Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest

There was a lot more there to hate.

Clinton's flaws hurt his family; they seem to be doing ok now, as does Ms. Lewinsky. Bush's flaws have done near irreparable damage to this nation and its standing in the world for years to come.

He has to go.

Did he really write that?

Re: Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest
The hatred of Clinton was as absurd and destructive as the hatred for Bush.

Roeper is rather childish though in the way he addresses the subject. Rather than denouncing both extremes he insists on turning it into an attack against one side.

From my perspective (I supported Clinton when he was being bashed, and I support Bush now) the level of hatred seems about even, and just as sickening.

I think we can all admit that there are extreme nut cases on all sides who find it easier to spout hatred of the person holding the office instead of objecting and fighting the policies of the person holding the office. When I first started on A2K, there were several people whose every posting was filled with hate and name calling of Bush and anyone who even remotely supported any of his policies. Thankfully, I have seen much less of these individuals in recent weeks. And I am sure that the same thing would have been going on here with some people during Clinton's term, just the names would have changed.

But we can find this same stuff throughout our history. Lincoln was downright vilified during his time in office by an extreme element that hated him. I doubt that any president has been immune to those who find it easier to spew hate instead of debating and talking about policy.

As I have said before, while I do not respect Clinton for the immorality he brought to the nation's highest office, I would no more say I hate him and lower myself to the level of calling him names than I would kick my dog. When I hear others here and elsewhere constantly calling our president names I tend to think less of their arguments about his policy because they are resorting to childish behavior, and children after all, should be seen and not heard.

Anyway, my two cents worth on the name calling/president bashing issue.

Re: Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest


Not really. There was a lot more reason for it:


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26990&highlight=

Hard to even tell where to start on that one. Bush's flaws have probably saved you from death due to radiation poisoning and/or anthrax a couple of times over by now.

Clinton's flaws... Like I say, where to even start? I mean, an "illicit affair" would have amounted to making it with any of the several hundred thousand women in the D.C. area who would have been happy to have an affair with Slick, on his own time, his own dime... nobody would ever have said a word. Porking a teenage intern in the oval office during government hours while keeping visiting foreign dignitaries waiting in the outer office is not an "illicit affair"; it's criminal stupidity and a symptom of major kinds of psychiatric problems.


Clinton Psychiatric Issues

http://www.reason.com/9411/fe.efron.9411.html

Edith Efron was a friend of Ayn Rand's and was widely regarded as
an academic heavyweight. Her now famous analysis of Slick Clinton's psychiatric profile is available at Reason Online.

The whole world understood that Slick had psychiatric issues after the Monica Lewinski scandal broke; what most don't realize is that this was obvious to everybody working around the whitehouse as early as mid 1993. The democrat party in particular, having put this guy in office, absolutely owed it to the nation to pack his sorry butt off to Saint Elizabeth's hospital where he belonged and hand the presidency over to Algor. That (the president becoming incapacitated) is what the Vice President is there for. The situation should never have gotten anywhere near the impeachment process.

The fact that nothing like that happened and that, in fact, the democrat party fought tooth and nail to the bitter end to keep this guy in power and to keep a psychiatrically challenged character in charge of the US military which was undeniably misused in three dog-wagging episodes is unforgivable.

Keeping my big liberal mouth closed for one second and taking an untainted stance on this.. I FIRST have to say that I cant see any hatred for any president just because of who he is. The person who ends up as president gets NASTY rumors , stories , and tell all people thrown in thier lap to sort out and are expected to do so gracefully. Even if the stories are false. It takes alot to stand in front of millions of people and try to be human while 1/2 of those people are calling you something you may/may not be .
Having said that... [size=7]I hate bush[/size]. I hate his thoughts and his decision making. Not him. I dont know him.. I just hate what I see. Hyprocrite? Yup.. I am in the biggest sence.
But it always seems that EVERY election / term/ president etc has haters / lovers / and liars. Nothing new here. Just the name. Instead of Clinton, Regan, Nixon, it is G.Dubbyah Bush.

I agree that it is absurd to "hate" the individual, but not so the policies he/she espouses.

swofl: to paraphrase you, 'where shall I begin?' As I said, Clinton's screwing around, like that of presidents's before him, did not affect our lives. On the other hand, how have Bush's "flaws" affected us ?

We are much less safe from the threat of terrorism. Instead of concentrating on bin Laden and al Quaeda, Bush fabricated an excuse and marched in arrogantly and unilaterally to effect a revenge-based regime change, something he swore he would not due when he campaigned. As a result of his misguided, deceptive, ill-planned military invasion, that country is an unstable mess, and will be for years, and more to the point, the ranks of terrorist groups all over the world have been fueled by what has effectively (and accurately) been portrayed as the invasion of a sovereign Muslim country by a very white, western, Christian, gun-slinging imperialist. And I won't even go into the whole oil / Halliburton thing.

Bush and his arrogant my-way-or-the-highway cronies have essentially erased fifty years of post-war diplomacy. In spite of what the Bushies may have thought, it is clear now that we need the world community. We cannot go it alone whenever a crisis arises. And the ironic thing is that, after 911, we had the world community in our hands. But Bush/Cheney, against the advice of Colin Powell, assumed a "who needs you" stance re: Iraq, essentially dismissed long time allies as irrelevant, and destroyed the diplomatic ties previous administrations, including that of Bush Sr., had worked so hard to nurture. The Bushies attempted to paint those who would not stand with us as disloyal when, in truth, they had serious doubts about the validity of his reasons for going to war. They were right. And now, Bush turns to them and expects them to help clean up his mess.

The economy is inching its way back IN SPITE OF BUSH, not because of him. His uncreative, shortsighted tax cuts for the wealthy did not have the promised effect, because the trickle-down theory just doesn't work anymore. At the turn of the last century, when genuine American benefactors existed, it made sense to grant tax cuts to the very wealthy. Those benefactors were deeply loyal to America and eagerly re-invested the money into our economy creating real growth and jobs. Whole different ball game today. The economy is global and national loyalty has been replaced by selfishness and greed. Tax cuts for the very wealthy are invested overseas where they can generate more personal profit, or simply be stashed away in Swiss bank accounts. Very little is re-invested here, which is why it took 3 1/2 years to see any improvement in the job situation. Bush et al did nothing to truly stimulate the economy. To quote a fellow A2Ker, "the fact of the matter is they simply don't know how to govern. They expect that things can run themselves, that there is no need for job incentives or equipment write-offs or other things that help build economies (See Clinton Economic Plan), you just cut taxes. You don't even have to cut spending (because that would really throw things out of whack) you just throw the money out there and avert your eyes from the godzilla-sized deficits you've created. Meanwhile, it must have been a little hard to put groceries on the table in Ohio for these past three years, even with that one-time extra three hundred dollar check from GW. "

His domestic policies reflect a complete lack of compassion and concern for things that matter to most Americans. Education reform has been non-existent during Bush's term in office; he mandated "No Child Left Behind", then utterly under-funded it. Bush wraps himself in the flag, then cuts benefit funding for veterans. The health care debate, an issue many Americans tag as one of their top two, has simply not existed.

Bush's alignment with extreme Christian right-wing fundamentalists is perhaps the most despicable aspect of his presidency, and the most frightening. Sure, these zealots have a right to exist and speak their mind - this is America - but the thought that they are shaping national policy is sickening. The very first thing Bush did as president was to veto a stem cell research bill that might have opened huge reservoirs of research in this country. We are on the bring of quantum leaps in genetics, and our leader opposes using frozen, "never-to-be-hatched" embryos. His subsidies for faith-based charities defiantly violate the core of separation of church and state - BTW, who decides which "faiths" get the money? And, of course, most despicable, IMO, is his current attempt to use the civil rights of gay Americans as a wedge issue he can ride to re-election, no doubt because he cannot cite any actual successes during his term to reference. This from the "compassionate conservative". This from the "uniter, not divider".




But, then again, he did nail that anthrax thing, didn't he !

I agree with Finn, and I think that Swolf is probably one of those people that are blinded by partisan hate, who the author of that article is talking about. Probably. I'm not totally convinced though.

Just my opinion.

kicky,

Opinions are what this site is all about. Without opinions, it would just be an endless list of links.

Good point!!!
I am a g-dubbyah-'disliker' from tip to tail. and a self proclaimed hyprocrite!
I just see that you can take ANY slander from almost ANY campaign, replace it with a new name and plug it into your tv and it will apply some how , some way. Hatred from either party is never a new situation and one side is ALWAYS going out on a limb to prove the other wrong. >sigh<
Just hate FREELY! dont descriminate. hahahahahahha

Good, then I'm in the right place. :wink:

Despicable is a harsh word. What is it about the so-called "right wing fundamentalists" that you despise so much?

They have a right to exist and speak their minds but not to shape national policy?

It's not as if Bush was a stealth candidate. His being a "born again" Christian was well publicized during the campaign. Of course this repelled a fair number of voters but it also attracted a fair number. He didn't run as a human secularist and then suddenly unveil a fundamentalist bent.

You are free to despise whomever you wish, but it seems that your implied tolerance only extends to those your politics can embrace.

Your chosen signature is interesting as well.

"When one thing dies, all things die together and must live again in a different way."

Except of course if that one thing is an embryo.

I agree with the writer escept for his math. I doubt very much that Clinton haters then outnumbered the Bush haters now.

Here's the #1 Clinton basher now I think

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Mad Monica fires back
BY ELLEN TUMPOSKY in London
and TRACY CONNOR in New York
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Saturday, June 26th, 2004

Hell hath no fury like an intern scorned.
Monica Lewinsky broke her silence and bared her claws yesterday, branding ex-lover Bill Clinton a creep who "destroyed" her and made her feel like "an insignificant piece of dirt."

As the former President stumped for his best-selling memoir, Lewinsky fumed that he belittled their romance and never apologized for smearing her reputation during the Sexgate scandal.

"He says he was proud of the way that he defended the presidency - at my expense. In the process, he destroyed me," she said.

"I was a young girl and to hear him saying some of the things he was saying today - it's a shame."

Lewinsky said her life would have turned out much differently if she'd never met Clinton.

Rest of the story. . . .
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/v-pfriendly/story/206415p-178125c.html

As for the monica thing up above I am not even going to go there.

I do think that there was lots more hate for Clinton by Washington and those in positions to take action than there are for Bush.

It was the best of times - for hating President Clinton
It was the best of times - for hating President Clinton
Arizona Republic
Jun. 22, 2004 12:00 AM

For the next week or so - longer if we're lucky - a considerable number of people in Arizona and all across America will spend a portion of their days and nights hating Bill Clinton.

The former president's autobiography, My Life, goes on sale today. And so, too, does the former president, who is scheduled to appear on Oprah, Today, Larry King Live and other television programs.

By Monday morning I'd already heard from several people who had reached the conclusion, based only on Clinton's 60 Minutes interview Sunday, that "media types like you are falling all over yourselves to promote your pal Slick Willie."

It was just like the 1990s, and it was beautiful. For the better part of a decade hating Bill Clinton was for some people an obsession, and for the rest of us a spectator sport. Now we will have a chance to relive those days, at least until the malicious nostalgia wears off or the harsh world we now live in reminds us of the many more important things we should be thinking about.

When Clinton was in office we were preoccupied with DNA stains on dresses, not bloodstains on the streets of Baghdad, Mosul or Najaf.

Nothing close to 150,000 American troops were dispatched to fight a foreign war during the Clinton administration, although I suspect there will be critics this week who will find a way to hold that against him, too. At least I hope so.

Because while the '90s may have been unpleasant for the former president, all those years of Clinton hating were among the best ever for the rest of us. The nation was in a period of deficit reduction. There was relative peace. And the 20 million or so jobs that sprang forth during that period were not "outsourced."

It was a creatively good time as well. The movie Fargo came out while we were hating Clinton. And Pulp Fiction. And Toy Story. And Shakespeare in Love and the Shawshank Redemption.

Nirvana and Eric Clapton went unplugged in the 1990s, turning down the musical volume while the decibel level for political discourse began to rise. And rise. And soon may reach the point where the only living creatures capable of hearing the high-pitched noises coming out of politicians, talk radio show hosts and Michael Moore will be dogs.

Already the Clinton haters are spending the profits they made during Clinton's administration of the '90s to attack the former president in 2004. A conservative lobbying organization called Citizens United bought TV time in some markets during Clinton's interview on 60 Minutes to claim that Clinton was responsible for failing to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who made a fortune hating Clinton over the airwaves, is calling Clinton's book My Lie.

There is a kind of national revival among the Clinton-hating Web sites and political organizations. The reason we were able to hate Clinton for so long, however, is that other than the failures of his personal life the nation prospered under his watch. Although we will hear this week - longer if we're lucky - that he had nothing to do with that prosperity.

And while we nostalgically recall those days when hating Clinton (and Mrs. Clinton) was the national pastime, we should consider as well the many other reasons to miss the 1990s. Princess Diana was alive then, and now we have less grace. Mother Teresa was alive then, and now we have less piety. Barry Goldwater was alive then, and now we have less statesmanship. Erma Bombeck was alive then, and now we have less, much less, good humor.

Is it some sort of badge of honor to be the most hated president?

You'd think this was a contest.