My life bill Clinton 7.33 shipped 12+ at Amazon

[Zendeath]

It has been reported that liberal democrats prefer AMD CPU's and conservative republicans prefer Intel CPU's. You all might want to take this into consideration before your next PC upgrades - PC as in Personal Computer AND Political Correctness.

 

[Kipper]

There is a forum for all you trolls, and it is called P&N. Get your butts out of ATHD.

This is JokerSmoker we're talking about, and he does not post bad deals. AT ALL.

 

[artist99]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Maybe your just naive to the fact that your not a Democrat then?

The fact is, what a "democrat" was when Kennedy was elected, and what the party stands for now are two completely different things. Kennedy was a Democrat then, but if he were to run today would probably run as a Republican.[/quote]

yeah right, that's why teddy kennedy is a republican.

when the democrats are plundering our country, they throw a few bones to the poor. when the republicans are plundering our country, they throw the poor people out in the street. until reagan came on the scene, america was the largest creditor nation in the world. when he left, america was the largest debtor nation in the world.

the huge amount of people that became homeless and lived in the streets and tents happened during the reagan years. when he was criticized about it, reagan said that they had choosen this way of life.

 

[maximo]

i guess this is a pretty nice deal if you are one of those stupid a$$es that bought the book on ebay for 400 bucks with the ex-prez's signature. haha

i guess everyone is entitled to their own point of views of our past and current president.

 

[xsquid]

Originally posted by: artist99

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Maybe your just naive to the fact that your not a Democrat then?

The fact is, what a "democrat" was when Kennedy was elected, and what the party stands for now are two completely different things. Kennedy was a Democrat then, but if he were to run today would probably run as a Republican.

yeah right, that's why teddy kennedy is a republican.

when the democrats are plundering our country, they throw a few bones to the poor. when the repulicans are plundering our country, they throw the poor people out in the street. until reagan came on the scene, america was the largest creditor nation in the world. when he left, america was the largest debtor nation in the world.

the huge amount of people that became homeless and lived in the streets and tents happened during the reagan years. when he was criticized about it, reagan said that they had choosen this way of life.


[/quote]

WTF does John Kennedy's politics have to do with Ted's? Are you claiming they are the same person.

I'm old enough that I saw John Kennedy at a small place called Big ceder, oklahoma. There is still a monument there from when he was there. The person was right that said JFK would have been a republican now, if you know who zell miller is he represents what democrats used ot be. Based on JFK cutting taxes and starting the vietnam war alone he would be a hated republican now by the left.

I voted for Jimmy carter and he turned out tho be the worst president in my lifetime. I also voted for Bill Clinton and he repayed me by putting in effect the biggest tax increase in history, passing nafta, tossing the VA scraps of what they should have had (I'm a disabled vitenam era veteran and waited at least a year and longer for apppintments when he was in) ) gutting the military and ignoring the attacks on us (like the uss cole). It bothered me that democrats blindly supported clinton when he lied under oath (I used to be a democrat). It bothered me more when the democrats backed traitor john kerry (which was spitting in the faces of veterans, especially vietnam era ones like myself). If anyone bothered to research there was a significant number of democrats, a full 1/3 in my state alone, that voted for bush. He got more than 50% of the voters support which was the first time it was done since reagan (liberals hate him, but moderates on both sides including democrat think he was great).

I no longer consider myself a democrat, nor am I a republican. I'm pro choice, pro gay rights, etc. so I'm in the middle. I'm actually closer to libertarian, but I doubt I don't know if I will ever vote democrat again since they supported Kerry and showed how little regard they have for my support.

Oh, about the homeless during reagan's years comment, that was crap. There was a big push by liberals during this time to stop homeless and they found out that most homeless people were people that didn't want help. They were drug addicts and people that did not want the jobs that were offered to them. That program went out with a whimper.

Attacking bush as in answer to criticising clinton is done by people that don't have the intellegence or even know anything about it to form a valid argument. It's done by people that have only formed an opinion based on partisan politics and no facts whatsoever. I'm not a big bush fan either, but that has nothing to do with how screwed up clinton was.

I agree that the democrats have not had a good candidate since kennedy and none of them getting elected by even 50% of the voters is proof. It also shows that the republicans have had problems getting good candidates since a candidate could get elected with something like 43% (clintons first term).

 

[artist99]

xsquid said:

I'm old enough that I saw John Kennedy at a small place called Big ceder, oklahoma. There is still a monument there from when he was there. The person was right that said JFK would have been a republican now, if you know who zell miller is he represents what democrats used ot be. Based on JFK cutting taxes and starting the vietnam war alone he would be a hated republican now by the left.

Oh, about the homeless during reagan's years comment, that was crap. There was a big push by liberals during this time to stop homeless and they found out that most homeless people were people that didn't want help. They were drug addicts and people that did not want the jobs that were offered to them. That program went out with a whimper.

Attacking bush as in answer to criticising clinton is done by people that don't have the intellegence or even know anything about it to form a valid argument. It's done by people that have only formed an opinion based on partisan politics and no facts whatsoever. I'm not a big bush fan either, but that has nothing to do with how screwed up clinton was.

****************************************************************************
where did you find out about the word "intelligence?" tv?

i have long been aginst the continued slashing of the veterans benefits. however , you must know what the teatment of our injured soldiers has been like during this war. it is criminal. as harry trueman said "the buck stops here" leaving this mess on bush's desk where it properly belongs. you see bush out wasting months of time campaigning for his social security changes, which 80% of the public are against, but he hasn't lifted a finger to help our injured and disabled verterans. he knows all to well about the suffering and mistreatment they are undergoing, everybody does. why doesn't he use his power to remedy this atrocity? he would certainly have the full support of the american people.

to claim that jfk would be a republican today isn't logical or realistic. he would still be a democrat, fighting social injustice, just as his brother is doing. he would not have started the war in iraq or given tax cuts to the rich. in case you don't know, kenndy was going to withdraw our troops from vietnam, because he realized it couldn't be won when he saw people lighting themselves on fire to protest our presence in se asia. the suicide films were broadcast on television all over the entire world. a significant reason for his assassination was that he threatened to nationalize the oil companies if they dared to raise their prices as they threatened to, which is a government takeover of that industry. the reason he went to dallas to begin with was to meet and try to make amends with the oil companies. really.

i live in seattle. i used to have a business downtown for many years. i saw first hand the enormous numbers of homeless that were a direct result of reagans policies. the drunks had always been there, but not whole families numbering in the thousands, standing in lines as far as you could see for a free bowl of soup. reagan cut out a huge number of social programs, so we had people who were insane walking the streets. he also cut the budget for the veterans administration.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: BigLar
Hmmm...I thought I was in Hot Deals, but what the hell...

With all the concern over Mr. Clinton's sexual indiscretions, we might ask these questions (comparing President Clinton to President Bush):

1. Who comes closer to filling the mandate, "When I was hungry, you gave me food. When I was naked, you clothed me. etc."

2. Thou shalt not kill. Where are the WMD?

3. I believe the Bible grants man (female and male) stewardship of the earth. Who did/has done the most to serve that challenge?

It seems to me that much of the rhetoric from Mr. Bush's conservative Christian backers doesn't pay too much attention to Christian beliefs.

By the way, please note that I have referred to Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton. Just because I disagree with them on some points doesn't make them deviants, idiots, or some other equally disrepectful noun, it just makes them wrong, IN MY OPINION.

Any other moderates out there?

Damnit, don't feed the fire.

And you should know, as well as others, that politicians in general suck.

 

[spyboy64]

The smartest presidents ever with #1 being the smartest:

1 Clinton

2) Jimmy Carter

3) Thomas Jefferson

 

[xsquid]

@atrist99

You state that Reagan cut the budget for the veterans administration and that's just plain wrong. No president has cut the VA Budget, Clinton did vastly underfund it and Bush raised the budget more in 3 years that Clinton did in 8 years. I was still in the service when Reagain was elected and he took the military off food stamps, I think our first pay increase was 15% and they where high the following years. They had to be after the carter years where everyone was starving. You will have to show me where you think reagan cut the va budget, because Ihave been going since 85 and can tell you first hand that the clinton years were by far the worst.

There's alot of speculation in your post. It's speculation that Kennedy would have pulled the troops out, nobody knows for sure and I do not accept the claim as fact. It's also speculation that he was assasinated because of anything to do with oil, I'm not buying it. I think it had more to do with the push for equal rights. I liked Kennedy a lot and think he was a great president, but there's no doubt that he's much farther to the right than the leftists that are running the democratic party now. He is more in like with moderate republicans whether you want to admit it or not.

Ted Kennedy fighting social injustice? LMFAO, where does that come in. He fights the tops on the liquor bottles and for a choice place at the buffet, but social injustice? That's just plain funny, he fights it just as much as his other reich snob buddy kerry.

