sabro said:
Oh boy.
It seems everybody has their own definition of a lie. Politicians by nature are expected to make promises, not all of which can be kept at a later date ("Read my lips..."). Some would call that a lie. Sometimes a president can repeat the same information (WMDs) that has been said by the preceding president, most of congress and the overwhelming bulk of the intelligence community, but only he is singled out as a liar when holes of doubt are poked in that information. But if someone uses phony witnesses and provides unsubstantiated third-person accounts as testimony (Kerry, 1971) and states he was somewhere he wasn't (Christmas in Cambodia), anybody who stands up to defy that gets their private lives scrutinized and is accused of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
And what about a president who lies under oath to deny his victim her day in court
under a law he signed? What about a president who uses his staff and wife (aka co-president) to publicly slime another woman and accuse her of being a mad stalker? Think they would've stopped had it not been for the DNA sample on the blue dress?
I remember how the press gushed about the brilliance of the Clintons; how Bill could remember phone numbers from 20 years prior, how Hillary could name the lobbyists she worked with.... until they were under oath! Then they couldn't remember a thing! Heck, Hillary couldn't even remember where she left the Rose Law Firm records!
Why do you think only Republicans are capable of lying?
sabro said:
While Ol Bill Clinton actually had surpluses,
He never
actually had surpluses. There was a
projected surplus, but the tech bubble burst, NASDAQ dropped, people were losing their jobs to overseas production, etc., and Clinton never did a thing to stop any of that.
sabro said:
shrank the ranks of the federal work force, had the smallest growth in the national government since Ford,
He slashed the military. Period. He cut staff and supplies to a dangerous level. You're going to tell me he cut social programs...?
sabro said:
and raised taxes on neither the poor nor the middle class.
In 1993, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote on the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. Over-tax the people who finance this country and its industries. Great plan, just great.
sabro said:
Taxes have shifted since the Liberal tax code days of Nixon and Ford, from the big corporations and big business and the wealthy (especially the dead wealthy-- we used to like to tax them) to the middle class and small businessmen.
We're taxing the people inheriting from the dead wealthy. We've already discussed this. It's their money, it doesn't belong to the Federal Government just because the person who owned it before can no longer defend themselves.
sabro said:
Fiscal conservatism and fighting for the little guy is not evidently a GOP priority.
And it's the DNC's?!?!? Coffee time! Neither party is fighting for the little guy. They're fighting for their lobbyists and major campaign donors. Okay, the DNC is also fighting for their pet extremist groups, like ELF, NOW, ANSWER, Move-On, etc.
Something I figured out early on (8 yrs old) was that the little guy has to fight for himself, regardless of where he lives on this planet. Each party makes its promises, but if the GOP represents the rich and the DNC represents the poor, then I'd say that at least the GOP is the more honest party, as they don't sell their constituents down the river for political power.
In America, we have private sector groups like AOPA (one of my favorites), which fight for the rights and liberties of their members. And unlike labor unions, AOPA (and their like) HAS to listen to their members and not a particular political party or the organization itself would fall apart.
Which brings up another difference: While leftists try to associate the KKK with the GOP, and the KKK tries to pass itself off as having conservative Christian values (hello - Christ was a Jew) as a marketing ploy, the GOP obviously doesn't listen to the KKK. But could you imagine the DNC ignoring all of the little whacko groups that are pulling it in so many directions? Have you
seen the people showing up at these protests? Scary to think that so many of them are licensed drivers.
sabro said:
Don't we already have a few threads covering this?
sabro said:
After all the justification for the civil war-
*Ahem* The war between the states. A civil war is when two factions are fighting over the same power. Also, the southern states had the legal right to secede. The constitution was later changed to prevent that from happening again. Not that we haven't talked about giving y'all to Canada. Most of Hollywood already works there anyway. And y'all talk about taking jobs out of America.... Hahaha!
After y'all won, you wrote the history books to state that the war was fought over slavery and slavery alone. But poor farmers don't fight over plantation owners' ability to own slaves. But they do fight for political representation after providing so much of that nation's food and resources only to be oppressed. Yes, we were treated like dumb hicks back then too. We've come a long way, no?
sabro said:
That sanctions and inspectors had not worked and Sadam was a serious and imminent threat. I also heard on several occasions how Iraq was linked to al Qaeda and 9/11.
There's no proof they
had worked. In his State of the Union Address, the president stated that he didn't want to wait until Saddam was an imminent threat, as then all discourse and action would be too late. He also mentioned the human rights violations in that same address, well before we invaded. Saddam did have links to al-Qaeda. Whether he had connections to 9/11 is dubious but moot: We didn't proclaim war on al-Qaeda alone, but terrorism and all those who supported it. Shoot first and check their membership card later.
And don't forget: We've destroyed over 400,000 tons of weapons that Saddam wasn't supposed to have under the 1991 UN cease-fire agreement. WMDs? No, I guess they'd be classified as WADs (Weapons of Average Destruction).
sabro said:
We could look at the cost of Iraq- $105 Billion this year, plus however many soldier's lives, plus our credibility in the world community
Or we could look at the cost of not taking Islamic terrorism and dictators seriously - 3,500 dead in NYC (my sister was almost one of them), D.C., the two embassies, the USS Cole, and the first WTC attack, 40% of our economic downturn (recession, whatever), plus our reputation among terrorists for not fighting back. What was it Clinton kept saying every time we were hit? Oh yeah - "
I promise you: The people who did this will be hunted down and brought to justice." The only thing he left out was : "...
under the next president!"
sabro said:
Of course the answers won't matter, second termers don't have to look at polls or think about re-election, or the truth or war dead.
Wow, you really can be Michael Moore-ish!
