Sylvia Brown, is that you??
Hmmm… who did the Republicans run against in 1980. And 1984. And 1988. Hint: He was associated with peanuts.
Indeed, and he still hasn’t answered my question posed earlier
To say nothing of the fact that Bush Ii originally ran against Clinton in 2000, spending an inordinate amount of time talking about bringing integrity (such as lying about WoMD, establishing Guantanamo, opposing “nation building” for Afghanistan while championing it for Iraq, replacing an effective administrator in FEMA with a political hack, etc.) back to the White House, despite the fact that Gore had no part in the Lewinsky fiasco or any of the related stories.
Err - I’m not following you. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Peanut did indeed run in 1980, and his running mate in 1984. But as far as I can tell, Fritzie Fresh Mondale managed to get clobbered pretty much on his own. I disremember any prominent examples of ol’ Fritz pointing with pride to the foreign policy triumphs he and Smiley achieved in, say, Iran or Afghanistan, or the stellar performance of the economy circa 1984 vs. 1979. And I don’t remember literally any mention of the beneficiary of Amy’s foreign policy experience in 1988 in the campaign of that year - it was more about Willie Horton, and Dukakis popping up from a tank turret like Pop-a-mole and his wife drinking hair spray, or whatever it was.
You might do better with the analogy if you tried to link Mr. “No controlling legal authority” and Internet-inventor in 2000, if you wanted to make any kind of a case for “an echo, not a choice”. And I will certainly concede your point if Cheney were to run in 2008. Or if the spouse of a certain unpleasant former Prevaricator-in-chief gets the nod, and the Republicans can talk about cattle futures and subpoena’ed documents again. Other than that, maybe not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
Bluntly, my friend on the opposite side of the political divide, you can do better than this.
“…foreign policy triumphs he and Smiley achieved in, say, Iran or Afghanistan…”
Well, I’m sure we’re all impressed with the foreign policy successes of Shrub (note that this is the first occasion I’ve used that term in a political debate, and it’s in response to your demeaning of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the U.S. who don’t stand up to your ideological purity test).
“…about Willie Horton…”
AKA, dirty tricks are fine if it’s a Republican playing them. Who was that woman that your Knight in Shining Armor in the White House sent to her execution though she’d repented and begged for a chance to live, anyway? You can add that to the tally of the Murderer-in-Chief.
“…if the spouse of a certain unpleasant former Prevaricator-in-chief gets the nod, and the Republicans can talk about cattle futures and subpoena’ed documents…”
Shades of the New Deal! Are you planning to tell us about “Hillary Clubs” where Mrs. Clinton is secretly encouraging women to disavow their husbands, or something?
You’ve proven you can be a Republican partisan hack, above.
Now, try proving you can be an American patriot.
Because I know you have it in you, but the above-quoted post surely would not convince anyone else.
“Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.” George Jean Nathan
Little things like invading countries, torture, mass killing, electing scum like Bush and so on. Do I really have to list all the various evils and stupidities of America ?
No, no please don’t. Lets just remember that some rational people do not agree on everyone of your points. There is much to condemn for this admin and the entire country giving them a second term. The Democrats failed in this with their terrible choice of a candidate. The Republicans failed earlier when the party made the deal with the devil (Religious Right). No Liberal or Fiscal Republican can be happy with this current admin.
Jim
Whether or not you call the “rabid” is a judgement call, but the US is one of the most religious devloped countries in the world. As far as I know, only Poland is more religious.
Well, I’m sure you’re not, but since we were discussing the undoubted fact that Bush is not running in 2008 his foreign policy is not particularly relevant to the thread.
I may have mentioned this before, but it was a Democrat who brought up Willie first. Oddly, no one hereabouts seems to have objected, until Lee Atwater (IIRC) followed suit.
You mean Karla Faye Tucker, who mentioned that she experienced orgasm when murdering someone with a pick ax? Or are you talking about the one whose death warrant Slick Willie bolted back to Arkansas to sign during his first Presidental campaign?
Funny how selective your outrage gets.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Fortunately, I doubt it matters.
Right, and you are a selectively offended liberal hack, everywhere.
Who the hell are you that you think I need to prove my patriotism to you?
Anyone who dares question St. Jimmy gets his patriotism questioned, but Der Trihs and his foul-minded rants against all things American gets a pass.
I suppose in some sense I should be upset, but I’ve seen a bit too much of it to care all that much.
Regards,
Shodan
But since you were also talking about history, Bush’s foreign policy is perfectly relevant.
Also, it’s true that Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008; that doesn’t mean that people aren’t going to vote based on their distaste for him.
Actually I was talking about when it might or might not make sense to run against a candidate. BobLibDem made a remark I didn’t understand, and I talked a little about how it would make sense to run against Jimmy in 1980, when, after all, he was running, or in 1984, when his running mate was the Democratic nominee. And I don’t remember any mention of Jimmy in 1988, which I said.
Then Poly decided to chime in with his apparent belief that it is unpatriotic to criticize a former President, as well as make it clear that, for many Dopers, hatred of Bush wil motivate every political act they will take for the next fifteen years.
Well, hell, as I also mentioned, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, most Dopers will vote for him no matter who the Republicans run. And, as I also mentioned elsewhere, any Republican is going to be Pitted for running as, well, a Republican. See the current Pit for that, as I described.
But as I also described, Dopers can’t post on anything political (or some Dopers on anything) without making it clear that they hate Bush. That is the sum and total of their political thought. Even in elections where Bush isn’t running. Which is every election from now on.
Regards.
Shodan
So you’ll have no trouble coming up with a list that doesn’t include,
Trooper Gate,
Mena (Clinton allowed Reagans CIA to smuggle coke in and weapons out to aid the contras (really interesting, assuming it’s all true, how that wasn’t a Reagan scandal),
the “Clinton Body Count”,
Vince Foster (murdered by Clinton :rolleyes: ),
Ron Brown (murdered by Clinton :rolleyes: ),
or anything else that’s not from The Arkansas Project or The Clinton Chronicles (which you can watch here and here)
Watch this video too! “Description:This is Mr.{David} Brock himself admitting he and the press completely fabricated the Clinton immorality movement.”
CMC fnord!
RE the OP, want to understand American patriotism?
Read Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and H.L. Menken.
Good refresher there crowmanyclouds, It always amazes me to see how “selective” the recollections of the extreme right are regarding their actions of even the recent past. They seem to have the property of forgetting timeliness or to think time will make everyone forget.
One should only remember that the Republicans investigated every deed of the Clinton’s only to end with a pitiful result. Then the Republicans never bothered to investigate the current president like that, and not even in a proper way.
When one can see evidence of abuses of power just after a few weeks of hearings by the new congress, you bet one should demand an explanation to the Republicans that controlled congress before for 12 years why it was better to let all those abuses fester.
“Party before country” should never be an element of American Patriotism, even if many current Republicans are acting like if that is the case.
- From the former 26th President of the United States, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, Jr. - Republican. (1918)
Personally, the Republican’s crusade rather improved my opinion of Clinton; I was surprised that they found so little with so much time, effort and ruthlessness.
And so many funds they didn’t know what to do with. Let’s not forget that part either.
Monet well-spent no doubt. Would the Democrats had as much to investigate Bush…and the balls to go along with same of course.
What anti-feminist legislation did President Clinton introduce to Congress? What anti-feminist or sexist comments did he make? Have feminists been overly critical of GWB on gender issues?
Did you write that backwards intentionally or do you really not see the irony of 200 million dollars spent in a fruitless investigation?
Shodan, do you really believe that Rush Limbaugh represents what you want us to think of as the Republican’s challenge to “mainstream media’s stranglehold” on public debate? Hell, even I have more respect for Republicans that that!
<snip>
Cite for the underscored part, please.
That’s pretty much the definition of the “hard Left,” isn’t it? If they ever hold a favorable opinion of a Republican president, then they weren’t really hard Left, right? And it can’t be said of them that they changed. I see.
I didn’t see that happen with Ford, Reagan, or Bush I after Nixon. I think most of us thought that would be the worst we would see in our lifetimes. We were wrong. Richard Nixon made my flesh crawl, but George W. Bush has done more to destroy the Constitution and our vision of ourselves.
BTW, if you absolutely insist on voting for a Republican Conservative, you might want to consider Fred Thompson.
Your lack of understanding is understandable (say, what??), given the fact that my comments weren’t intended as a ‘debating tactic’ in the first place. Rather, they were intended as exposition to answer questions posed by chowder.
As far as presenting a ‘factual rebuttal’ goes, what would be the point?
Anyone reading these boards for one day can easily see it that slants sharply left. Now, let’s say that in response to that observation you come charging in demanding cites to prove it. I post, oh, I don’t know, a few hundred cites of posters making leftie assertions. You then either excuse, support or deny the validity of these cites and offer offsetting cites of posts made by righties. Then I post more cites showing leftie sentiments, and you post more cites to the contrary…etc., etc. ad infinitum!
The problem, as you and others of your ilk are no doubt aware, is that no definitive and/or probative cites exist that will prove or disprove these types of observations, opinions, beliefs, etc. The best one can do is come up with examples, and these examples prove nothing in and of themselves. All they do is obfuscate and/or derail the subject at hand (which I happen to believe is the number one reason for cite demands around here in the first place). Hear something you don’t like but don’t have the time, persuasiveness or ammo to refute it? No problem…just demand a meaningless cite (i.e., example) and then you’ll have some hair to split which will allow you to derail the issue at hand. You want a cite as to the height of the Empire State Building; I’ll give you one. But demand a cite as to whether the SDMB leans left, lacks patriotism, derides conservative presidents, etc., and I’ll tell you to go fish because no such proof exists that would settle the issue one way or the other.
But then, you already know that, don’t you?
IMHO, any conservative politician at the time who could be shown to have engaged in the type of womanizing behavior Bill Clinton engaged in (not to mention the eager and willing dishonesty that accompanied it…ala Gennifer Flowers, to name but one) would have been ridden out of town on a rail by the media, members of the feminist movement and the politicians they support. Yet because Billy-boy was thought to be more sympathetic to their concerns than a conservative president would have been, the outrage that one would expect to follow on the heels of these revelations was conspicuous by its absense.
You’ve suggested this to me before as well and I shall indeed do so (consider him, that is 
).
Having said that, I hope all is well with you, Zoe.