swede316 Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe? Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad... Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad... Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad... No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad... Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Recession under Bush - bad... Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad... Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad... Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam in custody - bad... Ah, it's so confusing! (Not to me it Ain't!!) I may be a registered Independant but, Bush/Cheney '04 is the only logical choice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 How about Clinton gets high draft lottery number, does not serve -- bad Bush gets into Guard via family connections, welshes on commitment -- good Clinton lies about getting blown by intern -- bad Bush lies about reasons for blowing up Iraq -- good Clinton presides over longest peacetime economic expansion in history -- bad Bush turns surplus into largest deficit in history -- good Clinton investigated for failed two-bit land deal in 1970s -- good Bush investigated for going AWOL on Guard commitment in 1970s -- bad Special prosecutor appointed to investigate Whitewater -- good Independent commission appointed to investigate 9/11 -- bad etc. etc. And wait a minute... is Clinton even running this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Earth To Swede: The 2004 presidential election is Bush vs Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Earth To Swede: The 2004 presidential election is Bush vs Kerry. 24415[/snapback] And yet it looks so gosh darn similiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 No stevestojan?!...It is a comparison of Clinton's record to Bush's...Whom all of the Dems seem to love. They cry about Bush's moves yet love Clinton's moves. Some of which are very similar. You can't compare Kerry's record because he dosen't have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 You and Blzrul must have sleepovers all the time, BRH. Let me, ONE MORE TIME, explain a couple of things the Polly's can't seem to stop parroting. Grab your crayolas, and pay close attention. (1) If Bush lied about WMD, then Kerry lied about WMD because both Bush and Kerry agreed to go to war with Iraq (okay...here it comes) BASED ON THE SAME FUGGIN' INFORMATION! In fact, your esteemed presidential candidate admitted last month that knowing what he knows, he'd have voted for the war all over again. That was before he changed his mind...AGAIN...and decided the war was wrong. Bush lied=Kerry lied and here's a newsflash: NEITHER OF THEM LIED! Why you can't see this truth is beyond any human being's ability to reason. Maybe it's because...ohhh...you refuse to ADMIT you're running out of things to cut and paste? (2) We currently are facing the largest deficit FROM A DOLLAR STANDPOINT. Are you getting this? It is actually a very LOW percentage (3.6%) of the U.S. economy and...here comes something new for you to chew on...virtually EVERY economist worth their salt realizes that the debt plays a role primarily as a percentage of the economy. You have to go back to WWII to find the WORST deficit. You folks DO understand a thing or two about the economy, right? You understand how this works, right? Please tell me you know because I would HATE to think you're parroting talking points AGAIN about something of which you known NOTHING! And if I'm wrong about this, PLEASE explain why. Otherwise, if you DON'T know what the hell you're talking about...stop talking about it. Christ almighty. It's no wonder Kerry's campaign is in the dumper if THIS is what is out there stumping for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 You and Blzrul must have sleepovers all the time, BRH.24432[/snapback] Hey, I'm just guessin' here, but, you know, better Blzrul than Fabio. Now, with respect to your two points, answer me these: (1) Did Kerry vote "to go to war," or did he vote to give the president the authority to go to war? Because, you know, that's an important distinction. (2) Economically speaking, what's better, a big surplus or a big deficit? And if a deficit is better, then why are you so mad that I characterized it as the biggest in history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 You and Blzrul must have sleepovers all the time, BRH. Let me, ONE MORE TIME, explain a couple of things the Polly's can't seem to stop parroting. Grab your crayolas, and pay close attention. (1) If Bush lied about WMD, then Kerry lied about WMD because both Bush and Kerry agreed to go to war with Iraq (okay...here it comes) BASED ON THE SAME FUGGIN' INFORMATION! In fact, your esteemed presidential candidate admitted last month that knowing what he knows, he'd have voted for the war all over again. That was before he changed his mind...AGAIN...and decided the war was wrong. Bush lied=Kerry lied and here's a newsflash: NEITHER OF THEM LIED! Why you can't see this truth is beyond any human being's ability to reason. Maybe it's because...ohhh...you refuse to ADMIT you're running out of things to cut and paste? (2) We currently are facing the largest deficit FROM A DOLLAR STANDPOINT. Are you getting this? It is actually a very LOW percentage (3.6%) of the U.S. economy and...here comes something new for you to chew on...virtually EVERY economist worth their salt realizes that the debt plays a role primarily as a percentage of the economy. You have to go back to WWII to find the WORST deficit. You folks DO understand a thing or two about the economy, right? You understand how this works, right? Please tell me you know because I would HATE to think you're parroting talking points AGAIN about something of which you known NOTHING! And if I'm wrong about this, PLEASE explain why. Otherwise, if you DON'T know what the hell you're talking about...stop talking about it. Christ almighty. It's no wonder Kerry's campaign is in the dumper if THIS is what is out there stumping for him. 24432[/snapback] They didn't have the same information in fact. Prior to the war Bush had a meeting to go over once and for all the case they had for WMD's. Kerry wasn't at that meeting and didn't receive the briefing the President received. After receiving that briefing, Bush was incredulous, "This is it???" he said. It wasn't very prersuasive and the President himself thought that it came up short, way short. That is when Tenet made that comment that it was a "slam dunk". The President knew we had no proof, he saw and recognized that but as long as Tenet was willing to take responsibility for it, he was willing to set aside his own judgment. Its all in Woodward's book and the WH has never denied the author's version of that meeting. Where on earth would you get the idea that a Senate Committee would get the exact same info as the President? Have you never heard of "For the President's Eyes Only"? As for your crayon insult :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Hey, I'm just guessin' here, but, you know, better Blzrul than Fabio. 