Michelle, gal, please accept my apologies... I misread your name first time around anyways... if I had read it as Michelle and not as Michael I wouldnt have been so hard on you, babe... P.S. are you single and hot?
This "resume" is a prime example of why people dislike liberals so much. They cannot find anything to admire and respect in our great country. For them, it is just a depressing litany of failure, degradation, corruption , hate, bigotry, racism and enivironmental disaster. Bush and cheney were involved in the oil industry! That proves how evil they are! If only they could be pure like Clinton and Gore and never soiled their hands with a private sector job. Yes, of course George Bush benefitted from family connections. He also graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School. I guess all the right wing conservative professors in those schools looked out for him and just gave him good grades. Of course liberal pol's never benefit from family connections. Well, except for all the Kennedy's, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, Andrew Coumo, Jesse Jackson Jr. and scores of others. At least George Bush's father and grandfather were decent and honorable men, and not bootleggers or corrupt pol's. Bush just made a mess of Texas. That must be why he was reelected, carried the state and is still the most popular politician there. And he lost the popular vote (although that fact has never been documented). I'm guessing that won't be much of an issue in the next election. People like and respect this man. He's not perfect , but he has restored people's respect for the office of President and returned a sense of dignity to the office. Considering the alternative, we are very lucky he is our President.
For what?? Exactly what has he done that is so special? What is it going to take for people to see him for what he is?? He's a loser. Plain and simple. Clinton gets a blowjob and all of a sudden let's blow millions of dollars shaking him out! I just don't get it. All that I see is a country that is scared shitless, hiding behind a worthless leader who fronts security through deficit spending and erosion of the Constitution. If people are too stupid to see him for the worthless piece of shit he is, then I think we have a problem. Harvey Pitt is a pretty darn good example on paper of what is wrong with our innocent, good, wholesome leader who is out there for the average man. Wake up -- not only is W stupid as shit, but he is morally reprehensible and I am tired of hearing what a goddamn swell guy he is. His administration has made no attempt to explain why there was no 9/11 inquiry, why HAL is getting reconstruction contracts, why he is pro-life but is willing to execute retarded people, why he was investigated by the SEC for insider trading, etc. I find his arrogance to be disgusting. The people are owed an explanation for why the rest of his life achievements are no better than a typical drugged-up trust fund kid. The list goes on -- he thinks he's an untouchable monarch. I remember the "election" of 2000 -- as soon as the story about his drunk driving came out and he was confronted by a TV reporter, his first response was "I think I know who leaked that about me" (paraphrased) -- NOT something like "yeah, I used to have a drinking problem, and I'm very sorry about it." It was more like "I'm going to get the dirty bastard who leaked that story." Come on, this guy is such a deadbeat loser. Every time he opens his retard mouth, the market tanks. He wastes money like elton john. His daddy did, too. His daddy was the first president to have a whole new airforce 1 built, at a cost of 500million - 1billion dollars (I can't remember the figure -- it was on the discovery channel) even though there was no need for it. (Until recently, Tony Blair rode on commercial airlines just like everyone else). Government is growing. Debt is growing. War is growing. All because of this bullshit regime which has hijacked the constitution, held the free world hostage, and blown any chance for an economic recovery.
Just saying "this is a prime example of why people dislike liberals so much, says more about you than it does about "people". How do you know who is "liberal" and who is "conservative"? Do you think anyone who does not respect or admire Bush is a "liberal"? If you really think that, you are sorely mistaken!!! Yale and Harvard. Yes, as a legacy and enough $ contributions, and even Dan Quayle could have gone. That education was most definitely NOT achieved on scholastic merit. Even Dubya himself has said that ON THE RECORD!!! Liberal Pols....and their families.......let's see. AAA, I have no idea how old you are, but Kennedy was essentially the model for today's Republican party platform. So don't confuse "liberals" with "Democrats"....I could get into a whole discussion about this, but maybe another time. Hint though...watch Chris Matthews, and tell me what his politics are. Keep me posted. And yes, Kennedy's old man was a bootlegger/rumrunner. Also a notorious wall street swindler. Which was why he was chosen to head the newly formed SEC. Who better to watch over violations than a guy that knew all the tricks? However, Prescott Bush collaborated with Hitler, and broke much more serious laws. Hapaboy would have had him jailed for sedition. (Only because he was a Republican). Had he been a Democrat, it would have been Treason. (And really, it WAS!!! Look up the legal definition). So in that case he would have been executed. "Bush just made a mess of Texas. That must be why he was reelected, carried the state and is still the most popular politician there." .......Yes, he did make an environmental mess of Texas. Can't argue with the facts. And being "popular" does not equate to being competent. Yes, the man is a likable guy. And was in the position to become what he has become. I know a lot of "likable" people. Many of them far brighter and far more capable of leadership. But they have jobs, and are not in politics. Takes a certain combination of means, opportunity, and obviously either overwhelming ego (Clinton, for example, who even the most staunch conservative would have to admit had great intellect, and great charisma) or overwhelming family support (Dubya). Will we ever see another Harry Truman in the White House? Or a Nixon for that matter? Men of no particular wealth or breeding? Clinton was "self made".....but super ambitious, and a politician right down to his DNA. I think he was the youngest Governor ever (not 100% sure, but easy to look up). A Rhodes scholar, and very popular and passionate (about politics...and other stuff too). Dubya, to me, still comes across as a guy that did what was expected of him by his family. Not so comfortable in the job. His demeanor seems to indicate he would rather be doing something different. But of course, he will (if he hasn't already) get addicted to the power, and truly want a second term. Then there is Brother Jeb (can he possibly not be in the wings to carry on? It can't be Brother Neil, that's for sure! Lucky not to be in prison). As an aside, Nixon got into politics by responding to a classified newspaper advertisement. Won his first election as a congressman by campaigning using "dirty tricks" (anti-semitism, and calling his opponent a "communist" Eisenhower was a natural leader, and a decent man. But not a particularly effective President. Clinton was a natural leader and a personally despicable man. But had a very successful 2 terms at the helm (disregarding his personal escapades). Reagan was a decent guy (his politics were a bit "fuzzy" as, sadly was himself at the time...just too old and too infirmed), and Carter was a very decent guy without a clue as to what it took to be President. Kennedy was also not a particularly "moral" man, but was a great and successful leader. Johnson was a son of a bitch, but a strong leader in a bad situation and took bad advice. I was not alive to know much about FDR, but to some he was a "socialist"...now the Republican Party is a big fan of his Social Security program. Things and attitudes change. FDR was called a "Jew" by many who disliked him, and an "anti-semite" by others that did not like him. Being President is not an enviable position under the most ideal circumstances for the duration of an entire term (let alone 4 terms). "And he lost the popular vote (although that fact has never been documented)." YES, it has. Not that it matters, but the facts are the facts! "People like and respect this man. He's not perfect , but he has restored people's respect for the office of President and returned a sense of dignity to the office. Considering the alternative, we are very lucky he is our President." Hard to argue this. I actually agree with you for the most part. We needed someone to undo the damage to the office caused by Clinton's behavior. But being "liked" and being "competent" are two different things. My main contention (sorry it took so long to get here), is that you say people don't like "liberals". I find that a sad statement. Liberals and Conservatives; Republicans and Democrats, are all Americans FIRST. Now I am just guessing, and perhaps making an unfair rush to judgement. But when you said that, I assume you meant that "people do not like Democrats", since your tone imply's that "liberals" are Democrats. Again, if this were true, why are there more registered Democrats than there are registered Republicans? Are we a country of self-loathing constituents? Are there conservative Democrats? Liberal Republicans? Of course there are. And I have said this before: I have a friend who is a congressman. Quite liberal, definitely a Democrat. Robert Wexler...you may remember him from the Clinton impeachment hearings. Anyway, he likes and respects his adversaries in congress. And they like and respect him as well. From what he tells me, the real participants in our government are less divisive than those of us here that argue politics (left vs. right, Dems vs. Republicans)...They are professionals, and they know they need to work together and compromise to keep the country running. They were all elected, all pretty competent, and all tolerant. They are all AMERICANS serving their country. Yes, there is the occasional maniac like Tom Delay, or Jesse Helms, or David Duke. (funny how they are all Republicans. But on the whole, they are pretty even tempered and reasonable men. Those who go "overboard" get thrown "overboard". Wasn't so long ago that Newt Gingrich was a household name and a major power. Saw him recently on Larry King. Being out of the spotlight seems to have mellowed him out quite a bit. Painting "liberals" with a broad stroke, as you have serves only to show your intolerance, and contribute to divisiveness. I pride myself on voting for candidates on the issues. Not on their party affiliation, and not on their "reputations" as liberal or conservative. I have voted for MANY Republicans in my life (though I am a registered Democrat). My favorite part of the ballots are where there is no party affiliation mentioned. That is when the voter HAS to go into the booth informed. School board members, some Judgeships. Dogcatchers, etc. Again, to me, real Americans are Americans first. I truly think a flaw in our system is the need to be registered with any political party. Why can't I vote in a primary if I want to vote for a Republican in the general election? Why should I be shut out? But most importantly in regard to your post, AAA, WHY is it that you dislike (or imply that you dislike) anyone who expresses dissent? Isn't that right perhaps the greatest freedom we have? How can you dislike someone for exercising their freedom of expression? Peace, Rs8.5
Ya know, sometimes I wonder just how long some of these people who call themselves Americans have subscribed to a one party sytstem. Have they no vision of the past, and the damage that comes from totalitarian thought?
While this may or may not fairly represent the liberal viewpoint, my take on the following is that the liberal Democrats love their country. DNC 2000 Platform statement: "Yet this moment is clearly one of possibility, not absolute guarantees. We must remember that our achievements were accomplished only with creativity, courage, and conscience; with a willingness to innovate and imagine; and with a recommitment to our basic American values of hard work, community, embracing diversity, faith, family, and personal responsibility. Eight years later the record is clear: the longest economic expansion in American history. The most jobs ever created under a single administration. The first real wage growth in 20 years. The highest home ownership rate ever. The lowest African-American and Hispanic-American unemployment rates in American history. The lowest crime rate in 25 years. The lowest number of people on welfare since the 1960's. The largest drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. The lowest level of child poverty in 20 years. And after 15 painful years when the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer, America is finally growing together instead of growing apart. In this Platform, today's Democratic Party lays out its plans to do just that. This platform was not written in a dark backroom, but in the light of day; in an open, democratic process that was interactive and inclusive. It was developed both with the guidance of the brightest Democratic leaders and with the voices of thousands of ordinary Americans around the country who contributed their thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and dreams to this platform in person, on paper, and over the Internet. This is a 21st century platform for the 21st century's party. A people's platform for the people's party. For the 12 years before Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office, Republicans talked about fiscal discipline while they quadrupled the national debt. They ran up monstrous yearly deficits and nearly ran the American economy into the ground. In 1992, Democrats promised to cut the deficit in half in four years. They did - and went even further. For the past eight years, Democrats have been working to offer tax relief to the Americans who need it the most where they need it the most. We cut taxes for working parents who were struggling to make ends meet. We cut taxes for parents who were working hard and trying to raise good kids. We cut taxes for Americans who had studied hard and made it to college. We cut taxes for Americans who were continuing their educations and gaining new skills to stay on the cutting-edge of the economy. We cut taxes for companies that were helping Americans make the transition from welfare to work. We cut taxes for more than 90% of America's dynamic small businesses. Today, for most families, the federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in twenty years. Americans' golden years should be times of calm and security, not concern and stress. Democrats know that today, more than ever before, we need the right kinds of investments - in education, lifelong learning, skill development, and research and development - to take advantage of the vast opportunities of the Information Age. Make education his (Gore) top domestic priority. Nine out of every ten children in this country attend a public school. Public education already allows the United States to have one of the highest standards of living in the world, providing equality of opportunity for all regardless of socio-economic status. College Education and Lifelong Learning for All.We propose a tax cut for tuition and fees for post-high school education and training that allows families to choose either a $10,000 a year tax deduction or a $2,800 tax credit. We must work to knock down barriers to fair trade so other nation's markets are as open as ours are now." This sounds like the voices of people who love and admire our country. The Conservative Republican invented the practice of the politics of division. Their goal is to first get you to hate the opposition, then embrace the conservative ideas. Because the conservative is not interested in conserving, he is interested in radical change.
Yes, it sounds swell until you realize two things. One, they are liars who do not mean a word of it. Their true agenda is (1)increase taxes on productive people, (2) introduce socialism as a means to get more power for themselves and their cronies and increase the voters' dependency, and (3) seek to divide people by race, class, ethnicity,etc. And two, they dare not run on their true platform because they would lose every election. So they lie. I'm still waiting for that middle class tax cut Clinton ran on. The idea that Republicans somehow invented the politics of division is laughable. Just ask which party wants to allocate all of society's benefits by race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. Which party treats every serious policy issue as a chance to whip up class hatred. Ever hear of Robert Bork? Or Clarence Thomas for that matter. Ask them which party specializes in the politics of personal destruction. You might also ask all the women that were smeared and threatened by your favorite president's thugs.
Yup, and in only 2 and a half years, they managed to make those radical changes. We seem to have gone 180 degrees from the direction we were going to where we are now. Truly sad. But not as sad as the attitudes I hear expressed...."people don't like liberals (Democrats)." "GWB has restored honor to the office" (Please!!!). And still, everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. But certainly not when it comes to circumventing our Constitution. Why do "conservatives" always seem to follow the word "liberal" with the word "assholes"? I never remember hearing anyone call a "conservative" a "conservative asshole". This is politics, as you said, of "hate the opposition". And also, you are right about the distorted definition of "conservative"....it USED to mean to conserve things as they are. Now it has become the opposite. Shredding the Constitution couldn't define "radical change" any better. In the 60's, Abbie Hoffman was called a "radical". Now, to me, John Ashcroft is a "radical". Aside from Hoffman's and Ashcroft's immense differences in politics, at least Hoffman (and Rubin & most of the rest) approached their "missions" with a sense of style and humor. There is NO HUMOR in Ashcroft (unless I am missing some inside jokes). How far into the Constitution do you have to read to get to the part about separation of Church and State? Or second amendment....right to bear arms....even in NYC, the most difficult place in the country to get a gun permit (I believe), still, anyone can buy and own a muzzle loading black powder firearm. No permit required. That was the state of arms when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Now it is interpreted to mean we can have modern day assault rifles? The contradictions go on and on. "Conservatives" like to "conserve" on a very piecemeal basis. "Right to life, YES!" Executions, YES!!! The more the merrier (Dubya being the champ). Freedom of speech? Not for long if we stay this course. Freedom of religion? So far, this hasn't been taken from us YET. But I wouldn't feel particularly safe entering a Mosque these days. Search warrants? After 200 years becoming a passing fad. Give us your tired your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free? Sure, except the "poor" part. Tired millionaires welcome. Energetic hard working but indigent immigrants? Sorry, no soup for you! My prediction.....Cheney off the ticket in '04 for "health reasons"...unhealthy not to be in control of the second largest oil field on earth. And GWB gets clobbered in the election if the Democrats can find ANY viable candidate. So Dubya might be a "likeable" guy, but I can't see the country really wanting to go backward. America is and always has been a country that evolved. Not one that regressed. Colonialism went out of vogue a hundred years ago. And yet here we are having fought 2 wars in the past year and not achieving our stated objectives. Where is UBL? Where is Saddam? Where are the WMDs? What is our arrangement (and standing with) Pakistan? How is world opinion of our great nation these days? I love America. But we just have the wrong hands at the helm right now. But as we always have, and hopefully always will, we will right our wrongs. Joe McCarthy had his day in the sun. Nixon did. Hell, we even had Spiro Agnew a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Things will get better! (We will get an early indication when top 40 music changes....) And when 22 year olds stop being political conservatives and show a little heart. OLD PEOPLE are supposed to be "conservatives". Young people are supposed to be "progressive" not "reactionary". War is supposed to be a last resort. Not an unprovoked response from THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!! People say the UN was irrelevant. Interesting. The entire concept of the UN was to AVOID WAR. They tried to do just that, but it was not what Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and the chickenhawks wanted to hear, so all of a sudden the UN is a failure for trying to do what it was designed to do. What am I missing? (I am sure I will hear, and I already know from whom) Peace, Rs8.5