I lived in Seattle for a year in 83, but that's beside the point. Just as I said there was a push to get people off the streets by the liberals to try to make reagan look bad and it failed miserably. I have lived in a number of large cities and believe me there were lots of people on the streets no matter who was president. I have news for you, a good percentage of the people on the streeds are insane or somewhat mentally impared and they were during clinton's terms also. They are no matter who is president.

I know a guy here that bought several houses where I live now during the carter years because people were losing them. Reagan inherited about 25% interest and gas prices that were, based on inflation, more than they are now from carter. I remember the odd and even gas days, mine was odd I still remember that.

Here's a factcheck link on bush's and clinton's va budgets up till 04. If you search actual figures you will find that bush's increase to now is the highest since ww2. I'm a life member of Disabled American veterans and also a member of the american legion and vfw so I wholly support them, but htey yell about the budget no matter how much it is nor who is president. So you will get it from them no matter what. Reagan and Bush both did more for veterans and the military than carter and clinton ever thought about.

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

It goes without saying that it's horrible anything soldiers are dying, but keep in mind that this is a volunteer military where they overwhelmingly support bush and the war. Our state (where I live now) had the highest amount per state in iraq and I have talked to military coming back and they overwhelmingly support what is going on. The military times and their offshoots, the army times, navy times, etc. did a poll just before the election that included troops in iraq and only 17% of the troops stationed there supported Kerry. What does that tell you? They are joining because they believe in it. I bet you didn't know that 2/3's of the people in vietnam were volunteers, that's more than during ww2. I bet that bursts a lot of bubbles on how everyone in the us was against the war.

We are really doing this in the wrong place though and I don't think we will get anywhere anyway.

 

[artist99]

Bush proposed budget for 2005 - A cut of $5.7 billion ? or 17 percent ? in veterans? health benefits.

Read fifth item - In the past decade--through the Reagan years--health care funding for veterans has fallen by the wayside in several rounds of budget cuts, which caused staffing cuts, restricted eligibility for services, and closed medical centers and hospital wards.

Bush administration slashes veteran?s benefits - "But though Republicans enjoy widespread military support, Bill Clinton was the only president of the last four to cut weapons programs instead of veteran benefits."

?Same old Republican game,? says disabled Vietnam veteran Phil Hartman. ?Raise the defense budget and make military veterans pay for the cost. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. George Bush is now doing it.?

Washington, DC ? President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget plan Monday that would boost spending on the military and homeland security but seeks spending cuts across a wide swath of other government programs. Bush's budget would reduce subsidies paid to farmers, cut health programs for poor people and veterans and trim spending on the environment and education.

The Bush Tax Increase

Republicans Hate Soldiers and Veterans

 

[xsquid]

You can post all of the spoon fed made up stuff you want, but do some research. Read some actual figures and kick the liberal pablum. You can find biased blog bs like that for both sides.


The military pay raises, both carter and clinton gave larger raises to the civillian workers than the military. Reagan gave us a much needed boost and Bush2 gave larger pay raises to the military than the civillian employees. Reagan gave 11.7 and 14.3 the first two years.

http://www.moaa.org/controller.asp?pagename=lac_paygap

Bush cutting veterans benefits is a pack of lies. NO president has cut benefits and if you would look at the actual figures I posted inestead of the left wing webstes you would see that, I REPEAT AGAIN, bush increased the va budget more in 3 years than clinton did in 8. It's fact no matter what left wing BS you wan to link to. I don't drink the pablum of either side, but I do know who has given my my pay raises and va benifits. When did you say you served and where do you go to the va?

That link to a cut in va budget is from march 04 and DID NOT HAPPEN. It's political geared lies. How about some actual figures?

Bush has NEVER, EVER cut the va budget and in fact has increased it more than clinton ever thought about. Here's the american legion. They ALWAYS ask for more than is budgeted, always, but the fact is that he INCREASES the VA budget and never has cut it. Bush is INCREASING the budget as he always has.

That's just one of the reasons The American Legion has recommended to Congress a budget of $31.5 billion dollars for fiscal year 2006 to pay for VA health care. That is 3.5 billion dollars more than the President's budget.

Yes, its true that the President is recommending an increase in the next VA budget ? but the vast majority of the money will only cover what is needed for the cost of living increase for employees.

http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_rela..._speeches&content=pr_speech_legionbday

I don't have the actual figures, but I know for a fact that he has ALWAYS increased the budget. You claim otherwise so lets see you post some real numbers and not some pablum drinkers bs from politically motivated websites. How about some official page with actual numbers of what the budget has been every year.

I swear it sure is a pain that people believe eveything they read on the internet and don't bother researching facts. I come accross people all the time that claim to know who all about the disabled veterans check and benefits I get and who supports them. Do you really think veterans would overwhelmingly support republicans if they were screwing them? Get reall. We KNOW who is paying us.

Here's an earlier statement from the va on the "false va budget cuts".

http://www.gla.med.va.gov/pages/documents/VAFunding.htm

If you do some research you will find that veterans and active people OVERWHELMINGLY support republicans. Why? Because they know the truth and havn't been brainwashed by moveon.org or the DU. If you don't believe me visit some military and veterans forums or hit the american legion, dav, or etc. These peopel are not stupid, they know who gives them their increases. Did you ever look at Kerry's record on voting for military pay freezes? Do a search and see how the democrats take care of the military.

I'm done arguing. I depend on these things to survive and I know where the money and support comes from, it's ridiculous to argue with someone that obviously does not know. I said earlier I'm not a big bush fan, but the republicans win out in this area. I have to survive first then worry about the social issues second.

 

[svidanag]

What are all the mods on vacation?

 

[forkd]

Originally posted by: artist99

Originally posted by: oslama
Clinton the greatest president ever

you must not have been around when clinton was president. i'm a democrat and i was a teenager when bobby kennedy was shot. there hasn't been a democratic candidate worth a $#%& since then. clinton isn't fit to shine kennedy's shoes. clinton is the one who started outsourcing jobs and replacing them with minimum wage jobs which he made a big deal about, making it appear as if he had done such a great deed. all he really did was seriously and permanently harm the american job market. clinton also was the one who started bringing in people from india to replace people here with high paying jobs because these aliens who would do the work for almost nothing. they even made the people who were replaced train the grunts replacing them.

clinton disgraced america. he wasn't able to get anything of significance done, especially regarding social injustice and corporate greed. the first thing he did was alienate the entire congress and senate with his crusade on allowing homosexuals into the military. he failed miserably, and made a lot of enemies in the process. if he wasn't such a half wit he would have waited and not brought such a devisive issue to the forefront until he had first established the health care initiative, which would have endeared him to everyone and then he might have had success in establishing the rights of homosexuals. instead, he failed at both. the only reason he was reelected was because the republicans had a clown for a candidate.

monica lewinsky proved how intelligent clinton is.

I wish I could call you a liar but what you say here is true. And just because the Democratic party is different from what it was intended to be doesn't make you less of a Democrat. I believe the ever forgetfull R. Reagan said it best, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me"

Oh well. These young kids have been indoctrinated by the education system without having to truly test their theories/facts so people like you and me can only hope they don't take away funding for our nursing homes when we get to that point

 

[Scrith]

Yearly US Budget Defecit or Surplus, 1961-2004

The numbers don't lie.

 

[forkd]

Originally posted by: Scrith
Yearly US Budget Defecit or Surplus, 1961-2004

The numbers don't lie.

true...but most people don't understand the time it takes for economic decisions to have measurable effects??? A lot of people think it is linear...or I should say they believe it is immediate rather than a time delay of many years.

 

[Mucker]

Originally posted by: Scrith
Yearly US Budget Defecit or Surplus, 1961-2004

The numbers don't lie.

OMG, that one graph tells the whole story, huh? Pretty naive if you believe what you see there. Typical Michael Moore style presentation and who better than Rense to get a good conspiracy started....LMFAO....

m

 

[xsquid]

That's exactly right, that graph proves nothing even though I don't think anyone was arguing that the deficit hasn't grown......and we were talking about the VA being cut anyway. That graph shows nothing ar all about the VA budget.

It's coming from a left wing site anyway:

http://www.rense.com/

A Very credible source of information, lmao.

This site is very credible, it's the VA itself. What are you going to believe, lies from politicially motivated websites or facts from the VA?

In June, Secretary Nicholson informed Congress that an unanticipated growth in the number of patients using the VA health care system, as well as an increase in the cost per patient of providing this care, had created the need for additional funds in FY 2005 and FY 2006. The Administration recently submitted a request for $975 million in additional health care funds for FY 2005 and today?s budget amendment meets the 2006 needs.

http://www1.va.gov/OPA/pressrel/PressArtInternet.cfm?id=993

Veterans Administration Gets Record Budget for 2004

Health care alone up $2.9 billion from 2003

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will receive a record budget of $64 billion for the current fiscal year, up $4.2 billion from the previous spending level.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/veterans/a/vabudget04.htm

"The budget reflects the administration's commitment to our nation's veterans," stated Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi in an April 9, 2001 VA press release. "It will allow us to preserve vital programs and services for veterans, and to begin reshaping VA for the challenges of the 21st century."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa041101a.htm

It seems like there has been a lot of lying going on about va budget cuts, imagine that.

