Go Kerry. Go away, Bush.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

So...it's OK to mock Bush with 'daddy' comments, and "highly distasteful" to call Clinton a patsy? Talk about "total, total hypocrisy".

Sure, you may have some valid points (humanitarian one), but you're a screaming liberal who has double standards and will never accept any facts that could possibly be contrary to your own.

[Arta]

What's a 'daddy' comment? Please also point out my double standards.

I'm not mocking bush, I'm pointing out my reasons for thinking he shouldn't be re-elected.

[TehUser]

The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.

This was too good to pass up.  It sounds to me like you're buying into a lot of right-wing propoganda about why they messed up the economy this badly.  Historically, in any other war, the economy THRIVES.  How do you think we got out of the Great Depression?  A war economy.  It's not war that takes a budget surplus (the first time we've had one in 40-some years, thank you, Clinton) and turns it into the largest deficit ever (thank you, Bush).  It's a testament to just how poor a job Bush has done with this country.  Even without digressing into the conspiracy theories about why Bush dragged us into this war, it's plain enough to see that pre-Bush, the U.S. was doing pretty damn well economically, and during-Bush, it's plain to see that things suck.  You can try to blame it on all of the factors you want, like people being afraid to spend money (*cough* BS *cough*), but the fact remains that as president (and with a Republican congress, as you like to bring up), if he had any political skill, he should have been able to enact policies and legislation to stop, or at least help, some of these problems.

Lastly, I just have to address the crap you and Hazard have been spewing regarding Clinton.  Yes, he lied about an affair (Oh my gosh, that's so totally un-American that a fair percentage of our morally upright population does it anyway).  Regardless, explain how that has anything to do with his ability to run a country.  (And if you even come close to saying, "If he'd lie about his private life, then he'd lie about politics." then you don't deserve to be a part of this argument.)  As far as Clinton goes, I think that history will look back and rank his abilities as president among the best we've ever had.

[MyndFyre]

omg!  Why do I feel like I have posted twice and do not see it now?

I know I have started responding to this thread twice, both times at work.  I am relatively certain that I finished responding, at least once.

Where are my posts??  

[Hazard]

It sounds to me like you're buying into a lot of right-wing propoganda about why they messed up the economy this badly.

Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.

[Arta]

omg!  Why do I feel like I have posted twice and do not see it now?

I know I have started responding to this thread twice, both times at work.  I am relatively certain that I finished responding, at least once.

Where are my posts??  

Did someone delete them? I've not changed anything in this thread (even Hazard's broken quote tag )

[iago]

I noticed that too, a couple times here and once at clan-e1.net's forum.  Perhaps it's a YaBB bug?

[quasi-modo]

Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our economy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.
The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's decsions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these it upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

ok, its called a tax bracket. The rich pay a higher percent in tax because they have a lofty income. Because of this they get a higher percent back. But I suppose you would give all the cash out as welfare, the people who pay the least in taxes should get the highest percent? The tax cuts make perfect sence. Here learn about how taxes work: http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm

[quasi-modo]

Saddam still was in violation. They had al sammoud 2 (sp?) missiles. They were also fireing off skuds when we first invaded. Why have a delivery system without a war head? He had a means to put crap into surrounding countries, and that did not alarm anyone? If he had balls to he could have done some real damage in tel aviv.

I read somewhere that under saddam terrorist camps operated openly in north iraq, that couldn't happen without it being sponsored. Nothing really went down in iraq without saddam knowing.

A warhead isn't necessarily a WMD warhead... and a missile which slightly exceeds the allowed range is hardly grounds for war either - especially since they immediately destroyed those missiles with the UN's supervision when we called them on it.

That stuff about training camps in Iraq is BS. Dunno where you read it, but it's just plain wrong. You may perhaps have been reading about camps in the Kurdish controlled territory (which is in the north of Iraq), but those camps were used to train the Kurdish militia who fought both against saddam and with coalition forces during the initial invasion. Either way, invading Iraq because of camps in the kurdish territory would make no sense - no one has ever claimed that was a reason for war, anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9B01EED81E39F93BA35752C1A9679C8B63  <-- the most liberal paper in the country says that it was going on. Last time I checked this was a war against terrorism was it not? He was clearly supporting terrorism, even if its directed at israel, our ally, and not us, its still terrorism. Why would we not support out ally anyway? How can you not think that is cause for war?

