and just how did I prove that they do? Because I said that this wouldn't happen under Clinton's watch? I have reasons for believing this is so. The Clinton administration understood the danger posed by AQ and they took it very seriously, unlike the Bush team whose pre-911 priority was online pornography, and whose post-911 priority was Saddam Hussein. The Clinton team was interested in generating and reacting to actual objective intelligence, the Bush team told the intelligence community what they wanted to hear and then ignored everything else until they heard it.

I'm sorry man, but the fact is that since the Gingrich-led 'Republican Revolution' the GOP has been led by regressive fanatical ideologues more interested in forcing an agenda of cultural devolution than they are in responsible government. They're incompetent and dangerous and I think it's past time that the Dems took the gloves off called a spade a spade. The Rush Limbaughs and Newt Gingriches of the world can only survive so long as they remain unchallenged.

The reasonable, more ethical GOP you're wishing for has been stolen and subdued by these people, and John McCain's are few and far between. Look at who your party nominated for President and tell me that's the best the Repub party has to offer, and I'll tell you it's a morally and intellectually deficient organization.

Oh, come on Dig. Are you kidding?

Some recent examples.

1. I've said that I think the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton was shameful. A president should not be impeached for what happens in his personal life. The reasons given for impeachment in the Constitution were not, I believe, meant to be applied in such a way.

2. When Republicans like to say Clinton's economy was a "false economy" and that the March, 2001 recession was a result of that policy I always point out that it was real money and that Greenspan was increasing interest rates all throughout the mid and late 1990s which was probably the real cause of the recession. Not Clinton.

3. I've stated that the Clinton years were one of the best periods economically for the country in nearly every way.

4. I've pointed out Clinton's role in those good economic years in securing a large number of free trade agreements and lowered tariffs.

I stand corrected, but you know what I meant. And you know I'm right :Graucho

Well ok. Considering that Osama "declared war" on the US in 1998 what did the last administration do about it? You are saying they "understood the danger posed by AQ and they took it very seriously". So what did they do, sit down and talk about how much they took it seriously? What action did they take in 1998, 1999, and 2000 in response to Osama's attacks? A few missiles fired into Afghanistan and Sudan? There are whole books on the subject of "Clinton's deriliction" just as there are on Bush's. The crux of the matter is that Osama "declared war" on America 6 years ago and Clinton didn't do anything that worked and neither has Bush. Maybe the next guy will. Maybe Osama is more clever than all of them. Who knows?

That's a strange one. :Graucho

Hey Dig, more news for you. I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and an atheist. I once applied for membership to the Conservative Party of America but they rejected my application!

Dig,

I have to run. Catch ya later, friend. Didn't want to leave you here talking to yourself and without the search function I'll never make it back. ;-)

That's alright, I have to take the neice and nephew to Disneyland anyways, should be a fun afternoon :thumbsup

I was just starting to get loosened up too ;)

Ah yes! I think this is the same Mr. Bush who said in one of the debates that the U.S. "can't be the world's policeman."

He's soooooooo damn honest! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/newsearch.php :winkwink:

I think the "winner" of Presidential debates depends more on style over substance. Gore was right on in most of the debate points, but came over as a stiff arrogant intellectual.

Poor Bush stumbled around, yet had that "folksy" charm that many Americans identified with (think about it, if any regular American was going to debate, do you think they would be as knowledgable as Gore was? no..that's why so many liked Bush from the debates). In other words, it's more important in how you say something as opposed to what you actually said.

But that was 4 years ago..before 9/11, before the economic collapse, before the great outsourcing and our isolation from the world because of Bush's "agenda" to go it alone and do what he damn well pleased. This time around, people are going to listen much more carefully to what IS said this time.

Your version of history is pretty fucking warped.

Danny boy...my political stance is that of a moderate with a liberal leaning. If you choose to call me a conservative because I am in favor of a strong military...military R&D and believe that a strong offensive capability is the best defense...which is often attributed to a conservative position...then so be it.

All points that I agree with.

All points that I agree with...however I have never had the urge to to join the "Conservative Party of America".

a real debate or these fake excuses for debate?

Damn, thanks!

yup. i bet he would...

he won, there were people from both sides in florida making sure nothing funny went on.