why are there so many arguments on here that end with "well Clinton did it before Bush?"

or

"clinton woulda been getting a blow job"

or

"every president did a flyover"

i mean aren't we supposed to be LEARNING from our and their mistakes..

So who is worse, the guy who makes the mistake or the guy who REPEATS the mistake?

-- Modified on 9/5/2005 8:55:44 AM

The Shrub apologists/sympathizers/thralls have a curious condition called OCD.

Obssessed with Clinton Disorder.

But I also stated that he got things done and would not have let the catastrophe in New Orleans take place. The problem that I have with the Bush Administration is that it always appears to be a couple steps behind the race. This is true with the handling of Afganistan (focused critical resources off that task, neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban have been extinquished), Iraq (went in too early and for the wrong reasons and did not or have not sent in enough force), and the issue of maintaining lefe support to Terri Schiavo (got involved in an attempt to overturn a State's decision. This from an Adminstration that supposedly respects State's Rights).
I am not about to retract what I wrote about Clinton getting a blowjob. Neither will I retract what I wrote about him probaly being the most effective President in my lifetime. Like him, neutral to him or hate him, he got the job done.

i don't believe in towing the party line

I can never decide on any given day which of the 2 major political parties are more disgusting and evil

I think , like you, that there really is nothing wrong with Clinton getting a blow job and i also agree that it probably made him a healthier president (lol), oh and i also love Clinton though i am aware of his faults, i still think he rocks!! for lack of a better term (my mind is bogged down right now)

I know that will get me some criticism, but its just plain true, my life and the life of my family and friends was better when he was in office on so many different levels (from education down to wages)

But i don't like him cause he as  a democrat, I like him despite him being a democrat.

I'm just saying IN GENERAL

why does it always boil down to "he did it, why can't I"?

-- Modified on 9/5/2005 8:47:31 AM

she sounded tired, haha
Besides the families staying with her, she is the head of one of the archive departments and they have a bunch of meetings and stuff still

everytime i call the house, it just sounds too chaotic, so i can barely get a word in edgewise

anyway, everyone seems to be in decent spirits,

thanks for asking hon

Is one of the hands-down stupider tactics in any argument. I'd say debate, but that implies a level of understanding a little beyond anyone trotting that one out. That's why kids use it all the time until even they figure out it doesn't make any sense.

How does anyone else's behaviour give anybody the carte blanche to do something stupid themselves?

I mean, are people fighting over equal shares of stupid? Is stupid like ice-cream, and is everybody five?

Please note my comments are a generalized statement about argument techniques and are not directed at anyone here.

However, I see one party and its underlying ideology as being hopelessly polluted and toxic to the point that it should be abandoned.  

The other one is a collapsed, useless, rubble heap, infested with rats and skunks.    

Both are discouraging, but you could at least build something on the second one, and even salvage some parts, though it's going to take a long time to make it useful, and perhaps your entire life to make it impressive.

If those are the only two tracts of land you have to live on, you've got to start somewhere.  The important thing is that you actually build, so your children don't have to live like the rats and the skunks.

just not doing all that they should at every point in time.  With respect to evil in our government - there is only one person who I truly believe is evil....  and no, it is not clinton, lol!  I certainly would not wish to be married to hillary... and no it is not hillary - it is actually a man.

But people seldom look at facts in a neutral - non-emotional analysis.  I have had people, when confronted with actual expenditures during various admins, going back to FDR, say, well, those figures are not true - they don't reflect what I know!  even though, the numbers are the numbers!   With respect to Clinton.... try the Kennedy test.  I have  a very adamant Demo supporter friend (campaigned for every Demo since RFK).  He will not let his children get into a car, with ANY Kennedy - and yet he still votes for and supports them (Arnold excepted)!

me, if I wouldn't let my kid ride in the car with 'em, I wouldn't want 'em running the country, kinda like lettin 'em run with scissors or other sharp objects.

clearly not telling the truth, it was not the Democrats who convinced him to step down, it was the Republicans.  They did it for several reasons, the least of which, they could not tollerate the digrace that the man was bringing to their own party.  The Democrats seem to not care about lying, or at best tollerate it.

since when was lying to be acceptable behaviour?  While on subject, the lies that are going against us now, are the intel reports that SH was indeed building up WMD.  and planning their use.  Well, we found out that that was not true.  get over it, but at least we know for sure.  The other way, we never really knew.

Because there is such hatred for Bush that is really not called for.  There are so many inconsistencies in the allegations against him.  And, people tend to blame him (Bush) for everything, even for events that were initiated during Clinton's admin - or for that matter during Bush 41's amin or Reagun or Carter!  so why the focus on this one person?  It is the emotional logic that there would be an emotional focus on the other....

if you want people to get over lies told by the current administration, you need to get over the lies told by all the previous administrations

if smeone accuses the current administration of STARTING something that they did not, i agree with correcting that falsehood

but sometimes people pull out the "sins of the father (previus administrations)" when explaining something that is going on CURRENTLY that was creates/started by the current administration

Clinton administration fucked up alot of foreign policy and went to war too,
true dat
but lets talk about RIGHT now

The current war is not FIXING Clinton's errors, its adding to them

Bush was lied to - just as Clinton was lied to ... our beurocracy is not functional - for either Demo's or Repub's !  And the media just adds to the confusion, cause they can't get a story staight either -

lets bulldoze them all (well just libertarian, democrat, republican parties) and start new

i kinda like the Green Party ;-P

As much as I think our current leader is worthless, inherited problems notwithstanding, I don't see many building blocks from either established party.  Both have become such polar opposites, determined to fight the other simply for the sake of making the other look badly.  

If you look at the finger pointing going on in NOLA today while people die, how can you lay claim to any value to either side?  One side is worse than the other (each of you can decide for yourself), but the "good" one is still slightly worse than a disease ridden used car salesman's attorney.

We deserve better...

Let's just say I agree with you.  Bill Clinton is responsible for this whole disaster, four and 1/2 years into the Bush presidency? The question is why is Bush continuing to make the same mistakes in the pesent that Clinton made in the past?

Whose main ideology (when it shows one) is now liberal.

The problem with the DNC really is dereliction and exhaustion of ideas.  The '60s generation, as much as republicans like to bash it, was a complete disaster for the democrats and liberals.  That generation turned on, tuned in, and dropped out.  Aside from a few academics with their single pet issues, that generation was a loss for any intellectual groundwork for liberalism-- which was crucial at a time when Communism was discredited and in decline.  Meanwhile, conservatives were having a boom in their intellectual work.  

Unfortunately, I think conservatives and by extention, the Republican party are the toxic waste dump.  Continue to try to follow that philosophy, and IMHO,we will die as a nation at best, and at worst, destroy the rest of the world as we do it.

-- Modified on 9/5/2005 2:44:06 PM

"Bush was lied to - just as Clinton was lied to ... our beurocracy is not functional - for either Demo's or Repub's !"

The man's the goddamn president! What does he do; sit in the corner with a Gameboy all day while his nefarious staff lie to him and the red tape piles up? The man comes from a political family for God's sake - Daddy, Brother Jeff, etc.

He should be sharper on this shit and have enough balls to kick some ass if he really wanted to get things done quicker in New Orleans. If not, what the hell is being the most powerful man on the planet good for?

Are you saying he's stupid or a pussy?

I knew that you'd answer that way, and in general, I agree with you.  There must be some accountability on the part of the Dems though.  The last 2 presidential elections, they threw Gore and Kerry as their best choice.  Many people picked Shrub as the best of the worst.  While they're now reaping the rewards of that decision, the Democrats need to at least TRY to win.

I'm the only one in my entire family who *isn't* a politician ranging from local to provincial; I've been around it all my life. So, though I haven't been a rocket scientist, I might know a bit about the process.

Gore received 3,000,000 more votes than Bush and had it not been for the shenanigans in Florida, would have been POTUS. So using your logic, more people picked Gore as "the best of the worst." Gore and the Dems did enough to win the election, just not enough to keep it from being stolen.

whose tenure never had any effect on anything. You are right though that he is working hard to "fix" the Clinton legacy of the largest peacetime expansion, balancing the budget, and bringing down the national debt.

P.S. Are you insunuating that St. Reagan made mistakes too? Be careful where you tread or the other wingnuts will come down on you too.

My point was that the Dem's can't come up with someone compelling, even in the face of poor choices from the GOP.  I reluctantly voted for both Gore and Kerry, but I find it difficult to SUPPORT them.  They were simply the lesser of two evils.

Easy mistake, since "i" and "u" are next to each other on the keyboard.  

No, you're fucking strangers, offering them your phony affection and then taking their money.  You are just as much politician as those in your family.