Quote from: Demonoid;244116John Kerry went to vietnam, fought, earned medals, saw and experienced what was going on there, came back, had the courage to speak out against a war that was being waged badly and for the wrong reasons. He was savagely attacked and slimed 4 years ago instead of being shown respect.

He earned medals under questionable circumstances, including three purple hearts for what amounted to scratches and bruises, at least one of which was probably unintentionally self-inflicted.  He also lied about his experiences later on in life and refused to sign a release form for his military records, something Bush did for his Air National Guard records.

Quote from: Demonoid;244116Max Cleland went to vietnam, served, lost both legs and an arm. When he disagreed with bush his patriotism was mocked and attacked instead of being respected.

Max Cleland, on the other hand, never got his purple heart because he lost his legs and arm in a grenade accident.  Notice any disconnect there?  Of course Cleland wasn't criticized for his service but because he opposed homeland security measures.  And I suppose I should remind you that those ads were stopped because of pressure from Republicans including John McCain.

Quote from: Demonoid;244116Now, what, exactly, did sarah palin do to earn respect, more respect than kerry or cleland were shown by the republicans?

The problem isn't the attacks against Sarah Palin, per se.  That's fair game.  The problems are the lies (articles being published in the mainstream media only to turn out to not be true a day later, which means that they aren't waiting to check their facts properly) and the attacks on her family.

And, again, two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote from: jhkim;244533I would guess that he was referring to the debt as a percentage of GDP.  It is perhaps deceptive to call this a surplus, when really the raw dollars still increased.  
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Something that President's can do something about is government spending, cf. www.usgovernmentspending.com .  Under Clinton, spending went from $2.3 trillion (37.8% GDP) to $3.2 trillion (33.4% GDP) -- an increase of +38% in raw dollars, but a decrease in percent of GDP.  Under Bush, spending has gone up to $5.2 trillion (36.6% GDP), or +61% in raw dollars as well as in percent of GDP.  


True.  I still think Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.

The Chart there is debt as % of the GDP. What's scary if you use that, is that the debt is less under the current Bush then under even Clinton.

Bush has certainly been spend happy, disgustingly so. His greatest failure, IMO, was not leading the country as a country at war, which would have taken sacrifices all around. He should have frozen non-war related spending for the duration of the war.

Quote from: Jackalope;244531Yeah, I remember watching that.  It was his very first episode, if I recall correctly (that's why I was watching).  He started by introducing the "new President" (flash photo of Bill Clinton), the "new First Lady" (flash photo of Hillary Clinton), and the "new First Dog" (flash photo of 13 year old, gangly, acned Chelsea Clinton).

Truly a high point in American political discourse.

No - it was NOT his first episode. Limbaugh's first TV episode was in September of 1992....so it was during the election, but before Clinton was the new President.

There was an ongoing gag about it wasn't over "Till fat lady sings" .
 So Riush and his staff hired a fat lady - who was also an opera singer. The day after Bill Clinton won the 1992 election, the Fat lady sang. Her first words were "Its over...."

I remember the slip-up with the Chelsea picture and I remember Rush being flustered by it and apologizing. I think his staff was messing with him, and did that as a practical joke to see how he'd respond.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkim;244533True.  I still think Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.

Clinton had a Republican Congress interested in balancing the budget while Reagan and Bush I had a Congress at least partially controlled by Democrats and Bush II had a Republican Congress looking to spend money like drunken sailors to try to stay in the majority.  That's why (A) Bush II isn't very popular even among conservatives and (B) why the Republicans no longer control Congress.  They brought it upon themselves by abandoning fiscal conservativism.

Quote from: John Morrow;244538They brought it upon themselves by abandoning fiscal conservativism.

Which they did pretty much the second they had power, because at the end of the day Republicans only believe in fiscal conservatism when Democrats hold the purse-strings.

The worst thing, I think, is that Republicans frequently end up doing exactly what Democrats want to do, but doing it in an entirely half-assed way.  Like the prescription drug benefit.  Only a Republican could think to add a "no collective bargaining for prices" clause, transforming a public health measure into corporate welfare.

Gore was the true fiscal conservative, and was responsible for the greatest reduction in federal payrolls since FDR's New Deal, as well as huge number of cost saving and efficiency measures.  One of the more famous is the pdf, which mostly exist because of Gore's Paper Reduction Act, and was a massive cost savings measure for the government (digital records can be stored and retrieved much more cheaply than paper copies, with far less environmental damage).

Quote from: Demonoid;244353The issue to me is that conservatives attack family members for political reasons or just out of spite, like when rush limbaugh called 13 year old chelsea clinton "a dog" on his TV show while demanding their families be sacred.

He didn't call her a dog.  He flashed a picture of a dog on the screen.  That wasn't right either but I'm just trying to help you get your facts straight.  He should apologize for that and, yes, I think there is a certain hypocrisy to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others who have raked Michelle Obama over the coals for her college thesis jumping to Sarah Palin's defense but, again, two wrongs don't make a right.  It may feel good to hit back but that doesn't make it right.  And as I've said elsewhere, there are plenty of claims about Obama and his family that I don't and won't repeat because I don't think they are credible or don't think they are fair.  

Yes, there are conservatives who have attacked Chelsea Clinton mercilessly, including questioning her parentage (saying that she's the child of Vince Foster or, more commonly, Web Hubbell, who she sort of resembles) and there are other conservatives who tell them to leave her along, including some conservatives who are making the very point you are making to other conservatives right now on conservative message boards.  Both sides have their loons who do awful things.

What makes this case a little different is that the mainstream media has joined the fray and are publishing stories without properly fact checking them.  Yes, maybe Rush Limbaugh's dog picture and claims that Chelsea Clinton is Web Hubbell's child are despicable but they weren't front page stories on the New York Post.

Quote from: Demonoid;244353And no one even calls them hypocrites. I guess that bothers me a lot. Conservatives commit blatant, open hypocrisy and no one even bothers to call them on it. I guess america is so used to hypocrisy no one even bothers to bring it up as an issue anymore...

Actually, yes they do.  They are doing it now on conservative message boards and I've done it myself.  Rush Limbaugh's dog picture is mild compared to what gets posted about Chelsea Clinton on conservative message boards and I certainly agree that people who engage in that sort of activity are being hypocrites if they complain about the way Palin is being treated.  That said, again, two wrongs do not make a right.

Quote from: Jackalope;244543Which they did pretty much the second they had power, because at the end of the day Republicans only believe in fiscal conservatism when Democrats hold the purse-strings.

They believed in fiscal conservativism when they controlled the House and Senate when Clinton was President, so they can be fiscally conservative when they control the purse strings.  The problem is that whenever power is unchecked, people feel free to run amok.

Quote from: Werekoala;244528Limbaugh did make the crack about Chelsea on his TV show - actually, he didn't SAY anything, he was talking about the White House dog and a pic of Chelsea flashed on the screen behind him for a couple of seconds. I saw it when it happened, and he later apologized for it. And it was 15 years ago, but apparently a one-shot crack in poor taste is a lifetime sentence.

Quote from: CavScoutIt looks very likely to have happened to me. Limbaugh says alot of stupid shit.

Quote from: KoltarI remember the slip-up with the Chelsea picture and I remember Rush being flustered by it and apologizing. I think his staff was messing with him, and did that as a practical joke to see how he'd respond.

- Ed C.

I concede the point.

(But I'd still like to see the video proof.)

Quote from: John Morrow;244545What makes this case a little different is that the mainstream media has joined the fray and are publishing stories without properly fact checking them.  Yes, maybe Rush Limbaugh's dog picture and claims that Chelsea Clinton is Web Hubbell's child are despicable but they weren't front page stories on the New York Post.

No, they were just on national television. :rolleyes:

This is the world conservative media has given us.  What you are observing is the entire media establishment stopping to the levels established originally by right-wing talk radio.

This is what I'm talking about when I say the conservative movement is fascist.  This polarization, this Us Vrs Them mentality, the cheap shots and nastiness of political debate, all of that began back in the late 80's and early 90's.  That's the politics of Rush, and of Karl Rove: politics of divisiveness and hate.  It's designed to make it impossible to have intelligent, rational conversations, to make sure that everyone thinks the facts are suspect.

Quote from: Jackalope;244543Which they did pretty much the second they had power, because at the end of the day Republicans only believe in fiscal conservatism when Democrats hold the purse-strings.

The worst thing, I think, is that Republicans frequently end up doing exactly what Democrats want to do, but doing it in an entirely half-assed way.  Like the prescription drug benefit.  Only a Republican could think to add a "no collective bargaining for prices" clause, transforming a public health measure into corporate welfare.

Gore was the true fiscal conservative, and was responsible for the greatest reduction in federal payrolls since FDR's New Deal, as well as huge number of cost saving and efficiency measures.  One of the more famous is the pdf, which mostly exist because of Gore's Paper Reduction Act, and was a massive cost savings measure for the government (digital records can be stored and retrieved much more cheaply than paper copies, with far less environmental damage).

You know, I may be starting to like you a little.

From what I've seen lurking here (I only joined to ask about CT) you may not be popular but I like about half of what you say. I think you were right on the bullseye when you said that bush passed that medicine act ONLY after it was turned into a moneymaker for pharmaceutical corporations. The goddam conservatives can't do a penny's worth for the working class unless the rich get a dollar out of it.

You mentioned Al Gore. You know conservatives will say that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, which is a total lie, but then claim that rush limbaugh didn't call a 13 year old girl a dog on his TV show due to a trivial bit of minutia, like he only had his drones flash the girl's picture after saying the white house had a dog.

Quote from: John Morrow;244538Clinton had a Republican Congress interested in balancing the budget while Reagan and Bush I had a Congress at least partially controlled by Democrats and Bush II had a Republican Congress looking to spend money like drunken sailors to try to stay in the majority.  That's why (A) Bush II isn't very popular even among conservatives and (B) why the Republicans no longer control Congress.  They brought it upon themselves by abandoning fiscal conservativism.

Well, but spending during the Clinton's initial Democratic congress still decreased as percentage of GDP (37.8% GDP in 1992 down to 36.0% in 1994, prior to the Republican takeover).  And Reagan had several terms of Republican control.  Not everything is on the President, but I think it's fair to say that Clinton was fiscally responsible.  

It would be interesting to break down those numbers further for party control of houses.  

Is there a concise breakdown of party control of the houses?  I found this collection by Alan Reifman of Texas Tech University for the Senate: http://www.depts.ttu.edu/hs/research/reifman/senatedata.htm  But I haven't found a concise equivalent for the House of Representatives.

Quote from: jeff37923;244358Got proof?

Limbaugh did show a picture of a small dog briefly while talking about Chelsea Clinton.  I'll back them up on that because I saw it.  He says it was a mistake but I'm skeptical myself.  That was not nearly as bad as I've seen on conservative message boards, openly mocking her appearance and calling her the child of Web Hubbell or Vince Foster.  Very nasty stuff and it does exist and did exist even when she was a minor.  It deserves to be condemned and it is often condemned but not nearly as consistently as it should be.

Quote from: jeff37923;244549I concede the point.

(But I'd still like to see the video proof.)

Then get off your lazy ass and find it. I'm not going to search the net for you.

Quote from: jhkim;244552Well, but spending during the Clinton's initial Democratic congress still decreased as percentage of GDP (37.8% GDP in 1992 down to 36.0% in 1994, prior to the Republican takeover).

The economy started to improve during that period.  Better economy means more taxes which is why the last time I did an analysis of budget numbers, I included both real dollars and GDP because the story of what was going on can be found in both.

Quote from: jhkim;244552And Reagan had several terms of Republican control.

Republicans never controlled the House under Reagan and the Democrat control was so strong that Republicans taking the House was unthinkable in the 1980s.  Spending bills constitutionally start in the House.

Quote from: jhkim;244552Not everything is on the President, but I think it's fair to say that Clinton was fiscally responsible.

Clinton was, in some ways, a moderate who supported welfare reform and NAFTA.  Clinton also benefited from a booming economy and a Republican Congress that believed in a balanced budget.  He also benefited from the "peace dividend" that was made possible by Ronald Reagan's deficit spending to grow the military.  Clinton certainly deserves some credit for it, though.  George W. Bush, on the other hand, has nobody but himself to blame since his own party controlled Congress and he refused to use his veto for years.  

Quote from: jhkim;244552It would be interesting to break down those numbers further for party control of houses.

You also have to look at both GDP and real dollars.  The GDP depends on the economy and a president who has to deal with a contracting economy has a harder job than a president who has to deal with a booming economy.

Quote from: jhkim;244552Is there a concise breakdown of party control of the houses?

In modern times, the Republicans controlled the House from 1995 (1994 elections) to 2006.  Fiscal conservatives will point out that as the Republicans got comfortable controlling the house, as many members of the 1994 class who promised to stay in for no more than three terms retired in 2000, and as the economy started to turn, the Republicans abandoned fiscal responsibility for pork-barrel spending to appease their constituents.

Quote from: Jackalope;244550No, they were just on national television. :rolleyes:

The dog picture was a few seconds on a late night show and he did take a lot of heat for it.  Not the same.  Are you honestly claiming that a quick clip on one show is the equivalent of what's been thrown at Sarah Palin's kids over the past few days?

Quote from: Jackalope;244550This is the world conservative media has given us.  What you are observing is the entire media establishment stopping to the levels established originally by right-wing talk radio.

Oh, please.  Have you ever heard what college professors tell their students and seen what the liberal press prints?  Radio is not the only form of information in the universe but you like to harp on it because it's the one form of media where conservatives dominate.  No, no bias there.

Because of Nixon, conservatives felt justified in tearing down Carter.  Because of Carter, liberals tore into Reagan and Bush I.  Because of Reagan, conservatives tore into Clinton.  Because of Clinton, liberals tear into Bush.  And round and round we go, with two wrongs making a right and both sides claiming that their crap doesn't stink and it's all the other side's fault, just like you are doing here.  

Quote from: Jackalope;244550This is what I'm talking about when I say the conservative movement is fascist.  This polarization, this Us Vrs Them mentality, the cheap shots and nastiness of political debate, all of that began back in the late 80's and early 90's.

Try 1960s and 1970s, or are you again forgetting those bombs Ayers set and his now wife's admiration of the work of the Manson gang?  It pretty much went downhill in that regard after Kennedy starting with Johnson, which is why he didn't run for reelection.  But it wasn't conservatives attacking Johnson or rioting at the DNC convention in 1968.

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at," Bill Ayers.  That's not an Us vs. Them mentality, right?  Not cheap or nasty, right?  Not divisive and hateful, right?

Quote from: Jackalope;244550That's the politics of Rush, and of Karl Rove: politics of divisiveness and hate.  It's designed to make it impossible to have intelligent, rational conversations, to make sure that everyone thinks the facts are suspect.

And the left never does that, right? :rolleyes: