The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Posted By: Bushwacked on 2008-12-21
In Reply to: You have no basis in fact that Bush is doing a rewrite...you hate him, which is fairly obvious. - .....................
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I did not post to start a Clinton/Bush war
Obviously there is a fundamental difference between those who support Bush and those who don't. We don't think the same way. Arguing about it gets us no where. I WILL be voting for a Democrat and I wanted some other opinions about the Democratic candidates. I did not want to bash anyone. I feel that all of the candidates are very good in their own ways. I just thought maybe someone would bring up good points that I may not have thought of.
oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought
x
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
Clinton/Bush
Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity. I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected. Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie. Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.
Clinton/Bush
Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity. I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected. Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie. Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.
Clinton vs Bush
Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity DESPITE the opposition of the neocons throughout his administration. Bush failed over and over again DESPITE having party control of both houses. The leadership ability simply speaks for itself. Looking forward to Hill and Bill in charge again. The neocon fanatics have destroyed themselves by their own hand. So be it.
I'm not going to get into the Clinton vs Bush lies because
I don't know if Bush has lied intentionally or not, but it is pretty clear to me that the case made to go to war in Iraq was fabricated. If you ever get a chance watch Dead Wrong on CNN. This is not a politically motivated show just facts.
Is Clinton your only defence for Bush?
x
This is about Katrina/Bush, not Clinton.
nm
Uh oh.......Bill Clinton, not BUSH
xx
You mean 16 years - Both Bush AND Clinton
Disastrous!
Clinton 65% - Bush 28% and falling!
Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. George W. Bush has an approval rating of 28% and still falling.
Period! 
Interview with Clinton RE: Bush's deficit
Tax cuts are always popular, Clinton said. But about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.
Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts, Clinton added. We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.
Clinton also discussed bringing world leaders together to combat the world's chronic problems — including extreme poverty, global warming and religious conflicts — as well as the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort and Hillary Clinton's political future.
The interview follows:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, good to see you again.
FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you, George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're here on your initiative, and I want to talk about that, but let's begin with Katrina. President Bush has brought you into the recovery effort, but he's not taking all of your advice. You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says no tax increase of any kind. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something's got to give.
CLINTON: Well, that's what I think. I think this idea — I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.
They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The president is not going to move. What do Democrats do?
CLINTON: They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election. And they should hope, to goodness, for the sake of our country, that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify it.
I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese — We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.
So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?
We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything coming out of this initiative here that you can apply directly to Katrina and the poverty we saw revealed there?
CLINTON: Oh, yes, we have raised quite a bit of money for Katrina here. And former President Bush and I, you know, we were asked to raise money. We already have $90 million to $100 million. And what we're trying to do is make sure that our money goes directly to the poorest people who have been dislodged by working with church groups and others. We're working on some mechanisms now to do that, and we'll have some announcements in the next week or so.
But I think there will be a lot of money coming forward from the federal government. A lot of it will be necessary, you know, to build the infrastructure, rebuild the fabric of life and not simply in New Orleans but along the Gulf Coast.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Gulf Coast.
CLINTON: Yes; you know, keep in mind, Mississippi was devastated. Everything from a mile in Mississippi was blown down, and Alabama, but we've got to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me; the problems of race that were tied to poverty here, and I know you don't think there's any conscious racism at play in the response, but we saw one more time blacks and whites looked at this event through very different eyes. What can President Bush do about that, and looking back, do you think there was anything more you could have done as president?
CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of disaster management.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the racial divide.
CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of that. For example, we had the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest African-American poverty rate ever recorded. We had the highest homeownership, highest business ownership, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years.
This is a matter of public policy, and whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade.
i was actually trying to remember if this happened with Clinton and Bush...
Did Bush give speeches before he became president? I of course cannot remember last month let alone eight years ago.... After the election I noticed how often I saw him speaking out and i thoght it was a little weird since he's not president yet. I understand he is getting a head start and saying what he is going to do etc. etc. but i still find it a bit odd. but again, i can't remember if this is "normal" for the president elect to come in and kind of take over before the actual inauguration date...
you got Bush mixed up with Bill Clinton...it was....(sm)
all Clinton's cronies who ended up on Wall Street, FM/FM, etc., in charge, who were still there when everything tanked.....Clinton's cronies have profited, not Bush's
And Bush inherited a lot of crap from Clinton
And Clinton inherited a lot from Bush Sr., etc, etc.
It's like the Sunny & Cher song....and the beat goes on.
What a president does while in office will determine if they become a good president or not. Right now Obama is not off to a good start. As his slogan goes one can only "hope" that it will get better.
Bush Sr and Clinton to Share Liberty Medal
Former Presidents Bush, Clinton to Share Liberty Medal
Friday, June 30, 2006
PHILADELPHIA — Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who put politics aside to help raise more than $1 billion for disaster relief efforts, will share the 2006 Liberty Medal, officials said Thursday.
