bill Clinton. I don't know if that is a positive or negative. But the fact is that many kids started viewing oral sex as not sex but something less.
I was a big fan of Clinton in the 90's. His economic decisions were fine, Al Gore did the usual thing he does, you had Hillary running around. Things were okay. But I failed to even notice the way Clinton conducted his foreign policy during his reign. It took 9/11 to make me realize the errors. We showed weakness towards Saddam Hussein under Clinton. Yes, he did bomb Iraq during his impeachment, but that didn't accomplish a thing. Remember, this is the man who invited the terrorist Yasser Arafat many times to the White House.
We need answers for the failure of Clinton's foreign policy which directly led up to 9/11. There is no other way around it.
Of course, the Clinton true-believers will deny and duck. But that will not make his miserable failures go away.
Another difference between then and now is our privacy. Did you know that there are dozens of cameras throughout many parts of New York City or Washington DC or any other major city? They virtually monitor every building, every person and every street. That scares me. Our privacy is being lost day by day. And of course, travel was much better in the 90's. I wouldn't know, since I don't fly much. But I remember it wasn't as absurd as it is now.
I don't think I have still answered your question about the 90s being more liberal or conservative. I can tell you that basically, I'm a liberal with a pro-America viewpoint. I believe that the 90s were a mixed bag, generally good. But we cannot forget the foreign policy blunders of that period. The way I see it is that I want America's interests to be at the forefront. America first.
One more positive thing from the 90s is that we weren't as divided a country as we are now. The atmosphere was a bit more friendlier and people weren't divided among partisan lines as they are now. I think 9/11 and our foreign policy differences may have led to that.
The 90s were great, yet we also squandered many opportunities. We squandered the chance to get Bin Laden. After the 80s and the fall of USSR, we basically became a country which abandoned any significant espionage activities and that is coming back to bite us.
Oh about your question ...
. I don't exactly know how to answer it since I'm a liberal yet very pro-America. So I often disagree with many liberals and of course, the conservatives. We are certainly more conservative now than the 90s. Although fiscally, we have taken a major step backwards. You can easily tell that is the case.Stem cell research is being significantly cut back by the Bush administration. He removed two members of the board to overlook the stem cell case and replaced them with the two that he agreed with. I'm sure there were cases similar to the Terri Schiavo case in the 90s, but we didn't hear from them. It tells you that people with fundamentaist pro-life views are becoming more prevalent in our society. Also remember that "giving head"
became a widspread word in the 90s, thanks to Bill Clinton. I don't know if that is a positive or negative. But the fact is that many kids started viewing oral sex as not sex but something less.In europe, definently more socialist. The problem with muslims hadn't hit the general population yet. Around 2k more liberal governments started getting elected unfortunately.
What's your opinion, SithSolo?
IMO, it was somewhat conservative and much of that might have had to deal with the Congress being under Republican control with a Democrat in the Oval Office. One party government isn't the way our country should be run. We had a move to balanced budgets, there was an attempt at more socialized health care that didn't materialize, the military didn't expand but we were still involved in several conflicts, there was a move to protect the environment but then we ended up with NAFTA and the WTO becoming more of a force.
IMO, it was somewhat conservative and much of that might have had to deal with the Congress being under Republican control with a Democrat in the Oval Office. One party government isn't the way our country should be run. We had a move to balanced budgets, there was an attempt at more socialized health care that didn't materialize, the military didn't expand but we were still involved in several conflicts, there was a move to protect the environment but then we ended up with NAFTA and the WTO becoming more of a force.
I would say the major policies were pretty moderate. Clintons plan to socialize the healthcare industry were thwarted and I think it stuck a nail in his coffin from there on out.
He basically road the internet boom into glory and didnt mess with the internals to screw it up.
His foreign policies appear to be a disaster however.
Didnt address the Saddam situation
Didnt address global terrorism enough
Didnt address N.Korea breaking their end of the nuclear treaty they signed.
Like anything good, there is usually something in the background waiting to give. In this case Clintons economic policy ended up imploding to his foreign polciy blunders.
It is interesting reading the 9-11 report and some of the opportunities they had to get Bin Laden but balked or didnt understand the organization required to complete such an operation.
They enlisted tribals in Afghanistan to ambush or raid where he was staying but never gave the go ahead because they were afraid of casualties. They had the ability to drop a cruise missile on his location but didnt for fear of damaging a mosque.
Unfortunately this ended up biting us in the ass on 9-11 and now again with N.Korea.
He basically road the internet boom into glory and didnt mess with the internals to screw it up.
His foreign policies appear to be a disaster however.
Didnt address the Saddam situation
Didnt address global terrorism enough
Didnt address N.Korea breaking their end of the nuclear treaty they signed.
Like anything good, there is usually something in the background waiting to give. In this case Clintons economic policy ended up imploding to his foreign polciy blunders.
It is interesting reading the 9-11 report and some of the opportunities they had to get Bin Laden but balked or didnt understand the organization required to complete such an operation.
They enlisted tribals in Afghanistan to ambush or raid where he was staying but never gave the go ahead because they were afraid of casualties. They had the ability to drop a cruise missile on his location but didnt for fear of damaging a mosque.
Unfortunately this ended up biting us in the ass on 9-11 and now again with N.Korea.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
This is a tough question, if you look at the PEOPLE, i'd say they are more social consevative now as they tend to be rallying around the abortion and marriage as determined by their church and sitting president to make them issues, unlike clinton who tended to lay low on these issues. I however think that people are more liberal in the sense that with 9/11 and the enron/worldcom fiascos, the people seem to be more trusting of gov't rather than companies/corperations (especially with respect to sending jobs overseas).
If you look at the ADMINISTRATION, fiscally i'd say they are far more liberal. Taking an active role in the world and invading countries to free the people without getting the rest of the world on board to pay and contribute to the cause (like the gulf war and afganistan), is very socialist in principle (basically aid, building the exact same infrastructure there they refuse to build here - trying to appear conservative). Running massive deficits without cutting spending is having costly effects for the people of the US (liberal with spending). Finally the public sector in the US is the fastest growing area in terms of job growth, again...very liberal all around.
So all in all, i think the 90's were more conservative.
If you look at the ADMINISTRATION, fiscally i'd say they are far more liberal. Taking an active role in the world and invading countries to free the people without getting the rest of the world on board to pay and contribute to the cause (like the gulf war and afganistan), is very socialist in principle (basically aid, building the exact same infrastructure there they refuse to build here - trying to appear conservative). Running massive deficits without cutting spending is having costly effects for the people of the US (liberal with spending). Finally the public sector in the US is the fastest growing area in terms of job growth, again...very liberal all around.
So all in all, i think the 90's were more conservative.
I'd like to point out that Bush let Bin Ladin go free too. You remember that, right? Bin Ladin, Sadaam - two different people, right? Maybe if the Republican congress hadn't been so busy with their pathetic coup attempt during Clinton's last term, they all might have had a little more time to address global terrorism.
And as I recall correctly, we didn't invade Iraq during the Clinton years because they weren't considerd much of a threat to us. And do you know what? They weren't.
And as I recall correctly, we didn't invade Iraq during the Clinton years because they weren't considerd much of a threat to us. And do you know what? They weren't.
Who is Bin Laden??? We got the guy responsible for Terrorism, his name is Saddam.
Where have you've been???
I don't understand the question.
Was the American populace more liberal or conservative during the 90s?
Are you equating political parties to the words liberal and conservative?
Socially? Domestically? Foreign policy?
I do not mean to be foolish, (hopefully I don't appear that way), but it is difficult to answer this question for me. Further, I could reasonably and easily construct an argument that would state either, depending on the parameters and the point of view of the audience. Was NAFTA liberal or conservative? What about our excursions in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo? Are tax cuts a liberal or conservative act? The answers to these questions will both depend on one's personal point of view, and determine the ultimate answer, if there is one.
If forced to provide a simple answer, it would be neither. As usual our government policies were right in the middle, while the public, as always, moved a bit more to the liberal side, though not necessarily in any political context.
My apologies for the rambling.
Was the American populace more liberal or conservative during the 90s?
Are you equating political parties to the words liberal and conservative?
Socially? Domestically? Foreign policy?
I do not mean to be foolish, (hopefully I don't appear that way), but it is difficult to answer this question for me. Further, I could reasonably and easily construct an argument that would state either, depending on the parameters and the point of view of the audience. Was NAFTA liberal or conservative? What about our excursions in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo? Are tax cuts a liberal or conservative act? The answers to these questions will both depend on one's personal point of view, and determine the ultimate answer, if there is one.
If forced to provide a simple answer, it would be neither. As usual our government policies were right in the middle, while the public, as always, moved a bit more to the liberal side, though not necessarily in any political context.
My apologies for the rambling.
This nonsense being pandered about Clinton being responsible for everything from 9/11 to Kim's Bomb is just that. Nonsense.
There were terrorist attacks during the 90's. But there were terrorist attacks that were stopped. For example, the Millenium plot. When Bush came into the White House the Clinton administration advised him that terrorism was the most urgent threat. Bush promptly ignored the advice.
