Bush vs. Clinton

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 1:50 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050918...heriraqeconomy

What do you think ?

sheepofblue · 09-19-2005, 1:57 PM

Clinton is the first president in a long time to publicly comment on a current president, it was always a courtesy extended in the past. Also for him to complain is lame as he did not do much of anything (not that the federal government should have) during his term. Also had he not been so concentrated on getting Bill Jeffersons he might have prevented the World Trade Center attack by defending the country when we were attacked prior (World Trade Center attack one, attack on our Navy, and attack in Africa) of course like his comments that is all easy to say with hindsight.

And lastly for him to criticize wealth or excess is laughable as he could be the poster boy for either.

ER · 09-19-2005, 2:00 PM

I think it's timed for some sort of a political purpose. But then again, Clinton has tried to stay in the spotlight since his last day in office.

Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

I'm sure you saw Mo Noyz's response in one of the other political threads in which he put about about 20 different quotes from then prominent Democrat politicians - INCLUDING Clinton (I linked those same quotes into a discussion on this board as well -- 2-3 years ago). Taking your political preference out of it, don't you wonder how he can hold strong to his claim that Saddam had WMD while he was President, yet 2 years after he's out of office those same Democrats (including him as you've just read) are asking for proof?

I would ask - what do YOU think of that?

ND4SPD · 09-19-2005, 2:04 PM

Quote:

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.

People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.

"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

Yep...instead they let those hundreds of schoolbuses get destroyed in the water. Makes perfect sense....Bush didn't tell the idiot mayor to mobilize them and he was obviously not smart enough to figure it out on his own...so blame someone else.

Baketech · 09-19-2005, 2:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldgoat

What do you think ?

I think you are too much of a gentleman to be dragging your good name through the muck in the political forum...

I know you got punched up pretty good in that other thread....but don't let the sting from that tempt you into stooping down to that level...

luvtolean · 09-19-2005, 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ER

I think it's timed for some sort of a political purpose. But then again, Clinton has tried to stay in the spotlight since his last day in office.

Let us not forget, the Republicans have overwhelming control right now, and Billary want back in the White House.

Heavy-Dee · 09-19-2005, 4:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Let us not forget, the Republicans have overwhelming control right now, and Billary want back in the White House.

Coupled w/ Bush's poor approval ratings right now. Looks like a "kick while they're down" sort of thing going on.

HD

*Mo Noyz* · 09-19-2005, 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

I know you got punched up pretty good in that other thread....but don't let the sting from that tempt you into stooping down to that level...

Stooping?

What was so low about what I said?

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

I think you are too much of a gentleman to be dragging your good name through the muck in the political forum...

I know you got punched up pretty good in that other thread....but don't let the sting from that tempt you into stooping down to that level...

Thanks Bake, I can take it

I always like to see what others think , sometime i get myself in trouble by opening my mouth

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Stooping?

What was so low about what I said?

You were fine don't worry about it. It was your opinion and i appreciate that.

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Clinton is the first president in a long time to publicly comment on a current president, it was always a courtesy extended in the past. Also for him to complain is lame as he did not do much of anything (not that the federal government should have) during his term. Also had he not been so concentrated on getting Bill Jeffersons he might have prevented the World Trade Center attack by defending the country when we were attacked prior (World Trade Center attack one, attack on our Navy, and attack in Africa) of course like his comments that is all easy to say with hindsight.

And lastly for him to criticize wealth or excess is laughable as he could be the poster boy for either.

Funny GB senior and clinton doing commericals then Clinton beatin up on Jr.

From what i read both Clinton and Bush dropped the ball on 911. i really don't think anyone could have prevented 911 ,JMO.

Baketech · 09-19-2005, 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Stooping?

What was so low about what I said?

It wasn't anything that anyone said...it was a testament to OG's demeanor...nothing else...

BDA116 · 09-19-2005, 5:50 PM

Why was it O.K. for him to invade Kosovo nearly alone without any proof of genocide?
It is truly sad to see all the sheeple parrot the tax break for the rich B.S. that the left wing media spews. The tax cuts created an extra low income bracket, expanded the 15% bracket and had cuts across the board, not just the top 1%. In fact, the cuts in the lower and middle brackets were much deeper, yet the top 1% still pays over 30% of all income tax revenue, the top 5% pay over 50% of the income tax revenue while the bottom 50% pays around 3% of all income tax revenue. Those that make less than $28,000 pay NO income taxes whatsoever, rather they take money away from the income tax revenue.
But facts are meaningless, only the rich got any break on their taxes. Then again, I guess when they are the only ones paying taxes they are the only ones that can get a break.

