<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 1992 Redux?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/</link>
	<description>The Internet home for American gay conservatives.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:15:21 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: raj</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17887</link>
		<dc:creator>raj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17887</guid>
		<description>#9 rightwingprof — June 18, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - June 18, 2006

&lt;i&gt;No, we do not have a bigger debt. Debt is meaningful only as a percentage of the GNP, and we have a SMALLER debt.&lt;/i&gt;

I&#039;m sure that you can provide a citation to support that assertion.

I do not have the slightest idea whether or not the assertion is true.  Quite frankly, since the federal government--unlike most state and local governments and most of private industry--does not operate using a &quot;capital budget&quot; (in which capital expenditures are capitalized and then amortized), it is probably next to impossible to properly analyze the federal budget.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#9 rightwingprof — June 18, 2006 @ 1:45 pm &#8211; June 18, 2006</p>
<p><i>No, we do not have a bigger debt. Debt is meaningful only as a percentage of the GNP, and we have a SMALLER debt.</i></p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure that you can provide a citation to support that assertion.</p>
<p>I do not have the slightest idea whether or not the assertion is true.  Quite frankly, since the federal government&#8211;unlike most state and local governments and most of private industry&#8211;does not operate using a &#8220;capital budget&#8221; (in which capital expenditures are capitalized and then amortized), it is probably next to impossible to properly analyze the federal budget.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rightwingprof</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17886</link>
		<dc:creator>rightwingprof</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17886</guid>
		<description>No, we do not have a bigger debt. Debt is meaningful only as a percentage of the GNP, and we have a SMALLER debt.

Democrats expect their &quot;leaders&quot; to be liars. That&#039;s why Democrats were aghast when practically the day after the 2004 election, Bush started working on the things he promised to do in his campaign -- and started whining about &quot;unifying&quot; and &quot;compromising&quot; -- because the concept of a President actually trying to do what he promised is utterly lost on liberals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, we do not have a bigger debt. Debt is meaningful only as a percentage of the GNP, and we have a SMALLER debt.</p>
<p>Democrats expect their &#8220;leaders&#8221; to be liars. That&#8217;s why Democrats were aghast when practically the day after the 2004 election, Bush started working on the things he promised to do in his campaign &#8212; and started whining about &#8220;unifying&#8221; and &#8220;compromising&#8221; &#8212; because the concept of a President actually trying to do what he promised is utterly lost on liberals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lester</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17885</link>
		<dc:creator>lester</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17885</guid>
		<description>rightwingprof-  preposterous.  as another poster pointed out Cliton had campaigned on reforming welfare and passed the deficit reduction act in 93.  Also, their are currently MORE republicans in the legistlature than there were in 94 and we have a bigger debt and more spending.  not only is it a mojority, but it includes many of the same people as the much vaunted &quot;contract with america&quot; group.  plain to see who was keeping who in check.

    and if Gingrich was so good how come he was DRIVEN OUT by his own party!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>rightwingprof-  preposterous.  as another poster pointed out Cliton had campaigned on reforming welfare and passed the deficit reduction act in 93.  Also, their are currently MORE republicans in the legistlature than there were in 94 and we have a bigger debt and more spending.  not only is it a mojority, but it includes many of the same people as the much vaunted &#8220;contract with america&#8221; group.  plain to see who was keeping who in check.</p>
<p>    and if Gingrich was so good how come he was DRIVEN OUT by his own party!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GayPatriotWest</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17884</link>
		<dc:creator>GayPatriotWest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17884</guid>
		<description>Exactly, rightwingprof in #6, but remember, this post is about the campaign of 1992, not his Administration.

If Democrats like Clinton, figure out how to run to the center in &#039;06, then veer to the left in the unfortunate event that they take control of either house, it could help make &#039;08 a Republican year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly, rightwingprof in #6, but remember, this post is about the campaign of 1992, not his Administration.</p>
<p>If Democrats like Clinton, figure out how to run to the center in &#8217;06, then veer to the left in the unfortunate event that they take control of either house, it could help make &#8217;08 a Republican year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rightwingprof</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17883</link>
		<dc:creator>rightwingprof</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:59:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17883</guid>
		<description>Yes, but Clinton&#039;s campaign was nothing but rhetoric. The only reason we got welfare reform, for example, was because the Gingrich Congress passed it, and over Clinton&#039;s veto (after he promised to reform welfare in his campaign). He campaigned as a moderate, and the minute he was elected, turned hard left.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, but Clinton&#8217;s campaign was nothing but rhetoric. The only reason we got welfare reform, for example, was because the Gingrich Congress passed it, and over Clinton&#8217;s veto (after he promised to reform welfare in his campaign). He campaigned as a moderate, and the minute he was elected, turned hard left.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ThatGayConservative</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17882</link>
		<dc:creator>ThatGayConservative</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17882</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; we realize ever more clearly how they’ve been banking on things being really, really bad to help them take control of both houses of Congress this fall. &lt;/i&gt;

Correction. THe libs have been FABRICATING those things whiche are &quot;really, really bad to help them take control of both houses&quot;. If they can&#039;t fabricate it, they&#039;ll spin it.
You know as well as the rest of us that what&#039;s good for America is bad for them. They have to create doom &amp; gloom and do their damndest, even if it means destroying America, to get their power back.

&lt;i&gt;Greenmiler, recall that in 1992, Clinton made himself palatable to moderates by saying he’d “end welfare as we know it” — a line from his 1992 speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president.&lt;/i&gt;

Aye, but he didn&#039;t do a damn thing about it until Republicans handed it to him. That was par for the course for Clinton. He didn&#039;t do a damned thing about anything until he was forced to do so and in a lot of cases, he didn&#039;t give a shit even then.

Libs will gladly screw you over to retain their birth-right of power and then turn around and bite the pillow for anybody else who wants a piece. Nah. Clinton was a bigger whore than Lewinski.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> we realize ever more clearly how they’ve been banking on things being really, really bad to help them take control of both houses of Congress this fall. </i></p>
<p>Correction. THe libs have been FABRICATING those things whiche are &#8220;really, really bad to help them take control of both houses&#8221;. If they can&#8217;t fabricate it, they&#8217;ll spin it.<br />
You know as well as the rest of us that what&#8217;s good for America is bad for them. They have to create doom &amp; gloom and do their damndest, even if it means destroying America, to get their power back.</p>
<p><i>Greenmiler, recall that in 1992, Clinton made himself palatable to moderates by saying he’d “end welfare as we know it” — a line from his 1992 speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president.</i></p>
<p>Aye, but he didn&#8217;t do a damn thing about it until Republicans handed it to him. That was par for the course for Clinton. He didn&#8217;t do a damned thing about anything until he was forced to do so and in a lot of cases, he didn&#8217;t give a shit even then.</p>
<p>Libs will gladly screw you over to retain their birth-right of power and then turn around and bite the pillow for anybody else who wants a piece. Nah. Clinton was a bigger whore than Lewinski.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GayPatriotWest</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17881</link>
		<dc:creator>GayPatriotWest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17881</guid>
		<description>Greenmiler, recall that in 1992, Clinton made himself palatable to moderates by saying he&#039;d &quot;end welfare as we know it&quot; -- a line from his 1992 speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president.

And Voicemale, Clinton wasn&#039;t the only president in the last century not to get a majority either time, he shares that distinction with another Democrat -- Woodrow Wilson.

Yes, despite the brilliance of his campaigns in 1992, he never mustered a majority.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greenmiler, recall that in 1992, Clinton made himself palatable to moderates by saying he&#8217;d &#8220;end welfare as we know it&#8221; &#8212; a line from his 1992 speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president.</p>
<p>And Voicemale, Clinton wasn&#8217;t the only president in the last century not to get a majority either time, he shares that distinction with another Democrat &#8212; Woodrow Wilson.</p>
<p>Yes, despite the brilliance of his campaigns in 1992, he never mustered a majority.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: greenmiler</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17880</link>
		<dc:creator>greenmiler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:41:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17880</guid>
		<description>great rewrite of history Lester, typical liberal. Clinton reluctantly signed the bill and said &quot;we&#039;ll fix it later&quot;, he did it out of political pressure and never &quot;fixed it later&quot;. You sign something and say &quot;We&#039;ll fix it later&quot;, you can&#039;t come back later and act like it was your idea! Oh yeah it worked and you a lib, sure you can

And to blame massive illegal immigration on Bush as if a Democratic Pres would have stopped is like saying John Kerry would have doubled the troop strength in Iraq.  All the protests against the tightening of immigration laws have come from liberal democrats.

You want to brag on Liberal policies, make sure thats waht they are</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>great rewrite of history Lester, typical liberal. Clinton reluctantly signed the bill and said &#8220;we&#8217;ll fix it later&#8221;, he did it out of political pressure and never &#8220;fixed it later&#8221;. You sign something and say &#8220;We&#8217;ll fix it later&#8221;, you can&#8217;t come back later and act like it was your idea! Oh yeah it worked and you a lib, sure you can</p>
<p>And to blame massive illegal immigration on Bush as if a Democratic Pres would have stopped is like saying John Kerry would have doubled the troop strength in Iraq.  All the protests against the tightening of immigration laws have come from liberal democrats.</p>
<p>You want to brag on Liberal policies, make sure thats waht they are</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Voicemale</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17879</link>
		<dc:creator>Voicemale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17879</guid>
		<description>Clinton won both his elections because Ross Perot split the Republican/Conservative vote. There is no other reason. Clinton was the only president in the last century that didn&#039;t get a majority EITHER time. He won with a plurality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clinton won both his elections because Ross Perot split the Republican/Conservative vote. There is no other reason. Clinton was the only president in the last century that didn&#8217;t get a majority EITHER time. He won with a plurality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lester</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/16/1992-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-17878</link>
		<dc:creator>lester</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=712#comment-17878</guid>
		<description>oh yeah.  NAFTA and the Gulf war.  what great cans of worms they opened up:  the Iraq war and massive illegal immigration, respectively.  Clinton ended welfare as we know it because democrats are better economists than republicans and know how to balance budgets.  They govern better in general, just don&#039;t campaign as well.  If you read Barry Goldwater&#039;s &quot;Conscience of a Conservative&quot; you&#039;ll see more Howard Dean than george Bush believe me</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh yeah.  NAFTA and the Gulf war.  what great cans of worms they opened up:  the Iraq war and massive illegal immigration, respectively.  Clinton ended welfare as we know it because democrats are better economists than republicans and know how to balance budgets.  They govern better in general, just don&#8217;t campaign as well.  If you read Barry Goldwater&#8217;s &#8220;Conscience of a Conservative&#8221; you&#8217;ll see more Howard Dean than george Bush believe me</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

