Democratic Bumper Stickers for 2008

[Guest Guest]

Balancing the budget was part of the GOP "Contract with America" that the Republicans ran on when they took over Congress in '92.  Clinton didn't force it on Congress, unless you mean he signed GOP-powered bills over the objections of congressional Democrats.

Both sides had to compromise-he vetoed the first budget they came up with. Remember the 27 day shutdown? Both sides deserve some credit for balancing the budget and keeping it that way.

I don't, but it shouldn't be taken too far since every U.S. president from Carter onward is implicated.

I don't absolve him of blame for not doing more to fight terrorism, but you can say that about every pre-9/11 president. I'd also go further back than Carter. I was speaking specifically of the aforementioned incident. IIRC intelligence believed that Bin Laden was already out of the country. I'm not totally sure of that though.

Well, yeah! 

Actually, it was imagined by a gov. group in 2001 (IIRC), but discarded as very unlikely.

I'd like to think that not a single one of the U.S. presidents we've had in the past deliberately did things the wrong way. 

The best you can do is come up with the best plan you can with the knowledge you've got, and then keep updating it as you get new information.

True that.

Sounds good--but the comprehensive immigration bill just floated by the Senate may put a hole or two in that plan.

Afghanistan may have turned the corner this year.  The expected summer assault from Taliban forces never really materialized.  The movement may be fragmenting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed on both counts.

[Guest BushBacker]

So, what do you think of the Theory of Evolution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who let Darwin in ?? Didn't he die ??

[Guest Guest]

So where do you care about spelling and grammar? When the written word is the only method of communication available, it would behoove one to 'get it right,' so to speak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I type a stock symbol into my brokerage account for a trade.

I see by your "huh symbol" response, that there is more than the written word used to communicate here. So messages must have no misspellings and be grammatically correct but the use of symbols and abbreviations ok. How about slang?

[Bryan]

Both sides had to compromise-he vetoed the first budget they came up with. Remember the 27 day shutdown? Both sides deserve some credit for balancing the budget and keeping it that way.

I do give Clinton some credit, there--but if his original "Clintonomics" notions had been put into law along with Hillarycare, it is unlikely that a balanced budget would have resulted.

The government shutdown had little to do with balancing the budget. Clinton did not refuse to sign the budget because it was not fiscally responsible enough, but because the Republicans wanted to cut government spending too much:

President Bill Clinton: Good afternoon. Today, as of noon, almost half of the federal government employees are idle. The government is partially shutting down because Congress has failed to pass the straightforward legislation necessary to keep the government running without imposing sharp hikes in Medicare premiums and deep cuts in education and the environment.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-1...ts/clinton.html

I don't absolve him of blame for not doing more to fight terrorism, but you can say that about every pre-9/11 president. I'd also go further back than Carter.

You'd have a tough time finding good examples prior to Carter, IMHO. We're in agreement that each president with a role in combating terrorism could have done better.

I was speaking specifically of the aforementioned incident. IIRC intelligence believed that Bin Laden was already out of the country. I'm not totally sure of that though.

I don't think the 9-11 Commission was sure about it, either.

The final report should have contained some acknowledgment of Clinton's testimony on the matter, and the Clinton speech I referenced should have made it inevitable that Clinton was asked about it during the investigation.

Why Clinton would talk about it years later as if it had happened should produce questions if the truth was that the offer wasn't legit. Why would Clinton continue to talk about it as if it had been legitimate?

[KHS81]

1. If u can read this, thank Bush your alive

2. Dow 13,000

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

3. I can think of 3,000+ American military who CANNOT read that. Bush lied troops died, if you support King George the Blood is on your hands too. I hope you can sleep at night knowing your responsible for the murder of our troops

[Guest BushBacker]

3. I can think of 3,000+ American military who CANNOT read that. Bush lied troops died, if you support King George the Blood is on your hands too. I hope you can sleep at night knowing your responsible for the murder of our troops

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only do I support President Bush, I thank God George Bush is President in this time of global terrorism. You should thank God George Bush is protecting your candy ass.

[Autonomous]

The person you were responding to was me, btw.

I do give Clinton some credit, there--but if his original "Clintonomics" notions had been put into law along with Hillarycare, it is unlikely that a balanced budget would have resulted.

The government shutdown had little to do with balancing the budget.  Clinton did not refuse to sign the budget because it was not fiscally responsible enough, but because the Republicans wanted to cut government spending too much:

President Bill Clinton: Good afternoon. Today, as of noon, almost half of the federal government employees are idle. The government is partially shutting down because Congress has failed to pass the straightforward legislation necessary to keep the government running without imposing sharp hikes in Medicare premiums and deep cuts in education and the environment.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-1...ts/clinton.html

Hillarycare certainly would have been bad. It still will if the Democrats keep control of Congress and capture the White House. I think I'll be splitting my vote this time.

Drastically cutting government spending is a good long-term plan. I believe it needs to be done gradually though.

The problem with our current view of cutting welfare is that we need to rethink how we allocate it. Back in my college days I bought a floor scrubber and buffer and got a contract to clean a local grocery store. One of the guys there had a severe form of degenerative arthritis. He had to be careful not to work too many hours or he would lose Medicare-and his medicine was nearly $1000 a month. Because he couldn't work full-time, he also needed Food Stamps and housing assistance, draining the economy even more. Whenever welfare was cut, they'd lower the amount you could make and still draw benefits, so he'd have to work even less. Meanwhile, fatass meth-heads sit on there butts all day and do better than he did. It seems that you get punished for trying to get off welfare. If we had a system that would allow people to work full time until they were eligible for health insurance people like my friend could get off of it.

You'd have a tough time finding good examples prior to Carter, IMHO.  We're in agreement that each president with a role in combating terrorism could have done better.

During the Cold War we had a history of supporting guys like Shah Reza whatsisname. This policy kinda bit us on the ass.

I don't think the 9-11 Commission was sure about it, either.

The final report should have contained some acknowledgment of Clinton's testimony on the matter, and the Clinton speech I referenced should have made it inevitable that Clinton was asked about it during the investigation.

Why Clinton would talk about it years later as if it had happened should produce questions if the truth was that the offer wasn't legit.  Why would Clinton continue to talk about it as if it had been legitimate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. I have no idea what really happened, and neither does anyone else. It was originally brought up as a slam against Clinton-which assumes the worst.

[Strife767]

Not only do I support President Bush, I thank God George Bush is President in this time of global terrorism.  You should thank God George Bush is protecting your candy ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'George Bush is keeping us safe, except for when he didn't keep us safe.'

Never stops getting funny. You're a joke, man.

[Guest Guest]

Not only do I support President Bush, I thank God George Bush is President in this time of global terrorism.  You should thank God George Bush is protecting your candy ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And just WHERE was that protection on 9/11? Maybe little Georgie had a hangover an just blew it?

[Guest Guest]

1. If u can read this, thank Bush your alive

2. Dow 13,000

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey! Maybe if industry sends a few million more jobs to India and bumps up their profits AND unemployment even more the Dow can hit 14000!

[Guest Guest]

The idiot got to be president. That's what's wrong with the picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that poor little village in Texas is still missing its idiot, the main attraction of the town

[Guest Guest]

The person you were responding to was me, btw.

Hillarycare certainly would have been bad. It still will if the Democrats keep control of Congress and capture the White House. I think I'll be splitting my vote this time.

Drastically cutting government spending is a good long-term plan. I believe it needs to be done gradually though.

The problem with our current view of cutting welfare is that we need to rethink how we allocate it. Back in my college days I bought a floor scrubber and buffer and got a contract to clean a local grocery store. One of the guys there had a severe form of degenerative arthritis. He had to be careful not to work too many hours or he would lose Medicare-and his medicine was nearly $1000 a month. Because he couldn't work full-time, he also needed Food Stamps and housing assistance, draining the economy even more. Whenever welfare was cut, they'd lower the amount you could make and still draw benefits, so he'd have to work even less. Meanwhile, fatass meth-heads sit on there butts all day and do better than he did. It seems that you get punished for trying to get off welfare. If we had a system that would allow people to work full time until they were eligible for health insurance people like my friend could get off of it.

During the Cold War we had a history of supporting guys like Shah Reza whatsisname. This policy kinda bit us on the ass.

True. I have no idea what really happened, and neither does anyone else. It was originally brought up as a slam against Clinton-which assumes the worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand why people oppose universal health care. Most developed countries have it, and they do very well with it. They enjoy higher living standards and longer life expectancies than we do. The opposition seems like just another instance of American cowboy-ism.

[Guest BushBacker]

And just WHERE was that protection on 9/11?  Maybe little Georgie had a hangover an just blew it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blame 9/11 on Bubba (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton .

Clinton had the opportunity to grab Bin Laden after the first attack on the trade towers, he did nothing. Sudan had him in custody and offered him to Clinton. Clinton said "Don't bother me, I'm getting a BJ from an intern right now".

The rest is history, by the time Bush took office, Bin Laden's plans were in place.

I love the way the defeatocrats try to pin 9/11 on Bush( who was in office a little more than 8 months) and give Bubba a pass (who had 8 years ).

[Guest Guest]

Blame 9/11 on Bubba (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton .

  Clinton had the opportunity to grab Bin Laden after the first attack on the trade towers, he did nothing. Sudan had him in custody and offered him to Clinton. Clinton said "Don't bother me, I'm getting a BJ from an intern right now".

  The rest is history, by the time Bush took office, Bin Laden's plans were in place.

  I love the way the defeatocrats try to pin 9/11 on Bush( who was in office a little more than 8 months) and give Bubba a pass (who had 8 years ).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again having your head up your butt obscures your vision.

The history is that The Shrub was allegedly protecting the country on 9/11, it was HIS responsibility, he failed miserably.

What was he doing for 8 month, looking for good hiding places for his liquor?

[Guest Guest]

Blame 9/11 on Bubba (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton .

  Clinton had the opportunity to grab Bin Laden after the first attack on the trade towers, he did nothing. Sudan had him in custody and offered him to Clinton. Clinton said "Don't bother me, I'm getting a BJ from an intern right now".

  The rest is history, by the time Bush took office, Bin Laden's plans were in place.

  I love the way the defeatocrats try to pin 9/11 on Bush( who was in office a little more than 8 months) and give Bubba a pass (who had 8 years ).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

8 Days? Bubba

8 Weeks? Bubba and The Shrub

8 Months? The Shrub, Completely HIS responsibility and completely HIS failure

[Autonomous]

I don't understand why people oppose universal health care. Most developed countries have it, and they do very well with it. They enjoy higher living standards and longer life expectancies than we do. The opposition seems like just another instance of American cowboy-ism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have seen arguments for and against both sides. However, the medical and insurance lobbies are among the most powerful in Washington. Not gonna happen until we take care of that issue. Which is effectively the same as not gonna happen.

[Bryan]

The person you were responding to was me, btw.

Hillarycare certainly would have been bad. It still will if the Democrats keep control of Congress and capture the White House. I think I'll be splitting my vote this time.

Even the GOP might roll on that one if they think voting against it will hurt their chances of re-election.

The rhetoric from the left and from the mainstream media has people believing that single-payer healthcare is an overwhelmingly good thing.

Yes, it will make health-care available for all, but the quality of care will diminish. And when the entitlement crunch happens (social security and all the rest), health care will inevitably be affected. People will not have basic care because the government won't be able to justify it. They'll probably take it away from certain classes of people, first, like smokers (already going on in the UK).

An economic adviser to Barack Obama on the drawbacks of the single-payer system:

http://www.slate.com/id/2169454/

(for those who don't realize the drawbacks already)

Drastically cutting government spending is a good long-term plan. I believe it needs to be done gradually though.

The only decrease in spending you'll get from a Democratic Congress is a decrease in defense spending.

The problem with our current view of cutting welfare is that we need to rethink how we allocate it. Back in my college days I bought a floor scrubber and buffer and got a contract to clean a local grocery store. One of the guys there had a severe form of degenerative arthritis. He had to be careful not to work too many hours or he would lose Medicare-and his medicine was nearly $1000 a month. Because he couldn't work full-time, he also needed Food Stamps and housing assistance, draining the economy even more. Whenever welfare was cut, they'd lower the amount you could make and still draw benefits, so he'd have to work even less. Meanwhile, fatass meth-heads sit on there butts all day and do better than he did. It seems that you get punished for trying to get off welfare. If we had a system that would allow people to work full time until they were eligible for health insurance people like my friend could get off of it.

Good suggestion. Putting free market incentives into what presently amount to entitlement programs should help them operate far more efficiently.

During the Cold War we had a history of supporting guys like Shah Reza whatsisname. This policy kinda bit us on the ass.

Not so much as what we experienced when Carter turned on the Shah in favor of Ayatollah whatsisname (though not for long, as the rebel movement promptly invaded our embassy in Iran and took hostages).

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...eb/grinter.html

Good foreign policy will always consist largely of choosing the lesser of two evils.

True. I have no idea what really happened, and neither does anyone else. It was originally brought up as a slam against Clinton-which assumes the worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Both ends of the political spectrum could do a better job of refraining from assuming the worst.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Once again having your head up your butt obscures your vision.

The history is that The Shrub was allegedly protecting the country on 9/11, it was HIS responsibility, he failed miserably.

What was he doing for 8 month, looking for good hiding places for his liquor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMAO, any 14 year old can come up with a better argument than that.

[Guest a proud ameerican]

NEW DEMOCRATIC BUMPER STICKERS FOR '08:

1. Bush: End of an Error

2. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

3. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First

4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran.

5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

6. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President

7. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant

8. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

9. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

10. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore

11. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance

12. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It

13. Whose God Do You Kill For?

14. Jail to the Chief

15. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?

16. Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap

17. Bad President! No Banana.

18. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language

19. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

20. Is It Vietnam Yet?

21. Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either

22. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

23. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.

24. Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too

25. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46

26. Pray For Impeachment

27. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

28. What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?

29. One Nation Under Clod

30. 2004: Embarrassed. 2005: Horrified. 2006: Terrified

31. Bush Never Exhaled

32. At Least Nixon Resigned

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

33. 1/20/09 the end of an error

[Autonomous]

Even the GOP might roll on that one if they think voting against it will hurt their chances of re-election.

True. I think there is still enough popular opinion against it (for now) to keep it from happening. Amusingly enough, Michael Moore's new movie will unite the right against it.

The rhetoric from the left and from the mainstream media has people believing that single-payer healthcare is an overwhelmingly good thing.

Yes, it will make health-care available for all, but the quality of care will diminish.  And when the entitlement crunch happens (social security and all the rest), health care will inevitably be affected.  People will not have basic care because the government won't be able to justify it.  They'll probably take it away from certain classes of people, first, like smokers (already going on in the UK).

I wonder if the obese are in the same boat? It takes as many years off your life as smoking.

An economic adviser to Barack Obama on the drawbacks of the single-payer system:

http://www.slate.com/id/2169454/

(for those who don't realize the drawbacks already)

The only decrease in spending you'll get from a Democratic Congress is a decrease in defense spending.

I agree-we haven't seen any decreases in spending yet. I'm fine with cutting some bloat from military spending, however.

Good suggestion.  Putting free market incentives into what presently amount to entitlement programs should help them operate far more efficiently.

Thanks. I'm interested in discussing this further with you, so I started a new thread.

Not so much as what we experienced when Carter turned on the Shah in favor of Ayatollah whatsisname (though not for long, as the rebel movement promptly invaded our embassy in Iran and took hostages).

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...eb/grinter.html

Good foreign policy will always consist largely of choosing the lesser of two evils.

You certainly won't see me defending Carter's foreign policy.

Both ends of the political spectrum could do a better job of refraining from assuming the worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True.

[Guest Guest]

Hey!  Maybe if industry sends a few million more jobs to India and bumps up their profits AND unemployment even more the Dow can hit 14000!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're almost there. $$$$$$$$$$$

Have to love the global economy, what a great thing!

[Guest Guest]

LMAO, any 14 year old can come up with a better argument than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So age is your exuse or is it just plain old stupidity?

[Guest Guest]

We're almost there.  $$$$$$$$$$$

Have to love the global economy, what a great thing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most plantation owners thought slavery was a great $$$$$$$$$ thing too.

[Guest Paul]

Most plantation owners thought slavery was a great $$$$$$$$$ thing too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And we're still paying the price for their greed and their immorality.

[Guest 2smart4u]

So age is your exuse or is it just plain old stupidity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, age is my e-x-c-u-s-e, stupidity appears to be yours.