I answered what Clinton did . I will post it again:


What did Clinton do?

We had the BEST economic period during his administration.

We ended 20 years of Annual Budget deficits in 2000.

The United States was not at war during the Clinton period.

We had policies that were much more centrist and much more in line with where the MAJORITY of Americans are politically.


What has Bush done about these issues:

Reduce the Trade deficit. (It was about $400 Billion in 2001)

Balance the Budget ( It was balanced when Bush took office)

Fund the Prescription Drug Plan

Enforce immigration laws and STOP illegal immigration

Provide SOLUTIONS to fund Social Security (the Bush plan did not address the problem of how to pay baby boomers their benefits)

Rebuild the Gulf including a levy system that will protect the area from Cat 5 storms.

Fund the replacement of our military equipment that was destroyed in Iraq.

Bring the size of the Active military to meet the deployments.

Fund his own No Child Left Behind Act (it s $24 Billion below the amount Bush set as needed to implement this law)

Provide leadership that result in an Energy plan that actually reduces our dependence on foreign oil (Bush told us that is the problem now where is his plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?)

No, you listed things that happened to occur while Clinton was President. You listed no ACTIONS by Clinton that had anythign to do with that.  What did Clinton, for instance, have to do with no budget deficits. One could make the argument that the change was the 1994 Republican take over of congress.  The US engaged in plenty of military operations during his Presidency, and our economy had as much to do with Clinton as the weather.

My question was pretty simple - what did Clinton DO. 

I had already written BEFORE You listed your "list":

"Now, name what Bill Clinton actually did while in office.  Not what things occurred while he was in office (i.e. the good economy we had while Clinton was in office had nothing to do with him just as the Soviet Union collapsing while Bush Sr. was in office had nothign to do with him).

This is precisely why so many people think you are unintelligent, Gene. You either do not read or you have very poor reading comprehension.   I ask you what Clinton did and make the distinction in the original quesiton not to just list things that occurred on his watch and provide examples and you then proceed to do just that - list things that occurred on his watch without any reflection as to what Clinton had to do with them.

What specifically did Clinton DO.

You also are changing your topic by asking questions about what Bush is giong to do on your pet topics which I'm not going to spend time on if you can't even articulate specifics in your own discussion.

Clinton controlled spending and in 2000 we had a balanced Budget.

Clinton proposed laws that were more centrist and not just what the far left wanted unlike Bush who just panders to the far right.

Clinton did not attack a country that did not pose a danger to the United States like Bush did.

Clinton did not create the ill will among other countries the way Bush has done.

Bush claims credit for what he tells us is the great economic growth. Then Clinton should also be given credit for the BEST ten years of economic performance ever.

Now tell us what Bush has done?

What has happened to the trade deficit?

What has happened to the Annual Budget?

What has happened to oil prices and our dependence on foreign oil?

What has happened to health coverage for Americans?

What has happened in Iraq?

What do most other countries think of Bush and American Policy?

What has our policy done in the Middle-East?

What has happened to the poor and middle class in America since Jan 2001?

What has happened to control illegal immigration since Jan 2001?

How has the performance of our public schools improved since Jan 2001?

What solutions have we developed to fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

What has happened to stem the loss of good paying American Jobs?

I know Bush could not have solved ALL the above. Please show me where he has solved ANY of these issues. His policies have in fact made ALL of them WORSE!

What has happened to stem the loss of good paying American Jobs?

doesn't jive with this:

What did Clinton do? -- We had the BEST economic period during his administration

Apparently someone has incredibly selective memory of just *how* we had that BEST economic period and doesn't want to mention the house of cards called ENRON, Worldcom, and other companies that were booming based on absolutely nothing, and which *busted* a lot of people, including the employees of the companies.

ENRON absolutely happened during Clinton's watch, along with the worst of a lot of other economic problems that carried into the Bush years.


What happened to those good paying jobs? The jobs that existed when Enron was working the system, ripping off California for billions of dollars and such? How about Worldcom's jobs? Sprints? And a bunch of other tech jobs that disappeared because the fundamentals in the businesses that had been "created" during the Clinton administration were just bogus -- those are the good jobs the not so good Clueless Old Liberal speaks of with such fond memories.

