The Clinton Years VS The Bush Years [Archive] - The Diamond David Lee Roth Army

DEMON CUNT

07-11-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Warham
Don't forget to post pictures of the 1993 WTC bombing, DEMON.

Also, don't forget to post 1995 pictures of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Oh yeah, I forgot the Branch Davidian Waco, Texas massacre as well.

Keep the pictures coming!

Those were all President Bush the first's fault.

Minor events in comparison really. "Justice" has essentially been carried out in each case. No?

Warham

07-11-2006, 06:04 PM

ha ha!

I'm glad to see you have a sense of humor. :D

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-11-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
William Jefferson Clinton VS. George Walker Bush

ECONOMY

FOREIGN POLICY

SECURITY

HEALTHCARE

EDUCATION

STATE OF THE MILITARY

SOCIAL SECURITY

IMMIGRATION

SCANDAL WITHIN ADMINISTRATION

SIZE OF GOVERNMENT

False questions, one and all. Bush's approach with the economy is far different from Clinton's, but each are making their base extremely happy with their policies. Bushies DON'T believe in "balancing the budget" or the concern over future generations having to pay for this ones debts. And though that SOUNDS terrible, it's actually not. Supply-sdie economics HAVE been proven to be valid, as is evidenced by the recent surplus discovered this weekend/ Where did the surplus come from? Increased revenue from industry. How did that happen? Because people had money to spend due to Bush's tax cuts, and that made more available for the private sector to spend.

Foreign policy and security, things have changed. Dramatically. Not for the best, but that's not the kind of world we live in, or really ever have. 9/11 didn't change the world, it just made the USA finally part of its realities.

Healthcare, depends who you ask. 90% of people in the medical field will ABSOLUTELY say Bush is superior.

Immigration, I think Clinton actually looked the other way b/c it wasn't a front page issue at the time. He left it for someone else to deal with. I only really started thinking about it thanks to books like Fast Food Nation and Springsteen's album Ghost of Tom Joad. Both highly recommended.

The big difference to me is Clinton...the world liked and respected America more with him. And I was prouder to be a US citizen. The cynicism that was part of our culture from 80 - 92 eroded during his presidency, and came right back...well, even during Bush's campaign.

Phooey to it all.

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-11-2006, 06:08 PM

BTW to post pics of the WTC is disgusting and highly inappropriate. Knock it off FORD.

Warham

07-11-2006, 06:10 PM

DEMON is FORD?

Nickdfresh

07-11-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
False questions, one and all. Bush's approach with the economy is far different from Clinton's, but each are making their base extremely happy with their policies. Bushies DON'T believe in "balancing the budget" or the concern over future generations having to pay for this ones debts. And though that SOUNDS terrible, it's actually not. Supply-sdie economics HAVE been proven to be valid, as is evidenced by the recent surplus discovered this weekend/ Where did the surplus come from? Increased revenue from industry. How did that happen? Because people had money to spend due to Bush's tax cuts, and that made more available for the private sector to spend.

...

SURPLUS??!!? Dude, get off the crack pipe:

A.) There was NO surplus, the deficit was merely not quite as large as they originally projected. Woo-hoooo!! It's only the fourth largest deficit ever and not the third...

B.) There's dispute, but some say that the budget deficit projection is inflated, so they can say later, "see, it's not as big as we thought."

Warham

07-11-2006, 06:13 PM

Tax revenues are higher under Bush's presidency than Clinton's, even though Americans pay less taxes.

Amazing how that works.

DEMON CUNT

07-11-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Warham
Tax revenues are higher under Bush's presidency than Clinton's, even though Americans pay less taxes.

Amazing how that works.

Back that up, please.

LoungeMachine

07-11-2006, 08:18 PM

William Jefferson Clinton VS. George Walker Bush

ECONOMY

WJC - A
GWB - B

FOREIGN POLICY

WJC - B
GWB - D-

SECURITY

WJC - C
GWB - D-

HEALTHCARE

WJC - C
GWB - D

EDUCATION

WJC - B
GWB - C

STATE OF THE MILITARY

WJC - B
GWB - C

SOCIAL SECURITY

WJC - A
GWB - D

IMMIGRATION

WJC - D
GWB - D-

SCANDAL WITHIN ADMINISTRATION

WJC - D
GWB - D

SIZE OF GOVERNMENT

WJC - B
GWB - C

Were the questions slanted per EMA's menstrual rant? sure.

