Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Free Vulcan
>>>Damn right. If you use Marxist style debate tactics, expect to be called on it. And if you can't take the heat, stay away from the fire.

I have no idea what Marxist style debate tactics are and could care less about your stupid label. Here I thought we both had calmed down with the rhetoric. I was mistaken. So be it. I'm a good Republican and I never forget a back stabber.

Since you are so politically ignorant and emotionally challenged, I'll help you out. Clinton went along with Republican policy for the entire four year reign of Speaker Newt Gingrich (1995-1998). Clinton's sub50% victory over SenDole, along with the government shut down tactics he employed, were the only highlights for Clinton. As with most second presidential terms, Clinton was uninspired and politically flat.

Gingrich and his conservative agenda prevailed. Clinton supported and signed into law a majority (65%) of the items contained in the Contract with America. Clinton was a two-faced liberal, who saw the handwriting on the wall. He decided to turn from his 1960`s liberal roots, to become the ugliest creature in politics, a moderate. From 1998 through 2000 we had big surpluses and a return to excessive spending by the Republican controlled Congress.

Hopefully retaking the Senate this fall and with PresBush at the helm, we can start to slow down government spending again, work on more tax cuts and get some fiscal responsibility back in the Congress. I'm optimistic. Besides, no one I know of here on FR or anywhere else, for that matter, has a better idea/plan right now.

Oh yea, by the way, KMA sucker.

2,177 posted on 06/24/2002 7:37:29 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2176 | View Replies ]


To: Reagan Man
Since you are so politically ignorant and emotionally challenged..... I never forget a back stabber.

And I care little for your stupid labels and proclamations too.

I have no idea what Marxist style debate tactics are

A tad ignorant yourself I see, since that is what we are fighting. I'll give you a hint...you just used one.

Ok, I'll bite on your assertion, and take it at face value. Does that mean then, with one house of Congress in his camp and the other with a one vote deficit, that Bush should give back all the Republicans won since '94? Much of the spending is unilaterally coming from Bush himself, not D'asshole, and even Clinton used the veto even if he got overidden. Bush is in a much stronger position than Clinton ever was, so why give in at all?

2,179 posted on 06/24/2002 9:39:13 PM PDT by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2177 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson