Reply
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 06:26 am
I know some won't like this article but i found it entertaining and true for the most part. Laughed through a lot of it.
__________________
by Burt Prelutsky
The way that so many people, especially politicians, went nuts over the ports deal reminded me once again what a difference party designation makes. One only has to compare how harshly Sam Alito was treated during his confirmation hearings with the way that the ACLU?s chief counsel, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sailed through hers.
Getting back to the matter of the ports, I?m still not sure if it was a good idea or a bad one to allow the United Arab Emirates to manage those installations on the east coast. But I?m awfully curious why some of those same people who wanted Bush?s head on a pike weren?t the least bit upset when, during Clinton?s reign, Communist China was granted the authority to manage ports on the west coast. So far as I?m concerned, anybody who believes we have more to fear from Dubai than from Beijing needs a brain transplant.
It was only after Saddam Hussein bought off several nations with his oil-for-food scam, and ignored a kazillion U.N. resolutions, that Bush invaded Iraq. Immediately, the cry went up that he didn?t have a coalition. Afterwards, the complaint was that he lacked an exit strategy. Odd that nobody said ?boo? when Clinton unilaterally invaded Somalia; odder still that when he sent troops to Kosovo, promising they?d be home within a year, nobody took him to task when, a few years later, when he left the Oval Office, our forces were still there. That?s some exit strategy.
His liberal critics accuse Bush of being in bed with Halliburton, but Halliburton, you should be aware, did just fine in the 90s when Clinton was minding the store.
You also hear about Bush pandering to Enron. Well, there?s no denying that the sleazebags at Enron donated over $400,000 to the party, and kicked in another $100,000 to help pay for the president?s inauguration. And there?s no getting around the fact that Enron?s chairman stayed at the White House on 11 different occasions. Talk about having access! What?s more, the Export-Inport Bank subsidized Enron to the tune of $600 million in a single transaction.
Clearly, where Enron is concerned, the president has a lot to answer for. But the president we?re talking about happens to be Clinton. Bush, in case you didn?t notice, is the president whose administration has Enron CEO Ken Lay up on charges.
Clinton is the same fellow who had Yasir Arafat as a house guest seemingly every other week, while Bush is the guy who declared the terrorist persona non grata.
His enemies like to charge Bush with being in league with the Saudis, but at least the sheiks provide us with oil. Nary a peep was heard, however, when Clinton handed over military technology to the Red Chinese in exchange for nothing more than campaign contributions.
There?s one last thing about Clinton. We keep hearing that he was the first black president. Aside from the fact that he and that other serial adulterer, Jesse Jackson, allegedly prayed together when they were both caught tom-catting around, what made Clinton so darn black? Heck, taking his lead from Congress, he even revamped welfare and tried to get recipients weaned off the federal teat. If Clinton had been a Republican, the Black Caucus would have stormed the White House with torches and pitchforks.
Aside from Jackson, the only black person Clinton seemed to hang around with was Vernon Jordan. I spent eight years trying to figure out what he did for a living. I finally narrowed it down to two things. He had to let Clinton beat him at golf, and when things got too hot with Monica Lewinsky, it was Jordan?s responsibility to get her out of town and try to find her a job in New York City.
But I never was able to get a handle on what made Clinton blacker than, say, George W. Bush. It?s Bush, after all, who has appointed Colin Powell and Condi Rice to the highest positions in his cabinet. You would think that would count for something with the left, especially with one of them being a woman.
So what made Clinton so black? That he spoke with a southern accent, played a musical instrument, came from a dysfunctional family, and was blatantly promiscuous?
If that sounds racist, don?t blame me. I never regarded Clinton as a credit to any race -- black, white or human.
Burt Prelutsky has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. He is the author of Conservatives are from Mars (Liberals are from San Francisco).
Copyright ? 2006 Townhall.com
@Drnaline,
that made me laugh a lot, and i definitely needed it.
@Drnaline,
oh my GAWD... lmao... lol....
@Drnaline,
Glad to see all that put together in one story . I have heard most of it before . I don't understand why Liberals are so against Bush . Right now he seems to fit the centrist positions many Liberals occupy just before election so they can get voted into office .
@STEVE cv,
I don't know about Clinton but what if Bush would have been a Republican?:439:
@Drnaline,
I know what he means... he means Bush's insane spending and his push of bills like the Patriot Act are not policies of a "true republican" but policies of the democrats. More spending and more government.
@Brent cv,
Thanks Brent. I think my statement was taken literally.
The Republican party has had a disconnect with minority voters for sometime now.Democrats are for entitlement programs which usually benefit not just blacks, but all minorities.
The artical the comparison was made in is a humorist column. It's only humorous from a Republican point of view.
Republicans have a president who has a poor approval rating. I suppose they need a diversion of some sort.:yup:
@Drnaline,
No diversion needed. He knows what he's doing and knows how to do it. If he cared about polls or approval ratings like some other recent presidents did or probably still do. He wouldn't of accomplished half of what he did. My question to who ever is, why can only the democraps spend money or creat more government? Bush did not vreat more entitlement government. He created homeland security. I'd like to know what is deemed insane spending?
Quote:The Republican party has had a disconnect with minority voters for sometime now.
So who do you think has had a bigger disconnect with voters, repug or demo's? I'm a minority and i feel no disconnect?
Quote:Democrats are for entitlement programs which usually benefit not just blacks, but all minorities.
Don't forget, and keeps them in what little offices they still retain. Keeps them in paychecks as well. All you have to do is keep reminding those minoritys that they are victums and they need a fighter for the people on there side.
Quote:It's only humorous from a Republican point of view.
So i take it you thought it not funny, LOL?
@Drnaline,
Homeland Security? Now there is a piece of work.
Bush didn't create entitlement programs ? The biggest one that comes to mind is royalty payments for oil. It's all according to who you feel the entitlment programs were for.The rich or the poor.
I didn't think the artical was funny, just a bit one sided.
@tumbleweed cv,
tumbleweed wrote:Homeland Security? Now there is a piece of work.
Bush didn't create entitlement programs ? The biggest one that comes to mind is royalty payments for oil. It's all according to who you feel the entitlment programs were for.The rich or the poor.
I didn't think the artical was funny, just a bit one sided.
Quote:Homeland Security? Now there is a piece of work.
You still sleep safe at night don't you? We have not been attacked again. And we also know there have been attempts.
Quote:Bush didn't create entitlement programs ? The biggest one that comes to mind is royalty payments for oil. It's all according to who you feel the entitlment programs were for.The rich or the poor.
So Bush did all this without the help of Congress? That Royalty payment your talking about wouldn't be Oil for Food would it? If not got a link? Maybe is like the Royalty setup they have in Canadia? And as far as rich and poor i think most oil companys are owned by stock holders who can be either rich or poor. No body seems to pay much attention to them when they arn't making a profit, or there stock is in the toilet like a few years ago.
@Drnaline,
Quote:You still sleep safe at night don't you? We have not been attacked again. And we also know there have been attempts.
I slept safe at night pre and directly after 9/11.
Quote:So Bush did all this without the help of Congress?
Republican Majority makes that easier.
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:I slept safe at night pre and directly after 9/11.
.
Quote:I slept safe at night pre and directly after 9/11.
Me too, thanks to our commander and chief and the people under him. Sklinton had a tendency to let them go even after they were offered to him twice.
Quote:Republican Majority makes that easier
Sure does, one of those advantages of being on the winning side, LOL. I think the demos had that track for some thing like forty-fifty years. Funny they don't like any one else having there turn. I would still like a little more info on the subject. I search myself and see what i come up with but i may or maynot be what you and tumble are talking about specifically.
@Drnaline,
http://uspirg.org/reports/bigmoneybigoil.pdf#search='Big%20Oil%20Royalty%20Payments'
Oil for food program? lol.
I was sleeping safe before the DHS was created. It disfunctional. When faced with a disaster, it has proven to be less than effective. Hey, aren't they responsible for border security also?
@tumbleweed cv,
Only one correction with your statement. I think it should read "When faced with repeated natural disasters" They did very well with Florida repeated hurricane attacks, and the other states as well. Just those pesky welfare, corrupt states with emept mayors and govnors that couldn't help themselves that had problems. But IMO that had nothing to do with DHS.
Quote:Hey, aren't they responsible for border security also?
Sure are. Hopefully Bush will spend some more insane amounts on a brand spanken new 2000 mile fence.
@Drnaline,
The response to Katrina had nothing to do with DHS? FEMA is under the direction of HS.lol.
You seemed to say the DHS was a great program that Bush could take credit for. It may be a contributer to his fall in job approval.
Although we are more aware of threats from terrorist, I don't feel any safer because of DHS. We are still faced with the same threats we were facing before it was created. Our ports are still a weakness as well as our borders.:wtf:
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:Me too, thanks to our commander and chief and the people under him. Sklinton had a tendency to let them go even after they were offered to him twice.
Sorry but I wasnt worried when Clinton was in office either.
Quote:
Sure does, one of those advantages of being on the winning side, LOL.
Yep like I said a long time ago. Majority does not always end up being right :thumbup: Just because they got majority now does not mean they will keep it. I hope they don't.