Two more Republicans in desperate need of lives
D.F. Manno
> Just a few blocks from the future site of Bill Clinton's $160 million
> presidential library, a couple of Clinton haters hope to open a museum
> devoted to mocking his presidency.
>
> "As long as he's talking, we'll have to be here trying to keep him somewhat
> honest and stop him from rewriting history," says John LeBoutillier, a former
> Republican congressman from New York who rode Ronald Reagan's coattails to
> victory in 1980.
>
> LeBoutillier and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, plan to
> call it the Counter-Clinton Library. They say the museum here and one planned
> for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the
> last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture....
<http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030722_967.html>
I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
museum.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear." (George Orwell)
Patrick M Geahan
> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> museum.
I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
Clinton.
I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
politicos.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
Quote of the Week: "I probably won't start on the idea, and if I do it
will wind up being an unfinished project on my personal website featuring
pictures of my cat." rh2600 on /.
Greg Goss
>D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
>> museum.
>
>I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
>Clinton.
>
>I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
>they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
>drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
>Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
>politicos.
And it lost them any chance at the 96 election. I'm beginning to
worry that the "good" side is going to blow 04 the same way. If you
hate hard enough, nobody listens.
SoCalMike
"D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:dommanno-F01B8B...@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> From the Associated Press via ABC News:
>
> > Just a few blocks from the future site of Bill Clinton's $160 million
> > presidential library, a couple of Clinton haters hope to open a museum
> > devoted to mocking his presidency.
> >
> > "As long as he's talking, we'll have to be here trying to keep him
somewhat
> > honest and stop him from rewriting history," says John LeBoutillier, a
former
> > Republican congressman from New York who rode Ronald Reagan's coattails
to
> > victory in 1980.
> >
> > LeBoutillier and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, plan
to
> > call it the Counter-Clinton Library. They say the museum here and one
planned
> > for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky,
the
> > last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture....
>
> <http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030722_967.html>
>
> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> museum.
mebee some of ronnies soiled depends?
SoCalMike
"Patrick M Geahan" <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote in message
news:a89lv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org...
> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> > museum.
>
> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.
>
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.
and considering how well things were going for the country back then, and
his second term sweep... no need to steal either of those elections, no
sirree.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> >> museum.
I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
> >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> >Clinton.
Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
;)
> >I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> >they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> >drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.
> >Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> >politicos.
> And it lost them any chance at the 96 election. I'm beginning to
> worry that the "good" side is going to blow 04 the same way. If you
> hate hard enough, nobody listens.
Depending on who the Dems run, this may be a good Thing. Howard Dean, it
looks like, is playing into the "will froth to throw the election" hand.
That sort of rhetoric plays well in primaries amoungst the faithfull, but
he's got to be able to dosey-doe pretty quick when it comes to the general
election.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> > >> museum.
>
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
A museum is several orders of magnitude beyond buttons and bumper
stickers.
> > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> > >Clinton.
>
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
> ;)
Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
you are unable to comprehend.
Adam Smith
> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.
He's a lying scumbag and felon who disgraced the Presidency and whose
incompetence led to the 9/11 attacks. What other reasons do you want?
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subborning
perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
(appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
it doesnt look like exactly what it was.
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.
Since when are felonies "petty"?
Adam Smith
> Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.
Right,typical democratic regard fore the 'facts'.
The FACTS are that GWB won every recount in Florida, including the
media sponsored ones.
The facts are that elected official the responsibility of making the
relevant decisions made them fully in compliance with florida law,
which the democrats tried to overturn in the courts.
the facts are that the media created the entire problem by reporting
floridas polls closed and Gore the winner while the polls in the
(predominately conservative and republican) panhandle were still open.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <8130079e.03073...@posting.google.com>):
The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
SoCalMike
<ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
news:PNaWa.395$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
> > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or
"Counter-Reagan"
> > >> museum.
>
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
>
> > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for
Bill
> > >Clinton.
>
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
> ;)
mm hmm. theres a big difference between a hummer and a war. and osamas still
out there laughing his ass off, waiting to strike again. when he does, who
will we blame next? iran?
>
> > >I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it
when
> > >they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could
possibly
> > >drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
> that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
> against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.
so iran/contra never really happened?
SoCalMike
> The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
> Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.
which will hopefully be the last time something like that is used.
SoCalMike
>
> Since when are felonies "petty"?
compared to starting a war? pretty petty.
GrapeApe
his second term sweep... no need to steal either of those elections, no
People forget his second term sweep had its own squeeky moments in the slanted
view of some. He won the electoral college, but I think the spin on his
popular vote meaning bupkus to some, is that it was not a true majority, that
is a third party sopped up the spillover, Perot or somebody. I think he had
like 48 percent of the vote to the elephants 47 or something, with Ross taking
up the slack.
GrapeApe
perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
(appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
You are captain of the football team. Your prom date, Suzy Kominsky, the head
cheerleader, has a very clean reputation, despite being a cheerleader. After
the dance, she gives you a blowjob, without your even asking.
The next day, you are brought up in front of the entire class, you don't know
why, and you are grilled about whether you had sex with Suzy Kominsky. Did you
Score? Huh?
