View Full Version : Clinton Good, Bush Bad
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad
Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad
Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad
No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad
Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad
Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial - bad
Goeth, you have posted the truth and the truth shall embarrass Democrats. Yes verily, if Clinton had invaded Iraq and the results had been the same as for Bush, they would have been lauding him without end. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad
Probably bad in neither case, thought I'd like to see some attribution so that we can see the details of the Yugoslavian Haliburton contract. Until then, I'll take your word for it. It became definitely bad in Iraq, though, once the military got so sick and tired of not getting their money's worth that they didn't renew the contract and opened up bidding - that's how badly Haliburton ripped off US taxpayers and Iraqis.
Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad
OK, now we're starting to see a pattern here. No attribution. Where do you get your numbers? Iraq is going to cost quite a bit more than $87 billion - probably over ten times that by 2010.
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Nope. Good in both cases. Who is it that you claim doesn't think getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the best part of the whole Iraq debacle? Go ahead, I really want to know so I can be sure to advocate voting against them next time they're up for re-election.
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad
Those Christian Serbs were misruled by a genocidal dictator that butchered Muslims and Catholics alike. Re. Saddam, see above. And remember, I really, really do want to know who it is that says ousting Saddam was "bad," OK?
Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad
If you expect anyone to acknowledge that mistakes are made during wartime, and you do, then surely you will acknowledge that mistakes are made during wartime. Else you'd be a hypocrite.
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad
Does this really need comment? No it doesn't. Well, since you brought it up, "Mission Accomplished"??
No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad
Right. The mass graves were in Bosnia Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo. The Serbs basically waged a war of aggression, which by definition means they were outside Serbia.
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad
Checked the national debt lately? Spend that kind of money on credit and your finances can look really swell too.
Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad
So what do you call it when Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld et al (neo"conservatives") inexplicably ease up pressure on Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and shift focus to a country that had nothing to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center?
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad
Neither said Saddam has nukes. You're not doing to well on your facts, Goeth27. Well, they're not "yours," per se, of course, seeing as how they're talking points. Let's go on then.
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Bush could have had far more support - and that means financial, diplomatic, and follow-up assistance which later proved to be sorely lacking - had he permitted the inspections to continue. Suppose Saddam had allowed them to run their course, in which case no WMDs would have been found, or if they were, he would have had to either surrender them or else face a much larger invasion and follow-up force, better financed, better supported. As it turned out, he probably got them, if he had them, out of the country to Syria or somewhere. Suppose Saddam allowed the inspectors to continue until they got too close to something and then expelled them. Well, same outcome, and we are not nearly as indebted, nor as isolated diplomatically, and are not almost alone in having to keep troops in Iraq. The point is, it was Bush's rush to war that was the most disasterous aspect of the entire Iraq debacle. We know how badly the aftermath was handled. Had Bush & Co. done it right, and not been so arrogant and stupid in their refusal to listen to those that really know about that part of the world, success on the order of his father's far more multinational Gulf War I would not have been unlikely.
It isn't just "this good, that bad," Goeth27, that matters (and you're not getting it right anyway, as we've seen). It's competence, which the Bush administration has sorely lacked in key areas to this day. Why is Rumsfeld still Secretary of Defense?
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad
OK, you have claimed that over and over now. Now I want evidence. Who, WHO is it that says that destroying terrorist training camps in Afghanistan is bad? Tell us, Goeth27, so we can be sure to vote against them. Any American, Democrat or Republican, would, so we just need to know who these spineless appeasers are. Tell us.
Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial - bad
Who says that Saddam on trial is a bad thing? Go ahead, Goeth27, we need attribution, not foolish propagada, which is all you've given us so far.
Glad to see you agree with me on most points then.
Glad to see you agree with me on most points then.
Perhaps you ought to sign up for a reading comprehension class.
Perhaps you should learn to comprehend sarcasm
Why do you refuse to answer the questions I asked?
I know why - it's because your post relies on a strawman - an opponent that does not exist.
