oh, please!
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:50 pm
Once again, a call from the fundamentalist fringe!
Give me a break Bill, are you honestly going to compare the presidency of Clinton and Bush? First of all, the country will not be able to make the true assessment 30-40 years after they are out. Sorry to say this Bill, but unless you have the long-lived genes in you, you will be gone.
<Both young Bill and GW were hellions in their day. But Bill is a sociopathic liar, and I do not use that expression lightly. Except for the pot smoking of course; we all know he didn't inhale.... At least with GW, what you see is what you get. He admits to drinking his way through undergrad. >
Let's just agree not to argue the point of who lies the most because we both know that we could argue ad nauseum with both gentlemen. But you are correct when you say that with Dubbya, what we see is what we get. And I'll tell you, that's not too impressive. At the very least, could we have a president who haves some mastery over the English language (oh, to bring back Woodrow Wilson). Sorry, didn't mean to bring in another of those bleeding heart liberals that you hate.
<I don't fault either Bill or George for partying or being bad boys. I had my days... That's what youth is for. The question is, who grows up enough to own up to their behavior and do something about it? And if you're going to continue to be a bad boy, well why not just admit it and get over it? >
You hate Clinton because he lied to the American Public about an affair that really is none of their collective business? Who cares? Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan did far worse. We could go on with that, but why. Do you select a president for the job he'll do, or do you select a president on what his family morals are likely to be?
You don't put much faith in polls because this one doesn't fit your arguement that the majority of those polled have lost their faith in our president, and rightfully so. What do you think, that they sample only "Bleeding Heart" left when they take their data? I think the silent majority is being consulted as well.
<The big mistake Bush's enemies keep making is underestimating his intelligence and discipline. That's fine by me... >
Oh my, is there intelligence there? I thought it was all orchestrated by the guy pulling his strings (where is Mr. Chaney anyway?). Just where has our president shown this intelligence? I'm still waiting.
<And I personally don't put much faith in polls, particularly when the going gets tough. I don't want a president who is popular or liked; I want one who has the courage to follow his convictions. That's a sign of true leadership. >
I don't want a president who follows his convictions, that's like having a manager of a baseball team who constantly plays on "feeling". As the world's most superior military might, and strongest economic icon in the world, it would be nice if we based things on something a little more scientific. Being the scientist yourself, I'm kind of surprised at you for that belief. Anyway, the true sign of leadership is the person who looks at all the options first, and takes the one that is beneficial for the most. Once again, I'm still waiting on Georgie.
<quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they say time loves a hero
but only time will tell
If he's real, he's a legend from heaven
If he ain't he was sent here from hell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Here,
surrounded by the swirling nothingness of chaos,
with the indignant idiocy of haze and alientation,
I sit
where perception becomes a burden
and where the burden becomes the loss of perception.
I think my poem is a little closer to the truth.
<I'm going to live long enough to show you how right Bush's policies were, Mike. He's far from a perfect president - particularly on the spending front and the concessions he makes to the social conservatives. But other than that, he's got it right.>
If you really believe that Bill, then, no offense, but I'm glad you are choosing the president.
<Meanwhile... You should have heard the beating Clinton's legacy took today on Meet the Press. Instead of confronting the Saudis to get access to information about an Iranian terrorist attack, he solicited the Crown Prince for a donation to his library. It took until the Bush administration to get the FBI access to information that Clinton said couldn't be gotten. Imagine that!!>
I'll agree that I don't think Clinton was a great foreign policy president, but he certainly wasn't the worst. But if I had my way, I'd want the better domestic policy president first. I'm sorry to say this, but I think the welfare of me and my family outweighs those of Iraqi families who are paying five cents a gallon for gas that is being subsidized by the US government and I'm paying $2.55/gallon.
<Meanwhile, the Iranians were laughing their a$$es off with what they got away with. That kind of Clinton spinelessness led to OBL training his merry men for what came about on 9/11. >
Blame what you want on Clintons for that, but it was under Dubbya's watch that 9/11 hit. Remember that, because that is what history will rememeber.
<Little did OBL know that Bush would make him spend the rest of his life in a hole somewhere on the Pakistan border. If Slick Willie had those kinds of cahones, we wouldn't be talking about Afghanistan and Iraq today. >
Just remember that although you think that OBL is hiding in some hole somewhere, he still exerts just as much influence on his minions. So, what has really been accomplished here?
And regarding your diatribe on Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy Leagues programs, what's the point. You may have gone through it, but you don't have the same pedigree as Bush and as we are comparing, wasn't Clinton a Rhodes Scholar? I don't think that's too shabby. BTW, when's the last time a son of an ambassador, CIA head, senator, VP, Chair of the REP. Party failed out of Harvard? And wasn't the average grade of a student at Harvard a couple of years ago was an A-? And I'm sure that there are many Harvard grads who have failed at buisness ventures. Why don't you mention them too?
mike
Give me a break Bill, are you honestly going to compare the presidency of Clinton and Bush? First of all, the country will not be able to make the true assessment 30-40 years after they are out. Sorry to say this Bill, but unless you have the long-lived genes in you, you will be gone.
<Both young Bill and GW were hellions in their day. But Bill is a sociopathic liar, and I do not use that expression lightly. Except for the pot smoking of course; we all know he didn't inhale.... At least with GW, what you see is what you get. He admits to drinking his way through undergrad. >
Let's just agree not to argue the point of who lies the most because we both know that we could argue ad nauseum with both gentlemen. But you are correct when you say that with Dubbya, what we see is what we get. And I'll tell you, that's not too impressive. At the very least, could we have a president who haves some mastery over the English language (oh, to bring back Woodrow Wilson). Sorry, didn't mean to bring in another of those bleeding heart liberals that you hate.
<I don't fault either Bill or George for partying or being bad boys. I had my days... That's what youth is for. The question is, who grows up enough to own up to their behavior and do something about it? And if you're going to continue to be a bad boy, well why not just admit it and get over it? >
You hate Clinton because he lied to the American Public about an affair that really is none of their collective business? Who cares? Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan did far worse. We could go on with that, but why. Do you select a president for the job he'll do, or do you select a president on what his family morals are likely to be?
You don't put much faith in polls because this one doesn't fit your arguement that the majority of those polled have lost their faith in our president, and rightfully so. What do you think, that they sample only "Bleeding Heart" left when they take their data? I think the silent majority is being consulted as well.
<The big mistake Bush's enemies keep making is underestimating his intelligence and discipline. That's fine by me... >
Oh my, is there intelligence there? I thought it was all orchestrated by the guy pulling his strings (where is Mr. Chaney anyway?). Just where has our president shown this intelligence? I'm still waiting.
<And I personally don't put much faith in polls, particularly when the going gets tough. I don't want a president who is popular or liked; I want one who has the courage to follow his convictions. That's a sign of true leadership. >
I don't want a president who follows his convictions, that's like having a manager of a baseball team who constantly plays on "feeling". As the world's most superior military might, and strongest economic icon in the world, it would be nice if we based things on something a little more scientific. Being the scientist yourself, I'm kind of surprised at you for that belief. Anyway, the true sign of leadership is the person who looks at all the options first, and takes the one that is beneficial for the most. Once again, I'm still waiting on Georgie.
<quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they say time loves a hero
but only time will tell
If he's real, he's a legend from heaven
If he ain't he was sent here from hell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Here,
surrounded by the swirling nothingness of chaos,
with the indignant idiocy of haze and alientation,
I sit
where perception becomes a burden
and where the burden becomes the loss of perception.
I think my poem is a little closer to the truth.
<I'm going to live long enough to show you how right Bush's policies were, Mike. He's far from a perfect president - particularly on the spending front and the concessions he makes to the social conservatives. But other than that, he's got it right.>
If you really believe that Bill, then, no offense, but I'm glad you are choosing the president.
<Meanwhile... You should have heard the beating Clinton's legacy took today on Meet the Press. Instead of confronting the Saudis to get access to information about an Iranian terrorist attack, he solicited the Crown Prince for a donation to his library. It took until the Bush administration to get the FBI access to information that Clinton said couldn't be gotten. Imagine that!!>
I'll agree that I don't think Clinton was a great foreign policy president, but he certainly wasn't the worst. But if I had my way, I'd want the better domestic policy president first. I'm sorry to say this, but I think the welfare of me and my family outweighs those of Iraqi families who are paying five cents a gallon for gas that is being subsidized by the US government and I'm paying $2.55/gallon.
<Meanwhile, the Iranians were laughing their a$$es off with what they got away with. That kind of Clinton spinelessness led to OBL training his merry men for what came about on 9/11. >
Blame what you want on Clintons for that, but it was under Dubbya's watch that 9/11 hit. Remember that, because that is what history will rememeber.
<Little did OBL know that Bush would make him spend the rest of his life in a hole somewhere on the Pakistan border. If Slick Willie had those kinds of cahones, we wouldn't be talking about Afghanistan and Iraq today. >
Just remember that although you think that OBL is hiding in some hole somewhere, he still exerts just as much influence on his minions. So, what has really been accomplished here?
And regarding your diatribe on Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy Leagues programs, what's the point. You may have gone through it, but you don't have the same pedigree as Bush and as we are comparing, wasn't Clinton a Rhodes Scholar? I don't think that's too shabby. BTW, when's the last time a son of an ambassador, CIA head, senator, VP, Chair of the REP. Party failed out of Harvard? And wasn't the average grade of a student at Harvard a couple of years ago was an A-? And I'm sure that there are many Harvard grads who have failed at buisness ventures. Why don't you mention them too?
mike