Forums Register login What's New?
237 millionaires in Congress
Page 5 of 6
  1. what do you mean "has to"?

    shouldnt he represent them by doing what is best for them, which isnt always what the people think is best?

    my congressional district is the upper east side of manhattan and extreme northwest queens. i am sure my district wants high taxes and liberal policy. would i have failed them as a representative if i vote lower taxes and they have more money and jobs because of it?
  2. even if i wasnt referring to constituents being stupid, they certainly are ignorant of the issues. it is not possible for someone to be able to make good decisions when they are uninformed. the representatives have all the facts and a forum for debate.

    and havent you heard of "tyranny of the majority"?
  3. In Yugoslavia we we're supporting our NATO allies with whom we have a defense treaty. It's called "in our national interests". It had plenty of risk, but zero casualties and it was short and effective with no lingering occupation. "smart war" we call it, like Grenada, Kuwait, and Panama.

    Rwanda was a civil war in a third-world country that was not an ally nor did we have any treaties. Not our fight. No vital national interests. It would have been a "Stupid war" like Iraq and Vietnam.

    Prove it. When did he ever say that? Who has ever shown a correlation? It's BS.

    He reminds me of me. No wonder I liked him! :grin:

    What a joke. He cooperated with a republican congress to get legislation passed, he won his wars, he disarmed Saddam and destroyed his WMD's during the sanctions, he won his wars in Yugoslavia and Bosnia, he avoided a bad one in Somalia, he presided over the biggest market rise in recent history, the economy was powerful, we ran budget surpluses and actually began to pay down the debt, he was popular with our allies, and he had intellect. Check out any impartial ranking of presidents and see just how high Clinton is and just how low Nixon is.

    So you think we should have invaded Darfur and Sudan during the atrocities there under Bush? Would we still be there bogged down in a civil war between people who all hate us? Would you be blaming Obama for it now?
  4. Boy am I going to repeat this one back to you a lot. :hihi:
  5. Yes, big mistake, majority rules is the same as consensus.:insane::lol:
    I don't support a consensus unless they agree with me!;)
  6. In the former Yugoslavia, we were saving Europe's Liberal AZZ because they are too inept to solve their own problems. And the only reason we went is because the media loves to travel in Europe and tell stories from urban locations. If the only "smart war" is the one we can't possibly lose, then that's a sad, sad definition of "smart war".

    I didn't say I wanted us to go to war. I said I wanted us to lead the world in intervening and stopping the murders. You know, after the first 100,000 or so...:huh:

    Like Clinton is going to admit that he had no scruples of his own and was ruled by polling. But if you've paid attention to guys like Georgie StephanopoLiberal and Dick More-is, and others close to Clinton, it's been said over and over again. Obsessed by polling.

    Lots of people liked him. Being liked is irrelevant to being a good President. Which he was not.

    I'd like to see an impartial ranking of Presidents. :lol: But the bottom line is, while Nixon will always rank low because of Watergate, he was far more prescient and effective than Clinton. History, in the end, will judge Clinton for doing NOTHING against the terrorists that blossomed and gained confidence during his tenure. He will be judged for wasting billions and draining combat capability for 8 years after DESERT STORM. He wasn't the worst President ever - he got one thing right. He refused to be guided by traditional "progressive", Liberal economic dogma. But he was the worst by far in my lifetime. By contrast, GWB, who the media has lambasted, will eventually be given huge credit for bringing the fight away from the Homeland and WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ (which no one in the media wants to talk about). I could go on. But you and I have been through this before. Wasting my breath. :lol:

    1. Sorta (not invade, intervene). 2. Sorta (not bogged down, but certainly engaged. And 3. No, unless he went about it like Clinton - which is fire a cruise missile and hope you don't kill anyone...:nope:
    1 person likes this.
  7. BS. Does the term treaty obligations mean anything to you. Your personal feelings aside, we have no more important allies than our NATO partners. They went with us to Afghanistan, they went with us to Kuwait. This was their show and they couldn't handle it without us. So we got it done.

    You twist the logic. A "smart war " is one that we are likely to win. A "stupid war" is one that is impossible to win.

    If you believe that based on some kind of evidence share then it with us. What have these imaginary characters said about polling? Did you make it up?

    Most knowledgeable people disagree.

    2009 C-SPAN Historians Presidential Leadership Survey

    Clinton #15, Nixon #32, Bush 43 #36

    In fact, Clinton did far more than Bush did pre-9/11, just read the 9/11 Commission report. The first WTC bombing terrorists were captured, tried and are serving life sentences, unlike the 9/11 masterminds who still run free. The planned Millenium Bombings, terror on a 9/11 scale was discovered and broken up before it happened. Clinton tried to kill bin Ladin twice with missile strikes in the 90's. He retaliated for the embassy bombings by bombing al Qaida bases in Sudan and Afghanistan while Bush failed to retaliate for the USS Cole Bombing.

    This is nonsense. Clinton maintained the No-fly zones for 8 years over Iraq, repeatedly hitting radars and missile sites that lit up. He bombed Iraq twice in retaliation for the attempted assassination of Bush 41 and for UNSCOM violations. Our inspectors eliminated Iraq's WMD's during this time. Clinton's air war in Yugoslavia was literally perfect.

    The military drawdown after the Cold War was a Congressional bi-partisan effort has begun under Bush41 and continued under Clinton and Bush43. Much heavy obsolete equipment was replaced with modern, lighter. high-technology equipment. Effective loss of military power=none.

    Bring out your numbers, if you can demonstrate that Clinton drained US military capability. he won his wars handily. How do think Bush had the power for the Shock-and-Awe bombing campaigns less that a year after taking office?

    You haven't lived, junior. Carter, Nixon, Bush41 and Bush43 were all worse in my lifetime.

    Boy are you fantasizing now! :lol: :lol:
  8. They are not our guardian angels, they are our representatives.

    You can start with the fact that the majority of Americans don't want Pelosi's version of HC reform.

  9. We'll see, Red. Popularity polls are irrelevant. You're not going to change your mind. But I have a feeling before you and I are pushing up daisies, you're going to be amazed that Bush 43 suddenly is viewed with far more clarity, Clinton will be viewed for his ineptness at everything except womanizing, and Global Warming will be viewed as the great media hoax that it is. Out.
  10. I have not done the research but I strongly suspect that most of the elected officials in Washington originally come from middle class backgrounds - even the wealthy ones. A middle class background does not prevent someone from running for elected office - in fact it is probably an advantage.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 5 of 6