America's Image Problem

[Dr Grump]

When America was the laughing stock of the whole world when Clinton occupied the White House, was Clinton blamed for damaging America's credibility?

You were never the laughing stock when Clinton was in the WH..

And to all those who think people don't like America because they are jealous - think again. Nothing could be further from the truth...

 

[jillian]

You would be incorrect. Bush DID indeed try to work with Dems in DC just as he DID work with them here in TX. As previously stated, that lasted right up until he wanted something Dems didn't and they started whining foul.

He did work with Dems in Texas. But he didn't when he got to Washington. Didn't fit with Karl Rove's PRM philosophy.

 

[DeadCanDance]

It's sad to see Bush haters open their sucks and have nothing intelligent nor factual to say ... just a bunch of unsupported rhetoric.

No one's been reduced to anything but calling bullshit when peopel like you start spewing your crap.

It's patently obvious to anyone with a brain that the most damage to america's image has been done by political hack morons like you spewing your hatred and lies on a continuing basis.

this was the best night ever on this board.

tonight, I learned that the failure of bush economics, is clinton's fault; that the tarnishing of america's image in the world is the fault of liberals (not bush); and spending two trillion dollars to fight a nation that wasn't a threat to us and turn it into a failed nation state was oh-so-totally worth it.

What a bunch of bush loving republican hacks. Hacks who take no personal responsibility for your failures, or the failure of the man you elected twice.

 

[Gunny]

He did work with Dems in Texas. But he didn't when he got to Washington. Didn't fit with Karl Rove's PRM philosophy.

Yes he did. He made some bipartisan appointments and tried to work with Congress. Congressional Dems are the ones who refused to compromise.

 

[Zoomie1980]

this was the best night ever on this board.

tonight, I learned that the failure of bush economics, is clinton's fault; that the tarnishing of america's image in the world is the fault of liberals (not bush); and spending two trillion dollars to fight a nation that wasn't a threat to us and turn it into a failed nation state was oh-so-totally worth it.

What a bunch of bush loving republican hacks. Hacks who take no personal responsibility for your failures, or the failure of the man you elected twice.

"Bush Economics", if by that you mean lower marginal tax rates, have been an enormous success. The current economic trouble has nothing to do with Bush fiscal policy of lower taxes and everything to do with greedy lending institutions sucking in unqualified customers and sticking them teaser loan rates with huge backend loads. Couple that with idiot home buyers willing to pay ridiculous asking prices for two bedroom bungaloes for the past 10 years driving up home prices to nonsensical levels then borrowing against those level to 100%

Bush had NOTHING to do with that lunacy, just us stupid consumers living beyond our means. Bush's policies have kept this country out of recession during record oil prices, devastating natural disasters, and a Persian Gulf war.

As for the war, well, that was screwed up from the get-go. Should have flattened Faluga and routed Sadr's militia and disarmed the country from the get go. Instead we began to worry too much about people's religious sensibilities. We never bother with Japanese Bhudist sensibilities after WWII..

 

[Gunny]

this was the best night ever on this board.

tonight, I learned that the failure of bush economics, is clinton's fault; that the tarnishing of america's image in the world is the fault of liberals (not bush); and spending two trillion dollars to fight a nation that wasn't a threat to us and turn it into a failed nation state was oh-so-totally worth it.

What a bunch of bush loving republican hacks. Hacks who take no personal responsibility for your failures, or the failure of the man you elected twice.

Try again, dude. But then, this has been explained to you before. Your "with me or against me " mentality just doesn't recognize anyone or thing moderate.

One does not have to love, nor even like Bush to call your loony-left tripe what it is. Nor does one have to be a Republican to vote against Democrats.

And no, I don't take personal responsibility for Bush's policies anymore than you are going to man-up and take personal responsibility for running complete idiots against him and giving voters no real choice.

SO don't flatter yourself. You've learned nothing because you are incapable.

 

[Alucard]

Bottom line... There were more terror attacks against americans during the clinton administration than under Bush...

1993 World Trade Centre bombing

1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia.

1996 al-Khobar towers bombing.

1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa.

2000 bombing of the USS Cole..

Oh yea... they loved us before Bush!!!

What they loved was... alot of talk from Bill... and no action from an administration that was incapable of doing much more than molesting interns...

 

[Adam's Apple]

Bush tried to work with Dems???? On what planet? By making recess appointments of people who would never have gotten past dems? Every bill for the first six years that was put up for a vote wasn't allowed to the floor unless it didn't need a single democratic vote to pass. That working with dems? Or vetoing every bill the dems send to him?? That working with them.

Revisionist history doesn’t work, Jillian. Ever hear of Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durban, Pat Leahy, etc.? If not, brush up on their “welcome” of Bush to Washington. They made it pretty clear from the "git go" that they had no interest in working with him. To them he was regarded as an "illegal" president, occupying his office by grant of the Supreme Court, although this was proven false fairly early in his presidency.

For the first five years of Bush’s presidency, he did not exercise a single veto—not even the McCain-Feingold legislation. It’s only in recent years (at the end of his presidency) that Bush has begun threatening to veto legislation. We’ll see if it actually happens.

 

[Toro]

Revisionist history doesn’t work, Jillian. Ever hear of Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durban, Pat Leahy, etc.? If not, brush up on their “welcome” of Bush to Washington. They made it pretty clear from the "git go" that they had no interest in working with him. To them he was regarded as an "illegal" president, occupying his office by grant of the Supreme Court, although this was proven false fairly early in his presidency.

For the first five years of Bush’s presidency, he did not exercise a single veto—not even the McCain-Feingold legislation. It’s only in recent years (at the end of his presidency) that Bush has begun threatening to veto legislation. We’ll see if it actually happens.

Ask Jim Jeffords if he'd agree.

There has never been a President in my lifeetime who has been more divisive than this one.

Government of the base, by the base, for the base.

And now, Karl Rove's permanent Republican majority lies in tatters.