The award annually honors an individual or organization that has demonstrated leadership and vision in the pursuit of liberty of conscience or freedom from oppression, ignorance, or deprivation.
Bush, a Republican, and Clinton, a Democrat, joined forces last year to aid Gulf Coast victims of Hurricane Katrina through the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. Earlier, they formed the Bush-Clinton Tsunami Partnership to help survivors of the December 2004 tsunami that killed more than 200,000 people in southeast Asia.
The former leaders will accept the medal and its accompanying $100,000 prize on Oct. 5 at the National Constitution Center, in what will be the first Liberty Medal given under the center's management.
First awarded in 1989, the Liberty Medal was previously administered by regional civic groups including the Philadelphia Foundation and Greater Philadelphia First.
Click here for the Natural Disaster Content Center
Past Liberty Medal recipients include Polish union leader Lech Walesa, former President Jimmy Carter, former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, South African leaders F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and, most recently, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.
Six recipients of the medal have subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize
If it Clinton screwed something up - why didn't Bush fix it? He had 8 years!
As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?
Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.
Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.
We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)
All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.
Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.
THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.
I'd say Bush paid closer attention than did the Clinton administration!
Bin Laden was on the radar during the Clinton administration and yet the potential threat he posed was virtually ignored!
here's its all Bill Clinton's fault post
like clockwork.
Stop bringing up Bush - this post was not about Bush
I even said we have had some good presidents and some bad ones, but this post was not about Bush. It was about Obama. Yes Bush was one of the worst presidents I'm not arguing with you on that one, but everytime anyone brings up something about our current president they are shot back with Bush this or Bush that and on things that have nothing to do with what the current topic is about. Again, this was not about Bush. It was about Obama.
Bush inherited Powell from Clinton who inherited him from Reagan.
Bush wouldn't have had the sense to pick Powell all by himself. Have you heard the latest on Condi? She's been palling around with senior Hamas leaders, sending them thank you notes and such.
Here's how that other thing works. When the fringers stop lying, dems stop denying. It's not that complicated.
This post was not an attack against Bush...sm
Even though WE were the slow on the draw, and I think the pres needs to work on that.
Your response was not so typical (well maybe) because I don't see where Bush is getting bashed here, but if you feel you must bring that up he should be working on a Crisis Intervention Task Force - a group who can think fast and make sound, quick decisions in times of crisis involving American Citizens.
Quite frankly, the media is being VERY unfair to the people who were trapped in Lebanon calling them whiners, ingrates, etc. When they speak they are not singling out people who complained (which I don't care if they complained, and why should you?), they speak as if the whole group was ingrateful, complained, and deserved to stay in the middle of a war zone.
Why don't watch the clip in the link above? You might get a different perspective yourself.
Oh, and it's cool, the Bush is Jesus post on the C board. SM
Yeah, typical libs.
I have no clue why you added this Bush rant to my post...
George Bush did not single-handedly send troops to war. There is that little ol thing called Congress who have to vote to allow him to go to war, he can't just do it on his own. And guess what...they DID. Democrats and Republicans alike. I just don't understand why some Americans don't understand THAT. Blame it on George Bush, like he was King or something. He did not do it alone. And you are right, I will NEVER accept that ANY soldier died for no reason. How arrogant of anyone to even suggest such a thing. Our men and women in uniform go where they are sent and they do their duty. Shame on ANY American who would publically say those brave young men and women died in vain, I don't care what their politics are. To me, that reeks.
I also do not know why it is so easy for some Americans to totally ignore the many reasons we went into Iraq. Have you ever actually read the Iraq resolution passed by Congress? I seriously doubt it. Hussein was in violation of so many UN resolutions it would take a ream of paper to list them. And he did finance and harbor terrorists. One of the perps of the Achille Lauro hijacking lived out his miserable life there being given free medical care and a free ride by the Hussein government. Zarqawi had his little terrorist training camp up in Northern Iraq for a year before we went in. One of Hussein's higher ups met with Mohammed Atta a couple of months before 9-11. What do you think they were talking about? The weather?
I don't believe I even mentioned the President in my post. I believe we went into Iraq for a good reason, we had been hit and we had to hit back harder. We did so in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not had another major attack since that happened. Wonder why that is...????
My point is, the President is not singly responsible for the war in Iraq. The Congress is just as responsible. So when you start to lay blame and malign the names of good men and women who died for something they believed in, even if you don't....you should spread the blame evenly. Get off the Hate Bush train and back into reality.
Funny it's okay to post inflammatory reports about Bush (nm)
x
Refer to the post below where Bush has pretty much doubled the money
y
didnt say bush appointed him. said paulson did. besides that post wasnt for you n e way.
s
I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking. If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
No that was original.
I have my original
birth certificate and I have my son's as well. I also have my step son's and my husband's and they are all locked in our fire proof gun safe along with our social security cards.
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original?
.....I thought so......
|
