A-Dubya-O-L

[Bruzilla]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Pick one:

1. Because his bigwig Daddy fixed it for him
2. Because he was in Russia being reprogrammed to take over the world
3. Because he was sleeping with the AG
4. Because he's an alien from outer space and was being held in Area 51
5. Because he was participating in the Watergate break-in
   [/list=1]

1. 
   
   My guess would be item 1 above, but then the records would show that a charge was filed, but there was a finding that they were unwarranted, or the charges were dismissed, or that Bush was innocent. In any of these cases, there would still be an original charge, yet there isn't any. That tells me that Bush was checking in with someone, just not the people who were asked.

 

[MGKrebs]

Re: Re: That's more like it Vrai!

Tonio, you can call me a hypocrite all you want . I don't care. But after you do that, I would welcome a response to the ISSUE. Just because I am a hypocrite, does not mean we cannot discuss things. Either you have an opinion on the issue or not. Me being a hypocrite does not mean that everything I might say is a lie. It apparently just means that I practice selective criticism.

See, from my perspective, if something I were to say were wrong, many here would have no problem pointing out the flaw in my statement. But when I might be right, we get a lot of hypocricy charges and not much response to the statement.

I dislike being partisan. I really wish we could meet in the middle somewhere. For what it's worth, I have voted Libertarian in the past, I voted for Ross Perot once. It has only been relatively recently that I became so angry at the conservative strategy. For me, it started with Newt Gingrich. It is well known that he (and Dick Morris) convinced Republicans that they could not let B.C. win any political battles at all. They had to fight everything, by any means necessary, not because of the merits of the issues, but because of the political balance of power.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, DeLay, Hatch, and others continue this strategy today. We can't let their BS go unanswered. If they had no impact, we could ignore them. But people DO listen to them, and repeat the BS, and eventually believe it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
We can't let their BS go unanswered. If they had no impact, we could ignore them. But people DO listen to them, and repeat the BS, and eventually believe it.

I feel the same way about HRC, Al Gore, practically everyone in Hollywood, the vast majority of Washington Post columnists and almost all TV news anchors.

I feel your pain.

 

[Tonio]

Re: Re: Re: That's more like it Vrai!

Maynard, I wasn't calling you a hypocrite. I was speaking hypothetically.

Do you understand that I believe that selective criticism is wrong? Even when the criticism is right on target, it has zero credibility if it's done in a partisan manner. It has all the futility of going to Lowes for an honest, unbiased opinion about Home Depot. Everyone expects the Dems to be critical of the Reps and vice versa.

That's what I can't stand about us-versus-them politics. Each team yells loud and long when someone on the other team does something wrong. But when someone on their own team does that same wrong thing, the team ignores it or tries to excuse it.

You have a point about answering BS. If a liberal like yourself is going to answer BS coming from the likes of Coulter and DeLay, you should also point out the BS coming from the likes of Sharpton and Michael Moore. Both sides, especially the extremes, are equally guilty of spewing it. The worst BS is when they pretend that their side never lies and only the other side lies.

 

[Larry Gude]

Time out here...

...we're all mature enough (or should be) to acknowledge that in and of itself Bill Clintons dodging the draft is irrelevant to his being fit as CIC. First off, we are a nation that is very clear about civilian control of the military and secondly, Jimmy Carters draft dodger amnesty set the stage for it to be OK in terms of public opinion to serve as an elected official, including President. Clintons election, twice, proves this.

Clearly it follows that if the public will accept a draft dodger then we will certainly accept someone who served in the National Guard.

There is no requirement that a President MUST have served therefore the argument here, an attempt at moral equivalence and hence cries of hypocrasy, is in the details of Clintons and Bushs records.

The details are apples and oranges and therefore make comparison silly. No amount of pointing out the obvious substantive differences between the two will score any points with those who refuse to accept reality, so, on to the real issue:

How the two men actually did there job and USED the military:

The record here speaks for itself as well for anyone willing to weigh it objectively.

If you were pretty much happy with how Clinton did things in Mogidishu, the USS Cole, both US Embassy bombings, Bosnia, Haitti, handling of Iraq and the first World Trade Center attack, then you are probably not going to be happy with Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush's leadership.

This is where apples can be compared to apples. Bush simply sees his responsibility to provide for the common defense and use of our armed forces differently than Clinton did under similar circumstances.

Of course, you could argue that the first World Trade Center attack failed and therefore is not the same as 9/11. You could argue that the assault on a US man '0 war is not an attack on the US. You could argue that bombing US embassies (US territory BTW) are not attacks on the US.

If you believe that then again we are back to apples and oranges and nothing will change your mind, let alone the facts.

Of course, I'd argue that Clinton lied to the American people about the real danger to our national security. Instead of over-selling the danger as Bush has done, Clinton under-sold.

 

[MGKrebs]

So let's talk about hypocrisy.

I believe hypocrisy is more about believing one thing and doing something else. Or pretending to believe in something when you don't. Look it up.

Trying to accuse "hypocrisy" because someone is selectively critical is not really hypocrisy. I guess it's just (in this context) partisan.

If I said I was a liberal, but believed in smaller government/privatization solutions for many problems, I would be a hypocrite. Just because I don't go out of my way to point out Bill Clintons's faults doesn't mean I don't believe he had some.

I am not interested in defending Clinton's lack of service, and I'm really not interested in criticizing Bush's service record, but I AM interested in responding to those who would defend that record.

It's bad enough to deny that Bush's ANG record is questionable, but to do so by appearing to claim that since Clinton did something similar then it's OK, is worth contesting.

So finally, if someone is going to call me hypocritical for verbalizing criticism on one issue, but not on another, that doesn't bother me. If I really am hypocritical, i.e. I fault someone else here for being partisan, for example, I would hope that if that were pointed out to me I would have the sense to recognize the hypocrisy and correct myself.

P.S.- there are probably one or two things that I think Bush hasn't screwed up (although I can't think of what they might be right now), but I don't generally volunteer my agreement with him on these, because I am partisan. There are plenty of others out there who make a living trying to make him look good.

P.P.S. -(geez, too much coffee this morning). I think it is curious, and a little bit funny, that so many conservatives still seem to be freaked out by Bill Clinton. Am I still going to be preoccupied by GWB 3 years after he's out of office? Christ, I hope not. I mean, the conservatives are paying more attention to BC than the liberals are! Go figure.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
I don't generally volunteer my agreement with him on these, because I am partisan.

That's retarded. I'm fairly partisan but, in the interest of fair play, I have no qualms about complaining about some of Dub's more idiotic policies. It gives you more credibility. As it stands, most Democrats don't have much cred with me because they'll scream their heads off when Dub does something that they completely ignored in their boy.

The NOW babes, for example, have zero cred with me because they lost their "minds" over every Republican who so much as leered at a woman yet applauded Willie Jeff using state troopers to drag Paula Jones into a hotel room. Not to mention the Juanita Broadderick incident.

Now it's possible that you don't care if you have credibility and that's fine. I admire your honesty.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
I think it is curious, and a little bit funny, that so many conservatives still seem to be freaked out by Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton killed 3,000 people in the WTC attacks as surely as if he'd have flown that plane himself. Yes, we're a little bitter.

 

[Larry Gude]

How in the hell...

...do you support that one?

Bill Clinton killed 3,000 people in the WTC attacks as surely as if he'd

 

[vraiblonde]

Re: How in the hell...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...do you support that one?

Well, I'll tell you, since you asked so nicely.

The first WTC bombing was during WJ's first term and what did he do about it?

Nothing.

The attack on the Cole was during WJ's second term and what did he do about it?

Nothing.

Attacks on the US Embassies during WJ's second term and what did he do about them?

Nothing.

In 1996 Muslim terrorists truck-bombed an Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia and what did WJ do about it?

Nothing.

Now, I'm not a genius or anything but it seems to me that, had Clinton been taking care of business instead of getting bjs in the Oval Office, 9-11 would have never happened.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
The NOW babes, for example, have zero cred with me because they lost their "minds" over every Republican who so much as leered at a woman yet applauded Willie Jeff using state troopers to drag Paula Jones into a hotel room. Not to mention the Juanita Broadderick incident.

Vrai, now you're getting my point. Conservatives are no different from liberals in that regard. Many Christian conservatives scream "Religious bigotry!" when the Ten Commandments monument gets taken out of that Alabama courthouse, but we hear nary a peep when Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye peddle anti-Semitism in code. Neither side really cares about anything other than protecting its own.

 

[Larry Gude]

I am the first one...

...to criticize what Clinton did do and what he should have done in regards to the points you make.

HOWEVER, the argument is that he is DIRECTLY responsible and you just can't make that argument.

He did not plan nor carry out any direct attack on the US. He planned and ordered actions, including cruise missile attacks that proved ineffective and, to me, encouraging to Bin Laden, Hussien and others.

He is guilty of being wrong and of poor judgement but he WAS voted into office, twice, by enough people who DID trust his judgement.

So, you may as well blame anyone who voted for him as being DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11.

Go ahead...

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
So, you may as well blame anyone who voted for him as being DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11.

Go ahead...

Well, since you mention it.....

 

[Tonio]

Re: I am the first one...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...to criticize what Clinton did do and what he should have done in regards to the points you make.

HOWEVER, the argument is that he is DIRECTLY responsible and you just can't make that argument.

He did not plan nor carry out any direct attack on the US. He planned and ordered actions, including cruise missile attacks that proved ineffective and, to me, encouraging to Bin Laden, Hussien and others.

He is guilty of being wrong and of poor judgement but he WAS voted into office, twice, by enough people who DID trust his judgement.

So, you may as well blame anyone who voted for him as being DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11.

Go ahead...

Hey, who let the rational person in here?

 

[MGKrebs]

So,

Lawyers have no cred because they don't give their opponent ammunition?
Cops have no cred because they don't tell the perps their weaknesses?

Hell, I'm a businessman, do I tell my customers where to go to shop around for better pricing? (Well, sometimes I do, but only for liberals.)

If you can't accept that I have differences with some Dem politicians without me explicity stating those differences, then I guess I'll just have to be a hypocrite.

The context is worth considering too. I DO criticize Dems elsewhere, just not here. Daschle ####es me of so bad sometimes I could scream. I just got an email from the DLC that had got me all fired up. But here, SOMD, it's kinda like being in a shooting gallery...I'm not gonna give you extra bullets.

(At other times it feels more like a zoo. Ooooh! Look at the Liberal! What do they eat? Doesn't LOOK very dangerous.)

 

[Tonio]

Maynard, lawyers and cops are not the same as political parties. They're paid to be advocates of a sort.

If I understand you correctly, you won't criticize other Democrats "out of school" because that would just give the Republicans more to crow about. From my observation, the Forum's Republicans crow the loudest when Democrats only criticize Republicans. And vice versa. It's a game of "gotcha," where one side is always prepared to shred the other side's arguments to pieces. The only way to protect one's arguments is to eliminate everything that looks like inconsistency.

To paraphrase Dennis Miller from his politically neutral years, I see myself as conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I've never set an American flag on fire, but I've never put one out either.

I just get tired of the pointless political wars. Everything is so polarized. The Clintons and Bush and Gore have become incredibly polarizing figures. Few people are neutral about them. I don't know if their personalities are causing the polarization, or if that's just a symptom of the current political climate. I know that I just want the conflict and hatred to stop.

 

[Bruzilla]

Listening to Democrats criticizing Democrats always makes me laugh. You'all remind me of closet racists who say "I'm no racist! I have a black friend." You guys are always pointing out how you disapproved of Clinton's personal life, and some of the stunts that Bill and Hillary have pulled, like that's supposed to provide some legitimacy to your claims of being critical. That's like the Republicans crowing about being against Nixon on account of the break in. It's easy to criticize anyone who's screwed the pooch as bad as the Clintons or Nixon did, but I rarely ever hear Dems criticizing any other party players.

I criticized Bush for not launching nukes at Afghanistan on 9/12, for not standing against the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, for spending money like a drunken soldier (can't say sailor as I'm an ex-squid, etc. I've been critical of Ehrlich.... from whom I had hoped for so much and he hasn't down jack-doodoo. I remember Vrai being the first to call for Trent Lott's head, and for the heads of other Republicans who have messed up. We're critical of these Republicans not because they've committed some attrocious acts, but because we disagree with their stands on things.

All I seem to hear from Dems complaigning about how they are "fair and balanced" in their criticism of politicians is that they felt that Clinton's personal antics were bad. Welll... duh.

 

[MGKrebs]

I hear ya' Bru.

OK. If it will get me more cred with the SOMD wingnuts, I might be willing to criticize a Democrat here. I'm probably not going to deal with any Clinton stuff though...it's old history and not worth the research it would take. Besides, there are plenty of current Dems who we could talk about.

On second thought, I want to qualify that. If we get to talking about an issue, and it involves criticizing a Dem, then no problem. For example, I am ####ed at Daschle and some other Dems for rolling over and letting Bush have his war authorization. But I'm not going to get into a tit for tat about "you can't criticize Bush for X because you didn't criticixe Clinton for Y". That's stupid. Either it's wrong for Bush or it's not. Let's talk about that. Kucinich wanting to bail out of NAFTA and the WTO is either crazy or it's not. Just because Pat Buchanan wanted to do the same thing (just a guess) doesn't really matter. And whether or not I criticized Buchanan doesn't matter either. We can still talk about Kucinich.

And Tonio: Just to set the record straight: If I understand what you are saying, you are admitting that it is YOU who dismiss aguments because of the source. In other words, it doesn't matter whether the point has merit or not, if it comes from a partisan, then you can't consider it valid. How is that not hypocritical? Do you think you have a monopoly on the objective truth?

You see, I am only a liberal in the current environment. The things I believe in should be, and will be, centrist soon, as they once were. The scale has been skewed by the current ultra-right wing propaganda machine. Ha!

 

[Ken King]

Re: I hear ya' Bru.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
You see, I am only a liberal in the current environment. The things I believe in should be, and will be, centrist soon, as they once were. The scale has been skewed by the current ultra-right wing propaganda machine. Ha!

Yeah, we know the ultra-left has never skewed a thing. There is plenty of twisting going on at both ends of the spectrum and IMO the propaganda machines are alive and well at both ends.

Care to enumerate the things that will once again become centrist in nature?

 

[MGKrebs]

Hi Ken.

Well, some of it is just a matter of degree. For example, everybody is in favor of a smaller government in principle. We just disagree on HOW SMALL is right. Here's where we are;

"The final budget figures for fiscal year 2003 were released on October 20 by the Treasury Department._ They indicate that income tax receipts (including receipts from both the individual and corporate income tax) equaled just 8.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product._ This is the lowest level of income tax collections, as a share of the economy, since 1942"

http://www.cbpp.org/10-21-03tax.htm

And also:

Total Tax Revenue as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product
_ _ _ _ _ _ in Individual OECD Countries, 1992

Country _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1992
Australia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _28.5
Austria _ _ _43.5
Belgium _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _45.4
Canada _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __36.5
Denmark _ _ __ _ _ _ _49.3
Finland __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _47.0
France _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _43.6
Germany _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _39.6
Greece _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _40.5
Iceland _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _33.4
Ireland _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _36.6
Italy _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _42.4
Japan _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _29.4
Luxembourg _ _ _ _ _ _ _48.4
Netherlands _ _ _ _ _ _ _46.9
New Zealand_ _ _ _ _ _ _35.9
Norway _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _48.6
Portugal _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _33.0
Spain _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _35.8
Sweden _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _50.0
Switzerland _ _ _ _ _ _ _32.0
Turkey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _23.1
United Kingdom _ _ _ _35.2
United States _ _ _ _ _ _29.4

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/read...AE2B2982AE5286C585256810006E498D?OpenDocument

(I can't find more recent data at the moment, but I have seen it, and the point remains that we have the lowest taxation rate among developed countries, with on or two possible exceptions.)

So, most of these countries have national health care, lower infant mortality rates, more education spending and therefore lower incarceration rates, stricter pollution standards, and less crime. And they are, for the most part, thriving economies that are fairly competitive with the USA. The point is, slightly higher taxes don't kill an economy. Taxes can pay for things that help our society thrive, that wouldn't get paid for any other way.