1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

With Democrats like this...

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by ifilus, Jan 6, 2007.

  1. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    Do CEOs get fired for cheating on their wives? Do mayors? Why should presidents?

    Do we hire them to be faithful spouses, or to run the country? And if the answer is the latter, who cares if the president lies about the infidelity?

    Oh, right, it's because it was UNDER OATH!!!

    And I guess misleading the country about the reasons you're pumping insane amounts of money into a crusade war you can't win is better.
  2. Lamar Mundane

    Lamar Mundane Member

    Let's get W under oath. His decisions have led the death of 3,000 Americans, more than 100,000 Iraqis and the loss of $500 billion we've already spent on his War of Terror. That doesn't include the lifelong costs of taking care of the 22,000 injured for weapons of mass...ties to Al Q...to bring stability to the Middl....

    Of course, the GOP will call for more cuts to the VA to balance the budget while the Democrats who have actually served in the military will be called reckless spenders for fulfilling our promises and take care of our veterans. Here a reminder, it's been nearly six years since W inherited a quarter trillion dollar budget surplus and has turned it into a quarter trillion dollor deficit.

    Good times.
  3. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but what's money compared to restoring "character" to the White House?
  4. Lamar Mundane

    Lamar Mundane Member

    I will fire coddle, protect those who leak classified information.
  5. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    I think it's time that Chris L's mom took his computer away.
  6. Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302

    Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187

    The difference? 885 deaths over four years, or about 221 deaths a year. Of course, during Bush's first four years in office we fought wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. What did we accomplish in terms of military victories during Clinton's first four years in office that would require such a high death count?

    I can't think of a thing. Of course we could get Clinton under oath in hopes of explaining it but as we know - he most likely won't tell the truth.
  7. My mom died over a decade ago. Leave it to a Canadian to try and drag moms into this.

    Stay classy Toronto.
  8. Fenian - you haven't addressed your assertion that 1956 and 1957 were the golden age of economies in US history. Going all Robert Byrd on us now?
  9. MertWindu

    MertWindu Active Member

    Wow. Once again, Chris_L is covered in glory.
  10. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

  11. Lamar Mundane

    Lamar Mundane Member

    There were zero military combat deaths during Clinton's tenure. All deaths were deemed accidental. Can W say the same?

    this from EVil Bastard-friendly and judging by the language on the site the likely source of his short-bus logic.


    I'd also like to direct anyone agreeing with that logic to the numbers of US soldiers whose lives could have been saved it they or their vehicles were properly armored. Or, if we had sent in the number of troops necessary to secure the borders or not opened an armory that was sealed and protected by the UN only to see those munitions used against US troops in the form of IEDs.

    Question Evil, was it a frontal or complete labotomy?
  12. Lamar - you say that there were zero combat deaths during Clinton's tenure but how so you explain those 4,302 who died during his first 4 years in office (Department of Defense numbers BTW)? If those deaths weren't from combat then they must have been from accidents. And you want to get on Bush for not enough armor? On Clinton's watch over 1,000 soldiers were dying per year in a time of peace and where was the media when this abuse of personell was happening?

    The military budget under Clinton was slashed so that he could get a surplus that existed on paper. But the lives of real life soldiers were the cost of that "surplus" but I don't expect any of you kool-aid drinkers to be able to see the facts without bias.

    By the way Lamar - if you are going to accuse me of having a "lobotomy" - at least spell it correct. Nothing gets under Mert's skin like misspelling.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page