1
   

Hillary Clinton - Antichrist?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 11:17 am
We can't know how Bush might have governed had there been no 9/11. We can't know how a Bill Clinton (or Hillary Clinton) would have governed had 9/11 happened eight months into his/her presidency.

Today's society I think is too much focused on the here and now and too quickly loses a sense of even recent history. Right now I think too many Americans think of 9/11 as just an incidental incident with little importance for June, 2004. Thank God there are still lots of us who don't look at it that way.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 11:31 am
Foxfyre wrote:
We can't know how Bush might have governed had there been no 9/11. We can't know how a Bill Clinton (or Hillary Clinton) would have governed had 9/11 happened eight months into his/her presidency.


If that was in answer to Kitchenpete, I dont think the majority of GWB's spending (all the pork, for one) was related to 9/11. Neither were the tax cuts - they were already planning those anyway. Tax cuts + big spending would have = debt and deficit, 9/11 or not.

Foxfyre wrote:
Right now I think too many Americans think of 9/11 as just an incidental incident with little importance for June, 2004.


I see very little of that - but of course I'm just reading your media, I dont know what the conversation on the street is about. But the odd flare-up about gas prices aside, the political debate seems to remain firmly focused on foreign policy. Its just that Dems and Reps disagree about how best to persecute those responsible for 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 11:40 am
I think 9/11 changed everything. There would be no problem with a U.S. deficit if 9/11 had not happened and a war against terrorism had not been launched. The problem has been that nothing has been pared back from social programming to pay for the military build up and prosecution of the war. And yes, I do criticize the current administration for that and have been pretty vocal about it.

That the liberal U.S. media keeps the focus on Abu Ghraib and similar stuff, however, is because that's the best ammunition they have to bring George Bush's poll numbers down and get John Kerry elected. So it appears that it has much more importance than it actually does to the 'man on the street'. That happened back in January, was dealt with, is being dealt with, and the media keeps trying to make it look like current events. They can't get any other issues to catch on much.

It will all shake out in the wash sooner or later. Enough people will believe George Bush has sufficient motive, vision, emphasis to be a better president than John Kerry or they won't. We'll know in November.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 11:43 am
Nimh, Follow me on this...BUSH SPENDS NOTHING. Congress spends money. If you are going to complain about american spending, at least lay the blame appropriately.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 11:49 am
McGentrix wrote:
Nimh, Follow me on this...BUSH SPENDS NOTHING. Congress spends money. If you are going to complain about american spending, at least lay the blame appropriately.


I'm glad somebody made this point. Short of shutting the country down by not signing budget bills and such, there is not much any president can do about spending except to exert pressure on congress to keep it down.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 11:51 am
That's very misleading, Bush makes decisions that cost money and he can position the country in a way that Congress has little choice but to approve the spending.

Bush himself has made or gotten behind many very costly policies and decisions.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:00 pm
Maybe so, but all those decisions require Congressional approval.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:02 pm
Indeed, but that step doesn't render nimh's post inaccurate in any way.

Bush's policy set is one that can't but increase spending and deficit.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:04 pm
Explain how this statement "I dont think the majority of GWB's spending (all the pork, for one) was related to 9/11." is accurate in ANY way...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:10 pm
McG, CR, Nimh, and Craven are all right on this one. The President doesn't spend the $$$ unless Congress authorizes them. And the President does have a power ful voice to persuade what $$$ Congress authorizes. So Bush cannot be said to have completely clean hands where the budget deficit is concerned; neither is he completely to blame and Congress deserves its fair share of the blame.

And none of it would be a problem if 9/11 had not happened.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:12 pm
Ok, how's this:

The majority (as in more than 50%) of GWB's spending (especially the pork spending) is not related to 9/11.

I trust that clears things up.

There is nothing inaccurate about that statement. Perhaps you can explain the inaccuracies you perceive there.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:13 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

And none of it would be a problem if 9/11 had not happened.


This is a baseless claim.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:16 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Ok, how's this:

The majority (as in more than 50%) of GWB's spending (especially the pork spending) is not related to 9/11.

I trust that clears things up.

There is nothing inaccurate about that statement. Perhaps you can explain the inaccuracies you perceive there.


I would say it's highly inaccurate as the price of the Iraqi war (which I would consider money spent by Bush) is in the Billions, and unless you consider that to be pork or not related to 9/11 then the statement is just plain wrong.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:19 pm
Of course I don't consider the war in Iraq to be related to 9/11. The main reason is because the war in Iraq has precious little to do with 9/11 and was being considered prior to 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:20 pm
What McG said. If we weren't spending billions to prosecute the war on terror, including Iraq, etc., the budget would not be unbalanced as revenues would be covering the expenditures.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:23 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Of course I don't consider the war in Iraq to be related to 9/11. The main reason is because the war in Iraq has precious little to do with 9/11 and was being considered prior to 9/11.


Nuking Russia was also considered before 9/11, as was invading Cuba, defending NATO against any attacks, attacking N. Korea, Attacking Libya, defending Israel against attacks as well as a cornucopia of other disasters.

The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11. I don't usually disagree wholeheartedly with you Craven, but on this I do.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
If we weren't spending billions to prosecute the war on terror, including Iraq, etc., the budget would not be unbalanced as revenues would be covering the expenditures.


This is a blatant falsehood.

Look, you can just look it up, it'll be a very simple mathematical calculation involving only addition and subtraction.

There's no need to just make knee-jerk claims that you think "feel" right.

You are off by billions and billions of dollars (several hundred billion actually).

A little intellectual curiosity please.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:26 pm
Are you saying that the entire Federal budget is a result of Bush spending?!

What are you talking about Craven?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:29 pm
McGentrix wrote:

Nuking Russia was also considered before 9/11, as was invading Cuba, defending NATO against any attacks, attacking N. Korea, Attacking Libya, defending Israel against attacks as well as a cornucopia of other disasters.

The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11. I don't usually disagree wholeheartedly with you Craven, but on this I do.


Ok, lemme see if I can summarize your argument.

1) Many contingiencies are planned/discussed.

2) That the Iraq Invasion was realized indicates a connection with 9/11.

Well, if the connection you describe is the use of 9/11 to sell the war then I agree.

I guess it comes down to what type of relation we are considering.

I think it's related only in that 9/11 gave political capital for militancy on our part.

I think it's related in that many ignorant people believed it to have been.

But no, I don't think the war is inherently related to 9/11.

See, if enough people believe there is a relation there is at least the relation that is their belief. If that's the type of relation you describe you are right.

It is not, however, the type of relation I speak of.

Side note: too inclusive of a criteria for "related" will render the word meaningless.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:30 pm
Then, you are implying that regardless of 9/11, we were going into Iraq?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 10:56:44