GOP Controls both the House and the Senate!!!

Why are some college ROTC students already being called into duty? Someone needs a lot of foot soldiers. More than the country already has on active duty and this is BEFORE any official shots have even been fired.

Despite what you may believe, this "war" is going to require a massive land presence in a country that, for the most part, hates us.

As for the religious right. They are one of Bush\'s largest supporters and they have an influence on many of decisions. Do you think stem cell research would be so hampered if Clinton/Gore/McCain were in office? Would a religious extremist(who under different circumstances could be a member of the western world\'s own "Taliban") like Ashcroft be in office? Jackson and Sharpton are idiots who are quick to pull the race card and yell victims. They have close to NO pull in Washington because, for the most part, the people who follow their idiotic ramblings don\'t even vote. The religious right dumps massive amounts of money into political campaigns and a large percentage of them vote.

Clinton was not a good president; but he was far from a bad president. He is blasted by right-wingers as being a liar and having poor character, yet the fact that Bush continues to stretch the truth is laughed off and ignored.

I voted, and James can\'t vote, he\'s like 16.  As for Clinton, I think he was a good president.  Certainly better than the first Bush, and miles ahead of Reagan or the current Bush.  I wasn\'t alive for anything before that, so I won\'t speak to any of it.  Just look at the economy.  We have had 4 presidents in the time period I named, 1 democrat.  Strangely, the economy was good during the time of that one democrat, and for the most part, struggling during the times of each of the republicans.  Clinton led us through a time of peace and prosperity, and will be remembered for that.  Bush will be remembered as a moron, I guarantee it.

[GmanJoe]

Clinton benefitted from Bush Sr\'s administration. It takes 5 to 6 years for a president\'s economic plan to take affect and Clinton got the glory of Bush\'s work. Ya see, Reagan spent a lot of money during his term. When Bush took over, he had to cut of lot of spending, which in turn caused the economy to slow down. It was slowing down anyway due to Reagan\'s enormous debt he built up.

When Bush took over, he made a number of economic decisions that were painful in the short term but was actually better for the long term. If he had been re-elected, he would have benefitted from his administration\'s work. Unfortunately, Perot ran for Pres and took a lot of votes away from Bush.

Clinton won and the economy went up. Why? Bush Sr.

Now the economy is on its way down. It would have no matter who won - Bush Jr or Gore. Who\'s to blame. Clinton.

Good god you\'re an idiot. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Alright, enough of the insults. There were presidents before Reagan, and they were republicans. Horray for Inflation.

Giving Bush Sr. Credit is just dumb. Tell me, WHAT did Bush do to **** up the economy, then make it great? That\'s insulting to say that Bush was the entire reason as to why the economy was so great. And it\'s just as insulting to say that Clinton was also the man that made it bad. Absolutely insulting.

See Yuz.

People forget that when Reagan was President, he was up against a Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate. While Reagan wanted to cut taxes, he ALSO wanted to cut spending. But big spending Democrats wouldn\'t allow that.

Also, all the Reagan detractors were out during the good first years who said all of those horrible reports when the tax cut was put in place. At first it seemed the Dims were correct, but the economy as people have noted takes time to react. So, when businesses began to take advantage of the tax cut, revenue actually INCREASED. The deficit came from Dims who simply didn\'t want to cut their precious programs.

As for the current economy, Clinton had something Bush Sr. didn\'t have, the "New Economy". Specifically the tech industry. Sky high stock, IPOs running a muck, and companies that...were NOT making money. This created a bubble that, basically burst RIGHT when Clinton left office. Didn\'t matter if it was Gore or Bush who was President. They would\'ve faced a recession by the excess and the terrible business models many of these dotcoms used.

Also, on the case on the war against terrorism, Clinton was litterally HANDED Osama Bin Laden. But no, being politically correct, can\'t take him at the time. His little Afganistan bomb and Sudanis "pharmacy" factory that we have no idea if it was this, really didn\'t help stop terrorism. Not to mention reduction in defense and tying the hands of the CIA (like making them not use certain people because they weren\'t "goody goody"). Now, unlike many right wingers, I\'m not saying it would\'ve prevented 9/11. But it certainly exasperated the intel problem that lead to 9/11.

Oh, and all you peaceniks who don\'t want us to attack Iraq because they haven\'t attacked us or isn\'t in our national interest? Where were you when Clinton went into Kosovo? Milosolvic, while evil, didn\'t kill as many people as Sudam (who slaughtered a lot more of his own people to stay in power then Milosolvic ever did) and Kosovo didn\'t have anything that would interest our nation.

As for the UN, I could give a crap what France (who would surrender to a poodle) cares about our actions. The only thing I care about, is our security.

So, I\'m glad Republicans now control the House and Senate. I believe the nation is heading in the right direction. Wish there wasn\'t so many idiots in California that made California controlled by Democrats (and in turn, isolating California from the rest of the nation), but, a silverlining here, when California is forced into bankruptcy due to Democratic mismangment, the rest of the nation\'s Republicans can point to us as an example of what the Democratic Party is about.

Originally posted by ROL Jamas
Good god you\'re an idiot. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Alright, enough of the insults.

Seriously, learn how to post without attacking people.

Originally posted by Simchoy
Also, on the case on the war against terrorism, Clinton was litterally HANDED Osama Bin Laden. But no, being politically correct, can\'t take him at the time. His little Afganistan bomb and Sudanis "pharmacy" factory that we have no idea if it was this, really didn\'t help stop terrorism. Not to mention reduction in defense and tying the hands of the CIA (like making them not use certain people because they weren\'t "goody goody"). Now, unlike many right wingers, I\'m not saying it would\'ve prevented 9/11. But it certainly exasperated the intel problem that lead to 9/11.

Oh, and all you peaceniks who don\'t want us to attack Iraq because they haven\'t attacked us or isn\'t in our national interest? Where were you when Clinton went into Kosovo? Milosolvic, while evil, didn\'t kill as many people as Sudam (who slaughtered a lot more of his own people to stay in power then Milosolvic ever did) and Kosovo didn\'t have anything that would interest our nation.

Hey, way to neglect the fact that Reagan and Bush Sr. practically MADE Osama and Sadam. Giving them the financial and military backing that got them started. You can\'t point the finger at Clinton and say that (in essence) 9/11 could have been prevented without pointing a flashing neon arrow at his two predecessors.

Exactly, they created the machine that is now attacking us and anyone that shares similar views. WHat did they decide to do instead? Go after General Manuel Noriega, a man who posed very little threat at all except to his own people. Which probably would have ended up over throwing him anyway. Remember the great war on drugs? Look where that went, the money they made on dealing and fighting drugs went to these two terrors in the midwest.

Man, I\'m done with this arguement for now.  There is too much that pisses me off too much, and that I, quite frankly, find incredibly ignorant.  If anyone actually wants to hear what I have to say, just IM me, so I can focus on one thing at a time.

You can focus on one thing at a time in here as well, what is the difference?

With issues I feel strongly about, it is easier if I can talk to someone in real time.  It is much easier to get points across, and make sure I am understanding the people correctly.

^^^I definately agree with that.

Originally posted by Bozco


Seriously, learn how to post without attacking people.

YOU SUCK.

I have attacked you. Go ahead and cry like you did last time.

Anyway, like Tony, this just pisses me off too much to say anything worth noting. Republicans as a whole frustrate me to no end.

So, in summary -- Bozco...*rolls eyes*. And republicans as a whole -- sorry, but the winning of everything and then the rubbing it in, well, just pisses me off. They\'re just really BAD here in Nebraska. Politicize everything, I mean, an ordinance to have 2 new fire stations in my hometown built was turned down because the leading republican in the city turned it into a political issue.

See Yuz.

Well I\'m done with this thread. Too much crap being thrown around on both sides to stay in it.

One last thing/s before I go, never said Reagan was perfect did I? The war on drugs was a failure, and we did aid the Afgans against the Soviets which yes, a few of them became the Taliban. However, the reason we helped them was to fight a common enemy, the Soviets. If we didn\'t abandon them after the war, the Taliban wouldn\'t have risen to power. As for Saddam, this is in the Bush Sr. admistration whom I\'m not all that fond of. Particularly, not finishing the job in Iraq in the first place. Still, even after this, Clinton did little, or worse, when the problems arisen. And letting go of Osama AFTER he bombed the embassies (after CLEAR evidence that it was him) is clearly unexcussable.

And again, never said Republicans are all great and are perfect. Just that, I find myselfs agreeing with them more, and I see less corruption compared to the Democrats.

^^^Less corruption?! Thats funny. Its pretty much a given that for the most part BOTH parties are corrupt; but the fact that more big businesses lobby on the side of the republicans IMO makes them more corrupt. I just don\'t think that Acme Oil or AAA Cigs has the american public\'s best interest in mind.

This is COMPETELY off topic but I thought I would add it. The thing that really sucks about the American governental system is that its main problem is in charge of fixing it. Anyone else see a conflict of interest? Thats like trying to treat a stab wound with a knife. It only makes the situation worse.