Sounds like you believe the Clinton administrations attempts at CYOA when it comes to terrorism. I mean, get your head out of the sand. This is the same admin who severely restricted the use of agents who were criminals (what man who betrays his country for money is a good guy?) and yet they want us to believe they'd stop at nothing to rid the world of terrorism? The U.S.S. Cole was bombed and all we did was send some FBI change-jingling, apparatchik numbnuts over to investigate. Instead of treating it as an act of war, it was simply a criminal matter for old Janet I-throw-poor-Cuban-boys-to-the-Communist-wolves-with-armed-SWAT-teams and I-burned-alive-the-children-of-Waco Reno and the Clinton Injustice Department. The World Trade Center was bombed the first time and we did nothing except hear how Bill felt our pain while the Oral (Fruedian slip, I meant oval) Office staff felt his. Ditto with the bombing of the Khobar Towers as well. Clinton did not even get a daily briefing from the CIA every single day and his staff, rather than submit to permanent background checks they would've failed because of sexual perversion or extensive hard drug use, were allowed to keep their temporary clearances even though their background was not investigated, thus compromising national security. Why do I know this, because I knew Marines who worked in the White House. And after all that......you're going to tell me that Clinton did more to combat terrorism?
Interesting statistics from the 2000 election. In 2000, the U.S. had 205,815,000 people of voting age. Out of those # of people 156,421,311 were registered to vote. That means that only 76% of people that could vote registered. Now, out of the 156,421,311 registered voters only 105,586,274 people voted. That means that only 67.5% of registered voters actually voted. So we have 205,815,000 people of voting age and only 105,586,274 voted. Thats 51.3%.. pretty freaking sad. In TX, the # of people of voting age were 14,850,000 and there were 10,267,639 voters registered. Thats 69.1% of people that could vote. Then, only 6,407,037 voted! What the hell is wrong with this freaking state? Thats 62.4% of registered voters and ONLY 43.1% of the total voting age population. We had the LOWEST voter turnout rate in the entire US. I got this info from http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm What can be done to increase voter turnout?
Geez, that's freaking sad. Voting is the most important thing a person can do (besides post to cc.net, of course). With all the crap that's happened in the last two years, I bet another 10 percent come out, at least. The left is pissed, the right righteously indignant and the independents want a piece of the pie, too. If there's not a record turnout in 2004 it'll be a surprise. Or another illegal voter purging.
"Only 38 days into Clinton’s presidency in 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. Did he blame Bush Sr.? No, he oversaw the effort that captured and convicted these terrorists. Look at what Clinton did to the FBI’s counterterrorism budget: He tripled it. He was the first president to sponsor a crime bill that included antiterrorism legislation including an order to stockpile vaccines for smallpox and anthrax. Clinton ordered the CIA to assassinate Osama bin Laden in 1996 after the twin embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. And after the USS Cole bombing, Clinton did nothing ... except formulate a plan to attack and destroy the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and appoint counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke to head it up. According to Time magazine on Aug. 12, 2002, the plan also included ways to cut off terrorist funding, support Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan and give aid to countries facing al-Qaida insurgence. The same Time article quotes a Bush Administration official saying that the plan was “everything we’ve done since 9-11.” Unfortunately, that plan wasn’t completed until Bush took office, and it was ignored despite carrying Clarke over from the Clinton Administration. Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger briefed Condoleeza Rice about the al-Qaida threat. And what did Condi do about it? The same Time article reported she didn’t even bother to pass the info onto President Bush. Maybe we should be asking what George W. Bush did to prevent 9-11. He was in office for eight months. The CIA warned him on Aug. 6 that terrorists may use jetliners to attack the U.S. That answer is nothing. Bush isn’t responsible for the attacks. I blame the terrorists. So why do some people think it’s a good idea to point their fingers at a former president who did more to combat terrorism than any president before him? Because right-wingers just despise Bill Clinton and resent all the good he’s done for this country. They can’t stand the fact that he was one of the most successful presidents in history, despite the constant character assassination attempts coming from the right. " http://www.star.niu.edu/perspective/articles/091503-clinton.asp ---- "Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours. Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism. So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently. Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States. As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over. In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan. Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart. " http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/ --- bammaSlammer, please remove your head from your ass
He'll be re-elected because of his own political savvy. Bush is one of the best politicians of the era. He's figured out that: 1. Vague pronouncements of sympathy go a long way towards an uninformed populace. (compassionate conservatism, environment, etc). People demand action less than they demand recognition. 2. He can use the Presidency to back a more conservative agenda by default. He can pick conservative issues on which he won't take too much of a beating... and let his administrative officers take the riskier ones. His policies are radical... but he's managed to brand himself as a moderate. I can't stand the guy... particularly the fact that he's not honest, and he gets credit for being it even though he's directly lied on numerous policy issues. But you've got to give him credit: he's probably a better pure politican than Clinton, even with less personal charm.
I dunno. Bill Clinton was the *ultimate* politician. Had he not had to deal with relentless Republican "investigations" and his own personal demons, he could have been the best president in history. But it wasn't in the cards. Bush isn't even a good politician, but he has the *best* handlers in politics, bar none. Karl Rove is despicable and manipulative, but he's a political genius.
GV76, Bush's level of conservatism is dwarfed by Reagan. You're either extremely ill informed or your biased thinking has you talking out of your ass. Maynard, Mulder, Don't discount the effects the erronious early reports out of Florida had on republican turn-out in the western states. I remember being resigned to defeat until mid-night. The totals were so close that making a claim on the popular vote is nothing more than grasping for straws.
Sweet! I pulled Wild Bill out of lurk mode and got 2 posts out of him! .02 posts per day.. slow down, your typing like a bat out of hell!!!!
Wow, you told me. But you *still* didn't refute my claim that Bush is the most conservative president in history. Though "talking out of your ass" is probably enough in most third-grade circles, *adults* tend to use facts to back up their claims.
Let's see Bush's record here: Conservative....... Tax cuts 1. war on Iraq 2. increased defense spending 3. removal of funding for overseas abortions 4. removing ridiculously expensive environmental regulations thrust upon us by the Clintonistas 5.removing OSHA regulations that would limit productivity without any real safety gains Liberal...... 1.Signed Ted Kennedy's education bill 2.Signed the awful farm bill which is a total waste of money and a shamefully obvious bid to lock up the vote in several midwest battleground states. 3.supported a prescription drug benefit for Medicare that will bankrupt our nation. For those who believe in fiscal responsibility, a new, expansive and expensive entitlement is pure, vote-buying madness 4. supported amnesty for illegal aliens (that would destroy our nation. We would be flooded even more than we are now by illiterates who refuse to learn the language and assimilate, rather creating a pocket of their third-world cesspool in our cities 5. signed that awful, so-called "campaign finance reform" bill that is simply a way to squelch the first amendment rights of candidates in federal elections and protect incumbents by doing so. He is quite moderate in my eyes. I'd prefer him to be more libertarian, but that's why I vote that way. I know Harry Browne has no chance of winning, but at least my candidate believes in the things I believe in, which Bush does not. They include: 1. Ending most if not all foreign aid 2. Getting us out of the UN 3. Ending all federal funding for the arts, science, education, corporate welfare and other expenditures that are not constitutionally mandated 4. getting rid of the Patriot Act 5. Legalizing pot and prostitution and decriminalizing all other drugs, so the only crime for the hard drugs comes from intent to distribute. Pot would be totally legal in every way. 6. Eliminating many of the gun control laws and enforcing the remaining ones very strictly. 7. Eliminating many of the counterproductive regulations that make our industries uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Once upon a time, safety regulations were a few pages, now they are volumes upon volume covering every single possible outcome. 8. Initiating a loser-pays legal system to eliminate frivolous lawsuits which are destroying our nation 9. Strictly enforce immigration laws and round up and deport every single last illegal immigration 10. Junk the income tax, inheritance tax, luxury tax and all other Federal taxes plus the IRS and replace it with a consumption tax. Investments, retirement, savings and any other financial activity would be tax-free. 11. Replace taxes on services with user fees, like highways and such. That way you only pay for what you use and are forced to use your tax dollars to support things you don't (like for me, public transportation, fine arts, and government schools) 12. Remove all fiscal restraints on campaigns, but force each candidate to document publicly, on a govt. website every single donor and how much money they gave so that if Cheney really is bought by Halliburton, you can see if that is true or not. That would cause things to largely police themselves. 13. And lastly, my favorite, phasing out every single entitlement program, leaving that sort of thing to the states. If you want to have a socialist welfare state (like Massachusetts), it is your responsibility to pay for it. If you want a laise faire state, you can have that as well.
I actually found 2 things that I agree with you on! (although I wouldnt decriminalize every drug) YEAH! I'VE GOT MAIL I'VE GOT MAIL, NOW YOU GO LADY!
In this "perfect world" we'd all be so messed up from drugs and banging prostitutes that we wouldnt give a damn what type of gov't we had.. lol I feel like playing drugwars again... I hear crack is going at a low price in Europe.
