I never said you are never right about anything. I asked you if you were ever right about anything. You didn't answer. HUH? No, I guess I am never right. You tell me so all the time. Are you even reading my posts. I did not go after you with an ad hominem attack. I was not disrespectful towards you. I was not harsh. I am not trying to create adversity. Yes, I read your posts. I try and respond to them. But no matter what I say, there seems to be no acknowledgement of even the remote possibility that I may be right about anything you disagree with me about. Or that you could possibly be wrong. I constantly say that I could be wrong, and I am only stating opinions, not necessarily facts. That is what a discussion is about. We are not writing textbooks here. So maybe it's because I don't take it all as seriously as you do that you can't seem to agree with what I say. Maybe it's frustration on your behalf because you DO take it so seriously. Whatever, I don't mean to get you wound up. But somehow that seems to be the end result. Whatever the reason, I feel badly. I don't mean to upset you or offend you. I only want to COMMUNICATE with you. You make it difficult. Can you see that from my perspective? Do you know the word "empathy"? So when I said you were "harsh", perhaps that was the wrong word. Let me retract that and substitute "serious". And that you seem to take these discussions more seriously. Which I will take full blame for. I will try and be more sensitive to your very strong convictions. Fair enough? I know it's easier for me to be flexible here than it is for you, so I will try and keep that in mind. Maybe? RS, you are setting ET records with your blanket statements. Seriously. Again, did I ever make a statement that even approached "all Democrats (or "liberals"..I forgot which term you used, if not both) HATE rich people, Hate small business owners, Hate entrepreneurs? I find it unreal and I'll also add appalling. Really? What do you find "appalling"? Have I stereotyped people by saying they Hate concepts? (Especially since you seem to think the majority of Americans are "un-American" by your standards). Hard to compare our "blanket statements" (of course, this is in my opinion once again). Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason I make those blanket statements is because I am responding to your blanket statements. An eye for an eye hey RS. Wasn't it you saying are laws should follow the golden rules? Yes, I did say the golden rule (do unto others) would be a logical moral and ethical basis for creating reasonable laws (this was in response to ReardonMetal's hypothetical "start from scratch" nation). As far as you responding to MY blanket statements, I suggest you go back and see who responded to whom. I assure you that I did not say anything to provoke you to say that "all Democrats/Liberals hate rich people" etc. My "blanket statements" (if I made them...I am sure you will point them out) were in response to your (IMO) outrageous claims. I remember asking you if all the wealthy Democrats/"liberals" were self loathing. Not the kind of thing that would come out of my mouth (or keyboard as the case may be) un-provoked. Seems rather obvious. There are not enough hours in the day to list all your blanket statements, so I won't even bother. Fair enough. Don't list them all. Just give me one that comes close to "all Dems/'liberals' hate rich people". Because, until this year, I have never seen t-shirts being market to liberals saying "I hate Bush" or "I still hate Bush". Every talk show on tv that has a liberal on it uses the word hate in reference to Bush. In fact I can't seem to hear anyone on the left make an argument without using the word hate and Bush in the same sentence. I don't know how to respond to this. I have never seen an "I hate Bush" t-shirt. Nor have I heard any "leftist argument" in which the word "Hate" was used. I don't know what you read or listen to, but we must be getting our news from different sources. As you know, my pet "cause" that I support is the ADL. I assure you I am attuned to the word "Hate". It would not escape me if I heard it. I admit to not reading extremist websites on either side. I do listen to Rush when I happen to have a chance. And I do listen to Randi Rhodes also when I have the chance. In both cases, it is a matter of being in the car while they are on the air. I do NOT listen to talk radio at home. I NEVER hear "HATE" mentioned on the news I do listen to on TV. Not on FOX, not on CNN, not on CSPAN, and not on the network or local news. I do not see the word "HATE" expressed by any of the contributors to the op-ed pages of the NY Times or Sun Sentinel. Or Time magazine. And those are the print sources I subscribe to. I don't see what is printed in the NY Post or the Guardian, or the National Enquirer. Hate is the new IT word for the left. you keep going back to that. I am taking the bait. Please show me an example. Dude, do you even watch the news or do you just get your news from the John Stewart show and Bill Maher. This was pretty big news. I miss a lot of news. I often get it several days late in Time magazine. I am not a news junkie. Besides, I don't consider John Stewart's "Daily Show" or Billl Maher's show "news". I consider them entertainment. That is what they are. Just like Rush. Just like Randi Rhodes (btw, have you ever heard her?). I do not listen to Al Franken. I have no interest in hearing the same old rhetoric. While Rush does it, he is more entertaining. So I make an exception. Also, he is just more "available". Dude, you are hearing things. I never hear about Bill Clinton on the news. Not even on Fox news anymore. Where do you hear all this hate Clinton talk? I think you are imagining it. No, I hear it live in person from people I work with. I also read it here. Do a search of "Clinton" here on ET, and then tell me he gets mentioned once or twice a week I just typed "Clinton" in the ET search. I went back one week. Starting on March 27, through now, there were 78 hits. No, I did not read them. But for a guy that has been out of Office for 3 plus years, that seems like a lot of attention. No matter what the posts said, 78 in a week is a far cry from "once or twice a week. Agree? No, they hate him. They hate him because he is driven by morals and faith. They hate him because he is running the country based on his ideas and beliefs and that bothers many on the left. It's not his politics RS, it's him they hate. What were you saying about "blanket statements"? If it's his politics they hate why do they make fun of his accent Haven't noticed that. Virtually half the country has a "southern" accent, or a western "twang". I do hear fun poked at him for mangling his sentences. But he himself has a sense of humor about his somewhat strange relationship with the English language. It seems like some of his supporters are very sensitive about this. But he seems to not have a problem with being poked at about it. He understands it comes with the territory. And fortunately his mastering of the language is generally not of crucial importance except in a serious debate or negotiation. But that isn't what is happening now. why do they say he is stupid, why do they attack his guard duty, why do they attack his education, why do they attack his family, why do they attack his facial expressions, why do they attack his previous bouts with alcohol and why do they attack him on cocaine use? Can you answer me that? These are not policy issues, these are personal issues. Wake up! These are the kinds of issues that are made into jokes by Jay Leno. Do you think Leno or Letterman (or any comedian that does topical or political humor) is any harder on Bush than they were on Clinton? Or Bush I, or Reagan? It is part of being President. Don't take it so seriously. Too bad you are not old enough to remember what they did to Nixon and LBJ. GWB is getting off easy.
Who takes them seriously? How about everyone. RS, are you even paying attention to who is running your party these days. It's been taken over by the extremists. The moveon.orgs are running the party. Al Franken huh? Well now he is suddenly the spokesperson for the left as he now has a daily radio show to attack Bush every single day. "EVERYONE"? C'mon Mav...another blanket statement. And again, NOT MY PARTY! Why are you making these assumptions (blanket statements)? Did I not say there was a possibility that I could end up voting for Bush in November? And if Al Franken and moveon.org were really the voices of the Democratic Party, why is John Kerry the de facto nominee? So why attack CDBern then if this happens all the time. I thought you found it hard to believe. I apologize if I came across as "attacking". What I meant to say is that I found it hard to believe the coincidence that this woman happened to be at meetings that were about underhanded plotting, and other clearly (alleged) despicable antics of the Democratic Party. You have been at fund raisers (I assume). I know you said you have worked in the Bush campaign. How much "underhanded" plotting have you heard during your participation in legitimate political action? Maybe I am naive, but as far as I know, a grass root campaigning is about accentuating the positive. The negative campaigning happens at a different level. And is very carefully worded. I worked for Merrill Lynch a long time ago. I heard REAL plotting (regarding a power struggle). I assure you that I would be shocked beyond belief if I ever heard anything close to that in politics. Politics are just too high profile. So I have a hard time believing that "dirty tricks" are discussed at ANY level that CDBern would be privy to. If she was at that level of government (and assuming the Democrats were that demonic), how did she get from there to here? You are not studying these ET boards is an understatement. I see at least 10 to 20 hate posts a day on Bush. Open your eyes man. I see Bill Clinton's name pop up maybe once or twice a week and not in a hateful tone but rather a comparison tone such as what Clinton did or did not do to stop terrorism. True, I don't read all the threads. And certainly not all the posts. But to say that Clinton is only brought up in comparison? Just a few days ago I saw my pal Max 401 bring up Clinton's blow jobs as a defense of Bush. (Yeah, you are right...it was in a sense of "comparison"...if there is any relevance, which is my point. I see no relevance). As