EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of Family Research Council Action.

[Rickyvol77]

This definitely wasn't true after the 1994 mid-term elections, which saw Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress. There was a great deal of collaboration between President Bill Clinton and Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, in 1997. A significant amount of mutually beneficial, bi-partisan legislation was passed. We actually had balanced budgets for a brief time. President Clinton was willing to compromise, while also making some complete concessions to Gingrich on fiscal policy. That was a rare, productive period of time for the United States government. Both Clinton and Gingrich deserve credit for that.

Two notable examples included :

(1) On August 5th, 1997, President Bill Clinton signed a tax bill which included a $500 per-child tax credit for families with incomes under $110,000 that had been promoted by both sides. It also contained Clinton's plan for $1,500 tax credits to offset the cost of college tuition, as well as capital gains and estate taxes which had been principle goals for the GOP. Previously, Democrats had been unwilling to budge on capital gains cuts... It was Bill Clinton who made this important concession.

(2) The spending measure enacted in 1997, also made cuts to Medicare by $115 billion over 5 years, and Medicaid by $13 billion. These cuts kept those programs from bankruptcy. Democrats had always been reluctant to make such reforms to Medicare and Medicaid. Once again, Clinton compromised.

Most of what you post is nothing more than superficial, sound-byte partisan insults directed at Democrats. You are short on substance and support nothing with examples. You are easily rebutted by well-known, established facts. You tend to paint with an over-broad brush, while also being highly judgmental. You are usually misguided, either as a result of ignorance or of short-term memory.

Dems now are not the same party. Hell Clinton, Carter, JFK even pre 2008 Obama would be too right wing to run as a Dem

 

[BowlBrother85]

Dems now are not the same party.

Neither is the Republican Party.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Neither is the Republican Party.

No they are both idiots

 

[OrangeTsar]

This definitely wasn't true after the 1994 mid-term elections, which saw Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress. There was a great deal of collaboration between President Bill Clinton and Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, in 1997. A significant amount of mutually beneficial, bi-partisan legislation was passed. We actually had balanced budgets for a brief time. President Clinton was willing to compromise, while also making some complete concessions to Gingrich on fiscal policy. That was a rare, productive period of time for the United States government. Both Clinton and Gingrich deserve credit for that.

Two notable examples included :

(1) On August 5th, 1997, President Bill Clinton signed a tax bill which included a $500 per-child tax credit for families with incomes under $110,000 that had been promoted by both sides. It also contained Clinton's plan for $1,500 tax credits to offset the cost of college tuition, as well as capital gains and estate taxes which had been principle goals for the GOP. Previously, Democrats had been unwilling to budge on capital gains cuts. It was Bill Clinton who made this important concession.

(2) The spending measure enacted in 1997, also made cuts to Medicare by $115 billion over 5 years, and Medicaid by $13 billion. These cuts kept those programs from bankruptcy. Democrats had always been reluctant to make such reforms to Medicare and Medicaid. Once again, Clinton compromised.

Most of what you post is nothing more than superficial, sound-byte partisan insults directed at Democrats. You are short on substance and support nothing with examples. You are easily rebutted by well-known, established facts. You tend to paint with an over-broad brush, while also being highly judgmental. You are usually misguided, either as a result of ignorance, or a short-term memory.

Ancient history politically speaking. 1997 was even further back in Time that Tennessee’s National Championship.
And I have stated on this board many times my admiration for Bill Clinton’s pragmatism and willingness to work across the aisle and even to buck his own party when necessary (welfare reform for example). I even voted for Clinton TWICE. So please don’t tell me I don’t know about or appreciate the last ANCIENT time a Democrat actually reached across the aisle.
It says a lot that you cannot find any examples from the current millennium now doesn’t it?
I can find you Republicans who support abortion. Find me a SINGLE elected pro life Democrat and then we can talk.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Ancient history politically speaking. 1997 was even further back in Time that Tennessee’s National Championship.
And I have stated on this board many times my admiration for Bill Clinton’s pragmatism and willingness to work across the aisle and even to buck his own party when necessary (welfare reform for example). I even voted for Clinton TWICE. So please don’t tell me I don’t know about or appreciate the last ANCIENT time a Democrat actually reached across the aisle.
It says a lot that you cannot find any examples from the current millennium now doesn’t it?
I can find you Republicans who support abortion. Find me a SINGLE elected pro life Democrat and then we can talk.

1997 is ancient history, huh? LOL. You used the word "NEVER" in all caps, in the post that I replied to. If you only meant since 1998, then you should have specified such.

 

[BowlBrother85]

We had one won in 1991 and then pulled out early before finishing the job.

The "job", as defined by the November of 1990 U.N. Security Council resolution, was simply to liberate the nation of Kuwait of Iraqi-military occupation. That job was completed. There was no mandate to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

 

[OrangeTsar]

1997 is ancient history, huh? LOL. You used the word "NEVER" in all caps, in the post that I replied to. If you only meant since 1998, then you should have specified such.

I am sorry. I thought you had at least a basic grasp of English grammar. Let me slow it down for you so you can apprehend the point correctly. I said that a Democrat WILL never agree (present tense). Not that a Democrat has NEVER agreed (past tense). So technically ANY history you want to bring up does not contradict my assertion.
The Democrat party was once a proud and noble party filled with patriots and caring people. Now it is a virtue signaling woke Circus surviving only by seeding and nurturing class, racial, and gender resentments. It’s only core principle remaining is a barbaric and uncompromising belief that you can dismember and murder an unborn child up until the very moment when one is no longer to push it forcibly back down the birth canal.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I am sorry. I thought you had at least a basic grasp of English grammar. Let me slow it down for you so you can apprehend the point correctly. I said that a Democrat WILL never agree (present tense). Not that a Democrat has NEVER agreed (past tense). So technically ANY history you want to bring up does not contradict my assertion.
The Democrat party was once a proud and noble party filled with patriots and caring people. Now it is a vortue signaling woke Circus surviving only by seeding and nurturing class, racial, and gender resentments.

Without drawing from a pattern of behavior from past presidencies (plural), you were doing nothing more than playing the role of amateur fortune teller.

Your posts are ignorant, and void of substance.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Without drawing from a pattern of behavior from past presidencies (plural), you were doing nothing more than playing the role of amateur fortune teller.

Your posts are ignorant, and void of substance.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that today’s Democrat party bears any resemblance whatsoever to the Party of Truman and JFK? I have been around since the 1960s and have watched in dismay as it was taken over and then cannibalized by the radical left. 1968 was the pivotal year. I watched election after election as the Party drifted further and further left, until it accelerated irreversibly after Clinton. So you may call me ignorant. I however believe you are naive and willfully blind. They are no longer the party of the working man and haven’t been for a long time now.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The "job", as defined by the November of 1990 U.N. Security Council resolution, was simply to liberate the nation of Kuwait of Iraqi-military occupation. That job was completed. There was no mandate to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Which is why the hell we had to go back and finish the “job” because the sonofab$&@? dictator was still in power causing problems. And at the time in 1990 the UN resolution would have said whatever we wanted it to.

 

[davethevol]

Which is why the hell we had to go back and finish the “job” because the sonofab$&@? dictator was still in power causing problems. And at the time in 1990 the UN resolution would have said whatever we wanted it to.

As bad as he was, we were better off in the world with him in power. He kept the fundamentalists at bay in Iraq. I think we should have gone after the Saudi Royal family. We know they helped fund 9/11.

 

[NorthDallas40]

As bad as he was, we were better off in the world with him in power. He kept the fundamentalists at bay in Iraq. I think we should have gone after the Saudi Royal family. We know they helped fund 9/11.

We had no business going back in in 2003 since we didn’t finish in 1991. Just like we have no business lecturing Russia on Ukraine now when we rolled over to get our belly scratched by Putin in 2014 over Crimea. We, by talking Ukraine into giving up their nukes, are why the Russian flag flys over Ukraine now. We will never go after the house of Saud they have permanent favored dictator status but yeah they should have felt pain also in addition to Afghanistan

 

[DonjoVol]

As bad as he was, we were better off in the world with him in power. He kept the fundamentalists at bay in Iraq. I think we should have gone after the Saudi Royal family. We know they helped fund 9/11.

The Christians, Yazidis, Mandeans and other religious groups were free to practice their religion under Saddam. When he was ousted from power those groups saw major persecution over the years and many were forced out of their homelands.

 

[Volaholic320]

Trump and his team are not what I consider true members of the right. Trump was a lifelong Democrat until he figured out that he had a better chance of gaining office as a Republican. Trump had and has one core value and one only. And that core Value is Donald Trump. Many of us held our nose and supported him because the alternative was anathema, but I never claimed him as one of our own. And I will work hard for other REAL conservative candidates in 2024 to try and keep him from the nomination of he runs again.

Agreed, he definitely didn't help on the budget front.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Agreed, he definitely didn't help on the budget front.

I have yet to meet a SINGLE politician that goes beyond TALKING about cutting spending and then actually doing it. Which is a shame, because it is the ONLY way government will ever be reigned back into its Constitutionally constrained limits.

 

[davethevol]

The Christians, Yazidis, Mandeans and other religious groups were free to practice their religion under Saddam. When he was ousted from power those groups saw major persecution over the years and many were forced out of their homelands.

He knew what the real threat was. Same thing in Syria with Assad. The Christians were relatively protected until the Sunni’s and Isis started taking off due to what happened in Iraq and the US’s meddling.