Hillary Clinton prez?

[SnogDurryynn]

Conjecture. Part of why I love this guild is the fact that we can all disagree on stuff and still be friends.   :peace:  I don't like Hillary at all and I know nothing about Obama, and none of the present candidates would have responded in a good way to 9/11.  I am soooo glad we did not have President Gore mucking things up on that day.  Hillary will be the Democratic Candidate to beat; she is popular and a good speaker, and has influence. (she likes power) But she may have to contend with Fred Thompson, the Conservative's conservative, and we should have a nice White House Race this season.

 

lol What we need in vent is another handful Republicans to balance out all the liberals I am so used to hearing when I'm online. /thumbs up.

 

Keep it real, Durryynn...and I'll be here to offer my conservative opinion.  ;)

20906[/snapback]

Indeed I couldn't agree more lol. We do need more Republicans in vent. What I have come to understand is without you guys I would be bored out of my mind and we do need to have multiple view points in order to govern a great nation. So I am all for different, fresh and intuitive ideas. We all are intellectuals and we need to work together rather than in clans.

* Durryynn stops the record on the turn table*

Now hold on a second there about the 9/11 scene right there :D. I think that Gore would have addressed the problem significantly better then Bush Jr. did. If Gore and Joe Lieberman were in office that mess would have been gone by now and there would have been a memorial there before you could have said War in Iraq or Weapons of mass destruction. I mean look at the progress of New York with the towers. I heard that the mayor hired some funky architects to replace the towers……. I am not happy with how Bush is taking care of this country over all. He is more involved with the “war on terror” instead of the “war in America” that is killing our economy and sadly a whole generation of kids in this country. Their future dream is to go into the armed forces to get through college or get a fat paycheck to buy a corvette to drive for a few weeks until he is deployed.

Do not get me wrong though there is nothing wrong with people serving this country and I am a HUUUUGE supporter for our troops, but it better be a conflict that is worth them risking their lives for.

 

Another thing about some republicans and democrats that were on c-span talking about what they wanted from their future president and these guys were referring to Bill Clinton as a bad example with dishonesty etc. That made me livid!!! When in today’s society Americans can't see that our President; George W. Bush Jr. Lied (LIED!!!) about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a reason to start a major conflict over seas BABY!!! Here these guys are complaining about Bill and his private life events in which we should have no say in what he should or shouldn’t do!!! What.......the.......hell peoples. :blink:

 

Someone throw me a bone here pleeeeaaase and tell me I am not crazy lol?!?!

 

-=edit=- Oh you know I will keep it real Edaun :D! It is a privilege to read your wisdom of words my friend. -=edit=-

[Edaun Ifor]

Indeed I couldn't agree more lol. We do need more Republicans in vent. What I have come to understand is without you guys I would be bored out of my mind and we do need to have multiple view points in order to govern a great nation. So I am all for different, fresh and intuitive ideas. We all are intellectuals and we need to work together rather than in clans.

* Durryynn stops the record on the turn table*

Now hold on a second there about the 9/11 scene right there :D. I think that Gore would have addressed the problem significantly better then Bush Jr. did. If Gore and Joe Lieberman were in office that mess would have been gone by now and there would have been a memorial there before you could have said War in Iraq or Weapons of mass destruction. I mean look at the progress of New York with the towers. I heard that the mayor hired some funky architects to replace the towers……. I am not happy with how Bush is taking care of this country over all. He is more involved with the “war on terror” instead of the “war in America” that is killing our economy and sadly a whole generation of kids in this country. Their future dream is to go into the armed forces to get through college or get a fat paycheck to buy a corvette to drive for a few weeks until he is deployed.

Do not get me wrong though there is nothing wrong with people serving this country and I am a HUUUUGE supporter for our troops, but it better be a conflict that is worth them risking their lives for.

 

Another thing about some republicans and democrats that were on c-span talking about what they wanted from their future president and these guys were referring to Bill Clinton as a bad example with dishonesty etc. That made me livid!!! When in today’s society Americans can't see that our President; George W. Bush Jr. Lied (LIED!!!) about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a reason to start a major conflict over seas BABY!!! Here these guys are complaining about Bill and his private life events in which we should have no say in what he should or shouldn’t do!!! What.......the.......hell peoples.  :blink: 

 

Someone throw me a bone here pleeeeaaase and tell me I am not crazy lol?!?!

