Go Hillary!!!

[EagleUSA]

FVH wrote:

But at least we keep ourselves with free healthcare for everyone as opposed to your country.

If you think your health care is free, you're a bigger idiot than I first suspected.

Then again, you're probably on welfare, sucking off the government, watching as others struggle to work as much as half the calendar year to pay toward that "free" healthcare you love. It's no wonder you don't understand patriotism. You just can't get fired up about a nanny state with no work ethic. Enjoy your stay.

[KingOfTheJungle]

Eagle, if you think the United States healthcare system is A-OK, you're a bigger...oh, well, let's just say it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure out we need to do something differently.

You seem to be a pretty hard core conservative idealogue, so riddle me this with your conservative logic:

1) Conservatives always tell me that FDR didn't end the great depression, that World War II did, because war is good for the economy.

2) Conservatives also tell me that Bill Clinton actually STUNTED the technology boom by raising taxes, and if he had LOWERED taxes it would have led to even greater economic exansion than it did, because cutting taxes is good for the economy.

3) I also hear that the lesser the goverment regulation and restriction on business and trade, the better it is for the economy, "The Free Market is the best solution"

so...understanding these three things, and understanding that in the George W Bush years that

1) We had not only wars, not only tax cuts, but both WARS and TAX CUTS simultaneously (an idea so awesome in it's conservativeness that it has never been tried before in human history).

...AND...

2) The most deregulation, free-market crazy government since the Reagan era

...our economy is STILL in the s#!^ter!

So, PLEASE tell me, what is the logical explanation for this?? I know you've got one, and if you don't I'm sure Rush or Hannity will supply you with one that sounds good enough, but I gotta tell you, I'm starting to think you guys are just full of s#!t.

[EagleUSA]

Kingofthejungle wrote:

Eagle, if you think the United States healthcare system is A-

Please tell me when I said that. Our system is far from perfect, although I never commented on it. I said that Norway's system of socialized healthcare is not "free". No government sponsored welfare programs are "free". Nothing any government on Earth gives you is "free". It's that simple.

As for our economy being in "the s#!^ter!", it's unfortunate that perhaps you haven't participated in the 60% overall U.S. financial market upswing since 1998, or maybe your own particular financial circumstances aren't what you hoped they'd be at this point in your life, but the U.S. economy is far from being in the "s#!^ter!" at this time.

As for me being

a pretty hard core conservative idealogue

you don't know me well enough to understand my political idealogy. I have several issues with both sides of the aisle. Catch me on a good day, and I might just tell you where I stand on some of the BS policies and politicians the right has produced.

[genesim]

TJ,

I applaud you recognizing your mistake. You implying that I think helping children is communism is pretty big in my book. So yes it does drastically alter the whole point of view.

Which of course brings me back to my point. What she said...like putting money in bank accounts is socialism, plain and simple. I don't care what the reasoning is behind it. You said that she didn't stand for it, and I showed you one of many examples where she thinks just like that. Not only that, but she also align herself with other socialist countries and in some mornic way actually thinks America is inferior.

As for communism, yes distributing wealth and making everyone equal(even if it is all equally sh*t) also points out my example.

Disprove the rationale behind the two examples as not being dead on, then we can go from there.

Which of course, this ties right in to the hurricane Katrina...the ends does not justify the means.

Newsflash - people understood, they just didn't agree with you. And I'll say again, there is no way you would have gone to the same lengths to defend Clinton if he had done exactly the same thing.

Well if they don't agree with me, then they don't agree with the constitution because power is to the state FIRST, not last not second...FIRST. The Governer is in full charge of her state, and the disaster that wasn't taken care of rested solely on her shouldiers when she refused the help of George Bush when asked on SEVERAL occasions.

Now your ASSUMPTION that I wouldn't defend Clinton to that extent is only partway true. I wouldn't defend him in the same way, because I wouldn't have needed to. There is the sharp shooter mentality like there is now. Clinton doesn't have to throw out the constitution during a natural disaster, he is capable of doing it in other capicities.

But that said, HELL YES I would have defended him, because no president has the authority to drop down and declaring martial law without a just reason. There was no proof of breakdown in government, and until the governer was arrested, the president has no right to come in and take reigns over the operations.

You see that is the problem I have with your view. Am I correct in assuming that you don't think something is socialism if it fits your agenda? This is a question, and if I got it wrong, then let me know.

I don't like that way of thinking. Wrong is wrong, and socialism is socialism. Though the USA has its own, I myself don't want it getting any bigger. Big government is not the answer.

