Madame President - an essay about Hillary Clinton
MCP
A very powerful and moving essay. This guy (I am going to assume its a man)
pulls no punches with his admonishment of Hillary Clinton and feminism. Read
on...
MADAME PRESIDENT
By P. T. Mycas
I have no objection to electing a female President of the United States. As a
matter of fact, I believe there are millions of women who could do a better job
than the current male President. But that's a pretty low bar. I would like to
vote for the most qualified person for President, male or female. Because I do
not believe Hillary Clinton would be President for all Americans, I do not
believe she is qualified.
Politically, I like to think of myself as an Independent, but in order to vote
in primaries, I declare as a Democrat. I am liberal. I hold the usual liberal
views with one exception. I generally do not like feminism. Feminism is defined
as equality between women and men, but the name itself belies this definition.
It is like trying to coin a word which expresses the harmony and equality
between Ford and Chevy owners and coming up with the name "Fordism." Chevy
owners would not allow such nonsense. By saying feminism is about equality,
feminists are hiding that much of feminism is about sexism. Why have we let
feminists get away with this?
Of course, there are several varieties of feminism, some of which are fine. For
example, I have little problem with equity feminism (is that an oxymoron?).
However, I think radical feminists form, for the most part, a sexist hate group
which has hijacked feminism.
Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be far closer to the radical feminists than to
the equity feminists.
Living History is her rather pompously-entitled autobiography. It is also a long
campaign speech, in which she engages in blatant Presidential self-promotion,
especially aimed at women. I found it a disorganized and rambling,
stream-of-consciousness screed. It felt more like a diary.
As one might expect in a diary, there are many examples showing her emotional
side. Perhaps these examples are to counter her reputation for being an ice
queen. Or perhaps they are to appeal to female voters. But I feel they revealed
weakness, insecurity, indecisiveness and superficiality. For example, she
inadvertently showed her weakness when she said she couldn't eat or sleep and
lost 10 pounds before testifying before the Grand Jury. Another time she
mentioned being "flat on my back and unable to move" due to tension and high
heels. And during the Starr investigations she mentioned that she thought Bill
was sailing along, while she was "buffeted by every gust of wind." There were
also many examples of her holding back tears and leaning on friends for support.
She several times described her separation anxiety when Chelsea left for
Stanford. She quoted Eleanor Roosevelt as saying, "A woman is like a tea bag.
You never know how strong she is until she's in hot water." I do not think
Hillary is a very strong tea bag. Indecisiveness showed in her slowness in
marrying Bill, deciding on a career, moving to Arkansas, and running for the
Senate. She often complained about how the press focused on her hair and
clothes, but the book was peppered with examples of her focus on appearance and
style, hers as well as others'.
My biggest objection to President Hillary is that she would only be President
for about half of the people of the United States---the inny half. Living
History reflects this. She constantly plays the gender card in the book. She is
obsessive about her focus on women. Certainly different people could come to
different counts, but I counted 315 instances of her playing the gender
card---that's once every 1.7 pages. Some of the examples are fairly
insignificant, such as using her maiden name, adding a bust of Eleanor Roosevelt
to the Roosevelt Room, and telling us that so-and-so was the first woman to do
such-and-such. Some examples may even exhibit pettiness. For example, she got a
haircut and a perm to show solidarity with a woman whose hair was criticized.
However, most examples are significant, and added together, they indicate a
maniacal focus on women and women's issues.
In fact, Clinton states explicitly that working on women's issues is a prime
focus for her. In the first paragraph she says she wasn't born a women's
advocate but was free to make that choice. Later, she details the organizational
and staff changes she made upon becoming First Lady, so that she could work on
women's issues. She also mentions at one point that she "had been working for
twenty-five years on improving the status and dignity of women...." At the
Democratic Convention in 2000, she thanked the nation for allowing her to work
here and abroad on issues that matter most to women. At another point, she
mentions that Admiral Elmo Zumwalt told Chelsea that her mother will be
remembered "for opening the eyes of the world" to women's rights.
While deliberating to run for the Senate, she writes, "I had traveled the world
on behalf of women's rights...." She details in the book the many trips she has
taken as First Lady (e.g., China, Mongolia, Africa, Ireland, South Asia,
Australia, Italy, The Philippines, and Thailand) and the focus on women's issues
of each trip. She met with women and women's groups, at girls' schools, women's
banks, and maternity hospitals, and gave speeches to women's groups on women's
issues. In fact, on her trips without Bill she focused almost exclusively on
women's issues.
She also seems to only think of herself in gender terms. In her testimony to the
Congress on health care she said, "I'm here as a mother, a wife, a daughter, a
sister, a woman."
Her focus on women occasionally makes her overly sensitive. For example, after
telling us that she is skilled at public speaking, she then relates how after
she had testified before an Arkansas legislative joint session, a male
legislator commented that perhaps the state had elected the wrong Clinton to the
governorship. It's hard to know exactly how the legislator meant this, but it
sounds like a compliment to me. However, Clinton took this as an insult to
women. She thought the legislator was expressing amazement that a "woman" could
be articulate and knowledgeable. She refers to this offense as the "talking dog
syndrome." Apparently, this is a distortion of a quip by Samuel Johnson: "A
woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done
well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." She was similarly offended
after testifying before the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee on health care.
I am also concerned about her appointments, advisers, and staff if she becomes
President. It appears nearly all of her advisers and staff when she was First
Lady were women. Living History shows a group picture of her staff and only 2 of
the 30 shown are men. She seems to surround herself with women, which included
going to a women's college and attending an all-female prayer group. Cronyism
has been a serious problem of the Bush administration. We do not need to
continue the problem with Clinton hiring women just because they are women, when
there may be more qualified men available.
As First Lady, Clinton often met with world leaders and their spouses. In Living
History, she nearly always (25 times) describes the spouses in more glowing
terms than the leaders themselves. The one exception to this rule is when she
talks about meeting the female Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland.
Brundtland's husband is not mentioned.
Clinton also shows some antipathy toward men. For example in Living History she
says that in fifth grade she had a reputation for being able to stand up to the
rowdy boys. Also, she twice refers to the Chinese saying that women hold up half
the sky, but adds, "but in most of the world, it's really more than half." It
appears she doesn't think much of men. She also twice quotes Joyce McCartan's
condescending comment, "It takes women to bring men to their senses." After the
Lewinsky scandal, she writes that she "wanted to wring Bill's neck." This also
brings to mind her recent "joke" when asked how she would handle the evil men in
the world. She implied she had experience from dealing with her husband. When
confronted with the harshness of this "joke," she responded, "You guys keep
telling me to lighten up, be funny. I get a little funny and now I'm being
psychoanalyzed." Well, yes. Why did she choose to make fun of men? Was she
really joking? If she thinks her husband is evil, what can the rest of the male
population expect? Or was she just pandering to the lowest instincts of female
voters?
In Clinton's speech to the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 she said,
"...it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human
rights...human rights are women's rights...and women's rights are human rights,
once and for all." Perhaps she meant this rhetorically, but it is odd that she
demands equating women's rights with human rights considering she does quite the
opposite throughout Living History. She constantly makes "women's rights" the
focus of attention and treats them as separate from "human rights." In fact, the
two phrases often occur in the same sentence, confirming their difference. I
suspect her purpose in equating the two is to deny that women's rights are
"special" rights, which is belied by her book. She does something similar when
accused of feminizing politics, by insisting that she is humanizing politics.
This is the same trick I mentioned earlier when "feminism" is defined as
"equality." It is actually an attempt to deny her own sexism. And by saying
women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights, she is
strongly implying that men have no rights, or that they are not human.
Living History is not the only example of her woman-centric attitude. Her
Talking-It-Over columns during her years as First Lady often dealt with women's
issues. Examples included topics such as birth control for women, low-income
women, a woman-friendly workplace, encouraging women to vote, her trip to the
United Nations Conference on Women, drive-thru deliveries, the U.S. women's
soccer team, trafficking of women, renewal of the Violence Against Women Act,
women's rights in Viet Nam, Irish women for peace, microcredit for women, the
pay gap, and women leaders. And two of her last columns summarized her work on
women's issues as First Lady. Her campaign website also has a page on women's
issues, but none on men's issues. This page includes the incredibly popular but
incredibly wrong statement that "women still earn only $.76 cents (sic) for
every dollar men earn for doing the same work."
Clinton has often touted her concern for children. How much of this is genuine
and how much is a smokescreen for her concern for women? In her speech to the
Democratic convention in 1996, she listed eight ways for the government and
citizens to help children: longer maternity hospital stays, home nurses and hot
lines for new mothers, expansion of the new family leave law, flex-time,
health-insurance for all, tax breaks for people who adopt, an end to racial
preferences in adoption, and reading proficiency by the third grade. Most of
these have more to do with helping women than children.
Contrary to what feminists want us to believe, American women have a tremendous
amount of power today. They dominate politics because there are more female than
male voters. Therefore, all elected officials must cater to women in order to be
elected. Women control the economy because they spend nearly all of the money
while their husbands are alive (the spending gap), and all of the money when
their husbands die. The spending gap results in women controlling the media.
Women also receive much power from chivalry and imposed guilt, which has
probably increased during feminism. And let us not forget the ever-present
sexual power that women have over men. Just think of all the powerful men
humbled by women like Monica Lewinsky, Donna Rice, Elizabeth Ray, Fanny Fox,
Jessica Hahn, etc.
I'd like to say more about the spending gap. The power in money comes not from
making it but from spending it. So the ever-present controversy about the pay
gap is misplaced. The spending gap is far more significant. Women spend roughly
80 cents of every consumer dollar. This gives them enormous power. Advertisers,
as a result, aim their advertising at women. As a consequence of this, nearly
all advertising media must also aim at women in order to attract advertisers.
So, newspapers, television, magazines, etc., bias their content toward women.
These media pander to women at nearly every opportunity, presenting woman as
strong, intelligent, victimized, and superior, while presenting men as weak,
dumb, victimizing, and inferior. This results in such media fiascoes as those
associated with the pay gap, the Duke lacrosse team, girls' self-esteem crisis,
domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday, Jessica Lynch, and runaway bride
Jennifer Wilbanks. The media seem to have new rules like: Focus on female
victims. If female victims can't be found, focus on mothers or wives of victims.
Focus on discrimination against women. If discrimination against women in the
United States can't be found, focus on discrimination against women in the third
world. Highlight all accomplishments of women. As well as becoming more and more
tabloid to appeal to women, the media are also discriminating against men,
resulting in the devaluing of men by society. I suspect female candidates for
office are also receiving more beneficial coverage.
Another example of women's power is that chivalry results in an inordinate
amount of charity going to women. For example, what disease receives more
attention and funding than breast cancer? Why? Lung cancer kills more women and
prostate cancer kills almost as many men. And why ignore pancreatic, liver, or
brain cancers? Obviously, we value women's lives more than men's. Some
criticized this inordinate amount of attention on breast cancer by pointing out
that many more women die of heart disease. In response, a campaign was
instituted to focus on heart disease, but only in women. The Go Red for Women
campaign focuses only on women even though heart disease kills a comparable
number of men and kills them 10 years younger.
Considering that we abhor gender discrimination, women's power has resulted in
some odd legislation. For example, even though girls are doing much better than
boys in schools and colleges, we have the Women's Educational Equity Act. Even
though women participate in school extracurricular activities more than boys, we
have Title IX enforcement only in sports, the one area where boys dominate. Even
though men generally die five years earlier than women and die earlier in 14 of
the 15 leading causes of death, we have the Women's Health Equity Act and the
Women's Health Initiative focusing only on women's health. Even though men are
victims of violence 2 to 3 times more often than women, we have the Violence
Against Women Act giving women special protections and programs. Even though men
receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crimes, states have
instituted women's commissions to study discrimination against women in the
justice system. And the ironic fact about all of this legislation is that it was
passed by, for all practical purposes, male legislators.
We constantly hear that the country is becoming more polarized, with more and
more people unwilling to compromise. Clinton, with her openly women-based
attitude, will add to this problem by separating the sexes and contributing to
antagonism between them. We need a President to bring the country together.
All politicians pander to women. But I feel this pandering would become extreme
under a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Women who were influenced by women's studies
programs and feminism from an early age are now entering power positions such as
CEO and President where they can exert much influence over policies and
direction.
If these women bring radical feminism with them, men will become, more and more,
second class citizens. Because of their chivalrous nature, I fear men will do
little to stop this.
Some women are probably saying, "Good, it's about time." But I don't see how
discrimination against our great-grandmothers justifies discrimination against
our brothers now. I expect women to be more magnanimous than that. Let me remind
you of Harry Burn. He voted for the 19th Amendment to give women the right to
vote after his mother told him "be a good boy, Harry, and do the right thing."
In fact, nearly all of the legislators who did the right thing and voted for the
19th Amendment were men. It is time for women (and men) to do the right thing.
Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for half of the country.
Posted at 6/15/2007 07:38:00 PM
--
"An Injustice To One Man, Woman or Child
Threatens Justice To All People Equally"
-Dean Tong
Grizzlie Antagonist
> http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com/2007/06/madame-president-essay-abou...
>
> A very powerful and moving essay. This guy (I am going to assume its a man)
> pulls no punches with his admonishment of Hillary Clinton and feminism. Read
> on...
>
> MADAME PRESIDENT
> By P. T. Mycas
>
> I have no objection to electing a female President of the United
> States.
I've already lost interest in anything else that this writer has to
say.
conn...@hotmail.com
wrote:
A male president represents the interests of cunt.
A female president represents the interests of cunt.
Grizzlie Antagonist
<conn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182067644.8...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president would be too
much to stand.
How can any man vote for a woman? No one has been able to explain that to
my satisfaction. How can any man vote for a woman? How can he take THEIR
side?
conn...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <conno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
Those persons in power regardless of gender will always protect the
physically and emotionally weaker gender.
Truth be told I guess thats what makes men superior in their
development and women inferior in theirs.
> But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president would be too
> much to stand.
Several Muslim countries have long had female presidents.
I suspect this is because Muslim women have more respect for men than
the feminist scum here in the west Grizz.
>
> How can any man vote for a woman?
> No one has been able to explain that to
> my satisfaction. How can any man vote for a woman? How can he take THEIR
> side?
There's a shitload of pussified men out there Grizz on both sides of
politics raised by sick western feminist ideals. Yet the strange thing
is women don't raise their sons to be all egalitarian... they raise
'em to kill the bad guys and protect the gender in protect me pink.
So feminism is forever trying to hack-off its own feet!
Hyerdahl
>
> A very powerful and moving essay. This guy (I am going to assume its a man)> pulls no punches with his admonishment of Hillary Clinton and feminism. Read> on...
>
> MADAME PRESIDENT
> By P. T. Mycas
>
> I have no objection to electing a female President of the United States. As a matter of fact, I believe there are millions of women who could do a better job than the current male President. But that's a pretty low bar. I would like to vote for the most qualified person for President, male or female. Because I do not believe Hillary Clinton would be President for all Americans, I do not> believe she is qualified.
[The author's opening paragraph seems to indicate that there will be
some support for the contention that Hillary is NOT qualified. I will
hold the author to that.]
> Politically, I like to think of myself as an Independent, but in order to vote in primaries, I declare as a Democrat. I am liberal. I hold the usual liberal views with one exception. I generally do not like feminism. Feminism is defined as equality between women and men, but the name itself belies this definition.
[Not really. Feminism is about equality for women, indicating the
need for women to have equal rights AS COMPARED to men. In every area
where women are already equal to men, the need for feminism ends and
egalitarianism begins. Thus there is no lack of equality within the
name, feminism. BTW, being a radical feminist, does not provide a
lack of qualification for the job of president. ]
It is like trying to coin a word which expresses the harmony and
equality between Ford and Chevy owners and coming up with the name
"Fordism." Chevy owners would not allow such nonsense. By saying
feminism is about equality, feminists are hiding that much of feminism
is about sexism. Why have we let feminists get away with this?
[Normal people realize that the goal of feminism results in a more
egalitarian society, and that the only reason feminism is needed is to
arrive AT that goal. The author and I might be able to agree that
that as women gain more and more equality that the NEED for feminism
will end.]
>
> Of course, there are several varieties of feminism, some of which are fine. For example, I have little problem with equity feminism (is that an oxymoron?).
[Each feminist fights sexual inequality his or her own way, I suppose,
and what you call "equity feminism" is only one road a feminist can
travel. I am a feminist who would not support women having to be men
in order to acquire equal rights, however. That would be like
suggesting a dog must meow like a cat in order to be a worthwhile
dog. :-)]
> However, I think radical feminists form, for the most part, a sexist hate group> which has hijacked feminism.
["Radical feminism"? How equal is too equal?]
>
> Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be far closer to the radical feminists than to> the equity feminists.
>
[:-) Hillary does have the radical notion that women deserve totally
equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity, and I suspect she
might also be willing to ENFORCE those laws. I suppose that makes her
radical. My only problem with Hillary may be that she's not radical
enough. :-) I kid Hillary.]
Living History is her rather pompously-entitled autobiography. It is
also a long campaign speech, in which she engages in blatant
Presidential self-romotion, especially aimed at women. I found it a
disorganized and rambling, stream-of-consciousness screed. It felt
more like a diary.
[:-) I'm sure there has never been a man who had a pompous biography
title so we need to make perfectly sure that Hillary is sufficiently
chastized for hers. If you compare Hillary's 'diary' approach to that
of other public figures, I'm sure hers will stand out as just another
girly diary. Anyone read PT-109, Patton's history, or
Churchill's? :-) Yes, bring the little girly down now...before it's
too late. :-)]
> As one might expect in a diary, there are many examples showing her emotional side.
[It has recently come to the attention of shrinks that EQ (emotional
quotient) may be more influential in the making of a complete
personality than mere IQ. Perhaps she knows something the author of
this piece doesn't know. In any event, let's continue with this girly
analysis. :-)
BTW, I'm still waiting for Hillary's lack of qualification; having an
EQ does not provide that.]
Perhaps these examples are to counter her reputation for being an ice
queen. Or perhaps they are to appeal to female voters. But I feel they
revealed weakness, insecurity, indecisiveness and superficiality.
[The author's FEELINGS about what her EQ revealed, are, shall we say,
revealing. Most biographical material on famous people provide some
glimpse into their EQ and into their reasoning for why they did some
of the things they did. Having an emotional component to your
personality would seem to make her MORE qualified, rather than less.
After all, who wants a robot for president.]
For example, she inadvertently showed her weakness when she said she
couldn't eat or sleep and lost 10 pounds before testifying before the
Grand Jury.
[Yes, I quite sure no other president or presidential candidate could
claim any emotional upheaval during their lives, like when the Kennedy
family lost so many family members. Let's not forget Lincoln who was
(much later) diagnosed as bipolar. He wrote about his depression and
yet he was one of the presidents honored on President's day. Hmmmmm
Seems that it is only female candidates who should not express emotion
and emotional trials in their lives. This author is nutty.]
Another time she mentioned being "flat on my back and unable to move"
due to tension and high heels.
[Let's not forget Roosevelt who had a permanent and dehabiliting
disability while president. Hillary can toss her high heels after the
election. :-) As to tension, all presidents get that; it comes with
the job. If she does take on the presidential office, it occurs to me
that she can afford a massage once in a while. :-) So, where is the
grand list of reasons why Hillary is not qualified? I'm still
waiting. ]
And during the Starr investigations she mentioned that she thought
Bill
> was sailing along, while she was "buffeted by every gust of wind."
[The great impeachment HUNT for Bill Clinton "buffeted" both the
Clintons, as it would anyone, whether or not she thought Bill "sailed
along". Feelings about what others think is not the stuff of
qualification for president. They are just feelings. Hillary knows
that; too bad the author of this essay didn't.]
There were also many examples of her holding back tears and leaning on
friends for support.
[The ability to maintain friendships is important in a presidency;
look at the upheaval Bushie has had us endure between himself and
other world leaders, i.e Putin. So, you still have provided no proof
of her lack of qualification for president, and you have inadvertantly
provided a skill that is very important for a world leader, the
ability to cultivate friendships.]
> She several times described her separation anxiety when Chelsea left for
> Stanford.
[I hate to burst this author's bubble but parents all over the world,
will be able to identify with the empty nest...kid going off to
college thing. Even fathers. ;-)...yet again no proof for the
contention that Hillary lacks quaification.
She quoted Eleanor Roosevelt as saying, "A woman is like a tea bag.
You never know how strong she is until she's in hot water." I do not
think
Hillary is a very strong tea bag. Indecisiveness showed in her
slowness in marrying Bill, deciding on a career, moving to Arkansas,
and running for the Senate.
[What indecisiveness? Taking time to decide important issues would
seem to be the mark of a person qualified to be president. Look at
what Bush did....rushed into a stupid war with Iraq before allowing
the UN team go in to complete their search for WMD's. Talk about
making a decisions about a pre-emptive war. Wouldn't it have been
much better to have someone in office who could take the time
necessary to see what was really going on? Or, perhaps Bush was
simply in a hurry on purpose? :-)]
(edit)
> My biggest objection to President Hillary is that she would only be President for about half of the people of the United States---the inny half.
[So does that mean that all the male presidents we've had have only
represented the 'outie' half....or is it just half of the male
presidents; what about a third? :-) Isn't it time women had some
real representation in office...or maybe not. Perhaps you'd prefer
the US to be the only country left unwilling to elect a woman with
goals for equality. You know, I don't blame you tho...it's human
nature to want to preserve the perks for your side. ;-).
> (edit)
In fact, Clinton states explicitly that working on women's issues is a
prime focus for her. In the first paragraph she says she wasn't born a
women's advocate but was free to make that choice. Later, she details
the organizational and staff changes she made upon becoming First
Lady, so that she could work on women's issues. She also mentions at
one point that she "had been working for twenty-five years on
improving the status and dignity of women...." At the> Democratic
Convention in 2000, she thanked the nation for allowing her to work
here and abroad on issues that matter most to women. At another point,
she mentions that Admiral Elmo Zumwalt told Chelsea that her mother
will be remembered "for opening the eyes of the world" to women's
rights.
[Indeed. Today women's rights is about the ENFORCEMENT of existing
law, and I see no conflict of interests in enforcing existing law.
Some are reluctant to see that happen. Again, having her interest
in women's rights does NOT negate her abilities or her qualifications
for president.]
(edit)
> In Clinton's speech to the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 she said, "...it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human> rights...human rights are women's rights...and women's rights are human rights, once and for all." Perhaps she meant this rhetorically, but it is odd that she demands equating women's rights with human rights considering she does quite the opposite throughout Living History. She constantly makes "women's rights" the
focus of attention and treats them as separate from "human rights." In
fact, the> two phrases often occur in the same sentence, confirming
their difference. I suspect her purpose in equating the two is to deny
that women's rights are "special" rights, which is belied by her book.
[Nonsense! Since women comprise just over 51% of the world's
population, women's rights ARE human rights, and now the world needs
to enforce those rights, and that might as well start in the US. What
bitter boys don't like about women's rights being human rights, is
their constant wish that women could be a step higher than the animals
and a step lower than a man.
Tough noogies, fellas. Women need not BE men to enjoy their equal
rights, equal treatment and equal opportunities. That is a bitter
pill for insecure men and bitter boys to swallow. Tough noogies! ]
Society
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qq6di.4351$c06...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> connor_a wrote...
>>
>> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
>> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>
> I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
>
> But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
> would be too much to stand.
I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
"draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
--
It's their country,
let them die for it.
Nick Danger
Jill
They're not. Honesty is not important to liberals. Most of them view
that trait as a fault. Possibly no one more so than the clintons
themselves.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Qq6di.4351$c06...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> > connor_a wrote...
>
> >> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
> >> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>
> > I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
>
> > But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
> > would be too much to stand.
>
> I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
> "draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
> to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
And did you also expect that those who said that Clinton's lack of
military service and his private life were none of anyone else's
business would allow GW Bush the same zone of privacy?
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:52 -0700, "Society"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:Qq6di.4351$c06...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> connor_a wrote...
>
> >>> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
> >>> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>
> >> I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
>
> >> But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
> >> would be too much to stand.
>
> >I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
> >"draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
> >to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
>
> They're not. Honesty is not important to liberals. Most of them view
> that trait as a fault. Possibly no one more so than the clintons
> themselves.
Maybe, but I have nothing good to say about this particular
administration -- certainly not about its integrity.
2004 was the first year since I have been of voting age that I did not
vote for the GOP presidential candidate. This is the first Republican
administration that I have actively disliked -- not merely been
disappointed with, but actively disliked.
Honesty is not important to this administration either, and certainly
humility isn't. This administration might be slightly less corrupt
than the Clinton administration, but I think that it matches Clinton's
administration in hubris.
Jill
I voted for GWB both times and sadly have come to agree with what you
say. I really should have known better as I disliked his daddy's
administration and still do. Foolishly I thought GWB would be
different but the apple seldom falls far from the tree.
However, I maintain my belief that liberals as a whole never have any
use for honesty and consider it a character fault in those who are
honest.
Hyerdahl
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:29:45 -0700, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
>
> >Honesty is not important to this administration either, and certainly>humility isn't. This administration might be slightly less corrupt>than the Clinton administration, but I think that it matches Clinton's>administration in hubris.
Clinton lied about a blow job and you're actually comparing that to
Bushie lies about killing many human beings in war? Shame on you!
>
> I voted for GWB both times and sadly have come to agree with what you> say. I really should have known better as I disliked his daddy's administration and still do. Foolishly I thought GWB would be> different but the apple seldom falls far from the tree.
Bush Sr. kicks dogs; what else would you expect?
Also, had you done your homework you would have realized that Bushie
owed all daddy's friends, big time, for bailing his sorry ass out
every time he tried a new venture, and this is all about pay back.
>
> However, I maintain my belief that liberals as a whole never have any use for honesty and consider it a character fault in those who are
> honest.
People are not 'honest' or dishonest based on party lines. I'm a Dem.
and I have met many, many honest Democrats and Republicans. The
problem I have is how anybody could have voted for Bushie. After all,
I knew his motivations from the get-go in who he owed. It was public
knowledge. To my way of thinking...I used to say that Republicans
who voted for Bush had to either be greedy or stupid. Now, I've added
a third category...misled. Sad but true. Keep in mind that I'm a
Dem who vote FOR Reagan when he ran against Carter.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Jun 18, 10:39 am, Jill <aske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:29:45 -0700, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
> >(edit)
> > >Honesty is not important to this administration either, and certainly>humility isn't. This administration might be slightly less corrupt>than the Clinton administration, but I think that it matches Clinton's>administration in hubris.
>
> Clinton lied about a blow job
Clinton did more than lie about a blow job, Puke, come mierda!
Andre Lieven
Well, I'd be just as uninterested in whether Bush were getting blow
jobs in the White House as I was re Clinton getting same.
Neither is a real problem, in terms of what kind of jobs do/did
each of those two, or any, Presidents accomplished.
I'm currently reading Kevin Phillips' ( He who wrote, 38 years
ago, " The Emerging Republican Majority " in 1969 that pretty
much paid out the main line of Republican political strategy
of the next 31 years. ) " American Theocracy; The Peril And
Politics Of Radical Religion, Oil, And Borrowed Money In The
21st Century ". Anyone interested in the real political issues
in the USA of now should gave it a look.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Jun 18, 9:39 am, Jill <aske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:52 -0700, "Society"
>>
>> <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Qq6di.4351$c06...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> >> connor_a wrote...
>>
>> >>> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
>> >>> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>>
>> >> I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
>>
>> >> But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
>> >> would be too much to stand.
>>
>> >I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
>> >"draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
>> >to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
>>
>> They're not. Honesty is not important to liberals. Most of them view
>> that trait as a fault. Possibly no one more so than the clintons
>> themselves.
>
> Maybe, but I have nothing good to say about this particular
> administration -- certainly not about its integrity.
<cough> Scooter Libby... <cough>
> 2004 was the first year since I have been of voting age that I did not
> vote for the GOP presidential candidate. This is the first Republican
> administration that I have actively disliked -- not merely been
> disappointed with, but actively disliked.
Well, you're hardly alone in that view. Even some Republican commentators
have said that W. may well earn the title of most hated President ever.
> Honesty is not important to this administration either, and certainly
> humility isn't. This administration might be slightly less corrupt
> than the Clinton administration, but I think that it matches Clinton's
> administration in hubris.
No, it exceeds it. No one of power in the Clinton administration ever
held the delusional notion that one could force democracy on war torn
lands that have never wanted same, and that you could do it in the
middle of a long war, where, at home, for the first time *ever* in
US history, the taxes of the rich were actually *reduced*.
Whatever else one can accuse the Bush 43 administration of, competance
is not one of them. <cough> New Orleans & Katrina. <cough> ( Read
Douglas Brinkley's book on same; It really holds those who were
irresponsible responsible. )
Andre
Andre Lieven
Well, G. H. W. Bush went to war, served with distinction, knew how
to build and hold poltical coalitions, and knew that going to Bagdad
was a recipe for secterian disaster.
> However, I maintain my belief that liberals as a whole never have any
> use for honesty and consider it a character fault in those who are
> honest.
Thats OK, you're allowed to be partly wrong; Read the Kevin Phillips
book that I mentioned to GA, and you might see where what you accuse
liberals of, is far, far, more applicable to the hard core neocons.
<cough> Scooter Libby. <cough>.
( I didn't think much of some of Clinton's extranational entanglements,
either, but at least some of them had plans beforehand... )
Andre
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Grizzlie Antagonist (lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > On Jun 17, 8:23 pm, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Qq6di.4351$c06...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> > connor_a wrote...
>
> >> >> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
> >> >> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>
> >> > I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
>
> >> > But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
> >> > would be too much to stand.
>
> >> I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
> >> "draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
> >> to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
>
> > And did you also expect that those who said that Clinton's lack of
> > military service and his private life were none of anyone else's
> > business would allow GW Bush the same zone of privacy?
>
> Well, I'd be just as uninterested in whether Bush were getting blow
> jobs in the White House as I was re Clinton getting same.
That is because you are not an active partisan on the American
political scene.
There is no doubt that Democratic operatives were looking for just
that sort of dirt on GWB and other Republicans. Witness Dan Rather's
immolation on the "military service" issue.
Unless I'm mistaken, I have an imperfect memory of Alan Dershowitz --
who passionately defended Clinton's "zone of privacy" in 1998 --
calling upon Congressional investigators to ransack Clarence Thomas's
garbage for the purpose of determining Thomas's sexual tastes in
1991. This was in the middle of the Anita Hill brouhaha.
Dershowitz himself actually had a regular men's rights column in
Penthouse once upon a time and in 1993 would himself be charged with
sexual harassment for having raised the issue of false rape
allegations in class.
Whether he took precautions with his own garbage is not recorded
anywhere.
Stephen Morgan
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:52 -0700, "Society"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:Qq6di.4351$c06...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> connor_a wrote...
>
> >>> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
> >>> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>
> >> I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
>
> >> But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
> >> would be too much to stand.
>
> >I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
> >"draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
> >to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
>
> They're not. Honesty is not important to liberals. Most of them view
> that trait as a fault. Possibly no one more so than the clintons
> themselves.
Clinton lied about fornication. Bush lies about wars and mass murder.
I know which crack-addled perv I prefer.
Stephen Morgan
More evidence that papist = fascist. Get back to burning infidels.
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:48 pm, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Grizzlie Antagonist (lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > > On Jun 17, 8:23 pm, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> > >> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:Qq6di.4351$c06...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > >> > connor_a wrote...
>
> > >> >> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
> > >> >> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>
> > >> > I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between the two.
>
> > >> > But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
> > >> > would be too much to stand.
>
> > >> I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
> > >> "draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
> > >> to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
>
> > > And did you also expect that those who said that Clinton's lack of
> > > military service and his private life were none of anyone else's
> > > business would allow GW Bush the same zone of privacy?
>
> > Well, I'd be just as uninterested in whether Bush were getting blow
> > jobs in the White House as I was re Clinton getting same.
>
> That is because you are not an active partisan on the American
> political scene.
>
> There is no doubt that Democratic operatives were looking for just
> that sort of dirt on GWB and other Republicans. Witness Dan Rather's
> immolation on the "military service" issue.
Goes to show the ineffectiveness of the supposed Democratic
operatives. There's plenty of dirt about. Look at "Old Nazis, the New
Right and the Republican Party", by Russ Bellant.
> Unless I'm mistaken, I have an imperfect memory of Alan Dershowitz --
> who passionately defended Clinton's "zone of privacy" in 1998 --
> calling upon Congressional investigators to ransack Clarence Thomas's
> garbage for the purpose of determining Thomas's sexual tastes in
> 1991. This was in the middle of the Anita Hill brouhaha.
>
> Dershowitz himself actually had a regular men's rights column in
> Penthouse once upon a time and in 1993 would himself be charged with
> sexual harassment for having raised the issue of false rape
> allegations in class.
Good old him.
Jill
wrote:
Agreed. But that has nothing to do with GWB's service in the Texas
National Guard which has not been proven to be *anything* but
honorable to date (can you say Dan Rather?).
In fact, GWB's service in the Texas National Guard far, far exceeds
clinton's draft doging measures during the same Viet Nam era.
>knew how
>to build and hold poltical coalitions,
Not so sure Bush 1 gets the full credit for that.
>and knew that going to Bagdad
>was a recipe for secterian disaster.
Strongly disagree. He was kissing the UN's ass (Bush 1 was a wimp
despite his war record) in not going all the way to Bagdad. The UN is
a bunch of spineless peace monkeys who care more about their own graft
and corruption (can you say Koffee Anan?) than they care about people
suffering around the world.
Going to the Desert Storm war and not going to Bagdad and attempting
to capture or kill Sadam was like fighting WWII and then not going to
Berlin to attempt to capture or kill Hitler. (Screw Godwins Law) It
made no sense then and is one big reason why this second war was
initiated.
>
>> However, I maintain my belief that liberals as a whole never have any
>> use for honesty and consider it a character fault in those who are
>> honest.
>
>Thats OK, you're allowed to be partly wrong;
I'm not wrong to any degree.
>Read the Kevin Phillips
>book that I mentioned to GA,
I make it a practice never to waste my precious time reading liberal
BS. I also make it a practice never to help increase liberal book
sales and even library circulation is taken into account in measuring
the success of books so I don't take liberal books out from the
library either.
How many Ann Coulter books have you purchased?
>and you might see where what you accuse
>liberals of, is far, far, more applicable to the hard core neocons.
"Neocons?" Another liberal slur. <yawn>
><cough> Scooter Libby. <cough>.
>
>( I didn't think much of some of Clinton's extranational entanglements,
>either, but at least some of them had plans beforehand... )
Yeah, bad and stupid plans.
PolishKnight
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello you two,
I have a naive NoVa resident who bought into some of the leftist tripe
(before I educated him) about "chickenhawks". He told me that the left
had an effective strategy: Get people with the right (or more
accurately, correct) background (war veterans) who either could be
controlled or had an anti-war agenda and then argue that anyone who
didn't have a combat war record and advocated war was a "chickenhawk".
Kerry dug out his medals (that he threw over the fence) and came out as
a war hero. It was laughable and amazing that he thought he could get
away with it (he must have thought we had a press as good as Stalin's).
More or less, their strategy worked last time: They got leftists or
unstable nuts (McCain) with war backgrounds and put some of them into
office even in conservative districts.
The right could theoretically do this as well and use, as you call it
Society, the frontman principle. Get women to act for the right's
interests the way male politicians act for women's interests. The left
seethed, remember, about Clarence Thomas wandering away? They came out
against him _hard_ because they realized how effective this strategy was.
There are plenty of strong women, non-racist minorities, and
conservative Jews who would be a kickass force to be dealt with.
Imagine a cabinet comprised of Ben Stein, Ward Connerly, Mark Levine,
Phylis Schlafly, etc.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:42 pm, PolishKnight <mar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <1182231448.391006.186...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> You're wrong, Mark.
>
> The Left has its own way of demonizing "minorities" who don't toe the
> line. Look at what they did to Clarence Thomas.
>
> Yes, he became a Supreme Court justice, but only at the expense of his
> own peace of mind and the Left and the feminists got repaid by "The
> Year of the Woman" which followed.
>
> Anyway, there's no such thing as a "strong woman". There are no
> certainly no principled female conservatives. Even to the extent that
> any women are generally conservative, they all think with their cunts
> anyway.
>
> I would never vote for a woman, no matter what platform she ran on.
What about Ann Coulter? She's anti-suffragist, pro-Isreal,
ultra-conservative, and hot to boot.
About the left demonizing turncoats: Overall, the left demonizes
EVERYONE that opposes them including naive fools such as GW that try to
buddy up with them.
regards,
PolishKnight
Hyerdahl
> In article <1182231448.391006.186...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have a naive NoVa resident who bought into some of the leftist tripe> (before I educated him) about "chickenhawks". He told me that the left
> had an effective strategy: Get people with the right (or more accurately, correct) background (war veterans) who either could be controlled or had an anti-war agenda and then argue that anyone who didn't have a combat war record and advocated war was a "chickenhawk".
>
> Kerry dug out his medals (that he threw over the fence) and came out as a war hero. It was laughable and amazing that he thought he could get
> away with it (he must have thought we had a press as good as Stalin's).
>
No one can really be certain about what makes a person a "war hero",
but there were those who claimed Kerry was indeed one...and those who
did not. In the end, to doubt one war hero is to cast doubt on many.
I suggest we simply accept the medels ...of McCain, Kerry, etc.
More or less, their strategy worked last time: They got leftists or
unstable nuts (McCain) with war backgrounds and put some of them into
office even in conservative districts.
Last time I checked :-) McCain was a Republican :-)
> The right could theoretically do this as well and use, as you call it Society, the frontman principle. Get women to act for the right's
interests the way male politicians act for women's interests.
Hey, you've got Ann Coulter; what more do you want?
A woman rather than a transvestite? :-)
The left seethed, remember, about Clarence Thomas wandering away?
Not only is Thomas an uncle Tom, but he is also a sexist pig and his
writing sucks. He needs better assist.
They came out> against him _hard_ because they realized how effective
this strategy was.
They only came out against him because he was NOT the most qualified
person for the job. He's not very bright, but then it did pave the
way for a Bush presidency.
> There are plenty of strong women, non-racist minorities, and> conservative Jews who would be a kickass force to be dealt with.
You mean like Lieberman? :-) Yeah, I had to hold my nose when he was
running with Gore.
> Imagine a cabinet comprised of Ben Stein, Ward Connerly, Mark Levine,> Phylis Schlafly, etc.
>
Hahahahahahahaha.....not even in your wildest dreams. :-)
Jill
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 21, 7:42 pm, PolishKnight <mar...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <1182231448.391006.186...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>You're wrong, Mark.
>
>The Left has its own way of demonizing "minorities" who don't toe the
>line. Look at what they did to Clarence Thomas.
>
>Yes, he became a Supreme Court justice, but only at the expense of his
>own peace of mind and the Left and the feminists got repaid by "The
>Year of the Woman" which followed.
>
>Anyway, there's no such thing as a "strong woman". There are no
>certainly no principled female conservatives. Even to the extent that
>any women are generally conservative, they all think with their cunts
>anyway.
When I was younger (even 10 years younger than my current age) I
freely admit I thought that way, too. I was highly emotional and
always swallowed any liberal line. It has taken many years of
education (School of Hard Knocks) and even with that I still have to
constantly guard my knee jerk reactions but I'm slowly learning to
think logically and intelligently rather than emotionally.
Am I claiming to be a "strong woman"? Hell no. I'm not strong. I
freely admit I need the help of men every day. I'll go one further
and again say how thankful I am for all the strong men...past and
present who make my life so much easier.
>I would never vote for a woman, no matter what platform she ran on.
Neither would I.
Andre Lieven
operational has left me,
at least for a time, without my older text based newsreader. So, until
I sort that out,
Google will have to do...
On 19 Jun, 13:56, Jill <aske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2007 02:56:06 GMT, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
Well, there appear to be some holes in that record. In any case, it is
a
fact that Bush I went to the war when he was a young man, and Bush
II...
didn't.
I have no problem granting that Clinton didn't go, but he didn't try
to get
into a " champaign squadron ", either. Oh, and Gore and Kerry *did*
go.
> In fact, GWB's service in the Texas National Guard far, far exceeds
> clinton's draft doging measures during the same Viet Nam era.
So ? Clinton has not been a Presidential candidate in 11 years.
> >knew how to build and hold poltical coalitions,
>
> Not so sure Bush 1 gets the full credit for that.
My personal library on the 90-91 Gulf War is pretty extensive,
counting
over 40 books, and most agree that Bush I's skills at working the
phones
to deal with a multitude of foreign leaders were well done. It didn't
hurt that
he had some good help, from Powell and Baker on. Not to mention
Margaret
Thatcher, who had some small experience with a war...
> >and knew that going to Bagdad was a recipe for secterian disaster.
>
> Strongly disagree. He was kissing the UN's ass (Bush 1 was a wimp
> despite his war record) in not going all the way to Bagdad.
The UN had zilch to do with that. It was the US that decided to get
the UN
Resultuions, to give international cover, and to assemble an
international
coalition, for the purpose of the ejection of the Iraqi occupying
forces from
the nation state of Kuwait.