Ok so saddam being able, and clearly willing to put missiles in a country we are allies with is hardly a cause for concern? WMD warhead or not, he can still do damage with those things. He could easily have WMD wareheads. As I said before, we found shells with sarin gas on insurgents inside of iraq. It was not covered heavily, because it was not a huge stock pile, but none the less there was sarin found in those shells. If they could get their hands on it, saddam could have easily had it, and probably did have it.

No he did not destroy the missiles immediatly because he still had skuds, we didn't find them, we saw him launch them when the war started. A skud is a ballistic missile as you know (not icbm), certainly it has a ranger over the UN limit.

[TehUser]

Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.

I don't need any media to tell me that the economy sucks now and that it didn't before Bush took office.  Anyone who lives even remotely close to a city is affected by this.

[quasi-modo]

The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.

Lastly, I just have to address the crap you and Hazard have been spewing regarding Clinton.  Yes, he lied about an affair (Oh my gosh, that's so totally un-American that a fair percentage of our morally upright population does it anyway).  Regardless, explain how that has anything to do with his ability to run a country.  (And if you even come close to saying, "If he'd lie about his private life, then he'd lie about politics." then you don't deserve to be a part of this argument.)  As far as Clinton goes, I think that history will look back and rank his abilities as president among the best we've ever had.

He was the president not an average citizen. He should be held to a higher standard. The man was an embarrassment to our country.

[quasi-modo]

Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.

I don't need any media to tell me that the economy sucks now and that it didn't before Bush took office.  Anyone who lives even remotely close to a city is affected by this.

thats why the economy is robust right now. You have been listening to too much NPR, try to find dark spots in everything that happens during an administration that does not share their views.
http://www.news-register.net/edit/story/083202004_edtiedit2.asp

[Hitmen]

As far as I'm concerened, the best way to describe Bush vs. Kerry is "Same shit, different asshole". They're both worthless.

[TehUser]

thats why the economy is robust right now. You have been listening to too much NPR, try to find dark spots in everything that happens during an administration that does not share their views.

What?  Our economy is not "robust" by any means right now...  Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it's doing so well?

He was the president not an average citizen. He should be held to a higher standard. The man was an embarrassment to our country.

What you're suggesting is called "HYPOCRISY".  One individual is not morally better or worse than another by virtue of his occupation.  On the other hand, they are worse based on their actions and practices.  I find it a great deal more embarrassing that Bush snubbed the UN than that Clinton engaged in extramartial sex and then lied about it.

Edit: By the way, could you possibly pick a more biased news source?  That one wasn't frothing with enough Republican propoganda.  

[quasi-modo]

thats why the economy is robust right now. You have been listening to too much NPR, try to find dark spots in everything that happens during an administration that does not share their views.

What?  Our economy is not "robust" by any means right now...  Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it's doing so well?

He was the president not an average citizen. He should be held to a higher standard. The man was an embarrassment to our country.

What you're suggesting is called "HYPOCRISY".  One individual is not morally better or worse than another by virtue of his occupation.  On the other hand, they are worse based on their actions and practices.  I find it a great deal more embarrassing that Bush snubbed the UN than that Clinton engaged in extramartial sex and then lied about it.

Edit: By the way, could you possibly pick a more biased news source?  That one wasn't frothing with enough Republican propoganda.  

A more biased news source eh? I have posted articles from all over lol. A few posts up I posted an article in the new york times even. So one article says something contrary to what you want to hear, its automatically some right wing propoganda? Give me a break.

What do you think of oil for food? The un was corrupt and was not going anywhere. France and Germany being in bed with Iraq certainly gives them some incentive to look the other way. What I am suggesting with clinton is not hypocrisy. Thinking that the president should uphold a basic moral standard, how is that hypocrisy? You think its okay for the president to blatenly lie to the american people while under oath? The president does not have the right the same right to privacy that we do. Hes a public figure. All of that stuff goes out the window. Its just like the paparazzi with our movie stars.

Our economy is very robust right now. Employment is a lagging indictator, and employment has been up, so the economy has been on the up swing for quite some time.