T Nation

Vote Now!

Let’s do an informal straw poll here and now, amongst American voters:

(1) Hillary, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi

(2) Bush, Cheney, Rice

Who should be in charge?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Let’s do an informal straw poll here and now, amongst American voters:

(1) Hillary, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi

(2) Bush, Cheney, Rice

Who should be in charge?[/quote]

None of the above.

I vote for the only rational choice, hillary clinton.

She’s experienced. She has a strong moral compass. She’s been a dominant legislator. She has been learning from one of the finest politicians ever, chuck schumer. She has a chance to win every single Southern state. They’ll all vote for her.

Finally, she has the chance to have the First Man be bill clinton. Imagine bill having no responsibilities in the White House. I’d be proud to pay my tax dollars for him to have free reign in the White House.

What’s not to like?

JeffR

I think Marmadogg is probably right, I can’t find a lot to like in either group. If it came down to choosing the lesser of two evils (and doesn’t it always?) I’d have to go with Bush. But he won’t be around much longer, so maybe the GOP will put up someone more competent in '08.

Let me see. I can choose lower taxes and a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. OR! I can choose higher taxes and the policies of appeasement that do not work, have never worked, and will leave us more vulerable and open to attack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. THAT’S a tough one.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me see. I can choose lower taxes and a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. OR! I can choose higher taxes and the policies of appeasement that do not work, have never worked, and will leave us more vulerable and open to attack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. THAT’S a tough one.[/quote]

If your taxes are lower now they they were in 2002 then you don’t make as much personal income as you claim.

You are a real doofus (which many have established already) if you believe that any politician from either party is competent enough to keep us safe.

You caim to be tough but voting out of fear tells otherwise.

Lower taxes in general. My point is that (both my individual and) the collective income tax paid is less under this administration that it would have been under, say, John Kerry’s. Mine is certainly MUCH lower than what Kerry essentially promised he was going to hit me with. He basically said he was going to raise taxes for the ‘wealthiest Americans’, if you recall. Problem was the definition of ‘wealthiest Americans’ included a lot more of the general public (i.e. voters) than that term should imply.

And being tough is easy (especially on the Internet). But there is not much a ‘tough-guy’ can do for his family during a terrorist attack using bombs, planes, etc. In those instances we are all just flesh and bone at the mercy of our attackers, hoping that luck is on our side.

I am not fool enough to believe that we can ever be 100% safe as long as people are willing to die themselves to kill us. But I do know that, given a choice between what the democrat’s historical repsonses have been to terrorist attacks and the record this administration has compiled, I’ll take the latter. That was the question, right?
I thought we were asked to stay away from personal attacks?
I have my opinion and I don’t begrudge you your’s. Lot’s of us say things for affect. I did a lot of that in the thread you referenced. Let’s move on.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Lower taxes in general. My point is that (both my individual and) the collective income tax paid is less under this administration that it would have been under, say, John Kerry’s. Mine is certainly MUCH lower than what Kerry essentially promised he was going to hit me with. He basically said he was going to raise taxes for the ‘wealthiest Americans’, if you recall. Problem was the definition of ‘wealthiest Americans’ included a lot more of the general public (i.e. voters) than that term should imply. [/quote]

Good Post, Hack.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me see. I can choose lower taxes and a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. OR! I can choose higher taxes and the policies of appeasement that do not work, have never worked, and will leave us more vulerable and open to attack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. THAT’S a tough one.

If your taxes are lower now they they were in 2002 then you don’t make as much personal income as you claim.

You are a real doofus (which many have established already) if you believe that any politician from either party is competent enough to keep us safe.

You caim to be tough but voting out of fear tells otherwise.[/quote]

Because we know that the lack of attacks on US soil is entirly mr.Bush’s doings… yep. Havevn’t had anymore than the past 2… wait…

The choices are shit. Howard Dean and Hilary do not represent all Democrats. We’re different people.

I’d vote Third Party before any of em.

Barak Obama (whose name I still can’t remember the spelling of) is the future for us, as far as I’m concerned.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me see. I can choose lower taxes and a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. OR! I can choose higher taxes and the policies of appeasement that do not work, have never worked, and will leave us more vulerable and open to attack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. THAT’S a tough one.[/quote]

Yeah, me too! I choose a looming fiscal catastrophe, a grossly mismanaged war in Iraq, and shaming our country by torturing our enemies!

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me see. I can choose lower taxes and a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. OR! I can choose higher taxes and the policies of appeasement that do not work, have never worked, and will leave us more vulerable and open to attack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. THAT’S a tough one.