Something tells me that the Clueless One probably lost a ton of money in the market when some of these companies went down and now he just wants to blame Bush for it all...

terpfan1980

I made money every year in the market, Thank you.

You and others still do answer my questions about what Bush has accomplished!
Now tell us what Bush has done? What has happened to the trade deficit? What has happened to the Annual Budget? What has happened to oil prices and our dependence on foreign oil? What has happened to health coverage for Americans? What has happened in Iraq? What do most other countries think of Bush and American Policy? What has our policy done in the Middle-East? What has happened to the poor and middle class in America since Jan 2001? What has happened to control illegal immigration since Jan 2001? How has the performance of our public schools improved since Jan 2001? What solutions have we developed to fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? What has happened to stem the loss of good paying American Jobs? I know Bush could not have solved ALL the above. Please show me where he has solved ANY of these issues. His policies have in fact made ALL of them WORSE!

Clinton controlled spending and in 2000 we had a balanced Budget. Clinton proposed laws that were more centrist and not just what the far left wanted unlike Bush who just panders to the far right. Clinton did not attack a country that did not pose a danger to the United States like Bush did. Clinton did not create the ill will among other countries the way Bush has done. Bush claims credit for what he tells us is the great economic growth. Then Clinton should also be given credit for the BEST ten years of economic performance ever.

1) Clinton had little to do with the budgets.

2) Did Serbia pose some threat to the United States?

3) Why is appeasing other countries a worthy goal?

This is the last time I'm going to discuss this in this thread since you seem incapable of answering even simple questions. You never yet listed any specific actions that Clinton did. You only describe things that occurred during his presidency.  In my list, I didn't mention the economy now (which I think is good) because I can't prove whether Bush was involved in that or not. I listed specific actions he did.  You seem to look at presidents as some sort of Shaman.

The President has a great deal to do with the budget.

NO Serbia was not a threat to the United States.

We live in an interconnected world and without the cooperation of other countries we have NO chance of dealing with Islamic Terrorism.

You still do not answer what Bush has done. Like all his other supporters you have NO facts to dispute the dismal results he and his policies have had on almost EVERY major issue facing America!

The President has a great deal to do with the budget

BS! All he can do is make suggestions and then sign or don't sign the budget.

NO Serbia was not a threat to the United States.

Then "why" did Slick Willie go in?

We live in an interconnected world and without the cooperation of other countries we have NO chance of dealing with Islamic Terrorism.

And the above is "only" your opinion!

Col Gene: I provided a list of what Bush did in response #4. Do you even read your own threads?

Note how specific my lisit is. Compare it to what you've mentioned.

drmiler

WRONG

He has the power to veto any spending bill that does not agree with his spending plan!

Any one that does not know the world is interconnected is a TOTAL FOOL!

Draginol

I refuted your #4 and provided a list of the most important issues and asked what Bush has done about them.

And the above is "only" your opinion!

Col Gene, I disagree with your opinion. I think it is wrong. Therefore, you are lying. LOL

Draginol I refuted your #4 and provided a list of the most important issues and asked what Bush has done about them.

lol. No, you just posted that you didn't agree with the outcomes. You asked what Bush has done. I listed things Bush has done.  There's nothing to refute unless you are claiming now that Bush didn't invade Iraq, didn't lower taxes, didn't appoint supreme court justices, didn't get no child left behind passed.

You may not like those policies, but they do not alter that he did those policies and that a lot of people agree with those policies.

The strong economy we enjoyed all through the 90s was the product of the economic policies enacted during the Reagan-Bush years.
Clinton just happened to be sitting in the station when the gravy train rolled in, and so he got the credit. Being Clinton, a self-serving ass to the Nth degree, he didn't bother to say
"Aw shucks, folks....it was them thar 'publicans who done it, not lil' ole me."

Nope, he just sat back, lit up one of his Feminine Deodorant Spray-scented cigars, and grinned.

A country when we attacked them was not part of the war on terrorism.

---ColGene

How many times must you be told that Iraq was, indeed, a supporter, with both funding and supplies, of terrorist organizations? Maybe al-Qaeda, maybe not al-Qaeda, who really knows? But Saddam did allow terrorists to train on Iraqi soil. That's good enough for me.
Maybe you don't mind, say, knowingly letting a serial killer ply his trade, hoping he never kills you or anyone you know, but I'd prefer to put an end to him before that happens. We did.
Things haven't gone as well as we'd have liked, but I put a lot of the blame for that on people like you, Gene, who would insist that everything Bush does is wrong and evil, and so his vile, illegal war must be fought from a PC viewpoint and with one hand tied back.

Round an' round she goes.....the Col Gene Merry-Go-Round.

Bush sucks, no he doesn't yes he does so's yer ole man what did he do what did they what did who do

Bush fails to accept the reality of the situation. There are two types of violence that is taking place. In both cases it is being conducted by Moslem groups.

The first type is the Islamic Terrorists groups that Bush calls The War On Terrorism. These groups operate within many countries in a loose association with HATE as their driving force. That hate is directed against Israel and the West most specifically the U.S. and England. There are two subsets of these terrorists’ groups-- Those that are mainly opposed to Israel, Islamic Jihad etc and those that are directing their violence against both Israel and the West. These two movements are what Bush calls the WAR ON TERRORISM!

The violence in Iraq is almost totally People in Iraq who HATE People in Iraq. It is NOT NEW! It has existed since the British formed Iraq which has no history as a country but history as separate groups. The fighting in Iraq is not to destroy Israel or the United States. Many of the people in Iraq most likely hate Israel and the West but that is not the objective of the violence that is taking place in Iraq. What is taking place is a CIVIL WAR and Bush wants to make us believe it has the same objectives as the Islamic Terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and have conducted the other terrorist attacks in other countries including Israel, Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank.

The United States can not change the HATE between the factions in Iraq and that is why our continued occupation will not only fail but is adding to the unrest. That reality, if accepted by Bush, would mean a CHANGE in our policy in Iraq which Bush stubbornly refused to consider. Bush has decided (He is the DESIDER) and says the answer to Iraq and the WAR ON TRERRORISM is western style democracies. The problem is that the PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THAT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT! They have proven that in ALL the elections we have supported in the Moslem areas.

Our continued presence in Iraq will only create more American death and injuries. It will continue to spend money we are borrowing and that is needed for more important issues in our country.

WE need the Democrats to win in November and FORCE Bush to accept a different policy because his policy is NOT WORKING and will NEVER work because he refuses to understand what drives the different Moslems.

Bush fails to accept the reality of the situation. There are two types of violence that is taking place. In both cases it is being conducted by Moslem groups. The first type is the Islamic Terrorists groups that Bush calls The War On Terrorism. These groups operate within many countries in a loose association with HATE as their driving force. That hate is directed against Israel and the West most specifically the U.S. and England. There are two subsets of these terrorists’ groups-- Those that are mainly opposed to Israel, Islamic Jihad etc and those that are directing their violence against both Israel and the West. These two movements are what Bush calls the WAR ON TERRORISM! The violence in Iraq is almost totally People in Iraq who HATE People in Iraq. It is NOT NEW! It has existed since the British formed Iraq which has no history as a country but history as separate groups. The fighting in Iraq is not to destroy Israel or the United States. Many of the people in Iraq most likely hate Israel and the West but that is not the objective of the violence that is taking place in Iraq. What is taking place is a CIVIL WAR and Bush wants to make us believe it has the same objectives as the Islamic Terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and have conducted the other terrorist attacks in other countries including Israel, Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank. The United States can not change the HATE between the factions in Iraq and that is why our continued occupation will not only fail but is adding to the unrest. That reality, if accepted by Bush, would mean a CHANGE in our policy in Iraq which Bush stubbornly refused to consider. Bush has decided (He is the DESIDER) and says the answer to Iraq and the WAR ON TRERRORISM is western style democracies. The problem is that the PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THAT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT! They have proven that in ALL the elections we have supported in the Moslem areas. Our continued presence in Iraq will only create more American death and injuries. It will continue to spend money we are borrowing and that is needed for more important issues in our country. WE need the Democrats to win in November and FORCE Bush to accept a different policy because his policy is NOT WORKING and will NEVER work because he refuses to understand what drives the different Moslems.

