A-Dubya-O-L
- Thread starter Shiggy
- Start date
SurfaceTension
New Member
On that we certainly agree! Apologies if I misconstrued your position on the other thread.
Not "defended", just pointed out that the particular criticism is a day (administration) late....Note the tone of some posts vs. others & ask which are more defensive?
Last edited:
Re: Re: Bill's Military History
It's a completely sensible argument. You don't get away with dismissing some failing of Clinton for eight years, and suddenly it's **BAAAD** when someone ELSE does it. That would be hypocritical.
You know what cracks ME up? 12 years of listening to Democrats dump, crap, insult and preach out and out hate all over Ronnie and George Sr., and when Clinton gets elected, there's this *shock* that people insulted *him* and were "mean". As though the PREVIOUS 12 years never happened. "Why WE never did anything like that". And so began the mantra for eight years of those 'mean-spirited' Republicans, engaged in the 'politics of personal destruction'.
"If *we* were out of the White House, *we* wouldn't do THAT".
Now it gets DAMNED funny.
The Clintons LEAVE office, and there is this groundswell of people who HATE Bush. *HATE* him. They even had a fund-raiser in Hollywood last weekend called the Hate Bush 12/2 event. He's a Nazi, a fascist, ruined the nation, most dangerous man in the world, WORSE than Saddam, all of this. A journalist goes on record as saying he just hates him, hates the way he walks and talks. Hates his smile.
What is *funny* is, IF a Democrat wins in 2004 (and that will be when hell freezes over) they will *deny* they were ever that mean to Republicans. They were *always* considerate, polite but always truthful.
THAT's what cracks me up.
It's a completely sensible argument. You don't get away with dismissing some failing of Clinton for eight years, and suddenly it's **BAAAD** when someone ELSE does it. That would be hypocritical.
You know what cracks ME up? 12 years of listening to Democrats dump, crap, insult and preach out and out hate all over Ronnie and George Sr., and when Clinton gets elected, there's this *shock* that people insulted *him* and were "mean". As though the PREVIOUS 12 years never happened. "Why WE never did anything like that". And so began the mantra for eight years of those 'mean-spirited' Republicans, engaged in the 'politics of personal destruction'.
"If *we* were out of the White House, *we* wouldn't do THAT".
Now it gets DAMNED funny.
The Clintons LEAVE office, and there is this groundswell of people who HATE Bush. *HATE* him. They even had a fund-raiser in Hollywood last weekend called the Hate Bush 12/2 event. He's a Nazi, a fascist, ruined the nation, most dangerous man in the world, WORSE than Saddam, all of this. A journalist goes on record as saying he just hates him, hates the way he walks and talks. Hates his smile.
What is *funny* is, IF a Democrat wins in 2004 (and that will be when hell freezes over) they will *deny* they were ever that mean to Republicans. They were *always* considerate, polite but always truthful.
THAT's what cracks me up.
I'm only a LITTLE concerned about the spending right now. I know that in a recession, the very stupidest thing to do, historically is to RAISE taxes. Hoover tried it and made everything WORSE. So you run a deficit.
Democrats are running around as if they *INVENTED* the idea of a surplus, even though after 30 years of House control they never did it. Even though they killed a balanced budget amendment.
Remember the shutdown? The government shutdown? Remember WHY? Clinton wouldn't commit to balancing the budget in 7 years. He said it wasn't necessary to do it that fast.
So we have a fairly shut and closed case that Democrats have a LONG history of being quite at home with deficit spending. It's their trademark. Like "The Producers", they've established that they don't mind promising more money than they take in.
Unless it's the Republicans doing it. And especially if it's the Republicans doing it by that most hated thing of theirs, the tax cut, because it's disgraceful to give money back to the taxpayers. As any good Democrat knows, once that money's in Washington, it belongs to all of *them*. And especially when Republicans spend it on trivial things like defending the country.
Now I'm a little concerned that the deficit problem will widen because we don't need a lot of what is being spent. I *do* think, at least at the moment, that money spent now for re-building Iraq will yield dividends down the road. Iraq may not have the culture for the same kind of representative democracy we have, but it's the best place to put one, not being an overly religious nation in the same sense as other Arab nations. We could gain a valuable ally much like Turkey. So I see that as money well spent. Cheap at twice the price.
Democrats are running around as if they *INVENTED* the idea of a surplus, even though after 30 years of House control they never did it. Even though they killed a balanced budget amendment.
Remember the shutdown? The government shutdown? Remember WHY? Clinton wouldn't commit to balancing the budget in 7 years. He said it wasn't necessary to do it that fast.