Yeah, me too! I choose a looming fiscal catastrophe, a grossly mismanaged war in Iraq, and shaming our country by torturing our enemies![/quote]

That financial catastrophe has been looming since, what? 2002? 2003? Even though all economic indicators have been strong, especially in 2005-2006, we still trot out the old ‘economy’ issue. Even when it’s a non-issue, or actually a plus for the party in power. Even the Pelosi’s and H. Clinton’s of the world don’t have much to say about the economy these days. That’s saying SOMETHING in an election year.

That leaves the one issue, the MAIN issue for this election: Iraq. You say ‘mismanaged’. Fair enough. I think that’s a popular view. But, in my view, most wars - in modern history -have been regarded in much the same way. That is to say, any war of any length. The longer a military action goes the more the American left (and the American media - if they are not one in the same, I think that the latter drives the former) ratchets up the rancor. I like to believe that I am not so short-sighted. If I go back to the days after 9/11 I can recall the media and many of the leaders of the American left wondering, subtly at first, how it could have happened. Why didn’t we see the signs? Why didn’t we act before it was too late? This adminisration did, and is doing, just that. Acting before thousands die. Again. I believe that terrorism itself is responsible for 9/11 and the myriad attacks of a similar nature.

Sure we can name individuals. But, at least in my view, it’s an ideology. And what is happening, I hope successfully, is a campaign to wage war against that ideology so that, in the long run, terrorism become less and less an acceptable option. Primarily, less acceptable and more dangerous for nations to sponsor. That is why I do not have a problem with Iraq. Not at all. And I will not have a problem if we confront Iran.

It reminds me of what George H. W. Bush said on the televison while The Dude paid for his half and half at Ralph’s (with a check) in ‘The Big Lebowski’. “This aggression will not stand.” And while The Dude applied that same thought the ‘carpet pissers’ who peed on his rug, I apply it to terrorism in general.

At some point you have to say “enough”. For me and other it was 9/11. Then it was London, numberous attacks in Israel. You can’t kill all the terrorists because someone is not born a terrorist. They become one. In most cases, after they blow something up, usually along with themselves. So you have to wage war against, essentially, an idea. To do that you have to start with nations that agree with and actively sponsor that idea.

So, yeah. The war is not my favorite thing. I don’t wish for it to continue. But I do wish for us to win it and for it to be over when it’s won. Not before. Not because it’s getting too hard or because we think the price is too high.

It’s a simple notion, but I’d rather have trained, armed military personnel fighting the terrorists on their home soil then have business men and women jumping out of buildings and dying in American cities because we didn’t do enough. That’s already happened.

Hack,

The Eeyores are coming to roost for good reason.

The Fed lowered the over night lending rate after 9/11 which essentially paused our dot com hang over until…now.

The real estate market is F’ed and that has single handedly propped up our economy until 2006.

Most mutual fund managers are hedging themselves for a recession in Q1 2007.

A recession would be great for the high grade fixed income markets.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Lower taxes in general. My point is that (both my individual and) the collective income tax paid is less under this administration that it would have been under, say, John Kerry’s. Mine is certainly MUCH lower than what Kerry essentially promised he was going to hit me with. He basically said he was going to raise taxes for the ‘wealthiest Americans’, if you recall. Problem was the definition of ‘wealthiest Americans’ included a lot more of the general public (i.e. voters) than that term should imply.

And being tough is easy (especially on the Internet). But there is not much a ‘tough-guy’ can do for his family during a terrorist attack using bombs, planes, etc. In those instances we are all just flesh and bone at the mercy of our attackers, hoping that luck is on our side.

I am not fool enough to believe that we can ever be 100% safe as long as people are willing to die themselves to kill us. But I do know that, given a choice between what the democrat’s historical repsonses have been to terrorist attacks and the record this administration has compiled, I’ll take the latter. That was the question, right?
I thought we were asked to stay away from personal attacks?
I have my opinion and I don’t begrudge you your’s. Lot’s of us say things for affect. I did a lot of that in the thread you referenced. Let’s move on.[/quote]

Uhh, Clinton made it seven plus years after al quaeda’s strike on american soil, And actually HAD a post 9/11 mentality pre 9/11. What was the admin’s top priority? The FBI’s?(TERRORISM). Nor did Clinton get the benefit of a years worth of warning like Bush. If I had a choice, I’d rather have a president taking a pro-active stance on terror attacks (Clinton’s response to “millenium bombings”) And his broader policies (actually trying to kill/prosecute terrorists) over Bush ANYDAY whose admin never informed him of PDB:bin laden determined to strike and is fighting a pro-terror war, that has led to more terrorism, more terrorist, laid the seed for even more terrorists, has de-stabalized the middle east, and by their own admissions emboldened Iran, all of this while changing little of the things domestically that needed to be changed in order to protect us. Bush didn’t get terrorism coming in (he deprioritized terror in the admin and fbi coming into office) and he doesn’t get in now.(Creating terrorists, terror training nations, emboldening terror nations, increasing terrorist attacks doesn’t = war on terror)

And hilariously, we’ll have to return to the higher tax rates to fix the mess that Bush and co. has left us.

