Jump to content

Biggest Difference between Republicans and Democrats


Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Wolferz:

Sheeple? Damn right!

That's the way this big social experiment is designed ro work. Keep them stupid, drunk, and/or addicted to drugs,(prescription and illicit both), while the masterminds get fatter and the people grow thinner.

That's why they're trying to ban Farenheit 451 from some schools, because it talks about such a society that is totally in control by the government. They try to control what you see, what you read and what you think.

Information that is in line with their way of thinking is released, everything else is suppressed.

We are getting closer and closer to that every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know what's so funny, I've been looking for a house for the last couple of weeks, and it's been REALLY difficult. I live in Coconut Creek, and I want a house with at least 4BR plus a home office for my business and in my area EVERYTHING is well over 400K, so I decided to look in the Wellington Area and as I've gone from builder, to builder to builder everyone is sold out. Hundreds of homes that are selling for 300K and up, and almost everything sold out.

As I drive through these neighborhoods, I see kids playing in the streets, blacks, chinese, hispanics, all mixed together and it feels great. Hopefully these kids won't grow up with the media frenzied bias of how minorities are suffering under this administration, I mean if their parents can afford to buy them homes in these neighborhoods, they MUST be doing well right?

Well, I'm down to 2 neighborhoods where they still have homes left, both 360K, both are well mixed neighborhoods where I don't have to worry about my kids growing up thinking we're somehow screwing over any minority group in the U.S.

So much for "the economy sucks" argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

As for the unemployment matter... WAKE UP. Perception isn't an AVERAGE... perception is this fact, DURING THAT BASTARD CLINTON'S TERM OF SERVICE THE UNEMPLOYMENT WENT DOWN.. ALL YEARS... NOT ONE, NOT TWO... EIGHT.

What good is a downward unemployment if it is based on a lie? Remember all the corporate ethics problems -- Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Adelphia, etc? And don't forget the massively hyped AOL-Time Warner merger that fell flat and almost destroyed both companies. What happened was that CEO bonuses were based on stock options instead of dividends, so the object for CEOs was to inflate the stock price so that the value of their options would skyrocket. Then they would sell out and leave an over-inflated company behind in their wake. A lot of the unemployment increase is also due to the failures of these companies after the senior management looted them. All of that happened during the Clinton administration, but the ramifications occurred during the Bush administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

My god I am watching 60 Minutes tonight and I am in shock. Any indictment I make against G.W. is mild in comparison to this INSIDER'S take. "I think he has done a terrible job in regard to terrorism"... priceless.

As for the unemployment matter... WAKE UP. Perception isn't an AVERAGE... perception is this fact, DURING THAT BASTARD CLINTON'S TERM OF SERVICE THE UNEMPLOYMENT WENT DOWN.. ALL YEARS... NOT ONE, NOT TWO... EIGHT. Jesus Christ... I have just about had enough of you idiots LYING. Wake the hell up and be CRITICAL of failure. I am a republican but I WILL NOT SELL MY SOUL FOR THE PARTY.

Thank you.

Oh puhlease, Clinton didn't do jack, he inherited the Reagan economy, and bush has inherited Clintons economy, and doing a darn good job of getting it back on track I might add. He got a start and then 911 hit, then he still was able to get it back on track.

Clinton did his darndest to screw the economy up, raise taxes, add Beauracracy, add BS restrictions on business. Sell secrets to the chinese, disgrace the oval office..... etc, etc ad nauseum.

Bush inherited the disaster left by Clinton, and has done a very good job of picking up the pieces.

Hopefully, he will leave an economy that will be as strong as Reagans economy was, and it will take 2 terms for a Democrat to screw it up. I can only hope anyway.

And as far as the unemployment figures for Clintons term, they were rigged, just as everything else in his fricking administration was rigged. FBI files do incredible things to peoples motivations and morals, and the Clintons had 900 if not more, we only knew about the 900, I wonder how many more they actually went through. Because if they admitted to 900, you know there were probably THOUSANDS.

Pull your head out of the sand and look at the facts, your spewing forth nonsense that TOTALLY ignores EVERY illegal thing the Clintons did in office is disgusting, and it wasn't JUST sex, and NO, not EVERYONE does it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found some interesting statistics that were put together on the net.

Found Here

quote:

Subject: Bush vs Clinton 1st 3 years

From: maltzahn

Email:

Date: Mon, Mar 08, 2004 - 02:34 PM ET

Website Address:

Where is the media on this info????????????

Author: "The_Macallan"

Unemployment Rate - Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years) Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years) Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change

* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years. * The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.

Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) - 2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years) 1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years) 1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.

Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) - 2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years) 1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years) 1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.

Homeownership Rate - GWBush's 1st three years: 4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush) 4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush) Difference: +1.1%

Bill Clinton's 1st three years: 4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton) 4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton) Difference: +0.7%

* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than under Bill Clinton's 1st three years. * The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.

Inflation Rate - GWBush's 1st three years: Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush) Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush) Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years: Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton) Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton) Difference: 0.53% Decrease

* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton's first three years. * The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton.

A few more tidbits:

* "2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years" ~ The Conference Board's revised forecast, December 2003.

* Manufacturing is at 20-year record highs.

* GDP for the second-half of 2003 was an incredible 6 percent while inflation was held under 1 percent.

* Real private-sector GDP has expanded at a 5.3 percent annual rate since the Bush tax cuts were passed while in the prior six quarters private-sector GDP averaged only 2.5 percent.

* Foreign exports have been increasing and have actually doubled since six months ago.

* The Federal deficit is estimated to be $477 billion in 2004 but then drop to $362 billion for 2005. The current 2004 deficit is 4.2% of the GDP which makes it smaller, compared to the GDP, than what it was in the late '80s and early '90s.

* The stock markets (i.e. your pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s and college saving plans) have rebounded solidly and are approaching three-year highs.

Economically, things are looking good and getting better.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darn, we were having such a nice discussion too.

quote:

Steve Schacher:

Anyway, back to the question, I believe that it is bias in reporting that is making
5.6% seem high when it has been historically low,

Errrm then why isn't anyone explaining this to anyone?

It seems to me that if these numbers were somehow artificially valid (ooohhh there is a term for greenspan) then the Bush guys would be saying "Yeah Clinton had super low unemployment but that was due to the dot com era." Or some such thing.

As far as housing goes lots of people think it is the new bublle and will come crashing down sooner or later. I don't think I beleive that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Oh puhlease, Clinton didn't do jack,

Actually he did manage to get practically every

investigator and every cartoonist in the country employed, so he did do something!


LMAO!!! True, very true..... I guess he did do something after all....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The Federal deficit is estimated to be $477 billion in 2004 but then drop to $362 billion for 2005. The current 2004 deficit is 4.2% of the GDP which makes it smaller, compared to the GDP, than what it was in the late '80s and early '90s.

This is something that a lot of people just simply don't comprehend. They think OMG a $400B deficit, we're in such trouble, when in fact they don't realize we have a GDP of 11.3 Trillion dollars. To put it in terms that people can understand, it's like a family that earns 40K a year (fairly average) and has $1720.00 in credit card debt. Is that family in trouble? Maybe if they only earned 20K a year, and their debt was over 8% of their income, but at 40K a year, it's fairly normal and no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fox__Trot

I feel the need to make a comment now:

I do not care either way who gets in office...

I hate kerry I hope he catches a bullet (somewhere non-letahal and non life threating but somewhere will it'll hurt for a good month or so *maybe in the toe*)

I hate bush I think we've had more freedoms taken away then can justify a terroist crackdown and as such I hope he retires to some texas ranch where he lives out the rest of his days. (I really think living the life of a rich texas rancher is proably overrated)

See? I'm fair and balanced!

but serriously I wouldn't of minded Joe' as a president because it'd be funny think about it..

It'd be a zionist (spelling?) plot to get back at all muslims ... Joe's a jew and since the US has always been a supporter of Jeuris- then yeah real powder keg I <3 politcal screwups

-Fox-

I really dont care I really dont

Today I watched the news they spent the whole damn day reporting the same damn thing about some damn london journal reporting that some 2nd rate dumbass was killed and the US Intelligence is saying "We're doing no" damn "Thing" ... anyways who cares anymore and why should I?

I dont like what the US is becoming/become and I dont like where the world is heading because I know my history and I recognise a world war when I see it

-Fox-

We're all gonna die!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

As far as housing goes lots of people think it is the new bublle and will come crashing down sooner or later. I don't think I beleive that.

Well considering the fact that in the 80's the average family spent almost 30% of their income on a Mortgage, the 90's went to 20% and now it's down to 16%, I seriously doubt that the trend will be for lower prices when people can afford so much more than ever.

As an expample, even with our new home, we will be spending less than 10% of our incomes on the Mortgage and less than 14% when the taxes, insurance and HOA fees are included. And we make less money than most of our friends and family!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Clinton did his darndest to screw the economy up, raise taxes, add Beauracracy, add BS restrictions on business. Sell secrets to the chinese, disgrace the oval office..... etc, etc ad nauseum.


Yup flash in the pan economics. Or is the better phrase Voodoo economics? townhall.com

".........Reagan, alas, was wrong. Instead, Reaganomics got redefined. In the early '80s, it may have been synonymous with economic failure. Later, in the face of a roaring economy in the mid and late '80s, Reaganomics came to mean greed, materialism and indifference to the poor and downtrodden. The press became fixated on income inequality, "junk bonds" and the "go-go" culture of Wall Street.

Fast-forward to the 1990s. According to almost every measure, the Clinton economy was "worse" than the Reagan economy, if you go by these standards. Income inequality increased. More junk bonds were sold in 1993 alone than from 1982 to 1986 (when Mike Milken was the "Junk Bond King"). And don't even get me started about the go-go Wall Street culture created on Clinton's watch - a culture that brought us all of the accounting scandals, Enron, day-trading, etc., which have been unfairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration.

And yet, we're told Bill Clinton's economic success was the greatest accomplishment of the Democratic Party since FDR. As my friend and colleague Rich Lowry notes in his outstanding new book, "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years," this is all nonsense on stilts.".......

"Presidents like to claim they "create jobs." Well they do - a few thousand of them, mostly around Washington, D.C. But they don't create millions of jobs in the private sector, at least not with any precision or in a way that can be replicated by flipping some job-creation switch. Even the New Deal was largely ineffective until the onset of WWII. What creates economic growth are billions of decisions all over the world, made according to a timeline that only vaguely coincides with the political calendar.

It now looks like the economy's about to take off again. President Bush will surely claim more credit than he deserves. President Bush's tax cuts were in, my book, a good idea. But they surely didn't restructure the U.S. economy.

All of this is the real "voodoo" economics. And by all of this, I mean the nonsense spewed by Democrats and Republicans alike about the economy. Not only does this voodoo economics ascribe powers to presidents they don't have, but it allows the personality of the president to color the morality of material progress. When President Reagan was in office, wealth creation was evil. When Clinton was in office, it was good."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Errrm then why isn't anyone explaining this to anyone?

It seems to me that if these numbers were somehow artificially valid (ooohhh there is a term for greenspan) then the Bush guys would be saying "Yeah Clinton had super low unemployment but that was due to the dot com era." Or some such thing.

A couple of reasons:

1. Most reporters don't understand economics, let alone the people. The reporters only care about the horse race, who's up and who's down this week.

2. Neither party wishes to run on the Clinton coattails. They want to establish their leaders as their own people. They will avoid bringing up Clinton because the knee-jerk reaction is to say "There you go again." Clinton is not running, Bush and Kerry are, and so the policies of those two will be the focus.

3. The campaign is still very young. Give it time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

My god I am watching 60 Minutes tonight and I am in shock. Any indictment I make against G.W. is mild in comparison to this INSIDER'S take. "I think he has done a terrible job in regard to terrorism"... priceless.

The truth is starting to come out about Richard Clarke.

First, he has a book coming out, which is why he's making these charges.

Two, he's a disgruntled Clinton holdover who was demoted from a cabinet position when Bush took over.

Three, his 60-minutes appearance to promote his book was corporate nepotism as the parent company of 60-minutes owns the book.

I heard a clip of a TV appearance on Good Morning America this morning where he was asked if he thought the world was safer without Saddam Hussein. His answer was, Ask the 3,000 wounded soldiers if they feel safer, ask the soldiers in Iraq who are targets if they feel safer. So, according to him, the purpose of the military is to be kept safe? He sidestepped the question by questioning the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few things from the Right Wing Attack MachineÔäó

From Nealz Nuze:

quote:

ABOUT THIS RICHARD CLARKE GUY ON 60 MINUTES.....

Well, the media is serving up more fuel for the "Bush lied" crowd. Today's installment comes courtesy of disgruntled former White House employee Richard Clarke who is (surprise!) hawking a book. Clarke was an anti-terrorism advisor for Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. When the current President Bush took office, Clarke was stripped of his cabinet-level rank. I am sure that has nothing to do with any of this. Sure.

Clarke claims he was all but told by the President to manufacture a link between between 9/11 and Iraq. The White House claims they have no evidence the conversation ever took place. Here's a newsflash: people lie ... and people lie to sell books. Clarke also claims to have been repeatedly ignored while trying to warn about Al-Qaeda, and says the administration wasn't doing enough on terrorism. Riiight.

All it takes is a little digging to realize this is nothing more than a partisan attack from a bitter Democrat. It turns out Clarke is close to Rand Beers, who is advising the Kerry campaign. Of course, you'll never hear the mainstream media report that. And if Mr. Clarke was so concerned about national security, terrorism, and the administration's handling of it, then why did he wait until now to tell everybody about it?

Because his book is coming out. Case closed.


Rush interview with Dick Cheney

quote:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: We are always happy to be able to talk to Vice President Dick Cheney who joins us now on the phone. Vice President Cheney, thank you for making time. It's great to have you with us once again.

VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY: Well, thanks, Rush, it's good to talk to you.

RUSH: All right, let's get straight to what the news is all about now before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?

CHENEY: Well, I wasn't directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things. That is, he was given the new assignment at some point there. I don't recall the exact time frame.

RUSH: Cybersecurity? Meaning Internet security?

CHENEY: Yeah, worried about attacks on computer systems and sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try use.

RUSH: Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there.

CHENEY: Well, he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff, and I saw part of his interview last night.

RUSH: He was demoted.

CHENEY: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after we got here, there was communication, for example, with the president of Pakistan laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda and the importance of going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the Al-Qaeda. This was, I'd say, within three weeks of our arrival here. So the only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in '98 when the embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000 when the USS Cole was hit, and the question that out to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?

RUSH: Well, you know, the media finally has what it wants, I'm talking the partisan media has what it wants, it's got an independent contractor, man who's worked for both administrations now launching full barrels at the president, and one of the claims that Clark is making is, and you just countered it, he said the president didn't treat Al-Qaeda as a serious threat before September 11th. He keeps harping on the fact that even before your administration assumed office you guys wanted to go in and level Iraq.

CHENEY: Yeah, that's just not the case. The fact is what the president did not want to do is to have an ineffective response with respect to Al-Qaeda and we felt up till that point much of what had been done vis-à-vis Al-Qaeda had been totally ineffective, some cruise missiles fired at some training camps in Afghanistan, basically didn't hit anything, and it made the U.S. look weak and ineffective and he wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with that, and that process was in motion throughout the spring.

RUSH: Why do you think -- and he's not the first, Clarke is not the first -- why do you think so many opponents of the president, what do they hope to achieve by continually attacking Condoleezza Rice?

CHENEY: Well, I think it's shortsighted. Condie is well able to defend herself, she's done a superb job for us and extremely knowledgeable --

RUSH: Well I guess --

CHENEY: -- supervisor. I've worked with a lot of them over the years. I suppose he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position than she was prepared to give him.

RUSH: I guess what I'm getting at is whenever it comes to the counterterrorism efforts, foreign policy in general, it seems that elements of the Democratic Party today and their allies attack Condoleezza Rice, which is a matter of real curiosity to me, and of course she can defend herself, as she did today in the Washington Post, but it's just part of what appears to me an obvious attack machine at full throttle. You have this book coming out while John Kerry is on vacation, so he doesn't have to say this stuff.

The author of this book is associated with Kerry's foreign policy advisor up at the Kennedy school. You've got a Bob Woodward book that's coming in a few weeks from the same publisher. Despite all of these attacks, and by the way, I actually think Mr. Vice President if you'll permit me an editorial comment here, you have the Clinton administration, if they defended the country as eagerly and with as much fervor as they are attempting to defend themselves in all this, we might have -- I don't expect you to comment -- we might have escaped some of the attacks that we've had. But with this frontal assault, the president's poll numbers remain up, the administration remains focused, they haven't taken you off your game. What effect, both in a governing sense and in a political sense, is this full frontal assault having on all of you in the White House?

CHENEY: Well, we've got to get on with our business. There's plenty work to be done. The terrorist threat is very real. It continues out there every day. The president and I and Condie Rice, Andy Card, begin our day six days a week meeting with the director of the CIA and the director of the FBI and reviewing intelligence and working these problems, and you've got to be able to continue to do that even if there is a campaign underway out there.

And I think we've done that fairly well. We can't let our guard down, we've got to remain vigilant, we've still got major issues, obviously, in the sense that terrorists have launched many attacks around the world since 9/11 in places like Madrid most recently, but Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, Jakarta, Mombassa, it's a worldwide global problem and it's got to be dealt with I think very aggressive just the way the president's dealt with it.

RUSH: Do you believe that this policy of dealing with them aggressively has led to more terrorism?

CHENEY: I don't. The fact of the matter is I think we're operating obviously with a very different policy, tending to treat these matters primarily as law enforcement problems prior to 9/11, that in no way slowed down the terrorists. They still launched against us on 9/11 and killed some 3,000 of our people that morning.

This has less to do with what we do than it does with what we stand for. I think the extremists out there in al-Qaeda are bound and determined to do everything they can to try to change U.S. policy and to kill Americans including innocent civilians, men, women, and children, and the only way to deal with the threat, because you can't negotiate with them, there's no treaty at the end of the day here, you can't deter them, there's nothing they want to defend, the only way to deal with it is to destroy the terrorists before they can launch further attacks against it United States, and that's what we're about.

RUSH: Mr. Clarke, to get back to him for a moment, is saying actually if we would just take some more time and talk to these people, understand why they hate us, we might be able to forge some kind of peace with them.

CHENEY: I think that's totally unrealistic. You know, I fundamentally disagree with his assessment both of recent history, but also in terms of how to deal with the problem. As I say, he was head of counterterrorism for several years there in the nineties, and I didn't notice that they had any great success dealing with the terrorist threat. I think what we've done since going into Afghanistan, taking down the Taliban, closing the camps, killing Al-Qaeda, wrapping up a siginificant percentage of the total leadership of Al-Qaeda, that's an effective policy.

RUSH: Now, what would you say to people, though, who maybe casual or a bit more than casually interested in this, because it does appear to the average observer watching the news that terrorist attacks are up around the world, and yet the administration keeps claiming success in the fight against conveyed as evidenced by more of them dead, more of their leaders imprisoned, Al-Qaeda on the run. How are you defining this success against them?

CHENEY: Well, we've been defining it in terms of specifically Al-Qaeda, in terms of our ability to wrap up major parts of the organization to prevent further attacks against the United States obviously . I think all of that -- all of those are hallmarks of success. You've also got to measure it in terms of the fact that we're changing circumstances on the ground in key parts of the world, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was basically a failed state, then with the Taliban in charge, it provided sanctuary, a home base, if you will, for Al-Qaeda to launch attacks not only against us, but wherever they chose. Afghanistan can no longer be used for that purpose because of what our forces did there.

In Iraq, similar proposition, that we were concerned not only about the fact that Saddam had hosted terrorists in the past, he'd stimulated and encouraged them by providing financial rewards for suicide bombers who hit Israel, as well as his past involvement with weapons of mass destruction and all of that put us in a position where we think now with a process begun both in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we're standing up new governments, we've got constitutions written where we're going to have governments put in place here hopefully in the not-too-distant future, where those areas will no longer be threats to the United States or anybody else. In fact they'll be able to serve we hope as models for responsible states in that part of the world.

RUSH: Mr. Vice President, one quick one before we go to the break. The Clinton administration officials who are now on television again attempting to defend themselves in all of this hubbub are trying to create the impression that this whole Al-Qaeda and modern-era terrorist problem began on January 22nd of 2001. What exactly was it you inherited?

CHENEY: Well, I go back to the first attack on the World Trade Center in '93, when the man named Ramzi Yousef, together with others, tried to bomb the World Trade Center then. Remember, they took a truckload of explosives and set it off in the parking garage underneath the World Trade Center and didn't do what they hoped it would do, he eventually was captured, he's now doing 240 years in the federal pen. But what we now know I think looking back at that, nobody realized at the time, looking back at that was that was perhaps the first Al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. homeland. Ramzi Yousef turned out to be Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the guy who came up with the idea of using airliners to strike the World Trade Center in about 1996, we believe, when he first suggested that, and who later supervised the attacks of 9/11.

RUSH: You mean that idea didn't come in February of 2001, the terrorists had that idea in 1996?

CHENEY: No, there's some evidence that he first briefed Osama bin Laden on that in 1996.

RUSH: Richard Clarke aware of that by any chance?

CHENEY: I have no idea.

RUSH: We'll take a break and be back in just a second. Vice president Dick Cheney is with us for the remainder of the half hour. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK 1:20 PM EST)

RUSH: Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, it's the EIB Network. We continue our conversation with the Vice President, Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney, let's go to the campaign. Last week, after your appearance in Simi Valley at the Reagan Library, the New York Times and other media outlets the next day immediately posted stories decrying all of the new negativity and partisanship in the campaign. After your appearance, no mention of what the Democrats have assaulted this administration with for three years, it was your appearance and things like it. Now, I realize that this is part of the game but how does this affect you and your strategy as you go forward toward the election?

CHENEY: Well, we've got an obviously very important election, Rush, the most importantly presidential election in many years because of the issues that are going to be decided here, especially with respect to how we defend the country in this war on terror and it's very important we get our side of the story out, people talk about, you know, negative campaign starting early. The fact of the matter is we just recently got started, the Democrats have been out there since last September roughly launching attacks against the president and me and it's been a good part of what they spent the money on their side has been primary negative as opposed to what we've been trying to do.

RUSH: You ran your first series of ads were patriotically themed with the 9-11 images, which were designed to cast the election about America's future and those ads were even said to be attack ads when you criticized senator Kerry's record says said that you're attacking him and going negative in this sort of thing. I see it's not deterring you and so forth. But how do you plan a campaign against an opponent who will claim to have said or not said anything he's accused of having said or not said?

CHENEY: Well, you've got him on tape saying things like, "I actually voted before it before I voted against it," talking about the supplemental for the war in Iraq. You know, that's not anything we dreamed up, that's John Kerry himself captured on film, and so in fact basically what we've been talking about is his own record. He's got 19 years of votes in the Senate. You know, all of us will be judged by our performance in office, certainly the president will be with respect to his four years, and John Kerry should expect to be evaluated as well by the voters based on how he's performed as a senator and what that tells us about his capacity for the leadership position he aspires to.

RUSH: Does it frustrate you when you see Senators Hagel and McCain, Republicans, sort of attack the administration's attack on Kerry's voting record and defend it saying, hey, he's been here 19 years, we all are going to have a lot of votes that we couldn't explain because they're cast in a strange way, does it bother you to see what some people regard as Republican defections?

CHENEY: I guess I wouldn't go that far it terms of how you characterize it. John MCain has been a good guy to work with. These last several years I've known John since we served together in the House of Representatives. He's co-chairman of our Arizona effort. I called him a couple months ago and asked him to make a run to New Hampshire for us, which he did a very good job on. I don't have any criticism to offer at this stage, we've got personal relationships involved there as well too and I don't think we'd be critical of that.

RUSH: I understand. I understand, I just, you know, you see these things in the paper and it irritates supporters of the president who may not understand, in a time like this where the administration is involved in a struggle for the future of the country to see some Republicans not totally on board that struggle, puzzles people, they don't understand it. It just befuddles them, and they don't quite understand why people would do things that might appear on the surface to undercut the president's efforts. Such as Senator McCain toying publicly with being Senator Kerry's vice president.

CHENEY: Well, I saw that interview, and I didn't take it that way. I think John Kerry was asked if he would entertain such a notion and he said, well, he'd entertain it, but anything was likely, and he went through all the reasons why, he's made it very clear he doesn't want to be vice president and that he's not about to leave the Republican Party, so you know, it's early in the campaign and again as I say it's a big party, there's room in it for everybody, and we don't have any complaints at this stage about Senator McCain's actions. On occasion they disagree, and he expresses his disagreements.

RUSH: What about your health, sir, how are you doing?

CHENEY: Well, I'm doing well. I'm getting older year by year, I guess, but I don't have any complaints, Rush, they've been taking good care of me.

RUSH: And we have about 45 seconds. Are you planning to stay on the ticket in this election?

CHENEY: As long as the president wants me, that's where I'll be, and he's indicated he wants me to run again, so that's what I plan to do.

RUSH: All right, Mr. Vice President, I know that you're extremely busy. You've got many things going on. We always appreciate your time here. It's always an honor to speak with you. It's inspirational for a lot of people, and I always say this to you at the close of every conversation we have, just to affirm it, because I know you know it, but you really need to be reminded how much love there is and appreciation for you and the president and the whole administration for what you're trying to do against these long odds, and I speak for all these people out there, love you and appreciate it and wish you continued success.

CHENEY: Well, thank you very much, Rush. That means a lot.

RUSH: Vice President Dick Cheney, and we will be back in just a moment. Stay with us.


George Smith Column on Clarke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Well considering the fact that in the 80's the average family spent almost 30% of their income on a Mortgage, the 90's went to 20% and now it's down to 16%, I seriously doubt that the trend will be for lower prices when people can afford so much more than ever.

As an expample, even with our new home, we will be spending less than 10% of our incomes on the Mortgage and less than 14% when the taxes, insurance and HOA fees are included. And we make less money than most of our friends and family!

Dont know about some of you guys, but in the 70's I spent less than 1/4 of my income on living, as opposed to the 3/4 I spend today...Funny, but though my skills have increased throughout the years, the pay scale verses cost of living has had little increase, due to "REAGAN-OMICS".

People may be able to afford more, than in the 80's(only if they were out of work then, with the government induced recession), but the 60's to 70,s is where you should place your comparrison chart. That was the up(boom times). We have YET to fully recover from the RECESSION of the 80's

And if you take the state of affairs from 60 to 70 and do a base by base comparison, throughout the years up to present, you will see that the RECESSIVE points to lie within, and in response to the Republican agendas. Sorry, you would have to exceed several hundred thousand dollars a year, to be affected by the democratic taxations, And then your income would be such, it would be of no consequence to your livelyhood.

You see here a small example: The mortgage rates shot up from 1980-1988 to very extreme highs(more than double those of the previous 20 years);HOWEVER, in 1979, the same home you could purchase for about 5000 will cost you around 50000 today(10x). The new car, you could buy for 2 to 3000 Dollars will cost you 20-30000(10x) today. And minimum wage only increased approximately 100%(2x) since those time periods. Minimum wage is the guage by which all income increase is guaged.

By the way, High Prime interest rates are not necessarily a BAD thing. One can MAKE money with those rates(cd,MMC,Savings etc.). Only those who spend money, which they do not have, get hurt by those high rates(Loans). Spending money which you HAVE, is the only way to make legitimate progress in financial stability within the economy.

And this is NOT done by creating thousands of minimum wage jobs, but Jobs which pay comparable to the cost of living.Creation of those REAL jobs

is Defeated through open boarders to Illegal immigrants, and Trade agreements which move our business over seas, for lower wage benefits to large coorporate entities.

oh well, guess I'm in the wrong field of employment. Too late to change my long term goals. AGAIN it will be to late, for me to start a new strategy for my later years(when the present administration takes all my social security away) I might just have to blame myself for my dilimma. I should have known 35 years ago, they were lying to me about my future.(sarcasim at its best)but of course, I was just a young kid, who believed what they taught in STATE controlled schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another point, I would like to throw in here concerning Unemployment Rates, and Inflation.

You can NOT do an accurate comparison,using a percentage, against the unemployment rates between these last few years and 20 years ago.

You loose X amount of jobs this year is of no use when the RE-employment of those who lost their jobs is at a REDUCED overall average. It screws up the accuracy.

So, when you say there was an X% amount of unemployment(lets say mid 80s) and compare it to X% amount of unemployment for 2000+. And Y% amount of new jobs created in a specific time frame compared to Y% amount of jobs created in another time frame. the TRUE value of X and Y has changed.(based on PAY to COST of living) Though the percentage numbers appear similar, their overall VALUE is NOT;therefore,It is an ILLUSION of an accurate comparison.

The Bridge between the Rich and the poor, and the disappearance of the middle class, are both; DUE to the General Public buying this Illusion of Accuracy.

The Secret, is to assess the WHOLE of any issue, opposed to buying the pieces of information argued to support either side of the issue:REGARDLESS HOW LOGICAL IT MAY SOUND AT THE TIME.

RUSH, (and the like), are masters at this type of argument.(Twisting the Perception of REALITY).

This is precisely WHY they are financially supported by the Party, and NOT a Individual or non-party aligned CITIZENS group.

[ 03-22-2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Dont know about some of you guys, but in the 70's I spent less than 1/4 of my income on living, as opposed to the 3/4 I spend today...Funny, but though my skills have increased throughout the years, the pay scale verses cost of living has had little increase, due to "REAGAN-OMICS".

I don't see how that is possible.

quote:

Originally posted by street:

People may be able to afford more, than in the 80's(only if they were out of work then, with the government induced recession), but the 60's to 70,s is where you should place your comparrison chart. That was the up(boom times). We have YET to fully recover from the RECESSION of the 80's

You've got to be kidding me, back in the 60's the average family lived in a 1100 sq. ft. home, vs today's 1800 Sq. Ft. average, average family back then had 1 car vs. today 2,.. these days we have cell phones, cable, all sorts of safety features just tons of things that we didn't have back then. We may be paying more for what we have, but it's because we have more than ever.

quote:

Originally posted by street:

And if you take the state of affairs from 60 to 70 and do a base by base comparison, throughout the years up to present, you will see that the RECESSIVE points to lie within, and in response to the Republican agendas. Sorry, you would have to exceed several hundred thousand dollars a year, to be affected by the democratic taxations, And then your income would be such, it would be of no consequence to your livelyhood.


You mean how today we have more disposable income than EVER before?

quote:

Originally posted by street:

You see here a small example: The mortgage rates shot up from 1980-1988 to very extreme highs(more than double those of the previous 20 years);HOWEVER, in 1979, the same home you could purchase for about 5000 will cost you around 50000 today(10x). The new car, you could buy for 2 to 3000 Dollars will cost you 20-30000(10x) today.

Let's say that the prices would have gone up half as much to only 25K, but the Interest rates had stayed the same as back then, your payment at 18% would be at $376 mo.

But at 50k at todays interst rates of 6% your payments are only $299 Mo. So even though the prices have gone up, the lower interst rates have MORE than made up for the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by street:

And minimum wage only increased approximately 100%(2x) since those time periods. Minimum wage is the guage by which all income increase is guaged.

What are you a teenager, I haven't earned minimum wage since I was 15, over 20 Yrs ago. Average income is the guage by which all income increases are gauged, most people today that earn minimum wage are not heads of household and the VAST majority of them are teenagers earning extra money for the movies.

quote:

Originally posted by street:

By the way, High Prime interest rates are not necessarily a BAD thing. One can MAKE money with those rates(cd,MMC,Savings etc.). Only those who spend money, which they do not have, get hurt by those high rates(Loans). Spending money which you HAVE, is the only way to make legitimate progress in financial stability within the economy.

