Author Topic: Clinton vs Bush  (Read 129 times)

Lincoln

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4686
  • Karma: -2421
  • The best in the game today....Black Jack Johnson
Clinton vs Bush
« on: October 30, 2004, 04:13:56 PM »
I got this from another board. It's just pointing out the double standard of the situation, personally I think they're both fucknuts.

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

Ahh, it's so confusing! I thought you would find this interesting. Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day." This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000.

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

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

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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

Most hip-hop is now keyboard driven, because the majority of hip-hop workstations have loops and patches that enable somebody with marginal skills to put tracks together,...

Unfortunately, most hip-hop artists gravitated towards the path of least resistance by relying on these pre-set patches. As a result, electric guitar and real musicians became devalued, and a lot of hip-hop now sounds the same.

Paris
 

bLaDe

  • The Paradoxical Third Eye
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 5343
  • Karma: 30
  • ..: Monolith :..
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2004, 04:55:16 PM »
Quote
First President Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Then President Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Most of the controversy surrounding this is the fact that Bush has a vice president who worked for Halliburton, Clinton didn't.  But neither are good in my opinion.  Ofcourse, there is still a lot of shady stuff going on with Halliburton.  For instance, last time I checked they are paying over $7 million in fines for trying to hide a change in accounting rules back in 1998, when Cheney was CEO.   They are also under investigation for bribery around the time Cheney was CEO, and USA did business with Iran(sworn enemy) when Cheney was CEO.  And newsflash: Clinton isn't president, but the rest of this article is about him anyway. 


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

Correct me if I’m wrong, but these statistics are inaccurate.  I believe the war on iraq is roughly around $200+ billion now, whereas the war in Serbia was far less, around $7-20 Billion. 


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

There is a difference, for instance it was not a unilateral war, there was a real coalition of some European countries too and NATO was involved in rebuilding Serbia.  The US worked with the rest of the world in that war.  The war on Iraq however, was based on false pretence amongst other things.


Quote
President Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -

good..
President Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

This is again different, it comes out of ignorance of Yugoslavian wars.  In Serbia the Christians were fucking up Bosnia, and killing Islamic men, women and children, it was all over the news.  Iraq is in shambles, the ethnic diversity is dividing the country, but on the other hand it's uniting it too, only against the US.  Just the other day there was a report on how some Iraqis are actually uniting in an effort to kill/drive out U.S soldiers.  But like I said, it is highly divided.   


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

Wtf, who ever said it was good?  Regardless of whether it was an accident or not, it was looked down upon.  Later however, some news sources reported that the Chinese embassy may have been broadcasying Yugoslav militray radio signals.  I also can't recall anyone telling me that bombing terrorist camps was good, but of course, people ARE angry over the fact that Osama isn't caught, and a lot of civilians (100,000+) were, and still are being killed in Iraq.  The number also exceeds the deaths in the Chinese embassy. 


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

Everyone frowns upon Clinton's felony, it's a well known fact, and he got his ass busted for it, and STILL is.  I don't get the jumpsuit thing; I’ve never criticized it, or heard anyone do so.  What I have heard is criticism towards the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, which really makes sense.


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

Click me.  More ignorance.  And besides, the main genocide occured in Bosnia.  Look it up at Google or something for more details, you'll find a lot of news articles talking about mass graves being found.
How the hell is it 'GOOD' that no WMD were found in Iraq, when we invaded it based on that presumtion?


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

http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/index.php 
George Bush is also the first president since Hoover to actually lose American jobs during his administration.  A record surplus turned into a record deficit($413 billion since WW2), the minimum wage has sunk to it's lowest dollar in a long time also.

Quote
President Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under President Bush - bad...
I will explain this in my next post in more detail.  But in a nutshell, both are bad(or does the author consider the trade centers falling to be a good thing?), and fucked up, the only reason some people like Clinton a little over Bush in that aspect, is that Bush didn't care at all, where as Clinton did.  And like I stated before, Bush HAD the oppertunity to capture Bin Laden.  The taliban were OFFERING him. 

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

Yep, horrible intelligence, both frowned upon.  Difference?  Clinton crippled Iraq through various sanctions which denied Saddam BILLIONS, in turn making him give up his weapons program according to the Duelfer report. So it's not at all about claiming someone has nukes, but acting upon it.  And Bush did, even though the biggest threat was really Osama Bin Laden at the time. 

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

^^^^Same as the previous one, Bush acted upon it, at the wrong time, and did a horrible job as well, in my opinion anyway. ^^^^^^^

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

First of all, that was pre-9/11 so imagne what would happen if Clinton invaded Afghanistan.  Secondly as some of you might remember, Clinton DID bomb camps in 98, but Bush simply didn't care prior to 9/11 either.  Also, people generally have anger over this, because FIRST we help put them in power, THEN we suddenly want them out, unbeleivable right?

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

Milosevic IS on trial, and his generals have been already found guilty. Saddam in trial is a good thing (ofcourse!)


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

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

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

The truth is that President Bush is richer than John Kerry and earns more.  Teresa Kerry's family actually owns those 4 mansions.  Also if you look up some information on their company you'll learn that "the Heinz Endowments are among the largest independent philanthropic organizations in the country and gave more than $54 million in grants to nonprofits in 2003 alone."


-b[X]
« Last Edit: November 05, 2004, 12:50:22 AM by bLaDe HeLi[X] »
Waving My Double Edged Sword, God Sharpened My Blade...
Its Just Me Against The World, And The Evil That He Made...
 

bLaDe

  • The Paradoxical Third Eye
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 5343
  • Karma: 30
  • ..: Monolith :..
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2004, 05:04:13 PM »
Quote
President Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under President Bush - bad...

Let me answer this in my second post.  But in a nutshell, both are bad, and fucked up, the only reason some people like Clinton a little over Bush in that aspect, is that Bush didn't care at all, where as Clinton did.

-b[X]

I do recall a quote by Bush where he said that he was "truly not that concerned about him [Bin Laden]" And that it is not a priority. Strange. But we still hear about the war on terror and relentless Muslim extremists targeting America for their freedom. Ironically If you read up on the detailed history of many Muslim countries, with a few exceptions, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism was aided by the US either directly or indirectly. A lot of Bush supporters seem to blame Al Qaeda and terrorism on the Clinton administration as well. There is some truth to that. The threat of Bin Laden has been around since the early 90s. I believe he personally issued Fatwa against the US in 1992. No one really took him seriously. Years later though, I believe a special unit was formed by the CIA against Bin Laden which only consisted of a few people, but that turned out to be pretty much a failure. Years later though, the threat became a lot more real, especially after the USS COLE incident. But I suppose that Bill Clinton realized that he didn't have much time left and wanted to secure a peace between Israel and Palestine, I don't know, but I believe he failed to retaliate. Still, the 9/11 Commission report does claim that Clinton was 'deeply concerned' about the Bin Laden threat. He even received special information about him and Al Qaeda during his time. During the elections, Bush was told by the CIA that Al Qaeda was frighteningly real, and that an attack (or attempt) on American soil can be expected within the next few years. Clinton also himself admitted that he told Bush personally, that the most serious and dangerous threat to the USA currently(that time) was Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda. After the transfer of power, Condoleezza Rice was briefed repeatedly on the Bin Laden threat by someone named Richard Clark I think who was really the most concerned about Bin Laden since the beginning. She was warned repeatedly, sent memos etc. but Rice never directly responded to him or the threat, there was a huge amount of carelessness involved. It really wasn't until after 9/11 that the US Department of Defence actually fully involved in Al Qaeda. Even though, for years, Al Qaeda was pretty much the main, and most dangerous foreign threat to the US. Even Clinton had reportedly told Bush personally the seriousness of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. But Rumsfield wasn't even really interested in retaliating then, he thought it was too late and useless. And on 9/11, he decided that they should seriously consider going to war on Iraq(it was previously brought up, prior to 9/11) and we all know how that turned out. Bin Laden was still not of major concern. Iraq seemed to be the main issue. Bush himself did not take any special interest in Al Qaeda at the time. Unlike Clinton, who at least recognized the threat and was deeply concerned. Here is a quote directly from the 9/11 Commission report:
   
Quote
"We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States."

-b[X]
Waving My Double Edged Sword, God Sharpened My Blade...
Its Just Me Against The World, And The Evil That He Made...
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2004, 05:35:26 PM »
Thanks Blade.  I didn't feel like going through these.  Arguments like this sometimes aren't worth answering.  Just because someone took the time to write something doesn't mean its true.  Many of the statements in that list weren't true, and others were taken out of context.  If you notice there is a trend where arguments attempting to support Bush just come across much weaker than arguments opposing him.  Maybe thats why the higher your level of education the less likely you are to vote Bush.
 

Lincoln

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4686
  • Karma: -2421
  • The best in the game today....Black Jack Johnson
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2004, 05:57:45 PM »
Just to be clear, I did not write this. I have no bias towards Clinton or Bush, I don't care for either.

Most hip-hop is now keyboard driven, because the majority of hip-hop workstations have loops and patches that enable somebody with marginal skills to put tracks together,...

Unfortunately, most hip-hop artists gravitated towards the path of least resistance by relying on these pre-set patches. As a result, electric guitar and real musicians became devalued, and a lot of hip-hop now sounds the same.

Paris
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2004, 06:10:00 PM »
I know your kind of in the middle but you did seem to agree with the main point of doube standards, which I just dont think is the case.  Yeah there are some double standards I'm sure, mainly becuz we live in a partisan world, but the arguments you posted weren't accurate. 
 

Ras Kass' Toothpick

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Karma: 19
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2004, 06:14:28 PM »
Maybe thats why the higher your level of education the less likely you are to vote Bush.

 ::)
Herb Quote Of The Year[/u]

CalebOhio: I think i can speak for many others when i say my favorite rap artists are white but i still want black artists to be dope. they are chosing not to be. that wouldn't be a likely believe held in a white supremacist group. I want Nas to deliver evertime but he doesn't every time Sage does. so Sage gets my $15 regardless or his status. fuck your status perception and labels you use.
 

white Boy

  • The totally random poster
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 9003
  • Karma: -119
  • http://bigbowlofsoup.tumblr.com/
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2004, 07:56:55 PM »
i dont know a lot.. but bush war cost a fuck load more than 87 billion
 

Rampant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • Karma: -13
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2004, 08:28:27 PM »
Good post.

Of course people who love clinton are going to defend this to the death.

"well in clintons case...."
"but in bush's case he fucked up and......"

It all depends on who you like more. But it is funny how the comparisons are close, but thought of differently.
 

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2004, 09:21:29 PM »
Another of my favorites.

Bush gets the local warlords to help fight in Afganistan, and Kerry slams him for 'outsourcing' the job of hunting for Bin Ladin.

Bush arrests Saddam, invades Iraq, and kills his two sons with our own forces, and Kerry slams him for not getting a coalition.

So a coalition in Afganistan is bad, and a coalition in Iraq is good.  Gotcha, Senator Kerry. 
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Clinton vs Bush
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2004, 12:26:55 AM »
Another of my favorites.

Bush gets the local warlords to help fight in Afganistan, and Kerry slams him for 'outsourcing' the job of hunting for Bin Ladin.

Bush arrests Saddam, invades Iraq, and kills his two sons with our own forces, and Kerry slams him for not getting a coalition.

So a coalition in Afganistan is bad, and a coalition in Iraq is good.  Gotcha, Senator Kerry. 

Kerry, and others, criticize Bush for not developing a strong coalition before going into Iraq.  They voice this criticism because they realize the war could have been handled more effectively if we had a true coalition to support our efforts.  This is not 20/20 hindsight on Kerry's part, this was his actual position pre-war.  See his statement on the Senate floor below:

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002) Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Kerry slams Bush for not developing a strong coalition because it is clear the GWB did not choose war as a last resort, and also because as we can all see, the lack of troops and lack of international invovlement have created a rather messy situation which could have been avoided. 

Now, how do you figure Afghan Warlords represent a strong coalition?  Your words: "So a coalition in Afganistan is bad, and a coalition in Iraq is good.  Gotcha, Senator Kerry."  There was no strong coaition in Afghanistan, just like there was no strong coalition in Iraq.  Yes there were minor coalitions in both countries, but in each case we did not use the proper number of troops to successfully complete our mission.  Today, Afgahnistan is the world's largest opium producer.  Today, 8 marines were killed in Iraq. 

Are you high when you write your posts?