Bush’s admin has proved the republican mantra: “governments don’t work”.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. [/quote]

Is an attack on a US Embassy, Consulate or military base considered an attack on US soil?

If so, then there have been several since 2002.

If not, then aside from 9/11, the previous WTC bombing, and…what, Pearl Harbor? (no, Hawaii wasn’t a state yet, so that doesn’t count)…there have been no major foreign attacks on US soil since the War of 1812.

There has never been, nor will there ever be, a Presidential administration capable of authoring a foreign policy that will not make someone, somewhere, want to kill as many Americans as possible.

An agressive foreign policy makes things rather convenient for these people, as it saves them the trouble of actually having to leave their home countries in order to do so.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Lower taxes in general. My point is that (both my individual and) the collective income tax paid is less under this administration that it would have been under, say, John Kerry’s. Mine is certainly MUCH lower than what Kerry essentially promised he was going to hit me with. He basically said he was going to raise taxes for the ‘wealthiest Americans’, if you recall. Problem was the definition of ‘wealthiest Americans’ included a lot more of the general public (i.e. voters) than that term should imply.

And being tough is easy (especially on the Internet). But there is not much a ‘tough-guy’ can do for his family during a terrorist attack using bombs, planes, etc. In those instances we are all just flesh and bone at the mercy of our attackers, hoping that luck is on our side.

I am not fool enough to believe that we can ever be 100% safe as long as people are willing to die themselves to kill us. But I do know that, given a choice between what the democrat’s historical repsonses have been to terrorist attacks and the record this administration has compiled, I’ll take the latter. That was the question, right?
I thought we were asked to stay away from personal attacks?
I have my opinion and I don’t begrudge you your’s. Lot’s of us say things for affect. I did a lot of that in the thread you referenced. Let’s move on.

Uhh, Clinton made it seven plus years after al quaeda’s strike on american soil, And actually HAD a post 9/11 mentality pre 9/11. What was the admin’s top priority? The FBI’s?(TERRORISM). Nor did Clinton get the benefit of a years worth of warning like Bush. If I had a choice, I’d rather have a president taking a pro-active stance on terror attacks (Clinton’s response to “millenium bombings”) And his broader policies (actually trying to kill/prosecute terrorists) over Bush ANYDAY whose admin never informed him of PDB:bin laden determined to strike and is fighting a pro-terror war, that has led to more terrorism, more terrorist, laid the seed for even more terrorists, has de-stabalized the middle east, and by their own admissions emboldened Iran, all of this while changing little of the things domestically that needed to be changed in order to protect us. Bush didn’t get terrorism coming in (he deprioritized terror in the admin and fbi coming into office) and he doesn’t get in now.(Creating terrorists, terror training nations, emboldening terror nations, increasing terrorist attacks doesn’t = war on terror)

And hilariously, we’ll have to return to the higher tax rates to fix the mess that Bush and co. has left us.

Bush’s admin has proved the republican mantra: “governments don’t work”.[/quote]

lumpy,

Please give us one large freaking break with the “clinton had a post-911 mentality.”

That is one steaming pile of horseshit.

Exhibit A: His response to the upcoming ABC special.

Wonder why he is so fussy?

Exhibit B: “Hi, we are sudan. Are you interested in this guy named bin laden?” clinton, “nah.”

Oh, if you want to go into detail about how many attacks happened during his tenure and his luke warm/totally inffectual reponse to them, make my day.

JeffR

If this was anyone else, I’d ask if you were serious about this?

Oh what the hell: are you serious about this?

What color is the sky in your world? I come from the planet Earth, where the sky is a nice “sky blue”, the sun rises in the east, and bill clinton was an absolute joke when it came to dealing with and responding to terrorism.

What happened on your planet when the USS Cole was bombed, or the World Trade Center was hit in 1993, or the twin embassies in Kenya were blown to bits? I seem to remember us lobbing a few missiles at an aspirin factory? Hey that worked great!

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Yeah, me too! I choose a looming fiscal catastrophe, a grossly mismanaged war in Iraq, and shaming our country by torturing our enemies![/quote]

GDollars37:

You claim that the war in Iraq was mismanaged. That implies that you have a standard in mind that the current war in Iraq fell below. Care to specify or explain what a well-managed war in Iraq would have looked like? Or, are you simply parroting the “mis-managed” bit? I suspect the latter, but I’m welcome to being corrected.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Lower taxes in general. My point is that (both my individual and) the collective income tax paid is less under this administration that it would have been under, say, John Kerry’s. Mine is certainly MUCH lower than what Kerry essentially promised he was going to hit me with. He basically said he was going to raise taxes for the ‘wealthiest Americans’, if you recall. Problem was the definition of ‘wealthiest Americans’ included a lot more of the general public (i.e. voters) than that term should imply.

