PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Lies



J-Bol
09-06-2008, 01:39 PM
I highly suggest the book "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies" by Gregg Jackson. Here's some tidbits.

Liberal -Conservative Republicans are war mongers.

Comeback - During the 20th century, it has been almost entirely Liberal Democrats who have involved our country in just about every major world conflict.

Woodrow Wilson (D) - After reelection in 1916, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany after concluding America couldn't remain neutral. 116,608 US Soldiers died; 204,002 wounded

Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - Promised he would keep us out of war by seeking neutrality legislation. WWII - 407,316 Americans died; 786,301 wounded.

Harry S. Truman (D) - Dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. led the US into Korea where >55,000 Americans died.

John F. Kennedy (D) - 1st US president to commit US ground troops to Vietnam in 1962. 55,000 US soldiers died.

Bill Clinton (D) - Launched US military around the world on peace keeping missions in places like Somalia and Kosovo and used our men & women as the world's police officers.

Only 1 major Republican to lead the country into a major conflict in the 20th century was George H.W. Bush. He destroyed Saddam Hussein's million-man army in less than a week and only lost 148 US casualties.

jackamo2887
09-06-2008, 01:55 PM
can you explain me to how the economy and gas prices were in the Clinton years, compared to Bush years?

And how many US troops have died since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Sorry, I must have forgotten..maybe you know? How many terrorist attacks has there been in the US since the wars?

StartTheMachine
09-06-2008, 01:55 PM
I highly suggest re-enforcing your own worldview by reading **** books aimed to make money off of you, rather than reading books that challenge your own ideas and beliefs.


fixed

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 01:55 PM
Sorry, I must have forgotten..maybe you know? How many terrorist attacks has there been in the US since the wars?

Compared to Clinton's administration. lol...

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 01:56 PM
fixed

I get that enough here from kids. Thanks though!

JUSA
09-06-2008, 01:59 PM
can you explain me to how the economy and gas prices were in the Clinton years, compared to Bush years? Unfair, really. First, a GOP Congress worked with Clinton and had fortune on their side with the internet "boom". Bush inherited a bunch of ****. His tax cuts helped stimulate the economy. Clinton was smart and kept a good thing going, but it's two different situations.


And how many US troops have died since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan? Too many, I'm against us being over there in both cases, but someone showed that in term of numbers, more troops died with Carter than Bush per year. Go figure.

jackamo2887
09-06-2008, 01:59 PM
Compared to Clinton's administration. lol...


Clintons administration had more attacks on us then Bush's did.

JUSA
09-06-2008, 02:00 PM
Clintons administration had more attacks on us then Bush's did. Which was his point. He could have also dropped that Clinton had Osama in his sights and wouldn't pull the trigger while he was at it.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 02:01 PM
Clintons administration had more attacks on us then Bush's did.

I know. That's the point I was getting at. ;)

Because of Clinton's lax military defense and foreign policy, we are in this hell-hole now.

namtaB
09-06-2008, 02:02 PM
Sorry, I must have forgotten..maybe you know? How many terrorist attacks has there been in the US since the wars?

Actually their attack worked beyond their dreams. The strategy of a terrorist is to cause a shocking attack that produces an overreaction designed to wear the enemy down over time. A terrorist group doesn't have the logistics to carry out a full scale war. They simply don't have the resources, political clout, finances, etc. to go toe to toe with another country like the US.

So you tell me who's winning? We are losing troops everyday in Iraq, we're dumping billions each month on keeping troops in Iraq, the value of the dollar has plummeted, gas prices are higher, unemployment is up, we're spending billions on airport security when its very unlikely that method of attack will be used again, we've isolated ourselves from the rest of the world and lost a lot of good will with ally nations, and we still haven't captured the leader of the attacks on the US.

All this was the result of a terrorist attack 7 years ago.

StartTheMachine
09-06-2008, 02:02 PM
I get that enough here from kids. Thanks though!
So...you get that a lot, but it hasn't forced you to think about the possibility that it might be true?

jackamo2887
09-06-2008, 02:03 PM
I know. That's the point I was getting at. ;)

Because of Clinton's lax military defense and foreign policy, we are in this hell-hole now.

Haha ok good then.

I guess sacrificing our security and defense to save a few dollars and balance the budget is worth a few thousand American lives to the Democrats.

Volodya_Putin
09-06-2008, 02:04 PM
Imperialism isn't a party specific thing in America, both parties practice it. This mythical American believe that one party is imperialist and the other isn't is laughable, but it does fit right in with their fairy tale beliefs of Intelligent Design.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 02:04 PM
Which was his point. He could have also dropped that Clinton had Osama in his sights and wouldn't pull the trigger while he was at it.

During a speech in Long Island, Clinton admitted he turned down an offer by Sudanese authorities to have bin Laden extradited in 1996. :(

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 02:07 PM
So...you get that a lot, but it hasn't forced you to think about the possibility that it might be true?

Oh it has. Until I read something more intelligent than 17-18yr olds packed full of CNN coverage.

raybbaby
09-06-2008, 02:26 PM
This book is nothing but spin. Pure garbage and disrespect for the facts or details of anything. Just more sound bite politics for the fast food culture.

BigBen85
09-06-2008, 02:27 PM
great post! Keep 'em coming!

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 02:28 PM
This book is nothing but spin. Pure garbage and disrespect for the facts or details of anything. Just more sound bite politics for the fast food culture.

So you're saying that what I said about the Democratic presidents of the 20th century has all been spun around and it was actually Republicans that led us into these conflicts?


great post! Keep 'em coming!

What would you like to hear? There are all kinds of topics. Pick one and I'll humor you.

BigBen85
09-06-2008, 02:32 PM
This book is nothing but spin. Pure garbage and disrespect for the facts or details of anything. Just more sound bite politics for the fast food culture.

sounds like another weak liberal defence, he cant rebut the facts so he discredits the author and the book, f8ckin typical.

BigBen85
09-06-2008, 02:33 PM
So you're saying that what I said about the Democratic presidents of the 20th century has all been spun around and it was actually Republicans that led us into these conflicts?



What would you like to hear? There are all kinds of topics. Pick one and I'll humor you.

whatever man, just post moar, I want to see these liberals get confronted with the facts and watch 'em squirm!

BTW, ive been wanting to make a thread like this for awhile but havent had the time to do so.

KRANE
09-06-2008, 02:33 PM
Sorry, I must have forgotten..maybe you know? How many terrorist attacks has there been in the US since the wars?Would that be foreign or the homegrown variety?

mrbeverage
09-06-2008, 02:44 PM
Unfair, really. First, a GOP Congress worked with Clinton and had fortune on their side with the internet "boom". Bush inherited a bunch of ****. His tax cuts helped stimulate the economy. Clinton was smart and kept a good thing going, but it's two different situations.

Too many, I'm against us being over there in both cases, but someone showed that in term of numbers, more troops died with Carter than Bush per year. Go figure.

bingo, you got it! the republican revolution in congress forced "slick willy" Clinton into reform on every level, (except term limits and tax cuts), they were to late though to stop the largest tax hikes in history though, ( passed in the first two years) which took years to ripple throughout he economy and the consequences were passed onto G.W.. the economy was in negative growth when Bush took office, then BAMM 9/11. under GW, the economy has never suffered negative growth.
Obama plans to tax, tax, tax are a disaster.

mrbeverage
09-06-2008, 02:48 PM
Actually their attack worked beyond their dreams. The strategy of a terrorist is to cause a shocking attack that produces an overreaction designed to wear the enemy down over time. A terrorist group doesn't have the logistics to carry out a full scale war. They simply don't have the resources, political clout, finances, etc. to go toe to toe with another country like the US.

So you tell me who's winning? We are losing troops everyday in Iraq, we're dumping billions each month on keeping troops in Iraq, the value of the dollar has plummeted, gas prices are higher, unemployment is up, we're spending billions on airport security when its very unlikely that method of attack will be used again, we've isolated ourselves from the rest of the world and lost a lot of good will with ally nations, and we still haven't captured the leader of the attacks on the US.

All this was the result of a terrorist attack 7 years ago.

this form of "logic" is spelled like this.......W-E-A-K-N-E-S-S in Islamic terrorist language.

namtaB
09-06-2008, 02:59 PM
this form of "logic" is spelled like this.......W-E-A-K-N-E-S-S in Islamic terrorist language.

WTF are you talking about? Have you studied history's most famous terrorists (ie. Hasan-i-Sabah, Narodnaya Voila) or groups that used terrorist tactics (ie. Robespierre and the Radicals, the Mongols)?

This is how these terrorist groups operate. Their goal is to create fear which leads to an overreaction causing a massive expenditure of resources. The giant gets chopped down over time as opposed to a war of attrition.

Its no wonder Americans have no clue how to handle these situations. Their predictable response is we have the best military in the world and we can kick anyone's ass which is exactly the mentality terrorists thrive on. The American mentality is one of hubris not strategy and people like General Giap in Vietnam, Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, etc. exploit it to the fullest.

As the Joker would say "You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength."

JUSA
09-06-2008, 03:03 PM
This book is nothing but spin. Pure garbage and disrespect for the facts or details of anything. Just more sound bite politics for the fast food culture. Uh, he only posted 1 exert from it and it's 100% true. Do you refute any of it?

BigBen85
09-06-2008, 03:08 PM
WTF are you talking about? Have you studied history's most famous terrorists (ie. Hasan-i-Sabah, Narodnaya Voila) or groups that used terrorist tactics (ie. Robespierre and the Radicals, the Mongols)?

This is how these terrorist groups operate. Their goal is to create fear which leads to an overreaction causing a massive expenditure of resources. The giant gets chopped down over time as opposed to a war of attrition.

Its no wonder Americans have no clue how to handle these situations. Their predictable response is we have the best military in the world and we can kick anyone's ass which is exactly the mentality terrorists thrive on. The American mentality is one of hubris not strategy and people like General Giap in Vietnam, Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, etc. exploit it to the fullest.

As the Joker would say "You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength."


and what country are you from, may I ask?

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Just a quickie b/c I gotta go. He gives a claim usually held by people on the left, then has a quick comeback followed by an explanation that goes more into depth.

Liberal -Republicans are the party of rich corporate special interests.

Comeback - In 2002, the top ten donors to federal candidates and political parties gave overwhelmingly to Democrats.

Big Money to Democratic 527s from 9/10 top donors - $31,802,503
"" Republican 1/10 top donors - $1,020,000

97% to Democrats
3% to Republicans

I think this is all based on 2004. Book was copywrited in 2006 I believe. There are a lot more charts to show who donated what and the only thing Republicans beat the Dems on is Business donations. And it wasn't by much.

mrbeverage
09-06-2008, 03:22 PM
WTF are you talking about? Have you studied history's most famous terrorists (ie. Hasan-i-Sabah, Narodnaya Voila) or groups that used terrorist tactics (ie. Robespierre and the Radicals, the Mongols)?

This is how these terrorist groups operate. Their goal is to create fear which leads to an overreaction causing a massive expenditure of resources. The giant gets chopped down over time as opposed to a war of attrition.

Its no wonder Americans have no clue how to handle these situations. Their predictable response is we have the best military in the world and we can kick anyone's ass which is exactly the mentality terrorists thrive on. The American mentality is one of hubris not strategy and people like General Giap in Vietnam, Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, etc. exploit it to the fullest.

As the Joker would say "You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength."


dont kid yourself,
Islamic terrorist hate everything about our existence, the mere fact that we a are free thinking society is a threat. they hate the fact that we let women walk beside us on the street, they hate the fact that we let women vote and sit at the same dinner table as men. they hate us for letting men marry men, they just hate us because we don't bow to Mecca several times a day, THEY HATE US. they have a right to hate us, but NOT bomb us. and to say that when we retaliate, they win is silly.

they prey on weakness and fear, and when you don't retaliate ten fold, you show both.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-06-2008, 04:06 PM
I highly suggest the book "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies" by Gregg Jackson. Here's some tidbits.

Liberal -Conservative Republicans are war mongers.

Comeback - During the 20th century, it has been almost entirely Liberal Democrats who have involved our country in just about every major world conflict.

Woodrow Wilson (D) - After reelection in 1916, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany after concluding America couldn't remain neutral. 116,608 US Soldiers died; 204,002 wounded

Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - Promised he would keep us out of war by seeking neutrality legislation. WWII - 407,316 Americans died; 786,301 wounded.

Harry S. Truman (D) - Dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. led the US into Korea where >55,000 Americans died.

John F. Kennedy (D) - 1st US president to commit US ground troops to Vietnam in 1962. 55,000 US soldiers died.

Bill Clinton (D) - Launched US military around the world on peace keeping missions in places like Somalia and Kosovo and used our men & women as the world's police officers.

Only 1 major Republican to lead the country into a major conflict in the 20th century was George H.W. Bush. He destroyed Saddam Hussein's million-man army in less than a week and only lost 148 US casualties.

Nice cover. "Only 1 major Republican in the 20th Century". Considering that the Bush family has been profitting from war for the last four generations, and both presidents mislead us into their respective conflicts, negates this entire OP.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 04:09 PM
Nice cover. "Only 1 major Republican in the 20th Century". Considering that the Bush family has been profitting from war for the last four generations, and both presidents mislead us into their respective conflicts, negates this entire OP.

We're 8 years into the 21st. Maybe things will change. But you have to remember 100yrs>8yrs. We still have another 92 yrs to play catch up!

trailwarrior
09-06-2008, 04:29 PM
List of United States military history events 1775-present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

It was Republican Abraham Lincoln who waged war against the citizens of his own country killing an equivalent of 5 million Americans.


The Real Lincoln (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html)

The true costs of the War between the States were not the 620,000 battlefield-related deaths, out of a national population of 30 million (were we to control for population growth, that would be equivalent to roughly 5 million battlefield deaths today). The true costs were a change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun - one where states lost most of their sovereignty to the central government. Thomas Jefferson saw as the most important safeguard of the liberties of the people "the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies."

more... (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html)


yw5v0KqCKjU

SDMuscleBuddy
09-06-2008, 04:30 PM
We're 8 years into the 21st. Maybe things will change. But you have to remember 100yrs>8yrs. We still have another 92 yrs to play catch up!

Oh bullcrap. Why not go back all the way to 1776 then. Jeezuz. The fact remains that most of the wars listed in the OP were justifiable and had overwhelming public approval. You really can't say that about the Bushes wars.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 04:33 PM
Oh bullcrap. Why not go back all the way to 1776 then. Jeezuz. The fact remains that most of the wars listed in the OP were justifiable and had overwhelming public approval. You really can't say that about the Bushes wars.

Can at the beginning, since Bush had the most number of votes ever for a US president in 2004. How was JFK sending troops into Vietnam justified since we are now comparing Iraq to it? How is Clinton's bombings justified on "peace keeping missions"? How is the atomic bombs justified since it was dropped on cities composed mostly of the elderly, women, and children? But Bush Sr taking out Saddam's army isn't? Going to war with countries that do pose a threat to us and our allies isn't?

Shaun1990
09-06-2008, 04:41 PM
I highly suggest the book "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies" by Gregg Jackson. Here's some tidbits.

Liberal -Conservative Republicans are war mongers.

Comeback - During the 20th century, it has been almost entirely Liberal Democrats who have involved our country in just about every major world conflict.

Woodrow Wilson (D) - After reelection in 1916, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany after concluding America couldn't remain neutral. 116,608 US Soldiers died; 204,002 wounded

Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - Promised he would keep us out of war by seeking neutrality legislation. WWII - 407,316 Americans died; 786,301 wounded.

Harry S. Truman (D) - Dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. led the US into Korea where >55,000 Americans died.

John F. Kennedy (D) - 1st US president to commit US ground troops to Vietnam in 1962. 55,000 US soldiers died.

Bill Clinton (D) - Launched US military around the world on peace keeping missions in places like Somalia and Kosovo and used our men & women as the world's police officers.

Only 1 major Republican to lead the country into a major conflict in the 20th century was George H.W. Bush. He destroyed Saddam Hussein's million-man army in less than a week and only lost 148 US casualties.

And here was me thinking this was the 21st century.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 04:44 PM
And here was me thinking this was the 21st century.

I already made that point. We are 8 years into the 21st. Can't really predict what the next 92 years will hold. Maybe a new book will come out then. ;)

Shaun1990
09-06-2008, 05:02 PM
I already made that point. We are 8 years into the 21st. Can't really predict what the next 92 years will hold. Maybe a new book will come out then. ;)

Did you, in your original post?

I don't think so. You said that a comeback for when liberals say conservatives are warmongering is that in the 20th century all major conflicts were by liberal democrats. Totally forgetting that the democrat party of 1916 is a bit different to the democrat part of 2008, and that this isn't the 20th century any more.

One would have to be either very daft or very partisan to sincerely believe that the democrats are as warmongering as the republicans in today's political climate.

Your argument is the same as when someone says that Islam is a backwards religion which causes a lot of the violence in today's world, and then someone else says "ah but in the 13th century it was the Muslims that were peaceful and making all the scientific advancements!"

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 05:10 PM
Did you, in your original post?

I don't think so. You said that a comeback for when liberals say conservatives are warmongering is that in the 20th century all major conflicts were by liberal democrats. Totally forgetting that the democrat party of 1916 is a bit different to the democrat part of 2008, and that this isn't the 20th century any more.

