I don't care if they hate us or not, can't say they loved us before. I do want them to fear us though, nobody messes with China. Let em know that if they mess with us they'll pay a dear price. The creating more terrorist theory is bogus, that stuff is taught from a very early age over there.
-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Bunch of Whiners ..............
- Thread starter Jumbo Jet
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
I don't care if they hate us or not, can't say they loved us before. I do want them to fear us though, nobody messes with China. Let em know that if they mess with us they'll pay a dear price. The creating more terrorist theory is bogus, that stuff is taught from a very early age over there.
Yes, but it WASN'T being taught at a young age in Iraq - Saddam's secret police put a stop to those shenanigans. The last thing he wanted was for the Shi'ites to rise up and remove him from power. The idea that this war isn't creating new terrorists is ignorance. The folks of Iraq may or may not have hated us before, but they most likely respected us. Now they hate and fear us - and work very diligently to blow us up. And the rest of the world thinks the US is a bunch of gunslinging cowboys. If we'd tried this preemptive attack on Iraq back during the Soviet days, it would've meant World War III.
Since when.... ?
Since when do we need the world's or the UN's approval to defend ourselves? Wasn't UN Resolution 1442 enough to begin with? I believe it authorized "serious consequences" if Saddam did not comply. He didn't. He paid the price.
Saddam paid $25k to the families of "suicide bombers" in Israel and the West Bank. Didn't support Muslim extremists? C'mon.
I know I'll spell this wrong but up north in Iraq, in a place called "solmon pac" (sp?) there's a 727 fuselage on the ground used for the express purpose of training terrorists. No links to terrorists?
Bush never told us that Iraq was an imminent threat. He wanted action before they became an "imminent threat. " Did we want that SOB Hussein to acquire nukes? I don't think so.
Do any of you guys think the reason we haven't been attacked again is perhaps because Bush is knocking some heads over there?
This I gotta know, do you guys oppose Bush because you don't like his policies or do you oppose his policies because you don't like Bush?
Tim
Still waiting for the better answer
Since when do we need the world's or the UN's approval to defend ourselves? Wasn't UN Resolution 1442 enough to begin with? I believe it authorized "serious consequences" if Saddam did not comply. He didn't. He paid the price.
Saddam paid $25k to the families of "suicide bombers" in Israel and the West Bank. Didn't support Muslim extremists? C'mon.
I know I'll spell this wrong but up north in Iraq, in a place called "solmon pac" (sp?) there's a 727 fuselage on the ground used for the express purpose of training terrorists. No links to terrorists?
Bush never told us that Iraq was an imminent threat. He wanted action before they became an "imminent threat. " Did we want that SOB Hussein to acquire nukes? I don't think so.
Do any of you guys think the reason we haven't been attacked again is perhaps because Bush is knocking some heads over there?
This I gotta know, do you guys oppose Bush because you don't like his policies or do you oppose his policies because you don't like Bush?
Tim
Still waiting for the better answer
You're right - we don't need the worlds approval to march into any other country and knock off it's government. Of course, wasn't NATO formed to stop the Sovs from doing precisely the same thing?
Saddam paid lip service to the Palestinians because it played well with Iraqis. Attacking the Israelis is always a happy thing to Arabs. But there's not a shred of evidence so far to show a connection to al Qaeda. The Palestinians aren't particularly Islamic extremists - their terrorism campaign is to get rid of Israel, not to spread Islam. Al Qaeda wants all the non-Muslims dead or converted.
I think we haven't been attacked because we took out most of the planners in Afghanistan - a far more just war to me than Iraq. Also, it takes a long time to plan a major operation like that. The first attack on the WTC was 1996 - the next one wasn't until 5 years later. We've only just passed the 2 year anniversary - it simply hasn't been long enough yet.
I don't care for President Bush, but I'm hating some of his policies. I think he did a good job after 9/11, and Afghanistan was completely justifiable. Problem is, he's using the War on Terror as an excuse to attack Iraq, erode civil liberties, and destroy the good will of other nations.
