Seriously. How can anyone vote (R) nowadays?

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
With scandal after scandal after scandal, how can anyone proudly say that they vote repub? Just off the top of my head we have:

1. Plame
2. Libby
3. Walter Reed
4. US Attorney firings for political purposes
5. Mark Foley coverup attempt
6. Torture in violation of geneva conventions
7. Illegal wiretappings in violation of the 4th ammendment
8. A war that's draining American resources

I just hope this keeps going for another 20 months. :applause:
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Could you possibly bludgeon people over the head with your political opinions anymore than you already do?[/QUOTE]

Good try, maybe next time you'll think of something. :applause:
 
Because a lot of those 'scandals' are tempests in a teapot. You realize it is usually customary (Clintons and many, many before did it.) to fire EVERY attorney as a new administration comes in. Bush didn't do that, and waited until now to fire some of the holdovers.

I swear, just do a BIT of research people.

By the way, do you even KNOW who leaked Plame's name?
 
United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.
 
It's not that they were fired it was because they were fired for no doing what Bush wanted them to do. That's the scandal.

And Clinton did fire them all, but Clinton still needed Congress to approve new ones, Bush didn't because of some lame clause in the Patriot Act, which Congress removed yesterday.
 
every administration will have its issues since they are infailably human. I'm not a bush backer by any means, but I agree with the tempest in a teapot statement.
What is truly frightening is the cognitive dissonance that your average american displays with such alarming alacrity. That goes for "both sides" too. You have your "Bush caused S/11" devotees when the reality is that there were YEARS of planning involved in that whole deal and you can't simply blame the current president. On the other side you have your knuckleheads that think they can solve anything and everything by doing nothing, but doing nothing with immense aggression and steadfastness.

Honestly, until a true third party shows up you're going to see nothing but partisan bickering that will never solve anything. Once people start voting bsed on ideals instead of party lines then you'll see some improvement.

I can guarantee you that if Hilary wins there will be a 4 year stand still to progress in this country. Unfortunate as that may be.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Good try, maybe next time you'll think of something. :applause:[/quote]Ho ho, you really got me there! You must feel like such a badass, making hardline poltical statements on a forum populated by guys trying to find penny strategy guides. That's like Martin Luther King giving his "I have a dream" speech in front of a couple homeless guys fighting over a piece of meat.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']You realize it is usually customary (Clintons and many, many before did it.) to fire EVERY attorney as a new administration comes in. Bush didn't do that, and waited until now to fire some of the holdovers.

I swear, just do a BIT of research people.[/quote]
That is true. However, in the past, any replacements the President put into place had to be confirmed by Congress within 120 days or they would then be out of a job.

This simple aspect of checks & balances was removed by the outrageously mis-named Patriot's Act.

With this in mind, the uproar over the firings may make more sense.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Fixed.

I'll be so glad if the two-party system gets destroyed in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]
Word.

This thread is a short-sighted joke.
 
investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Click to expand...

First time I've ever heard him termed a Republican, considering how many Dems he was tied to.

E-Z-B, your post is largely innuendo. The sorts of rhetorical sleights of hand that make the reader think the "problem" is that Lam is prosecuting ghost Republicans.

Frankly, I want that kind of job security. If the President doesn't fire me when he comes into office, ALL I have to do is prosecute one person, ANY PERSON, that can be called a Republican. Boom, then if I fuck up the rest of my job, the "problems" with my employment are because I prosecuted a Republican!

This simple aspect of checks & balances was removed by the outrageously mis-named Patriot's Act.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a legal issue. President Bush used a power designated in a law that passed Congress. So, the scandal is actually an issue that should be decided by the courts.

Coincidentally, speaking of checks and balances, how do you feel about the president invoking Executive Privilege to stop what will inevitably be a series of show trials?
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Because a lot of those 'scandals' are tempests in a teapot. You realize it is usually customary (Clintons and many, many before did it.) to fire EVERY attorney as a new administration comes in. Bush didn't do that, and waited until now to fire some of the holdovers.[/QUOTE]

Actually, every single one of the fired attorneys was a Bush appointment. They also share another common trait: they were all investigating Republican corruption cases. Can anyone say, "obstruction of justice"?
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Ho ho, you really got me there! You must feel like such a badass, making hardline poltical statements on a forum populated by guys trying to find penny strategy guides. That's like Martin Luther King giving his "I have a dream" speech in front of a couple homeless guys fighting over a piece of meat.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. This forum is the political versus one, not a bargain forum for guides.

Strike two! #-o
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']First time I've ever heard him termed a Republican, considering how many Dems he was tied to.

E-Z-B, your post is largely innuendo. The sorts of rhetorical sleights of hand that make the reader think the "problem" is that Lam is prosecuting ghost Republicans.

Frankly, I want that kind of job security. If the President doesn't fire me when he comes into office, ALL I have to do is prosecute one person, ANY PERSON, that can be called a Republican. Boom, then if I fuck up the rest of my job, the "problems" with my employment are because I prosecuted a Republican!



Yeah, that's a legal issue. President Bush used a power designated in a law that passed Congress. So, the scandal is actually an issue that should be decided by the courts.

Coincidentally, speaking of checks and balances, how do you feel about the president invoking Executive Privilege to stop what will inevitably be a series of show trials?[/QUOTE]

Abramoff tied to Dems? This same Abramoff that never gave one dime to democrats?
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Yeah, that's a legal issue. President Bush used a power designated in a law that passed Congress. So, the scandal is actually an issue that should be decided by the courts.[/quote] Actually, it's not so much a power that the President used, so much as a Congressional power which Congress itself legislated out of existence (the dumbbutts.)

This wrangling over the basis of the recent firings could be considered an uncomfortable process of re-etablishing equilibrium. "We removed our own ability to have some say over the selection process of U.S. attorneys, so now all we can do is dispute the removal of current individuals."

Of course, they could amend the Patriot Act, and I'll be holding my breath for that.

[quote name='RollingSkull'] Coincidentally, speaking of checks and balances, how do you feel about the president invoking Executive Privilege to stop what will inevitably be a series of show trials?[/quote] I'm not sure what trials you are foreseeing (who would be charged, and with what crime?) but that is certainly a possibility.

How do I feel about it, personally? I do not have a problem with that, at all, actually. We've all heard repeatedly over the past few days that these attorneys "serve at the President's discretion/pleasure/whim or whatever." So, clearly, he could fire 'em all for wearing ugly ties.

If the President pulls out Executive Privilege to halt this line of inquiry, then maybe Congress will fix the damn law that began the whole thing.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']First time I've ever heard him termed a Republican, considering how many Dems he was tied to.[/QUOTE]


How many?

And how many did he conspire to and did commit illegal acts with?
 
ramsey.jpg
 
[quote name='RBM']Actually, it's not so much a power that the President used, so much as a Congressional power which Congress itself legislated out of existence (the dumbbutts.)

This wrangling over the basis of the recent firings could be considered an uncomfortable process of re-etablishing equilibrium. "We removed our own ability to have some say over the selection process of U.S. attorneys, so now all we can do is dispute the removal of current individuals."

Of course, they could amend the Patriot Act, and I'll be holding my breath for that.
[/QUOTE]

You can exhale, they voted 94-2 yesterday to remove it.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/march/0321_senate_attorneys.shtml
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']With scandal after scandal after scandal, how can anyone proudly say that they vote repub? Just off the top of my head we have:

1. Plame
2. Libby
3. Walter Reed
4. US Attorney firings for political purposes
5. Mark Foley coverup attempt
6. Torture in violation of geneva conventions
7. Illegal wiretappings in violation of the 4th ammendment
8. A war that's draining American resources

I just hope this keeps going for another 20 months. :applause:[/quote]

You could probably come up with a similar list for the administration prior to our current one. I'm too lazy to do so. Selecting a president with great moral conviction isn't typically the American Public's strong point.

Seriously though, would anyone else agree to a moratorium on Bushes and Clintons on the ballot? 28 years is enough.
 
[quote name='Quillion']You could probably come up with a similar list for the administration prior to our current one. I'm too lazy to do so. Selecting a president with great moral conviction isn't typically the American Public's strong point.

Seriously though, would anyone else agree to a moratorium on Bushes and Clintons on the ballot? 28 years is enough.[/QUOTE]

I would sign that in a heartbeat.
 
When the republicans didn't have enough evidence in the Whitewater investigation to charge the Clintons, the only thing they had left was Monica.

In his last days, he pardoned individuals that Republicans said shouldn't have been pardoned. But just watch - the same thing will happen again in less than 2 years from now.

There's also the botched attempt at storming Waco, Texas, where Janet Reno took heat from that.

That's what I recall from the 90s. But none violate international law, undermine the very essence of the U.S. constitution, or betray our country and soldiers.
 
Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats

By the end, seven of his lobbyists were Democrats.....But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

Libby was a scapegoat.
Joe Wilson outed Plame, and she was non-covert anyway.
Walter Reed is symptomatic of the massive bureaucracy, a hallmark of Democratic (and 'moderate' Republican) governments.
I don't know much about Mark Foley. Was he the guy on Kids in the Hall?
Torture-first, define torture. In the same tirade master political commentator Rosie O'Donnell says SKM was held in the 'torture' filled prison since 93, she says he looks great. Second, I don't think the Geneva conventions apply to terrorists, and third, if the 'other side' slices nonmilitary POWs heads off with machetes, the Geneva conventions shouldn't apply to them.
War - regardless how you feel about it, this is a relatively inexpensive war, both in terms of loss of life and monetary costs. No rations of sugar or metals, the women don't have to learn riveting, no gas rations.

The reason I'm ashamed to be voting R is because there are very few true conservatives or 'hardcore' Republicans in any office. About the only conservative things GWB has really done in office has been cutting taxes (which of course is good) and initiating a solid aggressive attack on Al Qaeda and Iraq/Saddam, though I will admit it's started to flounder in the last year or so (of course when the mainstream press has been saying 'Vietnam!' and 'failure!' and "we're losing!" and trying to do their part to hurry that along ever since day one, I'm actuallly pretty surprised it's going as well as it has been.) The times he's offered a hand across the aisle, it's been taken and stomped on, and he needs to quit being mr. nice guy.
What really concerns me is how the ultraliberal moveon.org wing of the democrats is getting so much power and control over the democratic party as a whole. Of course, I guess this ties into what I said above--to ultraleft people like Pelosi and the vocal Hollywood left et al, GWB *is* "far right".

EZB : re: your sig: Amendment. And I wish Feingold had thought about 'liberty' before he usurped the First Amendment by penning that monstrosity of a 'reform' act.
 
My town elections are on Monday and the town paper has a letter this week called "DON"T VOTE!!!" It's a fun read that pretty much says "We are fucked either way so why waste your time and gas voting".
 
[quote name='dtcarson']

Libby was a scapegoat.
Joe Wilson outed Plame, and she was non-covert anyway.
Walter Reed is symptomatic of the massive bureaucracy, a hallmark of Democratic (and 'moderate' Republican) governments.
I don't know much about Mark Foley. Was he the guy on Kids in the Hall?
Torture-first, define torture. In the same tirade master political commentator Rosie O'Donnell says SKM was held in the 'torture' filled prison since 93, she says he looks great. Second, I don't think the Geneva conventions apply to terrorists, and third, if the 'other side' slices nonmilitary POWs heads off with machetes, the Geneva conventions shouldn't apply to them.
War - regardless how you feel about it, this is a relatively inexpensive war, both in terms of loss of life and monetary costs. No rations of sugar or metals, the women don't have to learn riveting, no gas rations.[/QUOTE]

1. For who?
2. a) I've never heard that Wilson outted his own wife, link? b) She was covert, it was covered last week at her hearing, repeatedly.
3. Walter Reed went down hill after it was privatized.
4. Infliction of severe mental or physical stress as a means of punishment or coercion.
5. a) Suspected terrorists. b) we're supposed to be better then that.
6. Tell that to the Iraqis.
 
Here we see Gonzales' hand in the government tobacco case:

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim from a closing argument they rewrote for her, she said.

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html

Obstruction of justice. Again.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Joe Wilson outed Plame, and she was non-covert anyway.[/QUOTE]

That is false on both counts, the second is more or less a lie.

We have the reason why people still support W and the Republicans.

They enjoy being lied to, lying to themselves and lying to others.
 
answers here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

It is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters in an individual:

1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. "It is good to have a strong authoritarian leader."
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. "It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules."
3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. "Traditional ways are best."

also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation
 
[quote name='Msut77']
We have the reason why people still support W and the Republicans.

They enjoy being lied to, lying to themselves and lying to others.[/QUOTE]

And Democrats and other "Non-Republicans" wondered why they lost the last election. Easiest thing in the world to be is a cynic. You don't like the Republican Party or its leadership? DO something about it instead of bitching, moaning, and mocking those who support it. Its that attitude that cost you the election.
 
[quote name='sallyballs']And Democrats and other "Non-Republicans" wondered why they lost the last election. Easiest thing in the world to be is a cynic. You don't like the Republican Party or its leadership? DO something about it instead of bitching, moaning, and mocking those who support it. Its that attitude that cost you the election.[/QUOTE]

Uh, democrats reclaimed the house and senate in the last election. :whistle2:$

Informing people why they shouldn't vote (R) is one thing you can do. Others have just recently protested the start of the Iraq war last week.
 
[quote name='sallyballs']And Democrats and other "Non-Republicans" wondered why they lost the last election. Easiest thing in the world to be is a cynic. You don't like the Republican Party or its leadership? DO something about it instead of bitching, moaning, and mocking those who support it. Its that attitude that cost you the election.[/QUOTE]


My gosh you are a dumbass.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Uh, democrats reclaimed the house and senate in the last election. :whistle2:$

Informing people why they shouldn't vote (R) is one thing you can do. Others have just recently protested the start of the Iraq war last week.[/QUOTE]


QFT, and they wonder why they get stereotyped as drooling nincompoops.
 
[quote name='sallyballs']DO something about it instead of bitching, moaning, and mocking those who support it. Its that attitude that cost you the election.[/quote]

What exactly are we supposed to do? Vote and talk. This is talking.
 
At least with the Republican party, you used to know exactly where they stood on issues while Democrats use focus groups to decide on policy. Unfortunately Bush doesn't have the conviction to stand by his principles and rightfully so deserves a lot of criticism for his half-hearted approach during his presidency. However what often gets overlooked is that there has not been a major act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11 and whether you agree or not with his presidency, that does deserve some consideration.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Uh, democrats reclaimed the house and senate in the last election. :whistle2:$

Informing people why they shouldn't vote (R) is one thing you can do. Others have just recently protested the start of the Iraq war last week.[/QUOTE]

It is one thing to inform, its another thing entirely to belittle. Democrats did take over Congress. On a local level they were finally able to appeal to enough voters that Bush was messing up somehow. It remains to be seen if they will be able to carry that wave into '08. Right now you have Obama and Hillary take shots at each other whilst the Giuliani campaign is gaining steam. Every attempt to stall him hasn't had much affect and despite attempts from hardcore right-wingers to harp on his social liberalism, he is still ahead. Dems are going to have a hard time scapegoating him like they did Congressional candidates in '06.

If he carries New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (which he is favored to do) the Dems might as well pack it in. Assuming every other state votes the way they did in '04, where will the Dems pick up the 67 votes from?
 
The problem here is so many people have forgotten what has gotten us into so much trouble for example did Pres. Clinton kill Osama when he had a chance to, hell no he let him go. Pres.Clinton on the other hand was to worried about his ass getting impeached by the whole Monica Lewinsky trial. Pres. Bush has had to deal with 9/11 did Clinton deal with that? Hell no. Did Clinton deal with the whole Katrina Controversy? Hell no. Has he dealt with Al-qaeda hell no. Did he take away money from the armed forces to put into his sack of potatoes? hell yes .. Get the point clinton hasnt had to deal with so much crap he was to worried about his poll numbers and his impeachment. Hell lets talk about miss nancy pelosi she claimed that she was gonna keep the house together has that happend? Hell no.. Pelosi all she is the poster child of the left wing anti war protestors.She is there for her own gain. I havent seen one thing the democrats have done better then the republicans. I know what your gonna say " oh my look at Clinton's economy" Yea ill Look, mind you remember Ronald Reagan thats where the economy comes in . Clinton just had the good fortune of getting Reagan's financial numbers in his years of office.
 
I'm new, but I think I'll jump into a thriving political debate anyday.

I'll come out and say I'm a Republican, and I have voted mostly for Republicans. I have voted some Democrats, which strike me the right way every now and again. With the Democrats taking control of Congress, I thought some stuff would change. And boy, was I ever wrong. The same stuff is happening now just under new leadership.

R's and D's still hate each other with passion, and Bush is still caving to the D's. The D's have power, but still hate tax cuts and love increasing spending, including this new budget including 20 billion in pork projects, which they campaigned would go away.

The topic creator asked how anyone could vote for a Republican anymore. Well, my question is how could anyone vote for a Democrat either? I'm pretty sick and tired of the majority of the leftist democrats saying I should apologize for stuff I haven't done, never say "God", pander to people who want to kill me, and give the Government 90% of my money because they know what's best.

Why do I vote republican? Because I believe I can manage my money better than Ted Kennedy can.

If you want to argue why people shouldn't vote for Republicans, maybe you should do the same for Democrats. Because honestly, none of them have very good ideas about how to fix stuff right now.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I'm new, but I think I'll jump into a thriving political debate anyday.

I'll come out and say I'm a Republican, and I have voted mostly for Republicans. I have voted some Democrats, which strike me the right way every now and again. With the Democrats taking control of Congress, I thought some stuff would change. And boy, was I ever wrong. The same stuff is happening now just under new leadership.

R's and D's still hate each other with passion, and Bush is still caving to the D's. The D's have power, but still hate tax cuts and love increasing spending, including this new budget including 20 billion in pork projects, which they campaigned would go away.

The topic creator asked how anyone could vote for a Republican anymore. Well, my question is how could anyone vote for a Democrat either? I'm pretty sick and tired of the majority of the leftist democrats saying I should apologize for stuff I haven't done, never say "God", pander to people who want to kill me, and give the Government 90% of my money because they know what's best.

Why do I vote republican? Because I believe I can manage my money better than Ted Kennedy can.

If you want to argue why people shouldn't vote for Republicans, maybe you should do the same for Democrats. Because honestly, none of them have very good ideas about how to fix stuff right now.[/QUOTE]

Bush Celebrates Fourth Largest Deficit In History


Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.

Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006.

The fact that Bush now considers a $296 billion deficit an occasion to celebrate shows how far we’ve fallen.

I'm sure you're loving Dubya's tax cuts, but I hope your children are excited to pay off his wreckless spending. These numbers don't even count the Iraq costs.

If you like to manage your own money, then I wouldn't look towards Republicans for answers.
 
why is it that no one can criticize bush or other republicans without someone bringing up clinton? I always think of a chris rock quote, "just cuz they fucked up doesn't mean we should be fucked up"

During the Lewinsky scandal that you bring up (ttriber) he ordered strikes in afghanistan and sudan where bin laden and others were supposedly meeting but Republicans said he was doing it to distract everyone from the Lewinsky stuff that the republicans were pushing for in the first place because the Whitewater shit wouldn't stick.

Why can't somebody own up to a mistake? Clinton didn't tell us we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq, Clinton didn't advocate torture, Clinton didn't invalidate habeas corpus, Clinton didn't allow warrant less wiretaps, Clinton didn't out a CIA operative because her husband took a public stance that the Whitehouse didn't like.

I'm not saying all republicans are bad but these guys in the whitehouse right now are a bunch of scumbags.
check out the wiki page on right wing authoritarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism
This stuff isn't an outgrowth of america's current political climate, but came from post WWII research when people were trying to understand what happened in Germany.
 
[quote name='ttriber']The problem here is so many people have forgotten what has gotten us into so much trouble for example did Pres. Clinton kill Osama when he had a chance to, hell no he let him go.[/quote]

The whole entire "Clinton had Osama and let him go" meme is false, the guy who created it was rewarded with a job at FOX.


Pres.Clinton on the other hand was to worried about his ass getting impeached by the whole Monica Lewinsky trial.
Click to expand...

Yes Clinton could not even bomb Bin Laden without the rightwingers getting their panties in a knot, remember "wag the dog"?

Pres. Bush has had to deal with 9/11 did Clinton deal with that? Hell no.
Click to expand...

Yes Clinton did not have to deal with 9/11 mostly because he cared about anti-terrorism and did not go chasing Star Wars dreams like W.

Did Clinton deal with the whole Katrina Controversy? Hell no
Click to expand...

Do you propose a time machine based solution? Do you think Clinton would have ignored the problem for hours (days?) like W?

Has he dealt with Al-qaeda hell no.
Click to expand...

He did more than W did pre9/11, what is with the use of present tense?

Did he take away money from the armed forces to put into his sack of potatoes? hell yes .. Get the point clinton hasnt had to deal with so much crap he was to worried about his poll numbers and his impeachment. Hell lets talk about miss nancy pelosi she claimed that she was gonna keep the house together has that happend? Hell no.. Pelosi all she is the poster child of the left wing anti war protestors.She is there for her own gain. I havent seen one thing the democrats have done better then the republicans.
Click to expand...

I think she has done pretty good, she has only been in office for a few months.

I know what your gonna say " oh my look at Clinton's economy" Yea ill Look, mind you remember Ronald Reagan thats where the economy comes in . Clinton just had the good fortune of getting Reagan's financial numbers in his years of office.
Click to expand...

So those magic numbers despite having skipped Bush's father term are responsible for Clinton's boom?

I'll concede that Reagan gets credit for the national debt and deficit explosion that Bill Clinton so amazingly managed to stop from bankrupting this nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top