One would have to be either very daft or very partisan to sincerely believe that the democrats are as warmongering as the republicans in today's political climate.

Your argument is the same as when someone says that Islam is a backwards religion which causes a lot of the violence in today's world, and then someone else says "ah but in the 13th century it was the Muslims that were peaceful and making all the scientific advancements!"

What you are not getting is that we can't predict the future. We are 8 years into the 21st century. This statement I made about war mongering covers the past 100 years. How are conservatives war mongering when it was the Democratic liberals that placed us in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Cold War, peace keeping bombings (Clinton), yet Bush Sr destroyed Saddam's army in less than a week with less than 200 American lives lost?

namtaB
09-06-2008, 05:22 PM
dont kid yourself,
Islamic terrorist hate everything about our existence, the mere fact that we a are free thinking society is a threat. they hate the fact that we let women walk beside us on the street, they hate the fact that we let women vote and sit at the same dinner table as men. they hate us for letting men marry men, they just hate us because we don't bow to Mecca several times a day, THEY HATE US. they have a right to hate us, but NOT bomb us. and to say that when we retaliate, they win is silly.

they prey on weakness and fear, and when you don't retaliate ten fold, you show both.


Who said anything about not retaliating? I criticized the US's military response. I never said that we should not take steps to defeat this enemy.

That's the difference b/w a follower like you who can only muster enough brain power to resolve that a military option is the only solution and a thinker and strategist like me who sees the forest for the trees and can see multiple points of attack beyond just a military response.

gympunk
09-06-2008, 05:23 PM
Unfair, really. First, a GOP Congress worked with Clinton and had fortune on their side with the internet "boom". Bush inherited a bunch of ****. His tax cuts helped stimulate the economy. Clinton was smart and kept a good thing going, but it's two different situations..

Bush built his economy on incurring massive foriegn debt like a credit card cash advance. Tax cuts & defict spending of course will expand the economy, it's like dumping watter in a bucket. but it's ahouse of cards just like if a family lives on cash advances.
Spending a fortune and being wealthy are 2 different things.

Clean
09-06-2008, 05:26 PM
Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - Promised he would keep us out of war by seeking neutrality legislation. WWII - 407,316 Americans died; 786,301 wounded.

Harry S. Truman (D) - Dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan.

How do these two even count" You do know that the Japanese attacked us right? LOL?


O, and if you believe this, then it eliminates the whole argument by the Conservatives and Republicans that the Democrats are weak on foreign policy and would let the US get attacked.

You can't have it both ways.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 05:32 PM
How do these two even count" You do know that the Japanese attacked us right? LOL?


O, and if you believe this, then it eliminates the whole argument by the Conservatives and Republicans that the Democrats are weak on foreign policy and would let the US get attacked.

You can't have it both ways.

Because they were not military targets. They were full of elderly people, women, and children. And were they necessary to be dropped?

Did we belong in Vietnam? Korea? Should we have bombed Kosovo? Was it really necessary for JFK to play poker when the Soviet Union had nuclear missiles ready to launch at us? Bay of Pigs? And again, he did send the first ground troops to Vietnam. Also, Wilson and Roosevelt ran on "keep the peace" platforms.

raybbaby
09-06-2008, 05:48 PM
It's great to know that WWI and II were liberal wars, started by the Democrats who attacked foreign countries for nothing. Smart.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 05:52 PM
It's great to know that WWI and II were liberal wars, started by the Democrats who attacked foreign countries for nothing. Smart.

It's nice to know the war we are in right now was made up out of thin air by Republican conservatives. :rolleyes:

War Machine
09-06-2008, 06:02 PM
can you explain me to how the economy and gas prices were in the Clinton years, compared to Bush years?

The unemployment rate was the same for Clinton and Bush. Until the Democratic congress came in...the unemployment rate has gone up since. As has the gas prices. At least Bush did his part to open for offshore drilling. The Democratic Congress...went on vacation.


And how many US troops have died since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Too many. :( But we did'nt start the fight...we sure as hell will win it whether Democrats want to or not.

gympunk
09-06-2008, 06:05 PM
For the record, it's LBJ, The Gulf of Tonlkien Resolution & The War Powers Act to blame for Vietnam.

BigBen85
09-06-2008, 06:20 PM
Who said anything about not retaliating? I criticized the US's military response. I never said that we should not take steps to defeat this enemy.

That's the difference b/w a follower like you who can only muster enough brain power to resolve that a military option is the only solution and a thinker and strategist like me who sees the forest for the trees and can see multiple points of attack beyond just a military response.

and just what are your strategies then oh wize thinker?

iamlegend
09-06-2008, 06:22 PM
It's great to know that WWI and II were liberal wars, started by the Democrats who attacked foreign countries for nothing. Smart.

I could be wrong here, but didn't the U.S get into ww2 after being attacked by the Japanese?

And as far as nothing goes, I would think taking out Hitler was a good thing. And before people try to talk about Sadham, try to remember that the guys army was a complete joke and could/should have been taken out by Bush Sr.

J-Bol
09-06-2008, 06:29 PM
Don't get me wrong, I know this book is obviously biased. But everything is in some form. This is just a thread to show that there are reasons, backed by history and fact, that support Republican ideas and why we don't agree with Democratic ideas.

BBmisc420196
09-06-2008, 06:31 PM
It was Republican Abraham Lincoln who waged war against the citizens of his own country killing an equivalent of 5 million Americans.
]

WOW talk about spin. 620,000 people died, so you factor in population growth and call it 5 million! Are you ****ing retarded!

trailwarrior
09-06-2008, 09:52 PM
It's great to know that WWI and II were liberal wars, started by the Democrats who attacked foreign countries for nothing. Smart.Just because Republicans are fascists doesn't mean we stopped Hitler for nothing.

:rolleyes:

nonAtlas
09-06-2008, 10:11 PM
can you explain me to how the economy and gas prices were in the Clinton years, compared to Bush years?


The economy was a miserable mess prior to the Republicans' victory in 1994, after which Slick Willy had to compromise and accept a balanced budget and welfare reform. Combined with that and the internet boom, the economy got better. But Clinton still left us in a recession.



And how many US troops have died since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan?


None here at home, and most particularly none in high-rise offices in Manhattan, in rural Pennsylvania, or at the Pentagon.

nonAtlas
09-06-2008, 10:11 PM
can you explain me to how the economy and gas prices were in the Clinton years, compared to Bush years?


The economy was a miserable mess prior to the Republicans' victory in 1994, after which Slick Willy had to compromise and accept a balanced budget and welfare reform. Combined with that and the internet boom, the economy got better. But Clinton still left us in a recession.



And how many US troops have died since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan?


None here at home, and most particularly none in high-rise offices in Manhattan, none in rural Pennsylvania, and none at the Pentagon.

stealth_swimmer
09-06-2008, 10:16 PM
can you explain me to how the economy and gas prices were in the Clinton years, compared to Bush years?

And how many US troops have died since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The first question is trying to make a moot point. It wasn't Clinton that made the economy prosperous. It was the Fed increasing the money supply so that there was more money to tax. That coupled with the fact you had a Democratic president and a Republican congress causing gridlock means that Clinton couldn't get the big plans through that would've increased spending far beyond revenues. Having Congress and the Presidency be from different parties usually keeps spending down much lower than if they are from the same party. Clinton's taxes didn't help the revenues, revenues went up in SPITE of his policy. The gridlock was a large part of it.


edit - also I don't like the labels of "liberal" or "conservative" cus they're very narrow in the sense that neither is good nor bad. It just means you're for change or keeping things the same. I think if you're for change just for the sake of it, then that's bad. If you're for keeping things the same just for the sake of not having change, then that's bad. It's the ideas that count. Plus, I think lots of folks would fall under "classical liberalism" which is more like the libertarian viewpoint of today. Most folks, at their core, really don't care about what others do so long as it doesn't involve them.

dogmcby
09-07-2008, 03:57 AM
Nice post J-Bol.......I owe you some reps when I recharge........

stealth_swimmer
09-07-2008, 06:14 AM
WOW talk about spin. 620,000 people died, so you factor in population growth and call it 5 million! Are you ****ing retarded!

What's wrong with factoring in population growth?

J-Bol
09-07-2008, 04:55 PM
Liberal - Bush is stupid.

Comeback - He scored 1206 on his SATs and graduated from Yale and then from Harvard Business School where he received a 3.6 GPA.

Flew jets in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam
Successful business owner
Governor of Texas twice in landside wins
President of the USA 2x
Led war against Islamo-fascism successfully and capably
Record high approval ratings, even among women and minorities
Major factor in historic 2002 mid-term election wins for Republicans nationwide
Recieved more votes than any other president in the history of the USA

Not too shabby if you ask me. So much for comparing him to a monkey.