Dems "THINK" they will get power back, huh huh?

[Kelzie]

If its not too personal let me ask you a question....who did you vote for in the last presidential election? If you voted for someone other than Kerry than you have some right to be so abusive. However if you voted for Kerry than you're a moron to be throwing all these accusations around. Was Kerry anti-war? Was he gonna pull out of Iraq? Was he against the Patriot Act? I didn't vote for him 'cause he offered nothing different than what we were already getting. And he was damn wishy washy about it too. The election was skull n bones vs skull n bones. There was no choice!

Yeah seriously. I'm all about the Dems, but Kerry sucked ***.

 

[MSgt]

If its not too personal let me ask you a question....who did you vote for in the last presidential election? If you voted for someone other than Kerry than you have some right to be so abusive. However if you voted for Kerry than you're a moron to be throwing all these accusations around. Was Kerry anti-war? Was he gonna pull out of Iraq? Was he against the Patriot Act? I didn't vote for him 'cause he offered nothing different than what we were already getting. And he was damn wishy washy about it too. The election was skull n bones vs skull n bones. There was no choice!

Given his extreme partisan sickness, I would think that anyone the Democratic Party put up would get his vote. (This would be the meaning to the "slavery to political masters" term I use.)

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yes but current workers pay you back what you put in, correct? SS is not meant to be an investment, it's meant to be insurance.

Point conceded, but if you would look what you contribute to SS over the years versus what you could do if you had it back the numbers would show a much better quality of life from the private sector. People who are struggling to get by would see more money in their pockets without the withholding tax and if necessity would demand they invested in their futures, people would find this out, it would also in my opinion bring a new sense of responsibility to the U.S. society that has been lost over generations. Don't take it as me saying SS needs to be killed, I am merely pointing out it's failings.

Please do. Although something interesting to note is that increased gun controls often (not always) come with an increase in law inforcement to enforce it...which of course leads to an increased crime rate because you have more people to catch it.

Not necessarily, it could also mean that unarmed people are easier to victimize. Just a thought, but you can add all the law enforcement that you desire and they still won't catch everything.

I never said that the Great Deal brought us out of the Depression. Merely that relying on a war to do so is a bad policy.

Relying on war is a bad economic decision, this is true, because every downturn would require an act of war under that philosophy, with that, I merely pointed out the fact that any fixes the New Deal did actually bring about were overrated and not responsible for what they have been given historical credit for.

The New Deal created jobs. Were they temporary jobs? Yes. Would you rather have a temporary job than none at all? I certainly would.

That is a good point, but the idea behind temporary jobs and the economy is that they will have no effect on economic downturn, which was one of the key principles of the ND, I will concede that some temporary relief did come about because of the New Deal, but to me that is a serious teaser when the job is done.

Would the New Deal have brought the US out of the Depression? I don't know. A war kind of got in the way.

It probably would not, because there didn't exist a permanent mechanism for growth and investment.

What used to be easier? Before you say that abusers of the system are causing a drain on resources, I need to see some numbers that show how prevelant it is. I'm slightly sceptical that it's as big a problem as people say it it.

Well, admittedly data is hard to find, I simply look to people I have personally known on the program, yes, some of them used it for the right reasons, but the majority I knew used it to avoid the risks of the working world. This is more of a personal experience statement on my part.

You wouldn't be worse off. In net gain, you would still be better off making 205K than you would be making 85 K. You are simply taxed more because you are able to pay a higher percentage of your salary without feeling as much hardship. As it should be.

Here's the math behind the logic, after total taxation with no deductions(I don't have much to deduct(state/local/FEDERAL being the biggest)) my 205K would become about 112K(rough est.) and at 85k it would be around 59-62K, I would lose almost half of my gross income to taxes just breaking into the bracket, I would have to kill myself to make more than the lower part of the "wealthy" bracket just to make back that percentage in taxes, whereas I would lose around 32% to taxes in my location at a much lower gross income. so the question is: Why should I bust my butt to lose almost half of my income when I could lose less and take more time for myself. The money I would lose on a good year could be better spent on buying/building a house(an economic contribution), a vehicle upgrade, etc. The sad thing is that the money I work for is not considered mine by many politicians and a certain segment of the population. Even if I didn't want the nicer things in life the principle stands, it is my labor so it is my money, taking more from me than I think is fair is stealing.

In my (possibly limited) experience, there is a very fine line between bad choices and bad circumstances. Did the people who invested in Enron have something bad happen to them? Certainly. Was investing your life savings in one source a bad choice? Certainly. It is a difficult line to draw. I simply prefer helping people up.

I can agree with helping people up, but not giving handouts. Yes there is a fine line between the two, and maybe most people need some help, but the big problem is that an entitlement mentality is in fact taking over this nation and it occurs on all sides of the economic spectrum, and while I don't think helping out needs to be stopped, spending needs to be restricted to responsible levels, a concept I am afraid is long lost.

 

[Stinger]

And his suggestions are in the form of a budget. He doesn't say "Hey guys, you know what'd be cool? If you gave some more money to...". He gives them a BUDGET. They don't have to follow it, but that's what they get.

They are in the form of suggestions to the various budget bills and it is not THE federal budget as you stated. Actually there is no such thing as THE federal budget.

 

[LaMidRighter]

That's not a valid number at all. Total crime is very different than gun crime and can rise for a myriad of reasons.

Total violent crime actually, I this is why it is a valid number; if someone wants to harm you and you are armed they would have to be pretty stupid and or crazy to continue the assualt if you brandish a weapon. That being said, self defense would not have made the violent crime catagorie, gun deaths sure, but not violent crime. Next, if you have criminals that know whether or not an individual is armed it would then dictate whether or not they are a good target. Right? And finally, and I believe this proves my point, why is it that the highest violent crime rates occur in urban areas with strict gun control, my belief is that naturally more population means more criminals, but also, more targets mean more occurances.

At some point in the process, the gun was obtained legally. If we make it more difficult to obtain legally, people might rethink disposing of it illegally. In addition, 60% of the US population has favored restricting hand gun sales for the last several decades. Democracy and all...

There's a second amendment to the constitution for a reason. I don't understand why people argue for the first amendment and against the second. You have a right to speak your mind, and to defend yourself.

 

[alphieb]

I don't know how he knows, but I know from watching and reading news. I saw and read reports describing recession right before Bush stepped into the office. And very soon after he stepped in there were mostly reports blaming him for the recession. Tell me I should not beleive what I heard and what I saw.

Provide me a link please.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

I would agree that the next presidential race looks good for the Democrats and they will have to work very hard to lose. It seems like the country switches back and forth between Republican and Democratic presidents. The way the pendulum swings means it is time for a Democrat to win the next presidential election.

But the fact that many are already throwing their support at Hilary shows the Dems are more determined than ever to toss their every advantage and every opportunity down the drain.

I hope they prove me wrong and put up a good fight 'cause I think that's what is best for the country.

Dear Talloulou, ...The country "switches" back & forth from reps to dems & so forth?????????

I have seen ONLY 1-democratic party president (Clinton's two terms) since the days of Jimmy Carter;...did I miss a democratic party president somewhere in the last 30 years? :smile:

 

[PerryLogan]

Since yall don't seem to know much about Democrats, here's what a real President did against terrorism. If you liked 9/11, thank a Republican:

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

The last elected American President protected us from terrorists. No wonder he was tied with FDR as the most popular President of the 20th century!

 

[PerryLogan]

All the gloating in the world won't keep the Republicans from hanging themselves:

Washington - Most Americans want Democrats to take control of Congress in November mid-term elections, while 34% prefer a Republican Congress, a Newsweek Poll said on Saturday.

President George W Bush's approval rating hit its lowest score in the Newsweek poll, the newsmagazine said in a statement, citing recent events, such as the Dubai ports controversy and the upcoming third anniversary of the Iraq war.

Only 36% of American adults approve of the way the president is handling his job, according to results of the survey conducted on Thursday and Friday.

64 % are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time, while only 30% are satisfied.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1900895,00.html

It's pretty much just the brain-dead who are supporting this guy now.