And being tough is easy (especially on the Internet). But there is not much a ‘tough-guy’ can do for his family during a terrorist attack using bombs, planes, etc. In those instances we are all just flesh and bone at the mercy of our attackers, hoping that luck is on our side.

I am not fool enough to believe that we can ever be 100% safe as long as people are willing to die themselves to kill us. But I do know that, given a choice between what the democrat’s historical repsonses have been to terrorist attacks and the record this administration has compiled, I’ll take the latter. That was the question, right?
I thought we were asked to stay away from personal attacks?
I have my opinion and I don’t begrudge you your’s. Lot’s of us say things for affect. I did a lot of that in the thread you referenced. Let’s move on.

Uhh, Clinton made it seven plus years after al quaeda’s strike on american soil, And actually HAD a post 9/11 mentality pre 9/11. What was the admin’s top priority? The FBI’s?(TERRORISM). Nor did Clinton get the benefit of a years worth of warning like Bush. If I had a choice, I’d rather have a president taking a pro-active stance on terror attacks (Clinton’s response to “millenium bombings”) And his broader policies (actually trying to kill/prosecute terrorists) over Bush ANYDAY whose admin never informed him of PDB:bin laden determined to strike and is fighting a pro-terror war, that has led to more terrorism, more terrorist, laid the seed for even more terrorists, has de-stabalized the middle east, and by their own admissions emboldened Iran, all of this while changing little of the things domestically that needed to be changed in order to protect us. Bush didn’t get terrorism coming in (he deprioritized terror in the admin and fbi coming into office) and he doesn’t get in now.(Creating terrorists, terror training nations, emboldening terror nations, increasing terrorist attacks doesn’t = war on terror)

And hilariously, we’ll have to return to the higher tax rates to fix the mess that Bush and co. has left us.

Bush’s admin has proved the republican mantra: “governments don’t work”.[/quote]

GDollars is from New Hampshire and you are from Massachusetts. Do they sprinkle liberal thinking into the water up there or what? You folks know that you can think for yourselves, right? I mean, surely it isn’t against the law in New England to say something that isn’t dogmatically liberal, right?

As for your claim about Clinton, allow me to retort: What did Clinton do after 1993 in response to an attack on U.S. soil? Nothing. What did Clinton do in response to the U.S.S. Cole? Nothing. What did Clinton do in response to the embassy bombings in Africa? Fired a few cruise missiles.

Now, suppose for a moment–and this is a hypothetical–that these Muslim extremists harbor the view that the American public doesn’t have the stomach for blood.

That American foreign policy is soft. With that in mind, they attack American interests at least three times. The response? Nothing but a few missiles. Do you think that did anything at all to discourage them? Or perhaps they realized that they could fuck with us and we wouldn’t do much about it.

When you consider that al Qaeda planned 9/11 for years, you immediately see that Clinton’s limp-wristed treatment of the terrorists led straight to 9/11.

I’ll also do you the service of pointing out another bit of information for your benefit: Bearing in mind that these terrorists have read the books on Vietnam and realize that they can defeat the mighty American military simply by directing their energies at making the American public lose its stomach for war, you can see how all of you up in New England play right into the hands of the terrorists.

Note the similarity between the tactics of the terrorists and Viet Cong: a complete disregard for their own lives so long as they can shed enough American blood for the public to outcry. Just like Jane Fonda and other crazy liberal celebrities cried out against the Vietnam War, now prominent Hollywood figures have been crying out against the war in Iraq.

Was it not Ho Chi Minh who said, “You will kill 10 of us for every one we kill of you, but we will still win.” Now the terrorists practice suicide bombings against our troops in Iraq and you fools cry for an end to the war in Iraq.

Welcome to Being-a-Pawn-ville. Population you.

Mismanaging the Iraq war = Cutting taxes in wartime.

Never happened before, becuase it’s irrational.

A massive endeavor, a huge military undertaking that’s costing billions…but let’s give the rich back some dough anyway..

Yea. And it’s us liberals that don’t care about the troops, huh?

The options for the vote are not rational, but then neither is Headhunter. He’s still busy writing in votes for Ann Coulter.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Mismanaging the Iraq war = Cutting taxes in wartime.

Never happened before, becuase it’s irrational.

A massive endeavor, a huge military undertaking that’s costing billions…but let’s give the rich back some dough anyway..
[/quote]

Do you know what has happened to government revenue since the tax cuts?