Since two things are true: 1) The government sector is no where near 70%. 2) The goverment doesn't accumulate consistent surplus. 70% must not be accurate figure, unless they throw money into the oceans.
No, they just allowed the CIA to deal drugs in order to buy weapons to sell to a foreign country. I don't really have any problem with China having nuclear and rocket data since they will be willing to use them about as much as the USSR was. It is called Mutually Assured Destruction and continues to be the prevalent theory governing nuclear proliferation. Puh-leeze. If there was ANYTHING concrete (you know, like evidence or proof), Ken Starr would have run with it and Clinton would have had to face a much worse scandal than a bj in the oval office. The GOP spent their capital trying to pin ANYTHING on Clinton and were unable to make anything stick, most likely because Clinton was not involved (Occam's Razor). He was responsible for plenty. He balanced the budget for one, and as far as the economy goes, consumers and investors were confident while he was in office whereas once Bush was selected, everything went south, partly because many people had no confidence in the economy once Bush started bashing it. I will agree with you that presidents only have a small effect on the economy, but the difference is marked between the way Clinton did things (tax and spend) and the way Bush does things (borrow and spend). When it comes down to it, one of the criteria I use to measure a president is whether I am better off now than I was when they got elected. Under Clinton, I did very well. After only 3 years of Bush, things are much, MUCH worse than they were. It is nice to know that you consider a period of 8 years of near total peace with only a handful of American military casualties a foreign policy "disaster." Besides after what Bush has done to the reputation of the US in the eyes of the world, I see Bush's foreign policy as the single biggest debacle since Vietnam. Yeah, he really had his arm twisted to sign the welfare reform. If that was the case, he would have simply vetoed it since the GOP didn't have even close to the 2/3 necessary to override the veto. Again, as far as I am concerned, his domestic policy was pretty darned good. He did right by me. I don't call myself a libertarian. My sig once said "I don't want to be a Libertarian, but they are the only fiscal conservatives left." That is not exactly me swearing loyalty to the Libertarian party. If this is what you believe of Kerry's position on terrorism, you need to open your eyes and do some research rather than listening to the bobble-heads out there. That's funny, I think the tax cuts could be the worst thing about his domestic agenda. At least Clinton had the sac to balance the budget.
How sad. Could you put it in your sig so that I (or anybody else) won't make that mistake again? In real life I reccommend a tattoo on your forehead.
No, they were sold to guerilla groups. Even better. I suggest tattooing it backwards so you can see it clearly when you peer into a mirror.
From us! Are you mad! Are you one of these people who believes they should have just as good a weapons as us? I guess so. MAD is as dead as the the Cold War that generated it. They were afraid of his poll numbers and that is why I can't stand Republicans to this day. Bunch of panty-waisted cowards who could never bring the most corrupt president ever to task for his misdeeds. You just contradicted yourself! Jeez. And might I add that the Prez merely signs the budget. Sure, he submits his framework through the OMB, but he has little or no part in the actual construction. The Republican majority in Congress had more to do with that. Total peace? I think not. What about Khobar Towers? What about the U.S.S. Cole? We did nothing and the world saw us as a bunch of bedwetting whiners who run at the first sign of blood (like in the Mog). I served during some of those awful eight years where we stretched to the limit in various ****holes that had nothing to do with our vital national interests. I was out there on the front lines and I saw first hand how he ran us into the ground while in lockstep with his allies in Congress bled our budgets dry. He handcuffed the intel services and met with his CIA chief hardly ever. You call that engaged? I call that asleep at the wheel. No, I'm listening to the words from the cowardly sonuvabitch's mouth: -John Kerry Yeah, right! We go back to the awful do-nothing days of Bill Clinton. That's really smart. link You're a liberal. Come out and be honest about it. I'm at least truthful with who I am.
First of all, I don't believe that Clinton had direct involvement in anything having to do with "secrets" being sent to China because even Ken Starr would have been able to make that stick. You are really showing your bias and selective perception by calling Clinton "the most corrupt president ever ." OK, so you are saying that Bush has had nothing to do with the deficit then, right. Give me a break, the president has plenty to do with the budgeting process and it remains that Clinton is the only president in my memory to run a balanced budget. You will have to point out the contradition more clearly, I reread my post and didn't see it. Oh yeah, the Khobar Towers War. I am talking about 8 years in which we lost almost no military personnel in combat despite being part of several peacekeeping missions. The terrorist attacks were regrettable, yes, but if you are going to blame Clinton for them, then I guess Bush is squarely in the crosshairs for blame on 9/11. You need to take off your blinders. Many of the perprtrators of those terrorist attacks will never see the light of day again because they were caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You may see us as having been "a bunch of bedwetting whiners," but I have a feeling that the antipathy toward the US is much more pronounced now than it was under Clinton. IMO, Clinton never had a large enough event to justify going after an entire country, which makes me respect him even more for not making up "intelligence" reports to get Americans to support an unjustified action. I can see how some of the peacekeeping missions could be outside of our "vital national interests," much like the current action in Iraq. That doesn't mean that they weren't at least as justifiable as Bush claims Iraq is. I mean, at least in Bosnia, the "ethnic cleansing" wasn't a 2 decade old event. Oh, yeah, that balanced budget must have sucked BAD. Weren't the Republicans in control of Congress through most of Clinton's term? How many "allies" did Clinton have to help him bleed the (balanced) budget? At least he regarded Al Qaeda and Osama as a threat and even tried to take him out a couple of times. Bush disregarded everything that the previous administration warned him about, slashed the budget for intel services and counterterrorism, and refused to meet with the guy (Clarke) who was in charge of terrorism. Who was asleep at the wheel? Wasn't that the quote where the previous sentence read "The military is a large part of the fight against terrorism..."? Selective perception. I would rather have a "do-nothing" Clinton than a "f*** the middle class" Bush. Just playing devil's advocate to your three blind mice. I can see Clinton's problems pretty clearly and he had quite a few. I can just see that even if it WERE Clinton running (it's not, BTW, it is John Kerry running) he would be far, FAR better than Bush has been. If there were not such a dire need to oust Bush, I wouldn't vote for Kerry, but if Bush is given four more years, the damage to America may be irreparable.
That is perposterous and a dangerous attitude. If you believe that Bush is doing irreparable damage to this country, there is no hope for you. You believe every bit of drivel from the mouths of the Bush-hating left and that is sad, because your drug threads show you to be a thoughtful guy. I'm not blind to Bush's foibles, but yet, his foreign policy is a welcome and needed respite from the doomed, rudderless chaos of the Clinton regime.
As I have stated before, I supported Bush in the Afghanistan action and I am, for the most part, happy with the way he handled things immediately after 9/11. Things could have been handled much, MUCH worse. However, Bush lied to me just like Clinton did. I was PI$$ED when Clinton looked me in the eye and lied to me, and I am even more pi$$ed at Bush's lie because it sent people to their deaths in an unjustified war. I was given a line of bull about mushroom clouds coming from Iraq and for that (along with all the domestic stuff), I regard Bush as easily the worst president of my lifetime. I don't believe all the garbage that is thrown at Bush from the left any more than I believed all the garbage being thrown at Clinton from the right. I actually open my eyes and evaluate the situation, something that you seem to be unable to accomplish when it comes to Democrats in general and Clinton specifically. It is called selective perception and you have a raging case of it.
