• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Administration Makes A Big Mistake.

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hmmm...I'm not rich and I'm still against a national healthcare system. But I guess that's just because I've been so propagandized against it and I'm too stupid to have an independent thought of my own. It couldn't be that I think that there is plenty of opportunity in America for people to succeed, or that a national healthcare system would dramatically lower our quality of care, could it?

Wealth, unfortunately, is relative. The reason that Americans can afford to sit in their houses and play their playstations is because people all over the world are poor. It's an impossibility to "give the entire world the same comfort of living." Sad but true fact. I admire that you're trying to change it, but I think you need to understand a little better what that would require.

I'm exceedingly exhausted of the extreme left wing that is so convinced that they're they ONLY ones who are smart enough to avoid being led about by propaganda and fear.

You talk about how the Republican party is ruled by irrational fear, and then you mention how you're scared of the abolition of the minimum wage. Where the hell did you hear about that? Want to provide some evidence to back up your claim? In New York, they just signed a bill to increase the minimum wage to 7.15 an hour by 2007. And there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that privitizing SS will cause an increase in Senior Citizen poverty. Sounds to me like you're the one who's letting propaganda and fear rule your agenda.

I'm not going to tell you that you're naive because you're a high schooler, because I was there a few years ago too, and I hated it then as well. I just think that once you have some real world experience, you will recognize that it is an inherent impossibility for a socialist economy to exist.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Hmmm...I'm not rich and I'm still against a national healthcare system. But I guess that's just because I've been so propagandized against it and I'm too stupid to have an independent thought of my own. It couldn't be that I think that there is plenty of opportunity in America for people to succeed, or that a national healthcare system would dramatically lower our quality of care, could it?

Wealth, unfortunately, is relative. The reason that Americans can afford to sit in their houses and play their playstations is because people all over the world are poor. It's an impossibility to "give the entire world the same comfort of living." Sad but true fact. I admire that you're trying to change it, but I think you need to understand a little better what that would require.

I'm exceedingly exhausted of the extreme left wing that is so convinced that they're they ONLY ones who are smart enough to avoid being led about by propaganda and fear.

You talk about how the Republican party is ruled by irrational fear, and then you mention how you're scared of the abolition of the minimum wage. Where the hell did you hear about that? Want to provide some evidence to back up your claim? In New York, they just signed a bill to increase the minimum wage to 7.15 an hour by 2007. And there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that privitizing SS will cause an increase in Senior Citizen poverty. Sounds to me like you're the one who's letting propaganda and fear rule your agenda.

I'm not going to tell you that you're naive because you're a high schooler, because I was there a few years ago too, and I hated it then as well. I just think that once you have some real world experience, you will recognize that it is an inherent impossibility for a socialist economy to exist.
Can you not see that there is a huge propaganda machine in the USA? Most people see it, and either believe it becaue other perspectives are 'bad', or they see it and look to other sources. As for you saying that 'socialism is impossible' I am simply shocked that your mind is so closed off from other possibilities. I know quite a few people with 'real world experience' who are socialists and view the system as a better alternative than capitalism. We are no mindless apes, we are the most advanced species known in the universe. To say that capitalism, a system of helping the very few, is the only way (as you obviously imply) is to sit back and enjoy the comforts you presently receive, caring nothing of other people. I hate to say it, but for this we can thank the individualistic society we live in, where we are taught to worry of ourselves and not of other people. Tell the average left wing European that socialism is 'impossible' as you claim and they'll laugh in your face! Perhaps communism is impossible (I believe it's possible, but I can see how others do not) but to believe that democratizing the economy of the US and other countries economies is impossible is flat out ignorant. Can people not decide things for themselves? Perhaps you have indeed been subjected to too much propaganda.

The only ones who may see their health service quality decline with national healthcare are the very rich, and that's if they choose not to spend more on their private health services. National healthcare would help those in poverty and also those who cannot afford healthcare, obviously.

My 'irrational fear' of minimum wage being abolished is fueled by some conservatives on this forum seeing it as a clear advace, and something we should do (if there are say ten or so on this forum alone who want it, I can only imagine how many in the general public want it. Yes I see it as almost impossible, but the very fact that some want it, and not just one person, concerns me, as they blatantly disregard the rights of the poor). There are obviously some radicals in congress who want to see mnimum wage abolished, there is even one who may run for president in '08 (Newt Gingrich).

To even imply that I am naive is highly unwarranted on your part. You must understand that there are many who do have 'real world' experience that share my beliefs, yet consistently vote Democrat because there's no other major leftist party out there. And we must admit that conservatism is fueled by strong anti-intellectualism and many conservatives are simply ignorant. I mean, there's still some Americans out there who buy into Bush's SS plan, there's some who believe Iraq was involved with 9/11, and there's some who believe that communism is by definition run by a dictator. The same people who believe these things are almost guarenteed to be conservative. The thought tht socialism will help the majority is not ignorant in the least, it is true, rather, the ignorant, or 'naive', position is of those who believe that capitalism is superior to all others, and that no other system is possible and helping the majority of people rather than the few is just 'dream'. At one time in this country, government involvement in the economy and redistributive policies and unions were thought to be the norm. This was the case from the thirties to the seventies, until the wonderful Ronald Reagan rose to power and began to implement a system of supply side economics that benefitted the rich and hurt the poor. So please refrain from shrugging off more radical views as simply 'naive', as they clearly are not. The ones who believe this are usually the ones who know least about radical thought.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"Can you not see that there is a huge propaganda machine in the USA? Most people see it, and either believe it becaue other perspectives are 'bad', or they see it and look to other sources." -What are you even saying here? If most people know that there's a propaganda machine, then doesn't it become relatively impotent as propaganda? You're claiming that the 90% of this country that supports capitalism is all being controlled by propaganda, or is stupid somehow?

Europe isn't exactly a great economic example. Their economy is in the ****ter compared to ours, and the only thing holding the EU together is a desire to be equal to the US.


I say that you seem to be letting fear rule your agenda because you believe the propaganda that the left is feeding you, and you respond with even more propaganda.

I run in some pretty conservative circles, and I've never heard mention of the minimum wage being abolished. And where on earth did you hear that Newt Gingrich might run for president? (By the way, he's not in Congress either.)

And you're right, there are many people who are in the "real world" who share the same socialist beliefs as you. They're called University Professors.

"And we must admit that conservatism is fueled by strong anti-intellectualism and many conservatives are simply ignorant."

Are you kidding me? You've been "propagandized" by the rabid left wing who assumes that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. For every broke country hick that voted for Bush, there's a welfare city dweller who voted for Kerry. For every person who believes that Iraq was involved with 9/11, theres a person who believes that Halliburton had a say in the prosecution of the war. And you're right, there are many people out where who "still buy into Bush's SS plan." It just so happens that many of them are noted economists.

Ignorance knows no political boundaries, although the left seems to be looking for a monopoly on it.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
"Can you not see that there is a huge propaganda machine in the USA? Most people see it, and either believe it becaue other perspectives are 'bad', or they see it and look to other sources." -What are you even saying here? If most people know that there's a propaganda machine, then doesn't it become relatively impotent as propaganda? You're claiming that the 90% of this country that supports capitalism is all being controlled by propaganda, or is stupid somehow?

Europe isn't exactly a great economic example. Their economy is in the ****ter compared to ours, and the only thing holding the EU together is a desire to be equal to the US.


I say that you seem to be letting fear rule your agenda because you believe the propaganda that the left is feeding you, and you respond with even more propaganda.

I run in some pretty conservative circles, and I've never heard mention of the minimum wage being abolished. And where on earth did you hear that Newt Gingrich might run for president? (By the way, he's not in Congress either.)

And you're right, there are many people who are in the "real world" who share the same socialist beliefs as you. They're called University Professors.

"And we must admit that conservatism is fueled by strong anti-intellectualism and many conservatives are simply ignorant."

Are you kidding me? You've been "propagandized" by the rabid left wing who assumes that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. For every broke country hick that voted for Bush, there's a welfare city dweller who voted for Kerry. For every person who believes that Iraq was involved with 9/11, theres a person who believes that Halliburton had a say in the prosecution of the war. And you're right, there are many people out where who "still buy into Bush's SS plan." It just so happens that many of them are noted economists.

Ignorance knows no political boundaries, although the left seems to be looking for a monopoly on it.
We've become mindless politicians, both of us! I'm sick of mudslinging, as us both calling sides 'ignorant' is leading us nowhere. It is a fact that most people do not understand socialism or communism, it is also a fact that Newt has hinted he's running for president (perhaps you don't watch political talk shows), it's also a fact that economists are about 50/50 in supporting or totally disagreeing with Bush's plan (rather, most people are wondering what Bush's plan actually is lol). But for us to call it 'debate' when we mindlessly skip debate and rather call each other names like 'ignorant' or 'naive' is ridiculous. I, for one, wish to continue debating capitalism and the possibility of socialism. It is most important for you to understand that socialists are not these fools you make them out to be, nor are they 'naive' in the least. That being said, I am most open to debate of capitalism and socialism in the economics forum. I give you this challenge for debate and offer you the opportunity to make a thread stating your beliefs so that we may begin. But I will end these mindless insults, by both of us, now.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I appreciate what you've said, and I do agree that most people do not understand either socialism or communism. I haven't heard anything about Newt running, he'd get obliterated even before the primaries if he did.

My point with the economists is that it's not like nobody agrees with the plan, it's just controversial, as anything affecting SS will be.

I agree that not all socialists are naive, I've met many who aren't. However, I've never met one who wasn't very passionate about his beliefs, to the point that there can be no compromise. I appreciate your offer for a debate (honestly), but I don't have the energy for it now.

I have enjoyed our debate thus far, and am glad it didn't get too out of hand. I'm sorry for getting demeaning at times, and I hope to cross your path again on here.
:)
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
I appreciate what you've said, and I do agree that most people do not understand either socialism or communism. I haven't heard anything about Newt running, he'd get obliterated even before the primaries if he did.

My point with the economists is that it's not like nobody agrees with the plan, it's just controversial, as anything affecting SS will be.

I agree that not all socialists are naive, I've met many who aren't. However, I've never met one who wasn't very passionate about his beliefs, to the point that there can be no compromise. I appreciate your offer for a debate (honestly), but I don't have the energy for it now.

I have enjoyed our debate thus far, and am glad it didn't get too out of hand. I'm sorry for getting demeaning at times, and I hope to cross your path again on here.
:)
^A nice end to this little semi-debate of ours, atleast for a capitalist lol^

Nice to know that sometimes socialists and capitalists can agree...sometimes...

I do hope that some time in the future, perhaps, you'll accept my offer. Until then, we shall end this discussion.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
26 X World Champs said:
You don't say?

TERRORIST ATTACKS CLINTON STOPPED.

  • Just for the record, under Richard Clarke's leadership as Czar of Counterterrorism.
  • CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
  • Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
  • Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
  • Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
  • Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
  • Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
  • Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
  • Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
  • Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
  • Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
  • Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
  • Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
  • Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
  • Paul Bremer, former Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
  • Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
Typical of the socialist-lib-dem mindset, if one talks about it, one has solved the problem or accomplished the mission.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Yeah, but remeber that Clinton's economic policy was rather conservative, as a majority of cons support that wonderful market option you site. He cut gov't spending, cut taxes, and cut out more of the New Deal, a tendency we saw with Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and probably we'll see it again with Clinton II, if she's elected. Bush has only worsened things, as he runs an economic policy neither liberal nor conservative in principle. It simply doesn't make sense to cut taxes and then spend more than the budget will allow, and not veto spending bills. Please tell me, Fant, that you have the sense to admit that what Bush is doing to the economy is simply mad.
You conveniently ingnore two facts; Bush inherited a recession that was well under way BEFORE he was inaugurated, and the monumental negative economical effect of 9-11.

If the current economic indicators mean anything, then all of the Bush Administration policies have been correct.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
Typical of the socialist-lib-dem mindset, if one talks about it, one has solved the problem or accomplished the mission.

Great reply to a post that listed 25 facts about the Clinton Administration. Tossing out nasty rhetoric is the best you can come up with? :rofl

I won't make a scathing stereotypical remark about Republicans in general. I will, however, make a remark aimed directly at you, Fantasea. How about answering my post with a rebuttal that is fact based instead of writing generalizations that have no basis in fact, and quite frankly, have no place in this debate?
:duel
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
26 X World Champs said:
Great reply to a post that listed 25 facts about the Clinton Administration. Tossing out nasty rhetoric is the best you can come up with? :rofl

I won't make a scathing stereotypical remark about Republicans in general. I will, however, make a remark aimed directly at you, Fantasea. How about answering my post with a rebuttal that is fact based instead of writing generalizations that have no basis in fact, and quite frankly, have no place in this debate?
:duel
Which of those 'facts' did anything to reduce the incidence of terrorist acts?
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
Which of those 'facts' did anything to reduce the incidence of terrorist acts?

Read again, please? There were MANY incidents that never happened due to their efforts. Try to grasp the concept of PREVENTION. Don't you think that during these times that under Bush they've been able to thwart events before they happened? Does that mean that nothing will ever happen again?

You're constantly blaming Clinton and Democrats for decades of foreign policy that has caused America to be despised in the Arab world. To just blame Clinton is plain stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but your debating style is to throw out generalizations, lies and half-truths that you twist into what you want people to believe rather than simply using the truth to support your point of view.

IMHO, for what it's worth, it's time for you to start making posts that contain facts, real ones, not talking points from right wing websites and magazines. The list that I provided contains facts. The accusations that you make are, for the most part, fiction.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You need to take an objective look at your posts, Champ. BTW, this post of yours was on every left wing forum, I went to. I had time to track down some of the claims made about how great Clinton was. Here is the result:
CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Terrorism, however, was hardly ignored in previous administrations. In fact, at the beginning of the Reagan administration, Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that opposition to terrorism would replace the Carter administration’s focus on advancing human rights throughout the world. Although opposition to terrorism never really became the primary focus of the Reagan administration or successor administrations, each of these paid signifiacnt attention to the issue and produced many important documents that shed light on the policy choices faced today.
Here is some reading for you Champ. Lets get the facts, as you say.
Source
Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
Where are the sources for these stories?
Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent. Wasn’t that the dangerous aspirin factory?
Source

Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
That’s impressive. Did he pardon them before he left office?
Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
Have you ever heard President Bush blame Clinton? He goes out of his way to treat the Clintons with kindness.
Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
this Commission was chartered in 1997 under the Federal Advisory Commission Act, with the sponsorship of the Congressional leadership, the White House, and the Department of Defense, to be the most comprehensive reassessment of the structure and processes of the American national security system since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. Wasn’t the first terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993? Kinda late wasn’t it?
Source
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
Tom Daschles wife was a lobbyist for the airlines. Where is the roll call vote? Bill number? How can we track it?
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
I don’t believe this. Where is the evidence?
Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
The post-Cold War decline in defense spending began during the Bush Administration.
There is almost no difference between the level of funding proposed for defense by President Bush in his last fiscal year (FY) 1994-99 budget plan and the level of funding actually provided for defense over this six-year period under the Clinton Administration. Both Bush planned funding and actual funding amounted to $1.72 trillion (in FY 2001 dollars).

Source

Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
Paul Bremer, former Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
The 1998 embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole attack should never have happened then should it?
Source
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
26 X World Champs said:
Read again, please? There were MANY incidents that never happened due to their efforts. Try to grasp the concept of PREVENTION. Don't you think that during these times that under Bush they've been able to thwart events before they happened? Does that mean that nothing will ever happen again?
Does this mean that you are giving the Bush Administration credit for getting something right? If so, it will be a first, for you.
You're constantly blaming Clinton and Democrats for decades of foreign policy that has caused America to be despised in the Arab world. To just blame Clinton is plain stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but your debating style is to throw out generalizations, lies and half-truths that you twist into what you want people to believe rather than simply using the truth to support your point of view.
The only reason the Arab world is upset is that after eight years of Wishy-Washy Willie, the "Texas Sheriff", who takes no crap, showed up. He told the UN he was going to form a posse, deputized those who wanted to join in, and took off after the bad guys. From the look of things in the Middle East and parts of Europe, he seems to be doing OK.
IMHO, for what it's worth, it's time for you to start making posts that contain facts, real ones, not talking points from right wing websites and magazines. The list that I provided contains facts. The accusations that you make are, for the most part, fiction.
When it's that humble, how much can an opinion be worth? Whenever I think a fact is necessary, I supply it.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
You conveniently ingnore two facts; Bush inherited a recession that was well under way BEFORE he was inaugurated, and the monumental negative economical effect of 9-11.

If the current economic indicators mean anything, then all of the Bush Administration policies have been correct.
"Current economic indicators"? Well, how bout those 'indicators'. I think that you're definitely not looking at one such indicator and that is the ever rising national debt which has soared under Bush, and is likely to continue to soar, as the man is an economic idiot! I'm sorry, but you cannot cut taxes and then plan to spend 2.6 trillion dollars!
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
That’s impressive. Did he pardon them before he left office?
It's good to see you're fair minded enough to look at the result of the WTC1 investigation and respond to it as you have. You just can't stop yourself from tossing missiles, can you?

Squawker said:
Have you ever heard President Bush blame Clinton? He goes out of his way to treat the Clintons with kindness.

Many of Bush's appointees blamed Clinton. Since they speak for the President it is fair to say that they were speaking for Bush when they blamed Clinton. For example
US 'blinded' before 9/11 attacks

US Attorney General John Ashcroft has robustly defended the actions of the Bush administration prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks.

He told the commission looking into the attacks that his determination to fight terrorism had been hampered by the policies of the Clinton leadership.
Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3624049.stm

BTW - The 9-11 Commission didn't blame either Clinton or Bush, they blamed 'the institution.' I think there's more than enough 'blame' to go around.

One more example? Bushies blaming Clinton for North Korea:
Bush Administration Shifts Blame for N. Korea Crisis
Clinton-Era Agreement Signed in '94 With Pyongyang Is Called Flawed

By Karen DeYoung and T.R. Reid
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page A22

A senior Bush administration official suggested yesterday that the nuclear crisis with North Korea was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement signed by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang that "frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end" -- for the next president.

The comments marked a sharp change of direction from the administration's insistence in recent weeks that only North Korea was to blame for the crisis. As recently as last week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he gave "great credit" to the Clinton administration for freezing North Korea's plutonium enrichment program with the 1994 Agreed Framework.

The new formulation of blame coincides with a spate of accusations, some from strong administration supporters, that President Bush may have antagonized North Korea by labeling it part of the "axis of evil" and helped provoke the crisis.


Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A44176-2003Jan11&notFound=true

Squawker said:
this Commission was chartered in 1997 under the Federal Advisory Commission Act, with the sponsorship of the Congressional leadership, the White House, and the Department of Defense, to be the most comprehensive reassessment of the structure and processes of the American national security system since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. Wasn’t the first terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993? Kinda late wasn’t it?
Another missile attack at Clinton? I remind you that Bush originally came out AGAINST a 9-11 Commission, remember?
Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel

May 23, 2002

(CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.

Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional intelligence committees.

CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante reports that Mr. Bush said the investigation should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence. Therefore, he said, the congressional investigation is "the best place" to probe the events leading up to the terrorist attacks.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

On July 28, 1996 Pres. Clinton made a speech in New Orleans re Terrorism:
Terrorists are often supported by states. And states that sponsor or permit terrorism -- including Iraq, Iran, Libya and Sudan, and any others -- must face strong sanctions. We all have to say we cannot live with this, it is wrong. People must seek to resolve their differences by ways other than killing innocent civilians. (Applause.)

This year I signed into law an antiterrorism act which made terrorism a federal offense, expanded the role of the FBI in solving these crimes, and imposed the death penalty for terrorism. As strong as the bill was, it did not give our law enforcement officials some of the powerful tools I had recommended because they wanted and needed them -- including increased wiretap authority for terrorists who are moving from place to place. Where they are flexible, so must we be. And chemical markers, often called taggets, for the most common explosives, black and smokeless powder, so that we can track down those who make bombs that kill innocent people.

This morning I was very encouraged to hear the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, express a willingness to consider these tougher measures. I have asked the Speaker; Majority Leader, Senator Trent Lott; the leaders of the Democratic minority, Senator Daschle and Mr. Gephardt; and the FBI director, Louis Freeh, to come to the White House tomorrow to help to agree on a package that will provide these additional protections against terrorism and any other measures we need to take to increase the protection of the American people.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
"Current economic indicators"? Well, how bout those 'indicators'. I think that you're definitely not looking at one such indicator and that is the ever rising national debt which has soared under Bush, and is likely to continue to soar, as the man is an economic idiot! I'm sorry, but you cannot cut taxes and then plan to spend 2.6 trillion dollars!
I would have expected you to know that old economics axiom, "You can't tax your way out of a recession."

The national debt will be reduced this time just as it was every other time. That has been, is now, and will always be, through increased tax receipts as a result of a rising economy.

As the economy rises, more jobs are created, more good and services are produced and consumed causing the need for more goods and services which requires business expansion and more jobs.

If the socialist-lib-Dems would either board the ship or get out of the way, instead of acting as an anchor, all of these good things would happen sooner.

However, we all know that they really don't want to see anything happen which might reflect credit on the Administration. Therefore they are willing to keep screwing everybody in order to make the Administration look bad.

We have the mid-term elections coming up next year. That's all four hundred thirty-five Representatives and one third of the Senators. If you plot a graph of the Democratic progress since 1994, it looks like a ski slide. They're desperate to stop the hemorrhage.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
I would have expected you to know that old economics axiom, "You can't tax your way out of a recession."

The national debt will be reduced this time just as it was every other time. That has been, is now, and will always be, through increased tax receipts as a result of a rising economy.

As the economy rises, more jobs are created, more good and services are produced and consumed causing the need for more goods and services which requires business expansion and more jobs.

If the socialist-lib-Dems would either board the ship or get out of the way, instead of acting as an anchor, all of these good things would happen sooner.

However, we all know that they really don't want to see anything happen which might reflect credit on the Administration. Therefore they are willing to keep screwing everybody in order to make the Administration look bad.

We have the mid-term elections coming up next year. That's all four hundred thirty-five Representatives and one third of the Senators. If you plot a graph of the Democratic progress since 1994, it looks like a ski slide. They're desperate to stop the hemorrhage.
You can't spend money you don't havem yet this is exactly what Bush has proposed. And don't be so quick to fault leftists for their 'terrible' ways. 70 years ago, FDR ushered in an era lasting 40 years of very, very successful Keynesian economic policy, that was ended, of course, by Reagan. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton all ran conservative economies, but now Bush is running a policy of lunacy, as he spends more than he has while continuing to cut taxes. And he's spending on privatisation, not social programs tro help the poor. I can see how some would look at the administrations of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton and say they ran a good economy (nevermind the fact that inequality rose dramatically) but to call Bush an economic success is really a misstatement. He cuts taxes and then spends!
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
You can't spend money you don't havem yet this is exactly what Bush has proposed.
He does it the same way a responsible breadwinner does it for his family when it's necessary; he borrows it with the intention of repaying it later.
And don't be so quick to fault leftists for their 'terrible' ways. 70 years ago, FDR ushered in an era lasting 40 years of very, very successful Keynesian economic policy,
Roosevelt was stuck with a depression and unemployment that he could not end. In 1940, young men began to be drafted which helped reduce unemployment a bit. However, it was the entry into the war that swept most of the young men off the streets, created millions of jobs in the war production industry, the institution of payroll deduction for income tax, tremendously increased tax revenues that ended the depression.

After the war there was an unprecedented pent up demand for consumer goods that supplied jobs to discharged service personnel and kept the economy humming like never before. The creation of the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration resulted in a boom in the auto industry and its ancillary industries as well as the travel industry.
that was ended, of course, by Reagan. Reagan, Bush I,
Reagan and Bush 41 were saddled with tax and spend Democratic Congresses. In retrospect, both probably wished they had not believed the Democratic promises to curtail spending.
and Clinton all ran conservative economies,
After the first two years, Clinton was saddled with a Republican Congress and could only follow their lead.
but now Bush is running a policy of lunacy, as he spends more than he has while continuing to cut taxes. And he's spending on privatisation, not social programs tro help the poor. I can see how some would look at the administrations of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton and say they ran a good economy (nevermind the fact that inequality rose dramatically) but to call Bush an economic success is really a misstatement. He cuts taxes and then spends!
Given the recession he inherited and the monumental costs to the economy wrought by 9-11, the Bush 43 Administration is well on its way to performing an economic miracle. He's doing this despite the best efforts of the Democrats to prevent any improvement in the economy.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
anomaly said:
He does it the same way a responsible breadwinner does it for his family when it's necessary; he borrows it with the intention of repaying it later. Roosevelt was stuck with a depression and unemployment that he could not end. In 1940, young men began to be drafted which helped reduce unemployment a bit. However, it was the entry into the war that swept most of the young men off the streets, created millions of jobs in the war production industry, the institution of payroll deduction for income tax, tremendously increased tax revenues that ended the depression.

After the war there was an unprecedented pent up demand for consumer goods that supplied jobs to discharged service personnel and kept the economy humming like never before. The creation of the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration resulted in a boom in the auto industry and its ancillary industries as well as the travel industry. Reagan and Bush 41 were saddled with tax and spend Democratic Congresses. In retrospect, both probably wished they had not believed the Democratic promises to curtail spending.After the first two years, Clinton was saddled with a Republican Congress and could only follow their lead. Given the recession he inherited and the monumental costs to the economy wrought by 9-11, the Bush 43 Administration is well on its way to performing an economic miracle. He's doing this despite the best efforts of the Democrats to prevent any improvement in the economy.
Gee, fancy writing there, and I just love how you take credit away from FDR and give it to Eisenhower. Can you on the right ever admit that FDR was a successful president both in economic policy and foreign policy, or will the tug of modern hatred for liberalism make this impossible? After FDR, and up through the mid 1970s, America saw its greatest period of equality in the nations history, coupled with a growing economy. This is in large part due to that hated New Deal that helped workers tremendously. He set up SS, established minimum wage (I know you hate that, but personally, I feel a person should atleast be able to make enough to live on, which is why minimum wage should be raised to 7.25/hr) and maximum hour workdays, and gave numerous rights to worker unions and strikers. But, the very thought of greater equality and more workers rights seems to send, atleast to you (other conservatives don't seem so hell-bent against the poor, atleast not to the extent you are), shivers down your back. But aside from all this, do you not proclaim to be a libertarian economically? That is, you suport not revolutionary change, but rather moderate progress, and not more spending, but less? Bush is not running a conservative economy in the least, he is spending tremendously all while cutting taxes! And the old dream of the rich of privatising SS may be realised, even at the cost of some 2 trillion dollars! I haven't heard of any libertarians who approve of this economic plan, but you 'conservatives' seem to have been duked by Bush. I mean, what conservative would approve of a president who didn't veto a single spending bill his entrie first term!

***I'm not saying all conservatives approve of this economic plan of Bush's. I am simply pointing out that a 'conservative' (Fant) approves of this 'cut and spend' economic policy.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
anomaly said:
He does it the same way a responsible breadwinner does it for his family when it's necessary; he borrows it with the intention of repaying it later. Roosevelt was stuck with a depression and unemployment that he could not end. In 1940, young men began to be drafted which helped reduce unemployment a bit. However, it was the entry into the war that swept most of the young men off the streets, created millions of jobs in the war production industry, the institution of payroll deduction for income tax, tremendously increased tax revenues that ended the depression.

After the war there was an unprecedented pent up demand for consumer goods that supplied jobs to discharged service personnel and kept the economy humming like never before. The creation of the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration resulted in a boom in the auto industry and its ancillary industries as well as the travel industry. Reagan and Bush 41 were saddled with tax and spend Democratic Congresses. In retrospect, both probably wished they had not believed the Democratic promises to curtail spending.After the first two years, Clinton was saddled with a Republican Congress and could only follow their lead. Given the recession he inherited and the monumental costs to the economy wrought by 9-11, the Bush 43 Administration is well on its way to performing an economic miracle. He's doing this despite the best efforts of the Democrats to prevent any improvement in the economy.
Gee, fancy writing there,
Thanks, I try.
and I just love how you take credit away from FDR and give it to Eisenhower.
FDR presided over the worst depression in US history. It wasn't his fault. He inherited it. If it wasn't the war and the war effort that ended the depression, what was it? And, of course, FDR was dead before the war ended.
Can you on the right ever admit that FDR was a successful president both in economic policy and foreign policy, or will the tug of modern hatred for liberalism make this impossible?
What economic policy? His foreign policy consisted of cutting off materials that the island nation of Japan had no other way of getting, and sending war materiel and arms to Britain and Russia. These actions guaranteed that the US would be sucked into the war, as it was.
After FDR, and up through the mid 1970s, America saw its greatest period of equality in the nations history,
I've written several times now, that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s (long after the death of FDR) was rejected by many of the Democrats in Congress and passed only, only, only, only, only because of the Republican votes it received. Why not look it up so that you can stop repeating this.
coupled with a growing economy. This is in large part due to that hated New Deal that helped workers tremendously. He set up SS, established minimum wage (I know you hate that, but personally, I feel a person should atleast be able to make enough to live on, which is why minimum wage should be raised to 7.25/hr) and maximum hour workdays, and gave numerous rights to worker unions and strikers.
None of these solved the problem of unemployment and the depression.
But, the very thought of greater equality and more workers rights seems to send, atleast to you (other conservatives don't seem so hell-bent against the poor, atleast not to the extent you are), shivers down your back.
Everyone should be free to work at whatever he wishes and be paid whatever he is worth. He should be free to rise in the workplace to the limit of his ambition and ability. If his present employment is too limiting, he should be able to expand his knowledge or improve his skills so that he can move up to a better job. Anything wrong with that?
But aside from all this, do you not proclaim to be a libertarian economically? That is, you suport not revolutionary change, but rather moderate progress, and not more spending, but less?
I don't know where you got that. I'm for progress at the fastest rate possible. It has always been progress that improved the lot of the worker. Spending? I believe that we should get fair value for the tax dollars spent. However, whatever it costs, that's what it costs.
Bush is not running a conservative economy in the least, he is spending tremendously all while cutting taxes!
Right on. He knows what it takes to advance the economy and he's succeeding, isn't he?
And the old dream of the rich of privatising SS may be realised, even at the cost of some 2 trillion dollars! I haven't heard of any libertarians who approve of this economic plan, but you 'conservatives' seem to have been duked by Bush. I mean, what conservative would approve of a president who didn't veto a single spending bill his entrie first term!
That's because the Republican Congress, in its infinite wisdom brought forth spending bills that the President asked for. They also brought forth the tax reduction legislation he asked for. Since they were giving him what he wanted, why would he want to exercise his veto power?
***I'm not saying all conservatives approve of this economic plan of Bush's. I am simply pointing out that a 'conservative' (Fant) approves of this 'cut and spend' economic policy.
The Republicans in Congress approve. So do I. What else is there?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
anomaly said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea

Thanks, I try. FDR presided over the worst depression in US history. It wasn't his fault. He inherited it. If it wasn't the war and the war effort that ended the depression, what was it? And, of course, FDR was dead before the war ended. What economic policy? His foreign policy consisted of cutting off materials that the island nation of Japan had no other way of getting, and sending war materiel and arms to Britain and Russia. These actions guaranteed that the US would be sucked into the war, as it was.I've written several times now, that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s (long after the death of FDR) was rejected by many of the Democrats in Congress and passed only, only, only, only, only because of the Republican votes it received. Why not look it up so that you can stop repeating this.None of these solved the problem of unemployment and the depression. Everyone should be free to work at whatever he wishes and be paid whatever he is worth. He should be free to rise in the workplace to the limit of his ambition and ability. If his present employment is too limiting, he should be able to expand his knowledge or improve his skills so that he can move up to a better job. Anything wrong with that? I don't know where you got that. I'm for progress at the fastest rate possible. It has always been progress that improved the lot of the worker. Spending? I believe that we should get fair value for the tax dollars spent. However, whatever it costs, that's what it costs.Right on. He knows what it takes to advance the economy and he's succeeding, isn't he?That's because the Republican Congress, in its infinite wisdom brought forth spending bills that the President asked for. They also brought forth the tax reduction legislation he asked for. Since they were giving him what he wanted, why would he want to exercise his veto power?The Republicans in Congress approve. So do I. What else is there?
First, let me point out that the New Deal did indeed help to provide employment, all be it not at the rate wanted by some. My point about the New Deal is that it helped future generations of Americans tremendously, and has so far done what FDR wanted: prevent a future depression the magnitude of the one in the thrities. Of course, as Republicans continue to chip away at the New Deal and also at the old idea of 'greater equality=good economy' mentality, the future may not be so controllable.

As for those wonderful tax cuts you so admire, let's look at them. Exactly who are they going to? Let's see: https://faireconomy.org/join/RTPTaxBreakTable05.html .

Bush is spending like crazy, all while trying to make the previously mentioned tax cuts permanent! Will these spending proposals help us in the long run? Most definitely not, as the National Debt continues to soar, and with Bush's spending record, will continue to soar over the next 4 years. Here's an article on his 2004 spending: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.prez.bush.spending.ap/ . Even the Cato institute, perhaps the most economically conservative site on the web, disapproves of Bush's rampant spending: http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-09-04-2.html !

You seem to hint that you're not exactly 'economically conservative' in that you'll support excessive spending sometimes. So does this mean you blindly follow your GOP and hail every GOP president and his economic policy, no matter how outrageous, as a success? Bush's legacy, in conservative's minds, will need to be his 'war on terror' that so many cons approve of, rather than his dismal economic policy.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
First, let me point out that the New Deal did indeed help to provide employment, all be it not at the rate wanted by some. My point about the New Deal is that it helped future generations of Americans tremendously, and has so far done what FDR wanted: prevent a future depression the magnitude of the one in the thrities. Of course, as Republicans continue to chip away at the New Deal and also at the old idea of 'greater equality=good economy' mentality, the future may not be so controllable.
We disagree.
As for those wonderful tax cuts you so admire, let's look at them. Exactly who are they going to? Let's see: https://faireconomy.org/join/RTPTaxBreakTable05.html .
Tax cuts went to anyone who paid federal income taxes. The higher the bracket, the higher the benefit. It's working exactly as it should. I don't subscribe to the theory that wealthier persons should be taxed disproportionately.
Bush is spending like crazy, all while trying to make the previously mentioned tax cuts permanent! Will these spending proposals help us in the long run? Most definitely not, as the National Debt continues to soar, and with Bush's spending record, will continue to soar over the next 4 years. Here's an article on his 2004 spending: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.prez.bush.spending.ap/ . Even the Cato institute, perhaps the most economically conservative site on the web, disapproves of Bush's rampant spending: http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-09-04-2.html !
Don't you get tired of repeating the same thing over and over? I'm perfectly satisfied with all of his fiscal actions.
You seem to hint that you're not exactly 'economically conservative' in that you'll support excessive spending sometimes. So does this mean you blindly follow your GOP and hail every GOP president and his economic policy, no matter how outrageous, as a success? Bush's legacy, in conservative's minds, will need to be his 'war on terror' that so many cons approve of, rather than his dismal economic policy.
I can't see that far into the future. Neither can anyone else. That you call his economic policy 'dismal' tells me that you have chosen not to see the beneficial effect of his actions.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
RightatNYU said:
anomaly said:
Fantasea said:
Not really interested in getting in this debate, just wondering how you expect a source that's so biased to be believeable?

I'm not quoting economic statistics from the National Review.

So since one of the sources came from a leftest bias, you're just going to side step the whole question?

I'm just wondering. A lot of what conservatives say makes some sense to me. I don't always agree. Sometimes honestly I do, but I almost always at least understand the argument. But this massive debt and the deficit absolutely doesn't make any sense to me what so ever. You seem intelligent- what's your take on it?
 
Top Bottom