I would point out, as reported in Rick Atkinson's " Crusade; The
Untold
Story Of The Persian Gulf War " ( 1993, Houghton Mifflin ), pages
470-476,
Cheney, Baker, Powell, Scowcroft, Richard Haass ( Deputy Sec State for
MidEast ), on to *all* the military and field commanders, to John
Major, et al,
agreed that the war was not about an occupation, and that it should
end
when it did. One might argue, in 20/20 hindsight, that another day of
Republican Guard destruction could have been useful, but thats not
what
was then known.
> The UN is
> a bunch of spineless peace monkeys who care more about their own graft
> and corruption (can you say Koffee Anan?) than they care about people
> suffering around the world.
OK, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...
Oh, its Kofi.
> Going to the Desert Storm war and not going to Bagdad and attempting
> to capture or kill Sadam was like fighting WWII and then not going to
> Berlin to attempt to capture or kill Hitler. (Screw Godwins Law) It
> made no sense then and is one big reason why this second war was
> initiated.
Cite ?
> >> However, I maintain my belief that liberals as a whole never have any
> >> use for honesty and consider it a character fault in those who are
> >> honest.
>
> >Thats OK, you're allowed to be partly wrong;
>
> I'm not wrong to any degree.
Wrong.
> >Read the Kevin Phillips
> >book that I mentioned to GA,
>
> I make it a practice never to waste my precious time reading liberal
> BS.
Well, you'd be in no danger here, as Mr. Phillips also wrote, back
in 1969, while working *for* the Republican Party and *for* the Nixon
Administration, " The Emerging Republican Majority ", which was,
essentially, the blueprint for electoral success in the Sun Belt ( A
term he coined in said work, BTW ) by the Republican Party into
the early 90s.
> I also make it a practice never to help increase liberal book
> sales and even library circulation is taken into account in measuring
> the success of books so I don't take liberal books out from the
> library either.
Ibid.
> How many Ann Coulter books have you purchased?
Why ? Are you suggesting that she has insider party experience in
policy matters ? Did she write any works that the Republican Party
used with success for 30 years ?
> >and you might see where what you accuse
> >liberals of, is far, far, more applicable to the hard core neocons.
>
> "Neocons?" Another liberal slur. <yawn>
No, an accurate term, as most of what the Republican Party now stands
for
is quite the opposite of classic Republicans from anywhere from, say,
1945
to 1996. As Mr. Phillips well lays out the history therof, as he was,
you
know, a part of that party... While I doubt that Ms. Coulter was
writing much
of anything in 1969 for the Republican Party...
For instance, classic Republicans believed in balanced budgets....
> ><cough> Scooter Libby. <cough>.
>
> >( I didn't think much of some of Clinton's extranational entanglements,
> >either, but at least some of them had plans beforehand... )
>
> Yeah, bad and stupid plans.
Oh ? Did 3,500 US troops die in Somalia ? I don't think so.
And, even a bad and stupid plan beats NO plan at all...
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In article <1182489619.695302.298...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ugh. Far, far, far too thin. Pass. Plus, shes so dumb that she
insisted that
Canadian troops fought in Vietnam...
> About the left demonizing turncoats: Overall, the left demonizes
> EVERYONE that opposes them including naive fools such as GW that try to
> buddy up with them.
As opposed to "If you're not with us, you support the terrorists" ?
Andre
Avenger
">> > > > > >> > connor_a wrote...
>>
>> > > > > >> >> A male president represents the interests of cunt.
>> > > > > >> >> A female president represents the interests of cunt.
>>
>> > > > > >> > I know. In that sense, there isn't any difference between
>> > > > > >> > the two.
>>
>> > > > > >> > But I mean -- to have one of them actually BE the president
>> > > > > >> > would be too much to stand.
>>
>> > > > > >> I expect everyone who hooted "chickenhawk" and
>> > > > > >> "draft dodger" at President GW Bush to deny their vote
>> > > > > >> to hillary clinton, if they are honest.
>>
>> > > > > > And did you also expect that those who said that Clinton's lack
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > military service and his private life were none of anyone
>> > > > > > else's
>> > > > > > business would allow GW Bush the same zone of privacy?
First of all, as much as I dislike Bush and as much as I know that the
National Guard was a way out of going to VN, Bush did actually serve even if
haphazardly.
Clinton on the other hand used every means to get out of serving anywhere
even in the safe National Guard. But one question has never been answered
about his activities in the late '60's. What was he doing in Moscow at the
height of the Cold War when it was virtually impossible for an ordinary
person to get a visa?
Trying to avoid being drafted or finding a safe way of serving is one thing
but actually going to a country that was the primary enemy of the US at that
time and criticisung the US is almost treason.
>>
>> > > > > Well, I'd be just as uninterested in whether Bush were getting
>> > > > > blow
>> > > > > jobs in the White House as I was re Clinton getting same.
>>
>> > > > That is because you are not an active partisan on the American
>> > > > political scene.
>>
>> > > > There is no doubt that Democratic operatives were looking for just
>> > > > that sort of dirt on GWB and other Republicans. Witness Dan
>> > > > Rather's
>> > > > immolation on the "military service" issue.
The fact that they could only come up with a few minor things should tell
you something. Not showing up for duty at a certain time (if it is true) is
just a disciplinary matter. And getting a DWI when you were young is not a
big deal either especially when it was 30 years ago and people's attitudes
were quite different than today.
>>
>> > > > Unless I'm mistaken, I have an imperfect memory of Alan
>> > > > Dershowitz --
>> > > > who passionately defended Clinton's "zone of privacy" in 1998 --
Dershowitz is just a jew maggot who any self respecting jew should condemn.
>> > > > calling upon Congressional investigators to ransack Clarence
>> > > > Thomas's
>> > > > garbage for the purpose of determining Thomas's sexual tastes in
>> > > > 1991. This was in the middle of the Anita Hill brouhaha.
As I said he's a maggot.
>>
>> > > > Dershowitz himself actually had a regular men's rights column in
>> > > > Penthouse once upon a time and in 1993 would himself be charged
>> > > > with
>> > > > sexual harassment for having raised the issue of false rape
>> > > > allegations in class.
>>
>> > > > Whether he took precautions with his own garbage is not recorded
>> > > > anywhere.
If he's a typical paranoid jew he probably burnt his garbage lol And
perhaps he had good cause to do it.
The only jew I would trust is someone like Barry Goldwater but then again he
was Prostestant from an old family on his mother's side lol
>>
>> > > regards,
>> > > PolishKnight
>>
>> > You're wrong, Mark.
>>
>> > The Left has its own way of demonizing "minorities" who don't toe the
>> > line. Look at what they did to Clarence Thomas.
>>
>> > Yes, he became a Supreme Court justice, but only at the expense of his
>> > own peace of mind and the Left and the feminists got repaid by "The
>> > Year of the Woman" which followed.
>>
>> > Anyway, there's no such thing as a "strong woman". There are no
>> > certainly no principled female conservatives. Even to the extent that
>> > any women are generally conservative, they all think with their cunts
>> > anyway.
Absolutely. Any society that would put females in charge of anything is one
that is on the way out.
>>
>> > I would never vote for a woman, no matter what platform she ran on.
Either would I.
>>
>> What about Ann Coulter? She's anti-suffragist, pro-Isreal,
>> ultra-conservative, and hot to boot.
>
> Ugh. Far, far, far too thin. Pass. Plus, shes so dumb that she
> insisted that
> Canadian troops fought in Vietnam...
There were other countries there with the US
http://www.canadiansinvietnam.ca/
Grizzlie Antagonist
I don't have any real problem with Bush II's lack of military
service. Some of us simply aren't called upon to go. Reagan had no
military service either, but he was a fairly effective commander-in-
chief -- Lebanon being one notable exception.
I have a problem, however, with a frat boy rancher insisting that his
constituents enable untrammeled illegal immigration. I wouldn't wish
military service on him, but I would like to see him live for a little
while in an area devastated by illegal immigrants who have brought
their poverty with them.
That's what a number of Americans -- many of whom voted for GWB --
find themself facing.
Bush seems to think that every native-born American is a frat-boy
rancher like he is, with a need for unskilled labor and a desire to
pay as little for it as possible.
Yeah, but I would call Kevin Phillips a Borgerson Republican. Ah, I
knew that would grab your attention. Or a Larkin Republican.
Kevin Phillips is the sort of Republican who is apologetic for being
one. He doesn't really believe in classical Republican principles.
There's no practical difference, these days, between Phillips's
politics and the politics of the Democratic Party. "The Emerging
Republican Majority" was the last thing of any consequence that he
produced.
Again, I've voted Republican ever since I was old enough to vote, and
George W. Bush is the first Republican president that I have grown to
intensely dislike. In 2004, he became the first Republican
presidential candidate that I refused to vote for. I agree that his
father's decision not to invade Kuwait looks better and better in the
historical context in light of the mess that his son helped to create
after the fact.
I'm hopeful that the party will rejuvenate after the departure of Bush
II, and I'm heartened by the way that the rank and file has mostly
stood up to him on the immigration issue.
But Kevin Phillips is just a "bad seed" within the Republican Party
whose disagreability preceded Bush II and will survive Bush II.
> > I also make it a practice never to help increase liberal book
> > sales and even library circulation is taken into account in measuring
> > the success of books so I don't take liberal books out from the
> > library either.
>
> Ibid.
>
> > How many Ann Coulter books have you purchased?
>
> Why ? Are you suggesting that she has insider party experience in
> policy matters ? Did she write any works that the Republican Party
> used with success for 30 years ?
I don't believe that she promotes herself as a political strategist,
as Phillips promotes himself.
> > >and you might see where what you accuse
> > >liberals of, is far, far, more applicable to the hard core neocons.
>
> > "Neocons?" Another liberal slur. <yawn>
>
> No, an accurate term, as most of what the Republican Party now stands
> for
> is quite the opposite of classic Republicans from anywhere from, say,
> 1945
> to 1996. As Mr. Phillips well lays out the history therof, as he was,
> you
> know, a part of that party...
I agree with your overall point, but again, Phillips was sniping at
"his" party long before Bush II.
> While I doubt that Ms. Coulter was
> writing much
> of anything in 1969 for the Republican Party...
>
> For instance, classic Republicans believed in balanced budgets....
That's certainly true, and it is a failing of every recent Republican
administration not to have produced one -- but then, Democrats talk
out of both sides on their mouths on that issue, as well, insisting on
the one side of their mouths on balanced budgets while insisting on
the other side that "human needs" need to be addressed.
> > ><cough> Scooter Libby. <cough>.
>
> > >( I didn't think much of some of Clinton's extranational entanglements,
> > >either, but at least some of them had plans beforehand... )
>
> > Yeah, bad and stupid plans.
>
> Oh ? Did 3,500 US troops die in Somalia ? I don't think so.
>
> And, even a bad and stupid plan beats NO plan at all...
>
> Andre
Clinton's foreign policy was not as disastrous as GWB's has turned out
to be, not because he was a foreign policy genius but because he was a
focus-group-driven public-opinion-poll driven politician.
Over an extended period of time, casualties tend to bring poll numbers
down, which was unacceptable to Clinton. I used to think that GWB had
considerably more principle than Clinton because he was indifferent to
short-term vacillations in public opinion.
But GWB just turns out to be the opposite side of the same bad coin.
If Clinton was a fawning weakling who tried -- ostensibly -- to listen
to everyone, GWB is a cranial-rectal implant case who won't listen to
anyone else other than himself and a few insiders.
Clinton was never really tested, so his wishy-washiness turned out not
to do so much damage. GWB, of course, has failed big-time virtually
every test he has been given.
Mark Borgerson
lloydso...@yahoo.com says...
You'd Better catch up on your fact checking. Ronald Reagan enlisted in
the Army Reserve in 1937 and was on Active duty through most of WWII.
He ended up as a Major.
OTOH, his active duty was mostly in public relations and in producing
films for the Army----probably even less risky than putting Bush II
in the cockpit of a jet aircraft.
> I have a problem, however, with a frat boy rancher insisting that his
> constituents enable untrammeled illegal immigration. I wouldn't wish
> military service on him, but I would like to see him live for a little
> while in an area devastated by illegal immigrants who have brought
> their poverty with them.
>
> That's what a number of Americans -- many of whom voted for GWB --
> find themself facing.
>
> Bush seems to think that every native-born American is a frat-boy
> rancher like he is, with a need for unskilled labor and a desire to
> pay as little for it as possible.
>
> <<SNIP>>
Mark Borgerson
Andre Lieven
Especially when they wrangle a rare position from which none are
called...
> Reagan had no
> military service either, but he was a fairly effective commander-in-
> chief -- Lebanon being one notable exception.
Well, I do recall hearing the Greneda operation described as the
Special
Olympics for the US military...
> I have a problem, however, with a frat boy rancher insisting that his
> constituents enable untrammeled illegal immigration. I wouldn't wish
> military service on him, but I would like to see him live for a little
> while in an area devastated by illegal immigrants who have brought
> their poverty with them.
Indeed. While some here seem to want to paint me into " liberal "
boxes ( And, on *some* issues, like Canadian Medicare, they're
partly right... I also support Canadian Medicare because it is more
*efficient*, which used to be more of a Republican virtue... ), this
topic is not one of them.
Of course, a nation state *must* be able to control it's own borders.
Duh. Of course, a nation state must be able to say, enter here only
under our laws. Again, duh.
> That's what a number of Americans -- many of whom voted for GWB --
> find themself facing.
And, local and state jurisdictions which are stuck with many of the
bills
for same...
> Bush seems to think that every native-born American is a frat-boy
> rancher like he is, with a need for unskilled labor and a desire to
> pay as little for it as possible.
Which is the *opposite* value of old time Republicans like, say, Henry
Ford. Who understood that, when you got more productivity out of your
labour force, if you paid them some of the resulting benefits therof,
you'd
keep a well trained and efficient labour force, *and* you would *grow
the
productive economy*, thus making more profit for yourself possible.
Again, duh. These megabusinesses that are trying to squeeze out the
last drop of wage costs simply... don't get it.
Cite ?
> There's no practical difference, these days, between Phillips's
> politics and the politics of the Democratic Party. "The Emerging
> Republican Majority" was the last thing of any consequence that he
> produced.
Once again, cite ? And, there *is* a major difference between his
views and those of the gang of oligarchal incompetants presently
ensconsed at 1600 Penn. Ave, which is a Good Thing...
> Again, I've voted Republican ever since I was old enough to vote, and
> George W. Bush is the first Republican president that I have grown to
> intensely dislike. In 2004, he became the first Republican
> presidential candidate that I refused to vote for. I agree that his
> father's decision not to invade Kuwait looks better and better in the
> historical context in light of the mess that his son helped to create
> after the fact.
Quite.
> I'm hopeful that the party will rejuvenate after the departure of Bush
> II, and I'm heartened by the way that the rank and file has mostly
> stood up to him on the immigration issue.
Agreed.
> But Kevin Phillips is just a "bad seed" within the Republican Party
> whose disagreability preceded Bush II and will survive Bush II.
Once again, I would ask on what *specific* issues do you base this
on ?
> > > I also make it a practice never to help increase liberal book
> > > sales and even library circulation is taken into account in measuring
> > > the success of books so I don't take liberal books out from the
> > > library either.
>
> > Ibid.
>
> > > How many Ann Coulter books have you purchased?
>
> > Why ? Are you suggesting that she has insider party experience in
> > policy matters ? Did she write any works that the Republican Party
> > used with success for 30 years ?
>
> I don't believe that she promotes herself as a political strategist,
> as Phillips promotes himself.
Well, he defined Republican political strategy for several decades.
Ergo, hes has well earned that position. Ms. Coulter of the frequent
elementary factual errors has not. QED.
> > > >and you might see where what you accuse
> > > >liberals of, is far, far, more applicable to the hard core neocons.
>
> > > "Neocons?" Another liberal slur. <yawn>
>
> > No, an accurate term, as most of what the Republican Party now stands
> > for is quite the opposite of classic Republicans from anywhere from, say,
> > 1945 to 1996. As Mr. Phillips well lays out the history therof, as he was,
> > you know, a part of that party...
>
> I agree with your overall point, but again, Phillips was sniping at
> "his" party long before Bush II.
Perhaps he spotted the trend line that brought that party to it's
present
state of woe with Shrub, et al.
Come on ! Can you take anything coming from the Executive Branch
seriously anymore, when the VP claims to NOT be a part of the
Executive Branch ? I will add that " The Daily Show ", yesterday,
play an interview clip rom 2001, where Cheney specifically denied
that his position was in any way a part of the Legislative Branch.
Ergo, Cheney is baldly full of simplisitic, and fictional shit. As
usual.
> > While I doubt that Ms. Coulter was writing much
> > of anything in 1969 for the Republican Party...
>
> > For instance, classic Republicans believed in balanced budgets....
>
> That's certainly true, and it is a failing of every recent Republican
> administration not to have produced one -- but then, Democrats talk
> out of both sides on their mouths on that issue, as well, insisting on
> the one side of their mouths on balanced budgets while insisting on
> the other side that "human needs" need to be addressed.
All well enough, but the Democrats did not wave a magic wand and make
the Republicans abandon fiscal responsibility. That choice of the
Republican Party, the Republican Party is solely responsible for.
Nothing that the Democratic Party does, says, or doesn't do or say,
changes that fact. And, its on that point that I criticise the
Republican
Party, and its mutation into something quite Bad For America.
( Mind you, as I've certainly said before, *nothing* could entice/
force
me to vote for Hillary Clinton for Pres, were I a US voter. But, thats
a different issue, and a different party's responsibility. )
> > > ><cough> Scooter Libby. <cough>.
>
> > > >( I didn't think much of some of Clinton's extranational entanglements,
> > > >either, but at least some of them had plans beforehand... )
>
> > > Yeah, bad and stupid plans.
>
> > Oh ? Did 3,500 US troops die in Somalia ? I don't think so.
>
> > And, even a bad and stupid plan beats NO plan at all...
>
> > Andre
>
> Clinton's foreign policy was not as disastrous as GWB's has turned out
> to be, not because he was a foreign policy genius but because he was a
> focus-group-driven public-opinion-poll driven politician.
Sure. I recall speaking to some US friends back in late '92, and how
later on,
they were disappointed at the lack of achievement from such an on
paper
smart guy.
> Over an extended period of time, casualties tend to bring poll numbers
> down, which was unacceptable to Clinton. I used to think that GWB had
> considerably more principle than Clinton because he was indifferent to
> short-term vacillations in public opinion.
Well, stubbornness in the face of *facts* is no virtue.
> But GWB just turns out to be the opposite side of the same bad coin.
> If Clinton was a fawning weakling who tried -- ostensibly -- to listen
> to everyone, GWB is a cranial-rectal implant case who won't listen to
> anyone else other than himself and a few insiders.
Indeed.
> Clinton was never really tested, so his wishy-washiness turned out not
> to do so much damage. GWB, of course, has failed big-time virtually
> every test he has been given.
Again, agreed. From 9/11 to Iraq to Katrina ( Where Douglas Brinkley's
chronicle of the last points out 6 year old children who he states did
far
more good then did the US President... <shakes head> ), to the budget
and
long term fiscal health of the US ( And, of every average citizen in
it. ),
he certainly well earns: Worst... President... Ever.
And, I thought that I had seen haughtyness and idiocy when faced with
Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell ( And, her disasterous 1993 campaign;
if you thought Kerry in '04 was bad... Oiy ! )... I had no idea how
well off
we were up here then... Sigh.
What also gets me is how badly Bush squandered the massive grass
roots international sympathy and support for the US, immediately after
9/11. Whatever Canadian and US disputes were at the time, the massive
outpouring of support and on the ground care for thousands of US
citizens
whose Sept 11 flights were ordered to set down in Canada, overwhelmed
any such issues ( Gander, Nfld, had it's population almost double
that
day. They jumped to it, and took excellent care of their charges. ) .
The ability to blow all of that... so quickly and completely, is
truely
breathtaking in it's scope of incompetance and lack of interest.
Andre
PolishKnight
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Plus, she's so dumb that she has several best-selling books, speaking
engagements, and worldwide fame. How many books have you sold, Andre?
Hell, for that matter what show was Ann on when she said that? I'm sure
as many people know that or care about being mistaken about whether the
Canadian troops fought in Vietnam or not.
Nothing is more foolish or "dumb" as someone who knows nothing than
someone who spends hours upon hours reading books and memorizing trivial
facts and doesn't have much more to show for it than the dumb person
they're mocking. Hell, what kind of insecure person needs to go around
bullying someone they think is stupid to begin with?
Sadly, I deal with plenty of these kinds of small minded thinkers in the
form of bureaucrats in D.C... Fortunately, it's not too difficult to get
around, through, or above them. After all, if I'm not smart enough to
whip their tails where it counts then they really do have a point about
thinking small ruling the world, don't they?
> > About the left demonizing turncoats: Overall, the left demonizes
> > EVERYONE that opposes them including naive fools such as GW that try to
> > buddy up with them.
>
> As opposed to "If you're not with us, you support the terrorists" ?
Did GW really say that? I believe he said something like: "You're
either for us or you're against us."
You just launched into a major hissy fit against me for supposedly
misquoting Groucho Marx (which nobody has provided any URL's to support
that I did so) yet you turn around and put words into GW's mouth while
standing on a soapbox.
Amazing.
Three things for sure:
1) You're not going to admit you're mistaken about what GW said (even as
you pontificate about the merits of others admitting they're wrong)
2) You won't address the points I made.
3) You'll preach and pontificate about honor and the importance of
standing your ground and then turn around and plonk me (run away) to
avoid my response.
regards,
PolishKnight
Andre Lieven
<Laughs> Mark, thats a Parg Class MSdirection. You are equating
popularity with accuracy. Well, on that bssis, all the misandrist
news reports on CNN, et al, MUST be more accurate than anything
written here...
Thats one Own Goal, dude. Yours.
> Hell, for that matter what show was Ann on when she said that?
The Fifth Estate, CBC-TV. I have a videotape of that whole edition.
> I'm sure
> as many people know that or care about being mistaken about whether the
> Canadian troops fought in Vietnam or not.
<shrug> If one insists on being WRONG, as she DID, well, that shows
how little credence to give her other claims...
> Nothing is more foolish or "dumb" as someone who knows nothing than
> someone who spends hours upon hours reading books and memorizing trivial
> facts and doesn't have much more to show for it than the dumb person
> they're mocking. Hell, what kind of insecure person needs to go around
> bullying someone they think is stupid to begin with?
Ask Bill O'Reilly...
> Sadly, I deal with plenty of these kinds of small minded thinkers in the
> form of bureaucrats in D.C... Fortunately, it's not too difficult to get
> around, through, or above them. After all, if I'm not smart enough to
> whip their tails where it counts then they really do have a point about
> thinking small ruling the world, don't they?
All utter MSdirection from the fact that, not only was Coulter wrong,
but she claimed that she was right when she was wrong on national
teevee ( US ).
Thats a lie and its a hypocritical lie. Hers.
>> > About the left demonizing turncoats: Overall, the left demonizes
>> > EVERYONE that opposes them including naive fools such as GW that try to
>> > buddy up with them.
>>
>> As opposed to "If you're not with us, you support the terrorists" ?
>
> Did GW really say that? I believe he said something like: "You're
> either for us or you're against us."
I have seen well too many claims from Bush, Cheney, et al, that
Saddam was linked with 9/11...
> You just launched into a major hissy fit against me for supposedly
> misquoting Groucho Marx (which nobody has provided any URL's to support
> that I did so) yet you turn around and put words into GW's mouth while
> standing on a soapbox.
No, I poined out thatJill's correction of your factual error was
correct.
> Amazing.
Like your repeated factual error in claiming that Groucho said it ?
Indeed.
> Three things for sure:
Oh, far mroe than that: One thing for sure about Coulter; she tells lies.
> 1) You're not going to admit you're mistaken about what GW said (even as
> you pontificate about the merits of others admitting they're wrong)
Like your admission to Jill about your error ?
PKB. HTH.
> 2) You won't address the points I made.
<Projection>
> 3) You'll preach and pontificate about honor and the importance of
> standing your ground and then turn around and plonk me (run away) to
> avoid my response.
<Laughs> No, I'll just point out that, when it comes to Coulter, you
ARE Parg.
Thats all.
I have no issue addressing any issues where Coulter is right. But,
because she is now a caricature of herself, for reasons, I presume,
of her wishing to maintain her media visibility, nothing that she
says should be accepted on any basis other than cite and proof
provided with her claims. Her record, as that of most WomenFirsters,
has far too many out and out proven lies to be trusted.
In the political field, she hardly alone in that; I place pretty
much any US major party mouthpiece in that same box.
Andre