So we have a fairly shut and closed case that Democrats have a LONG history of being quite at home with deficit spending. It's their trademark. Like "The Producers", they've established that they don't mind promising more money than they take in.
Unless it's the Republicans doing it. And especially if it's the Republicans doing it by that most hated thing of theirs, the tax cut, because it's disgraceful to give money back to the taxpayers. As any good Democrat knows, once that money's in Washington, it belongs to all of *them*. And especially when Republicans spend it on trivial things like defending the country.
Now I'm a little concerned that the deficit problem will widen because we don't need a lot of what is being spent. I *do* think, at least at the moment, that money spent now for re-building Iraq will yield dividends down the road. Iraq may not have the culture for the same kind of representative democracy we have, but it's the best place to put one, not being an overly religious nation in the same sense as other Arab nations. We could gain a valuable ally much like Turkey. So I see that as money well spent. Cheap at twice the price.
Re: Re: Bill's Military History
As a moderate I feel that homeschooling for law wouldn't be a bad idea at all, as long as you pass the bar for the state you want to practice in, why should it matter where you obtained the knowledge?
Show me where I defended Bush? All I did was place some factual data about Clinton (not the speculation that you and many other liberals take as gospel). I made no connection to it, you did that yourself.
As a moderate I feel that homeschooling for law wouldn't be a bad idea at all, as long as you pass the bar for the state you want to practice in, why should it matter where you obtained the knowledge?
Re: Re: Re: Bill's Military History
Just so I am clear: It is hypocritical to overlook failings of one guy and criticize another for similar stuff, but it is not hypocritical to criticize failings of one guy and overlook similar stuff of another? Do I have that about right?
Just so I am clear: It is hypocritical to overlook failings of one guy and criticize another for similar stuff, but it is not hypocritical to criticize failings of one guy and overlook similar stuff of another? Do I have that about right?
Re: Re: Re: Bill's Military History
Oh, I see. In a thread about Bush* being AWOL, your contribution is to bring up allegedly similar behavior by Bubba, and I went and made a ridiculous leap of logic and assumed your point was to show, uh, similar behavior by someone else, in order to, uh, justify Bush.
OK. Instead of claiming what your point was NOT, why don't you tell us what your point WAS?
Oh, I see. In a thread about Bush* being AWOL, your contribution is to bring up allegedly similar behavior by Bubba, and I went and made a ridiculous leap of logic and assumed your point was to show, uh, similar behavior by someone else, in order to, uh, justify Bush.
OK. Instead of claiming what your point was NOT, why don't you tell us what your point WAS?
Here's your problem. You don't understand *time*. Order matters.
See, in **1992** (write that down) people brought up *CLINTON'S* military background. Got it? Because you seem to keep losing this. He dodges the draft and avoids any kind of military service.
For eight years, it keeps getting repeated - not relevant - not important - he had the right to protest - so what? - long time ago - not important. So went the defense. Ok. Republicans were BAAAAAAAD. They brought up something that was not relevant.
Fast forward to 2000 to the present. ***DEMOCRATS*** bring up Bush's military record. After bleating and whining for eight long years about how WRONG it was to bring up Clinton's record - they do **PRECISELY** that.
Got it?
I agree that *logically* it works both ways, but when it comes to being hypocritical, it matters who whined about it first.
See, in **1992** (write that down) people brought up *CLINTON'S* military background. Got it? Because you seem to keep losing this. He dodges the draft and avoids any kind of military service.
For eight years, it keeps getting repeated - not relevant - not important - he had the right to protest - so what? - long time ago - not important. So went the defense. Ok. Republicans were BAAAAAAAD. They brought up something that was not relevant.
Fast forward to 2000 to the present. ***DEMOCRATS*** bring up Bush's military record. After bleating and whining for eight long years about how WRONG it was to bring up Clinton's record - they do **PRECISELY** that.
Got it?
I agree that *logically* it works both ways, but when it comes to being hypocritical, it matters who whined about it first.
No. That's how Democrats do it. I'd like you to show me one instance where a Republican has said it was okay for Bush to be AWOL. Obviously it's NOT okay. But I'd take Bush with a DWI and AWOL in his past before I'd take a squeaky clean Al Gore or Howard Dean (who aren't clean at all but you get my point).
I'm not a liberal, I don't believe in liberalism and I don't vote for liberals, regardless of their Boy Scout pasts. It's that simple.
That's more like it Vrai!
I, perhaps like you, make no excuses for being partisan. I am liberal, therefore I will criticize my opponents. Even if i don't defend the failings of my own, I'm not going to go out of my way to point them out either. You can call that hypocritical I guess. It does not detract from the truth of any given argument.