24443[/snapback] Careful LA I think he is jealous of you with Fabio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 You know what? Personally, I'm GLAD we had Bill Clinton in the White House... he kept the Bush family out of power for 8 years! Obviously, if the man got elected by a wide margin over his two opponents, then SOMEBODY liked him. Can't say the same thing about W! All this Clinton Good, Bush Bad was posted by OTHERS and pasted here... It goes to show that even on the Web, the Rush-like tactics of blaring totally wrong propaganda continues: (BTW, they DID find mass graves in Serbia... IN 2001. SHHHHH): Serbian Mass Graves PLEASE, PLEASE if you are going to post something like that, check the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted September 10, 2004 Author Share Posted September 10, 2004 My point was...People are dogging Bush for some of the same things Clinton did. Just pointing out some hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCow Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Since you pulled this "original" post off the internet I'll post someone else's reply. 1. Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... ...because they were already there, having won a bid on a LOGCAP contract in 1992 and started work in the Balkans and his temporary contract award just allowed them to finish what they had started. 2. Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad... ..because of the impropriety of awarding a lucrative contract under conditions in which a clear conflict of interest could be said to exist, and then lying about the VP's role in the decision in an effort to distance the administration from the charge. 3. Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... ...for a total cost of roughly $90 billion, 79 day air war, minimal loss of American life, ending a decade of ethnic cleansing in a multi-lateral effort of NATO. 4. Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad... ...because close to $125 billion has already been approved, with $25 billion more being submitted to Congress, coupled with a long-term occupation that could reach as high as $1.5 trillion over the next 5 years. This doesn't take into account the severe depletion of military equipment and manpower and the costs that will be necessary to re-supply both nor the impact on overall American security abroad and readiness to deploy. 5. Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... ... actually NATO imposed it. 6. Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... ...because it came at a time when America should have stayed focused on its already-begun war in Afghanistan and the efforts to eliminate al-Qaeda in that region. Our lack of attention has allowed the network to rebuild to unprecedented levels, resulting in a steep increase in worldwide terrorist attacks. 7. Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good... ...because one's religion still doesn't give one the right to commit genocide. 8. Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... ...no one says this is bad, but we were still involved in a war in Afghanistan which we had not finished, not to mention ignoring the worst humanitarian crisis in the world happening in Sudan. 9. Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good.... ...because NATO discovered it was being used to help Milosevic's forces with communications. 10. Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad.... ...because it has only been a half-hearted effort and not at all effective in stopping terrorists. 11. Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... ...because the "felony" in question was lying about something which was no one's business in the first place. 12. Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad... ...because he used American forces as stage-props for a political photo opportunity and declared an end to combat operations even as American deaths continued to mount. 13.Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... ...because he was right and new mass graves are being discovered almost daily near Belgrade and Petrovo Selo. 14. Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad... ...because weapons inspectors weren't allowed to complete inspections nor given cooperation by America with whatever alleged intelligence was to be had. 15. Stock market cras hes in 2000 under Clinton - good... ...because it ended an artificial inflation based on tech promises that were too speculative. Thankfully, the overall growth of the Clinton economy saved us from Depression. 16. Recession under Bush - bad... ...because his only solution has been voodoo economics, a tried and failed approach. 17. Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... ...because the US doesn't enter negotiations with self-appointed third parties who are only looking to profit, such as what happened between the US and Sudan, not to mention the fact that Sudan couldn't have delivered anyway. 18. World Trade Center falls under Bush - Bad... ...because he spent the year preceding the attack ignoring distinct warning signs such as intelligence that bin Laden was contemplating using aircraft as weapons, not to mention a total lack of interest in counter-terrorism in not meeting with his own counter-terrorism official. 19. Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... ...because it was a call for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country and for the international community to lend a hand in whatever way they could. 20. Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... ...because it was the wrong time and method for doing so. America was still involved in Afghanistan and the focus should have been on the terrorist threat, which even the Bush administration said Iraq didn't pose...before 9/11. 21. Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... ...because Clinton worked through diplomacy and calls for international pressure on Afghanistan's Taliban. 22. Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... ... NO ONE says this is bad, but the job isn't done b/c were fuggin around in Iraq. 23. No mass graves found in Serbia - good... ...because there have been mass graves found in Serbia. [Did you even READ this crap before you posted it?] 24. No WMD found Iraq - bad... ...because that was the entire premise for going to war in the first place and now that it is blown, the administration is backpeddaling and pushing the humanitarian angle. 25. Milosevic not yet convicted - good... ...because his case is still working through a legitimate legal system. 26. Saddam in custody - bad... Who says this? 27. Ah, it's so confusing! Made even moreso by the disingenuous usage of good and bad when describing these events. So which is it? All of Clinton's actions were good, or they were bad but since Clinton did them then so can Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 11. Clinton commits felonies while in office - good......because the "felony" in question was lying about something which was no one's business in the first place. Tell that to Martha Stewart & Frank Quattrone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Tell that to Martha Stewart & Frank Quattrone 25022[/snapback] Martha Stewart used inside information to dump bad stock before it tanked, sticking it to the investors that didn't have that information. How is that similar to the President lying about a consensual affair that was ruled to be irrelevant to the case in which he was being deposed? Was the evidence used to prove Martha's guilt obtained in violation of law by a friend taping private conversations and duping another friend into revealing private information? Was information required to be disclosed to Martha before her testimony withheld inorder to set a "perjury trap" known to every lawyer who even came close to passing the bar? I guess other than the incidents involving different people, different charges, different laws and entirely different circumstances, they are exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Martha Stewart used inside information to dump bad stock before it tanked, sticking it to the investors that didn't have that information. How is that similar to the President lying about a consensual affair that was ruled to be irrelevant to the case in which he was being deposed? Was the evidence used to prove Martha's guilt obtained in violation of law by a friend taping private conversations and duping another friend into revealing private information? Was information required to be disclosed to Martha before her testimony withheld inorder to set a "perjury trap" known to every lawyer who even came close to passing the bar? I guess other than the incidents involving different people, different charges, different laws and entirely different circumstances, they are exactly the same. 25305[/snapback] Wasn't he deposed in a sexual harrassment suit, where the questions were meant to see if he engaged in similar behavior with subordinates in other situations? Not quite unrelated. It's plainly obvious that Martha used inside information to sell the stock. But she's not going to jail for that. Stewart and Quattrone are going to jail not because of the initial charges that the feds were investigating, but of lying or trying to cover up what they did (of course not having the cover of Executive Privilege as well). Does not seem too unreasonable to compare the cases of lying under oath or lying when being questioned by the feds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Hey, I'm just guessin' here, but, you know, better Blzrul than Fabio. Now, with respect to your two points, answer me these: (1) Did Kerry vote "to go to war," or did he vote to give the president the authority to go to war? Because, you know, that's an important distinction. (2) Economically speaking, what's better, a big surplus or a big deficit? And if a deficit is better, then why are you so mad that I characterized it as the biggest in history? 24443[/snapback] An important distinction? Yeah, if you're full of stevestojan. There hasn't been a big surplus in this country since I've been alive. Let's keep pretending there has so we can push our agenda, shall we? Ding. The your snack is done. Open the microwave slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 There hasn't been a big surplus in this country since I've been alive. Let's keep pretending there has so we can push our agenda, shall we? 25455[/snapback] Ah, this explains it. I've been arguing with a three-year-old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 You two are arguing apples & oranges. The stated budget deficits/surpluses only reflect the annual differences between the revenues & expenses. In that definition, there have been surpluses. The true deficit (amount US govt owes in totality) encopmpasses the government debt and other obligations that somehow don't make it into the calculations (imagine that!). That number has never been in the positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 You two are arguing apples & oranges. The stated budget deficits/surpluses only reflect the annual differences between the revenues & expenses. In that definition, there have been surpluses. The true deficit (amount US govt owes in totality) encopmpasses the government debt and other obligations that somehow don't make it into the calculations (imagine that!). That number has never been in the positive. 25496[/snapback] You're right, but the "deficit" you refer to in the second para is usually called the "national debt," in order to distinguish it from the yearly budget deficits that the Bushes and Reagan, among others, regularly gave us. I was talking about the deficit, not the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad This needs updating. We left 87 billion in the dust a long time ago, and we're still spending like mad. This weekend on Meet the Press I heard the current cost of the Iraq war was at 200+ billion (last I recall, Congress had approved around 160 billion but I'm sure that has been increased) and obviously, still growing, with no end in sight. I really wish Moveon, an obviously biased organization, would air that debt-related ad with the kids working more frequently. No matter what party you belong to, the sentiment of that ad- our kids will be paying off the debt we incur- is right on target. Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. If you say it enough times, I guess you start to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts