Richard got us out of Viet Nam, he campaigned on that

[Psychoblues]

Ronald Reagan gave business back to business. He campaigned on that. GHW Bush promised no new taxes despite rising national deficits but as far as business was concerned, ditto. He lied and was soundly defeated in 1991, just a few months after supposedly "winning" the war in Iraq. Go figure? Bill Clinton, an underdog from day one, became President of the United States of America in 1992 with a promise of universal healthcare. He didn't lie, his vision was just defeated from a more conservative congress, Democrats and Republicans alike. Now we have dubya. He's a "Compassionate Conservative" or so he said. He also said he was not into "nation building" and a lot of other things. I submit that he is NOT a conservative, he is NOT compassionate and he IS into nation building, or destruction, whichever way you might want to look at it.

Regular people living regular lives voted in all these instances for candidates that promised relief from regular problems. Even a casual look at statistics reveal that cynicists refuse to vote at all. Considering the three promises that were made by GWB, how can you possibly believe or trust anything he has to say?

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
GHW Bush promised no new taxes despite rising national deficits but as far as business was concerned, ditto. He lied and was soundly defeated in 1991, just a few months after supposedly "winning" the war in Iraq. Go figure?
. . .
Bill Clinton, an underdog from day one, became President of the United States of America in 1992 with a promise of universal healthcare. He didn't lie, his vision was just defeated from a more conservative congress, Democrats and Republicans alike.
________________ ____________________

What was the composition of the legislative branch under Bush, and what was their view towards his tax policy? You chose to leave that out of your interpretation of events, I noticed.

 

[Psychoblues]

No, I mentioned it. There was a conservative faction, Democratic and Republican alike. I guess you just misinterpreted although I intended to be clear. Maybe it was your inclination towards slamming Democrats in general and Bill Clinton in particular that clouded your vision and caused you to miss those words? Altough I loath the day, maybe we are heading toward an even more partisan political environment than we have even now?

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Ronald Reagan gave business back to business. He campaigned on that. GHW Bush promised no new taxes despite rising national deficits but as far as business was concerned, ditto. He lied and was soundly defeated in 1991, just a few months after supposedly "winning" the war in Iraq. Go figure? Bill Clinton, an underdog from day one, became President of the United States of America in 1992 with a promise of universal healthcare. He didn't lie, his vision was just defeated from a more conservative congress, Democrats and Republicans alike. Now we have dubya. He's a "Compassionate Conservative" or so he said. He also said he was not into "nation building" and a lot of other things. I submit that he is NOT a conservative, he is NOT compassionate and he IS into nation building, or destruction, whichever way you might want to look at it.

Regular people living regular lives voted in all these instances for candidates that promised relief from regular problems. Even a casual look at statistics reveal that cynicists refuse to vote at all. Considering the three promises that were made by GWB, how can you possibly believe or trust anything he has to say?

^Your original thread beginning statement in full.

You clearly blame Clinton's failures on the congress, yet totally fail to mention that Bush '41 met with the same difficulties.

You then use this selective interpretation to say that bush in fact lied about wanting tax reform. Clearly anyone who was above the age of eight back then and had some kind of access to news would know that it was in fact the government as a whole that rejected the tax reform, and the additional troubles of Gulf one and an untimely recession were also a hindrance. You give Bush Two the same treatment, denying the events he has met with since taking office.

If you can excuse Clinton for failing to come through in as many ways as he did, why can you not accept the capability for dynamic character in the Republican led governments?

 

[nbdysfu]

You're good people Pb. No personal attacks meant. Just trying to point out an angle you might not have considered.

A lot of people were kind of mean to you [including myself] last year. Sorry about that.

 

[Psychoblues]

We can debate semantics forever, nbdysfu, but the fact remains that '41 ran on "No New Taxes" when also in fact he signed the legislation that embraced them. I suppose you could also say that we could not have achieved the "balanced budget" or the "surplus" that we achieved under the Clinton Administration without that legislation as well. At some point you have to admit that the economic policies of one party or the other as faulty. I've found relief in Democratic economic principles while I've never found real relief in Republican legislation or principles. But that's a very deep subject and generally uninteresting to the average populace.

Didn't mean to take so long to respond, nbdysfu, I got sidetracked, if you can dig it?