If 9/11 had happened in , say, 1998, and President Clinton had pushed thru the Patriot Act - I'd bet money every single Republican alive would have been up in arms about the loss of their rights. Didn't the Reps flip out about the US going into Kosovo and Bosnia? I can only imagine the whining and howling if President Clinton had, on flimsy excuses, preemptively attacked Iraq and occupied the country.
Saddam paid lip service to the Palestinians because it played well with Iraqis. Attacking the Israelis is always a happy thing to Arabs. But there's not a shred of evidence so far to show a connection to al Qaeda. The Palestinians aren't particularly Islamic extremists - their terrorism campaign is to get rid of Israel, not to spread Islam. Al Qaeda wants all the non-Muslims dead or converted.
I think we haven't been attacked because we took out most of the planners in Afghanistan - a far more just war to me than Iraq. Also, it takes a long time to plan a major operation like that. The first attack on the WTC was 1996 - the next one wasn't until 5 years later. We've only just passed the 2 year anniversary - it simply hasn't been long enough yet.
I don't care for President Bush, but I'm hating some of his policies. I think he did a good job after 9/11, and Afghanistan was completely justifiable. Problem is, he's using the War on Terror as an excuse to attack Iraq, erode civil liberties, and destroy the good will of other nations.
If 9/11 had happened in , say, 1998, and President Clinton had pushed thru the Patriot Act - I'd bet money every single Republican alive would have been up in arms about the loss of their rights. Didn't the Reps flip out about the US going into Kosovo and Bosnia? I can only imagine the whining and howling if President Clinton had, on flimsy excuses, preemptively attacked Iraq and occupied the country.
Boomer, I just read it. Funny thing is, I go to that website every day to get my Calvin and Hobbes fix. If every thing he says is true, then why didn't the Bush Administration use that information as the excuse to enter Iraq? We've got pretty good information - reported in the mainstream media and everything - that things are just as bad or worse in North Korea - why aren't we invading there? Somalia was pretty bad, atrocity-wise, but we left there. I read every couple of days how bad things are in Liberia - but all we sent were a few Marines. C'mon, if you want us to be the world's police, we're gonna have to be consistent in our application of power!
A thought on North Korea -
Who is their next door neighbor? China.
Who is trying to control their population explosion and don't need any refugees? China.
Who is benefitting from a huge trade relationship with the USA (Wal-Mart)? China
China has massed troops on the border with N. Korea. I don't think we have to do anything about N. Korea. The CEO of Wal-Mart will be calling the shots about dealing with N. Korea!
Who is their next door neighbor? China.
Who is trying to control their population explosion and don't need any refugees? China.
Who is benefitting from a huge trade relationship with the USA (Wal-Mart)? China
China has massed troops on the border with N. Korea. I don't think we have to do anything about N. Korea. The CEO of Wal-Mart will be calling the shots about dealing with N. Korea!
It's all about OIL. No reserves in North Korea, Somalia or Liberia to speak of. The U. S. interests, economy and our life styles are directly affected by what happens in the Middle East and it's OIL. It doesn't matter if Communist party A or Communist party B is in power, they still will do what they want; and they love it when Americans define themselves as Democrates or Republicans, and feud with each other ---- sometimes gets the spotlight off the real important issues, like China Gate to name just one.
Lowell
A one county newspaper reported a soldier's view of the situation. I am happy to say it was much more optimistic than some posters on this forum. ''The Early bird-- Darke county's [OH] leading newspaper. "'
I'm not going to try to guilt anyone into ''blindly'' supporting our troops , but when you critize the results their hard work is getting or disagree that they are getting results--well, lets just say I would not do it on a Friday night in a bar were military guys are hangin' out.
At least no one spits on our troops like they did after Vietnam
I think if you took a poll of soldiers presently deployed and those that have returned ,that you would be proud to know them
I'm not going to try to guilt anyone into ''blindly'' supporting our troops , but when you critize the results their hard work is getting or disagree that they are getting results--well, lets just say I would not do it on a Friday night in a bar were military guys are hangin' out.