With Hillary, the giant will get even bigger, because she will not only raise taxes, but she will also beef up government programs. These things do not help the economy, but only hinders it. War on the other hand, makes ties stronger for the future. Want proof, look at history. Including Vietnam.

Now let's close this pointless argument. Given the sad event of the last week on this board, it's really not the best time for people to be attacking each other over nothing.

Ok, I agree, but you can start by not making assumptions about me personally and making misleading remarks/quotes and I won't call you every name in the book. Once you personal attack me, I am not going to play nice. There are better ways to disagree with someone without taking it to a personal level, which you did with the very first post.

On the other hand, I will burn a public figure alive. They don't have the same rights.

[likethebike]

There have been other presidents who have been marginal competence but there has been no president who has set the nation back so far as the current one. It is without historic comparison. The hole this man left which includes damage to the constitution, destroyed US prestige in the world, a gargantuan deficit, the degradation of public offices for political hatchet work, a foreign occupation that no one knows how to escape, a US dollar at rock bottom value, an increased poverty rate, who knows what damage to the environment. As James Brown said about Richard Nixon, "People it's bad. That's not to mention the more than 40 scandals.

It's also time to bury the it's everybody else's fault line. Bush's own CIA had information, lots of it, that there were no WMD in Iraq. It was not a no-brainer. The marginal evidence that they put forth for the war was only given under duress of the Bush-Cheney gang. These two men went out though and panicked the public with a string of statements they knew not to be true.

The idea that the congress went along with their horse manure is also needs to be buried in that the Republican congress continually rolled over for them and the level of deceit that went on with the administration and congress. That's not meant to dismiss the spinelessness the Democratic congress has shown in the past year which has let the Bush administration continue a war that most Americans hate, spite justice in the justice department firings and the wiretapping scandals.

When you have a two-term president and your own party is running away from him, you know something's up.

Obama is the better candidate than Hillary to take his place. He is one of the few candidates for president in the past several decades who have given more than focus group answers to questions. He also showed vision opposing the war as far back as 2002. And he also casts many sound votes like his vote against the ridiculuous bankruptcy bill that was just a giveback to the credit card companies.

Clinton would be a competent administrator (which would be a distinct improvement) however she is too poll driven a politician, her national political experience is somewhat overblown and as much as she has lacked courage since she's been in the senate. With the election of Barack Obama or Clinton though it would make a great statement to the rest of the world that the US is growing up. It is kind of an embarrassment that we are in 2008 and we are still talking about being ready for a black or woman president.

[genesim]

The war had started...and is continued with almost full support in congress, left and right alike. No it isn't just "GW's" war.

Likethebike, all I can do is laugh/disagree with your whole first paragraph....Calvin Coolidge anyone?

Jimmy Carter...etc. etc.

We are not in the most prosperous times right now, but we are far far far from ROCK BOTTOM. Where do you get this anyway? We are showing growth, as we continue to. Our economy is still very strong, and what the rest of the world thinks of us(which I don't believe is bad by a long shot) really doesn't concern me. We the U.S.A. are pioneers and we don't need approval to take chances. Without the war, yes we would be in better shape, but we are securing the future, and sometimes you have to take risks to make the world a better place. Wait and see...

[Pete Dube]

Vote for Pedro!

[KingOfTheJungle]

As for our economy being in "the s#!^ter!", it's unfortunate that perhaps you haven't participated in the 60% overall U.S. financial market upswing since 1998, or maybe your own particular financial circumstances aren't what you hoped they'd be at this point in your life, but the U.S. economy is far from being in the "s#!^ter!" at this time.

Oh, really? Our dollar is worth less than Canada's for THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, and everything is just fine? Have you been watching the news lately?? Economic Stimulus package? A stock market that has become used to daily nose dives?? As far as upswing since 1998, I have no idea what you are referring to, and I'd bet you don't either.

As far as Bush's first term is concerned, in 2004 he was the first President to have netted a LOSS in Jobs created. Since then, the jobs have picked up, but inflation has far outpaced wage growth, which has been stagnant. The economic "growth" you probably are referring to is the upper-income growth due to massive unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy on both income and capital gains. This "upswing" swung far above the heads of everyday Americans. The Bush economy has NEVER worked for them

As for me being

a pretty hard core conservative idealogue

you don't know me well enough to understand my political idealogy. I have several issues with both sides of the aisle. Catch me on a good day, and I might just tell you where I stand on some of the BS policies and politicians the right has produced.

Um...yeah, sure. Anyone who proudly brandishes the websites oh Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin in their sig line is NOT and independent thinker, no matter how much they like to posture.

[drjohncarpenter]

Thats how liars act.

Of course, as you well know, your hero and his cronies are the kings of lying -> The 935 lies of George W. Bush.

[EagleUSA]

As far as upswing since 1998, I have no idea what you are referring to, and I'd bet you don't either.

You're right. You have no idea. You don't get it and you obviously don't read before running at the mouth about minutiae & your Bush obsession. I said "overall U.S. financial market". Nearly anyone who invested wisely in the U.S. stock market 10 years ago and hasn't screwed with that money has done well.

And, since I'm cocksure that I earned at least double digits last year over what you did in the market, I'm pretty sure that I do know my sh*t. In fact, it's my business to know my sh*t.

Why don't you take a deep breath, then a Xanex, then a Midol, and see your psychiatrist, career counselor and a competent CFP before blaming anyone else for your personal economic woes.

I'm off now to make some stock picks. Later...

[drjohncarpenter]

Nearly anyone who invested wisely in the U.S. stock market 10 years ago and hasn't screwed with that money has done well.

Yeah! Boy howdy! God bless the good ol' USA!

Tell that to all the disenfranchised in New Orleans, and elsewhere. Oh wait -- that's right -- you don't care about those people.

[ColinB]

Nearly anyone who invested wisely in the U.S. stock market 10 years ago and hasn't screwed with that money has done well.

Yeah! Boy howdy! God bless the good ol' USA!

Tell that to all the disenfranchised in New Orleans, and elsewhere. Oh wait -- that's right -- you don't care about those people.

The US comes across, to the outside world, as a place where success, riches & power are worshipped over everything.

And those who don't achieve these things simply haven't worked hard enough and don't deserve pity.

[drjohncarpenter]

The US comes across, to the outside world, as a place where success, riches & power are worshipped over everything.

And those who don't achieve these things simply haven't worked hard enough and don't deserve pity.

It's sad, ColinB, because so many of us eschew such selfish values. What you are seeing is a hallmark of the 1980s "Reagan Revolution" -- "I've got mine, you get yours."

It's sad and strange, as many of us thought America was about inclusion, not exclusion. Not anymore.

[EagleUSA]

Colin wrote

The US comes across, to the outside world, as a place where success, riches & power are worshipped over everything.

And those who don't achieve these things simply haven't worked hard enough and don't deserve pity.

Colin,

Thanks to many government-run, anti-American media outlets in the "outside world", I'm sure that's how the U.S. comes across. It's also partly our own doing. For better or for worse, we're a nation driven by success. It's what has made us a great country. We're not a socialist state, at least not yet. It's unfortunate that most in the outside world don't get an opportunity to visit with ordinary Americans, as opposed to watching the antics of the Hilton & Spears girls. As for feeling pity for those who are down on their luck, I think you would find that many Americans donate to local charities (and not just for the tax breaks). However, only the bleeding heart liberals would believe that those who haven't earned riches and power deserve pity. If you work hard, play by the rules and get a few lucky breaks, it's pretty hard not to do well here. I should know. I can give you a laundry list of social and economic hurdles my family fought to overcome, and we did it without any handouts.

[KingOfTheJungle]

And, since I'm cocksure that I earned at least double digits last year over what you did in the market, I'm pretty sure that I do know my sh*t. In fact, it's my business to know my sh*t.

Well, you must not be too concerned with your business, because :

1) Your money that you claim to have made in the market is worth less now than it would have been in the Pre-Bush era. The dollar has lost a full 53 cents in purchasing power against the Euro since Bush took office in January in 2001.

2) You Conservative idealogues will one day learn that expansion of the stock market IS NOT INDICATIVE of the health of the economy at large. Capital gains tax cuts can spur-on investment, as can upper income tax cuts, but when the invested money is generally going overseas to cheap labor markets, and the American consumer sector doesn't share in that benefit, and continues to endure lay-offs, pension cuts, and high energy costs, they WILL stop spending money. When this happens, the day of reckoning is at hand. This is what we see happening now.

I know none of this means anything to you. As an idealogue, you don't need facts because you have all the answers. Some of us haven't shared your rose colored view of the last 8 years, as we haven't viewed it through the lens of conservative ideology. But, rose colored glasses or no, we're all going to have to pay for the mistakes of the Bush Administration.

[EagleUSA]

Hallelujah!

Can someone get KingOfTheJungle a witness? Or a scotch?

[genesim]

Of course, as you well know, your hero and his cronies are the kings of lying -> The 935 lies of George W. Bush.

Doc, do you know the difference between a lie and information that turns out to be untrue?

The two are not always interchangeable. Millitary intelligence can be wrong, that doesn't mean it is a lie. Not finding WMD doesn't make what George Bush Jr. said a lie. Its like me saying I believe my car keys are in my pants pocket. If they aren't there, that doesn't mean I was lying. Also, just because they aren't found there, doesn't mean they never were there. Until proven otherwise, you can't even say what I said was untrue, because they may have been there at one time and someone stole them.

You getting the picture?

Lying like what Hillary Clinton does, which is having tape of her saying something which she damn well knows she said, but for some reason thinks will be pushed under the rug. Pathalogic liars have a problem with this.

P.S. Please don't correct my spelling, I know it is horrendous. Just take some effort to tackle what I have said.

[drjohncarpenter]

Of course, as you well know, your hero and his cronies are the kings of lying -> The 935 lies of George W. Bush.

Doc, do you know the difference between a lie and information that turns out to be untrue?

Oh, of course!

And you honestly feel Bush and his scoundrels got "untrue" information 935 times in the past five years, right?

Good one!

Wake up and smell the coffee, as my nana used to say when people complained about Watergate and Nixon's constant denials in the press.

[genesim]

Do I believe CIA intelligence can be wrong 935 times...actually no. I don't believe in that low estimate.

That doesn't equate to a lie, and spouting that number may seem impressive, but if you look at the list, most are in relation to same misinformation. Not LIES.

Like asked before, do you know the difference? His "scoundrels" are property of the U.S. government and thus, can give wrong information. That doesn't equate to lying.

That said, the Clintons believed in the WMD.

So were they duped as well?

He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use that arsenal.

Mark my words,he will develop WMD.He will deploy them, and he will use them.

These "lies" were there when Bush took office.

Also, have you ignored the fact that Bush has owned up to his mistake about WMD many many times. This is something a Clinton is incapable of doing.

[drjohncarpenter]

Also, have you ignored the fact that Bush has owned up to his mistake about WMD many many times.

Actually, he hasn't done this. In any case, the point you miss, evidently at will, is the fact that Bush lies, people die. Thousands and thousands of people. Women, children and our faithful volunteers overseas.

Not too many were killed over the Lewinsky brouhaha, last time I checked.

[genesim]

Uh, yeah he did. He stated that he believed they at least had the capability, but he may have been mistaken. When I find the quote will you indeed apologize for my efforts?

Not too many were killed over the Lewinsky brouhaha, last time I checked.

Because we weren't in a war at the time. But because of that crap, the USA was looking the other way, and may have brought on things that could have been avoided. So yes, his lies caused a lot more people to needlessly die.

[TJ]

Uh, yeah he did. He stated that he believed they at least had the capability, but he may have been mistaken. When I find the quote will you indeed apologize for my efforts?

Not too many were killed over the Lewinsky brouhaha, last time I checked.

Because we weren't in a war at the time. But because of that crap, the USA was looking the other way, and may have brought on things that could have been avoided. So yes, his lies caused a lot more people to needlessly die.

The Lewinsky affair was a huge error in judgement and very reckless - lying about it just made it worse. There was no real need for it ever to have been made public though. In the context of the Paula Jones case it had only borderline relevance. Consensual sexual acts do not constitute sexual harrassment after all, so the evidence did not support the charge. The reason it was discussed is transparent - they knew that he would commit perjury by denying it, thereby finally giving them something they could nail him on. Of course it's possible that on a technicality he didn't lie (the rather limited definition of sexual relations), but ultimately there was deceit. You do have to ask whether there was any need for his unwise liaison with an intern to cause such massive disruption though. I say no. I'm never sure what to think of the Paula Jones case. The settlement alone suggests but doesn't confirm guilt. I was made dubious of her motives by a very early interview where she contradicted herself several times about what happened and ended up looking pretty foolish. It was a far cry from the certainty and clarity that was seen later on.

[likethebike]

Many of his lies regarding war have been excessively documented particularly in the story about attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger. CIA officials actually urged the president not to mention it in the State of the Union address to no avail because of the hell bent determination to go to war.

There is no way to equate the extremely trivial Lewinsky scandal to the start of an unjust war. This is a war by that way not only costs American lives, and wasted countless American dollars but has cost the lives of more than 100,000 Iraqis and disrupted the balance of power in the Middle East. It proceeded because of an astonishingly poor decision by the Supreme Court. Jones' civil suit could have easily been settled after Clinton's term was up. This was not a criminal matter. However it trivialized the process of impeachment so much that congress impotent in the face of the far more serious transgressions against the Union perpetrated by the subsequent administration.

TJ- It is too often assumed that a settlement indicates guilt. In the US, where loser is not mandated to pay all court costs, cases can drag out for years and cost in the millions of dollars. Many times it is less stressful and more economic to settle. It's akin to being short-changed several dollars on a purchase. You may know you're in the right but if it takes going to court to have settle things, it's just not worth it. Or a more pertinet example might be Mary Wilson's battle with Motown records for her royalties and rights to the name Supremes. Motown just wore her down by dragging it in court. She took a settlement despite being in the right. The case is even more so for a person in the public eye. The damage is done by the charge being out there. You can only win so much in court.

As for the worst president, it is a mistake to compare Coolidge, who let the country slide by doing as little as he could, to Bush who pretty much came in and gummed up the works. The things that Bush has mucked up are pretty much his doing. It is also quite ironic as the sainted Reagan, occasionally cited Coolidge as a role model. Even a do nothing president like Coolidge would be preferable to what we've endured. Everyone except his die hard cult of personality agrees he's been a disaster.

On healthcare, socialism is a scare word that people who are afraid of addressing certain issues throw around in order to obscure the issues. That you can take things you like from systems you don't necessarily agree with.

I think it's safe to say that pure capitalism, if it ever existed, doesn't work. The Great Depression proved it but so did the US poverty rates of every century up to the 20th century. The greatest explosion of wealth occurred in the United States in the decades after certain regulations and restrictions were implemented to ensure that everything ran on an even keel. These regulations did not himper capitalism, they enhanced it. Everyone except for some super mllionaires and corporations believes in these things. They helped not only create millionaires but an explosion in the middle class and a better standard living even for the lower classes.

The key to having a good economy is to have happy, healthy people buying things, selling things and making things. The vast majority of people doing that buying, selling and making are not millionaires. If you want more millionaires the way to do that is to keep everyone happy and healthy. Healthcare is a big part of that.

If you had a federal healthcare system it would have benefits to the creation of wealth even if it resulted in a substantially larger tax bill. While you would be paying those extra taxes, you would be earning more because you would be healthier, able to work more and do better work. Your company would reap those same benefits. You would also pay less in municipal and state taxes as those governments would be relieved of the significant expense of providing health care to those workers. You could wind up costing less in medical expenses as more frequent trips to the doctor result in less severe illnesses. The government would also have greater power in negotiations with medical providers than a person or a company. You would also have more money in your pocket as a result of the fact that you yourself would not have to pay for expensive medical care and treatment. As it is if someone is afflicted with a serious or even just continual illness, they are currently forced to spend BEYOND their means.

I don't mean to paint a picture without drawbacks. Many of the problems people paint of the European system are probably true. Taxes would go up. But the benefits to the society on a whole would be better.

A capitalist system is not all about low taxes. The economist Paul Krugman pointed out that in the 1950s, the highest US tax rates were 90 percent. Yet people still became rich. Businesses still grew. People invested money. The middle class expanded.

[genesim]

Lying under oath is not trivial, and a potential sexual harrasment case with a subordinate...in the oval office no less is worth every minute spent on it.

Wasn't he getting a head job while talking to Arafat? And you don't think this is detrimental to the presidency!!

Investigating a case like that should be done as soon as possible, not on the perps time line.

The Iraq war was escalating while Clinton was in office, and his liasons have made each and every american pay for it since.

LTB, all I can do is disagree with you. I don't think Bush is the best president, but he certaintly isn't the worst, and the changes he has made will be good for the U.S.A. in the long run. I believe this entirely.

[likethebike]

What he was doing with Lewinsky was not sexual harassment. She pursued him. It was a mutual relationship.

Lying under oath is not trivial but the investigation was. They shouldn't have been asking those questions and really that trial should never have been going on while he was in office.

There was no Iraq war when Clinton was in office. There was the ongoing problems with Hussein but that was not a war. Any Clinton distractions due to the Lewinsky scandal were due entirely to the congress members who made it an issue. They were the ones that drove the national agenda off the chart.

I don't throw the worst president term around easily. When Al Gore, a candidate I did not love lost in 2000, I was very accepting of the loss. I asked myself "How much damage could Bush realistically do?" I've been shocked. After 9/11 I was all for him. I believed his agenda so much that I even argued the merits of the war with overseas acquaintances and friends. Like so many millions of other Americans I felt my good will was betrayed by the actions of Bush/Cheney and the gang. This guy at one point had an approval rating of 84 percent. Now it's hovering just above 30 percent, a two year high. Do you think that just happened? This is a result of decisions that this president has made that have turned out poorly for Americans.