I am not putting in the effort to answer your questions because you didn't seem to understand what I posted. Btw I found this about 2 years ago, that's where the numbers came from.
Boogyman
08-26-2006, 15:16
I am not putting in the effort to answer your questions because you didn't seem to understand what I posted. Btw I found this about 2 years ago, that's where the numbers came from.
2 years ago? When you were 15.
Clinton left office over 5 years ago. You were 12 years old then, Goeth. :lol:
So you were closely following politics at the tender age of 12, huh. Right.
Who cares about Clinton anyway? That was the 90's. Bush has been president for half a decade, and al you Bushies can do is keep pointing at Clinton did this, Clinton did that, because you don't want to talk about the present.
Goeth, quit pretending to be a grownup. You're not even old enough to vote yet.
2 years ago? When you were 15.
Clinton left office over 5 years ago. You were 12 years old then, Goeth. :lol:
So you were closely following politics at the tender age of 12, huh. Right.
Who cares about Clinton anyway? That was the 90's. Bush has been president for half a decade, and al you Bushies can do is keep pointing at Clinton did this, Clinton did that, because you don't want to talk about the present.
Goeth, quit pretending to be a grownup. You're not even old enough to vote yet.
Least im for the party that supports the 2nd ammendment buddy.
Boogyman
08-26-2006, 15:39
Least im for the party that supports the 2nd ammendment buddy.
So am I, the Libertarian Party, "buddy".
Maybe when you grow up, you'll realize there's a hell of a lot more issues than just one.
Then maybe not.
:lol:
So am I, the Libertarian Party, "buddy".
Maybe when you grow up, you'll realize there's a hell of a lot more issues than just one.
Then maybe not.
:lol:
Glad to see you are throwing your vote away.
Glad to see you are throwing your vote away.
What do you call voting for a republican candidate that promises lower taxes and smaller govt then once elected he expands govt and spending at a rate unheard of since Johnson.
Then we could always vote for a democrat who openly promises marxism and delivers once elected.
Yeah who is throwing their vote away.
Maybe we can change the title of this threadf to Clinton and Bush both evil.
Or maybe Clinton/Bush one world govt supporters.
Maybe Clinton/Bush 2 sides of the same coin.
This one side good one side bad mentality is exactly what our opressors try to incite through their propaganda machine.
Boogyman
08-26-2006, 15:57
Glad to see you are throwing your vote away.
I don't always vote along party lines. I consider all the issues, not just one.
Of course with your ingrained hatred for Democrats, you will probably vote straight Republican, that is when you are old enough to vote. That way you won't have to think.
I am not putting in the effort to answer your questions because you didn't seem to understand what I posted
No, that's not why you're not responding.
You can see by my response to your first post in this thread that I understood what you posted just fine. And exposed it for the hogwash it is.
Of course with your ingrained hatred for Democrats, you will probably vote straight Republican, that is when you are old enough to vote. That way you won't have to think.
Nothing wrong with that.
No, that's not why you're not responding.
Yes, It is a humorus post with some "intellectual honesty", directed at mainstream media.
It is a humorus post with some "intellectual honesty", directed at mainstream media.
For it to be "intellectually honest," it has to be true. It isn't. As I pointed out, and as anyone can plainly see, it relies entirely on a strawman. Without this imaginary opponent that calls one event (many of which are imprecisely stated, to put it generously) "bad" and another "good," there is not post there at all. Ridiculing the hypocrisy and foolishness of the strawman is the entire point of the post.
Which in its own way is fitting, since the strawman is entirely the product of the writer's imagination, and bears no resemblence to any reality beyond the hannetized confines of the vast Rovian echo chamber.
Without this imaginary opponent that calls one event (many of which are imprecisely stated, to put it generously) "bad" and another "good," there is not post there at all.
It is directed at those that call Bush evil, while calling Clinton the greatest president. Then addresses a few topics in a sarcastic manner. It's reminding us of the things some may have "forgotten".
That's funny stuff I like it, I did vote for Clinton in the 1st term so I have the right to bash him all I want.
-tri
It is directed at those that call Bush evil, while calling Clinton the greatest president.
Goeth27, are you aware of the strawman that you yourself have constructed? Who has called Clinton "the greatest president"? If no one has, and no one that I'm aware of has, why are you acting as though someone has?
It's reminding us of the things some may have "forgotten".
Things that never were, and exist only in your imagination.
Goeth27, are you aware of the strawman that you yourself have constructed? Who has called Clinton "the greatest president"? If no one has, and no one that I'm aware of has, why are you acting as though someone has?
Things that never were, and exist only in your imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
Bill Clinton has been referred to as the best president of the modern era by many young Democrats with those opinions based on overall quality of life, economy, and the wellbeing of the average American..
I am done spoon feeding you for now.
Holliday
08-26-2006, 17:59
alot of people think Clinton is the greatest president ever. My girlfriends grandmother thinks so, the day before Clinton had some operation she told me and my gf to pray for him. She even keeps his book on her table all the time like its some sort of decoration peice.
shes crazy though. i would never let her know that i take her grandaughter shooting ASSAULT MURDER WEAPONS!
Dorkface
08-26-2006, 21:35
I think its funny that everyone has their panties in a roll over an email forward that was passed around a few years ago...
ShootinDave
08-27-2006, 00:07
The post doesn't hold any water with me anyway. The day before and after Pearl Harbor cannot be seen side by side.... the same can be said for 9/11. Why not try and do the same thing with FDR and Bush. WAY too many differences.... different society problems, different foreign issues. With many issues 5 years might as well be 50 years. IMHO.
- Dave
Nothing wrong with that.
Yes to vote straight ticket you must incapable of independent thought.
DaveyDug
08-27-2006, 12:25
Of course with your ingrained hatred for Democrats, you will probably vote straight Republican, that is when you are old enough to vote. That way you won't have to think.
Nothing wrong with that.
I pray to God that this is more of your sarcasm, and not what you really believe.
I pray to God that this is more of your sarcasm, and not what you really believe.
What is sarcasm? ;)
Boogyman
08-27-2006, 13:27
What a bunch of adolescent nonsense.
deguello
08-28-2006, 19:05
2 years ago? When you were 15.
Clinton left office over 5 years ago. You were 12 years old then, Goeth. :lol:
So you were closely following politics at the tender age of 12, huh. Right.
Who cares about Clinton anyway? That was the 90's. Bush has been president for half a decade, and al you Bushies can do is keep pointing at Clinton did this, Clinton did that, because you don't want to talk about the present.
Goeth, quit pretending to be a grownup. You're not even old enough to vote yet.
wHO CARES ABUT cINTON? hOW ABOUT THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF THE 911 VICTIMS KILLED BE CAUSE CLINTON WAS TOO COWARDLY TO SEIZE THE BASTARD? HOW ABOT THE DEAD SUDANESE KILLED IN HIS DARING ATTACKONA SUDANESE ASPIRIN FACTORY,A CHEAP AND CRIMINALWAY TO DISTRACT THE PUBLIC FROM HIS SCANDALS? HOW ABOUT THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT,,AND WITNESSED HIS USE OF THE IRS TO INTIMIDATE THE OPPOSITION PRESS? HOW ABOUT THE DRAVIDIAN DEAD, VICTIMS OF THE CLINTONISTA GESTAPO.SHOULD WE FORGET ABOUT THEM?CLINTON'S REFUSA TO FACE UP TO ISLAMOFASCISM WILL BE SEEN ASONE MOPRE EXAMPLE OFHIS DISASTROUS LEGACY. DEGUELLO
Boogyman
08-28-2006, 19:24
wHO CARES ABUT cINTON? hOW ABOUT THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF THE 911 VICTIMS KILLED BE CAUSE CLINTON WAS TOO COWARDLY TO SEIZE THE BASTARD? HOW ABOT THE DEAD SUDANESE KILLED IN HIS DARING ATTACKONA SUDANESE ASPIRIN FACTORY,A CHEAP AND CRIMINALWAY TO DISTRACT THE PUBLIC FROM HIS SCANDALS? HOW ABOUT THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT,,AND WITNESSED HIS USE OF THE IRS TO INTIMIDATE THE OPPOSITION PRESS? HOW ABOUT THE DRAVIDIAN DEAD, VICTIMS OF THE CLINTONISTA GESTAPO.SHOULD WE FORGET ABOUT THEM?CLINTON'S REFUSA TO FACE UP TO ISLAMOFASCISM WILL BE SEEN ASONE MOPRE EXAMPLE OFHIS DISASTROUS LEGACY. DEGUELLO
Wow.