At least no one spits on our troops like they did after Vietnam
I think if you took a poll of soldiers presently deployed and those that have returned ,that you would be proud to know them
1.
Saddam and terror
a. as mentioned--the 727 body set up to train terroist in hyjacking planes
b. meeting between senior Iraq officials and senior bin ladden people in 1998
c. nope saddam did not tolerate terror AGAINST HIS PEOPLE but he sure encouraged and supported it agains US.
d. The action in Iraq IS the war on terror.
2.
On making enemies and terrorist; Like, I suppose it was the war against Irag that caused the 9/11 tragidy??
We have been hated by the extremist of the mid east for a long time.
They slowly worked their way up to 9-11 with the attacks on our military barracks, our embassies, and our war ships. Then they hit the world trade towers the first time; what we did with our rediculous reactions, was to convince them that we were a paper tiger that they could abuse at will, as Clinton showed them in mogodishu when he cut and ran when meeting resistance.
The only thing these people understand is force, and more of it than they can handle. Unless we continue to take the fight to them, they will repeatedly bring it to us--------
ITS A WAR! Its just a different kind of war, and its one we will fight whether we want to or not. The question is only whether we will fight it on their soil or ours.
I really get tired of this non-sense about, "... its all about oil"
Had it been about oil, we would have taken over their oil fields in '91. We did not then, we won't now.
The only oil benefit to us would be from stabilizing that area a bit such that oil prices may be favorably influences.
Its been a cliche of the left for years; "its all about oil", without a single instance or single bit of proof that we have benifited a bit from our actions in '91 or this time.
Hopefully we will require that Iraq's oil help pay some of our cost, but we will never recoup anywhere near our cost. It is not all about oil, that claim is actually all about horse-----t.
WAKE up, its about whether we will be cowed by those who support and export terror-------
Its about whether we can bring about an end to the damage that has been inflicted on us for years by these fanatics.
I thank God that at this time we had a man in the White House with wisdom to see that we had to take strong action to avoid an ongoing escallation the repeated attacks by terror groups.
Clinton's approach was simply leading them on; convincing them that were were without the courage to actually go after them.
Clinton repeatedly said we would find and punish bin ladden, and then when the Suddan offerred him to us along with over a hundred of his people, Clinton declined to accept. Had he taken bin ladden then, there would have been no 9-11, and the terror net work would have been much less entrenched.
Certainly N. Korea, Iran, and some others are a problem that need to be delt with. All problems can not be delt with the same way, and there is a limit to how many "fronts" we can handle at one time. We must get to Iran someway, and yes we must do something about N. Korea, but that is not to say that same approach is appropriate in these cases as in Iraq.
I get soooo frustrated with the unthinking, knee jerk anti Bush reaction of the left leaners. The intellectual dishonesty is appalling. We are on the only appropriate and promising path. Ironically, its the pay advocated by a number of leading democrates in a letter to Clinton in 1998. Now they lack the honesty to acknowlege the necessity of what we are doing. Our major danger is that the nay sayers might gain enough influence that we go back to the old way that encouraged terror till we had 9-11.
Sorry for the length tirade
Vaughn
Saddam and terror
a. as mentioned--the 727 body set up to train terroist in hyjacking planes
b. meeting between senior Iraq officials and senior bin ladden people in 1998
c. nope saddam did not tolerate terror AGAINST HIS PEOPLE but he sure encouraged and supported it agains US.
d. The action in Iraq IS the war on terror.
2.
On making enemies and terrorist; Like, I suppose it was the war against Irag that caused the 9/11 tragidy??
We have been hated by the extremist of the mid east for a long time.
They slowly worked their way up to 9-11 with the attacks on our military barracks, our embassies, and our war ships. Then they hit the world trade towers the first time; what we did with our rediculous reactions, was to convince them that we were a paper tiger that they could abuse at will, as Clinton showed them in mogodishu when he cut and ran when meeting resistance.
The only thing these people understand is force, and more of it than they can handle. Unless we continue to take the fight to them, they will repeatedly bring it to us--------
ITS A WAR! Its just a different kind of war, and its one we will fight whether we want to or not. The question is only whether we will fight it on their soil or ours.
I really get tired of this non-sense about, "... its all about oil"
Had it been about oil, we would have taken over their oil fields in '91. We did not then, we won't now.
The only oil benefit to us would be from stabilizing that area a bit such that oil prices may be favorably influences.
Its been a cliche of the left for years; "its all about oil", without a single instance or single bit of proof that we have benifited a bit from our actions in '91 or this time.
Hopefully we will require that Iraq's oil help pay some of our cost, but we will never recoup anywhere near our cost. It is not all about oil, that claim is actually all about horse-----t.
WAKE up, its about whether we will be cowed by those who support and export terror-------
Its about whether we can bring about an end to the damage that has been inflicted on us for years by these fanatics.
I thank God that at this time we had a man in the White House with wisdom to see that we had to take strong action to avoid an ongoing escallation the repeated attacks by terror groups.
Clinton's approach was simply leading them on; convincing them that were were without the courage to actually go after them.
Clinton repeatedly said we would find and punish bin ladden, and then when the Suddan offerred him to us along with over a hundred of his people, Clinton declined to accept. Had he taken bin ladden then, there would have been no 9-11, and the terror net work would have been much less entrenched.
Certainly N. Korea, Iran, and some others are a problem that need to be delt with. All problems can not be delt with the same way, and there is a limit to how many "fronts" we can handle at one time. We must get to Iran someway, and yes we must do something about N. Korea, but that is not to say that same approach is appropriate in these cases as in Iraq.
I get soooo frustrated with the unthinking, knee jerk anti Bush reaction of the left leaners. The intellectual dishonesty is appalling. We are on the only appropriate and promising path. Ironically, its the pay advocated by a number of leading democrates in a letter to Clinton in 1998. Now they lack the honesty to acknowlege the necessity of what we are doing. Our major danger is that the nay sayers might gain enough influence that we go back to the old way that encouraged terror till we had 9-11.
Sorry for the length tirade
Vaughn
Better place
Oh yes, the world is a much safer place since we went into Iraq.
We are all in a much better place now that we have "stood up to terror". Our brave little cowboy has saved the world!
Man, give me some of that stuff your smoking!
It was a 707 fuselage. And the only link to terror it had was given to us by the same ones who told us about all those invisible WMDs... .
Oh yes, the world is a much safer place since we went into Iraq.
We are all in a much better place now that we have "stood up to terror". Our brave little cowboy has saved the world! Man, give me some of that stuff your smoking!
It was a 707 fuselage. And the only link to terror it had was given to us by the same ones who told us about all those invisible WMDs... . I agree - what are the righties smoking these days? When will they get it thru their heads - Saddam might not have liked the US and he might've been a brutal dictator, but he wasn't behind 9/11. The action in Iraq is payback for Saddam trying to have Bush I assassinated, and it's a chance to both put a major oil-producer in US hands as well as funnel a lot of American tax dollars into companies like Halliburton. If we're gonna take out a second nation that had a lot of involvement in 9/11, we need to be marching into Saudi Arabia.
I agree that the terrorists only understand force - Afghanistan was a justifiable use of that force. I just think Iraq was the wrong enemy to take out. Now that there's a power vacuum there, all the terrorists over there are marching in to take potshots at Americans! And we continue to lie about Iraq - we're never going to allow free elections in Iraq that might elect Muslim extremists.
President Clinton's problem was that the GOP controlling Congress would never have let him launch a preemptive war - and no President 'till now ever was stupid enough to try one. I can see the headlines now had Clinton attacked Iraq - the right would have excoriated him for trying to draw attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Oh, wait, they already did that for the cruise missile launches.