far as "what Clinton did or did not do to stop terrorism", maybe you are right. Maybe that has been more the context lately....it has been a newsworthy issue for the past week or so....more than it had been in general lately. So we will see how it all pans out. Should be interesting. And I am sure it will generate a dozen freestanding threads. So no sense getting into that here. Mav, I think you are a very bright guy. I think you are well informed. Certainly more informed than me. As I said, I am just not a news junkie. Nor fractionally as political. I go in spurts, but right now I am in "hibernate" mode. And will remain so regarding the Presidential race until it gets into full swing. At which point I will listen to everything, read what I can, focus on the debates, and make up my mind when it has played out. Until then, it seems a bit premature for a person like me to get totally immersed in the "race". It's like a trial. Would you be a juror and be ready to convict or acquit before hearing the full case? Don't you WANT to hear the evidence? Wouldn't the CLOSING ARGUMENTS be the most entertaining part? (think debates) The final push for you one way or the other? Well for me, that is what this race will be like. There is too much we (at least I) don't yet know. By November, each side will have had the time to present their "case". For you the case is over. Not for me. Not for the country. So why can't you at least understand that Bush and Kerry both (assuming Kerry will be the Dem nominee) need to go through the whole process? It is all about the undecided voters now. They will control the outcome. Like it or not. Actually, you should like it, since there are more Dems than Republicans (I believe). You may not be able to relate to what I am going to say. But here goes. If I were able to write the ending, I would have Bush re-elected. Why? Because I want to see what is good for the country come to pass. I want the economy to improve QUICKLY. I want the war on terror to end QUICKLY! I want OBL captured QUICKLY! I want the US to regain the confidence of the free world. I want everything that can happen for the better to happen as QUICKLY as possible. And if that were to happen as Quickly as I would hope, then it would be under Bush's watch. And if everything worked out, then Bush would easily win. So in the interest of the COUNTRY, that is what I would like to see. I don't care who is in the Oval Office. I don't care what their name is. I don't care what kind of accent they speak with. I don't care what church they go to or how often. I don't care about their sex life. I don't care about anything except CAN THEY MAKE LIFE IN AMERICA BETTER? Can they make America SAFER for Americans? Can they make America Safer for non-Americans? Can they make our schools better? Our currency stable? Our financial markets stable? Etc., etc. Can they make Americans safer when we go abroad (a personal issue for meâ¦going to Asia May first, and I admit to being a little apprehensiveâ¦MORE so than I was when I went in September! Sorry for the length of this post. Hope I did not bore you too much Happy Passover to all! Careful with the wine guys! Peace, RS
There is no doubt to me that the Clinton Administration "gutted" the effectiveness of the military. Just look at what administration was in charge when the Global-Hawk, Predator, and Shadow ISR UAV's were developed . . . Cutting-ege military technology that has helped us immensely in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Iraq.
ROFL!!! I bet 7 out of ten Americans don't even know about the hearings. Hell, one out of ten are so whacked out they can't remember 9/11.
Most people thought that the 911 Hearings had something to do with the incredible high price of calling 411 for "Information" until Richard Clarke showed up on the scene!
I agree with Pabst. Waggie, seriously, most people in this country do not even know who the Vice President. Hell, 30% of americans can't even locate Washington DC on a map! LOL. Most Americans are more interested in who's going to win American Idol then the 9/11 hearings. And I bet you right now Waggie that no more then 5 out of 100 americans know who the hell Richard Clarke is. Sad but true.
Please... the point was Clinton was obviously preoccupied with non-affairs of state to a degree that may have interfered with his job performance.
So if he was getting a hummer from his wife in the middle of the day, would that also interfere with his job performance, or would that be an affair of state? Bush goes on vacation down on the Crawford ranch for weeks at a time, we see photos of him out on the "range" clearing brush and Clinton's peccadillo was preoccupation keeping him from affairs of state? I don't know about you, but getting a hummer now and then has never really interfered with job performance. I bet ya there are traders who even get them while making trades.
He had to spend a huge amount of time getting to the hummer part with Lewinsky, setting up multiple rendezvous. Read the record, he spent many man-hours just in pre-hummer set ups! Then there were the consequences; the cover up, the lawyers, the damage control, the tv appearances, press conferences, testimony, etc. etc. etc.