Only because I know there will be a copycat thread slanted the other way in no time.

Half of this was tongue-in-cheeck, because it is well known I HATE and DESPISE the whole "Diver Down VS WACF" threads, and "Jimmy Page or Eric Clapton" crap.

Scientific?

No.

Fun to watch?

Hell ya.

DEMON CUNT

07-11-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
BTW to post pics of the WTC is disgusting and highly inappropriate. Knock it off FORD.

Yeah, if only that Bin Laden determined to strike in US PDB (presidential daily briefing) offered some sort of clue to the Bush Administration... Then maybe we wouldn not have to look at that picture. Because they should have been able to prevent it.

Read more:

CNN: Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US MEMO (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/)

FROM THE PDB:
Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

...patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

+++++++++++

Does that picture offend you? Fuck you neocon.

LoungeMachine

07-11-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
BTW to post pics of the WTC is disgusting and highly inappropriate. Knock it off FORD.

Bullshit.

Posting pictures of events isn't disgusting. It's truth. It's history.

What's disgusting is that it was allowed to happen, and that our response was to invade, overthrow, and occupy a country which had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with those towers crumbling.

Here we go, let's blame the STORY, not the people behind the story.

Do you consider pictures of Pearl Harbor, Omaha Beach, or Saigon "disgusting"???

C'mon:rolleyes:

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-11-2006, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yeah, if only that Bin Laden determined to strike in US PDB (presidential daily briefing) offered some sort of clue to the Bush Administration... Then maybe we wouldn not have to look at that picture. Because they should have been able to prevent it.

Read more:

CNN: Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US MEMO (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/)

FROM THE PDB:
Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

...patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

+++++++++++

Does that picture offend you? Fuck you neocon.

Okay tough guy, lets talk, so Lounge can get that woody he was looking forward to by starting this thread...in response to Warham's...

Originally posted by Warham
Don't forget to post pictures of the 1993 WTC bombing, DEMON.

Also, don't forget to post 1995 pictures of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Oh yeah, I forgot the Branch Davidian Waco, Texas massacre as well.

Keep the pictures coming!

you say (with no backup whatsoever)

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Those were all President Bush the first's fault.

Minor events in comparison really. "Justice" has essentially been carried out in each case. No?

So, under this logic (being that, as far as I can tell, the seeds had been planted by the previous administration), aren't all of the hardships and difficulties of W.'s presidency caused by CLINTON'S legacy? Sure, this is an idiotic statement...just like yours above to warham was.

Neocon? Me? Bucky, you don't know jack fuckin shit. but then anyone who has had to suffer through any of your warblings (you'rte nothing more than the flip side of the same scratched up worthless coin that BBB has in his pocket) already knows that.

Seshmeister

07-11-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Warham

Oh yeah, I forgot the Branch Davidian Waco, Texas massacre as well.

Am I alone in not caring about that at all?

If a bunch of lunatics want to kill themselves why should I?

DEMON CUNT

07-11-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
So, under this logic (being that, as far as I can tell, the seeds had been planted by the previous administration), aren't all of the hardships and difficulties of W.'s presidency caused by CLINTON'S legacy? Sure, this is an idiotic statement...just like yours above to warham was.

Neocon? Me? Bucky, you don't know jack fuckin shit....[/B]

Yeah, that is an idiotic statement. That's me feeding that shit back to Warhead. Please try to pay attention.

And you Eat My Asshole? You obviously have very little offer.

Nickdfresh

07-11-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Am I alone in not caring about that at all?

If a bunch of lunatics want to kill themselves why should I?

I'm with you on that one...

A bunch of needy, sheepish morons let their children be molested by a terrorist, pedophile "Christian" cult leader. If he proclaimed to be Muslim, guess who never would have mentioned this "injustice."

I think the gene pool was improved actually...

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-12-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

And you Eat My Asshole? You obviously have very little offer.

Why? Oh, that's right...Because I don't take everything you spout off as gospel.

Go sniff yr mom's panties. Everybody else has (her cunt smells like carpet cleaner)

LoungeMachine

07-12-2006, 10:18 AM

And the level of debate rises yet again.........

LMAO

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-12-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Am I alone in not caring about that at all?

If a bunch of lunatics want to kill themselves why should I?

Why should you care? Because a number of innocents ALSO died as a result. Also, are you saying the mentally ill - people who should OBVIOUSLY, at the least, be on medication - should be left to their own devices at all times???

Reno fucked that one up. Even the NY Times fessed up to that one. So, if people want to kill themselves no one should stop them? So then, with that logic, the attacks on the WTC, the Penatgon, Bali, Madrid, India, and ANY suicide mission is A.O.K. by you???

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-12-2006, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And the level of debate rises yet again.........

LMAO

Thought you'd enjoy that one. ;)

Now by play with Johnny Depp's Barbie dolls.

Warham

07-12-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think the gene pool was improved actually...

Child rapists will always vote for the Donkey. I think the Democratic party lost quite a few voters in the Waco fiasco.

Nickdfresh

07-12-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Warham
Child rapists will always vote for the Donkey. I think the Democratic party lost quite a few voters in the Waco fiasco.

Yeah right. They were "Conservative Christians" at heart, right War? Weren't they an anti-Clinton Admin cause celeb for a while...

You're right, it the Democrats fault that a bunch of empty-physcos exposed their children to a charismatic cult leader espousing some twisted, literal biblical based dogma. And they collected illegally modified assault rifles, including a .50 cal. sniper rifle. Then they set fire to their compound in some typical "martyrdom operation" to kill themselves, but it's all Clinton's fault? Even though a lot of the Feds. on site were presumably politically conservative and probably more often than not registered Republicans?

Like that extremist polygamist off-shoot of the Mormon religion out in Arizona? Would you consider them likely voters in the Democratic base?

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-12-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Like that extremist polygamist off-shoot of the Mormon religion out in Arizona? Would you consider them likely voters in the Democratic base?

Sure, if they hope to have Social Security benefits in their old age...

Warham

07-12-2006, 04:59 PM

Why would polygamists vote Republican?

Republicans are trying to put the kibosh on gay marriage. If gay marriage is somehow legalized in all 50 states, there's nothing stopping a polygamist to say 'hey, what about me???'

The ACLU and the RNC don't mix.

bastardog

07-12-2006, 05:07 PM

Clinto had just one daugther and was ugly

Bush have two naugthy daugthers that looks good.

Thats the only comparison I can do on both camp rigth now

Nickdfresh

07-12-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Warham
Why would polygamists vote Republican?

Republicans are trying to put the kibosh on gay marriage. If gay marriage is somehow legalized in all 50 states, there's nothing stopping a polygamist to say 'hey, what about me???'

The ACLU and the RNC don't mix.

Because they're very similar in their literal belief systems with Evangelical Christians...

Do I really have to spell that out poky?

steve

07-12-2006, 05:25 PM

ECONOMY - A draw. The economy takes care of itself. However, I think the Feds have been sloppy with Home-lending and interest rates during the Bush years. We are only seeing the BEGINNING of massive amounts of forclosures due to Wild-West style lending home-speculating. For that ONLY I give an edge to Clinton.

FOREIGN POLICY - Clinton in a LANDSLIDE.

SECURITY - Clinton. He was willing to listen to foreign policy experts like Richard Clarke and their opinions on Al Queda WAY before the Bush administration was - in fact, the Bush administration NEVER DID The Bush administration is SLEEPING on the next Al Queda right now - GUARANTEED.

HEALTHCARE - Clinton. Healthcare will always be a jumble-F but at least the Clintons tried to do something constructive and didn't just give BILLIONS of dollars in grants to drug companies.

EDUCATION - Clinton - ironically because he is a pragmatist while GW is WAY too optimistic. Sure - it's a nice idea to have 5 teachers in every classroom like "No Child Left Behind" proposes, but to really fund that you would have to have taxes UP THE WAZOO, whereas GW has put all this pressue on teachers while not funding the super super optimistic programs AT ALL.

STATE OF THE MILITARY - CLINTON in a LANDSLIDE.
The force that ripped the Taliban out of Afghanistan and took over Iraq in a week was Clinton's army. It was a precise, calculated machine. 6 years later and many 4-star generals resigned/fired, thousands of dead troops on bad intel and ignorant leadership, Military moral is at an all time low.

SOCIAL SECURITY - There is nothing wrong with offering folks the CHOICE to gamble their retirement on the stock market. Hell, I do. But it should not be mandatory.

IMMIGRATION - Bush. I like his plan. But Clinton does too. Go figure.

SCANDAL WITHIN ADMINISTRATION - Bush's were FAR worse.

SIZE OF GOVERNMENT - CLITNON IN A LANDSLIDE. Bush is spending all our damn tax money. He has put this country into more debt than any other President ever. Clitnon balanced the budget for the first time since Nixon. This is a no brainer.

DEMON CUNT

07-12-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Go sniff yr mom's panties. Everybody else has (her cunt smells like carpet cleaner)

Like I said. You have very little to offer.

4moreyears

07-12-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Warham
DEMON is FORD?

No FRET5150 is...Or Vice Virsa.

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-12-2006, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Like I said. You have very little to offer.

As opposed to you and your dumb shit, half-baked conspiracy theories?

Pssst...a little secret for you...not only was it a REAL commercial airliner that crashed into the WTC, but all of that money that comes in Monopoly games? IT'S NOT REAL!!!

DEMON CUNT

07-12-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Pssst...a little secret for you...not only was it a REAL commercial airliner that crashed into the WTC, but all of that money that comes in Monopoly games? IT'S NOT REAL!!!

Goodness. Try again after all of those beers have worn off.

Seshmeister

07-14-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Why should you care? Because a number of innocents ALSO died as a result. Also, are you saying the mentally ill - people who should OBVIOUSLY, at the least, be on medication - should be left to their own devices at all times???

Reno fucked that one up. Even the NY Times fessed up to that one. So, if people want to kill themselves no one should stop them? So then, with that logic, the attacks on the WTC, the Penatgon, Bali, Madrid, India, and ANY suicide mission is A.O.K. by you???

If on 9-11 19 fuckwits decided to kill themselves in protest at the US propping up the evil regime in Saudi Arabia then that would be fine by me.

Killing other people at the same time is the problem...

EAT MY ASSHOLE

07-15-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Seshmeister
If on 9-11 19 fuckwits decided to kill themselves in protest at the US propping up the evil regime in Saudi Arabia then that would be fine by me.

Killing other people at the same time is the problem...

Ah, but didn't innocents die along with the perpetrators in Waco? The answer is yes. And you've already said you have no prolem with Koresh's actions, despite a great number of innocents suffering and dying needlessly there...

See how the world actually spins?

rucalobe

08-23-2006, 09:11 PM

ECONOMY - Clinton (No brainer)

FOREIGN POLICY - Bush (Are you for real? Travel overseas and find out. Clearly a Clinton success)

SECURITY - Bush (Really? 9/11, Katrina, NYC subway threats, WMDs, where is Osama? During Clinton the nation was safer and less paranoid)

HEALTHCARE - Draw (Agree on principle)

EDUCATION - Draw (Clinton provided the means for the Internet to take off, which enabled schools and colleges to offer distance learning classes over the web. Clinton also provided significant increases for funding graduate level education)

STATE OF THE MILITARY - Bush (Wake up! Bush hasn't even been able to provide troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with protective armor. Just ask any soldier coming from theater. Clinton provided funds for improving infrastructure at military bases and salary increases)

SOCIAL SECURITY - Draw (Clinton provided funds from the surplus to augment and preserve social security for the baby boomers. However, Bush took the money away and gave it to the richest 1% of Americans)

IMMIGRATION - Draw (Agree)

SCANDAL WITHIN ADMINISTRATION - Clinton (I'll call this one a draw. Clinton/Monica was a scandal, at least in the eyes of the conservative minority. However, Bush & Cheney's lies over WMDs are truly impeachable offenses)

SIZE OF GOVERNMENT - Draw (Bush has been the biggest spender the country has ever seen. He has king-sized the size of government and cannot say no to more bureaucracy)

CONCLUSION - The Clinton years were, without a doubt, 100% better than Dubya's or his father.

rucalobe

08-23-2006, 09:32 PM

Steve:
Very good comments on your part.
Thanks

Seshmeister

08-23-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLESo, if people want to kill themselves no one should stop them? So then, with that logic, the attacks on the WTC, the Penatgon, Bali, Madrid, India, and ANY suicide mission is A.O.K. by you??? [/B]

What in the name of cunt was that post about?

If people want to kill themselves or put themselves in a position where they will be killed then they absolutely should be allowed to.

That's freedom.

What the fuck gives you or the government the right to stop them?

All of your examples are stupid because they involve people being killed by others, without signing up to some dumb crazy belief set, an entirely different thing.

Fuck Koresh and his retarded followers. Who gives a shit? It's called natural selection and theres not enough of it these days...

Cheers!

:gulp:

ODShowtime

08-23-2006, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Warham
STATE OF THE MILITARY - Bush

I totally disagree with that one. How could the US military possibly be in better shape after fighting two wars for over 3 years?

ODShowtime

08-23-2006, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
False questions, one and all. Bush's approach with the economy is far different from Clinton's, but each are making their base extremely happy with their policies.

Just because stupid people are stupid and greedy people are greedy doesn't mean bankrupting the shit out of the country is a good idea! :rolleyes:

Phil theStalker

08-24-2006, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Warham
ECONOMY - Clinton

FOREIGN POLICY - Bush

SECURITY - Bush

HEALTHCARE - Draw

EDUCATION - Draw

STATE OF THE MILITARY - Bush

SOCIAL SECURITY - Draw

IMMIGRATION - Draw

SCANDAL WITHIN ADMINISTRATION - Clinton

SIZE OF GOVERNMENT - Draw
Warham, you still have a narrow mind, bb.

:spank:

Phil theStalker

08-24-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by rucalobe CONCLUSION - The Clinton years were, without a doubt, 100% better than Dubya's or his father. [/B]
You're RIGHT! But Clintion was the 'globalist' who signed NAFTA.

It's doesn't matter that it's really 2 Bushes to 1 Clinton (no more Clintons or Bushes---oligarchy* does not belong in America).

Yet the Democratic party couldn't beat corrupt Diebold (and Mr. Blackwater) machines in Ohio---and yet no revolution to tampering with United States Presidential elections which have led us to WWIII (Newt Gingrich-Redcoat/red-state).

Oh my goodness.

A friend told me yesterday that they never got more than 2 dozen people in their monthly union hall meetings for a large UAW complex in Cleveland of 3,600 members (that's the problem right there). This past month they had 500 in attendance.

These workers are hitting the union meetings now. When they hit the streets and the rubber bullets start firing, THAT'S when you're going to get a revolt.

Farmers and workers are not the elite, but if you told an American colonial farmer who was illiterate and signed his name with and X, that he didn't have all the rights enumerated in the newly written Constituion and Bill of Rights he would have turned and shot you dead.

And when these current politicians tell you that you don't have the rights quaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights due to globalism then you can figure out where all of this is heading to a climax in a very short time.

Stock up and learn to shoot straight like our founding fathers for these grave times ahead.

And those farmers were standing on the ridge when the elite's general signed surrender papers in that little farm house. (sic)

God Bless America. To HELL with globalism. "The WAR is on right now." (Newt, 2006).

*Oligarchy - Oligarchies are controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy.

Phil theStalker

08-24-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Ah, but didn't innocents die along with the perpetrators in Waco? The answer is yes. And you've already said you have no prolem with Koresh's actions, despite a great number of innocents suffering and dying needlessly there...

See how the world actually spins?
If these globalists in the government bring about revolt, Waco is going down in history as a grievance in that future American revolution to restore our Constition, our Bill of Rights, and our nationalism.

Good-bye globalism (and all those who work for it). (sic)

GLOBALISM IS A TYRANT BEING STUFFED DOWN OUR THROATS.

THE SOONER IT ENDS THE BETTER.

But as with ALL revoltutions I fear it will not come without a great cost of human sacrifice and bloodshed.

Godspeed America