While I am sure that Bill gets as much tail as he wants, Hillary has always looked like she hasn’t been laid in years, the pinched mouth, the lines on her forehead, her entire wardrobe and demeanor indicates she probably has cobwebs down there.
On the other hand, during the 92 campaing, before she started to look like a young Barbara Bush, I would’ve gladly volunteered to clear those cobwebs.
Did I just really type that?
bingo!
I may have reasons to oppose the war …
… Which does not change that I detest Bush with the intensity of 1.000.000 suns 
I can’t stand his foolish grin.
IANAR, but I was the one who brought up the subject. You left out the most important part: “snobish, I-know-better-than-you” were the adjectives of “intellectual”. You are right, that an intellectual per se should not incite dislike (I prefer that term to hate). It’s the snobish I-know-better-than-you part that is the kicker.
Im also at loss to understand why Clinton is hated so much, and i ceertainly dont think he ‘radiated arrogance amd snobbishness’ amd he deserved a blowjob by the way. It should be the law of the land for the president to receive them in a regular basis.
I
give him credit for coming to my country and actually apologising for not doing enough to stop the genocide. Cant picture Bush doing that. I miss his grasp of affairs. He could talk about ANYTHING and come off sounding like an expert. With all due respect to Dubya, he sounds like he knows shit.
Ok, enough ass-kissing for one day.
I’m going to list “ammo” to be used against Bush. But I don’t want to hijack this thread. I’m just doing this as a demonstration that if the Left wanted to get totally vitriolic about Bush, as the right did about Clinton, this stuff would be ALL OVER the media CONSTANTLY, like it was during Clinton’s term.
And if any of you have the damn gall to suggest that the right’s concerns were all matter of great national importance, I’ve got just one word for you: blowjob.
Ammo to be used against Bush (note: I will be using the same “standards” in selecting ammo against Bush as the right used in selecting ammo against Clinton (i.e., none at all) just to keep things even:
There’s more I’m leaving out, but this will do for starters
Look here on this Board, look at the hatred & attacks of/on Bush. It is part of th enew polaraization of American politcis. It is not enough to simply disagree with your opponent- you must hate & despise him & everything he stands for. More & more, every bill is passed along straight party lines. And, the propaganda machine rolls on- spreading hatred of both.
I mean- you can make DAMN sure none of your supporters cross over if the haste & despise the other dudes, right? But if they simply disagree with them, it is possble to find issues where you don’t disagree. This is bad.
Sure, I’d say the hatred of Bush hasn’t got quite as unreasoning & personal as that of Clinton- yet. But, it is there, and strongly so. Look at the Reagn years- us Dems didn’t like Reagans policies, but we kinda liked the old dude. Same thing for Johnson & the GOP.
Not that this is new, mind you- this sort of polarization existed before in America. It is just that I thought we had grown out of it.
Not that the Dems are blameless mind you, but for this I blame the Religious Right- which controls the GOP now. They could not understand why the American public liked Clinton, as Bill was very clearly to them the Antichrist. So they attacked- and we STILL liked him. This infuriated them into frothing apolexy. The Liberals and the radicals, noting how well this worked to keep the faithful as true beleivers, picked up on this, and now they are attacking GWB with the same fury & hatred. The problem is- it ONLY works to keep the faithful in line, it is “preaching to the choir”.
Those few of us in the middle react by defending those so unfairly castigated. Hell, I voted against Bush. I think he came very close to stealing the Election. I think his “cut taxes & increase the deficit” plan is sheer economic stupidity. I thought we had no right to invade Iraq. But- read some of my last posts. Dudes come up with stupid, hate filled, and way out there attacks on Bush (like we are in violation of International law, or the Geneva Convention, or Bush is a “war criminal” :rolleyes: ). Well, when you post hate filled biased & WRONG attacks like that- I will flock to “defend the underdog”. Enough of this, and you’ll find me voting for GWB! :dubious: But seriously- Bush haters- you don’t win anyone over with these threads. Those who agree with you that Bush lied, is a warcriminal, should be impeached, shot & hung- already agree with you. Those of us in the middle- will only be turned off by such rancor & propaganda. You win no converts by such hate- you simply assure the choir stays int he Church. :rolleyes:
I guess it is not enough to say “We really should not go to war with a soveriegn nation except in self-defense”. You have to try for points like we violated treaties, International Law, or whatever. You don’t. those of us in the middle won’t be won over by hate filled propaganda attacks- we wil just flock to defend them. Just like what happened with Bill.
I think this point deserves more attention.
Bill Clinton, IIRC, was America’s first baby-boomer President; he was the first President who was born after “The Great War,” and came of age in the turbulent '60s, the era of Vietnam, free love, rising teen power, yadda yadda yadda. That, plus his non-enlistment in the Vietnam war, rankled a lot of older and conservative voters to him as an embodiment of the “sins of youth,” all the stuff they were already predisposed to hate. Throw in the fact that Clinton was a Washington outsider from a “backwards” state like Arkansas, and you’ve got enough excuses for the radial right to form conspiracies and tear him down.
And I disagree with astorian’s assertion that Clinton “made the liberal Baby Boomers and the Hollywood Left weak in the knees.” While there was some satisfaction that Clinton had won the Presidency, a fair number of folks on the left thought he was a bit too conservative (NAFTA and “don’t ask/don’t tell” come to mind), and only grudingly supported him out of party loyalty. Having health care reform shot down early in his first term didn’t help things any. From an idealogical standpoint, I think Clinton was slightly right of being in the moderate middle, and only looks “liberal” when compared with what the GOP has to offer.
Sometimes I ask myself how Arnie copes with Maria and the other way around 
I think another factor was Hillary. While Ellinor, Betty and Barbara were fairly strong and visible first ladies, America had never quite seen anyone like Hillary. “President Hillary” was an epithet that was bandied about quite a lot. This probably rankled people with “traditional values” quite a bit. Makes me wonder that if she wins the presidency, the collective Far Right will have a collective stroke.
Much of this was discussed in this thread earlier this year.
This is about as astute as Moore’s other observations on human nature. Hey, why analyze a complex reality when a glib answer will get you points from the choir?
I have something special that a lot of you have never seen, an honest, politically active and astute, well-connected Republican friend.
He told me straight up in 1996, just after Clinton won re-election, that what pissed off a great many influential people about Clinton was his uncanny ability to spot the good parts of Republican policy, co-opt it for himself, make it populist, and make it work, while making the Republicans themselves look bad at the same time. He also had no compunctions at all about avoiding the ambushes the Republicans set up for him, and I think that pissed them off as well.
He stole the middle of the road, plain and simple. He was the best Republican President we ever had.
A couple quick examples:
When Republicans clubbed Clinton’s health care plan to death early on, Clinton left it alone. I’m being serious when I say my friend thought that it was dishonorable for Clinton to give up and move on, even though it was the GOP that tried to turn the issue into a political football.
When a bitter Republican Congress went after Clinton in the winter of 1996, after he won re-election, Clinton went to the mat and allowed the government to be shut down for 22 days. His compromise? A seven-year balanced budget plan. Clinton embraced that constriction and made sure to take credit for it at every turn. It appeared to work, because in the mid-term election of 1998 House Republicans suffered a small net loss which led to the demise of uber-scum Newt Gingrich.
Clinton did a lot of good things not ordinarily associated with Democrats: disciplined fiscal policy, well-considered economic stimulus, engaging foreign policy, tax cuts which favored the middle class–things, I might add, which aren’t working out so well today. Clinton was so good at taking the crap the Republican Congress threw at him and making it his own that they finally had nothing left to go for but his character. And what a flawed character it was.
Wait, no it wasn’t, not by comparison to the jerks who were orchestrating yet another un-democratic Republican seizure of the government. Newt Gingrich got off with an apology for lying to Congress. He’s now married to the intern he was having an affair with throughout the 1990s. Henry Hyde laughed off his affair in his mid-40s as, “a youthful indiscretion.” Livingston got sacked before he could even take the floor as Speaker of the House for infidelity. Those idiots risked being branded with hypocrisy because they had nothing else to go with–and they made a mockery of American politics in the process.
