The build up to our next war has begun:
73 RepliesJump to last post
LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.[/quote] You left some spittle on that monitor there...[quote=Ashland]Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Harry Truman once opined that the Presidency was like a white suit that a man puts on when elected. Any stains that a man puts on that suit remain when he leaves office. (He was a haberdasherer, so he would know.)
In my opinion, William Jefferson Clinton was a brown stain in the seat of the pants of that white suit.
LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.[/quote] You left some spittle on that monitor there...[/quote] Can't refute it though, can you?[quote=Big Taco][quote=Ashland]Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Back to Condi for a moment
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. She wrote an editorial or op-ed piece for the NYT regarding WMD in Iraq entitled "Why we know Iraq is lying." Turns out Iraq wasn't lying As a Vulcan she crafted the manifest destiny on steroids democracy at the end a gun policy and banged the table that now, while the U.S. has no military equal, is the time to use our military to spread democracy around the world. This woman, as smart as she is, has been wrong time after time. And look at the mess we have in Iraq. I'm not advocating that we pull out. Just look at what this woman's policy creation has done. Could anything possibly be more wrong? As I write this, the terroist god father sends us video taped greetings mocking our impotent attempts to democratize a world we do not understand. Yet there are those who defend her.Just for fun and inflamation, I’ll tell you what this Midwest Republican-leaning independent thinks. I am thoroughly disgusted by the ridiculous spending allowed under the current administration. Greenspan made a very valid point when he stated that the Repubs deserved to lose in '06 for straying too far from their fiscal roots. On the other hand, I’m not at all convinced the Dems would do a better job at fiscal restraint. Right now, it looks sadly like no one has any fiscal restraint. I like the tax cuts, but along with those, you’ve got to cut a little fat. Apparently, no one currently in office has the stomache for this side of the equation.
A Hillary Clinton presidency, my most likely scenario at the moment, would be a flaming disaster. She's not Bill, who while having the morals of a teenage jackrabbit, had a good understanding of how to run the office. Hillary is so distastful to me at the moment, I'm trying hard to imagine a candidate I would be less satisfied with. She will say and do whatever it takes to be elected, and if successful, I expect she'll govern by public opinion poll, a tactic that worked for Bill, but would likely be a disaster for her, given the crazy mood this country is in at the moment. Simply put, she's the most plastic phony I've seen in American politics, and that's saying a lot. I only hope this country wakes up before we elect her. Obama, while intelligent and articulate, is such an unknown quantity that it's hard for me to fathom how he's a serious candidate this early in his career. Obviously, he's got the youth movement behind him, but his views are probably the furthest from my own personal views, so while I don't have the strong feelings about him that I do about Hillary, he's even less likely to get my support, due to far too much uncertainty about what he'd do if elected. Edwards, with his trial lawyer wealth and $400 hair cuts, and Gore with his environmental hypocrisy and wooden personality mean that the Dems have zero candidates that hold any attraction to me as a mid-American independent/conservative. If Joe Lieberman was running, I'd have a different view. Frankly, as unpopular as the Democratic-controlled congress is, I'm surprised that the pundits expect a wider majority, along with a Democratic president in 2008. Apparently we hillbillies in the flyover states are completely out of touch with the majority view in America, but I can tell you from my perspective that moveon.org is doing nothing for the Democratic cause in my neighborhood. The Repubs have several candidates that appeal to me more than the Dem frontrunners. Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain all strike me as preferable to Clinton or Obama. Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember voting for Bill Clinton and laughing at tired-looking old men named Bush and Dole. I've come full circle on those views and it started in the last two years of the Clinton presidency...the ridiculous lack of decorum and morals, the questionable pardons, the childish pranks committed while leaving office. All of that and more combined to push my leanings the other direction. Has Bush made mistakes in his presidency? Absolutely. Have those in congress who now criticize him been guilty of massive hypocracy? No question about it in my book. Would we have been better off electing Gore or Kerry? I have serious doubts. With the mistakes seen in hindsight and my misgivings about what is happening in the middle east, I still wouldn't have voted for either of those two candidates. Knowing that I'm likely spending my vote on a losing cause, I'll tell you right now that I don't have the stomache for either Clinton or Obama. If nothing else, at least I'll be able to say I didn't vote for either of them when the inevitable missteps are made. I haven't made up my mind yet who I'm supporting, but given the cast of frontrunners, I can't see it being a Dem. If we end up spending four years under the guidance of Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, I'll hunker down and survive...and look forward to the day this country comes to it's senses. Sometimes, leaders must change in order for people to see how good they had things. I'll close the post by apologizing in advance to my left-leaning motocycle buddy, and by saying that much of this is not necessarily fact...simply one man's opinions and views...so have at it.LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.[/quote] You left some spittle on that monitor there...[/quote] Can't refute it though, can you?[/quote][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Big Taco][quote=Ashland]Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Not sure I agree with your leaving that at W's feet, but OTOH when it comes to Congress....I feel the Republicans have really let us down when it comes to spending. The way they've handed out earmarks like all the others just sickens me.
[quote=BondGuy]Back to Condi for a moment
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. She wrote an editorial or op-ed piece for the NYT regarding WMD in Iraq entitled "Why we know Iraq is lying." Turns out Iraq wasn't lying As a Vulcan she crafted the manifest destiny on steroids democracy at the end a gun policy and banged the table that now, while the U.S. has no military equal, is the time to use our military to spread democracy around the world. This woman, as smart as she is, has been wrong time after time. And look at the mess we have in Iraq. I'm not advocating that we pull out. Just look at what this woman's policy creation has done. Could anything possibly be more wrong? As I write this, the terroist god father sends us video taped greetings mocking our impotent attempts to democratize a world we do not understand. Yet there are those who defend her. [/quote]You make some good points BG, but when it comes to WMD and Iraq, I might not agree. After all, we weren't the only folks(i.e. country) who thought they had them. And...many of their own weapons experts thought they had a stash. After all, they'd used mustard gas on their own countrymen at one point.
And for that matter...it's a mighty big desert out there, and unfortunately we've killed many of those who could tell any stories that we needed to hear. Not to mention the border with Syria is mighty porous. Who knows what we might have missed.
Maybe I'm just too trusting, but I don't think our government would have committed to going into Iraq(and made those assertions in front of the U.N. General Assemply) without some solid evidence.
[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BondGuy]Back to Condi for a moment
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. She wrote an editorial or op-ed piece for the NYT regarding WMD in Iraq entitled "Why we know Iraq is lying." Turns out Iraq wasn't lying As a Vulcan she crafted the manifest destiny on steroids democracy at the end a gun policy and banged the table that now, while the U.S. has no military equal, is the time to use our military to spread democracy around the world. This woman, as smart as she is, has been wrong time after time. And look at the mess we have in Iraq. I'm not advocating that we pull out. Just look at what this woman's policy creation has done. Could anything possibly be more wrong? As I write this, the terroist god father sends us video taped greetings mocking our impotent attempts to democratize a world we do not understand. Yet there are those who defend her. [/quote]You make some good points BG, but when it comes to WMD and Iraq, I might not agree. After all, we weren't the only folks(i.e. country) who thought they had them. And...many of their own weapons experts thought they had a stash. After all, they'd used mustard gas on their own countrymen at one point.
And for that matter...it's a mighty big desert out there, and unfortunately we've killed many of those who could tell any stories that we needed to hear. Not to mention the border with Syria is mighty porous. Who knows what we might have missed.
Maybe I'm just too trusting, but I don't think our government would have committed to going into Iraq(and made those assertions in front of the U.N. General Assemply) without some solid evidence.
[/quote] Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. The right buys the Bush explaination of "Who knew?" They also believe The Bush admin explanation of being misled by poor intel. The left, they believe the entire invasion was a WMD sham. They point to the fact that while finding WMDs was our most important mission, and the reason for going to war, Bush admin spent little time and effort sourcing and training any military units to do this most important job. In the end a company of mechanics got the job. ( I may have that wrong, don't remember exactly, however it was some lowly trained company or battalion, not munitions experts, or other highly trained experts who got the job of seeking out WMDs) To those on the left, not committing our best troops to the most important mission is a glaring "tell" proving in their minds that Bush knew the truth about the WMDs pre-invasion. They also point to the fact that the Bush admin ignored the fact that pre-invasion advance intel was coming up blank with regard to WMDs. On Invasion day our WMD guys were all dressed up with no place to go. That said, regardless of which side of the line you fall to, Condi Rice is the person who should have known. It was her job to know. We have people here quoting Truman. How about this Truman quote "The buck stops here." When held against the honor of Truman, Rice and the rest of the Bush admin are laughable. They are a bag of excuses. Except nobody's laughing. Instead people are dying and we've got a huge mess on our hands.
[quote=Indyone]Just for fun and inflamation, I’ll tell you what this Midwest Republican-leaning independent thinks. I am thoroughly disgusted by the ridiculous spending allowed under the current administration. Greenspan made a very valid point when he stated that the Repubs deserved to lose in '06 for straying too far from their fiscal roots. On the other hand, I’m not at all convinced the Dems would do a better job at fiscal restraint. Right now, it looks sadly like no one has any fiscal restraint. I like the tax cuts, but along with those, you’ve got to cut a little fat. Apparently, no one currently in office has the stomache for this side of the equation.
A Hillary Clinton presidency, my most likely scenario at the moment, would be a flaming disaster. She's not Bill, who while having the morals of a teenage jackrabbit, had a good understanding of how to run the office. Hillary is so distastful to me at the moment, I'm trying hard to imagine a candidate I would be less satisfied with. She will say and do whatever it takes to be elected, and if successful, I expect she'll govern by public opinion poll, a tactic that worked for Bill, but would likely be a disaster for her, given the crazy mood this country is in at the moment. Simply put, she's the most plastic phony I've seen in American politics, and that's saying a lot. I only hope this country wakes up before we elect her. Obama, while intelligent and articulate, is such an unknown quantity that it's hard for me to fathom how he's a serious candidate this early in his career. Obviously, he's got the youth movement behind him, but his views are probably the furthest from my own personal views, so while I don't have the strong feelings about him that I do about Hillary, he's even less likely to get my support, due to far too much uncertainty about what he'd do if elected. Edwards, with his trial lawyer wealth and $400 hair cuts, and Gore with his environmental hypocrisy and wooden personality mean that the Dems have zero candidates that hold any attraction to me as a mid-American independent/conservative. If Joe Lieberman was running, I'd have a different view. Frankly, as unpopular as the Democratic-controlled congress is, I'm surprised that the pundits expect a wider majority, along with a Democratic president in 2008. Apparently we hillbillies in the flyover states are completely out of touch with the majority view in America, but I can tell you from my perspective that moveon.org is doing nothing for the Democratic cause in my neighborhood. The Repubs have several candidates that appeal to me more than the Dem frontrunners. Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain all strike me as preferable to Clinton or Obama. Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember voting for Bill Clinton and laughing at tired-looking old men named Bush and Dole. I've come full circle on those views and it started in the last two years of the Clinton presidency...the ridiculous lack of decorum and morals, the questionable pardons, the childish pranks committed while leaving office. All of that and more combined to push my leanings the other direction. Has Bush made mistakes in his presidency? Absolutely. Have those in congress who now criticize him been guilty of massive hypocracy? No question about it in my book. Would we have been better off electing Gore or Kerry? I have serious doubts. With the mistakes seen in hindsight and my misgivings about what is happening in the middle east, I still wouldn't have voted for either of those two candidates. Knowing that I'm likely spending my vote on a losing cause, I'll tell you right now that I don't have the stomache for either Clinton or Obama. If nothing else, at least I'll be able to say I didn't vote for either of them when the inevitable missteps are made. I haven't made up my mind yet who I'm supporting, but given the cast of frontrunners, I can't see it being a Dem. If we end up spending four years under the guidance of Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, I'll hunker down and survive...and look forward to the day this country comes to it's senses. Sometimes, leaders must change in order for people to see how good they had things. I'll close the post by apologizing in advance to my left-leaning motocycle buddy, and by saying that much of this is not necessarily fact...simply one man's opinions and views...so have at it.[/quote] Indy, very interesting post. My Saturday is starting to encroach here so I may respond more fully later. One thing though. While to this group I may seem left leaning or even very left leaning I'm actually more or less in the center. Most here assume I'm a libreral democrat, I'm not. I'm registered as an independent. I've voted on both sides of the ballot in national and local elections. Yet, when compared to the far right leanings of many here I am relatively speaking left leaning. Right now I like Giuliani, McCain or Edwards for 08. I wasn't too thrilled by the dumbass $400 haircut move. I disagree with your take on Hillary and Bill. I believe Bill was a fine president. I could give a hoot about his womanizing. Nor, after reading all I could find on the subject, do I find him in any way responsible for 9/11. The right points to Bill's failed attempts to kill Bin Laden as the reason for 9/11. The educated know that even had he suceeded in killing Osama the 9/11 plotters would have proceeded with their plan. The entire issue is highly politicized. IMO 9/11 falls between not stoppable to marginally stoppable if someone in the Bush admin had been paying attention as 9/11 approached. That's where I come down on Rice. It was her job to know. As for Hillary, I'm on the fence regarding her as of now. Too much noise surrounding her. However, I could live with her if I had to. The important thing now is to take a look at the mood of this country. People are tuned out. They've had enough of the mean spirited politics of the Bush era as well as his ineffective leadership. Many feel helpless at this point, with about 15 months before change will be affected. That attitude needs to change. Is there a candidate who is strong enough to get that change?I just can’t bring myself to give Edwards serious consideration given his background as a prominent member of the tort bar, and his histrionics in certain big cases. Excessive liability litigation is really harming the business environment in this country and leeches like Edwards are leading the charge and lining their pockets. Of course he sounds good…he does it for a living!
Hilary-well I just can’t trust her. I feel like she’ll say whatever she needs to say to get elected.
Obama shows promise, but I fear he’s just too unseasoned to sit in the big chair and control the levers of power.
Guilliani and Romney are a bit interesting to me, but other than those two I’m not feeling too excited by any of the candidates so far.
Oh, and BG you might have different views that I, but I don’t think you’re a lefty.
What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
I agree. I don’t think that the Democratic Party under Hilary is the same Democratic Party under Bill. We’ve moved dramatically to the left. I also think Obama is not ready, and Edwards seems like he’s given up. I’m not prepared to vote for any of the Republicans because I don’t think any of them are connected to the reality of the average person in America. People don’t give a damn about corporate profits & taxation. People understand food on their table, clothes on their back, the kind of education their kids are receiving & whether or not they’re losing their kids to a war that they don’t understand. I don’t have the answers but I think that the Iraq Study Group probably did a good job at giving recommendations that have been entirely ignored.
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.
[quote=Ashland]
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.[/quote]
That’s truly a sorry-assed comment. Unfortunately, I agree wholeheartedly. Even more tragic is the fact that since Ronald Reagan (the last of the great Presidents), I’ve had to hold my nose whenever I entered the voting booth.
The sad truth is that whomever is elected next November will be even more worthless than the previous administrations.
I feel just the opposite: No matter who gets into office next will have to do a better job than the current administration, by default. FWIW, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for yet. I'd like to see a republican administration again, because I think the foundation of our goverment is checks and balances between 3 branches. I'm looking for a candidate that seems to have some semblance of fiscal conservatism, and smart foreign relations skills. I'd also like someone who feels that the government could be smaller, or at least leave less of a footprint on our lifestyles (lower taxes, less regulaton). Speaking of smart foreign relations, why is congress trying to rock the boat with Turkey? Yes, Genocide is truly evil. But why are they bringing it up? Are they trying to get Turkey pissed and not let us fly planes there anymore to hamper the war effort? What's the point?[quote=Ashland]
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.[/quote]
That’s truly a sorry-assed comment. Unfortunately, I agree wholeheartedly. Even more tragic is the fact that since Ronald Reagan (the last of the great Presidents), I’ve had to hold my nose whenever I entered the voting booth.
The sad truth is that whomever is elected next November will be even more worthless than the previous administrations.
The unfortunate truth is that government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer exists here in these United States. We have become an amalgam of special interests. Witness the fact that any topic of legislative discussion is always met with the soundbite, “How will this affect the (fill in the blank) community?” (Coincidentally, this is what led to the fall of the Roman Empire.)
[quote=Ashland]I agree. I don’t think that the Democratic Party under Hilary is the same Democratic Party under Bill. We’ve moved dramatically to the left. I also think Obama is not ready, and Edwards seems like he’s given up. I’m not prepared to vote for any of the Republicans because I don’t think any of them are connected to the reality of the average person in America. People don’t give a damn about corporate profits & taxation. People understand food on their table, clothes on their back, the kind of education their kids are receiving & whether or not they’re losing their kids to a war that they don’t understand. I don’t have the answers but I think that the Iraq Study Group probably did a good job at giving recommendations that have been entirely ignored.
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.[/quote]
This would be the crux of my frustrations with the current choices. It seems to me that all of the leading Democratic candidates are trying to appease moveon.org, and they all plan to raise my taxes and increase government interference in my life.
Hilary, in particular, troubles me. I do not understand what people see in her. To me she is a shrewd operator who is simply willing to say whatever she needs to say to get elected. With her past history, I just can’t seem to trust her.
Yet, the Republicans in Congress have really let me down the last few years. They don’t seem to have any restraint whatsoever when it comes to spending. There doesn’t seem to be any fiscal restraint amongst the bunch of them…that is except for the one fella(name escapes me) who is crusading against earmarking(i.e. pork) and focussing on how we should be spending for the good of the entire country, and he’s been ostracized by both parties.
I could support Joe Lieberman if he ran. I think he’s a good man.
I was pretty excited about Fred Thompson entering the race, but not so thrilled when I learned he didn’t even have the guts to vote ‘yes’ at Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearing.
[quote=granuja]
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. Oh for Crimenies sake.. the Bush administration hadn't been in the White House long enough to rearrange the furniture and replace all the missing Ws on the keyboards and you plan to blame Condi for something that was Decades in the making?? Get real.[/quote]Exactly. The problem that caused 9/11 was way beyond the abilities of GW and Condi to fix in the short time they were in office. The real challenge/problem was the inter-agency rivaly between the CIA and the FBI. The CIA had crucial information about members of the 9/11 conspiracy who were in the U.S., but were afraid to turn that info over to the FBI because if the FBI started a domestic criminal investigation it could imperil CIA intelligence sources.
Well I guess we know in hindsight that they made a bad decision.....and frankly I'm not even sure if the intent was good.....
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn't mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the "shut down" of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending? What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat's call to arms is that the GOP program in question "doesn't go far enough"?What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
[quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.