Here are some of the results of the military times poll that involvede 31,000 actuve duty personnel sept. 2004:

If the presidential elections were held today, for whom would you vote?

Bush: AD- 72%, RN-73%
Kerry: AD- 17%, RN-18%
Nader: AD- 1%, RN-1%
Other: AD- 1%, RN-1%
Declined to answer: AD- 2%, RN-1%

Among Active Duty who were deployed 2 or more months since 9/11, the percentage for Bush goes up to 74%. Among the Reserve / National Guard deployed for 2 or more months since 9/11 (whether in a combat zone or elsewhere), Bush gets 76% of the vote.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/005663.php

I used to have the actual military times link, but i can't find it now. These figures are correct even though I know nothing of this website.

Here it is:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-2004surveygraphics.php

Here's a military times poll from the first of the year.

But the men and women in uniform are under no illusions about how long they will be fighting in Iraq; nearly half said they expect to be there more than five years.

In addition, despite the pressures of a wartime military, 87 percent said they?re satisfied with their jobs and, given the choice today, only 25 percent said they would leave the service.

The troops also are fully behind their commander in chief, giving him a 71 percent approval rating on overall handling of his job ? compared with only 48 percent among civilians, according to the Washington Post-ABC News poll.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2004_mainbar.php

 

[mb]

FYI, the book is $5.97 plus tax at Wal-Mart.

 

[forkd]

(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.

All your bunny belong to us

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Skiracer
When you're done with My life, read:

The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President by Edward Klein

Hardcover, $16.47. Also at Amazon.com.

is that seriously a real book? linky please.

 

[xsquid]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de...9398-5856665?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[ssvegeta1010]

Originally posted by: Nightfall

Originally posted by: jalaram
Take it to P&N.

I have to agree.

Take this discussion to P&N. It is a great deal on a good book. Just leave it at that. If you don't want to read it, then move on. Jeez.

 

[forkd]

It sure is funny to read all these silly opinions everyone seems to hold so dear and feel so adamant about. You can almost tell which information venue each person has been indoctrinated by in just a few lines.

Aren't humans interesting?

This is what it sounds like to me. We can be a great country unless the (insert political/social issue here) isn't taken care of soon. Those damn (insert association here) are trying to ruin it and kill us all. The end of the world is surely approaching.

All in fun of course

 

[artist99]

Originally posted by: xsquid
I'm done arguing. I depend on these things to survive and I know where the money and support comes from, it's ridiculous to argue with someone that obviously does not know. I said earlier I'm not a big bush fan, but the republicans win out in this area. I have to survive first then worry about the social issues second.

you said you were finally going to shut up. why don't you? it appears that the disability you have is mental.

 

[DAC21]

Originally posted by: Scrith
Yearly US Budget Defecit or Surplus, 1961-2004

The numbers don't lie.

Numbers do lie, when you don't show all of the numbers. First you?re using a two year old graph. The actual deficit for 2004 was 412 Billion, sure still a lot of money on the surface.

Bush's first budget of his own was 2002, Bush inherited a death spiral from Clinton, check your own graph. Bush also inherited a recession, a statistical fact.

Now where the simpletons / partisan hacks go wrong when pointing fingers at the deficit is they just use a raw number, just like you did. Legitimate Economists care about the deficit as a percentage of GDP (look it up if you don't know what GDP is). In 2004 this percentage was 3.6%. Guess what the deficit vs GDP was during the WWII years?, how about around 30%. Or when RR built up the Military to bankrupt the Soviet Union we had a year at 6%. As a matter of fact the deficit as a percentage has been higher than 3.6% ten different years since 1962. (The USA has ran a deficit 37 of the last 42 years, is the sky falling?)

Jimmy Carter never had a deficit over 2.7%, yet the Carter years were undeniably some of the worst economic years since the great depression. So just how significant is the deficit number? Unlike many of you, I was around when Jimah was running this country into the ground. GWB is no Jimah Carter. (17% Mortgage rates, odd / even gas days, Iran spitting in our face?..?)

Of course I could go on and on about why we had surpluses under Klinton, but you don't want to hear the truth.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0