>Then quit talking about everything like its republican vs. democrat. Makes you sound truly ignorant. Incapable of deciding on an event by yourself.
>
>All you can say is Clinton is evil. And you show no ability to evaluate events by yourself. There are many who've lived their lives in dictatorships and compare the rhetoric spewing from the current administration is something they've heard before. I'm sure there were many in Russia who thought some of their leaders sounded great.
>

I don't frame everything as Republican v Democrat, you are interpreting. However, I do frame most things as conservative v liberal because it is a constant struggle. Liberals are the best at trying to win by incrementalism. Y'all never give it a rest.

You are right about my beliefs on Clinton. I think he is satan's son and he married his sister. The only thing good that came out of his tenure was the economy and the Republican controlled congress had much to do with that. Bill Clinton should have been exiled to France. I'm sure they would love him. Since Canada now says it's ok to have group sex parties, maybe he should have been sent there. I'm sure he would like it.

Before you attack me for my stance, you might want to take a look at your position on almost every issue. Pick a topic (other that the Denver Broncos) and your position is already documented in the dems talking points. Yes, many of my arguments will fall into the Repub's talking points too, but I also have ideas of my own. The Republicans have TALKED about cutting spending, but they are no better than the Dems when it comes time to do something. The major difference is the tax cuts which have been widely credited as making our economy so strong. We have 95% of the country employed, which by Robert Reich's standard is FULL EMPLOYMENT.

I've been making an extra effort to measure an issue before suggesting a solution or just taking the Republican side. Hopefully, you will do the same. My problem is I try to deal with facts and those are sometimes hard to come by. Take the situation in New Orleans for instance. Who did what? What are the facts? You hear this from one side and that from another so how do you decide. Here's one example of how I came to the conclusion that the mayor of New Orleans was largely at fault:

1. New Orleans had an emergency plan designed to use school buses for evacuation of poor people.
2. The mayor failed to implement it because he wanted more comfortable buses.
3. The buses sat in the parking lot until it was flooded.
4. Poor people couldn't get out of New Oleans and died in the flood.
5. Nagin blamed everyone but himself.
6. He made statements designed to incite, that were not based in fact - 10,000 body bags will be needed.
7. He indicated the people who were dying were poor and black. When the final numbers were in, there were many more whites killed than blacks and the total numbers were nowhere near 10,000.

I could go on, but I think you can see what I'm talking about. In many cases facts are hard to come by, but in this one instance, they are relatively easy to glean.