Bush's speech

Clinton had one of the best foreign policies and most successful foreign relations since Truman...

How about stopping the conflict in Kosovo?

Providing millions of more dollars worth of aid and help than any other president while still remaining to hold a positive budget.

Bosnia...

Should I go on?
 
I find it funny how almost everybody is either against or for Bush... not the administration. Bush ultimately makes the decisions, but it seems that people forget that he has advisors.

If an advisor wanted Bush to do something, all that person would have to do is selectively choose what information to give to the president. It would be wise if everybody started referring to the presidency as an administration and not just one individual. It's not just one person who makes the final decision, it's a group of people.
 
well...in the first place, if i couldn't afford to have children then i wouldn't have them. that's why a college education is good to have!!!

and we freakin went into afghanistan and iraq like a fat kid in a carvel ice-cream cake factory.
 
Ummm, you realize that during the Clinton Administration there was actually a budget surplus and each year money was going toward paying off our national debt?

When Bush became president, lowered taxes, and waged war is when the deficit skyrocketed.

When you say things that are indisputably false, it doesn't help your case much. Learn something about politics and history before you try to argue it.
 
If we didn't go into Iraq, the Iraqis would live in tyranny but would have a relatively stable environment. 650,000 more of them would be alive and the rest wouldn't be caught into a sectarian civil war.

Also, if we didn't go into Iraq we might have captured Bin Laden by now. Instead, the real threat: Al-Queda has been ignored.
 
Oh, of course he did some ridiculous* shit, and while it isn't forgivable, the benefits of his administration is also very hard to ignore.
 
and saddam hussein would still be alive!!!! hello!!! there would be NO PEACE! nothing stable!!! and don't you remember when saddam was putting his OWN people into wood chippers FOR FUN!!!! oh! and he did this little past time with his sons! believe me...that country would not be stable.
 
Do you not realize the current situation in iraq? Saddam's Iraq was astronomically more stable than now. The numbers of Iraqis killed as a result of Saddam's policies are relatively few compared to the deaths resulting from US occupation.
 
Yes....for fun, not for criminal reasons.

Look Saddam was indeed a tyrant and committed genocide, but do you think we should do that to every genocide committer on this earth? I could name 5 people in Africa responsible for the deaths of more than 100 times what Saddam killed. Why aren't we there if we are so determined on "freeing" the world and "liberating" countries. Why the fuck aren't we in Sudan where children are slaughtered daily and the world turns its head. Why aren't we in Uganda or the Congo? Why aren't we in Somalia? I'm not saying we should get involved, I'm just saying why are these countries left out of the "liberation" plan?
 
A tyrannical dictatorship is more stable than a civil war. It's debatable which is better or safer, but a dictatorship is more stable.

Basically, your wrong
 
HA! You are saying the current deficit is from Clinton's policies, which actually created a huge surplus and one of the best economies in history, and not from Bush increasing spending more than any other president ever, and cutting taxes. I really doubt you've done any research past memorizing talking points.
 
like i said before at least Saddam kept everyone in check. now all the different sects such as the Sunni's and Shi'ites are killing each other.
 
you guys still don't get it. we are trying to help them. they would not be a stable country with saddam still in power. he would have teamed up with china and north korea by now and we would all be lower than cockroach turds.
 
i'm reppin the 802, coming straight out of Rutland, the place were you gotta pack a nine if your walkin down to the street.
 
i believe bush sr and reagan cleaned that up. clinton just came into it and did a couple tune ups for a little better and a little worse. remember, i'm not saying that clinton was a bad president, he was just kinda goofy, that's all.
 
Wow, Yeah China, North Korea, and Iraq are going to form an alliance and attack us...right. Saddam had no intentions of attacking us. He wanted to be left alone.

Please answer my last post why aren't we helping those countries if we are trying to help.
 
that's pretty dumb, now i know you don't know anything. why would china get involved with iraq, they have no reason to. right now they're focused on making their economy strong, which they're doing a damn good job at. why would they ruin all that and go pick a fight with the U.S.
 
Rutland's fuckin nuts if there's a ghetto in VT then this is it.

also don't fuck wit the girls from rutland "rutsluts" they all got STD's
 
geneous? Classic...

What I'm saying is there are leaders in Africa responsible for thousands of more genocidal crimes than Saddam has ever committed. Why aren't we there if we are trying to "help" and "liberate" countries.
 
ahahaha...geneous...70 wpm and brain is getting tired...lol...***genius

and you're drifting off course by about a thousand or more miles.
 
Simply putting surpluses towards the national debt will not help it much at all. It's like putting drops of water into an ocean; it hardly makes a difference. Considering that the current national debt is 8.6 Trillion dollars, it's impossible to pay it off simply by putting surpluses towards the debt. The only way that the US debt will ever be paid off is through market cycles.

And you do realize that it was during the Clinton era that there was a market boom in the technology sector (ie. telecom). The markets topped off in 2000 and subsequently dropped off, pretty much the same time Bush took the presidency. Pair up overwhelming prosperity and an increase in spending, it's no surprise that the national debt skyrocketed. People have a hard time changing their spending habits and when the market topped of, nobody thought the drop would endure so long.

Also consider this. The 30-year treasury bonds that were issued to Japan are expiring. What happens if the Japanese were to ask for payment for those bonds?
 
You do realize that it was during Clinton's presidency that there was a market boom in the technology sectors... Saying that the Clinton administration was responsible for "creating one of the best economies in history" is just plain ignorance. The US presidency is not powerful enough to direct the markets. They can make policies that can change certain things, but market cycles are inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top