You ahh, forget your meds there, cachorro?
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
wHO CARES ABUT cINTON? hOW ABOUT THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF THE 911 VICTIMS KILLED BE CAUSE CLINTON WAS TOO COWARDLY TO SEIZE THE BASTARD? HOW ABOT THE DEAD SUDANESE KILLED IN HIS DARING ATTACKONA SUDANESE ASPIRIN FACTORY,A CHEAP AND CRIMINALWAY TO DISTRACT THE PUBLIC FROM HIS SCANDALS? HOW ABOUT THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT,,AND WITNESSED HIS USE OF THE IRS TO INTIMIDATE THE OPPOSITION PRESS? HOW ABOUT THE DRAVIDIAN DEAD, VICTIMS OF THE CLINTONISTA GESTAPO.SHOULD WE FORGET ABOUT THEM?CLINTON'S REFUSA TO FACE UP TO ISLAMOFASCISM WILL BE SEEN ASONE MOPRE EXAMPLE OFHIS DISASTROUS LEGACY. DEGUELLO
How about using the shift and caps keys, an occasional period or comma, and a spell checker?
Boogyman
08-29-2006, 08:26
How about using the shift and caps keys, an occasional period or comma, and a spell checker?
Great advice, Bill, but then you'd still have the same content... something about cowardly islamofascist apirin factories??? :wacko:
deguello
08-30-2006, 12:33
What do you call voting for a republican candidate that promises lower taxes and smaller govt then once elected he expands govt and spending at a rate unheard of since Johnson.
Then we could always vote for a democrat who openly promises marxism and delivers once elected.
Yeah who is throwing their vote away.
Maybe we can change the title of this threadf to Clinton and Bush both evil.
Or maybe Clinton/Bush one world govt supporters.
Maybe Clinton/Bush 2 sides of the same coin.
This one side good one side bad mentality is exactly what our opressors try to incite through their propaganda machine.
Excellent! finally, someone who gets it! The republicats do not represent the majority of Americans, they merely manipulate them electorally, to legitimize the favored policies of the globalist plutocracy,example:Clinton gets Nafta through ,Bush completes the job by building the El Paso-kansas city hway(see SW's post),and opening the borders during a so-called war on terror,to provide capitalists with cheap labor,and democrats with welfare-dependent future voters.I am reminded of the old anarchist saying:"If voting worked, they'd outlaw it. Deguello
deguello
08-30-2006, 12:36
Great advice, Bill, but then you'd still have the same content... something about cowardly islamofascist apirin factories??? :wacko:
How about addressing the content of the post? Deguello
deguello
08-30-2006, 12:48
Wow.
You ahh, forget your meds there, cachorro?
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
I am glad to see that your illegal mexican maid is teaching you Spanish, or perhaps you hired a bilingual special education teacher? I am extremely disappointed;,not by your arguing by insult,I am used to the modus operandi of the demleft partei,but by the feebleness of your insults? Wacko? Look ,Boogy as much as I relish the irony of being called a wacko by someone who learned to use a pc while wearing a strait jacket, I expected something betterfrom you. How about:" chicken hawk bu****e warmonger, fascist pig, homophobe,any other kind of phobe," and other well-established epithets the left uses as substitutes for argument. Cachorro does'nt cut it,senor Gilipolla.Best,Deguello
... arguing by insult,I am used to the modus operandi of the demleft partei ... I expected something betterfrom you. How about:" chicken hawk bu****e warmonger, fascist pig, homophobe,any other kind of phobe," and other well-established epithets the left uses as substitutes for argument.
That's a lot of tilting at your own strawman for one paragraph there, deguello, and yet another accusation of debate by insult thrown in for good measure.
Wait a minute, though,
I am glad to see that your illegal mexican maid is teaching you Spanish, or perhaps you hired a bilingual special education teacher? I am extremely disappointed;,not by your arguing by insult
I could swear I just read you doing the exact same thing...nah, can't be.
deguello
08-30-2006, 13:37
That's a lot of tilting at your own strawman for one paragraph there, deguello, and yet another accusation of debate by insult thrown in for good measure.
Wait a minute, though,
I could swear I just read you doing the exact same thing...nah, can't be.
I was not making an argument I was being insulting. While I am at it, he's not a strawman, he's stuffed with a different substance.Deguello .BTW ,cf 'War is the unfolding of miscalculations" does that apply to the cicil war and ww2?
I was not making an argument I was being insulting.
MmmHmm.
BTW ,cf 'War is the unfolding of miscalculations" does that apply to the cicil war and ww2?
If by "cicil" war, you mean the American civil war, then the answer to both, is yes. Doesn't apply to all wars, of course, but it sure does to the current one.
While I am at it, he's not a strawman, he's stuffed with a different substance.
You are trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll), aren't you?
Some of us do this to varying degrees, usually not intending to, but you're making a habit of it. You could begin your reformation by checking your spelling and punctuation.
Boogyman
08-30-2006, 14:40
How about addressing the content of the post? Deguello
What content? I see nothing but vileness and hatred. The ramblings of a madman.
Boogyman
08-30-2006, 14:47
I was not making an argument I was being insulting. While I am at it, he's not a strawman, he's stuffed with a different substance.
So you actually admit the only reason you are posting is to insult me.
And you admit you are not even concerned about making an argument.
Mods, I leave this one to you.
Boogyman
08-30-2006, 14:53
I see Deguello is banned.
Bill, Moderators, thank you for a job well done.
Now maybe we can have intelligent, respectful debate.
What content? I see nothing but vileness and hatred. The ramblings of a madman.
:D
I have said the exact same thing about you. :D
Maybe we are all a little to serious.
:D
I have said the exact same thing about you.
Not even close. Not even.
Maybe we are all a little to serious.
A certain amount of civility is required if there is to be real debate. Disagreements over things that matter naturally tend towards personal attacks, but once that starts then real issues become submerged under all the mud being slung.
"Political Chit-Chat Politics spoken here! It's encouraged to DEBATE, but mudslinging will NOT be tolerated. KEEP IT FRIENDLY."
Whatever else the rule may be in place for, it is also helpful in keeping things on topic. You'll notice that some threads degenerate into a back and forth between two posters that have little to do with anything of interest to other readers. Dat ain't good.
I see Deguello is banned.
Bill, Moderators, thank you for a job well done.
Now maybe we can have intelligent, respectful debate.
Intelligent debate or not...the troll is gone for good, hehe....:D
Intelligent debate or not...the troll is gone for good, hehe....:D
Nope, just two weeks
http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showthread.php?t=53164&page=2
:rolleyes:
Nope, just two weeks
http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showthread.php?t=53164&page=2
:rolleyes:
Uh..O.K...in case he should return: the best way to get rid of a troll is not to feed him...
you just did.
How?:blink:
Boogyman
08-31-2006, 10:31
How?:blink:
Plinky, as much as I hate to admit this, Bill is right.
I am famously guilty of "feeding" trolls like Deguello. It's a huge personality defect of mine that I'm not proud of, but I find very difficult to correct.
It's my stubbornness and outrage that makes me unable to ignore insults or outrageous fabrications by always responding to them. Other "trolls" have successfully used this weakness of mine against me by drawing me into mindless, pointless mud-slinging that ultimately ruins a thread.
Even though I'm totally aware of this "tactic", it is very difficult for me to avoid falling into this trap.
I'm working on it though. I find pointing it out and using humor helps... ;)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.