Well, you could, proper gentlemans kneejerk response, say that really isn't any
of their business, but if you do, they say you must be covering up something.
Do you say you did not have that private moment, to protect her reputation? Or
do you tell the truth, because coach says you must, if you want to play in the
big game?
You know, some people leave that stuff in grade school, rather than spending
millions towards some odd end. If she doesn't drown, shes a witch.
D.F. Manno
grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
> People forget his second term sweep had its own squeeky moments in the slanted
> view of some. He won the electoral college, but I think the spin on his
> popular vote meaning bupkus to some, is that it was not a true majority, that
> is a third party sopped up the spillover, Perot or somebody. I think he had
> like 48 percent of the vote to the elephants 47 or something, with Ross taking
> up the slack.
To those people I say "So?" I could parrot those who so loudly declaim
Bush's legitimacy and say that the popular vote doesn't count, or I
could note that Clinton got more votes than his opponents, something
Bush couldn't manage.
That spin on the popular vote you mention sounds like the Bushies'
oft-repeated line that Bush won more votes than Clinton did in either
of his elections. The problem with that line is that Bush wasn't
running against Clinton, he was running against Gore, and he came in
second.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> In article <PNaWa.395$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> > > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> > > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or
> > > >> "Counter-Reagan" museum.
> >
> > I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out,
> > not a museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
> A museum is several orders of magnitude beyond buttons and bumper
> stickers.
Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
happen.
> > > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred
> > > >for Bill Clinton.
> >
> > Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush?
> > It's the exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was
> > well deserved ;)
> Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.
Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
Patrick M Geahan
> Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
> man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
> will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
> happen.
I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?
Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
gone.
Whiny bastards, al
> Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
low unemployment, good work towards peace.
None of which you can say about the current president. I assume, then,
that since you're in favor of full-blown truth, that you'll be waiting to
open the anti-GWB library. After all that one might be a whitewash too.
Patrick M Geahan
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
Huge huge difference between a few people writing articles and a museum
dedicated to hatred of *one* man.
Would you be in favor of an anti-Reagan library? There's good evidence in
the historical record that he may have lied about Iran-Contra. Would you
call his museum a 'whitewash'?
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
Hatred? I don't see anyone investigating GWB for his pre-White House
business dealings or his absence from the Texas National Guard. What I do
see is a lot of questoins being asked about his *current* performance,
which is what Congress is supposed to do.
> What part of politics escapes you?
The part where politicians become whiny pricks who can't handle losing
like adults.
GrapeApe
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.
Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
>><BR><BR>
Yall is tooty fruitcakes, ya know that?
Charles A Lieberman
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
> anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?
>
> Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
> one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
> gone.
I'm sorry, *Nixon*? Once he was out of office, he was free and clear in
the great court of public opinion? Really?
--
Charles A. Lieberman | When free speech is outlawed,
New York, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Charles A Lieberman
"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
> > that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
> > against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.
>
> so iran/contra never really happened?
Um, Clinton's pecadillos did too. You could, however, argue based on the
relatve importance of the two, vis-a-vis policy, rule of law, etc. etc.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
> > man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
> > will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
> > happen.
> I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
> anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?
Knock yourself out. The more people speaking out, the better IMO.
> Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
> one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
> gone.
You very statement renders itself incorrect.
> Whiny bastards, al
Al? Yeah, he could be a tad whiney when he wasn't boasting of fake
accomplishments. :)
> > Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> > part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
> Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
Yeah, Clinton was repugnant enough to get a Republican revolution in for
the next election and that did do the trick.
> low unemployment,
Yup, the ground work laid down by the previous administartions yeailded a
strong spurt of economic growth for him to be sitting in the white house
for.
> good work towards peace.
Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
Taking half measures when they were politically expedient and then no
follow through, from Somalia to Iraq to Hati to Koscovo: great record
there.
> None of which you can say about the current president.
That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
still majorly improved.
> I assume, then,
> that since you're in favor of full-blown truth, that you'll be waiting to
> open the anti-GWB library. After all that one might be a whitewash too.
Go for it. I'd love to see it. It should be amusing to see all the
anti-bush propoganda gathered into one locale.
Patrick M Geahan
> Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
> That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
> adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
> unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
> status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
> leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
> still majorly improved.
Wow. That's absolutely *amazing*. According to you, Bill Clinton did
*nothing* for eight years but ride on the coattails of previous
administrations? That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
auto-pilot?
That's so amazingly thick-headed that I don't even know where to start.
Richard R. Hershberger
> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.
>
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.
I too have pondered this question. I think it is because Clinton was,
to their mind, dead wrong about nearly everything yet consistently
popular. This infuriates them to this day. After all, someone that
wrong yet that popular must be at best extraordinarily sleazy or at
worst actively in league with the devil. This leaves vilification as
the only legitimate reaction. Or so the logic goes...
Richard R. Hershberger
Charles A Lieberman
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
> amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
> auto-pilot?
Although not years any of them were in office.