Calling others hypocritical instead of responding to the point is just a deflection and distraction (shooting the messenger), and I will take it as conceding the point.
Bush was AWOL. Regardless of who else might have done it, and whether they got away with or not, doesn't make it any better.
Bush was AWOL. If you still want him, fine. But he was AWOL.
I, perhaps like you, make no excuses for being partisan. I am liberal, therefore I will criticize my opponents. Even if i don't defend the failings of my own, I'm not going to go out of my way to point them out either. You can call that hypocritical I guess. It does not detract from the truth of any given argument.
Calling others hypocritical instead of responding to the point is just a deflection and distraction (shooting the messenger), and I will take it as conceding the point.
Bush was AWOL. Regardless of who else might have done it, and whether they got away with or not, doesn't make it any better.
Bush was AWOL. If you still want him, fine. But he was AWOL.
After 8 years of James Carville running his mouth and calling Bill Clinton the "most moral man in America", it sticks in our craw when Democrats dare to criticize Bush, after all they excused in Clinton. Republicans are a little defensive, and you can't hardly blame them for that.
Believe me when I tell you, the only thing that makes Bush the ideal Republican candidate is that he's a moderate and not a right-winger. He's spending money like a drunken sailor on leave. He signed that retarded Medicare bill. His handling of the war hasn't been particularly hawkish. The only conservative thing he's done since he took the oath of office is to sign the ban on partial-birth abortion.
But he's still better than Al Gore or any of this year's crop of Democrats, IMO. So I'll give him my vote.
Believe me when I tell you, the only thing that makes Bush the ideal Republican candidate is that he's a moderate and not a right-winger. He's spending money like a drunken sailor on leave. He signed that retarded Medicare bill. His handling of the war hasn't been particularly hawkish. The only conservative thing he's done since he took the oath of office is to sign the ban on partial-birth abortion.
But he's still better than Al Gore or any of this year's crop of Democrats, IMO. So I'll give him my vote.
Oh, and let's not forget him signing that moronic campaign finance reform thing. 
B
Bruzilla
Guest
If Bush had been AWOL, why were there never any charges filed??? ANybody, with any agenda, can claim that they saw or didn't see him, but the only real fact that I'm aware of is that no one ever filed charges against Bush for being AWOL.
Pick one:
- Because his bigwig Daddy fixed it for him
- Because he was in Russia being reprogrammed to take over the world
- Because he was sleeping with the AG
- Because he's an alien from outer space and was being held in Area 51
- Because he was participating in the Watergate break-in
[/list=1]
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Re: That's more like it Vrai!
I don't think you understand, Maynard. Even when you remain silent on the failings of your own, you leave yourself open to charges of hypocrisy when you criticize your opponents. The only way to avoid that is to be just as vocal about the failings of your own side.
And why must you and Vrai and Bru and the Dems and the Reps and everyone else in this goddamned political world be partisan to begin with? Why must politics be a team sport? The Reps and Dems sound like spoiled children--"He started it!" "Did not!" "Did too!" Who the hell finds enjoyment out of conflict and argument? I'm not expecting Ann Coulter and Michael Moore to hold hands and start singing We Are the World, but isn't there a way both sides can discuss political issues like adults, for chrissake?
I don't think you understand, Maynard. Even when you remain silent on the failings of your own, you leave yourself open to charges of hypocrisy when you criticize your opponents. The only way to avoid that is to be just as vocal about the failings of your own side.
And why must you and Vrai and Bru and the Dems and the Reps and everyone else in this goddamned political world be partisan to begin with? Why must politics be a team sport? The Reps and Dems sound like spoiled children--"He started it!" "Did not!" "Did too!" Who the hell finds enjoyment out of conflict and argument? I'm not expecting Ann Coulter and Michael Moore to hold hands and start singing We Are the World, but isn't there a way both sides can discuss political issues like adults, for chrissake?
Because at some point you make a stand and decide what you believe in. When I was younger I was nonpartisan because I was still feeling my way when it came to how this country should be run. Now that I'm older, I have an opinion. The Republicans reflect that opinion and the Democrats do not, for the most part. So there ya go.
:shrug:
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Good response, Vrai. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have principles and opinions that one cares passionately about. I'm saying that if others have different principles or opinions, that doesn't make them Satan's spawn. And that's exactly what's happening in American politics. Each side acts like its beliefs are the only ones that rational, intelligent people could have. And each side acts like the other side is motivated by stupidity at best, or pure evil at worst. That's not intelligent political discourse, that's holy warfare.