Politically Incorrect.

ColinEssex said:
a bit like joining the cubs before you become a proper scout.;)

Col
I think there might be some confusion on the term scout here Col. Perhaps we'd better explain that our scouts are armed with nothing more than a Swiss army knife and brains, unlike some other countries where they're taught to shoot bazookzas, assault rifles, skin wild animals for display as trophies etc. :rolleyes: ;)
 
Rich said:
I think there might be some confusion on the term scout here Col. Perhaps we'd better explain that our scouts are armed with nothing more than a Swiss army knife and brains, unlike some other countries where they're taught to shoot bazookzas, assault rifles, skin wild animals for display as trophies etc. :rolleyes: ;)


In your case lucky for the Swiss Army knife.:D :D :D

Bring it, dude.
 
jsanders said:
In your case lucky for the Swiss Army knife.:D :D :D

Bring it, dude.
One knife against all those guns and that's before I've even left the terminal at the airport :rolleyes:
 
jsanders said:
And he was still a good president. Certainly better that the current occupant.
No Frigg'n way! The only good thing about Clinton was he didn't do anything, so he didn't screw up anything too bad. Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
I'll take GWB any time. :p
I'd sure like another Ronnie as a preference. :)
 
FoFa said:
Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
I'll take GWB any time. :p

Foreigners lecturing the Yanks on what to do, talk about the kettle and black pot :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
FoFa said:
No Frigg'n way! The only good thing about Clinton was he didn't do anything, so he didn't screw up anything too bad. Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
I'll take GWB any time. :p
I'd sure like another Ronnie as a preference. :)

The main problem with his administration was that the republicans, headed by the tobacco and health care industries went on a witch hunt. They did every thing they could to cripple him.

He prevailed over them in spite of all of the millions they spent trying to discredit him.
 
FoFa said:
The only good thing about Clinton was he didn't do anything, so he didn't screw up anything too bad.
Considering that Bush has screwed up at least, oh, five major things quite badly then even by your standards Clinton is far better.

FoFa said:
Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
Hmmm... let's see.... record-low oil prices, arab nations actually felt like the President of the United States gave a crap about them, al-Queda was being sniped by the CIA (a fairly effective strategy), Iraq was little more than a pain in the ass, the economy and the dollar were strong, and the national debt grew at a slower rate than GDP for the first time in history. On top of that, the U.S. maintained a relatively positive global image despite the U.N. objections to military actions in Bosnia. Yeah, were sure were the international whipping boy of the 1990s.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Kraj said:
Considering that Bush has screwed up at least, oh, five major things quite badly then even by your standards Clinton is far better.


Hmmm... let's see.... record-low oil prices, arab nations actually felt like the President of the United States gave a crap about them, al-Queda was being sniped by the CIA (a fairly effective strategy), Iraq was little more than a pain in the ass, the economy and the dollar were strong, and the national debt grew at a slower rate than GDP for the first time in history. On top of that, the U.S. maintained a relatively positive global image despite the U.N. objections to military actions in Bosnia. Yeah, were sure were the international whipping boy of the 1990s.... :rolleyes:

My dad made a good point:

“One good thing about GWB, he may have set the republican party back twenty years.”

Maybe not exactly his words, but it catches the spirit.
 
Unfortunately I doubt it. Perhaps if the Democrats had their skite together, but their party is in such shambles they won't be able to capitalize on it. The Republicans, on the other hand, have proven their ability to manipulate public perception and focus everyone's attention precicesly where and how they want it.

I'd give them immense credit for these impressive skills if it didn't make me so nautious.
 
Kraj said:
Considering that Bush has screwed up at least, oh, five major things quite badly then even by your standards Clinton is far better.
Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.


Kraj said:
Yeah, were sure were the international whipping boy of the 1990s.... :rolleyes:
OK, because we caved on everything (maybe Billy was too busy getting those hummers). Any who who gives a rats behind what the international community thinks, maybe some wishy washy, insecure, liberals. Let um whip, mostly all talk and no do anyway.
 
Rich said:
Haven't you heard of Iraq, it's been in all the newspapers, even yours :rolleyes:
Yep, and I think it was the proper move.
So no, not a mistake.
 
