Bush vs. Clinton

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Bush vs. Clinton

Postby TerraFrost » Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:43 am

Confused?
I'm confused

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

source

i'm collecting my thoughts, right now. i just thought i'd go ahead and make this its own post, for now.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby TerraFrost » Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:48 am

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton didn't have the former CEO of Halliburton as his vice president, either.

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

wow. Clinton really spent $77 billion in the war in Serbia (aka the Kosovo War)? not according to this site, which suggests that the actual cost, that the US bore, was $13 billion. also, Bush has spent just a tad more than $87 billion. in fact, the current cost of the war is around $137 billion according to this site.

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq

Clinton was authorized by NATO (ref). also, looking at the number of troops ea. supporting country sent in, the US only provided 14% (ref).

in contrast, Bush was acting without authorization from NATO or from the UN, and as *the* dominant military force, providing over 84% of the troops (ref)

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

the only felony Clinton committed was the same felony Martha Stewart committed - that felony being purgery. of course, i suppose purgery is the worst crime of the land, and martha stewart should be counting her blessings since she wasn't put on death row, eh? and besides, that's why ken lay of enron's been persecuted as harshly as he has, right?

anyway, some of Bushes detractors (like Michael Moore, probably) think that Bush committed a crime so hiddious that no court of man can ever hope to pass any sort of meaningful judgement.

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

yes, NATO intervention may not have been necessary in the Kosovo War (as evidenced by criticism), but due to the fact that the US not only contributed less troops, percentage wise, and that much less troops were committed, overall, i think Clinton kinda comes out on top of Bush, in this regard.

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

it's easy for Bush to be on an upswing when he's hit such increadable lows. likewise, it's easy for the economy to be temprarily depressed when it's hit such heights, as it did under Clinton. this website has some nice graphics. Geoge Bush, at the time that site was made, had lost around 1.5 million jobs. Bill Clinton, in contrast, had gained around 2 million at the end of his presidency. so who cares if there was one aberation, under Clinton? likewise, i hope people don't think the one aberation that took place under George Bushes presidency (if one even took place, at all) don't think that's representative of his whole presidency.

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Bush Sr. refused to get rid of Saddam for good - good...
Bush Jr. gets rid of Saddam for good - bad...
I'm confussed. heh.
and besides, what makes them think that Clinton would have had any success, anyway? i mean, it's not as if Bush Jr. has had any success, himself.
and as for the WTC's falling under Bush... it's not so much that that's cricitized so much as the intellegence failure that enabled them to fall, in the first place. the Clinton admin, in contrast, never had such a hiddeious intellegence failure.

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

funny - i don't recall Clinton spending a hundred billion dollars on his claims.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Calling for regime change is something that can be done in a few seconds. Imposing regime change is something that may require decades. Take your pick as to which one is better.

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Clinton did, if anyone recalls, try to stop terrorist training. he bombed a few supposed terrorist hideouts. granted, he made some screw ups (as enumerated upon in Bowling for Columbine), but I suppose that doesn't count.
and second, who the hell ever said that Bush destroying terrorist training camps was a bad thing? perhapes the same people that said bin Ladin should walk free? oh wait - no one said that.

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

and despite that, Serbia (the country Milosevic led) is still probably a safer country to live in than Iraq.

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

no explanation provided? being a little hypocritical, aren't we? i mean, there was no justification presented for half of the stuff i debunked. indeed, a good majority of it was just plain wrong, or misrepresented the facts being recognized.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

yeah... that fact doesn't exactly make me uber gunhoe, but then again, atleast Kerry's supporters aren't having to resort to lies to get their candidate elected.

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

i think i'll look this up, later. although considering the consistency with which the information has been incorrect, thus far, i think we know what we can expect.
Last edited by TerraFrost on Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Neerowolf » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:26 pm

ALL POLITICIANS LIE.

Enough said. Almost everybody on the earth has lied during a political discussion because they're so focused on making you think they are right to actually tell the truth.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby shahmask » Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:05 am

wow terra! you've done an amazing job. and a lot of your answers that i would have answered off the top of my head are consistant with what mine would have been.

im impressed.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby TerraFrost » Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:24 am

thx :)

although that said, i am somewhat disappointed with my response to the economy one (the one where they say bush gained jobs, and that there was a recession under clinton).

a really good rebuttle would have been to provide a website that provided a month by month chart of unemployment levels / gdp, throughought clintons and bushes terms. that way, it really could have demonstrated something as an aberation.

also, on the daily show, a bush supporter (i think the person in charge of the bush campaign for the south east US) said that bush suffered a hit because of 9/11. that may be true, but i can't help think that any current boost in the economy (if there is one) is more due to people getting over 9/11 and not bush, at all.

of course, if that's the case, then one has to wonder if clinton really ought to be credited with the economic boon during his tenure as president, or if he just coincidently was president at the same time.

giga also made a good point - that if a recession occured in 2000, that bush would have had to deal with his ramifications more than bush.

anyway, like i said - a better link would be nice, for that one, heh :)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby shahmask » Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:40 am

the economy really started to plateu instead of continuing to grow at the end of 2000. it started to dip during bush and then 911 occured. but bush has had 3 years to try to get more jobs back. in actuality, what needed to be donw was bush somehow keeping the large amounts of tech jobs being taken oversees. that's why the jobs bush 'has made' aren't as high paying as they were at the begining of the presidency. it's true 911 did play a part, but bush has done nothing but give the average family back 500 dollars at the expense of the federal budget and put a lot more money into the pockets of the richest people in the united states(and the world). he's allowed those jobs to go overseas so that the richest ppl have a larger profit margin. bush doesn't care about the average american.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Neerowolf » Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:24 pm

Terra, the economy was doing very well, then Bush cam into office. He began to screw up the economy WELL before september 11. He's basically lying out his ass.

Clinton was a great president. How can anyone BEGIN to say he's not? Clinton gave us a rich economy, whereas both pappy and little bush had really screwed up. Clinton should be kept out of this. He was a really good president. If only he hadn't touched monica lewinsky, he might have been here today.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby ChatOmbre » Sun Oct 03, 2004 4:50 pm

wow! I'm quite impressed, Terra. :D *claps*
Queen of the PointyShiney

"Too much ink is drawn to describe and define love. Why describe it and define it? Take my hand and let's just take a ride through it. Love is... Love is... Let's just go for awhile, leaving ourselves for each other." --Mike Smith
User avatar
ChatOmbre
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Postby shahmask » Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:12 pm

neero, i fail to se what u mean by " he might have been here today".
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby tsian » Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:20 pm

How could we call Clinton bad? Well, gutting of welfare... there were a few bombing runs... there were other things, but, you know, it isn't as if Clinton was perfect!
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby TerraFrost » Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:44 pm

wow! I'm quite impressed, Terra. :D *claps*

thx! :)

quite true, tsian. saying that Bush is worse than Clinton doesn't mean that Clinton is perfect. if it did, then Saddam would be a modern day saint, simply because Adolph Hitler was worse, heh.

also, this article presents some nice criticisms of Clinton's use of the military:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy ... g_campaign
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby chaco taco91 » Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:10 pm

comon people, Clinton wasn't a bad president, but he wasn't a good president either, he kinda didn't do anything.
Bush is an ok president, i just think hes the president we need right now. Because bush had to deal with 9/11 and clinton had to deal with um..........sexual problems.

And the economy barely ever is changed by the president, sure the president can save u or lose u a few bucks by changing taxes and stop doing less goverment spending. The economy and job growth is changed by constant use of machines instead of humans and things like losing industry to other countries and globalization and all that crap, president does very little.
chaco taco91
Traveler
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:45 pm

Postby shahmask » Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:19 am

i don't understand why ppl say a trigger happy idiot is the right person to deal with 911. i think if 911 had happened on clinton's watch, his approval ratings would have been much better than bush's. the only reason bush's approval ratings even approached clinton's was 911. had that not happened, his ratings probably would be way less. even clinton's ratings during the sex scandal were higher than bush's have been for the past year or so. plus, clinton never had the majority of the civilized world hating us. as kerry says, you can't fight the fight on terrorism without having ally's helping u and u helping allies. the war on terrorism would probably be going much better (not to mention a war with iraq had that happened (though i highly believe there wouldn't have been one) if clinton were in power. probably the same would be true under gore and kerry.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby TerraFrost » Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:28 am

as an update, i apparently read the article wrong which said how many troops ea. country contributed. the US only contributed 14% of the 50,000 troops involved in K-FOR. the UK contributed the 38%.

the post has been updated.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:34 am

thinking about it, i think it'd be surprising if the economy wasn't doing good under Bush. i mean, the US declaration of war put enough money into the economy to get the US out of the great depression. doesn't it then stand to reason that the US's current involvement in Iraq improves our economy, as well?

now, i suppose there are other mitigating factors, such as the fact that this war, unlike WW2, is highly unpopular, and has been credited with the falling value of the US dollar, overseas, the fact that bush has turned the largest surpluss into the largest deficit, etc.

so although i really don't know how the economy is doing, right now (i'm not very keen on believing either candidate), if it's doing bad, it's doing bad despite something that should be helping it. if it's doing good, then i suppose one could then wonder if it's doing as good as it should be doing with a war, and... one has to wonder if bush should even recieve the credit at all? i mean, when someone wins the lottary, they're not credited with making themselves rich - the state is. likewise, should bush be credited with economic improvements (if there are any) or should the war recieve the credit?

alternatively, i suppose one could chose to credit those who have died in the war, but... i think that's kinda dodging the question, heh.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron