Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Opinion Research Survey Majority Favored President Clinton to Bush

Opinion Bush Vs. Clinton Clinton Favored in 2006

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 15 May 2006 - 04:11 PM

Abramof gave to both parties. A majority of those who took the money have returned it but to hear Howard Dean not a single Democrat took anything. and the spin people in the press will not call him on it.  

The planning for the war worked well enough the reconstruction needed better planning. But hey we do not hear about the work our tech services are doing in Iraq. We do not hear about contruction projects for schools  or lying of the first water lines that some towns have ever had.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#22 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 15 May 2006 - 08:11 PM

View PostG1223, on May 15 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

Abramof gave to both parties.

No, he didn't.  His clients did, but Abramoff did not.  Considering that one of the man's goals was to "remove the left from power permanently," why on earth would he give a dime to a Democrat?  Please.

Quote

The planning for the war worked well enough the reconstruction needed better planning. But hey we do not hear about the work our tech services are doing in Iraq. We do not hear about contruction projects for schools  or lying of the first water lines that some towns have ever had.

Ah yes, that right-wing whine again: "All the media's reporting is the bad news!  Can't they report any good news?"

Edited by Call Me Robin, 16 May 2006 - 01:48 PM.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#23 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 12:16 AM

CMR, ls there a valid reason tot characterize another's comments as a whine ?

Edited by Shalamar, 16 May 2006 - 12:16 AM.

The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#24 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 09:39 AM

Quote

CMR, ls there a valid reason tot characterize another's comments as a whine ?

Because that's how it came across and has been the repetitious cry of neo conservatives and Bush supporters to any critisism of the war effort? I used to think that was the FOX mantra. This is the second time I've seen CMR taken to task for wording and yet, not a peep on other threads where alot more abrasive characterisation of people's motives, demeaner and broad brushing "afterall, we ALL know screaming liberals all did blah blah blah" got not a question or comment of any sort. I didn't find CMR's comments anymore or less offensive or broad than some of the other comments going in the other direction that got not a questioning word on other threads.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#25 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 11:23 AM

"Whine" did jump off the screen a bit, but I agree with Lin -- it's kind of par for the course.

Could've been phrased nicer, but then so could a lot of stuff.

#26 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 12:10 PM

I don't want to derail this thread (then again, it was Shalamar's comment that started this), but I think a good rule of thumb for anyone who is sensitive to getting their feelings hurt is: think twice (and if necessary, thrice :) ) before entering a forum where politics is discussed.  

By the very nature of such a debate, people are going to make sharp and critifcal  observations about things other people care a lot about.

That said, I also think we're all--to varying degrees--adults here, and we all can take a little ribbing, from BOTH sides of the aisle.  

I don't particularly like it when someone paints all liberals as suicidal pacifists (for just one example), because I don't think it's at all accurate --  but then again, I'm assuming they don't particularly like it when one of us paints all conservatives as warmongering fascists, either.  

So, while we can all endeavor to remember that nobody falls into a simple set of labels, we can also remember that -- as veganmom points out -- such labels are par for the course in a political forum, and tempers will get hot (particularly in an election year).

As long as hate-speech and/or all-out flamewars are not breaking out -- and neither of those things happens with any regularity in OT -- I think we're doing pretty good.  In fact, *really* good.  

Which is to say: even informal "cautions" tend to put a damper on a conversation, often just as they're getting interesting.

Edited by _ph, 16 May 2006 - 12:37 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#27 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 12:36 PM

View PostShalamar, on May 16 2006, 05:16 AM, said:

CMR, ls there a valid reason tot characterize another's comments as a whine ?

Hmmmm.  I dunno, Shalamar.  Perhaps you should ask someone else the same question when he says that "hearing the super-left whine is part of the price we'll have to pay for continued security."
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#28 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 01:11 PM

He was speaking of a group's manner.

You were speaking of his, rather personally I think. You could have chosen another term, one less loaded.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#29 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 01:48 PM

Consider it edited.  Better?

Edited by Call Me Robin, 16 May 2006 - 01:49 PM.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#30 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 01:54 PM

Ah, the high road.
Would that more people would take it.....

#31 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 01:56 PM

Quote

Ah yes, that right-wing whine again: "All the media's reporting is the bad news! Can't they report any good news?"

I thought CMR's comment was more of a general observation myself...AKA G mentions something that we've heard alot of whining about from Bush supporters for ages now. She didn't say. "G, stop being such a whiner, we're tired of hearing you whine about that". I guess it could be taken both ways.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#32 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 01:59 PM

Clinton only screwed an intern.  Bush screwed an entire country.  Big difference.

In Clinton's terms, the economy was good, people had jobs, and there was no war going on where there was no exit strategy.  What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with his role as President.  That's his personal life, and he made a mistake.

Bush has fumbled virtually every issue and/or task presented to him.  He's failed to resolve this war we have going on.  He's failed to help with the victims of Katrina.  He's failed with national security.  He's failed in border security.  He's failed in keeping things that should be secret, a secret.  He's failed at boosting the nations economy and addressing the needs of the people.  He's failed in dealing with the rising costs of gas.  He's basically FAILED as Prez'dent.  The polls show it.  29% approval rating?  That's more like a 71% FAILURE rating.  And with the crappy half-arsed speech he gave last night, he's going to sink even more.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#33 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 02:02 PM

AMEN



#34 enTranced

enTranced

    Chasing Your Starlight!

  • Islander
  • 15,772 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 02:10 PM

View PostSpidey, on May 16 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

Bush has fumbled virtually every issue and/or task presented to him.  He's failed to resolve this war we have going on.  He's failed to help with the victims of Katrina.  He's failed with national security.  He's failed in border security.  He's failed in keeping things that should be secret, a secret.  He's failed at boosting the nations economy and addressing the needs of the people.  He's failed in dealing with the rising costs of gas.  He's basically FAILED as Prez'dent.  The polls show it.  29% approval rating?  That's more like a 71% FAILURE rating.  And with the crappy half-arsed speech he gave last night, he's going to sink even more.

Preach it!

enTranced
Posted Image

#35 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 02:46 PM

Spidey wrote:

Clinton only screwed an intern. Bush screwed an entire country. Big difference.

I feeeel your pain.

In Clinton's terms, the economy was good, people had jobs, and there was no war going on where there was no exit strategy. What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with his role as President. That's his personal life, and he made a mistake.

Do we have a Democrat presidential candidate who promises a balanced budget? Heck, do we have a Democrat congressional leader who promises that? I'd be happy to see Democrats running on a Contract with America like Newt Gingrich did. (He forced Clinton to balance the budget and sign welfare reform, if you forgot the record.)

People have jobs today as far as I can tell, and Clinton dodged dealing with Saddam Hussein by funding Iraqi Opposition groups led by Ahmed Chalabi. He put off foreign policy for another president to deal with, and if you consider that the right decision, this portends poorly for the next Democrat who wants to be president.

He's failed to resolve this war we have going on.

So you're saying we should have impeached Truman and thrown him out after Japan and Germany weren't rebuilt after three years? Try ten.

He's failed to help with the victims of Katrina.

The Democrats believe Bush created Hurricane Katrina to take out those New Orleans blacks who didn't vote for him. Michael Moore may have a movie out on that, stay tuned.

He's failed with national security.

We had another 9/11? Al Queda members haven't been killed/arrested across the globe? Bush didn't enact the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance of terrorists? Did I miss a city getting nuked? Where exactly did he fail? He did fail to bring the Democrats on board the war on terror, but I don't think that's his fault.

He's failed in keeping things that should be secret, a secret.

Ah, so when careers Democrats at the State Department or CIA leak our intelligence programs to the New York Times, we can blame Bush for that, too.

He's failed at boosting the nations economy and addressing the needs of the people.

Since the Democrat solution to the above sentence is to increase Federal domestic spending across-the-board, which Bush has done, where did Bush stray from what his opponents would have done? (They only promised to cut the military, remember. Imagine how the needs of the people would be served, as you put it, with all those base closings and defense manufacturers closing.)

He's failed in dealing with the rising costs of gas.

So Bush should have stolen Iraq's oil, precisely as his opponents claimed he would do? Bush wanted to drill in ANWR, increase refining capacity, and build more nuclear power plants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. None of that has happened, which puts the blame on congress. (Yes, a Republican congress. But not Bush.)

He's basically FAILED as Prez'dent.

I fail to see how Clinton, Gore, or Kerry would have done anything better. Are there specifics?

The polls show it. 29% approval rating? That's more like a 71% FAILURE rating. And with the crappy half-arsed speech he gave last night, he's going to sink even more.

No derision for Tony Blair?

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 16 May 2006 - 02:46 PM.


#36 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 03:16 PM

^Clinton's record as President is far better than Bush's.  Heck, even his father, George Bush did a much better job than G.W.B. ever could hope for.  I'm not speaking as a Democrat or a Republican either.  I'm looking at pure performance.

Clinton knew how to handle politics with other countries.  He knew how to keep saddam quiet without firing a single missile.  He knew how to talk to Congress, and could actually speak in complete sentenses on top of that.  The economy was MUCH better during Clintons time, and unemployment rates were extremely low.  Can't say the same for Bush.  At least Clinton handled the budget rather than running it up to an all-time high.  

Quote

So you're saying we should have impeached Truman and thrown him out after Japan and Germany weren't rebuilt after three years? Try ten.

Did I mention Truman?  No.  So I'm not saying that am I?  Pretty left field there, Ogami.  :rolleyes:

Quote

The Democrats believe Bush created Hurricane Katrina to take out those New Orleans blacks who didn't vote for him. Michael Moore may have a movie out on that, stay tuned.

That's bunk.  Bush never created Katrina.  This has nothing to do with what I said, or what really happened.  However, I do wonder if Bush really gives a damn about the needs of Americans.  His refusal to help California fix its many broken levees shows he really doesn't give a hoot.

Quote

We had another 9/11? Al Queda members haven't been killed/arrested across the globe? Bush didn't enact the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance of terrorists? Did I miss a city getting nuked? Where exactly did he fail? He did fail to bring the Democrats on board the war on terror, but I don't think that's his fault.

Uh, forget about Bush pushing for the Dubai port deal?  That would be compromising national security.  Sure, lets let them run our ports, nevermind the fact that they fund terrorist activities.  Glad that didn't go through.

Quote

Ah, so when careers Democrats at the State Department or CIA leak our intelligence programs to the New York Times, we can blame Bush for that, too.

No.  Never said that.  But Bush does have connections to the recent leaks scandal, as does Dick Cheney.  Stay tuned for that.

Quote

Since the Democrat solution to the above sentence is to increase Federal domestic spending across-the-board, which Bush has done, where did Bush stray from what his opponents would have done? (They only promised to cut the military, remember. Imagine how the needs of the people would be served, as you put it, with all those base closings and defense manufacturers closing.)

Oh, lets see, cutting into educational funding, screwing with social security, not doing anything about the problems of companies outsourcing everything to other countries...

Quote

So Bush should have stolen Iraq's oil, precisely as his opponents claimed he would do? Bush wanted to drill in ANWR, increase refining capacity, and build more nuclear power plants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. None of that has happened, which puts the blame on congress. (Yes, a Republican congress. But not Bush.)

No.  But telling Americans to "drive less" isn't exactly a solution.  Telling car manufacturers to produce more efficient cars by some outragiously late date like 2012 is pointless.  Not funding a serious development of alternative fuel such as ethynol is also a huge mistake.  Drilling in Alaska, and building nuclear power plants ruins the environment and ecosystem.

Quote

I fail to see how Clinton, Gore, or Kerry would have done anything better. Are there specifics?

Yes, look at Clintons time as President from 1993-2000.  Times were a lot better then than now.

29% is really a bad track record.  That in itself should raise an eyebrow or two as to what the heck Bush is doing wrong.  At this point, he should just stay quiet and his polls may actually improve.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#37 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 03:52 PM

Quote

Ogami: Do we have a Democrat presidential candidate who promises a balanced budget? Heck, do we have a Democrat congressional leader who promises that? I'd be happy to see Democrats running on a Contract with America like Newt Gingrich did. (He forced Clinton to balance the budget and sign welfare reform, if you forgot the record.)

Actually, the record shows that the pre-Contract with America 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act, which was aimed at deficit reduction, was proposed by Clinton and passed without a single Republican vote.

http://en.wikipedia....ion_Act_of_1993

Republicans claimed then, as they still do apparently, that the way to end deficits was through tax cuts. Clinton raised taxes, especially on the upper 2%, and cut spending. Amazingly, when you increase revenues and reduce spending, deficits decrease. The GOP predicted everything but a Depression as a result of the act, and yet it preceded seven years of record growth.

As for Welfare Reform, Clinton had advocated it before becoming President in 1992. He was part of a coalition of centrist Democrats who, like Moynihan, saw Welfare as well-intentioned but ultimately destructive to those who had come to rely on it for generations. So it's inaccurate to say that Newt forced Clinton to sign the Welfare Reform Act. Just as it's inaccurate to credit Newt with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act--which neither he nor any other Republican supported.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#38 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 04:12 PM

Quote

Republicans claimed then, as they still do apparently, that the way to end deficits was through tax cuts.
Well as any good Republican knows, tax cuts can increase government revenue, but obviously they'd have to reduce spending too for the deficit to decrease.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#39 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 04:30 PM

View Postscherzo, on May 16 2006, 09:12 PM, said:

Quote

Republicans claimed then, as they still do apparently, that the way to end deficits was through tax cuts.
Well as any good Republican knows, tax cuts can increase government revenue, but obviously they'd have to reduce spending too for the deficit to decrease.

-scherzo

And, of course, Bush never did that.  He has made government bigger, creating more programs and more departments.  Republicans, meanwhile, love pork barrel projects as much as any other politician--remember that bridge out in the middle of Nowhere, Alaska?

I'd like to see how federal revenue has really increased under Bush.  Because the past six years have proven that "trickle-down" economics are a bust.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#40 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 04:37 PM

Quote

I'd like to see how federal revenue has really increased under Bush.
...and Ye shall receive: http://www.breitbart.../D8HH2VM08.html

"April Tax Revenue 2nd-Highest in History"

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Opinion, Bush Vs. Clinton, Clinton Favored in 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users