FoFa said:
Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.
Here's a few:

1.) The economy tanked the minute he was elected (yes, it was already on a downturn before 9/11).
2.) He has failed to capture Osama bin Laden.
3.) He has failed to provide any proof of the allegations he made to justify the invasion of Iraq (ie., no WMDs, no evidence of intent to develop or aquire them, no links whatsoever to terrorism - and for a middle-eastern country that's a shock all by itself).
4.) Allegations of serious political misconduct are surfacing against people very close to Bush - from within his own party no less!
5.) He has admitted to illegal conduct and abuse of Presidential power by authorizing illegal wire taps - an impeachable offense.
6.) He has failed to fullfill his responsibility to keep Congress in check by not excercising veto power even once.
7.) His most significant contribution to domestic politics, the Department of Homeland Security, is ineffective or - at best - no more effective than the CIA, FBI and NSA were prior to its existence.
8.) His nomination of Meirs to the Supreme Court was a major political blunder.
9.) Although he started a necessary discussion on Social Security reform, he has failed to follow through in any meaningful way and his initial plan was summarily rejected by just about everyone.
10.) He took a balanced budget that set a course for paying down the national debt and created the largest increase in the national debt since Regan.
11.) He has a created the most severe political schism in this country since LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts 40 years ago.

That oughtta do for now.

Clinton, on the other hand, got a bj and lied about it. How terrible!

FoFa said:
OK, because we caved on everything (maybe Billy was too busy getting those hummers).
Care to make a suggestion as to what we caved on?

FoFa said:
Any who who gives a rats behind what the international community thinks, maybe some wishy washy, insecure, liberals. Let um whip, mostly all talk and no do anyway.
Yeah, we liberals tend to pretty much bitch and not do anything about it. But historicaly, people with the opinion of "who gives a rat's ass about xxx" generally get defeated, overthrown, or killed by xxx. Just tossin' that out there.
 
Sorry Krag,
You were week on a couple of points

The Homeland Security debacle has managed in 4 short years to decimate one of Americas’ premier Departments; FEMA

Making it go from one of the most desirable places to work in American government to one of the worst. Not to mention its ineffectiveness.

We are once again facing a transfer of wealth to the ultra-rich in historic proportions. America has lost 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs.

But hey; abortions on the run.
 
Kraj said:
1.) The economy tanked the minute he was elected (yes, it was already on a downturn before 9/11).
Pretty much heading down under Clinton after about the 4-5 year mark. Of course the Iraq/Afganistan things don't help, but then you have to expect that when in military conflicts.
2.) He has failed to capture Osama bin Laden.
Give me a break. That is pretty dang weak. I saw that TV footage of GW out there searching for him himself. Yea right, LAME, LAME, LAME
3.) He has failed to provide any proof of the allegations he made to justify the invasion of Iraq (ie., no WMDs, no evidence of intent to develop or aquire them, no links whatsoever to terrorism.
Really, and those were the ONLY 3 things? And actually I saw on our news no less, expanded on the BBC America news evidence of WMD development found. (going on memory here) One by American troops, One or maybe two by British troops, and one by some other country's troops I can't recall.
4.) Allegations of serious political misconduct are surfacing against people very close to Bush - from within his own party no less!
Well we will have to let that play out and jump to conclusions, as we all know, innocent until proven guilty as O.J. should prove.
5.) He has admitted to illegal conduct and abuse of Presidential power by authorizing illegal wire taps - an impeachable offense.
Thens hos come he aint being impeached?
6.) He has failed to fullfill his responsibility to keep Congress in check by not excercising veto power even once.
Damn, you got me on that one, unless he just agreed with congress every time, he is not suppose to use his veto power unless it is required in his opinon.
7.) His most significant contribution to domestic politics, the Department of Homeland Security, is ineffective or - at best - no more effective than the CIA, FBI and NSA were prior to its existence.
OK, so the worst that can be said in this case is he is not any better than any other president in creating these departments.
8.) His nomination of Meirs to the Supreme Court was a major political blunder.
And why do you say that? I have not heard any contraversy.
9.) Although he started a necessary discussion on Social Security reform, he has failed to follow through in any meaningful way and his initial plan was summarily rejected by just about everyone.
Like EVERY president before him.
10.) He took a balanced budget that set a course for paying down the national debt and created the largest increase in the national debt since Regan.
See # 1
11.) He has a created the most severe political schism in this country since LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts 40 years ago.
According to who? The democrates? Big whoop

Clinton, on the other hand, got a bj and lied about it. How terrible!
Um, I don't consider adultery a minor offense, sorry.
Well, he screwed up Hillary's Health Care reform so bad the republicans took over the house and senate. (Ok in my book that was a good thing).
He got caught in that whole WhiteWater thing.
I would bring up his impeachment, but even I thought that was a real streach for the republicans.
One word, Bosnia.
Another word, Somalia.
Sanctiones against Haiti causing their economy to collapse and a flood of refugees leaving.
Clintons failure to develop an Anti-Drug program because many beleive due to the tie between the latin american drug cartells and his close friend Lasatar.
Expansion of NATO

US policy towards Iraq has been one of containment since the end of the Persian Gulf war. The coalition that elder Persident Bush forged to defeat the Iraqi Army in the war was all but desolved under Clinton's watch. Rather than steadfastness and resoluteness in our handling of Hussein, he showed weakness and vacilation. Leadership is providing purpose, direction and motiviation to accomplish a mission. He has failed to lead. So now, world opinion is divided, many people believe that it is the US that is causing the children of Iraq to suffer, not the policies of Saddam. Clinton failed to mobilize the world at large to understand the threat of Iraq, and failed unilaterally to carry out actions to futher our own interests. Only at the point where Clinton faced the loss of his own power did he choose to act. The two year bombing campaign begun on the eve of his impeachment became a farce. Unable to stop it because to do so would be to admit failure. So the bombs dropped almost every day to no strategic purpose. (OK I cut/pasted that last one can't take credit).
 
jsanders said:
Sorry Kraj,
You were week on a couple of points
Sorry I missed those :o

FoFa, make no mistake I have no problem with a differing opinion, but in some you simply have your facts wrong.
FoFa said:
Pretty much heading down under Clinton after about the 4-5 year mark. Of course the Iraq/Afganistan things don't help, but then you have to expect that when in military conflicts.
A brief look at historical data for the Down Jones industrial average shows an overall climb throughout the 1990s that ended in 2000 when the overvalued US economy slipped to a more reasonalbe level and plataeud. After Bush took office, the Dow took a big downward spike then recovered, was bitch-slapped by 9/11, recovered again, and then spent two years on a major decline until 2003.

It is a fact that economies progress in cycles and no individual can control it. The President's job, therefore, is to institute policies that help to lessen the severity of the cycle. Under Bush, the economy has been very volatile.

Futhermore, contrary to your belief military campaigns tend to have a boost to the economy (that's why we like them so much). WWII was almost entirely responsible for ending the Great Depression. As you might notice, since war was declared on Iraq in 2003 the economy has been strengthening.

FoFa said:
Give me a break. That is pretty dang weak. I saw that TV footage of GW out there searching for him himself. Yea right, LAME, LAME, LAME
No thanks, I'll keep my breaks. If Bush is so intent on stopping terrorism, then apprehending the individual most directly responsible for organizing terrorists throughout the world should be a top priority. Not only have we not caught him, but we can't even prevent him from continuing his work. I think this is a very valid point and a major political failure.

FoFa said:
Really, and those were the ONLY 3 things? And actually I saw on our news no less, expanded on the BBC America news evidence of WMD development found. (going on memory here) One by American troops, One or maybe two by British troops, and one by some other country's troops I can't recall.
Actually, WMDs were the one and only reason he gave. When that didn't turn out, he made up a new reason. When that didn't turn out, he made a new one. Finally, he's settled on "spreading freedom".

FoFa said:
Well we will have to let that play out and jump to conclusions, as we all know, innocent until proven guilty as O.J. should prove.
Yes we will, but irregardless of outcomes, being connected to any scandal is a political blunder.

FoFa said:
Thens hos come he aint being impeached?
Two reasons I can think of. First, the Republicans have little to gain by doing so (and yet the Republicans are interestingly the most vocal about impeachment). Second, the Democrats know they'll simply be labelled as going on a witch hunt if they push for impeachment, not to mention putting Cheney in office and run against an incumbent again. Better to let Bush hang himself and regain the White House next election.

FoFa said:
Damn, you got me on that one, unless he just agreed with congress every time, he is not suppose to use his veto power unless it is required in his opinon.
Uh huh.... I'm sure that's what it is.

FoFa said:
OK, so the worst that can be said in this case is he is not any better than any other president in creating these departments.
Possibly. The difference is that this is one of the few things that he's actually done. The less he tries to accomplish, the worse his failures are.

FoFa said:
And why do you say that? I have not heard any contraversy.
Wow. Yeah. OK. Let me fill you in on this one. Everyone hated Harriet Meirs. Democrats said she was a terrible nominee. Republicans said she was a terrible nominee. She had no record whatsoever on which to be evaluated. No judicial experience, no scholarly works in which she clearly expressed her views. Her only qualification was that she worked for Bush (the same qualification that gets many of our stellar appointees their jobs). And yet out of what little was known about her, there was enough to piss just about everybody off. Yes, absolutely everyone agreed that it was a terrible blunder and it greatly weakened Bush politically.

FoFa said:
Like EVERY president before him.
Are we including the Presidents who served before social security was established?

FoFa said:
See #1. Even as the economy took a downturn during Clinton's last year in office, the national debt grew in only a very small amount - less than the growth of the economy. Clinton gift-wrapped Bush a surplus budget and he flushed it down the toilet.

FoFa said:
According to who? The democrates? Big whoop
I see now. So this doesn't actually have anything to do with facts, you just don't give a shit about anyone who disagrees with you. Nice.

FoFa said:
Um, I don't consider adultery a minor offense, sorry.
Well then indict 85% of the adult population in this country because that's about the proportion who've had sex out of wedlock. If adultery had a damn thing to do with being President I'd be with you on this.

FoFa said:
Well, he screwed up Hillary's Health Care reform so bad the republicans took over the house and senate. (Ok in my book that was a good thing).
He got caught in that whole WhiteWater thing.
I would bring up his impeachment, but even I thought that was a real streach for the republicans.
One word, Bosnia.
Another word, Somalia.
Sanctiones against Haiti causing their economy to collapse and a flood of refugees leaving.
Clintons failure to develop an Anti-Drug program because many beleive due to the tie between the latin american drug cartells and his close friend Lasatar.
Expansion of NATO
I'm not sure what's bad about expanding NATO, and I don't know how you could call Bosnia and Somalia a failure but Iraq a success.

Other than that, yes, those were all blunders by Clinton. Or at least they're not worth arguing against ;)

FoFa said:
The coalition that elder Persident Bush forged to defeat the Iraqi Army in the war was all but desolved under Clinton's watch.
As far as I'm aware, the war ended while Bush was still in office. What, exactly was the coalition needed for?

FoFa said:
Rather than steadfastness and resoluteness in our handling of Hussein, he showed weakness and vacilation.
Not really. He was firm and consistent with Saddam. He simply preferred to let the UN handle the situation their way if possible instead of charging in and starting a(nother) war.

FoFa said:
Clinton failed to mobilize the world at large to understand the threat of Iraq, and failed unilaterally to carry out actions to futher our own interests.
And yet no one has been able to prove that Iraq was any kind of threat at all. All we have is Bush and Rumsfeld saying it is true over and over.

FoFa said:
Only at the point where Clinton faced the loss of his own power did he choose to act. The two year bombing campaign begun on the eve of his impeachment became a farce. Unable to stop it because to do so would be to admit failure. So the bombs dropped almost every day to no strategic purpose. (OK I cut/pasted that last one can't take credit).
I see. Basically you're saying it's OK for a Republican to start a war for political and personal purposes (because that's exactly what happened) but not a Democrat. OK....
 
Last edited:
FoFa said:
Yep, and I think it was the proper move.
So no, not a mistake.
Funny that Iraqis don't share your opinion, still it's good for Bush's pals in the armaments industries eh:rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom