G. W. Bush may be a good prez but I think he's a nutcase some of the time

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Wow. What an incredibly unpleasant person you are. I'm tempted to call you a typical Republican jerk but that wouldn't be fair 'cause I did meet a nice one once in 1989. I don't think I like you that much so I'll try to be succint. Yes, I do try to "look deeper into" things. I think you might be surprised to learn that lots of people do--even people who disagree with you. You haven't given any evidence that the violence in the mideast is Clinton's fault. Things are not "so" just because you believe them to be. You're going to have to do a lot better than, "I don't like Clinton, he appeased Arafat and all hell broke out."
The fact is that prior to Clinton being a lame duck president violence between Israel and the Palestinians was at an all time low. Bush made a point out of being the first U.S. president in years to not send a full envoy to region. Whoops.

Hee, hee.
MAP

We can't please everyone.. It's all about our individual styles.. anyways, It was a retaliation to the statement by you that you said, it Was Bush's fault (viloence in middle east).. or implied it at least, Just calling you out for making a statement where I had just as much Right to make as you did without any specific evidence.. just a bit of creative sarcasm.. faulty as either of ours may have been in the whole scheme of things...
Smiles and Hugs..

Dearly,
Lemonite

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
You don't think Ariel Sharon becoming Prime Minister had anything to do with the escalating violence?

Ah yes.. A big nail hit right on the head.. Sharon's practically a huuuge asshole, I agree with you that he has a part to play in the escalating violence.. I's a big fan of 'netnyahoo'.. (phonicaly spelled), but whether or not Sharon is in the right in his actions and policies.. that's for another page.. but I do agree.. and i realize i've been ri cock u lously redundant in this post, but. ok.. i'll just end. Fizzing.. Agreed...

[melon]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Moreover, why is it Ronald Reagans spirituality and religious principles are forever being referenced by the Christian right but Jimmy Carter's deeply felt spiritual beliefs are a source of contempt?

*laughs*

Need I remind people that Reagan wasn't the most exemplary Christian. Both he and Nancy believed in the power of psychics. Nancy had a personal psychic (an older woman...I forget her name) and Ronnie, for instance, tried to use psychic, Uri Gellar, to use his mind power to subvert the Soviet Union. All the more interesting, considering the religious right's love of Ronnie and their campaign against Harry Potter.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Jimmy Carter..."good man, but bad president"

Amusing, yet again. Republicans like to state that Clinton's economic success was due to Reagan and Bush, and that their programs didn't kick in until during his term. So, in effect, by that same logic, wouldn't Carter's problems have been caused by Nixon and Ford's policies?

In fact, they were. The fuel crisis was due to Nixon's encouragement of OPEC to raise fuel prices.

The inflation problems? Reagan never solved them either. He simply just changed the legal definition of "inflation," which became mostly on labor wages. If we went under the Carter-era definition of inflation, which reflected on consumer goods prices mostly, we are still under high inflation.

Low inflation in the 1970s = low consumer prices

Low inflation in 2002 = low labor wages

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
The U.S. government is formed on a system of checks and balances between three areas: legislative, judicial, and executive. When one branch suddenly believes itself to be above the law and above the proper use of the law, then that to me becomes tyranny.

So very true. As a special legal invesitgator once said while investigating the Nixon Administration's Whitewater crimes:
NO ONE is above the law; NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. That special legal investigator's name was Hillary Rodham.

I hate to inform some of you, but a lot of the Palestinian and other Middle Eastern interest groups were not too fond of Clinton and his administration either, particularly Madeline Albright. About all that came of the meeting his administration arranged between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Barak was a game of basketball. If anyone deserves credit for the peace process that was underway and will hopefully resume(under the Clinton AND current Bush administrations) is former Senator George Mitchell, author and overseer of the Mitchell Plan. Also, remember that the current administration has publically endorsed an independent Palestinian state.

However, we can go all the way back through history and blame leaders for the problems of the world today. But that will not solve the problems. Let the current leaders solve it. Bush WAS elected by the letter of the law. Let him do his job.

[Matthew_Page2000]

A couple of things:
Melon, I gave up trying to rationally discuss Ronald Reagan with anyone years ago. Let's put it this way; If Hillary Clinton had hired a psychic to help Bill with his foreign policy decisions... Well, I can imagine what people would have said.
Many Republicans have a huge blind spot when it comes to Reagan. Many Democrats have a huge blind spot when it comes to Clinton. Rational discussion of the merits of either President is darn near impossible.
For instance, both Dems and Republicans seem to have this bizarre misconception that Clinton was a liberal President. Weird.

Lemonite, we actually agree on Sharon.

U2Bama, Amen on George Mitchell. The former Senate Majority leader from my home state of Maine did wonderful things in both the Middle East and Northern Ireland. Exactly what I would expect from a good Democrat...

MAP

[This message has been edited by Matthew_Page2000 (edited 01-07-2002).]

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by melon:
Amusing, yet again.

Melon, you said "amusing, yet again" to me, referencing the fact that you said "amusing" to me earlier in this thread. However, you never answered my response to your first "amusing". And why not? Because you realized after reading my response that (1)your argument that "all politicians are corrupt" had no place in this discussion because we were discussing 2 presidents and 2 presidents only and (2)that I did care to elaborate and provide backing for the whole "selling secrets to the Chinese" scandal and that (3)The Gulf War was NOTHING like the Afghanistan war and that Bush has not ignored domestic issues. Therefore, I would suggest that before you start throwing out the term "how amusing", that you answer people first.

[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 01-07-2002).]

[melon]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Melon, you said "amusing, yet again" to me, referencing the fact that you said "amusing" to me earlier in this thread. However, you never answered my response to your first "amusing". And why not?

Actually, I didn't respond to your first "amusing," because I haven't read this entire thread. I'm impatient with my 56K modem.

Because you realized after reading my response that (1)your argument that "all politicians are corrupt" had no place in this discussion because we were discussing 2 presidents and 2 presidents only and (2)that I did care to elaborate and provide backing for the whole "selling secrets to the Chinese" scandal and that (3)The Gulf War was NOTHING like the Afghanistan war and that Bush has not ignored domestic issues. Therefore, I would suggest that before you start throwing out the term "how amusing", that you answer people first.

Nope. That's not the reason. But I'll have to find your response so I can actually read it. I use "amusing" quite a bit, actually.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Urgh...this thread takes forever to load. Besides, anything else I have to say is in here:
http://forum.interference.com/u2feed...ML/000981.html

To be honest, I tend to argue more partisan, subconsciously, just for the sake of arguing methinks. What I think is written above in that link. If it departs from my previous writings in here, then so be it.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[TylerDurden]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

To be honest, I don't care who respected him in the rest of the world. The man was the President of The United States. his job was to look out for his people, not win some popularity contest.

I think you would find in a Clinton/Bush argument, the Americans here would be split roughly 50/50 between the two, as you would expect, but non Americans would probably be 90/10 in favour of Clinton.
Remember 80's that for non Americans here we don't reaaally (respectfuly) care about their tax plans, just about their foreign policy and international movements, and Clinton was lightyears ahead of Bush. Way way way better.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by melon:
Nope. That's not the reason. But I'll have to find your response so I can actually read it. I use "amusing" quite a bit, actually.
Melon

oooops. sorry.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
80's, I agree with you as always,

And to the rest of ya'll yambags, Give it up.. Bush Won the Election!

so, it's all right for you to mention clinton's affair, not to mention the 2000 election, but it's not all right for me to? WAIT i forgot! how stupid of me...i'm a democrat, you're a republican, therefore anything you do is right. silly me. hold on while i pop out another kid and make you some spaghetti. can i rub your feet? can i scrub the floor for you again?

------------------
when you stop taking chances, you'll stay where you sit. you won't live any longer, but it'll feel like it.
ME!

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
To be honest, I don't care who respected him in the rest of the world. The man was the President of The United States. his job was to look out for his people, not win some popularity contest.

we aren't some individual country floating along by ourselves on some planet. what we need are allies. it would've really sucked if some countries who hated us had decided to bomb the hell out of us in 1998 (kinda like what happened on 9/11) cuz they didn't like us. i may be alone on this, but i think a president who tries to make EVERYONE like him is a good thing.

------------------
when you stop taking chances, you'll stay where you sit. you won't live any longer, but it'll feel like it.
ME!

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes:
so, it's all right for you to mention clinton's affair, not to mention the 2000 election, but it's not all right for me to? WAIT i forgot! how stupid of me...i'm a democrat, you're a republican, therefore anything you do is right. silly me. hold on while i pop out another kid and make you some spaghetti. can i rub your feet? can i scrub the floor for you again?

Sweetie, Actually you could make me a Mayonnaise Sandwich and slice it into thirds with the Crust cut off.. Read the post please.. I did not mention Clinton's affair.. I do mention the election though, but they're set actions.. Things that are written down.. I'm not really complaining.. being a sore loser of sorts.. An example'd be like me Saying ..'Oh clinton didn't have an affair'.. It's the same sort of tact..

