Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest

It's because people use it as a way of villifying the other side.

For example, it's just another negative ("most hateful party") that people are applying.

For example, for Foxfyre it goes with: "more angry". "less rational". "more emotional" and all the other "differences/personal prejudices against the other party" that she espouses.

Upcoming attampts to villify the other sides are sure to include:

"Less hygenic", "needs to get laid more" and other idiocies.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's because people use it as a way of villifying the other side.

For example, it's just another negative ("most hateful party") that people are applying.

For example, for Foxfyre it goes with: "more angry". "less rational". "more emotional" and all the other "differences/personal prejudices against the other party" that she espouses.

Upcoming attampts to villify the other sides are sure to include:

"Less hygenic", "needs to get laid more" and other idiocies.

But in foxfyre's case, she's right: Liberals are more angry, more emotional, and less rational. But conservatives have their extremes as well, they're less angry, less emotional and more rational. :wink:

0 Replies

LOL, you forgot better looking and with a minty fresh smell.

0 Replies

Sorry, but you guys are taking the quicky way out on this one.

There are three propositions in play here:

1) Bush has been subjected to an unprecedented and unwarranted attack arising out of partisan, perhaps irrational, commentary and opinion designed to get him out of office.

2) Same as above, but replace 'Bush' with 'Clinton'.

3) Everybody is equally guilty...it's just how politics gets done. The big mistake is to think otherwise.

If you are going with 3), you are taking the quicky and easy way out.

The attack against Clinton both preceding and through the impeachment process was planned and strategized. The goal was to remove him from office. The project was well-funded, well-coordinated, and well-manned ("there are lots of elves working away" as Ann Coulter said to Matt Drudge). Further, it was a very dirty campaign, utilizing the worst tricks in any operative's tool-kit...lies, innuendo, etc.

If you are not cognizant of this story, then you have not been reading the commentary and books on the subject, and there are many. The facts of this story are easily available, and they are indeed compelling unless one walks in with fixed ideas and a preference to disbelieve what those facts reveal. The documentary "The Hunting of a President", released now or soon to be, tells this story.

There is, and has been, no comparable covert program to unseat Bush. That is an assertion, but I make it because I have seen no evidence to suggest anything approximating the campaign against Clinton has occured as regards Bush.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Sorry, but you guys are taking the quicky way out on this one.

There are three propositions in play here:

1) Bush has been subjected to an unprecedented and unwarranted attack arising out of partisan, perhaps irrational, commentary and opinion designed to get him out of office.

2) Same as above, but replace 'Bush' with 'Clinton'.

3) Everybody is equally guilty...it's just how politics gets done. The big mistake is to think otherwise.

If you are going with 3), you are taking the quicky and easy way out.

The attack against Clinton both preceding and through the impeachment process was planned and strategized. The goal was to remove him from office. The project was well-funded, well-coordinated, and well-manned ("there are lots of elves working away" as Ann Coulter said to Matt Drudge). Further, it was a very dirty campaign, utilizing the worst tricks in any operative's tool-kit...lies, innuendo, etc.

If you are not cognizant of this story, then you have not been reading the commentary and books on the subject, and there are many. The facts of this story are easily available, and they are indeed compelling unless one walks in with fixed ideas and a preference to disbelieve what those facts reveal. The documentary "The Hunting of a President", released now or soon to be, tells this story.

There is, and has been, no comparable covert program to unseat Bush. That is an assertion, but I make it because I have seen no evidence to suggest anything approximating the campaign against Clinton has occured as regards Bush.

A Canadian's loyalty to an American president is quite touching.

At best, you are distinquishing between the competency of the sides in this eternal battle.

0 Replies

what blattam said; only double.

For my part I can remember lots of red faces during the clinton impeachment on the other side. Who can forget hyde?

The difference between the hate is that it is not the washington types who are so angry at bush and have been since he took office. In fact it is like us nobodies had to prod the democratic congress and senators into sticking up for the democratic beliefs. It was with the thankful help of Dean and those that followed him that more democrats started speaking up instead of being quiet little lap dogs. If we seem angry it is because we were silenced for so long after 9/11. No more, i would rather be called a red faced rabid snarling dog everyday than to just quietly accept Bush ruining our country.

0 Replies

finn

My loyalty lies elsewhere than to a particular American president. To the degree I can manage it, which is not without failings, I heave my loyalty to truthfulness, transparency, and respect for the electorate. The reason I know I'm not perfect in subscribing to principles above all, is that had I been a member of the ACLU, I probably would have argued that they do not support Rush Limbaugh's case to keep his medical records sealed.

I do hold that quite a few folks here whom I like and respect (yourself, fishin, timber, thomas, to name some) are unappraised of the degree to which the republican party, and hence the country, have been kidnapped by a few very competent and bright and single minded folks who are forwarding and implementing policies which are policies more extreme than any of you are going to enjoy if they continue and become further instantiated into the American polity.

I recognize immediately that such a claim has the earmarks of precisely the sort of thing I warn others to be careful of when I point to Hoftstadter's essay "The Paranoid Style of American Politics". But nevertheless, I think such a state of affairs exists. And that it is very dangerous.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

what blattam said; only double.