SoCalMike
"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20030731225351...@mb-m07.aol.com...
and in 2000, nader was the "spoiler"
Adam Smith
> > The FACTS are that GWB won every recount in Florida, including the
> > media sponsored ones.
> >
> > The facts are that elected official the responsibility of making the
> > relevant decisions made them fully in compliance with florida law,
> > which the democrats tried to overturn in the courts.
> >
> > the facts are that the media created the entire problem by reporting
> > floridas polls closed and Gore the winner while the polls in the
> > (predominately conservative and republican) panhandle were still open.
>
> The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
> Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.
As opposed to a decision which would have left Gore the winner? Which
didnt exist, as Bush won the media recounts.
Adam Smith
> >
> > Since when are felonies "petty"?
>
> compared to starting a war? pretty petty.
And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly? It isnt the war
against terrorism, the terrorists started that by killing 3000+
Americans. It isnt the war against afghanistan, the afghans started
that by supporting the terrorists. It isnt the war against Iraq, Iraq
started that by invading Kuwait and then not complying with the terms
of their surrender agreement.
Adam Smith
> << Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subborning
> perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
> abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
> which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
> a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
> (appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
> since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
> another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
> it doesnt look like exactly what it was. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> You are captain of the football team. Your prom date, Suzy Kominsky, the head
> cheerleader, has a very clean reputation, despite being a cheerleader. After
> the dance, she gives you a blowjob, without your even asking.
>
> The next day, you are brought up in front of the entire class, you don't know
> why, and you are grilled about whether you had sex with Suzy Kominsky. Did you
> Score? Huh?
Not relevant. Clinton was questioned as part of Paula Jones sexual
harassament suit, and other sexual conduct is standard evidence in
such suits.
> Well, you could, proper gentlemans kneejerk response, say that really isn't any
> of their business,
Not when Jane Doe has sued you for similar activities in a sexual
harassment suit you don't. It very specifically IS their business.
> but if you do, they say you must be covering up something.
Which he was- a pattern of behavior relevant to a sexual harassment
suit against him.
> Do you say you did not have that private moment, to protect her reputation? Or
> do you tell the truth, because coach says you must, if you want to play in the
> big game?
While I'm under oath, when lying would be a FELONY? I talk.
> You know, some people leave that stuff in grade school, rather than spending
> millions towards some odd end. If she doesn't drown, shes a witch.
Except that adults are expected to obey the law and minors not so
much. Clinton "just lied about sex" because sex was exactly the focus
of the investigation.
Imagine the "he wasn't lying about theft, he lust lied about swiping
stuff" argument.
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> > House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> > you are unable to comprehend.
>
> Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
The "bullshit lie" is that Bush was legitimately elected. You can spin
and lie all you like, but Gore won that election and SCOTUS stole it
from him.
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> Patrick M Geahan <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
>
> Yeah, Clinton was repugnant enough to get a Republican revolution in for
> the next election and that did do the trick.
>
> > low unemployment,
>
> Yup, the ground work laid down by the previous administartions yeailded a
> strong spurt of economic growth for him to be sitting in the white house
> for.
>
> > good work towards peace.
>
> Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
> Taking half measures when they were politically expedient and then no
> follow through, from Somalia to Iraq to Hati to Koscovo: great record
> there.
>
> > None of which you can say about the current president.
>
> That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
> adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
> unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
> status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
> leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
> still majorly improved.
It's official--you're a resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading
> > force, That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the
> > previous adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy.
> > Rising unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of
> > course, the old status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being
> > righted. All in all leagues above the previous administration. Not
> > perfect, to be sure, but still majorly improved.
> Wow. That's absolutely *amazing*. According to you, Bill Clinton did
> *nothing* for eight years but ride on the coattails of previous
> administrations?
Oh, that's not all he did. On the plus side, he did work to eliminate
bias against homosexualti in the military. Of course he went back on his
campaign promis there and only gave us "don't ask, don't tell" which
frankly, suck. On the minus side though, in addidtion to riding on the
coattails of others, he horribly mismanaged the Somalia operation,
expanded Nato into an offensive Axis, worked to curtail civil rights at
home, and worked to expand spending faster than it was already growing.
> That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
> amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
> auto-pilot?
Pretty much; the economy was strong, the cold war was ended, the world
stood on the brink of a possible golden age, all we needed was a strong
foriegn policy to tie it all up... But that never materialized; The US
showed itself to be a paper tiger in Somalia, ecouraging terrorist
attacks; The couuntries of the formeer Soviet Union reached out to us for
help and guidance, and that was messed up, we essentially abandoned them;
NATO was used to attack; US military actions were weak and unfocused; etc.
Things didn't fall apart right away, since there was so much positive
momentum: the Berlin Wall had come down, The Soviet Union Not only fell,
but an abortive coup had been struck down the the people.
It's a matter of lucky timing that Clinton got what he got, But people
insist on giving him the credit anyway.
> That's so amazingly thick-headed that I don't even know where to start.
That they give him the credit? I agree.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <8130079e.0308...@posting.google.com>):
Yes, in fact, the Supreme Court did not make a decision that left
Gore the winner.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Sean Houtman
MOM!! He started it! He looked at me!
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.