The pettiness of getting even.......

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
While cutting taxes is a Republican tradition (of which I'm damn proud of), the current administration had no choice but to create bigger gov't in the form of homeland security.

Baloney. "More government" is rarely the solution to a problem. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy mucking up our intelligence and law enforcement organizations. Homeland Security is a show to pacify the sheeple and concentrate more power in the White House.

Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done his job and gone after Al Qaeda and outlaw regimes like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Iraq when the economy was superhot, then we would have 3,000 extra Americans living happily (and paying taxes). But he didn't, and the Bush administration has to clean up the mess left by Clinton. Yes, the deficit will go up. Yes, future generations will have to pay for the current war and the larger government. But what were his options. To appease terrorists so that they can attack another day? As for the tax cut, while I'm for it, I believe it's excessive and needs to be lowered. But Bush is doing what's right for the country, his party, his supporters, and himself.

And perhaps if Bush-lite had paid attention to the intelligence information they already had ... Perhaps if Bush Sr. had done his job with Hussein ... Perhaps if Reagan & Rumsfeld hadn't climbed in bed with Hussein ... Perhaps if George hadn't climbed into bed with Barbara ... (OK, that was inappropriate.)

Spin it however you want, it's awfully funny that those "fiscally conservative" Republican administrations of the last 20+ years have racked up record deficits while those "tax and spend" Democrats push to balance the budget. How about focusing on what Bush has done and is doing rather than trying to blame Clinton for all the world's woes?

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari
By removing Hussein, the US has effectively secured the realm. We now have powerful influences on the nations with the two largest reserves on the globe, in addition to removing a powerful threat. Never underestimate the unseen hand.

As for what that will do for this country: have you ever driven a car, bus,or airplane? Yes? Well guess what, price stabilization means more people will be spending money normally reserves for oil shocks to buy other things.

More Republican wishful thinking. The cost of this war in terms of the 100 Billion spent on it, plus the impact on the economy, and the reconstruction, would cover any "oil shocks" for a long time. These so called shocks were mostly a result of speculation leading up to the US military actions in the region. Iraq was selling as much oil as it was allowed under UN oil for food program, and probably more on the side, so Iraqi supplies weren't really a factor. Mostly the uncertainty of war.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
While cutting taxes is a Republican tradition (of which I'm damn proud of), the current administration had no choice but to create bigger gov't in the form of homeland security.

Baloney. "More government" is rarely the solution to a problem. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy mucking up our intelligence and law enforcement organizations. Homeland Security is a show to pacify the sheeple and concentrate more power in the White House.

Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done his job and gone after Al Qaeda and outlaw regimes like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Iraq when the economy was superhot, then we would have 3,000 extra Americans living happily (and paying taxes). But he didn't, and the Bush administration has to clean up the mess left by Clinton. Yes, the deficit will go up. Yes, future generations will have to pay for the current war and the larger government. But what were his options. To appease terrorists so that they can attack another day? As for the tax cut, while I'm for it, I believe it's excessive and needs to be lowered. But Bush is doing what's right for the country, his party, his supporters, and himself.

And perhaps if Bush-lite had paid attention to the intelligence information they already had ... Perhaps if Bush Sr. had done his job with Hussein ... Perhaps if Reagan & Rumsfeld hadn't climbed in bed with Hussein ... Perhaps if George hadn't climbed into bed with Barbara ... (OK, that was inappropriate.)

Spin it however you want, it's awfully funny that those "fiscally conservative" Republican administrations of the last 20+ years have racked up record deficits while those "tax and spend" Democrats push to balance the budget. How about focusing on what Bush has done and is doing rather than trying to blame Clinton for all the world's woes?

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

You are forgetting the Bush administration performance on counter terrorism prior to 9/11 wasn't all that stellar either. Maybe if Bush was paying attention to terrorism instead of worrying about paying off his campaign contributors, it could have been prevented. Bottom line the buck for 9/11 stops at Dubya's desk.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

His pecker forced him to ponder unnecessary matters. All the time the distraction caused could've been used to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

LOL swear to god talking to these people they make it sound like Clinton was the source of all the worlds problems including AIDS, Terrorism and Teenage pregnacy.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

His pecker forced him to ponder unnecessary matters. All the time the distraction caused could've been used to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Maybe the Republican traitors in Congress who harrassed and distracted him for the 8 years he was in office should have thought about that. The scumbags "questioned Clinton's timing" when he attacked Al-Qaeda camps and Iraq. They didn't want to change the subject to terrorism or Iraq, they just wanted Monica, Monica, Monica. They put their party ahead of their country.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

His pecker forced him to ponder unnecessary matters. All the time the distraction caused could've been used to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Maybe the Republican traitors in Congress who harrassed and distracted him for the 8 years he was in office should have thought about that. The scumbags "questioned Clinton's timing" when he attacked Al-Qaeda camps and Iraq. They didn't want to change the subject to terrorism or Iraq, they just wanted Monica, Monica, Monica. They put their party ahead of their country.

That was before Clinton put his head ahead of the country. The man had two heads and used the smaller one to solve his insatiable appetite for sex.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

His pecker forced him to ponder unnecessary matters. All the time the distraction caused could've been used to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Maybe the Republican traitors in Congress who harrassed and distracted him for the 8 years he was in office should have thought about that. The scumbags "questioned Clinton's timing" when he attacked Al-Qaeda camps and Iraq. They didn't want to change the subject to terrorism or Iraq, they just wanted Monica, Monica, Monica. They put their party ahead of their country.

I remember that too!

Some of the Clintons biggest Republican critics were even bigger adulterers too, I found that rather hypocritical.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

In what, 8 months? Trying to pin 9/11 in any way on the current administration is like trying to blame the start of the Vietnam war on Nixon. Operational planning for al'Qaeda has been reported in terms of years, and Clinton's pathetic attempts to take action against bin Laden were ridiculous and only reinforced OBL's notion that the U.S. was ripe for attack without serious repercussions.

What seriously amuses me about the Clintonian apologists is the accusations regarding the current budget deficit. First, stating that Republicans are not proponents of a balanced budget when it was the Republicans who shut down the federal government to force the Democrats into a balanced budget in the mid-90s is nothing short of laughable as much as it is ignorant. Second, throwing cries of budget deficits around when the economy is mired in a downturn flies in the face of any conventional economic policy wisdom that I have ever seen regarding government spending in a period of economic weakness. If someone can find an article, thesis, or book from a respected economist which calls for decreased government spending during a weak economy, I'd like to see it. Third, again to the deficit, failing to acknowledge the need to spend money to respond to 9/11 both in terms of foreign ventures and domestic ones is almost criminally negligent if not outright moronic. Lastly, there has been plenty of information to date linking Iraq to terrorism, both al'Qaida and otherwise. How much information is required to prove that link to the ostriches who discount everything that emerges? When information is scant and likely destroyed, one has to extrapolate from what is available. However, when one seeks to dismiss everything, nothing will suffice.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

His pecker forced him to ponder unnecessary matters. All the time the distraction caused could've been used to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Maybe the Republican traitors in Congress who harrassed and distracted him for the 8 years he was in office should have thought about that. The scumbags "questioned Clinton's timing" when he attacked Al-Qaeda camps and Iraq. They didn't want to change the subject to terrorism or Iraq, they just wanted Monica, Monica, Monica. They put their party ahead of their country.

That was before Clinton put his head ahead of the country. The man had two heads and used the smaller one to solve his insatiable appetite for sex.

And what business of yours is it? Was it worth undermining a sitting commander-in-chief to investigate and publicly air his sex life? Was it worth it not letting the elected leader of this country do his job so that the GOP could score some cheap political points?
Should we have been investigating and impeaching Kennedy during the missile crisis and the Berlin airlift, because he tapped Marilyn?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

His pecker forced him to ponder unnecessary matters. All the time the distraction caused could've been used to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Maybe the Republican traitors in Congress who harrassed and distracted him for the 8 years he was in office should have thought about that. The scumbags "questioned Clinton's timing" when he attacked Al-Qaeda camps and Iraq. They didn't want to change the subject to terrorism or Iraq, they just wanted Monica, Monica, Monica. They put their party ahead of their country.

That was before Clinton put his head ahead of the country. The man had two heads and used the smaller one to solve his insatiable appetite for sex.

And what business of yours is it? Was it worth undermining a sitting commander-in-chief to investigate and publicly air his sex life? Was it worth it not letting the elected leader of this country do his job so that the GOP could score some cheap political points?
Should we have been investigating and impeaching Kennedy during the missile crisis and the Berlin airlift, because he tapped Marilyn?

It is my business because all of this started before he was elected president of the United States. There were many accusations about his infidelity. All of this came to ahead with that overweight chick. This all distracted Clinton from defending this nation and its interests from terrorists. Because of Clinton's distractions and apathy towards Hussein's outlaw regime and bin Laden, 3,000 Americans died.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

In what, 8 months? Trying to pin 9/11 in any way on the current administration is like trying to blame the start of the Vietnam war on Nixon. Operational planning for al'Qaeda has been reported in terms of years, and Clinton's pathetic attempts to take action against bin Laden were ridiculous and only reinforced OBL's notion that the U.S. was ripe for attack without serious repercussions.

What seriously amuses me about the Clintonian apologists is the accusations regarding the current budget deficit. First, stating that Republicans are not proponents of a balanced budget when it was the Republicans who shut down the federal government to force the Democrats into a balanced budget in the mid-90s is nothing short of laughable as much as it is ignorant. Second, throwing cries of budget deficits around when the economy is mired in a downturn flies in the face of any conventional economic policy wisdom that I have ever seen regarding government spending in a period of economic weakness. If someone can find an article, thesis, or book from a respected economist which calls for decreased government spending during a weak economy, I'd like to see it. Third, again to the deficit, failing to acknowledge the need to spend money to respond to 9/11 both in terms of foreign ventures and domestic ones is almost criminally negligent if not outright moronic. Lastly, there has been plenty of information to date linking Iraq to terrorism, both al'Qaida and otherwise. How much information is required to prove that link to the ostriches who discount everything that emerges? When information is scant and likely destroyed, one has to extrapolate from what is available. However, when one seeks to dismiss everything, nothing will suffice.

Yep, same Republicans who have no problem blaming Clinton for Somalia all but absolve Bush for his failure to prevent 9/11 as a SITTING PRESIDENT.
The same republicans who take all the credit for balancing the budget under a Democrat president cannot (or don't want to) even do so with their own guy in the White House. The same Republicans who are claiming to be cutting taxes in a downturn to stimulate the economy actually weighted most of the taxcuts towards the end of the decade instead of now. Does it mean we are going to be in a downturn for another 7 years? If Bush stays in office, I wouldn't doubt it.
The same Republicans who claim there is plenty of "information" to date linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda, fail to present any FACTS linking Saddam to any Al-Qaeda terrorist acts. The same Republicans who want us to extrapolate on scant information, fail to extrapolate on this ample information:
Clinton: 8 years of peace and prosperity. Bush: 3 years of war, tragedy, and economic downturn. Why don't you go extrapolate on that information?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

His pecker forced him to ponder unnecessary matters. All the time the distraction caused could've been used to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Maybe the Republican traitors in Congress who harrassed and distracted him for the 8 years he was in office should have thought about that. The scumbags "questioned Clinton's timing" when he attacked Al-Qaeda camps and Iraq. They didn't want to change the subject to terrorism or Iraq, they just wanted Monica, Monica, Monica. They put their party ahead of their country.

That was before Clinton put his head ahead of the country. The man had two heads and used the smaller one to solve his insatiable appetite for sex.

And what business of yours is it? Was it worth undermining a sitting commander-in-chief to investigate and publicly air his sex life? Was it worth it not letting the elected leader of this country do his job so that the GOP could score some cheap political points?
Should we have been investigating and impeaching Kennedy during the missile crisis and the Berlin airlift, because he tapped Marilyn?

It is my business because all of this started before he was elected president of the United States. There were many accusations about his infidelity. All of this came to ahead with that overweight chick. This all distracted Clinton from defending this nation and its interests from terrorists. Because of Clinton's distractions and apathy towards Hussein's outlaw regime and bin Laden, 3,000 Americans died.

No, they died because of Bush's apathy to anything aside from his campaign contributors interests and Cold war mentality. Clinton struck against both Al-Qaeda and Saddam, which is more than you can say for Dubya prior to 9/11. Clinton was very much interested in getting Bin-Laden, but Osama wasn't even on Bush's radar until 9/11. He was too busy with star wars and tax cuts. No suprise to me that 9/11 happened on his watch. He dropped the ball, and Americans died.
But you keep bringing up Hussein, what did he have to do with 9/11? Facts only please.

 

[SuperTool]

And yes, 8 months, or 8 days, it was on Dubya's watch. If you aren't willing to accept the responsibility from the minute you are sworn in, don't run for president.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Dari

Instead of coming to the table with heavy baggages of prejudices, why don't you look at events from a more pragmatic approach. Apathy lead to 9/11. Bin Laden had the time of his life during the Clinton Administration. He blew up everything he could and Bill did nothing (except get head from some fat intern). Clinton looked the other way. By looking the other way, he made us look weak. As for homeland, it was consolidation (Republican style).

And Bush and his admin did even less than Clinton before 9/11. Quit blaming everything on Clinton's pecker.

In what, 8 months? Trying to pin 9/11 in any way on the current administration is like trying to blame the start of the Vietnam war on Nixon. Operational planning for al'Qaeda has been reported in terms of years, and Clinton's pathetic attempts to take action against bin Laden were ridiculous and only reinforced OBL's notion that the U.S. was ripe for attack without serious repercussions.

What seriously amuses me about the Clintonian apologists is the accusations regarding the current budget deficit. First, stating that Republicans are not proponents of a balanced budget when it was the Republicans who shut down the federal government to force the Democrats into a balanced budget in the mid-90s is nothing short of laughable as much as it is ignorant. Second, throwing cries of budget deficits around when the economy is mired in a downturn flies in the face of any conventional economic policy wisdom that I have ever seen regarding government spending in a period of economic weakness. If someone can find an article, thesis, or book from a respected economist which calls for decreased government spending during a weak economy, I'd like to see it. Third, again to the deficit, failing to acknowledge the need to spend money to respond to 9/11 both in terms of foreign ventures and domestic ones is almost criminally negligent if not outright moronic. Lastly, there has been plenty of information to date linking Iraq to terrorism, both al'Qaida and otherwise. How much information is required to prove that link to the ostriches who discount everything that emerges? When information is scant and likely destroyed, one has to extrapolate from what is available. However, when one seeks to dismiss everything, nothing will suffice.

Yep, same Republicans who have no problem blaming Clinton for Somalia all but absolve Bush for his failure to prevent 9/11 as a SITTING PRESIDENT.
The same republicans who take all the credit for balancing the budget under a Democrat president cannot (or don't want to) even do so with their own guy in the White House. The same Republicans who are claiming to be cutting taxes in a downturn to stimulate the economy actually weighted most of the taxcuts towards the end of the decade instead of now. Does it mean we are going to be in a downturn for another 7 years? If Bush stays in office, I wouldn't doubt it.
The same Republicans who claim there is plenty of "information" to date linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda, fail to present any FACTS linking Saddam to any Al-Qaeda terrorist acts. The same Republicans who want us to extrapolate on scant information, fail to extrapolate on this ample information:
Clinton: 8 years of peace and prosperity. Bush: 3 years of war, tragedy, and economic downturn. Why don't you go extrapolate on that information?

I can say this without partisan blindness.

1. Considering the FBI/CIA failed to followup on on lead about the 9/11 attack, it probably would have happened if Gore was president.
2. The corperate scandals would still have occured.
3. The dot coms would still have failed
4. There would have been some military action, as the public would have demanded it. I doubt Gore would have gone to Iraq.
5. The economy still would stalled if Gore was elected.
6. Because of the above things, we would still have budget defecits of about the same size as we have today.

Supertool, it is time for you take off your partisan blinders as well.

 

[Dari]

Clinton screwed up with Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton screwed up with bin Laden (8 years of peace and prosperity? Oh please. Tell that to the countless americans that were getting bombed away in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and on the USS Cole).

Clinton screwed up with Hussein's outlaw regime when they defied the UN by kicking the inspectors out

Clinton screwed up with North Korea by not having a more intrusive inspection regime put in place at the 1994 agreement.

Clinton screwed up the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by not putting enough pressure on Arafat

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

1. Considering the FBI/CIA failed to followup on on lead about the 9/11 attack, it probably would have happened if Gore was president.
2. The corperate scandals would still have occured.
3. The dot coms would still have failed
4. There would have been some military action, as the public would have demanded it. I doubt Gore would have gone to Iraq.
5. The economy still would stalled if Gore was elected.
6. Because of the above things, we would still have budget defecits of about the same size as we have today.

Supertool, it is time for you take off your partisan blinders as well.

1. Probably. We'll never know.
2. maybe, but the Enron shenanigans in CA would not have been allowed.
3. yes
4. yes, if 9/11 happened there would be military action. We don't need to be in Iraq.
5. yes, most likely
6. no. the current deficits are the result of huge taxcuts and mounting defense spending. I think Gore would have been much more of a deficit hawk. Think lockbox.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari
Clinton screwed up with Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton screwed up with bin Laden (8 years of peace and prosperity? Oh please. Tell that to the countless americans that were getting bombed away in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and on the USS Cole).

Clinton screwed up with Hussein's outlaw regime when they defied the UN by kicking the inspectors out

Clinton screwed up with North Korea by not having a more intrusive inspection regime put in place at the 1994 agreement.

Clinton screwed up the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by not putting enough pressure on Arafat

And prior to 9/11 Bush did 4/5 out of those. He screwed with the budget instead of Monica.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

1. Considering the FBI/CIA failed to followup on on lead about the 9/11 attack, it probably would have happened if Gore was president.
2. The corperate scandals would still have occured.
3. The dot coms would still have failed
4. There would have been some military action, as the public would have demanded it. I doubt Gore would have gone to Iraq.
5. The economy still would stalled if Gore was elected.
6. Because of the above things, we would still have budget defecits of about the same size as we have today.

Supertool, it is time for you take off your partisan blinders as well.

1. Probably. We'll never know.
2. maybe, but the Enron shenanigans in CA would not have been allowed.
3. yes
4. yes, if 9/11 happened there would be military action. We don't need to be in Iraq.
5. yes, most likely
6. no. the current deficits are the result of huge taxcuts and mounting defense spending. I think Gore would have been much more of a deficit hawk. Think lockbox.

Gore belongs in San Francisco with the rest of the tree-huggers and pacifists.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Dari
Clinton screwed up with Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton screwed up with bin Laden (8 years of peace and prosperity? Oh please. Tell that to the countless americans that were getting bombed away in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and on the USS Cole).

Clinton screwed up with Hussein's outlaw regime when they defied the UN by kicking the inspectors out

Clinton screwed up with North Korea by not having a more intrusive inspection regime put in place at the 1994 agreement.

Clinton screwed up the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by not putting enough pressure on Arafat

DAMN STRAIGHT!

1. Bush succeeded in further islolating America from the rest of the world by going ahead with unpopular illegitamate war for no justifiable reason.

2. Bush succeeded in making a taxcut for his oil rich friends while doing little for the 97% of us.

3. Bush succeeded in making the biggest budget deficit in our nation's history, complete gone was that big surplus we had under Clinton.

4. Bush suceeded in appointing the SEC director embarassment Harvey Pitt, a Nazi known as Ashcroft, a chicken hawk with his head cut off in Rumsfeld.

5. Bush suceeded in putting laws in effect that jeopordize our civil liberties.


I know Clinton was far from perfect? But come on! You must be BLIND to not see Bush's glaring failures!

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

1. Considering the FBI/CIA failed to followup on on lead about the 9/11 attack, it probably would have happened if Gore was president.
2. The corperate scandals would still have occured.
3. The dot coms would still have failed
4. There would have been some military action, as the public would have demanded it. I doubt Gore would have gone to Iraq.
5. The economy still would stalled if Gore was elected.
6. Because of the above things, we would still have budget defecits of about the same size as we have today.

Supertool, it is time for you take off your partisan blinders as well.

1. Probably. We'll never know.
2. maybe, but the Enron shenanigans in CA would not have been allowed.
3. yes
4. yes, if 9/11 happened there would be military action. We don't need to be in Iraq.
5. yes, most likely
6. no. the current deficits are the result of huge taxcuts and mounting defense spending. I think Gore would have been much more of a deficit hawk. Think lockbox.

Gore belongs in San Francisco with the rest of the tree-huggers and pacifists.

There were sure alot of trees to hug in vietnam

Yes he was in vietnam unlike our current AWOL chickenhawk president.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

1. Considering the FBI/CIA failed to followup on on lead about the 9/11 attack, it probably would have happened if Gore was president.
2. The corperate scandals would still have occured.
3. The dot coms would still have failed
4. There would have been some military action, as the public would have demanded it. I doubt Gore would have gone to Iraq.
5. The economy still would stalled if Gore was elected.
6. Because of the above things, we would still have budget defecits of about the same size as we have today.

Supertool, it is time for you take off your partisan blinders as well.

1. Probably. We'll never know.
2. maybe, but the Enron shenanigans in CA would not have been allowed.
3. yes
4. yes, if 9/11 happened there would be military action. We don't need to be in Iraq.
5. yes, most likely
6. no. the current deficits are the result of huge taxcuts and mounting defense spending. I think Gore would have been much more of a deficit hawk. Think lockbox.

Gore belongs in San Francisco with the rest of the tree-huggers and pacifists.

There were sure alot of trees to hug in vietnam

Yes he was in vietnam unlike our current AWOL chickenhawk president.

yeah. he was in vietnam as a militaryjournalist. No combat role whatsoever. As for Clinton, I think he fled to Canada.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

1. Considering the FBI/CIA failed to followup on on lead about the 9/11 attack, it probably would have happened if Gore was president.
2. The corperate scandals would still have occured.
3. The dot coms would still have failed
4. There would have been some military action, as the public would have demanded it. I doubt Gore would have gone to Iraq.
5. The economy still would stalled if Gore was elected.
6. Because of the above things, we would still have budget defecits of about the same size as we have today.

Supertool, it is time for you take off your partisan blinders as well.

1. Probably. We'll never know.
2. maybe, but the Enron shenanigans in CA would not have been allowed.
3. yes
4. yes, if 9/11 happened there would be military action. We don't need to be in Iraq.
5. yes, most likely
6. no. the current deficits are the result of huge taxcuts and mounting defense spending. I think Gore would have been much more of a deficit hawk. Think lockbox.

Gore belongs in San Francisco with the rest of the tree-huggers and pacifists.

There were sure alot of trees to hug in vietnam

Yes he was in vietnam unlike our current AWOL chickenhawk president.

yeah. he was in vietnam as a militaryjournalist. No combat role whatsoever. As for Clinton, I think he fled to Canada.

He was a military officer... get it through your head. Clinton was at oxford.

I see you didnt even try and defend Bush, instead took a jab at Clinton... typical. Well at least we know Clinton got into Oxford on his own without the help of daddy.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

1. Considering the FBI/CIA failed to followup on on lead about the 9/11 attack, it probably would have happened if Gore was president.
2. The corperate scandals would still have occured.
3. The dot coms would still have failed
4. There would have been some military action, as the public would have demanded it. I doubt Gore would have gone to Iraq.
5. The economy still would stalled if Gore was elected.
6. Because of the above things, we would still have budget defecits of about the same size as we have today.

Supertool, it is time for you take off your partisan blinders as well.

1. Probably. We'll never know.
2. maybe, but the Enron shenanigans in CA would not have been allowed.
3. yes
4. yes, if 9/11 happened there would be military action. We don't need to be in Iraq.
5. yes, most likely
6. no. the current deficits are the result of huge taxcuts and mounting defense spending. I think Gore would have been much more of a deficit hawk. Think lockbox.

Gore belongs in San Francisco with the rest of the tree-huggers and pacifists.

There were sure alot of trees to hug in vietnam

Yes he was in vietnam unlike our current AWOL chickenhawk president.

yeah. he was in vietnam as a militaryjournalist. No combat role whatsoever. As for Clinton, I think he fled to Canada.

Gore was a military officer get it through your head. So much for pacifism

I see you didnt even try and defend Bush, instead took a jab at Clinton... typical. Well at least we know Clinton got into Oxford on his own without the help of daddy.

bush was in the national guard.