For my part I can remember lots of red faces during the clinton impeachment on the other side. Who can forget hyde?

And have you not seen the gin blossom garden that is Ted Kennedy's face burn scarlet during his diatribes against Bush?

I understand that you might not have seen the red in Charlie Rangle's face, but he has been every bit vociferous about Bush as Hyde was about Clinton.

{quote="revel"]The difference between the hate is that it is not the washington types who are so angry at bush and have been since he took office. In fact it is like us nobodies had to prod the democratic congress and senators into sticking up for the democratic beliefs. It was with the thankful help of Dean and those that followed him that more democrats started speaking up instead of being quiet little lap dogs. If we seem angry it is because we were silenced for so long after 9/11. No more, i would rather be called a red faced rabid snarling dog everyday than to just quietly accept Bush ruining our country.[/quote]

Sorry, but this is such a crock! I assure you that there were any number of good old fashioned Americans who hated Clinton. Move outside your current circles and you will find I am right. Hell, just read the letters to the editor in your local newspaper...or do you think those letters have been penned by Beltway Boys?

If you were silenced after 9/11, it was through your own doing. I gave you credit for wanting to be part of a united country, but now I know how foolish that assumption was --- you were just scared of being called disloyal.

Don't worry, no one is going to accuse you of being red faced rabid snarling dogs...yellow curs perhaps, but not the former.

0 Replies

Clinton's approval ratings were pretty high through most of his later half of the first four years and all of the last, in fact they peaked during the impeachment. Perhaps you should go out of your circle for a bit.

I was not silent after 9/11, but who I am other than just a housewife with one voice and that really on an internet? I agree with you that our democratic leaders were yellow bellied curs after 9/11, thankfully they find some spunk.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Clinton's approval ratings were pretty high through most of his later half of the first four years and all of the last, in fact they peaked during the impeachment. Perhaps you should go out of your circle for a bit.

You are arguing that only the Fat Cats hated Clinton , while it's the common man (and woman) who hates Bush, and this is just bunk.

Unless Clinton's approval rating was 100% it is no proof of how many or who hated him, and even if Bush's approval rating fell to 0%, it wouldn't mean that 100% of the people hated him.

My bet is that the actual numbers of people who hate Clinton or Bush are relatively small, but that they include people of all stripes. An argument over who was hated more is silly, but your contention is patently absurd.

Quote:

I was not silent after 9/11, but who I am other than just a housewife with one voice and that really on an internet? I agree with you that our democratic leaders were yellow bellied curs after 9/11, thankfully they find some spunk.

Your post suggested that you were, but if you weren't, good for you. You're wrongheaded, but not cowardly. :wink:

0 Replies

bookmarking

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Sorry, but you guys are taking the quicky way out on this one.

There are three propositions in play here:

1) Bush has been subjected to an unprecedented and unwarranted attack arising out of partisan, perhaps irrational, commentary and opinion designed to get him out of office.

2) Same as above, but replace 'Bush' with 'Clinton'.

3) Everybody is equally guilty...it's just how politics gets done. The big mistake is to think otherwise.

If you are going with 3), you are taking the quicky and easy way out.

The attack against Clinton both preceding and through the impeachment process was planned and strategized. The goal was to remove him from office. The project was well-funded, well-coordinated, and well-manned ("there are lots of elves working away" as Ann Coulter said to Matt Drudge). Further, it was a very dirty campaign, utilizing the worst tricks in any operative's tool-kit...lies, innuendo, etc.

If you are not cognizant of this story, then you have not been reading the commentary and books on the subject, and there are many. The facts of this story are easily available, and they are indeed compelling unless one walks in with fixed ideas and a preference to disbelieve what those facts reveal. The documentary "The Hunting of a President", released now or soon to be, tells this story.

There is, and has been, no comparable covert program to unseat Bush. That is an assertion, but I make it because I have seen no evidence to suggest anything approximating the campaign against Clinton has occured as regards Bush.

Blatham,

Very well said. (as usual)

0 Replies

I am not really arguing that it is only the fat cats who hated clinton and it is common man who hates bush. (although I think there might some truth to that)

What I am saying is that during the clinton presidency most people were saying that they felt (as most polls indicated during that time) that Clinton personal life was not important to his job and they approved of the way he handled his job. Yet the republicans in congress just kept on pushing it despite the fact that a majority was not behind it.

On the other hand Bush approval ratings were going down below fifty percent before 9/11. That means that even some republicans and independents did not approve of the way he was doing his job. I admit that after 9/11 a majority of the public suddenly approved of the way Bush was handling his job and that remained so for quite a long time. That meant that even some democrats approved of Bush during this time. So our leaders felt that they had to go along with everything so as not to anger their voters. However his approval rating started slipping a little first with the patriot act then really began to slip with the lead up to the Iraq war and it got down to about even. Which means that the democrats started to disaprove of Bush handling his job. Yet our leaders just ignored us and kept giving Bush everything he wanted. It wasn't until Dean came on the scene and said that he "represents the democrats of the democratic party" that our leaders realized that we were not happy being democrats in name only and they began to start to question some of Bush's decisions for first time since 9/11.

That was all I was trying to say in my first post in which you responded to.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I am not really arguing that it is only the fat cats who hated clinton and it is common man who hates bush. (although I think there might some truth to that)

Then you are still advancing a crock.

revel wrote:

What I am saying is that during the clinton presidency most people were saying that they felt (as most polls indicated during that time) that Clinton personal life was not important to his job and they approved of the way he handled his job. Yet the republicans in congress just kept on pushing it despite the fact that a majority was not behind it.

On the other hand Bush approval ratings were going down below fifty percent before 9/11. That means that even some republicans and independents did not approve of the way he was doing his job. I admit that after 9/11 a majority of the public suddenly approved of the way Bush was handling his job and that remained so for quite a long time. That meant that even some democrats approved of Bush during this time. So our leaders felt that they had to go along with everything so as not to anger their voters. However his approval rating started slipping a little first with the patriot act then really began to slip with the lead up to the Iraq war and it got down to about even. Which means that the democrats started to disaprove of Bush handling his job. Yet our leaders just ignored us and kept giving Bush everything he wanted. It wasn't until Dean came on the scene and said that he "represents the democrats of the democratic party" that our leaders realized that we were not happy being democrats in name only and they began to start to question some of Bush's decisions for first time since 9/11.

That was all I was trying to say in my first post in which you responded to.

Because someone doesn't approve of a President's performance doesn't mean they "hate" them. Not everyone is so partisan that disapproval has to translate as "hate".

If you wish to argue that Clinton's approval rating was higher than Bush's, that is perfectly reasonable.

I suppose there is no reason for you to believe me, but let me assure you (as someone who never hated Clinton and was repulsed by the vehemence of his opponents), that it wasn't only Republican politicians and political operatives who hated the man.

You need only scroll through any internet forum to see that I am correct.

0 Replies

Finn wrote:

You need only scroll through any internet forum to see that I am correct.

Unless, of course, you are one of those loons who believes that all Clinton Haters on these forums are Republican Party operatives.

(I trust that you are not)

0 Replies

I might be a loon but I don't believe that all republicans on these forums (or democrats) are really operatives in disguise.

I agree that there were some people outside of washington that hated clinton. I used to talk on lycos united states political boards during the impeachment and I remember it well.

My point was that there were more people in congress and on tv that hated clinton than ordinary people if you go by the polls and the questioning of the polls than there are now who hate bush in washington and on tv. That has changed a little but not as much as it was during the clinton years.

0 Replies

Presidient Bush's sick sense of family pride...
I loyally stay completely out of the political BS and have done so religiously. Until now! After coming home from work tonight to hear that one of my son's will be shipped to Iraq in August?

Hell NO mister President, clean up your own frickin' mess! Osama Bin Laden was just your patsy to get your way to Saddam Hussein. Family pride to go after the person who dis-respected your father. Mister President you have him already, why are we still in Iraq?

I am not from the corporate America that is profiting from your family pride. Scrapping for everything I have, sometimes barely able to go to work with the price of gas where it is now. I see the prices drop for only a few hours then increase to more than it started at at the beginning of the day. This last fuel price increase was more than 10 cents. The rich are getting richer mister President.

No mister President I cannot stand beside you, I will not stand beside you when it comes to sending any more of our troops to Iraq.

0 Replies

Was he drafted?

0 Replies

Mike,

You should definitely look at some of the political threads, especially the ones related to Bush's invasion of Iraq. You will find many articulate, well-reasoned people there, many of whom strongly support your position. Of course, you will also find some whackos, blind followers, idealogues, etc. Still, the threads are worth a look.

Of course there is no draft, so I understand that your son must have enlisted, as does the previous poster. I'm "guessing" that your son, like many other young people, enlisted to defend our country and our freedom, neither of which, IMO, was ever the purpose of Bush's pre-emptive, unilateral, immoral oil war.

That's all I'll say here - it does get tiresome after a while dealing with the neocon herd - anyway, as I said, you should check out some of the political threads

0 Replies

angie wrote:

Mike,

You should definitely look at some of the political threads, especially the ones related to Bush's invasion of Iraq. You will find many articulate, well-reasoned people there, many of whom strongly support your position. Of course, you will also find some whackos, blind followers, idealogues, etc. Still, the threads are worth a look.

Now that's fair and balanced: "Articulate and well reasoned" if they agree with Mike (or more precisely, angie) and " whacko, blind idealogues," if they dont.

Of course there is no draft, so I understand that your son must have enlisted, as does the previous poster. I'm "guessing" that your son, like many other young people, enlisted to defend our country and our freedom, neither of which, IMO, was ever the purpose of Bush's pre-emptive, unilateral, immoral oil war.

Assuming your "guess" is correct, you are, apparently, in disagreement with Mike's son. Does this mean he is a "whacko, blind idealogue?"

...it does get tiresome after a while dealing with the neocon herd - anyway...

And yet you continuously rise to the challenge. What an inspiration you are.

0 Replies

Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know