 

-=edit=- Oh you know I will keep it real Edaun :D! It is a privilege to read your wisdom of words my friend. -=edit=-

20924[/snapback]

 

You're not crazy. I believe there *were* weapons of mass destruction there, but they were destroyed/moved before the UN inspectors "got permission" to search for the stuff. The UN iswas the biggest hindrance to justice. IMO they want to push for "world peace" without being willing to back up their words with Force. One of the slogans of the Cold-War Army was "Peace Through Strength", but in our 9/11 case, I think Bush acted appropriately in responding to the terrorists that we aren't going to sit back and take this crap. I think Gore would have been more of a pushover (personally). I DO NOW THINK THE US MILITARY SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE AREA AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO FIND THEIR LEGS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN. Most of what I hear from the war is a civil-war between two factions in Iraq, with the militants killing their own countrymen. Having US troops in harm's way only intensifies the threat, and we should bring them home.

 

I personally did not care what President Clinton did in the Oval Office with whatshername, but to LIE about it, then recount he lied later was too much, and gave the comics in this country lots of material for their work....much like our "grammetically-challenged" Commander-in-Chief. Oh, let's not forget, that immediately after 9/11 many, many congresspeople were on the steps of their building singing hymns on camera, and many of those who oppose Pres Bush and the War were the ones who gave him the power to declare it in the first place. The President cannot declare war without the approval of Congress.

 

Personally, to make a "media frenzy" on the full-scale assault and search for Bin Laden was stupid. We have 3 branches of Special Ops troops in the military: SEALS, Air Force Special Ops teams, Rangers & Special Forces (2007 Almanac considers these two together in the same branch). All of these guys are trained to handle these types of situations and it would have made more sense to send them in to kill whomever, instead of allowing the media to come and basically warn Osama we were coming. I'm sure he gets CNN.

 

Thanks for your reply, Durryynn. I'd love to chat more on this type of stuff!

 

Ed

[LordNyax]

I was going to reply to that last post, but I am not a very good decider. So I will wait to form my opinon rather then give a speech in front of a MISSION ACOMPLISHED banner ;)

[SnogDurryynn]

"You're not crazy. I believe there *were* weapons of mass destruction there, but they were destroyed/moved before the UN inspectors "got permission" to search for the stuff. The UN iswas the biggest hindrance to justice."

 

First of all there were many inspections and searches for weapons of mass destruction

(while we were in Iraq) The fact was we didn’t find them while we were in Iraq. First of all we did not give Sadam enough time to hide his W.M.D’s because we hit the prime targets for the leaders of the country with stealth bombers. So don’t tell me that they simply moved them to another country which would be where exactly? Another thing is that the Democratic party wanted to investigate how George W. Bush to question their methods on how they searched for W.M.D’s and they were denied their own search for the W.M.D’s. So there is no evidence of them and we didn’t find any actual weapons that were a threat to our country which means that he lied about the whole thing.

 

"One of the slogans of the Cold-War Army was "Peace Through Strength", but in our 9/11 case, I think Bush acted appropriately in responding to the terrorists that we aren't going to sit back and take this crap. I think Gore would have been more of a pushover "

 

 

I think the saying went “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice……..uh well um don’t fool me again” You think Gore would have been a push over? Why because he wouldn’t have taken action unless he considered the real target or waited for enough intelligence to make a smart decision? Is opening international diplomacy a push over thing to do? Did we actually investigate 9/11 and address the public to who did such a terrible thing? Yes sir we did. My question is would Gore attack lets say oh let me spin around and pick a country brb* Turkmenistan for weapons of mass destruction (which they wouldn’t be found) when we know it was Osama Bin Laden of Afghanistan who led the attack on 9/11? I don’t think Gore would have made a preemptive strike on a country good sir.

 

"(personally). I DO NOW THINK THE US MILITARY SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE AREA AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO FIND THEIR LEGS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN. Most of what I hear from the war is a civil-war between two factions in Iraq, with the militants killing their own countrymen. Having US troops in harm's way only intensifies the threat, and we should bring them home"

 

You are 100% correct on this point and I couldn’t agree more.

 

"I personally did not care what President Clinton did in the Oval Office with whatshername, but to LIE about it, then recount he lied later was too much, and gave the comics in this country lots of material for their work....much like our "grammetically-challenged" Commander-in-Chief."

 

I think President Bush Jr. has made more of a fool out of us and definitely outshines anything that Clinton did!!!

 

" Oh, let's not forget, that immediately after 9/11 many, many congresspeople were on the steps of their building singing hymns on camera, and many of those who oppose Pres Bush and the War were the ones who gave him the power to declare it in the first place. The President cannot declare war without the approval of Congress."

 

He preached that there were weapons of mass destruction and declared a state of emergency and declared war on Iraq.

 

"Personally, to make a "media frenzy" on the full-scale assault and search for Bin Laden was stupid. We have 3 branches of Special Ops troops in the military: SEALS, Air Force Special Ops teams, Rangers & Special Forces (2007 Almanac considers these two together in the same branch). All of these guys are trained to handle these types of situations and it would have made more sense to send them in to kill whomever, instead of allowing the media to come and basically warn Osama we were coming. I'm sure he gets CNN."

 

Ouch well when a Man is vulnerable he sucks it up and admits it hehe. I would like to point out that I have no rebuttal or no means to question this one……..lol.

 

"Thanks for your reply, Durryynn. I'd love to chat more on this type of stuff!"

 

Indeed this is turning into a real blast. No sarcasm involved in that by the way. This is fun hehe!!!!

[LordNyax]

Well said Iami. Whilst I cannot disagree with any of your points, lets just point out the fact that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was to settle a personal vendetta against Sadamm. Bush is mad that Sadamm tried to have his dad killed. And I am not saying that Sadamm was a good guy or that something didn't need to be done. I belive using 9/11 for an excuse was just cowardly.

[SnogDurryynn]

Well said Iami.  Whilst I cannot disagree with any of your points, lets just point out the fact that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  It was to settle a personal vendetta against Sadamm.  Bush is mad that Sadamm tried to have his dad killed.  And I am not saying that Sadamm was a good guy or that something didn't need to be done.  I belive using 9/11 for an excuse was just cowardly.

20934[/snapback]

Using 9/11 wasn't cowardly persay. I think the word would be (MISS-LEAD-ING). I am too patriotic to call the commander in chief a coward! That is just something I do not see as constructive.

[Edaun Ifor]

"You're not crazy. I believe there *were* weapons of mass destruction there, but they were destroyed/moved before the UN inspectors "got permission" to search for the stuff. The UN iswas the biggest hindrance to justice."

 

First of all there were many inspections and searches for weapons of mass destruction

(while we were in Iraq) The fact was we didn’t find them while we were in Iraq. First of all we did not give Sadam enough time to hide his W.M.D’s because we hit the prime targets for the leaders of the country with stealth bombers. So don’t tell me that they simply moved them to another country which would be where exactly? Another thing is that the Democratic party wanted to investigate how George W. Bush to question their methods on how they searched for W.M.D’s and they were denied their own search for the W.M.D’s. So there is no evidence of them and we didn’t find any actual weapons that were a threat to our country which means that he lied about the whole thing.

 

We did find stuff to make WMDs a long while ago, long after Saddam was in custody; it was in 55 gallon drums. In the same sense, we scorn other countries for having materials to make bombs, Korea comes to mind, as well as Iran.

"One of the slogans of the Cold-War Army was "Peace Through Strength", but in our 9/11 case, I think Bush acted appropriately in responding to the terrorists that we aren't going to sit back and take this crap.  I think Gore would have been more of a pushover "

I think the saying went “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice……..uh well um don’t fool me again”  You think Gore would have been a push over? Why because he wouldn’t have taken action unless he considered the real target or waited for enough intelligence to make a smart decision? Is opening international diplomacy a push over thing to do? Did we actually investigate 9/11 and address the public to who did such a terrible thing? Yes sir we did. My question is would Gore attack lets say oh let me spin around and pick a country brb* Turkmenistan for weapons of mass destruction (which they wouldn’t be found) when we know it was Osama Bin Laden of Afghanistan who led the attack on 9/11? I don’t think Gore would have made a preemptive strike on a country good sir.

Gore (IMO) was always an idiot. Most VPs are in the light of their President.  George Bush during the Reagan Administration was as well, and everyone makes fun of Cheney. I don't think Gore would have "stood up" to the terrorists, which is what the world needed at the time. The UN is too fickle and there is simply too much "political correctness" in politics to be able to say what was wrong and take action. We have too many politicians who are in politics for themselves; few who are real servants of the people. I'm glad on one hand Gore lost the election, sad on the other that Bush has allowed the Iraq thing to drag on so long.

"(personally).  I DO NOW THINK THE US MILITARY SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE AREA AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO FIND THEIR LEGS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN. Most of what I hear from the war is a civil-war between two factions in Iraq, with the militants killing their own countrymen. Having US troops in harm's way only intensifies the threat, and we should bring them home"

 

You are 100% correct on this point and I couldn’t agree more.

 

"I personally did not care what President Clinton did in the Oval Office with whatshername, but to LIE about it, then recount he lied later was too much, and gave the comics in this country lots of material for their work....much like our "grammetically-challenged" Commander-in-Chief."

 

I think President Bush Jr. has made more of a fool out of us and definitely outshines anything that Clinton did!!!

You are free to think what you like. I disagree. Clinton did not have a global situation to handle. Of course everyone can scrutinize their actions after the fact. At the moment in time, his actions were *approved* by Congress. It wasn't until  everyone forgot the "religiousity" of the country following 9/11 that the Congress started denouncing the Prez actions. <----IMO. heheh

"  Oh, let's not forget, that immediately after 9/11 many, many congresspeople were on the steps of their building singing hymns on camera, and many of those who oppose Pres Bush and the War were the ones who gave him the power to declare it in the first place.  The President cannot declare war without the approval of Congress."

 

He preached that there were weapons of mass destruction and declared a state of emergency and declared war on Iraq.

...and the Congress gave him the green light to go ahead.  If the Congress supported him then, why do they whine about their decision today. His "powers of  persuasion" must have been pretty powerful. ROFL

"Personally, to make a "media frenzy" on the full-scale assault and search for Bin Laden was stupid. We have 3 branches of Special Ops troops in the military: SEALS, Air Force Special Ops teams, Rangers & Special Forces (2007 Almanac considers these two together in the same branch).  All of these guys are trained to handle these types of situations and it would have made more sense to send them in to kill whomever, instead of allowing the media to come and basically warn Osama we were coming.  I'm sure he gets CNN."

 

Ouch well when a Man is vulnerable he sucks it up and admits it hehe. I would like to point out that I have no rebuttal or no means to question this one……..lol.

 

"Thanks for your reply, Durryynn. I'd love to chat more on this type of stuff!"

 

Indeed this is turning into a real blast. No sarcasm involved in that by the way. This is fun hehe!!!!

20933[/snapback]

hehe been on vacation away from the forums, so this was nice to come home to. /salute

[SnogDurryynn]

hehe been on vacation away from the forums, so this was nice to come home to. /salute

20988[/snapback]

Gore (IMO) was always an idiot. Most VPs are in the light of their President. George Bush during the Reagan Administration was as well, and everyone makes fun of Cheney. I don't think Gore would have "stood up" to the terrorists, which is what the world needed at the time. The UN is too fickle and there is simply too much "political correctness" in politics to be able to say what was wrong and take action. sad on the other that Bush has allowed the Iraq thing to drag on so long.

 

Wow. So “standing up” to terrorists is by your definition to blindly invade countries that have no significant threat to American’s in a false sense of reason for the conflict over all? I think Gore wouldn’t have done something as drastic as Bush that I will admit. If I was a leader of a Terrorist organization where my base of operation was in Afghanistan and the Commander and Chief of The United States of America invaded Iraq I would not be very intimidated at all.

Even if special forces went after me. They should have had an M-9 to my back with my hands above my head when the buildings fell! Gore is anything but an idiot. Gore has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize twice. He was asked to attend the award for an Oscar for an environmental awareness movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which was a great film. He appeared in Futurama (and not as a joke like Bush has appeared in many cartoons) lol!!!!

In September 2005, Gore chartered two aircrafts to evacuate 270 evacuees from New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While Bush delayed in a responce, which created a FUBAR situation for New Orleans. How was Gore stupid?

 

 

We have too many politicians who are in politics for themselves; few who are real servants of the people. I'm glad on one hand Gore lost the election.

 

The thing that makes me giggle is that you have a point about politicians that are in the game for themselves. Gore would have been all for the people and he still is. Bush on the other hand has been taking it upon himself to take care of what his father couldn’t finish. I think you need to rethink which politician is in it for him-self and who is not my friend. : )

 

You are free to think what you like. I disagree. Clinton did not have a global situation to handle. Of course everyone can scrutinize their actions after the fact. At the moment in time, his actions were *approved* by Congress. It wasn't until everyone forgot the "religiosity" of the country following 9/11 that the Congress started denouncing the Prez actions. <----IMO. Heheh

 

I think that Clinton's attempt to fulfill one of his many campaigns to allow gay men and women to serve in the armed forces was a great start for our countries backbone. Bush didn’t. Clinton did a reform for our countries’ healthcare. Bush didn’t. Clinton also led Operation Dessert Fox which the conflict lasted 4 days kek kek!! Iraq has lasted 2 terms and some change. Clinton also aided in Operation Allied Force which was another bombing campaign. Did I mention no casualties on that conflict?!?!?! : P so the first term he was fighting the war in America and the second term he was about half and half. Over all I think Clinton has outshined Point .W Dexter here.

 

*(A quote previously posted by me)* "He preached that there were weapons of mass destruction and declared a state of emergency and declared war on Iraq." *(A quote previously posted by me)*

*(Edauns reponse to my statement)*

...and the Congress gave him the green light to go ahead. If the Congress supported him then, why do they whine about their decision today. His "powers of persuasion" must have been pretty powerful. ROFL

 

He did not work alone my friend. He had help from all the brilliant people around him. Yet still he lied to congress! I have not heard about the United States finding anything remotely involved with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[Astrus]

Whoa........That was a crap load to read XD

 

Ya I like talking to Ed about politics. He likes the republicans but hes not a "Fox News" Republican if you know what I mean.

 

Plus being that hes a veteran makes what he says more tangible than someone like Bill O'Reilly, who I could just spit on most of the time because hes FOS.

[SnogDurryynn]

Whoa........That was a crap load to read XD

 

Ya I like talking to Ed about politics. He likes the republicans but hes not a "Fox News" Republican if you know what I mean.

 

Plus being that hes a veteran makes what he says more tangible than someone like Bill O'Reilly, who I could just spit on most of the time because hes FOS.

21067[/snapback]

So yeah...what did you think :)

[LordNyax]

Woah Ed's a Republican, /addignore ed. It's ok though I guess Astrus said he's a conservitive

[Edaun Ifor]

Woah Ed's a Republican, /addignore ed.  It's ok though I guess Astrus said he's a conservitive

21212[/snapback]

Now that's a proper troll.

 

and yes, Ed is a Republican and a Conservative...and a Consumer most days :D

[SnogDurryynn]

Now that's a proper troll.

 

and yes, Ed is a Republican and a Conservative...and a Consumer most days :D

21224[/snapback]

One of these days I have to get a bumper sticker that says "I Heart Republicans" or something lol.

[Edaun Ifor]

One of these days I have to get a bumper sticker that says "I Heart Republicans" or something lol.

21231[/snapback]

No, don't do that. I have seen 2" square stickers with the picture of a screw on them that fit really nicely on top of the <3, and it really changes the way people look at you going down the road, especially when it's done on someone's "I heart my Pomeranian" sticker. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Sanct Smileys FTW :o

[Shawkorrr]

It is a close run here on the poll, the Clintons ftw!

[Elwindace]

really havent payed enough attention to whats going on with who. probley should staty paying attention

[Edaun Ifor]

There's no cause for alarm...she's likely to say or do something stupid that will irreparably end her run for the Office.

 

I think I'll write in Dangermouse for Prez this year..

[Paladinzorz]

the sad part about this whole schpeel is, they're all crooks. You can't be a honest human being and get elected in this country, everybody needs an angle to get a vote. "Tough on crime", "war on terror", "christian conservative", "war on drugs", all slogans for the crooked.

 

Hillary clinton is in this for herself and the democratic party. The only problem with that is, unlike republicans, most democrats will not vote for you just because you're a democrat. If you have a weak platform, they look elsewhere.