This absolutely nothing to do with rightwingers post.

A country when we attacked them was not part of the war on terrorism. ---ColGene How many times must you be told that Iraq was, indeed, a supporter, with both funding and supplies, of terrorist organizations? Maybe al-Qaeda, maybe not al-Qaeda, who really knows? But Saddam did allow terrorists to train on Iraqi soil. That's good enough for me. Maybe you don't mind, say, knowingly letting a serial killer ply his trade, hoping he never kills you or anyone you know, but I'd prefer to put an end to him before that happens. We did. Things haven't gone as well as we'd have liked, but I put a lot of the blame for that on people like you, Gene, who would insist that everything Bush does is wrong and evil, and so his vile, illegal war must be fought from a PC viewpoint and with one hand tied back.

"This" is what he was talking about. Now how about responding to what he "did" post.

drmiler

Even Bush admitted to Brian Williams THIS WEEK that Saddam had NO CONNECTION TO 9/11. Read my post about the nature of the violence in Iraq and the Terrorist Cells in other areas. Iraq was NOT part of the movements that attacked this country even though they may not like the U.S.

The violence in Iraq is almost totally People in Iraq who HATE People in Iraq. It is NOT NEW! It has existed since the British formed Iraq which has no history as a country but history as separate groups. The fighting in Iraq is not to destroy Israel or the United States. Many of the people in Iraq most likely hate Israel and the West but that is not the objective of the violence that is taking place in Iraq. What is taking place is a CIVIL WAR and Bush wants to make us believe it has the same objectives as the Islamic Terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and have conducted the other terrorist attacks in other countries including Israel, Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank.

drmiler Even Bush admitted to Brian Williams THIS WEEK that Saddam had NO CONNECTION TO 9/11. Read my post about the nature of the violence in Iraq and the Terrorist Cells in other areas. Iraq was NOT part of the movements that attacked this country even though they may not like the U.S.

I love how you "still" avoid the statement that RW made! Not one person said ANYTHING about 9/11!!!

How many times must you be told that Iraq was, indeed, a supporter, with both funding and supplies, of terrorist organizations? Maybe al-Qaeda, maybe not al-Qaeda, who really knows? But Saddam did allow terrorists to train on Iraqi soil.

drmiler

That did not make them a threat to this country and justify our invasion of Iraq! You do not go to war on "MAYBE"

drmiler That did not make them a threat to this country and justify our invasion of Iraq! You do not go to war on "MAYBE"

READ THE LAST SENTENCE!!!

But Saddam did allow terrorists to train on Iraqi soil

And once more for the reading impaired! Not one person here has even "tried" to tie Saddam to 9/11!

drmiler

Bush has admitted that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Are you saying that Bush is LYING?

drmiler Bush has admitted that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Are you saying that Bush is LYING?

No! I'm saying YOUR not reading or comprehending. Once more:

Not one person here has even "tried" to tie Saddam to 9/11!

ALL you're doing is regurgtating the same ignorant line over and over. Get it straight...SADDAM DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

drmiler

IF not one person tied Saddam to 9/11, WHY did we invade Iraq?

Okay, I'm outta here.  Col Gene, you're retarded. There's obviously something wrong with you.

it is you that is demented

(Citizen)COL GeneSeptember 3, 2006 12:50:05Reply #47 drmiler IF not one person tied Saddam to 9/11, WHY did we invade Iraq?

Once again "TRY" reading!

How many times must you be told that Iraq was, indeed, a supporter, with both funding and supplies, of terrorist organizations? Maybe al-Qaeda, maybe not al-Qaeda, who really knows? But Saddam did allow terrorists to train on Iraqi soil.

Can you comprehend that? Or do you need me to draw it in crayon?