I agree that the terrorists only understand force - Afghanistan was a justifiable use of that force. I just think Iraq was the wrong enemy to take out. Now that there's a power vacuum there, all the terrorists over there are marching in to take potshots at Americans! And we continue to lie about Iraq - we're never going to allow free elections in Iraq that might elect Muslim extremists.
President Clinton's problem was that the GOP controlling Congress would never have let him launch a preemptive war - and no President 'till now ever was stupid enough to try one. I can see the headlines now had Clinton attacked Iraq - the right would have excoriated him for trying to draw attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Oh, wait, they already did that for the cruise missile launches.
Maybe we're smoking but not inhaling????? You guys listen to Al Franken too much, the new voice and intellectual giant of the DNC. What a spokesman you guys got there, eh? Yeah, I'd be proud of him too! Saddam wasn't behind 9/11. I don't think Bush sold it that way, did he? Saddam DID give $25K to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Is that or is that not supporting terrorism?
And I'll go back to the '98 letter to Clinton once again, maybe one of you guys will maybe set me straight. You know, the letter major Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate penned to Clinton voicing their concern about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs and urging Clinton to take action? But what's this, if Bush and Blair insinuate the possible existence of WMD's in Iraq, they're liars? Huh?
Clinton didn't have the balls to launch a pre-emptive war on Iraq. The potential downside was too great and afterall, the guy is solely about re-election. Leadership was a distant 2nd place, if that.
Now Bill Clinton was and is a masterful communicator. If he had taken his case to the American public and told us that we need to hit Iraq, right now and real hard, I believe that he could've won his case despite a GOP controlled Congress. No doubt he would have found a more cooperative UN as they and he are of like mind. (Government good, individualism bad)
And finally, I am still waiting for a good reason to vote for a Democrat in '04. I know, I know "W" is stupid yadda yadda yadda but man oh man, what a bunch o' losers you guys got running!!! I don't know that if any one of 'em is capable of runnin' a sucessful business let alone runnin' a country.
But maybe their fortunes will change with Franken out there mouthing off. What a sweetheart! Never seen a guy who needs a good ass whoopin' so bad.
Tim
Ah, yes, the best way to acknowledge the failings of the current Bush Administration is to blame it all on Clinton.
I certainly do believe that Saddam Hussein supported Palestinian terrorists against Israel. So does every Arab leader outside of Egypt. But we can't justify attacks on them as being in the War on Terror, at least not yet.
I believe there may have been WMD's in Iraq. Might still be some now. I don't think President Bush lied about their possible existence, only that they were a clear and present danger to America. The first preemptive war we've ever launched and he had to use a flimsy excuse like that? At least when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they were clear to themselves that they had to do it lest America stop them in their building of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Hitler convinced the German Army that Poland was a clear and present danger to Germany - do we really want to be seen in that historical company? Tojo and Hitler certainly exhibited 'leadership' of their people in their preemptive attacks.
Haven't read Al Franken's book, though I might. Might read Ann Coulter's book too, though I'm less likely to agree with her positions.
I plan to vote Democrat in '04 only to get Bush out of office, unless he can extricate us from Iraq and get us back to the economy we enjoyed during the Clinton years. I dunno who I'll vote for - I agree that the current batch of candidates is less than completely stunning. Maybe if the Kerry campaign caught fire? I dunno.
I certainly do believe that Saddam Hussein supported Palestinian terrorists against Israel. So does every Arab leader outside of Egypt. But we can't justify attacks on them as being in the War on Terror, at least not yet.
I believe there may have been WMD's in Iraq. Might still be some now. I don't think President Bush lied about their possible existence, only that they were a clear and present danger to America. The first preemptive war we've ever launched and he had to use a flimsy excuse like that? At least when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they were clear to themselves that they had to do it lest America stop them in their building of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Hitler convinced the German Army that Poland was a clear and present danger to Germany - do we really want to be seen in that historical company? Tojo and Hitler certainly exhibited 'leadership' of their people in their preemptive attacks.
Haven't read Al Franken's book, though I might. Might read Ann Coulter's book too, though I'm less likely to agree with her positions.
I plan to vote Democrat in '04 only to get Bush out of office, unless he can extricate us from Iraq and get us back to the economy we enjoyed during the Clinton years. I dunno who I'll vote for - I agree that the current batch of candidates is less than completely stunning. Maybe if the Kerry campaign caught fire? I dunno.
Note to self: Remember to think back about 11 years and try to remember why the economy turned around when Slick Willy went into office.
Think about it... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....
Think about it... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....
Long and rambing
You guys have heard that the economy is cyclical in nature? And I would assume that you all know that the actions of the President, however limited the real effects of his policies are on the economy, take time to have an impact?
I remember Clinton enacted the largest peacetime tax increase in US history in '93. Tell me again how taking money out of people's pockets boosts the economy? Yeah, I know, the Federal government spends the revenues and this "boosts" the economy. Yes, the enormous and incredibly "efficient" Federal bureaucracy spends other people's money wisely. Yes they do. And they can spend it so much more wisely than the average Joe could ever hope to because they're the government and they're never wrong.
I know... I know. We have a massive Federal deficit and it's growing daily and that's a bad thing. Bush gets punched in the nose daily for it, doesn't he? We have staunch defenders of right and good like Ted Kennedy demanding an accounting of every dollar being spent on the War on Terrorism. Yet Ted is strangely silent on the where the dollars go when it comes to Education spending.
Did you know that the Feds spent $745 billiion on education in 2002? Bush and Kennedy increased that figure by $11 billion last year. Yet, he is constantly criticized for not spending enough on Education while simultaneously assaulted for running up a deficit. Which is it? What's the real issue?
I'll tell ya what the real issue is. It's election year politics. The Dems don't give a damn about the deficit. They just want to give Bush a black eye. They're angry that more money isn't being spent to buy them more votes.
In '89 the Federal budget was about $915 billion. In 2003, it's $2. 2 trillion. Can you say out of control spending? I don't know about you guys but I'm tired of paying for the vote buying schemes of both parties.
Let's all remember though that all taxes are eventually paid by the retail consumer. Call it "hidden costs" of production. So scream for "more taxes on the rich" all you like. You're just inflicting more pain upon yourself in the long run. Like it or not, the rich make the rules. They'll get by regardless.
Interestingly enough, 9 of the 12 richest Senators are Democrats. So yes, they're looking out for the little guy, aren't they? You bet they are.
Sorry, but I just can't get into the income redistribution schemes hawked by the Left. Just ain't right and it certainly is not what this country was founded upon.
Ayn Rand was right about so many things.
Tim
Shrug Atlas Shrug!
You guys have heard that the economy is cyclical in nature? And I would assume that you all know that the actions of the President, however limited the real effects of his policies are on the economy, take time to have an impact?
I remember Clinton enacted the largest peacetime tax increase in US history in '93. Tell me again how taking money out of people's pockets boosts the economy? Yeah, I know, the Federal government spends the revenues and this "boosts" the economy. Yes, the enormous and incredibly "efficient" Federal bureaucracy spends other people's money wisely. Yes they do. And they can spend it so much more wisely than the average Joe could ever hope to because they're the government and they're never wrong.
I know... I know. We have a massive Federal deficit and it's growing daily and that's a bad thing. Bush gets punched in the nose daily for it, doesn't he? We have staunch defenders of right and good like Ted Kennedy demanding an accounting of every dollar being spent on the War on Terrorism. Yet Ted is strangely silent on the where the dollars go when it comes to Education spending.
Did you know that the Feds spent $745 billiion on education in 2002? Bush and Kennedy increased that figure by $11 billion last year. Yet, he is constantly criticized for not spending enough on Education while simultaneously assaulted for running up a deficit. Which is it? What's the real issue?
