Democrats failing to pass anti-war bill

LadyT said:
Well, I personally support Feingold's defunding of the war initiatives. Otherwise this crap is going to continue to drag on with no end in sight. Iraq is a mess and we can't fix it. Our military is there with no clear tangible objectives with which they have any control over. Its a crappy realization, and the sooner we open our eyes the better.
Click to expand...

I can't bring myself to actually say I don't support it Tiana. My heart is there, but whenever I see a republican saying "that's what the dems should do" I get very angry, because I understand the political ramifications. And I know that they do too. It's a real fight between my head and my heart on this one.
 
Onceler said:
That's correct, though, to be fair, what made me think of it was the reaction of the crowd on Jon Stewart's show last night, which isn't exactly objective.

Still, even among that crowd, I think there was more enthusiasm than there would have been for him in, say, 2000. By the comparison to the Bush years, I think everyone understands how good those years were.
Click to expand...

By the late 1990s, Clinton was getting a rock star welcome, virtually wherever he went on the planet. I mean, that African trip? Remember that?

To be fair, Bush did seem to have some fans in Albania. Remember, where they stole his watch?
 
Makes you wonder what kind of reception Bush is going to get in 5 or 10 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if he holed up at the ranch & kept out of sight, a la LBJ...
 
Darla said:
I can't bring myself to actually say I don't support it Tiana. My heart is there, but whenever I see a republican saying "that's what the dems should do" I get very angry, because I understand the political ramifications. And I know that they do too. It's a real fight between my head and my heart on this one.
Click to expand...

Well at the end of the day when they see an end to the bottomless pit of money htey have access to, they will have to bring our troops home. Its time to bring out the big guns so to speak. Nothing else has or will work. All we've been doing for the last year and half now is asking for more time and the region is falling apart and people are losing lives on both sides. We've effed majorly in going in and there will be no graceful exit at anytime. Straining our military as an ineffective bandaid over the region is only going to hurt us more in the long run.

Cut the funds and bring our troops home now.
 
Onceler said:
Makes you wonder what kind of reception Bush is going to get in 5 or 10 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if he holed up at the ranch & kept out of sight, a la LBJ...
Click to expand...

Umm he will likely be in a minimum security prison somewhere.

that will make it interesting for the SS, I guess they will have to occupy the next cell over to make sure no one beats up the pres.
 
LMAO...........

uscitizen said:
Umm he will likely be in a minimum security prison somewhere.

that will make it interesting for the SS, I guess they will have to occupy the next cell over to make sure no one beats up the pres.
Click to expand...


Don't you really mean AlGore,Bill and Hillary..they have a really bad history of Illegal Chinese 'contributions...not to mention a few under the table debateable business dealings in Little Rock...and a few mysterious deaths associated with their administration...at least GW's staff resigns...do not end up in the morgue!...:rolleyes:
 
Naah I ma mostly referring to routing money to frinds from the oval office. No bid contracts, missing reconstruction money, etc....
I figure those kinds of things will be what gets Bush.
that stuff can targed bush without dragging down the rest of the country as hitting him on the war would.
After he leaves office and facts come out, getting bush for money issues could become politically feasable. A guilty scapegoat for some of our problems might be a popular thing.
 
Onceler said:
That's correct, though, to be fair, what made me think of it was the reaction of the crowd on Jon Stewart's show last night, which isn't exactly objective.

Still, even among that crowd, I think there was more enthusiasm than there would have been for him in, say, 2000. By the comparison to the Bush years, I think everyone understands how good those years were.
Click to expand...

Even if you were to compare Clinton to Presidents other than Bush, he would still be deemed to have done a good job. While I could certainly find errors and harp on them non-stop, overall he did a good job. He stayed out of the way of the economy, he was fair to business (as long as you weren't named Microsoft), he cut capital gains taxes, along with Congress did a decent job with the budget (although you could argue that they should have been able to reduce the national debt at least once fiscal year over year).

Obviously I lean conservative and thus would put Clinton behind Ike and Reagan on the top Presidents of the century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top