List Only

can someone help me come up witha comeback for a conservative guy i'm arguing with?

i said that clinton had a surplus and bush ruined everything (because i read that on someone's blog) then he wrote this: "the surplus was right at the end of the dot.com bubble. whoever was pres after clniton would have had the same problem to deal with. and clinton closed a lot of military bases and greatly cut military spending. that was easy to do for a budget, but for who's benefit? many felt those cuts were done for political purposes. he knew that the nat'l defense would have to be built back up by the next pres. and the lack of defense spending under clinton gave the power to the terrorist. we had us embassy bombings, uss cole, just to name a couple. so the surplus went to the war. to have peace, a military presence is needed. clinton didn't have a war to deal with and he cut a ton of military spending. smart guy? nope. he was the one whose policies advocated deregulation. he started the snowball and it has kept rolling ever since. and i hope you're not confusing the BUDGET surplus and national DEBT. this is very important to understand the difference and i don't think you do. we've had a nat'l deficit for over a century without surplus. the last time we had a SUSTAINED budget surplus was when conservative repubs ran congress. (newt was the speaker of the house)." how do i come back at him to make him look bad? if you aren't going to help me then DONT ANSWER@!!~!!!!!

Public Comments

1. "how do i come back at him to make him look bad?" typical lib thinking... call him a warmonger or racist, isnt that what yall usually do?
2. "how do i come back at him to make him look bad?" You dont. He won. The best thing you can do is admit defeat.
3. Apologize and tell him he's right.
4. Here's a good one, "History may prove me wrong many times such as the FDR years, Carter Years, and now with Europe's ten year long recession, but you know what!? Your a stupid conservative!"
5. What's really sad is that you're more concerned about making him look bad, than on determining the truth. Is the truth important to you? The fact is, his statements about Clinton ARE accurate. Period. Rather than simply look for comebacks to make someone look bad, you should seek the truth.
6. You can't. He's right. He could have brought up even more things Clinton did that have led us where we are today, like the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to become creative with financing to give loans to people who wouldn't ordinarily qualify. They did it to avoid being sued for discriminatory lending practices, and several were sued during that time. This was a huge factor in the economy boost that occurred on his watch. The only problem was that the inflated housing market, as well as the huge budget surplus were pretty much all on paper. Bush did have 9/11, a couple of wars and a mighty huge hurricane on his watch. There was no way to avoid much of the spending that happened while he was in office. Sure, Iraq was a mistake, as was expanding Medicare in the midst of it all. He's got his own fault in it all. But... it doesn't excuse Clinton.
7. You can't he is right. You are wrong. Plain simple. Why don't you just call him a racist? That's almost impossible to come back from.
8. Sorry sweetie, your friend has gotten his facts right. Do the research. Clinton was more worried about his legacy than worried about terrorists attacking the US. Had he been concerned about the US he would have done something about OSAMA when OSAMA was offered to him & then 9/11 would never have happened. Clinton was another self centerened @ss covering jask@ss
9. if you cannot think of a comeback on your own, then you have no business debating in the first place. You are obviously an ill-informed liberal and like most liberals you cannot possibly argue against an intelligent conservative. Everything he said was indeed true, so the only liberal comeback left for you is "bush did it, and we won." Hey, that excuse works for obama all the time, so you should use it too.
10. So he is basically saying that it's because of Clinton that the terrorists were able to attack us, which is not true, and also he has failed to mention that they were from Saudi Arabia by and large, and the "surplus that went to the war" actually went to a war in *IRAQ* which was wholly unnecessary and which I, for one, opposed from the very beginning. Bush by no means was forced to attack a country which did not attack us, or to start a war that plunged this country into atrocious debt and resulted in the deaths of thousands of our soldiers. He chose to do it because he wanted to carry out a vendetta against Saddam Hussein that originated with his father. And also for the possibility he'd wind up controlling Iraqi oil. And Clinton had NOTHING to do with that whatsoever. Sorry, this particular section of Yahoo Answers is usually overrun with flamingly ignorant conservatives.
11. hard to come up with a retort when someone throws facts at you in an argument! darn him for doing that!!!!!
12. For the one millionth time, there was no surplus under Clinton. The debt went up every year he was in office. Clinton was the fortunate inheritor of a historical anomaly not likely to be repeated any time soon. Several factors, demographic, political, technological, and economic came together to make the 1990s such a placid and successful time. Here are your comeback. The debt under Clinton rose about 1.6 trillion dollars. Under Bush it was about 5 trillion. Spending went all out of control under Bush. The Iraq war was not justified. We were in no imminent danger from Saddam's regime. Sure he was an odious thug, but so are a lot of other world leaders, many of whom got help from the Bush administration. Bush senselessly antagonized the Russians. We fomented revolutions and political trouble all over the former Soviet Union. We are putting interceptor missiles in Poland, to defend them against the Iranians, historically the people least likely to attack Poland. After 9/11 we had to maul the Taliban. But that is where our focus should have been. Instead we got lost in rearranging the politics of southeast Asia. Of course most good liberals would have freaked if Bush had stated what should have been US policy goal post 9/11, which is that your government is going to murder enough people to convince the survivors never to bother us again. As for making someone look bad, what kind of goal is that? I'm no fan of the conservatives, but I can tell you the ignorance of economics demonstrated by liberals is truly frightening. We are about to watch a foolish administration and an even more foolish congress turn a recession into a depression.
13. Well first of all Newt's Congress ran huge deficits. The Only Budget surpluses of the last 50 years were during the 2nd Clinton Admin. As for military bases closing - The Military has been trying to close outmoded, outdated, and unneeded bases for decades. Congress keeps them open because it means jobs back home. The defense budgets never decreased. They increased more slowly under Clinton because all of our military spending of the previous 40 years was for the 'Cold War' - which by the early 90's was over. One does not keep funding a war that no longer exists. The Soviet union was gone and China was going capitalist (sort of) As for the debt - True, we have carried a debt for the entire history of the nation and it always increases (but negligibly during surplus years) But when GW Bush Took Office the Debt was 5 trillion. When he left it was 10 trillion. Of the 10 trillion debt when Bush left office 7.5 trillion was accumulated in just 3 administrations - Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2. Obama is going to be an even bigger debt producer. Before his first term is up it will be another 5 trillion. But Bush chose to take on the debt with simultaneous tax cuts and war spending - Both the choice of his party). Obama is taking on the added debt because it is necessary to save the financial system and the economy - so say most economists.
14. You just made his point you nitwit!