Moreover, Clinton had this magical ability to manipulate the American public. That’s the one thing the Republicans appear to have learned from Clinton, except that they perform their manipulation through fear and moral outrage rather than hope and inclusiveness.
So, if Clinton was such a good executor of Republican policies, why to so many Republicans vocally despise him? Only now do I understand why. Not only did he steal Republican ideas and make them work, he stole the bullshit campaign ideas the Republicans had no intention of actually realizing–all the ones this President promised you which we will never see. Clinton was the compassionate conservative. That’s why I think he’s so vilified–he stole their act and made it work better than they can, because they have no intention of being compassionate in the accepted sense of the word.
You’ll notice I offer no citations. That’s because I want some of you doubters to go look it up yourselves. See who the real morally bereft operators were, and who was the real steward of the greatest decade in American history. Try to read it somewhere other than a radio transcript, eh?
Ignore that, flonks. The “all the protesters just hate Bush” was the bloggers/hate-radio’s broad brush to paint anyone who was against the Iraq war as being motivated by pure spite rather than principle. Apparently quite a lot of the vicious-right believe this crap.:rolleyes:
Watching Bill outfox Newt Gangrene was like watching Leonardo paint The Lady with the Goofy Smile. Sheer artistry! He never knew what hit him.
Well let’s see…
>Gennifer Flowers
>“Didn’t inhale” BS
>Oxford protester
>Paula Jones
>Whitewater deal
>Vince Foster’s death
>Hummers in the oval office with a 21 year old intern
>Semen stained dress
>Monica and the cigar
>Hillary’s “vast right wing conspiracy” theory
>“Wag the dog” attempts at Iraq and Al-quaida
>Impeachment trial
>Resignation to practice law rather than face disbarment charges
>Lincoln Room rentals
>“Depends on what “is” is”
>Marc Rich Pardon
>Kathleen Willey
>He’s a terrible saxophone player too
And that’s just off the top of my head. You can always go here for more fun and games:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DrDeth *
**Look here on this Board, look at the hatred & attacks of/on Bush. It is part of th enew polaraization of American politcis. It is not enough to simply disagree with your opponent- you must hate & despise him & everything he stands for. More & more, every bill is passed along straight party lines. And, the propaganda machine rolls on- spreading hatred of both.
I mean- you can make DAMN sure none of your supporters cross over if the haste & despise the other dudes, right? But if they simply disagree with them, it is possble to find issues where you don’t disagree. This is bad.
Sure, I’d say the hatred of Bush hasn’t got quite as unreasoning & personal as that of Clinton- yet. But, it is there, and strongly so. Look at the Reagn years- us Dems didn’t like Reagans policies, but we kinda liked the old dude. Same thing for Johnson & the GOP.
Not that this is new, mind you- this sort of polarization existed before in America. It is just that I thought we had grown out of it.
Not that the Dems are blameless mind you, but for this I blame the Religious Right- which controls the GOP now. They could not understand why the American public liked Clinton, as Bill was very clearly to them the Antichrist. So they attacked- and we STILL liked him. This infuriated them into frothing apolexy. The Liberals and the radicals, noting how well this worked to keep the faithful as true beleivers, picked up on this, and now they are attacking GWB with the same fury & hatred. The problem is- it ONLY works to keep the faithful in line, it is “preaching to the choir”.
Those few of us in the middle react by defending those so unfairly castigated. Hell, I voted against Bush. I think he came very close to stealing the Election. I think his “cut taxes & increase the deficit” plan is sheer economic stupidity. I thought we had no right to invade Iraq. But- read some of my last posts. Dudes come up with stupid, hate filled, and way out there attacks on Bush (like we are in violation of International law, or the Geneva Convention, or Bush is a “war criminal” :rolleyes: ). Well, when you post hate filled biased & WRONG attacks like that- I will flock to “defend the underdog”. Enough of this, and you’ll find me voting for GWB! :dubious: But seriously- Bush haters- you don’t win anyone over with these threads. Those who agree with you that Bush lied, is a warcriminal, should be impeached, shot & hung- already agree with you. Those of us in the middle- will only be turned off by such rancor & propaganda. You win no converts by such hate- you simply assure the choir stays int he Church. :rolleyes:
I guess it is not enough to say “We really should not go to war with a soveriegn nation except in self-defense”. You have to try for points like we violated treaties, International Law, or whatever. You don’t. those of us in the middle won’t be won over by hate filled propaganda attacks- we wil just flock to defend them. Just like what happened with Bill. **[/QUOTE
Very, very astute observation. I commend your sane approach to this whole subject. Just because something is cathartic, doesn’t mean it will actually accomplish anything worthwhile.
My President right or wrong. :rolleyes:
Alrighty then! Now we have something to talk about!!!
>Gennifer Flowers
Not proven. Goodbye.
>“Didn’t inhale” BS
BFD. Okay, he should’a just said, “Yeah, I smoked pot back in the day, who wasn’t?” Next.
>Oxford protester
He was there on a Fellowship. He didn’t like the draft – which, BTW, from some legal viewpoints, violates the Involuntary Servitude clause of the Fourteenth(?) Amendment. Flush
>Paula Jones
Thrown outta court, as several of her statements could not be corrobarated by, I dunno, reality? Exit, stage down
>Whitewater deal
After $70 million spent in investigation, including attempted intimidation and jailing of witnesses…Nada. Pull! BLAMMO!!!
>Vince Foster’s death
Suicide, proven by inquest. Slamdunk!
>Hummers in the oval office with a 21 year old intern
>Semen stained dress
>Monica and the cigar
What, are you jealous? Get a date…
>Hillary’s “vast right wing conspiracy” theory
Does the name “Richard Mellon Scaife” ring a bell? Go read Blinded by the Right by David Brock. Get the whole sad story. That guy is an argument for the Inheritance Tax if I ever heard one.
>“Wag the dog” attempts at Iraq and Al-quaida
So, did Clinton do nothing about Saddam and Osama, as the r-wingers claim nowadays, or did he make attempts for the sole purpose of distracting The Peepul from his impending impeachment. Jeesuz, make up your minds…
>Impeachment trial
Presided over by one man who divorced his wife while she was in the hospital dying of cancer, and another who fathered an illegimate child, and others included a stauch anti-abortionist who nevertheless got abortions for his ex-wives (that’s wives, plural). Look up the definition for “hypocrite” sometime.
>Resignation to practice law rather than face disbarment charges
Now, what was the name of the guy who resigned rather than face impeachment? Wait, don’t tell me, don’t tell me…
>Lincoln Room rentals
ZZZZZZZ
>“Depends on what “is” is”
Is this the best you’ve got?
>Marc Rich Pardon
OK, something worth talking about. Rich got busted for tax evasion – quick, get the firing squad! – and had already made a settlement deal that the Justice Department then reniged on. He was not so much a fugitive as someone who happened to be in a foreign country when the US Govt. screwed him over. So his wife slips Clinton a little incentive for a little justice. Doesn’t cause me to lose sleep, frankly.
>Kathleen Willey
…whose only “witness” refused to corroborate her BS story, and was then hounded unmercifully by Kenneth “Win At All Costs” Starr, included losing her job, her house, and being threatened with having her only son taken away from her. You call THAT “justice?” Honor? Dignity?
>He’s a terrible saxophone player too
Sounded pretty good to me on Arsenio, all those years ago. Maybe that’s why I voted for him!
My mistake. Of course, you’re right. Now I see…Clinton is a Saint. What was I thinking? There’s absolutely NO reason to dislike the man. He was the best president EVER! You’ve convinced me.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracies (all lies mind you) Against St. William.
:rolleyes: