Tired of republican bashing.

[Backtothemac]

You know, I read these boards everyday, and I am sick of the portrail of republicans by everyone. We all know that Lincoln was a republican and fought to keep the country together. In addition freed the slaves. Did you know that more republicans voted for the civil rights acts of the 1960's than did democrats! Did you know that Kennedy was hated by the democrats because of the ideals of civil rights he had. Did you know that George and Barbara Bush were one of the originial founding contributers to the United Negro College fund. Did you know that we want you to have more of your money, instead of the government having it to blow on stupid studies like the mating cycle of the fire ant! Did you know that we want you to be able to invest your own retirement money, and earn better than the 2% that the government does. That is crazy right. Well, it is a good idea for the democrats in Congress. You see they are exempt from Social security and medicare. They know it doesn't work, and will not be here, so they have their own retirement plan, but not you, your not smart enough to figure that out, they have to hold your hand. They are a party without ideas, and they support too many different agendas.

[mcrain]

Unfortunately, Republicans control the house, senate, white house, and will likely continue to stack the supreme court.

As such, any bashing related to current events or the government has to be aimed at them.

If you can't stand the heat, don't run for office (or vote a straight party ticket).

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain
Unfortunately, Republicans control the house, senate, white house, and will likely continue to stack the supreme court.

As such, any bashing related to current events or the government has to be aimed at them.

If you can't stand the heat, don't run for office (or vote a straight party ticket).

You know what I mean. I don't mind the facts. I don't like everything that Bush does. I personally think that we should be much more involved in helping the Palistinians. What I am talking about are the people that say Bush is racist, Bush is stupid, Bush this and that. The ones that say bad things about me, and people I know because they think we want them to be poor forever. The tax cut that Bush wants the group that benifits the most is the small buisness owner. 500,000 small business owners would be able to invest that money back into their people, their business and grow the economy.

You know what I mean mcrain ;)

[mcrain]

Of course I know what you mean. As a Democrat, I put up with Republicans bashing Clinton constantly. I mean, there was a multimillion dollar investigation, and they came up with a lie about infidelity. Sute, that's terrible, and sure it was under oath, but that didn't come out (no pun intended) until his 6th or 7th year in office, while the bashing had started well before he was even elected.

It is unfortunately part of the game now. In the "old" days, politics wasn't about being mean and trying to destroy the public's view of a politician. At least, not to the degree they do it today. I think it started with the Iran-Contra affair, and people suddenly realized just how effective a scandle can affect public opinion and approval ratings.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain
Of course I know what you mean. As a Democrat, I put up with Republicans bashing Clinton constantly. I mean, there was a multimillion dollar investigation, and they came up with a lie about infidelity. Sute, that's terrible, and sure it was under oath, but that didn't come out (no pun intended) until his 6th or 7th year in office, while the bashing had started well before he was even elected.

It is unfortunately part of the game now. In the "old" days, politics wasn't about being mean and trying to destroy the public's view of a politician. At least, not to the degree they do it today. I think it started with the Iran-Contra affair, and people suddenly realized just how effective a scandle can affect public opinion and approval ratings.

I can only imagine the stuff that you put up with as a democrat. You know that only thing that miffed me about Clinton, was that if it were you or I that did that, we not only would have gone to jail, but would have by all means lost our jobs. Can you imagine if your boss found out that you had received oral sex while on the phone with him, while in your office.

That was my point. I am tired of the double standard of justice that famous and rich people get. That is the real problem in this county, the criminal justice system, it doesn't work.
C

[3777]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


You know what I mean. I don't mind the facts. I don't like everything that Bush does. I personally think that we should be much more involved in helping the Palistinians. What I am talking about are the people that say Bush is racist, Bush is stupid, Bush this and that. The ones that say bad things about me, and people I know because they think we want them to be poor forever. The tax cut that Bush wants the group that benifits the most is the small buisness owner. 500,000 small business owners would be able to invest that money back into their people, their business and grow the economy.

You know what I mean mcrain ;)

Remind me to buy from you next time I purchase a Mac:o I agree with you on the Palestinian issue too, I feel especially uneasy when I see US officials so eagerly throwing their support over to Israel with a thug like Sharon in power. Really too bad when you think about it, that it was a right wing Israeli extremeist who was able to completely derail what looked like a real chance at peace, when he killed Rabin.

[medea]

Bashing is one thing, giving an opinion is another, I for one do not care for our current president and if a subject comes up I wont hide how I feel about it, I did like Clinton though and there are plenty of times that people run their mouths about him but I do not take any personal offence to it, there are two (main) parties for a reason and that is we all do not agree on the same subjects. If someone bashes republicans then dont take offence, just because your might be one doesnt mean its a personal attack on you.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I can only imagine the stuff that you put up with as a democrat. You know that only thing that miffed me about Clinton, was that if it were you or I that did that, we not only would have gone to jail, but would have by all means lost our jobs. Can you imagine if your boss found out that you had received oral sex while on the phone with him, while in your office.

That was my point. I am tired of the double standard of justice that famous and rich people get. That is the real problem in this county, the criminal justice system, it doesn't work.
C

I agree that if you or I did something like that we'd get fired, but there are certain additional layers of protection that the Constitution affords the president. Those layers are there so that the Nation's commander in chief isn't distracted by civil or minor criminal actions. The president has a job bigger than either your job or my job, and in order for him to be able to do his job, he has to be, in some ways (while president) above the law. I can not believe I just said that, but it's true. BUT, while he (or someday she) has protection from certain actions while a president, that protection goes away when they are not in office anymore. PLUS, neither you or I would ever have customers randomly bashing us, insulting us, while at the same time asking for special favors. PLUS, the president may not have to worry about certain civil suits, he or she does have to worry about a lot of other stuff.

Ok, I lost my train of thought, so that's it for now.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by medea
When people complain about a certain party it is because they are unhappy with them, dont compare President Lincoln to modern day Republicans because that was 1860 and this is 2003, what the public see's now is "when do we go to war, with a republican in office," and "when is the economy bad, with a republican in office," and it's the republican party to blame. President Clinton will go down as one the finest Presidents of all time, peoples biggest issue with him was he cheated on his wife and lied about it, hmmm what are the biggest issues people have with George W?

The economy was going to **** before Clinton left office, and would have gone to **** even if Gore would have won. You know why the economy was good during Clinton. Not because of what Clinton did, but because of Microsoft, Apple, Intel, the Internet, and the boom that was came with it. That is what drove the 80's It would have happened even with a republican in office. Now, I think Clinton was a good president, and he did do some good things, but one of the finest, no. Can he compare to Kennedy, no, Roosevelt, no, Lincoln, no Adams, no, Reagan, no. He was the greatest presidents ever at getting a lot of credit for doing not a lot.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Can you imagine if your boss found out that you had received oral sex while on the phone with him, while in your office.

But, what would happen if it was your boss getting a hummer in his office? Do you think anything would happen then?

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain

The president has a job bigger than either your job or my job, and in order for him to be able to do his job, he has to be, in some ways (while president) above the law. I can not believe I just said that, but it's true. BUT, while he (or someday she) has protection from certain actions while a president, that protection goes away when they are not in office anymore.

The thing that bit me was that he committed perjury in a civil case. The charge was before he was the President. He lied and thus effect the outcome of that case that was being tried. To me that is a high crime. Obstruction of justice. I agree, the whole thing was stupid and petty, but none the less, if that had been our sister suing him, we would have been a little pissed, true?

:)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
The economy was going to **** before Clinton left office, and would have gone to **** even if Gore would have won. You know why the economy was good during Clinton. Not because of what Clinton did, but because of Microsoft, Apple, Intel, the Internet, and the boom that was came with it. That is what drove the 80's It would have happened even with a republican in office. Now, I think Clinton was a good president, and he did do some good things, but one of the finest, no. Can he compare to Kennedy, no, Roosevelt, no, Lincoln, no Adams, no, Regan, no. He was the greatest presidents ever at getting a lot of credit for doing not a lot.

I like Clinton, so it pains me to say that that was one of the better posts on the subject of presidential credit.

Oh, I do not think that Reagan (not his press secretary? (Regan)) was nearly as great a president as Republicans like to make him out to be.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain


But, what would happen if it was your boss getting a hummer in his office? Do you think anything would happen then?

That depends. If I am the boss and get busted, I step down for self respect. If my boss got busted and the company was public, yep he is gone. Now in a private company, maybe not. Maybe.

It all boils down to ethics.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
The thing that bit me was that he committed perjury in a civil case. The charge was before he was the President. He lied and thus effect the outcome of that case that was being tried. To me that is a high crime. Obstruction of justice. I agree, the whole thing was stupid and petty, but none the less, if that had been our sister suing him, we would have been a little pissed, true?

:)

Yes, I would have been pissed. But, it doesn't matter. He was the president and while president he shouldn't have had to subject himself to those issues. It degraded the office, it reduced the respect he should have had b/c he was president, and made our country look pretty dumb.

Oh, and as a tactical matter, it was stupid to proceed while he was in office. Doing so made the purjery something that would never be prosecuted. If they really wanted to "get him" in a criminal context, they would have waited until after he was out of office, then gone forward with the depositions and the case, and then, when he was no longer the president and no longer had the huge amount of power stemming from that office, they could have brought charges for purjury that may have actually stood a chance of actually seeing a courtroom.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain


I like Clinton, so it pains me to say that that was one of the better posts on the subject of presidential credit.

Oh, I do not think that Reagan (not his press secretary? (Regan)) was nearly as great a president as Republicans like to make him out to be.

Well, this is why I admire the man so much. He went into office with a plan to disarm the Soviets. His thoughts were to bankrupt them so that they could not afford to keep things going. I personally am amazed that he did it. Remember "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall". That was an amazing speech. Personal wealth was increase, there was low inflation, low unemployment, etc. Now, was that the best economic policy, no. But it did make people pround to be American again, brought us together as a nation, and helped to end the cold war, although we know now that the cold war wasn't that bad right. At least then we knew who the enemy was.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
That depends. If I am the boss and get busted, I step down for self respect. If my boss got busted and the company was public, yep he is gone. Now in a private company, maybe not. Maybe.

It all boils down to ethics.

I don't know if it is that simple. I don't think Jobs would be gone if he got a hummer in his office in Cupertino. Same goes for Gates and a lot of other people in public companies. That's because the shareholders wouldn't want to lose them, even though they did something stupid.

The majority of people in this country didn't want Clinton to resign, so maybe ethically he was in a dilema. Does he resign and leave the country in the hands of someone they don't want, or does he stay and face the fire, but continue working for the people who want him there?

[idkew]

Originally posted by mcrain


But, what would happen if it was your boss getting a hummer in his office? Do you think anything would happen then?

Mr. Clinton worked for us. We were not his subordinates.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, this is why I admire the man so much. He went into office with a plan to disarm the Soviets. His thoughts were to bankrupt them so that they could not afford to keep things going. I personally am amazed that he did it. Remember "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall". That was an amazing speech. Personal wealth was increase, there was low inflation, low unemployment, etc. Now, was that the best economic policy, no. But it did make people pround to be American again, brought us together as a nation, and helped to end the cold war, although we know now that the cold war wasn't that bad right. At least then we knew who the enemy was.

I remember living through the time, and I never heard anyone ever say that Reagan had a plan to bankrupt the soviets. On the other hand, there were always talks of how they had so much military we needed more. That one upmanship ended up bankrupting them, but I have never seen any evidence that it was some master plan that Reagan had.

Yes, I was proud as hell to be an American under Reagan. If I would have been old enough to vote, I would have voted for him both times he ran. But, couldn't a lot of your arguments about why Reagan was a good president be applied to Clinton?

[mcrain]

Originally posted by idkew


Mr. Clinton worked for us. We were not his subordinates.

True, but the situation is more akin to a CEO than a boss employee relationship. The CEO works for the Shareholders, but they can't "fire" him. The board of directors can.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain


I remember living through the time, and I never heard anyone ever say that Reagan had a plan to bankrupt the soviets. On the other hand, there were always talks of how they had so much military we needed more. That one upmanship ended up bankrupting them, but I have never seen any evidence that it was some master plan that Reagan had.

Yes, I was proud as hell to be an American under Reagan. If I would have been old enough to vote, I would have voted for him both times he ran. But, couldn't a lot of your arguments about why Reagan was a good president be applied to Clinton?

Oh, yea, that was one of the things that he talked about before taking office. There are also documents that are declassified now that you can read about it, and it is in his autobiography.

:)

And no, I can't apply them to Clinton, that is the nock on Clinton is that their is not a defining moment of his office.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
And no, I can't apply them to Clinton, that is the nock on Clinton is that their is not a defining moment of his office.

Is that because Clinton was a bad president, or was it because while Reagan was in office, the Democratically controlled House and Senate worked with him to get things done (both sides compromising) while the Republican controlled house and senate played games to get their way (like shutting the government down) and did everything in their power to distract the president from doing anything (Will Kenneth Starr please report to the Republican war room please?)

[Backtothemac]

Believe me Tip O'Neil gave Reagan much ****.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Believe me Tip O'Neil gave Reagan much ****.

No question about it, but that is politics. They gave each other a hard time, but in the end, BOTH sides compromised, and both sides got some of what they wanted. That changed under Clinton (and now too). Both sides want ALL of what they want, and none of what the other side wants.

I have always said the beauty of a two party system is that neither side gets everything, and you end up in the middle. It scares me a little bit now because I hear people talking like if one side or the other gets into power, they should be able to do whatever they want and put into play whatever they want.

The constitution has checks and balances, and we have more than one political party to make sure different opinions are represented and the final result of governmental action is a compromise that takes into account everyone's opinions and concerns.

It scares me a little to hear some hard core republicans talking about having the power now to undo lots of the things that were achieved through compromise so that they can have their way, to heck with everyone else.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by medea
what the public see's now is "when do we go to war, with a republican in office,"

And there's the problem, too many Americans are plain ignorant. Here are the facts...

WWI - Wilson, a Democrat
WWII - Roosevelt, a Democrat
Korea - Truman, a Democrat
Vietnam - JFK (first sent troops there, LBJ escalated our participation), both Democrats
Gulf War - Bush, a Republican

Now this doesn't count the various minor Operations we've been in, which have been under more Dems than Reps.


and "when is the economy bad, with a republican in office," and it's the republican party to blame.

Depression started under around late '30 - '31 under Hoover, a Republican. Then in '32 Roosevelt took over and the Depression continued for a few more years. The US wasn't fully out of the Depression until WWII, that was the best thing to happen to the US economy wise.

70's gas crisis was under Carter, a Democrat, our current economy started going down hill under Bubba.

People are fools for thinking the President influnces the economy to begin with, it's a nautral cycle and a President gets lucky if it just so happens they are in office when it's good. Reagan and Clinton did nothing to help our bussling economy, they were just there at the right time.

President Clinton will go down as one the finest Presidents of all time, peoples biggest issue with him was he cheated on his wife and lied about it, hmmm what are the biggest issues people have with George W?

He may be one of the finest Presidents of all time to you, but not to myself or a number of people in Upstate NY. History will look back on Clinton and see that he was in the right place at the right time. He had nothing to do with our booming economy. It was the internet and technology that made our economy strong.

[krossfyter]

"clinton sucks like a blow job"








:D



expected response from a fellow poster --- "hardy har har very funny krossfyter :rolleyes: "


nah.

[krossfyter]

actually i was watching clinton speak the other day on cspan... he was talking about how we should become more dependent on unity rather then interdependent on divisions (or something like that.. i forgot exactly) and i forgot how articulate and smart the man is when giving a speech or just talking to the public. i was really into what he was saying.

[sturm375]

I try not to "bash" Repubs, or Dems. And if I do, I usually "bash" both. Looking at both parties, and if I were forced to make a decision only between these two parties I'd choose Democrats. This to me is the lesser of two evils. I prefer looking at the people behind the labels. I've voted for Repubs, and Dems, and Indepentants.

The '92 RNC left a bad taste in my mouth, that I'm still tasting. I remember Pat "Hitler" Buchanon preaching about closing our boarders, and deporting all "Non-Americans", and the audiance cheered. Even though I wasn't old enough to vote, that vision caused me to have a bad connotation of Republicans.

Neither party will ever live up to their claims, the are too beholden to cooporate/special intrest groups.

What I wil bash, and continue to do, is the actions of Bush43. I honestly wouldn't care if he were Repub, Dem, or Dixie. I started out dislikeing him when he signed the Steel Tarriffs before 9/11. After 9/11, he has continually usurped power from us. All in the name of "National Security." This is not what this nation was built on. The military, and government's first priority is to protect and maintain our rights, not itself. I fault Repubs, and Dems alike if "blindly" following "fearless leader." The Department of Homland (in)security was the ultimate bi-partisen kick in the {bleep}. Just what our nation needs to streamline information gathering and distrobution, another giant government money hole.

[MacQuest]

I have not read any of the reply's so don't flame me if I repeat.

I'm tired of the whole two-party system in general.

Nowadays the lines are so blurred between republicans & democrats that I refuse to be either.

We've got liberal-conservatives and conservative-liberals. Everyone seems to be leaning more towards the middle, which IMO is a good thing.

There has to be a happy medium that we have yet to uncover and will take awhile in doing so, mostly because change takes time........DIE Gates of Hell along with your Microsoft minions!!...ooops, did I type that out loud...sorry, but we are technically in MacRumors even though we are in the Community Discussions thread...anyhooo

Even the independant party, or at least its nominees, is a little freaky.

Until we are able to hear the voices and opinions of non-substantially financed candidates, we will continue to have to pick the best of the worst.:(

[Judo]

MMmm I'm probably guilty of a bit of republican bashing, sorry guys. Feel free to shoot me down if I get a bit to much.
I just get a bit wound up and post with out thinking to much sometimes. I still don't like Bush though. I just think that he's making you guys more enemies in the long run and making the world a more dangerous place. I think it's your (and others) international policies and actions that have breed these Muslim terrorist and
killing will just insight more hatred.

Bush aint to bad at public speaking. He's quite direct and straight foward that what he's doing is RIGHT and any one else who dissagrees is WRONG. Can be pursuasive if you are a supporter.

[krossfyter]

you are the kind of person that would sell crack for the cia right?

[rainman::|:|]

Here's my problem with the whole situation. Republicans have always stood for a smaller government, they want more control in the hands of the people. They've always believed that people are responsible enough to take care of a lot of things, and that there's no reason for the government to step in where it's not wanted. Liberals, on the other hand, have long thought that the government can really work with and for the people, and that it should suppliment control of some things, for the stability of our nation. Neither party is inherently racist, or greedy, or any of the things that they're so often pegged as. But lately, since 9/11, the bush administration has, like it or not, pushed the existing limits of government intervention into civil liberties. A lot of this is a reaction to 9/11 that would have happened regardless of the party in office; however the fact that it's the GOP doing it upsets a lot of people. The party that's always been against 'big government' is now making laws that give the gov't more power than it's had in a long, long time. We have no way of knowing how the Democratic party would have handled it; but that doesn't stop people from second-guessing the current administration, imagining that a lot of the things that they don't agree with would be different under a different party.

Fact is, we don't know that. It's a fine balance between security and freedom, and everyone has an opinion, usually a very strong one. We stand at a turning point in our nation's history, and people feel remarkably impotent to alter it's course. So we resort to party-bashing. The bush administration takes the brunt of it, because it's their policies under fire.

Now i don't agree with most of the things that the administration has done, and i think our freedom is more important than the small measure of security we may be getting. That's my opinion, right or wrong. Would it help matters if i went off on president Bush? republican-bashed? no. I do things like writing my congressmen, writing letters to the editor, and last saturday I joined many others in marching on our state capitol in a war protest. that is the only way to get things done.

What i'm saying is, if you want to express your opinion, do it in a way that counts. Bitching and moaning about the GOP isn't going to solve anything. Rather than taking the time to complain about it, go find the email addresses of your senators and reps, and write them. They're the ones that vote on these issues and directly influence national policy.

pnw

[medea]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Here's my problem with the whole situation. Republicans have always stood for a smaller government, they want more control in the hands of the people. They've always believed that people are responsible enough to take care of a lot of things, and that there's no reason for the government to step in where it's not wanted. Liberals, on the other hand, have long thought that the government can really work with and for the people, and that it should suppliment control of some things, for the stability of our nation. Neither party is inherently racist, or greedy, or any of the things that they're so often pegged as. But lately, since 9/11, the bush administration has, like it or not, pushed the existing limits of government intervention into civil liberties. A lot of this is a reaction to 9/11 that would have happened regardless of the party in office; however the fact that it's the GOP doing it upsets a lot of people. The party that's always been against 'big government' is now making laws that give the gov't more power than it's had in a long, long time. We have no way of knowing how the Democratic party would have handled it; but that doesn't stop people from second-guessing the current administration, imagining that a lot of the things that they don't agree with would be different under a different party.

Fact is, we don't know that. It's a fine balance between security and freedom, and everyone has an opinion, usually a very strong one. We stand at a turning point in our nation's history, and people feel remarkably impotent to alter it's course. So we resort to party-bashing. The bush administration takes the brunt of it, because it's their policies under fire.

Now i don't agree with most of the things that the administration has done, and i think our freedom is more important than the small measure of security we may be getting. That's my opinion, right or wrong. Would it help matters if i went off on president Bush? republican-bashed? no. I do things like writing my congressmen, writing letters to the editor, and last saturday I joined many others in marching on our state capitol in a war protest. that is the only way to get things done.

What i'm saying is, if you want to express your opinion, do it in a way that counts. Bitching and moaning about the GOP isn't going to solve anything. Rather than taking the time to complain about it, go find the email addresses of your senators and reps, and write them. They're the ones that vote on these issues and directly influence national policy.

pnw
well said, oh and I see that I have a post in this thread already, but oddly I have not writen anything myself.....I'll have to ask my brother what he was doing on here when he was over.....I'm going to edit that statement out.

[Judo]

Originally posted by krossfyter
you are the kind of person that would sell crack for the cia right?

Who me???

MMmmmmm yeah probably, just as long as I got to sample the goods.

that was a good post paul.

[wwworry]

I think the economy is largly driven by how Americans feel about themselves. For some reason both Reagan and Clinton gave people hope. Reagan promiced "morning in America" and came after the hostage situation, the opec gas crisis and after the worst of the deindustrializing of America had taken place. Reagan wanted to make people proud to be an American and he did it for a lot of people. Clinton aim was to make life easier for the lower and middle class. Whether he did it or not is debatable but he did focus on the minimum wage and tax cuts for married people with children and I truely think he had their interests at heart, most of the time.

Both of these presidents gave people hope and the economy responded (though both begat bubbles, remember the stock market crash of '87? and the real-estate crash of the early 90's? also our latest stock market crash...) At least Clinton helped (along with the republican congress and especially the one term congresswoman from Montgomery County, PA, Mary Margolis-???) to balance the budget.

The problem I see with Bush is that he is not offering up much of a future. We all know our current energy usage can not be sustained but there does not seem to be a plan to deal with the end of fossil fuels. (Clinton did not plan for this either, I know.) And how does this war on terrror end? When do we get to visit the Statue of Liberty? Is there to be a permanent fence around the liberty bell? It's all too ironic and horrible. The way I see it, a never ending war on terror is not all that heartening, nor does it make me feel more secure. The war on Iraq will not end terror. It might even make it worse.

That's why B2M's suggestion of helping out the Palestinians a bit more makes sence to me as well. It's a low cost way of stopping a lot of terrorism that costs us neither lives nor oil. We have demonstrated the "stick", now we need to provide the "carrot". All we really want over there is to buy some oil, and guess what, they want to sell it to us. Besides engendering goodwill towards the US throughout the region, a stable Palestian govt. would probably end up lessening tension and killings in Isreal.

The problem is that no self-respecting Isreali politician can afford to "deal with terrorists". I think that leaves it up to us. We need to be there negotiating and giving some sort of outlet to both sides besides guns. I should add that I think a sit down strike by the Palestinians and world wide press coverage of the check points would have been more effective than the intefada.

[wwworry]

check that
Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, one term democrat found on The Political Graveyard (http://politicalgraveyard.com/)

kind of an interesting site, gives lists of

Politicians Killed by Animals
Politicians Who Donated Their Bodies To Science
Jesters,Royal Order of Jesters, Politician members
Politicians Who Won Olympic Medals
List of Politicians Who Participated in Duelling


etc.

[Thanatoast]

And how does this war on terrror end? When do we get to visit the Statue of Liberty? Is there to be a permanent fence around the liberty bell? It's all too ironic and horrible. The way I see it, a never ending war on terror is not all that heartening, nor does it make me feel more secure.

amen. good words.

the harder we squeeze, the more sand slips through our fingers...

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
You know, I read these boards everyday, and I am sick of the portrail of republicans by everyone. We all know that Lincoln was a republican and fought to keep the country together. In addition freed the slaves. Did you know that more republicans voted for the civil rights acts of the 1960's than did democrats! Did you know that Kennedy was hated by the democrats because of the ideals of civil rights he had.

d00d you do know that politics have changed in the past few decades right? if you're going to be proud that you like the color blue, at least be aware that blue was yellow >20 years ago.....

republican bashing will likely not end until liberal bashing does. somebody kill michael savage! he he :D

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


The thing that bit me was that he committed perjury in a civil case. The charge was before he was the President. He lied and thus effect the outcome of that case that was being tried. To me that is a high crime. Obstruction of justice. I agree, the whole thing was stupid and petty, but none the less, if that had been our sister suing him, we would have been a little pissed, true?

:)

Actually, you are quite wrong about this factually. First, Clinton's "perjury," of which he was only accused (yes, this supposed to be an important distinction in American justice), derived from disallowed testimony in a dismissed lawsuit, which was itself politically motivated. The only reason any of this even came to light was a result of an investigation by the Special Prosecutor who was supposed to be investigating the Whitewater land deal, which itself occurred long before Clinton was even president, and had already been investigated in Arkansas. Having found nothing new in Whitewater, the Special Prosecutor just kept moving from subject to subject -- for six years -- until he eventually latched onto the Paula Jones suit, which led to Lewinsky, and so on. The entire thing was absurd, and the way it was handled by everyone involved (yes, including Bill Clinton) was a major embarrassment to the United States.

Further, and contrary to your suggestion, Clinton did not get a "break" on this. In fact it was clear at the time that a prosecutor in any ordinary civil case would never have filed perjury charges in this situation.

Second, to suggest that the Republicans of today bear even the slightest resemblance to the "party of Lincoln" is laughable. The Republicans gave up the last scintilla of that legacy with Calvin Coolidge. As for the suggestion that JFK was "hated by the Democrats" over civil rights -- this is true only for the Southern Democrats, aka, the Dixiecrats, who began to break with the party over civil rights in the late '40s when Truman ordered the military desegregated. It was Richard Nixon who recognized the potential for the Republicans to inherit the Deep South by appealing to the keepers of Jim Crow. It worked.

Finally, I think it is absolutely nutty for any Republican in this day and age to gripe about a lack of respect. I've lived long enough to see the Republicans of this generation duplicating the arrogance of power the Democrats exhibited during the '70s -- and they paid dearly for it. In forum after forum, I've heard people belittled for expressing any view which doesn't perfectly match with the ideology of the right wing of the Republican Party. Republicans now believe that simply labeling someone a "liberal" means that their views can be utterly discounted, ridiculed and ignored.

BTW, I have not been a member of any political party for over 25 years, and I can't think of a single good reason to join one.

[SPG]

Good Post IJ. Thanks for saving me the typing, although I did type pretty much an identical post to this one yesterday, but now it's not showing up.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by mcrain

The president has a job bigger than either your job or my job, and in order for him to be able to do his job, he has to be, in some ways (while president) above the law. I can not believe I just said that, but it's true. BUT, while he (or someday she) has protection from certain actions while a president, that protection goes away when they are not in office anymore.
Wrong the president is not above the law If he or she were to be above the law we will be going the way of Rome(Empire). The system that is in place is designed so that no one person can control the country for an unlimited time. And that no one person not matter how popular is above the laws of the nation they represent

[mattmack]

Originally posted by MacQuest
.



Until we are able to hear the voices and opinions of non-substantially financed candidates, we will continue to have to pick the best of the worst.:(
Amen to that the sooner we can get represenatives who have the guts to stand up for what they believe and not what's going to put money in their pockets(or campaign pockets) the better off this country will be. And the better choices there will be for the people

[cubist]

Funny... nobody here has mentioned Waco.

85 Americans dead. Evidence bulldozed the next day. No investigation. Responsible agents at the FBI promoted.

Ruby Ridge. FBI agent Lon Horiuchi shot Vicky Weaver through the head as she held her baby. Called to testify before Congress, several FBI agents took the Fifth Amendment. No further investigation. Horiuchi and his fellow creeps still work for the FBI.

Are those actions of persons concerned with justice?

And that was the Clinton administration. Per the painting in Janet Reno's office: Justice Denied.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by mattmack
Wrong the president is not above the law If he or she were to be above the law we will be going the way of Rome(Empire). The system that is in place is designed so that no one person can control the country for an unlimited time. And that no one person not matter how popular is above the laws of the nation they represent

Actually, you're the one who is wrong. I didn't say he was "above the law," but that the Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does afford certain special protections to members of congress and the president. So, in some ways, the president and members of congress are more above the law than you or I. On the other hand, there are checks and balances for that special protection. Impeachment and the congressional trial procedures are one such protection.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by mcrain


Actually, you're the one who is wrong. I didn't say he was "above the law," but that the Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does afford certain special protections to members of congress and the president. So, in some ways, the president and members of congress are more above the law than you or I. On the other hand, there are checks and balances for that special protection. Impeachment and the congressional trial procedures are one such protection.

They are still governed by the same laws as you and I. They might be afforded more priviliges to privacy, but that does not protect them from being accused of or prosecuted for a crime.
I'm not going to argue interpretations of the Supreme Court because that's what they are and being such are subject to change and opinion. Constitutional Law is a very grey area as far as I am concerned you can interpret it in any number of ways and people do for good or bad. I believe that it is a guidline for the Government and not the rigiddocument it is becoming. Just my two cents though.


PS I didn't mean to sound harsh when I wrote the first post I was in a hurry and found it an intriguing post :)

[wdlove]

Originally posted by mattmack


They are still governed by the same laws as you and I. They might be afforded more priviliges to privacy, but that does not protect them from being accused of or prosecuted for a crime.
I'm not going to argue interpretations of the Supreme Court because that's what they are and being such are subject to change and opinion. Constitutional Law is a very grey area as far as I am concerned you can interpret it in any number of ways and people do for good or bad. I believe that it is a guidline for the Government and not the rigiddocument it is becoming. Just my two cents though.


PS I didn't mean to sound harsh when I wrote the first post I was in a hurry and found it an intriguing post :)

That way of looking at the Constitution is ruining the country that I grew up in. Liberals can't get their agenda passed by voters, the vast middle. So instead they use the courts to force their beliefs against the majority will of the Amerian people. Their goal is for the US foreign policy to be run by the UN. Thankfully strict intrepretation of the Constitution calls for us to protect ourselves. Nowhere does it call for us to get approval from the UN, France, or Germany.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by wdlove


That way of looking at the Constitution is ruining the country that I grew up in. Liberals can't get their agenda passed by voters, the vast middle. So instead they use the courts to force their beliefs against the majority will of the Amerian people. Their goal is for the US foreign policy to be run by the UN. Thankfully strict intrepretation of the Constitution calls for us to protect ourselves. Nowhere does it call for us to get approval from the UN, France, or Germany.

That's a bad call. It's become an article of faith by conservatives that only "liberals" use the courts to get their way, and that "judicial activism" is exclusively a left-wing thing. This simply is not the case, and if you look at the Supreme Court in particular you will find conservative justices who are perfectly happy to exercise their powers to advance a conservative agenda, while at the same time preaching against activism from the bench. To my way of thinking, they aren't just practicing judicial activism, they are exercising hypocrisy.

[wdlove]

Hypocrisy occurs on both sides, it's just more damaging from the left. Judicial activism is just done to a much greater extent by the Left & their causes.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by wdlove
Hypocrisy occurs on both sides, it's just more damaging from the left. Judicial activism is just done to a much greater extent by the Left & their causes.

Please expand upon the statement: "More damaging from the left"

I've seen and experianced some very damaging hyprocrisy from both the right and the left.

Generally speaking:
Right leaning judicial activisim tends to increase the government's power to intrude/invetigate our lives, and increase "National Security" at the expense of individual rights.

Left leaning judical activism tends to increase the power of an individual to do damage (financially) to corporations, and government.

To my thinking the Right leaning activism is more damaging to our country than the left leaning activism. But that is my opinion:)

[IJ Reilly]

Judicial activism from the left is more "damaging" because the poster has a right-wing ideological agenda and believes other viewpoints to be inherently invalid. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with politics these days -- it isn't a matter of principles, but what gets me the results I'm looking for; eg, the ends justifying the means.

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but I am absolutely seeing the right wing conducting itself precisely the same way the left did thirty years ago when they were in power. Seeing history repeat itself -- I suppose that's the penalty for living long enough.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Judicial activism from the left is more "damaging" because the poster has a right-wing ideological agenda and believes other viewpoints to be inherently invalid. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with politics these days -- it isn't a matter of principles, but what gets me the results I'm looking for; eg, the ends justifying the means.

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but I am absolutely seeing the right wing conducting itself precisely the same way the left did thirty years ago when they were in power. Seeing history repeat itself -- I suppose that's the penalty for living long enough.

Nevermind...

[wdlove]

Originally posted by sturm375


Please expand upon the statement: "More damaging from the left"

I've seen and experianced some very damaging hyprocrisy from both the right and the left.

Generally speaking:
Right leaning judicial activisim tends to increase the government's power to intrude/invetigate our lives, and increase "National Security" at the expense of individual rights.

We need the "National Security" remember 9/11. Smaller government & lower taxes fits me just fine.

Left leaning judical activism tends to increase the power of an individual to do damage (financially) to corporations, and government.

They want bigger government, higher taxes, & less personal freedom. Try to think of a Liberal idea that doesn't require at least one of them. I can't think of any, because that is what they are asking to accomplish.

To my thinking the Right leaning activism is more damaging to our country than the left leaning activism. But that is my opinion:)

[sturm375]

Originally posted by wdlove

We need the "National Security" remember 9/11. Smaller government & lower taxes fits me just fine.

They want bigger government, higher taxes, & less personal freedom. Try to think of a Liberal idea that doesn't require at least one of them. I can't think of any, because that is what they are asking to accomplish.



Yes, I remember 9/11 but I don't see how retarding our rights will allow us to win the "War on Terror". Giving up our rights is at best a short term solution to a long term problem. I just don't see how it's benificial in the long run. It's just my idealistic view of life I guess.

Smaller government & lower taxes is very appealing to me as well. Problem is: Neither party Republicans(Right), nor Democrates(Left) are offering a smaller government. And both are offering lower taxes, using different methods. (I will not get into the merits of thier methods here.)

Repubs want to build up Military (Good), and have developed the Department of Homeland Security among other things. Hardly smaller government.

Not to be undone, Democrats want to increase the size and magnitude of all forms of welfare.

This is why I subscribe to the libratarian party who wants smaller government & taxes (larger military though).

[wdlove]

Originally posted by sturm375


Yes, I remember 9/11 but I don't see how retarding our rights will allow us to win the "War on Terror". Giving up our rights is at best a short term solution to a long term problem. I just don't see how it's benificial in the long run. It's just my idealistic view of life I guess.

Smaller government & lower taxes is very appealing to me as well. Problem is: Neither party Republicans(Right), nor Democrates(Left) are offering a smaller government. And both are offering lower taxes, using different methods. (I will not get into the merits of thier methods here.)

Repubs want to build up Military (Good), and have developed the Department of Homeland Security among other things. Hardly smaller government.

Not to be undone, Democrats want to increase the size and magnitude of all forms of welfare.

This is why I subscribe to the libratarian party who wants smaller government & taxes (larger military though).

I have Libertarian view myself, my idol is Jay Severin on 96.9 FM Talk "Exteme Games." If you get Media One on the Radio you should try to listen to Laura Ingraham Show 7 - 9pm EST. My beliefs are backed up by both of these great people. Proud to be an American! ;)

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
You know that only thing that miffed me about Clinton, was that if it were you or I that did that, we not only would have gone to jail, but would have by all means lost our jobs.

Of course you MIGHT, but it would be a civil suit, and the GOP folks coordinated by Rove and blessed by Gingrich and others in the leadership of the party changed the status quo by joining a civil suit who's aim was simply to destroy the president. Ask any normal person in private and they'd admit that lying about a blowjob is not high crimes and misdemeanors that should be proof needed to remove a sitting president. The GOP has brough trashing everyone they want out to a freakin' art form, and THAT was the catalyst for me personally in dumping the party of intolerance and concerted efforts to trash people who might not be perfect, but didn't deserve the treatment they got from the GOP. Look hard, for instance at the 2000 election and the lengths they took, no matter the cost. Fundamentalists in either party are, I believe, the real problem.
You've obviously bought the party line and you should seriously consider rethinking your beliefs.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Les Kern


Fundamentalists in either party are, I believe, the real problem.
You've obviously bought the party line and you should seriously consider rethinking your beliefs.

When you say fundamentalists I assume you mean extremist and the beauty of our system is there is room for everyone to believe what they want to and express that in peaceful debate

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Les Kern


Ask any normal person in private and they'd admit that lying about a blowjob is not high crimes and misdemeanors that should be proof needed to remove a sitting president.

Lying about a blowjob is understandable as long as you are not under oath and testifying to a Grand Jury