Max, weve been through this on the board before and the above statement is just not true. There are many stories out there suggesting that if all the votes and disputed ballots in Florida were counted, Gore would be the victor. Somebody who can search go back and find a thread on this where Refman and I hashed this out.
i don't remember those threads...but i do remember story after story coming out and saying that if Gore did the recount the way he suggested it be done, he would have lost.
I second this. I still haven't seen a link from Democrats showing otherwise. Once, Achebe posted something, but it turned out not to be what he thought.
1. Ending most if not all foreign aid -so we no influence at all accept the threat of blowing them up. That is sure working in Cuba. 2. Getting us out of the UN --see #1 and no country will want to play with us economicly either. 3. Ending all federal funding for the arts, science, education, corporate welfare and other expenditures that are not constitutionally mandated --So education and science is a bad thing? 4. getting rid of the Patriot Act --Wow there is a first for everything. I actually agree with something you said. 5. Legalizing pot and prostitution and decriminalizing all other drugs, so the only crime for the hard drugs comes from intent to distribute. Pot would be totally legal in every way. --I guess I know what you smoking when you wrote this crap. 6. Eliminating many of the gun control laws and enforcing the remaining ones very strictly. --There are no gun control laws. I can get any gun I want in the local Walmart and Sporting goods store or Gun Show. 7. Eliminating many of the counterproductive regulations that make our industries uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Once upon a time, safety regulations were a few pages, now they are volumes upon volume covering every single possible outcome. --If companies didn't screw over employees on a consistent basis, then we would need the regulations. But thats not going to happen. 8. Initiating a loser-pays legal system to eliminate frivolous lawsuits which are destroying our nation. --So no poor person could sue a rich person or corporation out of fear they might lose. That's real fair. 9. Strictly enforce immigration laws and round up and deport every single last illegal immigration. -- The cost of housing would go up because there would be no cheap labor to build the houses. 10. Junk the income tax, inheritance tax, luxury tax and all other Federal taxes plus the IRS and replace it with a consumption tax. Investments, retirement, savings and any other financial activity would be tax-free. --So we go from a progressive tax to a regressive tax where the poor pay the most taxes since they spend the largest percentage of their income. So if you borrow money, you could pay more taxes than you actually earn. The financial industry, and consumer product industry would love that. 11. Replace taxes on services with user fees, like highways and such. That way you only pay for what you use and are forced to use your tax dollars to support things you don't (like for me, public transportation, fine arts, and government schools). -- Government doesn't work that way. If you want to live that way go to a third world country like Liberia. 12. Remove all fiscal restraints on campaigns, but force each candidate to document publicly, on a govt. website every single donor and how much money they gave so that if Cheney really is bought by Halliburton, you can see if that is true or not. That would cause things to largely police themselves. --No not really since they would find another way to hide the money. 13. And lastly, my favorite, phasing out every single entitlement program, leaving that sort of thing to the states. If you want to have a socialist welfare state (like Massachusetts), it is your responsibility to pay for it. If you want a laise faire state, you can have that as well. -- The GI bill is a federal entitlement program which you used to go to college would be eliminated. No one would afford to go to college. Now I know why Alabama has the one of the worse education rates in the country.
And with that last post. Another one goes to my ignore list because I am now certain "BS" has nothing intelligent or insightful to say.
bammaslammer: One interesting thing I noticed about your post, was that it was an interesting blend of extreme pragmatism and pure ideological stances. While few people tend to be "purely" pragmatic or ideologues... it's rare that you see so many positions that are extreme examples of each spectrum. Mostly, it's ideology. But in particular, the "loser-pays legal system" and the "get rid of the immigrants" stances are extremely practical, as neither really has a sound philosophical basis. Just interesting... Don't want to get into a real content-oriented argument, as disputed about 10 of your 13 ideas would be extraordinarily messy and pointless .
Whatever else you can say about me, I'm extremely well-informed. Bush has taken several conservative Constitutional stances that have never been taken by an acting President. For example, even judicial appointees by Reagan (except for a single district judge in Texas) have failed to extend the 2nd Amendment to a protection of an individual right to bear arms. The official position of the Attorney General, for the first time ever, is that such a right exists. Perhaps Reagan privately thought this - but it wasn't reflected by policy. That, of course, is quite distinct from opposing greater gun control laws and even using 2nd Amendment rhetoric in support. Moreover, the government's arguments during Hamdhi I positioned the administration in opposition to Due Process protections that had never been questioned. Reagan might have been more conservative personally, put he didn't personally advocate policies that supported some of the radical positions of Bush. I'd also be open to an argument that Bush's conservative is less shocking (not only because he couches it in moderate terms, but also...) because we've seen a gradual progression towards conservatism over the last couple of decades. Bush may represent a less significant departure, but that's quite separate from his extension of conservative doctrine further than any previous President.
