Defending Bush on social issues

Can't defend the indefensible can you?

chirp. Chirp.

match point.

Your silence and inability to coherently defend Conservatism in action is all too revealing.

thank you for playing. Now, go on and let the adults run the country.

 

. . . rather than the big-business stooges, yahoos, and thugs, running it now . . .

 

Some Democrats were. They were wrong and, you may have noted, they got pushed out of the way by the rest of the party when Bush tried to ram through his privatization scheme in 2005, which was the first really big hit he took on his endless slide to WPE land.

 

The inability to argue without personal criticism is an intriguing attribute.

 

See what I still don't understand is why people on this board look at Bush as a conservative.

The fact is he isn't a true Bible thumping conservative. He just used those poor fools to get elected.

He is actually more moderate on social issues. Yes he is conservative on his big bussiness backing, but he is a hell of a lot more liberal than people on this board give him credit for.

 

3bf,

I argue with facts. Those facts are undeniable and you notice that Old Tony won't/can't defend conservatism. They had six years to show how better their theory was.

The result ... check the facts mentioned before.

I'd be a happy little boy if there were reasoned arguments but the right blames everything on Clinton. No matter what W does, it's well Bill had Monica.

So, I point out that W has been a fiscal disaster, a foreign policy simpleton and a domestic failure (citing examples of each). The difference? One created 23 million jobs, a roaring economy and actually tried to do some good for the average American while cutting welfare rolls, balancing the budget and putting more cops on the streets.

The other is still president (which is the key here) and is responsible for 3,000 American deaths and untold carnage in a country that had nothing to do with Sept. 11.

There, not one personal attack.

So, Three Bags please ask Old Tony to answer my questions.

 

I'll argue conservatism all day long with adults.

My conservatism states that the people who do the work get the reward. Your liberalism states that the people who drop out of school and get shitty jobs should live off the work of others.

W is not nearly conservative enough, BTW. Spends way too much. And, as is always the case with gov spending, it means spending way too much of other peoples' money. Your side likes that but hates him so much you'll ignore that he's doing exactly what you like.

The one good thing he did was the tax cuts. Revenues are pouring in and the deficit is closing way ahead of schedule. The economy is roaring. But, like the sun rising and setting, you guys whine that the people doing the work are actually getting the money. Of the 23-million jobs you claim Clinton created, most went away when the tech bubble burst. You know that, but you cling to the lie. As for the cutting of welfare rolls, Clinton fought and fought and fought against it until he had to sign it before the 96 election. The GOP congress had way more to do with the successes of the 90s, but you know you'll lie until you go to the grave to deny that.

Here's a dose of truth you guys always deny.

The following are the DJIA numbers from the Clinton era. As you can see, the Dow crawled in the two years of Clinton and a Dem Congress. Then the GOP takeover begins with Jan. 1995, and the Dow soars.

Jan. 21, 1993 3,256
Jan. 21, 1995 3,861
(Wow! 600 points in two years. That Clinton and the Dems really had it roaring)
Jan. 21 1996 5,395
(Whoops! After a year of GOP stewardship, it leaps by 1500)
Jan. 21 1997 6,813
(And another 1400)
Jan. 21 1998 7,906
(And another 1100)
Jan. 21, 1999 9,358
(And another 1400)
Jan. 21, 2000 10,940
(Whoops, another 1,600)
Jan. 21, 2001 10,587
(The tech bubble bursts. Dems claim Clinton handed Bush a great economy, denying a recession has already started)

Now you can claim all the good stuff was Clinton and the bad stuff was the GOP Congress. The numbers refute you. The tech bubble bursting was going to happen no matter who was in control. But you seem to want to credit the good things about the tech bubble to Clinton and ignore the fraud it was.

Sorry I had to cover the Super Bowl and couldn't answer your childish taunts earlier. I guess my having a life and a job sometimes gets in the way of posting here 24/7.

 

Please cite one instance when I suggested handouts for anyone. I believe the government is there to work for people not hand anything out.

The liberal bastion The Heritage Foundation penned this homage to Clinton:

Bill Clinton Was Right

He deserves more credit for the passage of welfare reform than most conservatives probably care to admit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082200741.html

My side despises wasted life. This president and the conservatives that enabled him sent our heroes to war ill-equipped and without a clear objective.

You drink the kool-aid so much that you give a guy credit for lowering the deficit way ahead of schedule? Come on, you're not that naive. This administration set the timetable, used fuzzy math (claimed there would be a $560 billion deficit which never materialized and now we're supposed to jump up and down that that a quarter trillion surplus is "down" to a quarter trillion deficit) and doesn't include the costs of war in its budgets.

Surely if most of the jobs that were created in the tech bust evaporated then the unemployment rate would have jumped from 3.9 percent to at least 7-8 percent right? I mean if within a two year period we lost 5 percent of the workforce there would be a subtantial jump in unemployment right?

Name me another War President who cut taxes. Most war-time presidents asked for sacrifice. The only people sacrificing in this time are the soldiers and their families. I really liked PAYING MORE IN TAXES b/c I fell into the AMT net two years ago.

I understand that instead of having money to fully armor vehicles and provide troops adequate armor you'd rather have your tax cut. I mean it's not you or your son but this is a war of choice so they chose to die in a war with ever-changing objectives. And do you really have more money? You must have access to a magic gas pump b/c the rest of us paid between $2.50 and $3 per gallon for most of 2004-06. That's about $1 more than pre-invasion.

And being a silver-spooned, trust-fund baby like W you don't care about the escalating health insurance costs and not affected by rising energy prices.

But, at least all the turmoil that sparked the energy costs has led to a peaceful middle east with a clear exit strategy.

I don't dispute that Clinton and the GOP congress worked together for fiscal responsibility. No argument.

So, take Clinton out of the equation. What ya got? W and a GOP congress. Even if W is the worst spender in history (no argument) Congress controls the purse strings.

You can't deflect your conservative brethren have failed. We tried it their way, now let's get back to PAYGO.

Thanks for the lesson on the DOW, I didn't realize Congress controlled it. I thought it was a private industry.

But here's something you cannot deny, W has created a whopping 3.7 million jobs in 6 years (and he didn't inherit a recession, the mildest "recession" in history started in March 2001.)

When Clinton was in the White House, the economy generated 17.6 million jobs during the corresponding period -- from January 1993 to December 1998. Under Reagan, 9.5 million jobs were created from January 1981 to December 1986.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/08/bush.job.count.ap/index.html

 

(Sigh) Once again . . .

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

 

Numbers are what matter, Joe, not some CNN guy's take. From Jan. 1993-Jan. 1995, with Clinton and a dem congress vs. 1995-1999 with Clinton and a GOP congress. They're there for everyone to see ... except for the willfully blind such as yourself.

 

Yeah, the CNN guy just made the whole thing up, I'm sure. Not that he looked at numbers or anything.

Who's willfully blind?

By the way, gotta love the reconciliation abilities of a poster who claims the late-1990s economy was a "Clinton tech bubble fraud," yet credits and praises the GOP Congress for Dow figures from that very same economy.