CBRVFR · 09-19-2005, 6:06 PM

Clinton's out of office. I don't have to spend another moment thinking about him unless it becomes his turn to choose the new drapes in the East Wing.

W's got 3 years left in his term, and effectively has one more year to spend what's left of his "political capital" before the new Congress in '06 stops listening to him, if presidential lame duck precedent holds.

Rather than spend an ounce of energy arguing about these incredibly divisive relics of history, I'd rather tune in now to those people who could make better candidates in '08 than either of these guys.

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 6:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Why was it O.K. for him to invade Kosovo nearly alone without any proof of genocide?
It is truly sad to see all the sheeple parrot the tax break for the rich B.S. that the left wing media spews. The tax cuts created an extra low income bracket, expanded the 15% bracket and had cuts across the board, not just the top 1%. In fact, the cuts in the lower and middle brackets were much deeper, yet the top 1% still pays over 30% of all income tax revenue, the top 5% pay over 50% of the income tax revenue while the bottom 50% pays around 3% of all income tax revenue. Those that make less than $28,000 pay NO income taxes whatsoever, rather they take money away from the income tax revenue.
But facts are meaningless, only the rich got any break on their taxes. Then again, I guess when they are the only ones paying taxes they are the only ones that can get a break.

I'll gladly pay the taxes if i could make the money the rich are making. i think the capital gains tax is only 15%, someone correct me if i'm wrong, so thats a nice perk if you have money invested in the market.

luvtolean · 09-19-2005, 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldgoat

I'll gladly pay the taxes if i could make the money the rich are making. i think the capital gains tax is only 15%, someone correct me if i'm wrong, so thats a nice perk if you have money invested in the market.

Depends on the type of investment, duration held etc etc.

Rich is very much a relative term.

BDA116 · 09-19-2005, 6:24 PM

Capital gains tax should be 0%. Taxation on the creation of wealth is the single most idiotic thing any economy employs.

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 6:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Capital gains tax should be 0%. Taxation on the creation of wealth is the single most idiotic thing any economy employs.

Why please.

phobiaphobe · 09-19-2005, 6:38 PM

Because it discourages investment and causes huge companies to move to Belize.

aussie_929 · 09-19-2005, 6:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavy-Dee

Coupled w/ Bush's poor approval ratings right now. Looks like a "kick while they're down" sort of thing going on.

HD

Yeah and he deserves every bit of it. He is wrecking the country and being a pain in the arse around the world.

*Mo Noyz* · 09-19-2005, 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldgoat

You were fine don't worry about it. It was your opinion and i appreciate that.

Glad to hear, because I didn't mean to offend in any way.

But to answer your question, I think Clinton is a great politician. What are his motives at this point? LTL and Heavy D may be close, I wouldn't bet against it. Especially since he called into Larry King Live in 2003 and said the following on air:

"President George W. Bush, under siege for "misleading" the country into war against Iraq, received some help from an unusual source -- former President Bill Clinton.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.

Presidential contender Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, actually suggested impeachment of the president over Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech reference about an Iraqi-Africa uranium connection. But Clinton said, "The White House said . . . that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . British intelligence still maintain that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. . . . Here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11th -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ton.iraq.sotu/

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

Clinton's out of office. I don't have to spend another moment thinking about him unless it becomes his turn to choose the new drapes in the East Wing.

W's got 3 years left in his term, and effectively has one more year to spend what's left of his "political capital" before the new Congress in '06 stops listening to him, if presidential lame duck precedent holds.

Rather than spend an ounce of energy arguing about these incredibly divisive relics of history, I'd rather tune in now to those people who could make better candidates in '08 than either of these guys.

I think Hillary is a better decorator than Bill, she will be picking the drapes, if she wins.

oldgoat · 09-19-2005, 9:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Glad to hear, because I didn't mean to offend in any way.

But to answer your question, I think Clinton is a great politician. What are his motives at this point? LTL and Heavy D may be close, I wouldn't bet against it. Especially since he called into Larry King Live in 2003 and said the following on air:

"President George W. Bush, under siege for "misleading" the country into war against Iraq, received some help from an unusual source -- former President Bill Clinton.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.

Presidential contender Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, actually suggested impeachment of the president over Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech reference about an Iraqi-Africa uranium connection. But Clinton said, "The White House said . . . that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . British intelligence still maintain that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. . . . Here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11th -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ton.iraq.sotu/

good article, thanks.