Hillary Rips Bush

[Styles 0]

Gulliani? I'd hit it.....wait...I mean I'd vote it!

[Guest MikeSC]

Nice little conservative vs. less conservative flamewar going on here, so I think I'll just pop into address one thing before I let you kids get back to your fun.

 

How can anyone say President Bush doesn't compromise. The man has gone out of his way to work with the Democratic party. Look at the education bill, he more or less let Ted Kennedy call the shots.

 

Yeah, and then he cut all funding for anything that NCLB stood for. That's real compromise there; sign a piece of legislation that sounds like you're a freakin' liberal and then go ahead and ignore that you signed it when you pass your budgets.

OK, time for a poli.sci lesson:

 

The President can't spend a DIME.

 

That's Congress' job.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

His proposed budget, smartass.

[Guest MikeSC]

His proposed budget, smartass.

Don't matter.

 

Presidents don't have to have their budgets passed.

 

See Reagan, Ronald.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Is that the Hannity talking point that Franken destroyed?

[Vyce 0]

Dear God, we've come to the point in America where we allow our political pundits to make are arguments / decisions for us.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It's easier than laying it out for Mike to try to argue for about seven hours.

 

Instead, I get to go study for an exam. Groovy.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

It's easier than laying it out for Mike to try to argue for about seven hours.

 

Instead, I get to go study for an exam.Groovy.

 

His secret's out.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Was it ever a secret?

[Guest BDC]

MrRant, paging MrRant...

[Downhome 0]

And here I am thinking this was going to be an erotic thread.

 

[The Czech Republic 0]

On Hillary:

 

The last woman to be on a major Presidential ticket lost by the biggest margin in history.

 

Hillary is too disliked by everybody to amount to anything, and as Anglesault has already documented, says really dumbshit things that unlike the goofy Bushisms, are downright offensive. I remember an interview at the Twin Towers site where she said "This shouldn't be called Ground Zero, this should be called Ground Hero." Well-intentioned, maybe, but the visual that goes along with "Ground Hero" is

 

A) A sandwich

B) Firefighters walking into a meat grinder, "Pink Floyd's The Wall"-style.

 

When she said that I just hung my head is shame, like "No. Just....no, you....no, just....no."

 

Hillary Clinton will never be elected President.

[Guest BDC]

Also of note, I believe CNN had an article (briefly) about how all reps and senators from New York attended funerals of firefighters and police officers that died in 9/11. All except one...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Also of note, I believe CNN had an article (briefly) about how all reps and senators from New York attended funerals of firefighters and police officers that died in 9/11. All except one...

 

I'm calling bullshit on this one.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's easier than laying it out for Mike to try to argue for about seven hours.

 

Instead, I get to go study for an exam. Groovy.

I love that you discount a fact as a "talking point".

 

OK, dispute ANY of this:

 

1) NOT ONE of Reagan's proposed budgets passed.

2) In only ONE of them did the Democratic-controlled House spend LESS than Reagan. 1 in 8.

 

So, rather than continue studying for that poli.sci course that has done such disservice to you thus far, refute it.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

On Hillary:

 

The last woman to be on a major Presidential ticket lost by the biggest margin in history.

 

Hillary is too disliked by everybody to amount to anything, and as Anglesault has already documented, says really dumbshit things that unlike the goofy Bushisms, are downright offensive. I remember an interview at the Twin Towers site where she said "This shouldn't be called Ground Zero, this should be called Ground Hero." Well-intentioned, maybe, but the visual that goes along with "Ground Hero" is

 

A) A sandwich

B) Firefighters walking into a meat grinder, "Pink Floyd's The Wall"-style.

 

When she said that I just hung my head is shame, like "No. Just....no, you....no, just....no."

 

Hillary Clinton will never be elected President.

Didn't Dick Morris accuse of her using anti-Semitic slurs?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

1) NOT ONE of Reagan's proposed budgets passed.

 

Hey, look! A bullshit straw man!

 

Guess what? None of Clinton's budgets under the Republican Congress passed, either! I'd bet, historically, that EXTREMELY few Presidential budgets have EVER passed through a Congress controlled by the opposite party.

 

2) In only ONE of them did the Democratic-controlled House spend LESS than Reagan. 1 in 8.

 

Proposed Actual (in billions)

FY1982 695 696

FY1983 758 770

FY1984 849 859

FY1985 926 932

FY1986 974 968

FY1987 994 995

FY1988 1024 1041

FY1989 1094 1100

 

Surely you've seen that table before.

 

The difference in spending between the passed and proposed budgets are negligable, as you see. The total of an extra $47 billion tacked on by the congress is NOT to blame for Reagan's extravagant spending.

[Guest MikeSC]

1) NOT ONE of Reagan's proposed budgets passed.

 

Hey, look! A bullshit straw man!

 

Guess what? None of Clinton's budgets under the Republican Congress passed, either! I'd bet, historically, that EXTREMELY few Presidential budgets have EVER passed through a Congress controlled by the opposite party.

Umm, then how, EXACTLY, did Clinton balance the budget? I mean, if his budgets weren't passed --- then what did he do to balance it?

2) In only ONE of them did the Democratic-controlled House spend LESS than Reagan. 1 in 8.

 

Proposed Actual (in billions)

FY1982 695 696

FY1983 758 770

FY1984 849 859

FY1985 926 932

FY1986 974 968

FY1987 994 995

FY1988 1024 1041

FY1989 1094 1100

 

Surely you've seen that table before.

 

The difference in spending between the passed and proposed budgets are negligable, as you see. The total of an extra $47 billion tacked on by the congress is NOT to blame for Reagan's extravagant spending.

Maybe not --- but funny that the Dems in Congress don't seem to get any heat for the deficits when they were worse about it.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Maybe not --- but funny that the Dems in Congress don't seem to get any heat for the deficits when they were worse about it.

-=Mike

 

Perhaps because Reagan's budgets were already so ginormous that it would take a freaking retarded chimp to think that Reagan didn't cause the deficit by proposing such inflated budgets.

[Guest MikeSC]

Maybe not --- but funny that the Dems in Congress don't seem to get any heat for the deficits when they were worse about it.

-=Mike

 

Perhaps because Reagan's budgets were already so ginormous that it would take a freaking retarded chimp to think that Reagan didn't cause the deficit by proposing such inflated budgets.

Yet, if Reagan proposed significantly cheaper budgets --- HE'D STILL GET BLAMED.

 

If it wasn't Reagan's budget --- it can't be his fault.

 

That's just simple logic.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yet, if Reagan proposed significantly cheaper budgets --- HE'D STILL GET BLAMED.

 

But he didn't, so he is.

 

If it wasn't Reagan's budget --- it can't be his fault.

 

Except it was, with some adjustments.

 

That's just simple logic.

 

So is this. Take the next step forward.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

Yet, if Reagan proposed significantly cheaper budgets --- HE'D STILL GET BLAMED.

 

But he didn't, so he is.

 

If it wasn't Reagan's budget --- it can't be his fault.

 

Except it was, with some adjustments.

 

That's just simple logic.

 

So is this. Take the next step forward.

Then, perhaps, you can explain to me:

 

How are the deficits blamed on Reagan when none of his budgets passed, but the balancing of the budget is given to Clinton when none of his budgets were passed, either?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Clinton proposed a balanced budget, too. They just passed a different balanced budget.

[Ripper 0]

"Avoiding war"? Remember when Clinton would bomb Iraq, or Sudan, or several other places to both distract the public and get his numbers up?

 

The public LOVES a war, as long as it is just and casualties are light.

 

Economy is in full recovery. Has been for a little while now. Stock market is going up --- this time, without the outrageously over-valued internet stocks fueling it, unemployment is dropping, productivity is skyrocketing, economic growth is quite solid.

-=Mike

Okay, first, thats just plain cheap. Even suggest that Bush got into this thing in Iraq to make himself look like a better president and hide the fact they were failing horribly in finding Bin Ladin(which I don't believe mind you) and Republicans treat it like blasphemy. But with Clinton, its cool he couldn't have been handling the situation while trying not to put the lives of American soldiers at risk. Of course, if he had sent in soldiers, the same republicans blaming him for doing nothing now would have siad he was doing it to take away bad press. What ever.

 

 

And once again, the economy is NOT doing well. Its growth is NOT solid. There are less NEW layoffs and unemployment claims. Yay. Of course, new jobs have not risen, the unemployment rate is still the same. Less people are losing jobs than before and people are screaming that the economy is booming. It is looking like it might stabilize soon. We are still in a bad economy.

 

And I still think there is no way in hell Bush is losing the election...even though I think his administration has done a horrible job.

[Ripper 0]

You know, is it really *required* in this case that the incumbent president run again?  Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

I wish we could, but no one has stood up to the plate...and hasn't stepped up to realistically challenge the nomination of a sitting pres since LBJ (who was so embarassed that he decided not to run). I'm stuck with praying for Clark, or just wearing a paper bag over my head when I go to vote between Dean & Bush II

Clark?

 

The man changes positions more often than Clinton did --- and is even LESS honest.

 

I hope you're kidding.

-=Mike

...And to whomever said McCain --- the main paper in his state supported Bush over him. That should tell you something

Little known fact. President Bush was against the Homeland Security act at first. Then he changed his mind and the same thing he was against was used to oust most of the Democrats from office. Funny how waffling can work in your favor sometimes, huh.

[Guest MikeSC]

You know, is it really *required* in this case that the incumbent president run again?  Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

I wish we could, but no one has stood up to the plate...and hasn't stepped up to realistically challenge the nomination of a sitting pres since LBJ (who was so embarassed that he decided not to run). I'm stuck with praying for Clark, or just wearing a paper bag over my head when I go to vote between Dean & Bush II

Clark?

 

The man changes positions more often than Clinton did --- and is even LESS honest.

 

I hope you're kidding.

-=Mike

...And to whomever said McCain --- the main paper in his state supported Bush over him. That should tell you something

Little known fact. President Bush was against the Homeland Security act at first. Then he changed his mind and the same thing he was against was used to oust most of the Democrats from office. Funny how waffling can work in your favor sometimes, huh.

I thought he initially opposed the creation of a new cabinet-level department.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Clinton proposed a balanced budget, too. They just passed a different balanced budget.

When did this happen?

 

The first year that the budget was balanced, Clinton's budget had $200M deficits for countless years to come. He wanted to force the GOP to take the heat for doing it.

 

Then took the credit when they pulled it off.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

"Avoiding war"? Remember when Clinton would bomb Iraq, or Sudan, or several other places to both distract the public and get his numbers up?

 

The public LOVES a war, as long as it is just and casualties are light.

 

Economy is in full recovery. Has been for a little while now. Stock market is going up --- this time, without the outrageously over-valued internet stocks fueling it, unemployment is dropping, productivity is skyrocketing, economic growth is quite solid.

                -=Mike

Okay, first, thats just plain cheap. Even suggest that Bush got into this thing in Iraq to make himself look like a better president and hide the fact they were failing horribly in finding Bin Ladin(which I don't believe mind you) and Republicans treat it like blasphemy.

Because it IS absurd.

But with Clinton, its cool he couldn't have been handling the situation while trying not to put the lives of American soldiers at risk.

So, basically, do NOTHING --- which is what his actions actually accomplished --- but say you did something?

Of course, if he had sent in soldiers, the same republicans blaming him for doing nothing now would have siad he was doing it to take away bad press.  What ever. 

I'm glad he did nothing as he had nothing resembling a competent foreign policy as it was.

And once again, the economy is NOT doing well.

News to, well, almost every economist out there.

Its growth is NOT solid.

Hmm, Dow back above 10,000 again (admittedly, a HORRID economic indicator), enemployment claims dropping, new job creation going up, productivity going up...

 

Yup, that IS bad. Whew.

There are less NEW layoffs and unemployment claims.  Yay.  Of course, new jobs have not risen, the unemployment rate is still the same.

Back below 6% again, last time I checked.

Less people are losing jobs than before and people are screaming that the economy is booming.  It is looking like it might stabilize soon.  We are still in a bad economy. 

News, again, to every economist NOT named Krugman.

And I still think there is no way in hell Bush is losing the election...even though I think his administration has done a horrible job.

Was left a ton of problems and he fixed as many as he could thus far.

-=Mike