9/11 occured on Bush's watch.
The NK nuclear program was frozen by Clinton. The North Koreans did cheat around the edges but it wasn't until Bush came into the White House that NK tossed out the inspectors, removed the cameras, broke the seals, and reinstituted their nuclear weapons program. You can read about the results in just about any newspaper today.
NK got The Bomb on Bush's watch.
There were terrorist attacks during the 90's. But there were terrorist attacks that were stopped. For example, the Millenium plot. When Bush came into the White House the Clinton administration advised him that terrorism was the most urgent threat. Bush promptly ignored the advice.
9/11 occured on Bush's watch.
The NK nuclear program was frozen by Clinton. The North Koreans did cheat around the edges but it wasn't until Bush came into the White House that NK tossed out the inspectors, removed the cameras, broke the seals, and reinstituted their nuclear weapons program. You can read about the results in just about any newspaper today.
NK got The Bomb on Bush's watch.
PS IMO, the 90's seemed more liberal because the radical right hadn't taken over the entire MSM yet and you could actually hear liberal and conservative views expressed in a generally fair manner. The true decline began with Reagan and the death of the Fairness Doctrine.
Total luck and what proof do you have he ignored Clintons advice, if it was even given.\ considering how lackluster Clinton took terrorism during the 90s.
What a thought provoked response.
You really have to stick your head in the sand to think N.Korea was dormant during Clintons years and suddenly, without reason flung itself into Nuclear development once Bush got into office. And to think the N.Koreans suddenly revamped their decade dead program within 2 years and produced a bomb is ignorant.
Again a thought provoked response.
9-11 started under Clintons reign. Should we give him 100% blame for it?
More delusions.
The republicans who took control of congress in 1994 were far more conservative than the republicans in control now. I also find it comical you think the MSM has gone conservative. 1 major network out of the bunch has a conservative tone and you put your arms up in disgust? Where is that freedom of speech you love to hold onto whenever liberals are on the ropes?
MSM is showing Michael Jackson and the runaway bride. I watched yesterday morning as they bounced between those two all important topics. Then they showed patriotic pride filled pictures of Bush triumphantly strutting somewhere around Eastern Europe.
Even NPR is being run by Bush cronies. WTFU.
Odd, that's funny. I only recall one person saying this - and it was the one that was on the hotseat a) trying to sell a book, and b) trying to salvage his a$$. There was no proof whatsoever that Clinton either took terrorism seriously, or even bothered to pass the information down - he was too busy ripping W's out of keyboards on the way out.
What he did to damage us...
Clinton refused to enforce the Cease Fire ageement that Saddam signed. Furthermore, he looked blindly at the growing corruption in the UN tied directly to his Oil for Food directive. I would not be surprised if he was not in some way profiting from it.
Clinton refused to bring an honest broker to the Palastinian/Israel crisis. The result of this was the bloodiest period in the history of the clash. Nice solution - let a terrorist dictate your policy for you.
Clinton's pullback from Somalia was the trigger for the current war on terror. It also defines the current operational standards of the Iraqi resistance. He defined our foreign policy as weak, and our soldiers as weaker. Up to that point, the very idea of fighting a conflict with the US was considered insane - after watching Clinton pull them after getting a black eye - it become much more appealing. Setting the stage for today.
Clinton refused to comment on Putin's direction with Russia.
Clinton refused to comment on the radical Muslim takeover of Chechnya - even after hosptials, churches, and schools were attacked. This attitude further degraded to view of the US to the radical world.
Clinton handed North Korea the keys to the nuclear car. Tied illegally to contributions from China to help him and his wife win elections.
Clinton forced Boeing to sell ICBM design technologies - in exchange for $300,000 in contributions.
Clinton ignored terrorists even after the intial attack on the World Trade Center. Regardless of the documented intelligence reports that they were still plotting.
Clinton doomed the economy by 'doctoring' 2000 economic data, only to release it days before the official recession - further increasing the problems. Note: The recession officially occured under Clinton's fiscal tenure.
Clinton was worried about one man - himself.
No, he's absolutely correct on this. Right when the Bush Administration came into office those that serverd Clinton told those that were taking over what they need to do. One of there suggestions was something simaller to a "homeland" security department. The Bush administration repeatedly refused this idea until 9/11.
9/11 did happen on Bush's watch. The captain on deck is responsible for his men and their actions. Every president that goes into power knows he will be inheriting affects of the problems that the previous administration has solved and caused.
Clintons plan would have taken over a decade to implement. And inheriting a problem does not make your the sole responsible party.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter