Thank God Bush Senior wasn't President after 1992!

Blackflag said:
I think Clinton let Bush outspend him.
Click to expand...

True but did he let the Repubs in the 90's outspend him? Compare different sides of the political spectrum to their CURRENT counterparts.

Clinton wasn't too bad at all compared to now, but he was still a bigger spender than the Repubs in the 90's under Gingrich. And same as now, Repubs have gotten worse with spending, Dems got even worse.

Look at the Pill Bill, the worst fucking traitorous shit to Conservative Republicans in a generation, yet what was the Dems response? To say it wasn't generous enough, that it didn't go far enough. I can't just block my ears to that and pretend they are different or switched sides or something.
 
You act as if the (R) don't try to legislate morality, curb civil rights, expand the FCC, and try to ban video games.
 
Gore served with Clinton, who started wars, so he, logically, would have started more wars! In fact, he would have started them sooner, since he had the track record, and he would have started more of them, since that's what he does!

Irrefutable!
 
Blackflag said:
You act as if the (R) don't try to legislate morality, curb civil rights, expand the FCC, and try to ban video games.
Click to expand...
Give me some examples.

The only expansion to the governments control over media that I have seen proposed is the left's talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

As for video game regulation (and TV violence regulation), the Democrat Party's leading vote getter has been the strongest for that:

"Hillary Targets TV & Video Games - Wants Violent ‘Content Regulated’
Among the leading 2008 presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has advocated the most regulatory approach toward the entertainment industry, surpassing that of even the most conservative Republican contender. "
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index...v_video_games_wants_violent_content_regulated
 
Onceler said:
Gore served with Clinton, who started wars, so he, logically, would have started more wars! In fact, he would have started them sooner, since he had the track record, and he would have started more of them, since that's what he does!

Irrefutable!
Click to expand...

Stupid, I never said this, I did say that because he was willing to start little weenie wars over nothing that it would be reasonable to think he would be fine with a war that was started over (perceived at the time) real things like WMD and terrorism.

Spin, spin, spin little man.
 
Here's what you said:

"I thought that Gore would likely go to war because he did in the past under the Clinton admin (ie: Kosovo, Haiti)"

Which is inane on its face. It's like saying Bush Sr. should have lowered taxes, because that's what Reagan did.

"He was willing" - what a lie. You are such a ridiculous human being. Trying to compare what Clinton did to the invasion of Iraq, and then create some sort of loose extension to a conclusion that Gore would have done the same, but much worse (as in invading Iraq)....it's mind boggling.

You are a spinner for the ages. Naturally, if Iraq was a grand success, I doubt we'd be hearing "well, I'm sure Gore would have done it too."

It's laughable that Gore would have invaded Iraq, and proceeded in the basically the same steps Bush took after 9/11. Absolutely laughable.
 
TheDanold said:
Give me some examples.

The only expansion to the governments control over media that I have seen proposed is the left's talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

As for video game regulation (and TV violence regulation), the Democrat Party's leading vote getter has been the strongest for that:

"Hillary Targets TV & Video Games - Wants Violent ‘Content Regulated’
Among the leading 2008 presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has advocated the most regulatory approach toward the entertainment industry, surpassing that of even the most conservative Republican contender. "
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index...v_video_games_wants_violent_content_regulated
Click to expand...



You must only pay attention to the (D) party if you didn't know about Ted Stevens and friends trying to put cable tv and satelite radio under fcc control and as far as video games, theres many in both partys that are for that. You can blah blah blah about it all you want but in the end I think the (R) are much more likely to cause WW3 and spend all of our money killing brown people in other countries than the dems so I choose the (D).
 
Blackflag said:
You must only pay attention to the (D) party if you didn't know about Ted Stevens and friends trying to put cable tv and satelite radio under fcc control and as far as video games, theres many in both partys that are for that. You can blah blah blah about it all you want but in the end I think the (R) are much more likely to cause WW3 and spend all of our money killing brown people in other countries than the dems so I choose the (D).
Click to expand...
Well to each his own, I really think Dems will do other wars, except they will do it for "humanitarian reasons" like they usually rail for.
I hope you'll still support Jeff Flake, Chandler is lucky to have him in office and he is one of the few Libertarian Repubs in office.
He has been consistently against government spending and now opposes both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Flake

It's important to look at people as individuals and not parties, especially as it pertains to voting.
 
"It's important to look at people as individuals and not parties, especially as it pertains to voting."

Anyone else just spit out what they were drinking?
 
Onceler said:
"It's important to look at people as individuals and not parties, especially as it pertains to voting."

Anyone else just spit out what they were drinking?
Click to expand...
Good for you Lorax! I knew if you tried hard enough you would kick that DNC koolaid habit!
 
TheDanold said:
Well to each his own, I really think Dems will do other wars, except they will do it for "humanitarian reasons" like they usually rail for.
I hope you'll still support Jeff Flake, Chandler is lucky to have him in office and he is one of the few Libertarian Repubs in office.
He has been consistently against government spending and now opposes both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Flake

It's important to look at people as individuals and not parties, especially as it pertains to voting.
Click to expand...

I'm not in that district and he is mormon.
 
Blackflag said:
I'm not in that district and he is mormon.
Click to expand...
Oh different parts of Chandler, different districts, didn't realize that.

And that mormon hating is pretty silly, even Ron Paul believes in a religion (Lutheran), who cares? So long as they vote well for less government.
 
The reason I care is because anyone dumb enough to believe in that is too dumb to represent me. I live in Gilbert anyways though. 5th most conservative city in the country.
 
Quote from Dano:
"Clinton wasn't too bad at all compared to now, but he was still a bigger spender than the Repubs in the 90's under Gingrich. And same as now, Repubs have gotten worse with spending, Dems got even worse."

Hmm so newt was president ?
How could I have missed that ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top