125
Dems become Majority: Good or Bad thing : Swingers Discussion 675381041
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsDems become Majority: Good or Bad thing
TOPIC: Dems become Majority: Good or Bad thing
GoTo Page: Less ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
Start   41 to 50 of 231   End
User Details are only visible to members.
JNM,

As you are obviously in the corner of the democrats, tell me EXACTLY what the Democrat leadership and then YOU, in particular, have done to make this countries national defense strong and what you personally have done to assist in our national defense.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
JNM just ask service men and women if they where content with the funding the Clinton Administration gave the armed forces. I remember hearing some mild gripes about lack of funding when I was in basic training in 96. Of couse they would not openly say that the president was screwing the military, but the discontent could be felt. Clinton did not garner much warmth and love from the military at the time no does he now.

And I can't believe you are bragging about the military we took into afganistan and iraq as being "the Clinton Military". Underfunded body armer and equipment, as well as a host of other funding and command problems...........You want to give him credit for all that go right ahead........So was it Clinton's Intelligence agencies that were keeping gaurd when 9/11 happened?

Arlington TX
Username hidden
(2284 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Oh...by the way the "Old Fat Pink White Boys" analogy/comment is not mine. It belongs to those Young Reaganite Republicans referring to the old republican guard who refused to act like conservatives and got in bed with the OFPWB on the Democrat side of the aisle.

A good book to read on that subject is "Rome Wasn't Burnt in A Day", by Joe Scarborough.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
redhot,

I actually agree with most of what you wrote. In 1994, the republican congress had 11 new fresh republicans that were elected such as Steve Largent, Joe Scarborough, J.D Hayworth etc. These YOUNG Reaganite conservatives vetoed 89 out of 110 spending bills from 1994 through 1996. By the end of 1997, along with unprecedented and enormous tax collections by the IRS on small businesses and the interest and taxes collected from the over inflation of the dot com companies, the budget appeared to be balanced.

However, in 1997 after these "Old Fat Pink White Boy" republicans made a deal with President Clinton and the old Democrat guard left in congress, these young Republicans were not supported in reelection bids and eventually replaced by other old guard republicans (or democrats). In the Clinton administration embarked on more spending bills, generated at the White House level, then at anytime other the FDR years. Basically Congress and the White House sold out the America people.

Remember the deficit or surplus is always a projection, it is not anything tangible. The loss of the supposed surplus began in 1998 and started with a deal between Clinton and Newt Gingrich made basically doing away with "The Contract with America". Gingrich even admits and talks about this in his book. If he is to be believed, he states in hindsight, it was the biggest mistake he ever made.

The only real disagreement I have with your statement is Ted Kennedy. Everyone loves conspiracy theories, well in my opinion based on the evidence and timeline, I believe Kennedy murdered that woman (Mary Jo Kopechne). He should of never served all these years in Congress but should have served prison time.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Actually, it is the Legislative Branch namely the House that is in control of budget and spending. President's can spend money but do very little in balancing budgets. If you go through the bills and spending during the years that it appeared to become balance it was a Republican controlled House with approval from the Senate that balanced the budget.

I give Clinton credit for working with the republican controlled congress that did this. However, actual public records of the period, namely bills, government contracts, streamlined and deleted social programs are what balanced the budget. Much of those were written and passed or vetoed by a Republican controlled Congress. During that time the minority Democrats were screaming and becoming increasingly upset at Clinton because their spending bills and social programs, which would of made the deficit worse never made it out of the house because Republicans, who were in control, would not support them.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
So the UN is an honorable upstanding organization? Maybe we should model our government after such a fine example?

Arlington TX
Username hidden
(2284 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
250,000 troops in afganistan and Bin Ladin's chillin' in Pakistan a place we cannot go? So what difference would it make? Our troops would be getting picked off there just as they would in Iraq and the Left would be calling for us to pull out for the same reasons they are in Iraq.

Arlington TX
Username hidden
(2284 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
lmao... Perfect.. to fuggin funny.... that was good!

Bridgeport PA
Username hidden
(12773 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sensous made some amazing points, and they were ignored. The fact is that we could have gone to war without even mentioning WMDs. Saddam was in violation of the cease fire. He did shoot at or track our planes every day in the no fly zone, during the cease fire. This was a man who supported terrorists around the world and because of his support who knows what terrorists acts were able to get past the planning stage and be executed. It's men like him that enable terrorsts to opperate. Syria and Iran are watching very closely and if Iraq becomes successful and regime change takes hold then they are to have to carefully reconsider their role in a world where terrorist supporters can become targets of regime change. Bush's biggest mistake was trusting the people who told him to focus on WMDs, had he focused the public's attention on the other things Saddam had been involved in then perhaps more people would understand why we are there. Bush's poor communication skills botched this war more than actual mistakes on the ground. If anything that's the biggest thing that flustrates me about Bush. If only the republicans had the good sense to nominate Mccain in 2000.........but at least they have 08 to get it right and I will vote in the primary!

Arlington TX
Username hidden
(2284 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perm wrote;

"Akron do you forget Iraq didn't fly those planes into our towers..lmfao..." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sigh....we have been through this before. Why can people use their experiences and job backgrounds to point out the faults with other peoples points. However, when I have pointed out the facts through my JOB experience it gets ignored. I am reposting this:

"The BS that Iraq did not allow, support or fund terrorism is false.

Saddam did not allow any terrorism to be carried out WITHIN Iraq. However, we had been aware of over 80 terrorism training sites that Saddam allowed throughout the IRAQI desert. After our invasion we discovered there was not 80 but 127 terrorism training facilities.

We also discovered that Saddam had met and provided funding to Al Qaeda, as well as Al Hezzem and other groups. In fact, documents found at the Ministry of Interior, as well as Saddam’s personal papers, shows that Saddam met with Bin Laden on two occasions and that he meet with representatives of Bin Laden several other times.

Mohammed Abu Abbas, was the founder and leader of the paramilitary group the Palestine Liberation Front. He led the Terrorism that took place at the Munich Olympics, as well as several Airline Hijackings throughout the 80's. Abbas was tried and convicted of the death of Leon Klinghoffer during the hijacking of the cruise ship, Achille Lauro. He lived out his life as a hero IN IRAQ until his death from Cancer in the late 1990s.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born man who was the leader of Al-Qaeda, was wounded and escaped to Iraq in the late 1990s. He was treated by Saddam's personal physician, where he lost his lower leg and was fitted with prosthetic leg. This was all at the protection, expense and assistance of Saddam.

The NONSENSE that Saddam was not involved or did not support terrorism, is a LIE! As far as we know Saddam did not take part in any actual planning or organizing of terrorist acts or groups. However, he did provide safe havens and funding to many of these groups. Much of this funding was in support of Al-Qaeda WHO WAS behind the planes that were flown into the towers and the Pentagon. Peripheral support is just as responsible as DIRECT action.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
Start   41 to 50 of 231   End
TOPIC: Dems become Majority: Good or Bad thing