Originally posted by treetalkNot everything is Clinton's fault. 911 was the terrorists fault. The build up was allowed by the Clinton administration. It's public record not theory. Sandy Burgler had to be sent in to steal some of the memo's and facts from the archives which he pleaded guilty to. And the only screwing up he's doing right now is laying on his back while the democrats go down on him. 🙂
Everything is Clinton's fault to you guys, isn't it?
Too cowardly to accept Bush has screwed up in ways beyond counting ... no, the only concession you make is that he's not doing enough of what he's screwing up admirably right now.
At what point does the evidence become too overwhelming for even blinker-eyed you? Does it ever?
Or do you just go a ...[text shortened]... indefensible and blaming everything on a guy who has been out of office for how many years?!
Originally posted by hamltnblueHow was the build up Clinton's fault?
Not everything is Clinton's fault. 911 was the terrorists fault. The build up was allowed by the Clinton administration. It's public record not theory. Sandy Burgler had to be sent in to steal some of the memo's and facts from the archives which he pleaded guilty to. And the only screwing up he's doing right now is laying on his back while the democrats go down on him. 🙂
Bush had been in charge for 8 months or so and had had numerous pointers to an impending attack.
And if you want to lambast Sandy Berger, you must be outraged at Rove's missing emails.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat is a puzzler isn't it?
Did they really have noone better? I can't imagine it suited them to lose.
They could have tried Gore again I guess.
I think the answer is that they really are that far out of touch with mainstream America. The leadership of the Democrat Party has slipped way, WAY to the Left. The only one to slip through was Clinton, and he did it by selling himself as in the center.
The way the Democrats are now, the only way I can see them being elected would be through mis-representing themselves .. and selling it to us.
Bill was one hell of a BSer .. I rate him about 2400 .. Hillary .. not so much. She's kind of an open book, with lots of very ugly pictures of her warts.
The guy with the name that reminds me of Osama. or Iraq .. I don't know man. That name kind of gives it away, It would be hard to check that box.
It wasn't always like this. When I was a kid the Democrats really were a Party of the "little" people. They did a lot of good in those days.
IMO it went sideays in the 60s when the Democrats were at a peak. The whole counterculture revolution. The political murders of the Kennedys, MLK, Malcolm, etc. Overnight Teddy Kennedy turned into a drunken woman and went againt everything his brother stood for. Truely and American tragedy. Teddy, as a Democrat leader has been a disgrace to his Country, his Party, and his family.
He became one of the main leaders of the Democrat Party on the back of his brothers deeds and blood.
He has betrayed them all.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFor the purpose of the general election, I think the Democrats had a couple of candidates that would have been more viable than Kerry. Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh come to mind. I suspect that even Kerry's own running mate, John Edwards, would have made a better showing.
Did they really have noone better? I can't imagine it suited them to lose.
I don't know that it suited them to lose. I think the flaw lies in the primary process itself. Speaking in very broad terms, the nature of the primaries lends itself to the candidates that lean farther to the left or the right of the spectrum. However, when it comes to the general election, it's more often the candidate tht is percieved to be the more moderate (key word there being percieved) that prevails.
A great recent example of this is Joe Lieberman's recent re-election in Connecticuit. He lost in the Democratic primary because the far left mobilized against him. He then ran in the general election as an independent and held his seat.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't agree with your assessment: Bush has kept the United States from being attacked since 9/11; the economy is humming, taxes are as low as I can remember in my lifetime, and most importantly, he placed two – count'em -- two constructionist judges on the Supreme Court. By virtue of that alone, all those who advocate killing babies, sodomy, polygamy and bestiality will have the next 20 years to cry in their beer.
Very few people nowadays like Bush. However, the majority voted for him last election, and the electoral majority the election before that.
For those of you who changed your mind, what was your mistake in electing him? What was your reasoning that you now realize was flawed?
Originally posted by FleabittenIsn't Lieberman helping fund raise for a republican somewhere?
For the purpose of the general election, I think the Democrats had a couple of candidates that would have been more viable than Kerry. Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh come to mind. I suspect that even Kerry's own running mate, John Edwards, would have made a better showing.
I don't know that it suited them to lose. I think the flaw lies in the primary p ...[text shortened]... lized against him. He then ran in the general election as an independent and held his seat.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat don't you agree with? That Bush is unpopular?
I don't agree with your assessment: Bush has kept the United States from being attacked since 9/11; the economy is humming, taxes are as low as I can remember in my lifetime, and most importantly, he placed two – count'em -- two constructionist judges on the Supreme Court. By virtue of that alone, all those who advocate killing babies, sodomy, polygamy and bestiality will have the next 20 years to cry in their beer.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWho advocates for polygamy and bestiality?
I don't agree with your assessment: Bush has kept the United States from being attacked since 9/11; the economy is humming, taxes are as low as I can remember in my lifetime, and most importantly, he placed two – count'em -- two constructionist judges on the Supreme Court. By virtue of that alone, all those who advocate killing babies, sodomy, polygamy and bestiality will have the next 20 years to cry in their beer.
By sodomy, do you mean same sex relationships between consenting adults?
Who advocates killing babies? Do you mean aborting fetuses?
The first attack on the WTC was in '91? '92? How many attacks like that were there after that one?
Do you think the terrorists behind 911 need another big display? I would imagine they're sitting back perusing the Iraqi papers every morning thinking, "Mission accomplished."
Are lower taxes more important than federal debt? How is that (exponentially increasing) debt going to be repaid?