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Sweetie, Actually you could make me a Mayonnaise Sandwich and slice it into thirds with the Crust cut off.. Read the post please.. I did not mention Clinton's affair.. I do mention the election though, but they're set actions.. Things that are written down.. I'm not really complaining.. being a sore loser of sorts.. An example'd be like me Saying ..'Oh clinton didn't have an affair'.. It's the same sort of tact..

true, you didn't, but you...oh fuck i forgot what i was gonna say. and no, you can eat the crust! *sighs*

------------------
when you stop taking chances, you'll stay where you sit. you won't live any longer, but it'll feel like it.
ME!

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes:
true, you didn't, but you...oh fuck i forgot what i was gonna say. and no, you can eat the crust! *sighs*

Whoa.. But I do understand, us Republicans feel the same way towards you democrats.. Stereotypically, the Democrats are teh nastiest out there, Whether it be in the Media... Take Bill Maher.. though He may be just one f#cked up individual, or Judie woodrupth.. or however her name is spelt.. and Shoo.. Yes i did write shoo.. Gore was pretty nasty.. It jsut happens, when the issues are soo intense, that sometimes we Resort to Degrading comments and personal attacks to try and Mulve up an issue by linking a position with say.. an affair or something of the sort.. But when I start ripping on people.. I do tryto have a valid point in the first place so it gives me some sort of Credence to be making such a claim, More for villainy, and to keep the forum interesting, and Well.. some people just need a nice warm sh#t dropped on their Monitors when they read responses to a post. (Shakes the Hand of Dearest Khanada followed by .. perhaps a nice warm embrace)

[adam's_mistress]

Originally posted by Lemonite:

Whoa.. But I do understand, us Republicans feel the same way towards you democrats.. Stereotypically, the Democrats are teh nastiest out there, Whether it be in the Media... Take Bill Maher.. though He may be just one f#cked up individual, or Judie woodrupth.. or however her name is spelt.. and Shoo.. Yes i did write shoo.. Gore was pretty nasty.. It jsut happens, when the issues are soo intense, that sometimes we Resort to Degrading comments and personal attacks to try and Mulve up an issue by linking a position with say.. an affair or something of the sort.. But when I start ripping on people.. I do tryto have a valid point in the first place so it gives me some sort of Credence to be making such a claim, More for villainy, and to keep the forum interesting, and Well.. some people just need a nice warm sh#t dropped on their Monitors when they read responses to a post. (Shakes the Hand of Dearest Khanada followed by .. perhaps a nice warm embrace)

That's nice Lemonite, to start ripping people (thereby ripping their character) based on their political stance - for the sole purpose of playing the villian, or just to get a rise out of people and "keep the forum more interesting" as you put it.

Nice one, mate.

This forum is plenty interesting as it is without people (and you aren't the sole culprit here) ripping into others and judging their character because they don't stack up to your political prowress.

It's pretty fucking sad to see both sides thrashing each other just for fucks's sake of it all. Whatever. It gets real old real fast seeing republicans bashing democrats, and democrats bashing republicans. If any of you (and you know who you are) want to better represent the party you respect, then you'd refrain from the arrogant insults and have a bit more self control when formulating a rebuttal.

[Holy John]

For Clinton having an affair, who cares. Most people do I guess.

And for Bush, two weeks ago he didn't knew what was Argentina's capital (that's no joke at all.. he said "Santiago") and sent a message to the new President (the actual one) stating : "Congratulations. This is democracy", or something like this... geez... does he knows the President of Argentina wasn't elected by the people ? mmmmmm.. suspicious. But he carries well high the flag.

------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : www.unesco.org

Ej�rcito Zapatista de Liberaci�n Nacional (EZLN) : www.ezln.org
"The one who governs with weapons is surely poor in ideas" - Marcos

Solidarit�s : <A HREF="http://www.solidarites.org

Parti" TARGET=_blank>www.solidarites.org

Parti</A> pour une Alternative Progressiste : www.parti-rap.org

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes:
we aren't some individual country floating along by ourselves on some planet. what we need are allies. i may be alone on this, but i think a president who tries to make EVERYONE like him is a good thing.

And we HAVE allies. Mexico, Canada, Germany, Britain, Israel, the list goes on and on. But you can't please everyone. So, we need a leader that will stick to what he knows is right; what is best for the country he represents.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Lemonite:

It jsut happens, when the issues are soo intense, that sometimes we Resort to Degrading comments and personal attacks to try and Mulve up an issue by linking a position with say.. an affair or something of the sort..

Personally I'd say personal attacks weaken your original point. Nobody respects someone more because they're able to launch into a stream of insults at any opportunity. What is respected is having a sound understanding of the issues at hand and being able to justify your position on its own merits without insulting someone articulating a different view.

Why do we need to be confrontational anyway? Why does politics have to be about opposite groups arguing then one group "winning" at the expense of other groups? Why can't we be more inclusive and respect that people have different needs and meeting the needs of one group at the expense of others isn't a success. Especially when the same groups keep winning...