 

Republicans on the other hand, stick together like glue. They all push the same agenda, big business, big money, big oil. They may waiver on a few non-descript issues, but in the end a republican will never betray the corporations, regardless of the consequences. It's been stated in this thread that the war in Iraq is a war of revenge. That's false. The statement that it's about this countries' security is also false.The war is about profits. The profits of those in power.

Dick cheney's company has made how many billions off this? How many billions has Bush's oil company made? I believe record profits for both. Meanwhile, the country is sinking closer and closer to the next depression, which does not affect the top, only the middle and bottom. The middle class in this country is disappearing. The average income has risen, but the distribution of wealth has fallen. George W. has completely mishandled the american economy, and the majority of America cheered him on while he was doing it. The media made him out to be some sort of bad *butt* who shoots from the hip, and at the same time some lovable fumbling nit-wit like real life is some sort of sitcom. The fact is, Americans brought this on themselves. Even if Bush somehow swindled 2 elections(which he didn't), Americans sat around on their fat asses eating cheetos while drinking a budweiser and let him do what he does and is doing. Even with his low approval ratings people still let him do what he wants with little to no protest.

 

The point of this post? It is not un-american or un-patriotic to disagree with the president. In fact, it is an american's duty to stop the leadership of this country from being self-serving. This is a government FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not people FOR THE GOVERNMENT. They are supposed to serve us, not the other way around; or as put in an often disregarded do**no no word**ent, "BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE".

roll that over in your minds.

Bill Clinton got his peter puffed in the white house, woopty doo. That's nothing compared to whats going on in the white house today,

Abu Ghraib

The Patriot Act

Largest national deficit

Slumping economy

Guantanamo Bay

Iraq

the whole Libby scandal.

Probes into Haliburton.

 

and it's not done yet. We still have until december 2008.

 

edit: o ya, to answer the question - I would like to see hillary clinton in the white house more than I would anything from the republican party, but I hate them both.

[Yurizot]

So last time I checked under President Bush the dow hit record high in history, and that's after a economic recession that was inherited and perpetuated by the destruction of the world trade center that hurt economies everywhere. So within two years based on this Employment stats Bush started and continued to lower unemployment to what it was before 9/11. Also, the gross domestic product continued to grow despite 9/11 during the Bush Administration based on GDP change and a nice chart Chart of GDP even though, as you can see, it dropped the first quarter Bush was elected which may indicate previous administration gifting a recession to Bush. More economy talk. gg.

[Edaun Ifor]

...and when Jimmy Carter was elected, some hostages were released so the former president did not get credit for the negotiation. I'm more concerned with her political agenda(s) and what she'll do once she gets elected than what "type" of president she would be..conservative, liberal. I think the woman has been all about power from way back when.

[Paladinzorz]

So last time I checked under President Bush the dow hit record high in history, and that's after a economic recession that was inherited and  perpetuated by the destruction of the world trade center that hurt economies everywhere.  So within two years based on this Employment stats Bush started and continued to lower unemployment to what it was before 9/11.  Also, the gross domestic product continued to grow despite 9/11 during the Bush Administration based on GDP change and a nice chart Chart of GDP even though, as you can see, it dropped the first quarter Bush was  elected which may indicate previous administration gifting a recession to Bush.  More economy talk.  gg.

23376[/snapback]

The dow did hit a record high, it lined the pockets of the rich, and the economy was hurting pre-9/11. Unemployment is down. You're not saying anything I didn't say, you're just articulating it. The poor are getting paid less, the rich are getting paid more. The economic divide between the upper class and the lower class is getting larger and the middle class is getting smaller. That's exactly what I said. CEO's are recieving salaries they haven't seen since the corporate corruption of the 80s. Also, you strangely enough left out the humongous national deficit, which also hit the highest in history. But beyond money matters, When was the last time America has seen so many casualities? find me the chart on that one.

Again I state,

Abu Ghraib

The Patriot Act

Largest national deficit

Slumping economy - debated.

Guantanamo Bay

Iraq

the whole Libby scandal.

Probes into Haliburton.

[Edaun Ifor]

The dow did hit a record high, it lined the pockets of the rich, and the economy was hurting pre-9/11. Unemployment is down. You're not saying anything I didn't say, you're just articulating it. The poor are getting paid less, the rich are getting paid more. The economic divide between the upper class and the lower class is getting larger and the middle class is getting smaller. That's exactly what I said. CEO's are recieving salaries they haven't seen since the corporate corruption of the 80s. Also, you strangely enough left out the humongous national deficit, which also hit the highest in history. But beyond money matters, When was the last time America has seen so many casualities? find me the chart on that one.

Again I state,

Abu Ghraib

The Patriot Act

Largest national deficit

Slumping economy - debated.

Guantanamo Bay

Iraq

the whole Libby scandal.

Probes into Haliburton.

23418[/snapback]

 

ROFL. This is America; the Land of Opportunity. The rich get rich and the poor get poor, because that's how free enterprise works. To narrow the gap between two, you propose Socialism maybe?

 

The Patriot act is downright scary, but not scarier than the BIG government of the 1980's, politicians seem less-trustworthy in recent years.

 

Guantanamo Bay? Our entire society is in a downward spiral, eventually the biggest fish in the food chain are going to slip away from the 1950's morailty that made the Rules of the Geneva Convention work. It's just coming to light nowadays, because our media is given access to things they should not. I think Osama watches CNN to see how close the US is/was to his hideout.

 

Haliburton? That's good-ole-boy political leveraging. Hey, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...is not ethical business practices. I used to work for a large industrial distributor with a long history of ethical business. 10 years ago, they were having some our their sales force buying material from a competitor under a false name. Ethical? I think not. This is nothing new and certainly nothing Republican. If a certain type of behavior goes on without notice, before long everyone will assume it's ok. :wrong:

 

The Ecomony surged to record highs in the Clinton Era...DOT COMS? and crashed back to reality. Some think either party is better for the economy. I agree it's debatable.

[Paladinzorz]

ROFL. This is America; the Land of Opportunity.  The rich get rich and the poor get poor, because that's how free enterprise works.  To narrow the gap between two, you propose Socialism maybe?

you would be right, if the government didnt step in to save big business. They even go so far as to send troops into other countries in the name of "free enterprise". This isnt a capitalist country. It's not socialist either. It is a heavily stratified system where some people get lucky and hit the lottery of upward social mobility. It is very rare for somebody to make it on their own grit and iron these days.

 

The Patriot act is downright scary, but not scarier than the BIG government of the 1980's, politicians seem less-trustworthy in recent years.

agreed, except I don't think they've been trustworthy for a long time.

Guantanamo Bay? Our entire society is in a downward spiral, eventually the biggest fish in the food chain are going to slip away from the 1950's morailty that made the Rules of the Geneva Convention work.  It's just coming to light nowadays, because our media is given access to things they should not.  I think Osama watches CNN to see how close the US is/was to his hideout.

the society being in a downward spiral is an opinion. Let me mention a few things about the 1950s; seperate but equal, cold war, the power elite. Not much has changed, just the surface. The rest of the world never stuck to the geneva convention, just the "civilized" countries. Osama probably does watch CNN, that doesn't mean the government gets freedom to run around and *screw* us up all over the world. Coverage of government corruption is nothing new, "the war on drugs" was all over the news, but nobody gave it a second look. While I don't think CNN and all of them should be privy to air military campaigns as they happen, things like Abu Ghraib and what not should be exposed as they are found.

 

Haliburton?  That's good-ole-boy political leveraging.  Hey, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...is not ethical business practices.  I used to work for a large industrial distributor with a long history of ethical business. 10 years ago, they were having some our their sales force buying material from a competitor under a false name.  Ethical?  I think not.  This is nothing new and certainly nothing Republican.  If a certain type of behavior goes on without notice, before long everyone will assume it's ok.  :wrong:

 

good-ole-boy leveraging does not belong in the white house, especially when it costs millions of lives.

 

The Ecomony surged to record highs in the Clinton Era...DOT COMS? and crashed back to reality.  Some think either party is better for the economy. I agree it's debatable.

23500[/snapback]

 

The national deficit was also set to be wiped out by now, and was well on its way to being gone early. Pretty far from being the largest ever. It was more than internet businesses, which are still around. It was an all around good economy. Neither party is better for the economy, but I'll take a Clinton(even the lesbian one), over anything the republicans have right now.

[Edaun Ifor]

you would be right, if the government didnt step in to save big business. They even go so far as to send troops into other countries in the name of "free enterprise". This isnt a capitalist country. It's not socialist either. It is a heavily stratified system where some people get lucky and hit the lottery of upward social mobility. It is very rare for somebody to make it on their own grit and iron these days.

agreed, except I don't think they've been trustworthy for a long time.

 

the society being in a downward spiral is an opinion. Let me mention a few things about the 1950s; seperate but equal, cold war, the power elite. Not much has changed, just the surface. The rest of the world never stuck to the geneva convention, just the "civilized" countries. Osama probably does watch CNN, that doesn't mean the government gets freedom to run around and *screw* us up all over the world. Coverage of government corruption is nothing new, "the war on drugs" was all over the news, but nobody gave it a second look. While I don't think CNN and all of them should be privy to air military campaigns as they happen, things like Abu Ghraib and what not should be exposed as they are found.

good-ole-boy leveraging does not belong in the white house, especially when it costs millions of lives.

The national deficit was also set to be wiped out by now, and was well on its way to being gone early. Pretty far from being the largest ever. It was more than internet businesses, which are still around. It was an all around good economy. Neither party is better for the economy, but I'll take a Clinton(even the lesbian one), over anything the republicans have right now.

23512[/snapback]

 

Sadly, our society being in a downward spiral is not an opinion. Take a look at 1970's R rated movies and today's R rated movies, notice how the boundaries of what is acceptable on television alone are being pushed back more and more each year. True, the 1950's weren't perfect, but things have strayed farther away from the standard of ethical and moral behavior. I'm not saying people were better people back then, only that each year brings more lowering of the standards of what is acceptable in our society; downward spiral.

 

1950's Americans would not have desecrated the Flag by burning it (except that it touched the ground during raising or lowering it), nowdays, it goes unnoticed.

1950's communities were closer, people were less self-centered (cell phones, microwaves, etc have poisoned our society in many ways.)

 

 

There are more examples, but the truth is, in 20 years, our society will be vastly different from the 1950's... Rerad this post then and see :P

 

;)

[Edaun Ifor]

you would be right, if the government didnt step in to save big business. They even go so far as to send troops into other countries in the name of "free enterprise". This isnt a capitalist country. It's not socialist either. It is a heavily stratified system where some people get lucky and hit the lottery of upward social mobility. It is very rare for somebody to make it on their own grit and iron these days.

agreed, except I don't think they've been trustworthy for a long time.

 

the society being in a downward spiral is an opinion. Let me mention a few things about the 1950s; seperate but equal, cold war, the power elite. Not much has changed, just the surface. The rest of the world never stuck to the geneva convention, just the "civilized" countries. Osama probably does watch CNN, that doesn't mean the government gets freedom to run around and *screw* us up all over the world. Coverage of government corruption is nothing new, "the war on drugs" was all over the news, but nobody gave it a second look. While I don't think CNN and all of them should be privy to air military campaigns as they happen, things like Abu Ghraib and what not should be exposed as they are found.

good-ole-boy leveraging does not belong in the white house, especially when it costs millions of lives.

The national deficit was also set to be wiped out by now, and was well on its way to being gone early. Pretty far from being the largest ever. It was more than internet businesses, which are still around. It was an all around good economy. Neither party is better for the economy, but I'll take a Clinton(even the lesbian one), over anything the republicans have right now.

23512[/snapback]

 

Sadly, our society being in a downward spiral is not an opinion. Take a look at 1970's R rated movies and today's R rated movies, notice how the boundaries of what is acceptable on television alone are being pushed back more and more each year. True, the 1950's weren't perfect, but things have strayed farther away from the standard of ethical and moral behavior. I'm not saying people were better people back then, only that each year brings more lowering of the standards of what is acceptable in our society; downward spiral.

 

1950's Americans would not have desecrated the Flag by burning it (except that it touched the ground during raising or lowering it), nowdays, it goes unnoticed.

1950's communities were closer, people were less self-centered (cell phones, microwaves, etc have poisoned our society in many ways.)

 

 

There are more examples, but the truth is, in 20 years, our society will be vastly different from the 1950's... Reread this post then and see :P

 

;)