You MUST be joking, high prime rates kills off investment into capitol outlays which is responsible for nearly all new jobs that are created. Low cost of capitol=jobs creation, high costs=jobs destruction. You've obviously never taken an economics course.

quote:

Originally posted by street:

And this is NOT done by creating thousands of minimum wage jobs, but Jobs which pay comparable to the cost of living.

And who would create these jobs with your high cost of capitol? If you can get a great rate of return at the bank, what's your incentive for investing a risky stock that will open more factory doors?

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Creation of those REAL jobs is Defeated through open boarders to Illegal immigrants, and Trade agreements which move our business over seas, for lower wage benefits to large coorporate entities.

First of all, we are at practially full employment, so there are many jobs, such as dishwashers, garbage collection, bus boys and many other jobs that would go completely unfilled. I know that you think it would be a good thing for these people to simply pay much more to fill the positions, but the only thing that would happen is that prices would end up going way up and inflation will again be destroying wealth ala Carter years.

quote:

Originally posted by street:

oh well, guess I'm in the wrong field of employment. Too late to change my long term goals. AGAIN it will be to late, for me to start a new strategy for my later years(when the present administration takes all my social security away) I might just have to blame myself for my dilimma. I should have known 35 years ago, they were lying to me about my future.(sarcasim at its best)but of course, I was just a young kid, who believed what they taught in STATE controlled schools.

Do what you love and I'm sure you could find a way to make it profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone still clinging to 'whistleblower' Clarke? You know the guy who's interview on 60 minutes is becoming even funnier considering that the company that published his book owns 60 minutes?

And from El Rushbo - 10 questions for this guy:

Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exactly advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?

Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?

Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can tell the Bushies are a bit frightened of Clarkes accusations.

As for him being a Clinton holdover, he served for Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and now Jr. His Washington career has lasted for thirty years under both parties. He's not a hack. He's pissed off.

Even if he is doing it for partisan reasons (thus far I haven't seen his affiliation mentioned anywhere), if the accusations are true, Bush Inc has lots of explaining to do. At least we can count on the Reps to cloud the issue with lots of Clinton questions. It's the easiest way to shut down republican minds and avoid the real issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

You can tell the Bushies are a bit frightened of Clarkes accusations.

Not really. It is an election year. It would have been stupid and foolhardy not to respond to this.

quote:

He's pissed off.

Naturally since he caught a big demotion. As Cheney said: Clarke wasn't even in-the-loop considering he was responsible for electronic terror countermeasures or something. 9/11 is a big thing, and in an election year, this was his perfect chance for some revenge.

Viacom is the company marketing his book - and his appearance on 60 minutes (a Viacom company) was a glorified book sales pitch.

quote:

At least we can count on the Reps to cloud the issue with lots of Clinton questions.

What about the questions I listed to ask this guy? How can he blame Bush for not taking action during the first 9 months of his term, while Clinton had 8 years in which to prevent 9/11?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Naturally since he caught a big demotion. As Cheney said: Clarke wasn't even in-the-loop considering he was responsible for electronic terror countermeasures or something. 9/11 is a big thing, and in an election year, this was his perfect chance for some revenge.


I doubt the "demotion" was an issue, if it is even considered a demotion. Pay attention to who throws that word out there.

Even so, that doesn't change the fact they ignored his message. Poo on them.

quote:

Viacom is the company marketing his book - and his appearance on 60 minutes (a Viacom company) was a glorified book sales pitch..


And that negates the facts in his book how? When he begins appearing on other shows will that make his claims more credible? (Red herring.)

quote:

What about the questions I listed to ask this guy? How can he blame Bush for not taking action during the first 9 months of his term, while Clinton had 8 years in which to prevent 9/11?

Quite an exaggeration there. Clinton did take steps to fight Al Qaeda only you all were too busy trying to impeach the man to notice. Except for accusing him of trying to divert attention from the scandal when he did try to strike out.

Here's a thought, lets blame the congress, Ken Starr and anyone else that wasted 8 years of our governments time trying to impeach the President rather than let him deal with the real issues.

Yes, his attempts at bin Laden could have been handled differently, but they weren't. Poo on Clinton.

None of this changes anything regarding Bush's actions. Clinton is gone, we can blame him all we want, but we have to deal with Bush NOW since he is the one calling the shots and is the topic of the book.

Seriously, don't you think it's funny how anything negative about Clinton is immediately accepted as truth, but negative things about Bush are adamantly denied as partisan attacks.

Let me put Rush's argument in more mundane terms.

Lets say Clinton literally left a ticking time bomb in the Whitehouse when he left office. Bush and Co ignore it because it came from Clinton. The bomb goes off.

Is the more important issue that Clinton left the bomb or that Bush, knowing about it, failed to diffuse it?

Bush "Don't blame me...I didn't put it there, Clinton did."

Public "Yes, but you knew it was there and failed to address it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...