I'll tell ya what the real issue is. It's election year politics. The Dems don't give a damn about the deficit. They just want to give Bush a black eye. They're angry that more money isn't being spent to buy them more votes.
In '89 the Federal budget was about $915 billion. In 2003, it's $2. 2 trillion. Can you say out of control spending? I don't know about you guys but I'm tired of paying for the vote buying schemes of both parties.
Let's all remember though that all taxes are eventually paid by the retail consumer. Call it "hidden costs" of production. So scream for "more taxes on the rich" all you like. You're just inflicting more pain upon yourself in the long run. Like it or not, the rich make the rules. They'll get by regardless.
Interestingly enough, 9 of the 12 richest Senators are Democrats. So yes, they're looking out for the little guy, aren't they? You bet they are.
Sorry, but I just can't get into the income redistribution schemes hawked by the Left. Just ain't right and it certainly is not what this country was founded upon.
Ayn Rand was right about so many things.
Tim
Shrug Atlas Shrug!
As a fiscal conservative, I agree with some of your points, Tim. However, Reagan and Bush I both raised taxes too. On the assumption that you're right about the '93 tax increase, I can't explain it (and I'll bet nobody can) but the economy really did get better. Yes, the economy is cyclical, but the Clinton-era policies kept the economy on the high end of the cycle for a longer time than any other point in history. Whine as they might, the right can't deny that. We (presuming those reading this list don't include anyone in the very top income brackets) were better off in the Clinton years than the years before it and we were better off then than we are now. No denying it. Some of it was the internet bubble, some of it was companies like Enron and Arthur Andersen breaking the law - of course, those companies are a pretty strong argument for MORE regulation, and MORE enforcement of the regs we've got. But we were better off overall.
Also, what's wrong with a good fiscal accounting of ALL the money? Ted Kennedy is a Senator - it's up to the Executive Branch to explain where the money goes - be it for Education or Iraq. He might be 'strangely silent' on education - but the American people are a lot more in favor of education than they are of the war in Iraq. And this is the biggest income redistribution scheme the right ever had. At least some of the money going to social programs (your left-wing redistribution scheme) gets into the hands of people without enough. Who gets the no-bid contracts for Iraq? Where's that billion a week we're spending now going? Where's that $87 billion going to go? The Dems don't need to give President Bush a black eye - he's giving it to himself.
Also, what's wrong with a good fiscal accounting of ALL the money? Ted Kennedy is a Senator - it's up to the Executive Branch to explain where the money goes - be it for Education or Iraq. He might be 'strangely silent' on education - but the American people are a lot more in favor of education than they are of the war in Iraq. And this is the biggest income redistribution scheme the right ever had. At least some of the money going to social programs (your left-wing redistribution scheme) gets into the hands of people without enough. Who gets the no-bid contracts for Iraq? Where's that billion a week we're spending now going? Where's that $87 billion going to go? The Dems don't need to give President Bush a black eye - he's giving it to himself.
Originally posted by loncray
MORE regulation, and MORE enforcement of the regs we've got. </B>
You're getting closer.
My wife is an RN in a nursing home. The overwhelming majority of her time is spent doing paperwork mandated by the Federal Government. And I needn't tell you that no one uses this paperwork. It's just done because the Feds say it's a good idea. I'm sure if it were researched, the mandate came about because somewhere somebody did wrong. Now everyone pays the price. Ever wonder why nursing home costs are so high?
I worked for the USPS for two long years. This was shortly after the GOP controlled Congress mandated that Federal agencies would be subject to the same workplace regs that private industry is burdened with. The whining and moaning coming out of USPS senior management was something to behold. "We can't do business this way! The costs will be prohibitive. " Welcome to the real world boys. Welcome to the kind of workplace utopia that can only be brought about by Federal intervention.
I still get a chuckle when I think about USPS management's reaction.
I believe that the vast majority of people in this country are good, decent people and deserve to live their lives as they see fit. This is the primary difference between conservative and liberal thought IMHO. Liberals tend to expect the worst in people, i. e. , they need to be protected from themselves by a Federal bureaucracy, while conservatives hold their fellow man in higher regard and truly believe that they will be decent people all on their own.
As Abe Lincoln once said, "You can't legislate morality. "
Tim
The vast majority are probably just fine - but the few that screw it up for everybody else REALLY mess things up. See Enron, Arthur Andersen, Dow, the folks who owned the Love Canal or just about every Superfund site in the nation, Exxon, etc etc etc. THAT's why we have so many regulations. I'm a moderate, but I can easily see the liberal point of view on this. Without regulations we'd have things like the old Standard Oil setting all our prices. You can see what deregulation did to the airline industry - a whole bunch of little startups came and went, while the old airlines are either struggling to hang on or are gone. Don't give me 9/11 either - they were hurting long before that. And a few of those little airlines managed to kill some people in the process, like AirTran in Florida. So, no, I don't believe that we can exist as a modern nation without government regulation. Too many companies have shown us that profit can be gained by ripping folks off or destroying the environment. Do we need a govt. as big as it is? Probably not - and I think the Clinton Administration had started the shrinking process. Al Gore's Reinventing Govt process was shrinking regulations left and right. Now, of course, the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress have the biggest govt. we've ever had. Hypocrisy? You be the judge!
The libbers and democrats are REALLY good at stealing credit and transferring blame:
The good years of the clinton admin. were the direct results of the sound fiscal policies of Regan and Bush 1; the problems Bush2 is facing in the economy are the direct result of the crappy policies of clinton and the 9-11 disaster.
How short the memory of the dems/libber; it was maddy halfbright speaking as clintons sec. of state who described saddams WMD as "the MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM facing our country--------of but I forgot, she was lying on behalf of soon to be president Bush. She knew there were no WMD, but she knew a future President might need that lie. But then I guess when clinton said substantially the same thing (along with the above mentioned demo leaders) in 1998 was lying for Bush also.
The overall threat of terror and disruption it causes in the world--not to mention the devastation to many people throughout the world is a--perhaps THE major problem of our generation.
We are very fortunate to have some one in the Presidency with the wisdom and courage to do the right thing about it rather than the politically expedient thing, as had been our practice for the prior 8 years.
Its really cheap politics for the demos and the related Bush haters (how ever much they try to avoid that truth) to play games with;
the morale of our troups
the safety of our troups--by keeping up the blatant opposition to our efforts there, they lend encouragement to the terrorist, leading them to think that they have a chance of creating enough opposition here to cause us to back out,
but more the long term safety, security and economic welbeing or our entire nation.
Cheap and unworthy--- but thats the price of a free society.
Vaughn
The good years of the clinton admin. were the direct results of the sound fiscal policies of Regan and Bush 1; the problems Bush2 is facing in the economy are the direct result of the crappy policies of clinton and the 9-11 disaster.
How short the memory of the dems/libber; it was maddy halfbright speaking as clintons sec. of state who described saddams WMD as "the MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM facing our country--------of but I forgot, she was lying on behalf of soon to be president Bush. She knew there were no WMD, but she knew a future President might need that lie. But then I guess when clinton said substantially the same thing (along with the above mentioned demo leaders) in 1998 was lying for Bush also.
The overall threat of terror and disruption it causes in the world--not to mention the devastation to many people throughout the world is a--perhaps THE major problem of our generation.
We are very fortunate to have some one in the Presidency with the wisdom and courage to do the right thing about it rather than the politically expedient thing, as had been our practice for the prior 8 years.
Its really cheap politics for the demos and the related Bush haters (how ever much they try to avoid that truth) to play games with;
the morale of our troups
the safety of our troups--by keeping up the blatant opposition to our efforts there, they lend encouragement to the terrorist, leading them to think that they have a chance of creating enough opposition here to cause us to back out,
but more the long term safety, security and economic welbeing or our entire nation.
Cheap and unworthy--- but thats the price of a free society.
Vaughn
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