 

[MSgt]

Since yall don't seem to know much about Democrats, here's what a real President did against terrorism. If you liked 9/11, thank a Republican:



http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

The last elected American President protected us from terrorists. No wonder he was tied with FDR as the most popular President of the 20th century!

Ummmm, ignorant one, I'm in the military and have been since '92. You just crossed a road where you are about to get run over.

We did nothing to throw a punch at Al-Queda. This organization and many other organizations along with their terror masters went unaccosted and ran all over the U.S. military. From our cowardly retreat in Somalia to our cowardly ignoring of the embassy bombings to the bombing of a naval ship...we did nothing. An Air Force barracks was bombed in Saudi Arabia and we did nothing. Aside from the pathetic "let's arrest us some individuals to appease the American citizen and keep my polls up" mentality, we did absolutely nothing. With every Marine death that occured overseas, thanks to these zealots who need us as an enemy more than they desire peace for their people, the Marine Corps was ready to avenge and destroy the forces we knew were building. One only needs to study the material that President Bush Sr. and President Clinton were privy to and ignored. And because we did absolutely nothing, Bin Laden fixed his eyes on New York City, and Washington D.C. He's got our governments attention now doesn't he? Too bad it took 3000+ Americans to die to get it. The hundreds of dead American civillians and military members gone unavenged and largely ignored throughout the 90's just weren't good enough or nearly important enough to the American people and our President. The polls prove it.

As we have seen with the Madrid, London, Bali, and Jordan bombings, we can easily see that the terrorist leaders have begun to reveal a great potential weakness: they've become addicted to celebrity. They can't stand to lose the spotlight for 15 minutes. They understand that the global media is their sole remaining hope to turn the tide. Starting with the smallest attacks in the early 90's under Clinton's neglectful eye, Bin Laden had escalated each and every attack until 9/11 introduced to the Islamic terrorists everywhere to the potential damage they had not dreamed of inflicting before. They are now fixed on the attention that bombing a large capital city will give them and thanks to our media, they will always get what they seek.

They need to stay in the news to stay in the game, to keep the recruits and money flowing. These attacks are mere publicity stunts. Stunts that need not to have been, were it not for President Clinton's desperate need to ignore and neglect the military and our nation's security for the sake of his polls.

Do you ever have a thought of your own or do you just produce biased polls and reports? You really don't contribute a lot do you? Don't try to tell us what you perceive to have been done by your pathetic President of the 90's through partisan enslaved reports and articles. It just won't work on those of us that witnessed it first hand.

 

[talloulou]

Dear Talloulou, ...The country "switches" back & forth from reps to dems & so forth?????????

It looks that way to me:

Hoover Rep
Roosevelt Dem
Truman Dem
Eisenhower Rep
Kennedy Dem
Johnson Dem
Nixon Rep
Ford Rep
Carter Dem
Reagan Rep
Bush Rep
Clinton Dem
Bush Rep

:mrgreen:

 

[justone]

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history.
In America, few people heard anything about this.

Bill does unprecedented things but nobody sees anything nobody hears anything. Nice.

His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats.

Pervez Musharraf kicked Clinton's a$$ because Clinton was nobody, just a shame of America. Pervez Musharraf kisses Bush's A$$ becuse Bush know how to do things . What a difference.

When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress .

Nobody dismisses Bush's actions. Because the actions are real and Bush is not Clinton, he can insist and does not care about polls.What a difference.
All my comments are based on Perry's sources.

 

[akyron]

Bill does unprecedented things but nobody sees anything nobody hears anything. Nice..

I can agree he did break a lot of new ground.


- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court


The Clinton Legacy


CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED


All old news. Lets move on.

 

[PerryLogan]

Stop pulling my leg, Akyron! You guys are such cards.

Thanks for that amazing list. It has obviously gone through rigorous analysis and academic peer review.

Notice how most of the items on your list contained phrases like "accused of," "sued for," and "impeached."

In other words, the guy was accused of a lot of stuff. This I will grant you, my friend!

If being falsely accused and slandered makes for a bad President, Clinton was a bad President.

I especially like "Most number of witnesses to die suddenly." Cue Twilight Zone theme.

Getting back to reality, you should all know that a well-monied right-wing campaign known as The Arkansas Project made up most of the bad stuff you hear about Clinton. I refer you to two books documenting what I'm saying:

THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT - Joe Conason and Gene Lyons (This has also been made into a documentary, narrated by Morgan Freeman. Cool, huh?)
BLINDED BY THE RIGHT - David Brock

I don't believe either of these books has been seriously challenged. David Brock is the guy who wrote the "Troopergate Story," which he essentially made up.

The bad stuff you hear about Clinotn was basically made up. That's why Akyron's list is so anemic & strange, like a bad episode of Star Trek.

(Not that there were any bad episodes of Star Trek. It's just a hypothetical illustration.)

OK now. Let's assume for the moment that Akyron's list is...um, possibly less than credible.

Repulicans will always say Clinton was corrupt, but Republicans are nuts. That's why we love them.

So how corrupt was Clinton, really? Is there any way to tell?

I think there is. A good way to determine who's corrupt and who's not is to count up the total number of convictions and forced resignations within the administration. Let's call it the corruption quotient.

This relatively objective measure clears everything up instantly. Voila: The Clinton administration had the fewest convictions and forced resignations of any administration of the 20th century.

The Clinton Administration was in fact the cleanest two-term Presidential administration since Teddy Roosevelt. GO, BILL!

Maybe the American people sensed it. This would explain why his popularity kept going up, even as the Republicans were trying to drag him down.

Food for thought, Akyron.

OK, so who has the worst "corruption quotient"?

(drum roll)

Why...the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION!

Reagan's corruption quotient was—until this administration—the highest in American history. Those naughty Reagan people would sometimes rack up more convictions and forced resignations in a single day than the Clinton Administration managed in its entire eight years.
Meanwhile, I've got my serially linked supercomputers trying to tabulate a list of GWB's firsts. It'll be awesome, containing such items as:

first cokehead in the White House
first National Guard deserter
first convicted criminal
lost more jobs in his first year than any President in history
broke more international treaties than any in history
lowest job growth in American history
more debt than all previous President's combined (WHOA!!!)
first administration to out a CIA agent for partisan reasons
largest worldwide protests against the Iraq War
trade deficit at al all-time high
world terrorism tripled
poverty rate soaring
infant mortality soaring
presided over the worst terror attack in world history
first President since the Civil War to lose an American city
spying on his people more than any administration since Stalin
first President to use a wire
first shooting-a-friend-in-the-face within an adminstration since whenever
worst bear market since the Great Depression
"No president in the past 60 years, save George Herbert Walker Bush, has failed so miserably in his economic performance"
most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period
appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history
highest gasoline prices in U.S. history
fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors
(during the 2002 U.S. election)
first President on antidepressants (& God know what else)members of my members of GWB's cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
first President to flip the American people the bird (on television, no less)
more vacation time than any other (which is a blessing for the country, really)

This is only a beginning. Feel free to add items. You too, Akyron.

 

[akyron]

Stop pulling my leg, Akyron! You guys are such cards.

Thanks for that amazing list. It has obviously gone through rigorous analysis and academic peer review..

Meh. A google search will net you much more in 30 seconds.

Notice how most of the items on your list contained phrases like "accused of," "sued for," and "impeached."..

Hence the reference to the Convictions
"47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House."

The bad stuff you hear about Clinotn was basically made up.

William Jefferson Clinton has become only the second president in the history of the United States to be impeached.

He was impeached and he lied and he got caught. It could have happened to any of them. Nobody "made that up".

Maybe the American people sensed it. This would explain why his popularity kept going up, even as the Republicans were trying to drag him down.

Getting BJs in the oval was pretty cool too. Men all over the world were getting monica'd in every room in the house. Christ they had their own condoms named after them. Sex sells. No surprise there.

OK, so who has the worst "corruption quotient"?

Who cares?
All that Reagan info was on the link I previously posted. The point is NO administration is squeaky clean and pretending one was is just deluding yourself. This "culture of corruption" is a joke and it pisses me off when one party tries to point fingers at the other after doing the same exact thing thinking no one will notice. Until there are harsher penalties/additional incentives to do the job right in public office there will be many many incidents outlined above. I dont like it no matter who is in office and unlike you I wont excuse any party that should be held responsible for proven wrongdoing. One should be required to take an extended course on ethics before serving public office and sign a contract when its over. All paid fees should be returned if the contract is broken.


Randall Harold Cunningham (born December 8, 1941), usually known as Randy or Duke, was a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from California's 50th Congressional District. He served from 1991 to 2005.

Cunningham resigned from the House on November 28, 2005 after pleading guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. By pleading guilty, he admitted to taking at least $2.4 million in bribes and underreporting his income for 2004. On March 3, 2006, Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison and was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution.

I think he got off light. Some of the ex presidents got off light as well.

 

[justone]

Provide me a link please.

Originally Posted by justone
I don't know how he knows, but I know from watching and reading news. I saw and read reports describing recession right before Bush stepped into the office. And very soon after he stepped in there were mostly reports blaming him for the recession. Tell me I should not beleive what I heard and what I saw.

A link to what? To 6 years old TV news I was watching or papers I was reading? To memory of my mind? I am telling you what I witnessed and you want me also show it to you? It is like I would say I saw a car accident down the road, and you are asking me provide a newspaper where it is described? Do I care about the newspaper if I myself saw it? Go to a library please.

 

[justone]

The bad stuff you hear about Clinotn was basically made up. This is only a beginning. Feel free to add items.

So far , as to my reading of your posts ( see my observation above) you are participating very well in making up bad stuff about Clinton. I did not know some bad things about him before you informed me. Very nice of you, but I still think Clinton is not bad as you are showing him here.

 

[MSgt]

Contributers of the site and Perry,

Notice, that there was no reply to me. When faced with the hard truth of our reality, there are no massaged numbers and no natural occurrences in government that can trump it. When debated using well thought out scenarios and placed in paragraph form, there is only a need to withdraw, because producing a pre-manufactured list does not measure up to real debate.

I have accomplished the mission. Perry, you are exposed and you are left with your silly desperations and partisan slavery.

 

[Kelzie]

Contributers of the site and Perry,

Notice, that there was no reply to me. When faced with the hard truth of our reality, there are no massaged numbers and no natural occurrences in government that can trump it. When debated using well thought out scenarios and placed in paragraph form, there is only a need to withdraw, because producing a pre-manufactured list does not measure up to real debate.

I have accomplished the mission. Perry, you are exposed and you are left with your silly desperations and partisan slavery.

Wait to what? I'll reply. Then we can fight.

 

[justone]

Wait to what? I'll reply. Then we can fight.

May I be allowed to fight you instead of SySgt?
Ready?
1,2,3- GO!
.....................
You won.

 

[Kelzie]

May I be allowed to fight you instead of SySgt?
Ready?
1,2,3- GO!
.....................
You won.

Yeah that's right. You'd best recognize. :mrgreen:

Course I think we all know I'd kick gunny's *** as well. Though it's very nice of you to try and spare him the shame.

 

[justone]

Yeah that's right. You'd best recognize. :mrgreen:

I am all at your mercy, madam.

 

[akyron]

Wait to what? I'll reply. Then we can fight.

I think it was 110

There were a couple of haymakers in there.

 

[Kelzie]

I think it was 110

There were a couple of haymakers in there.

What? Jesus christ man, shhh! I'm not actually going to fight gunny. Are you insane? I was just trying to bug him. :mrgreen:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What? Jesus christ man, shhh! I'm not actually going to fight gunny. Are you insane? I was just trying to bug him. :mrgreen:

Why, just because he's a trained killing machine capable of snapping a mans neck in 15 different places all with one hand tied behind his back all while reciting the following cadance: "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. Before God I swear this creed: my rifle and myself are defenders of my country, We are the masters of my enemy, we are the saviors of my life. So be it, until there is no enemy, but peace. Amen." ????? . . . . *****.