I get tired of hearing this! Rant!

darth tang

Active Member
I agree we should not pander to govt. that can not keep their own populace civil or employed. Unemployment in France is around 14%.
But some would have us emulate their government's policies for some reason. I can't figure it out.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
And let's not forget the riots that France had for two weeks not long ago.... obviously they aren't doing something right..
I too totally concur that we need to govern for OUR citizens... we should never bow to world pressure. Too many Americans have died for our independence for us to start letting world opinion make our decisions.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
Bush is an idiot.
Constructive... and goes to my previous point...
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
War sparks the economy. Everyone knows this. Or they should. Any time the country is headed for recession, a good war somewhere other than the U.S...
So did President Bush ochestrate the attack of 9-11?
Originally Posted by Aquarium1

Clinton was no saint, but he understood that making enemies at every corner was NOT a good thing....
As has been posted... let's see a list of countries that are now our enemies...
Originally Posted by Aquarium1

I'll take a Clinton presidency over any alternative at this point. Bush DID steal the election!
Terrorism is being crushed world-wide, more home ownerships than ever before, our military is currently liberating 27 million people (as opposed to bombing aspirin factories in The Sudan), economy is booming... and our President isn't trying to become the next Sec. of the UN. What exactly do you miss about the clinton era?
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
I agree we should not pander to govt. that can not keep their own populace civil or employed. Unemployment in France is around 14%.
But some would have us emulate their government's policies for some reason. I can't figure it out.
many are Kool Aid drinkers. Too lazy to use their brains or they simply do not care. They hear a number and/or idea on TV and simply follow. ..and profess to care. Our country has become lazy in many ways...including independent thought and analysis. The info age and mass media development has made many of us lazy.....I heard it on TV so it must be so.
We must all remember to question everything....not follow blindly to the Kool Aid table.
I support the current admin regarding the war on terror...but would argue they are lacking in other areas.
it is much easier to follow blindly then to search for the truth and the ENTIRE picture.
As a nation we have become predictable in many ways. We do not have the nerve for some reason to stay the course on may issues and key areas . I was tricked...I did not know...I was misled. All these excuses you now hear regarding support for the war on terror and Iraq makes you wonder...are Demorcats, Republicans and others that once supported the war and no longer do really that stupid? Not capable of independent thought? Kool Aid drinkers following blindly? Goodness....Who knows...

Conviction, dedication, determination and support are hard when things maybe are not going as best they can. As soon as you hit the bump....or some poll is floated regarding public opinion...off go the wagon jumpers and they now have new convictions, etc...that will change with the next poll or bump in the road.
Governing by polls....and who knows if the folks participating in the polls really care.
 

aquarium1

Member
I beg to differ.
Terrorism is FAR from being crushed. It's actually growing and they are recruiting more young and innocents to kill and maim.

The home ownerships? Well, there are MORE people in the U.S. now, so it stands to reason that there would be MORE that own or are trying to own a home. I know my one year out of a private christian college daughter doesn't have a job that pays well enough to buy a used car, rent a two bedroom apartment in the affluent part of town without taking on a roommate, and save for a downpayment on a house.

Bush is still an idiot. (Truth hurts, doesn't it? I didn't vote for him, can't blame me.
)
What do I miss about the Clinton presidency. Let's see, someone who is literate, well spoken, and can get the job done when it comes to economic well being of this country and making friends, NOT ENEMIES abroad.
Nothing Bush does is ever going to change the fact that he's lied and cheated his way to the top and at some point the truth will prevail. He's not good for this country and he makes us look stupid. Not that we don't have our own ways....he's just gotten the opinion further along faster. We should be scared. Very very scared. Other countries will take advantage of weakened adversaries. At this point in time, the country is very weakened. The infrastructure is comprimised. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
 

darth tang

Active Member
What did Clinton do to "get the job done" when it comes to the economy?
If the economy is bad, explain the 4.7% unemployment rate?
Please tell me how you KNOW the terrorists are recruiting more people than they had before.
What did Bush Lie and Cheat about?
And I am still waiting for you to list those countries that are now our enemy that weren't before Bush became President?
Do you even know the answers to these questions or do you just repeat what you have been told or heard on Air America?
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
I beg to differ.
The home ownerships? Well, there are MORE people in the U.S. now, so it stands to reason that there would be MORE that own or are trying to own a home.
.

Oh, and to just burst your bubble a bit. This claim of highest home ownership is true not because there are more people in the U.S. now. But because the percentage is up to 61.9% of the people in the U.S. own a home. So it doesn't matter the number of people....as is your defense as it is a percentage. Nice try though.
Under Clinton it was 67.7%
The Idiot Surpassed Clinton's highest percentage.....
 

scubadoo

Active Member
There is such a thing in econmics called the natural rate of unemployment. At an inflation rate of 3-4%, the natural rate of unemployemnt would be about 4%. You can never achieve "full" employment...as folks get laid off, quit , between jobs or they are fired.
The natural rate of unemployent takes this into account and folks are able to find jobs quickly. Please see the Phillips Curve for further illustration.
AS for terrorism and the job the current administration is doing...we have not been attacked here at home since 9/11....so somebody is doing something right.
As for contrasting this with the CLinton era...he did little or nothing after the fiirst WTC attack. He treated that attack as a criminal act as opposed to a national terrorist attack...BIG MISTAKE.
Perhaps if an aggressive move was made by this country after the first WTC attack...the WTC's would still be standing. If making "friends" is the outcome of doing practically nothing...and taking a hit again on the same site........I'd rather have MANY enemies.
As far as Clinton making friends....pleae provide a listing of all the countries that now oppose us...that did not when CLinton was the president. ALso, please post the friends he won over that used to hate us and did not support us prior to his presidency.
Please bring you facts regarding how our military is now weaker under Bush then Clinton...same for the infrastructure.
As far as being "scared"...I sleep very well at night.......must be the Kool Aid some are drinking that is making them paranoid.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
CLinton Lies..
July 1991: Question: "Have you ever used Marijuana or any illegal drugs?" Answer: "I've never broken any drug law." - Arkansas Gazette, July 24th, 1991, p. 8B
Asked this 3 times, on 3 separate occasions, by 3 different interviewers, your Great White Hope repeated this claim. Until faced with irrefutable proof, that is.
Then he said:
March 29th, 1992: "I've never broken a state law. But when I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two..."
Later, in that same interview, "No one has ever asked me that question point-blank."
- The New York Times, March 30th, 1992, p.A15.
On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."
But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that."
On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."
In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."
Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"
"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)
In Business Week, July 6, 1992, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I began the campaign, the projected deficit was $250 billion. Now its up to $400 billion."
However in Time Magazine. 2 weeks later, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I started in New Hampshire working with those numbers, we felt the deficit was going to be around $250 billion a year, not $400 billion." Which is it, Bill?
But then he said on Feb. 10, 1993, "The deficit of this country is about $50 billion a year bigger than I was told it was going to be before the election." --our President said this after "discovering" that the deficit was $290 billion, $110 Billion LESS than he had claimed in July! Which story are we to believe from our president??
President Clinton said on March 23, 1993 at a press conference: "M economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years." Yet the projected deficit in 1998 with Clinton's budget is $234 billion, the projected deficit in 2001 with Clinton budget is $401 billion.(These figures come from Bill Clinton's budget document, "A Vision of Change for America."-Feb. 1993.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
There were many other Clinton proposals that didn't fly (thank you) which would have further parted people from their capital....Here's a couple of winners he proposed in 1992....
Imputed rent...You would pay tax on "rent" that you would have collected FROM YOURSELF...Tax real, only...NO RENTAL INCOME !!!!!
Lower the inheritance threshold...From about $650,000 to around $200,000. What has been an exclusive tax of the rich, Clinton wanted to give as a gift to the middle-class...
Newsweek reports that Clinton and the Democrats will no longer pursue the rich vs. middle class America class warfare strategy. They realize that it won't help them politically and, according to Newsweek, "President Clinton...doesn't really believe in it."
Newsweek noted that they are abandoning it, so apparently, they do not agree, nor do their sources. Clinton has been bashing the rich since his campaign, claiming disingenuously that they are not paying their "fair share" of taxes, i.e. falsely implying that they are paying less than they did in '80. Hillary went after the "greedy" pharmaceutical companies, after selling their stock short. They have made many self-serving moralistic statements about the "greed" of the '80's. Clinton and the Democrats condemn Republican. tax cut plans because they claim it will "help the rich."
If this is not class warfare, what is?
Clinton has pursued this strategy for about 3 years, and now he claims he **doesn't really believe in it?** Hey, I'll buy that!
Newsweek reported it as "news." How strangely non-judgmental that they would not question the sincerity of Clinton's claim when his actions speak otherwise.
Clinton's economic policies ???
1) A massive tax increase
2) "Hope" that interest rates would remain low
3) A few R & D credits for Al Gore's pet high tech industries
Was there anything else ?
In reference to the Social Security trust fund --
"But its important that we not panic; there is no immediate danger to retirement. Our accumulated surpluses would be sufficient to pay the liabilities to 2029 at current payroll tax rates."
From an interview; published in the May '95 issue of Money magazine.
Hasn't anyone told him that the Social Security trust fund has no money -- Congress borrowed it all and left IOUs with no plans yet on how to redeem those IOU's?
Given that Clinton seems so concerned about the hateful rhetoric in: politics these days, I wonder if he intends to limits such violent: statements as "taking food from the mouths of children", "war on the poor", "throwing the elderly out on the streets", and "contract _on_ America, Evil, Extreme, Mean Spirited and on and on and on.
We've given more power to states and localities and to private citizens. Our proposals would further accelerate those trends. Bill Clinton, White House press conference, 3/3/95
Fact: Clinton lobbied to defeat the Balance Budget Amendment in the Senate, so states and localities are prevented from getting the chance to even debate the amendment. His Administration opposes giving block grants to the states. He is opposing all Block Grants as well.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
We support adding 100,000 new police officers. Bill Clinton, same news conference.
Fact: There are no "100,000 police officers". Never has been, never will be. Even liberal columnist DeWayne Wickam concluded in USA Today: "Many of the 100,00 cops promised in the crime bill will never materialize". On the day AFTER Clinton signed the bill into law, The New York Times reported that "some law enforcement analyst said the Administration has in effect misled local officials by vastly overstating the number of police officers who can be hired under the program".
It's called lying where I come from, how about where you came from?
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Clinton made friends abroad????
Foreign Policy?
Well, let's see, start with Somalia. It's not the first, but its one of the best known. In the winter of 1992 George Bush ordered US troops to guard food shipments in and around the ports. The deployment ended in March, a resounding success. A couple of months later Clinton got suckered into sending the Marines back in as 'nation builders'. In the course of which he deliberately violated Executive Orders of the Presidency not to engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders; you DO remember the AC130 gunships firing wildly into civilian occupied apartment buildings, in an effort to murder a Somali warlord and his followers, don't you? I didn't think so. Long term memory is not a strong suite of the Clintonestae.
Want a small disaster? At the opening of the Holocaust Memorial, 1993. A luncheon was served afterwards for the distinguished Jewish guests and foreign dignitaries. The main entree' was Honey baked Ham.
Bosnia. Bosnia is always good for a laugh. On the campaign trail, Candidate Clinton said that he was qualified as Commander In Chief of the Arkansas National Guard to make military decisions. As an example, he bragged that if he were elected, he would bomb the Serbs. In May of 1993, he sent Warren Christopher to convince the Europeans to allow him to do just that. Christopher went with the 'strongest message possible' to urge England, France, and Germany that he was fully committed to this course. Even as the Secretary of State was waiting to meet with them in Geneva, Your Great White Hope appeared on the tube and said that 'bombing the Serbs probably wouldn't be necessary'. Warren Christopher is not noted for emotional displays: Some have suggested that he has had the centers in his brain responsible for emotion surgically removed. After Christopher heard what Fearless Leader did, he ALMOST cracked a frown. The Europeans went ballistic.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
The intelligent and all knowing Bill Clinton....
Bill Clinton during a visit in Italy, to his hosts: "Just think, we are walking on the very ground where Romulus and Remus walked".
-- Bill Clinton (They are fictional characters) !!!!!!!!!!!! :hilarious
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Yes, everybody loved us under CLinton...Clinton 101..how to make friends abroad..
COLOMBIA
Clinton's lies met by worldwide protest
By Andy McInerney
When U.S. President Bill Clinton traveled to Colombia on Aug. 30, one sentence stood out from all his photo-ops and his phony anti-drug demagogy.
"This is not Vietnam," he said. "Neither is it Yankee imperialism."
But Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels notwithstanding, a lie repeated enough times does not make the truth. In fact, the only ones who seemed to believe his lie of benevolent interventionism were the U.S. lackeys in Colombia's political and military elite.
Clinton was in the tourist center of Cartegena de Indias to deliver $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid to Colombia's tottering ruling classes. The aid is part of the $7.5 billion "Plan Colombia," a program based on military aid combined with various pledges of social services to win the hearts and minds of Colombians.
His denials did not travel well in Latin America.
"It would be highly dangerous if the operation leads to a military escalation," Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned on Aug. 31. "That could lead to a Vietnamization of the entire Amazon region."
Chavez's fear was not isolated. "We do not want to become the next Thailand," said the chair of Panama's Foreign Relations Committee of the National Assembly, Marco Ameglio.
Thailand served as a massive U.S. air base and springboard for covert operations during the war against Vietnam.
Despite diplomatic arm twisting by Clinton and the U.S. government, a meeting of the 12 presidents of South American countries refused to endorse Plan Colombia. In particular, they would not go along with Clinton's efforts to portray Colombia's insurgencies as part of the drug trafficking problem.
Chilean President Ricardo Lagos told the New York Times on Sept. 2 that the presidents supported Colombian President Andres Pastrana's talks with the insurgencies. "That is distinct from the problem of drug trafficking," he affirmed.
Parallels with Vietnam
The parallels between the increasing U.S. military escalation in Colombia and the buildup to the U.S. war in Vietnam are stunning. Colombia is now the third-largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world. As part of Plan Colombia, 500 U.S. military troops will be stationed in Colombia as "advisers." Military helicopters are already on the way and have been cleared for combat against Colombia's revolutionary movements. Biological and chemical warfare--reminiscent of Agent Orange--are in the works for Colombia's countryside.
On Aug. 30, the Pentagon announced that Gen. Keith Huber will be stationed in Colombia to "oversee" the military aid. Huber will be the only U.S. general posted in Central or South America, according to the Associated Press.
Even Clinton's highly staged visit to Cartagena had an air of unreality. Behind the barrage of baby-kissing and picturesque poses, over 5,000 Colombian troops and close to 500 U.S. military and police agents patrolled the streets of the city. Clinton's speeches essentially took place under martial law.
Despite the massive show of force, students and trade unionists burned U.S. flags in the streets of Cartegena. Cleaning crews worked overtime to remove "Clinton go home" and "Yankee out" graffiti.
Thousands more turned out in mass demonstrations against Clinton's visit in Bogota, Medellin, and Cali. Students from the University of Antioquia clashed with riot police throughout the day.
The country's two main insurgencies, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), both issued statements declaring Clinton a "persona non grata" in Colombia. The ELN staged attacks on oil pipelines in northern Colombia to coincide with the visit.
Meanwhile the FARC-EP launched a massive offensive across the country. Among the losses for the government: a Vietnam-era AC-47 fighter-bomber that went down in heavy fighting near a key communications center at Mount Montezuma, 155 miles west of the capital, on Sept. 2.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
cont'd
A solidarity movement arises
Clinton's visit proved to be a lightning rod for protest from around the world. In the United States, the International Action Center joined with other organizations, coordinating actions in 12 cities. Two hundred people turned out in New York City and 150 in San Francisco.
Other actions took place in Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Providence, R.I., San Diego, San Francisco and West Palm Beach, Fla. The local chapter of the Colombia Support Network held an action in Helena, Mont. The following day, the Colombia Solidarity Committee in Chicago demonstrated in front of the Colombian Consulate.
"These demonstrations are the first step toward building a national anti-war movement against U.S. intervention in Colombia," said IAC leader Teresa Gutierrez.
Actions also took place in Vienna, Austria; Stockholm, Sweden; Brussels, Belgium; Beirut, Lebanon; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Toronto. Some 300 people in Rome took the street in front of the U.S. Embassy and held a sit-in.
This is the reason that Clinton felt forced to repeat again and again that Colombia would not be "another Vietnam." The U.S. government knows well that the carnage it unleashed against the Vietnamese people was eventually halted by massive solidarity--in the United States and around the world--against U.S. imperialism.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by WBilton
no one died when Clinton lied
If you are referring to eh WMD's ...they were moved to Syria. I have provided evidence of this in other threads. Even the head UN Weapns Inspector himself beleived the WMD's would be found after the invasion. On many instances, insepctors were not allowed entrance to NUMEROUS sites...they watched truckloads move out and were held out of area by gunpoint.
Sadam was a swell guy.
Quick dirnking the Kool Aid and do some reasrch on the topic.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
ClintonClinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President
to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:
There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Gore again, in that same year:
Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.2
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that
without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was
hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.
So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that
[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
 
Top