Gary Kendrick <kendrickgary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:C3E0AC79.5979%kendrickgary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 2/19/08 12:03 PM, in article 13rm2uahgnf55a0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "T.J. Higgins" <ernest.p.worrell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> In article <C3E06BA9.22DDE%kw4z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Gary KW4Z wrote:
>>> To continue to be a functional country
>>> we can't have our government fractured to the point of anarchy which
>>> is close to what some seemingly want by their venomous hatred of
>>> President Bush not seen to such a degree since even the Nixon era.
>>
>> You have conveniently forgotten the 8-year campaign of
>> "venomous hatred" that the righties conducted against
>> Clinton.
>
>
> No I didn't forget about it, I do acknowledge that many, on the right,
> did just that, after all there was an impeachment initiative, and we
> have that going on almost any administration but like with Nixon,
> Reagan, it's old news and I was trying, all be it maybe failingly so,
> to shorten the response.
>
> I don't though, even back to Nixon (who justly deserved and earned
> much of his), or any president in my memory feel that such a level of
> hatred and animosity has characterized a congress, media, or political
> party as the George Bush administration has invoked and received.
> Could be due to the election of 2000 where the popular vote was
> against Bush yet he won because of the electoral college leaving many
> to feel the Republicans stole the election. Maybe it's because it was
> his administration that started an now unpopular war with Iraq that
> was based upon what later was discovered and proven to be bad
> intelligence yet a great number of Democrats were also taken in by
> that same intelligence and voted to allow the war to proceed. Sadam
> was partly responsible for that very bad intelligence as he wanted
> Iran, and others, to think he possessed those weapons so there was
> justification for some people in the intelligence community to
> actually think he did have them. The "if it quacks like a duck, walks
> like a duck, etc argument)
>
> I'm not trying to justify the Bush Administration or President Bush
> himself but with a lot of the criticism that his administration, and
> the Republicans, deserve there is some that is not recognized such as
> his administration, President Bush, put far more minorities in high
> level positions than Clinton's or Carter's ever did yet the Democrats
> try to paint Republicans constantly as racist. They often use the
> Katrina response as an indicator yet I don't think Katrina revealed a
> bias as much as it did an inept Government's ability to respond to
> such a level of disaster partly account people put friends and big
> donors into positions of authority that never should have been there.
> Republicans & Democrats have their biased people and faults and have
> their heroes as well. Contrast the response from the Louisiana
> Governor to that of the Mississippi Governor to the same disaster,
> putting aside the federal Government's response which was bad across
> the board, equally bad in Louisiana as it was in Mississippi but the
> difference was in the State and Local Government's as well as the
> people in those area's response to the storm. New Orleans was more
> highlighted due to a more profound local and state failure to act and
> failure to plan. It's the same inept government response that happens
> in Florida, South & North Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi storms and
> disasters but the difference was in the Local and Sate people not the
> Government and even worse that that the attempt to place it solely on
> one person, the President. The Buck does stop there, in his office,
> and it was Him or his people that placed the inept people, like Mr.
> Brown, in a position that they never should have been in. In my
> opinion Bush's biggest failure, after the event, was to go down to the
> scene and pronounce that Brown was "doing a good job" when everything
> to the contrary was blaringly obvious. Sorry I'm off the point again.
>
> Unlike the Rightwing talk radio circuit who like to constantly go back
> and resurrect the Clinton administration, to bash it, (maybe because
> Hillary is on the current menu) I cared not to address but the current
> administration but I do agree with you I did leave that out.
>
>
Gary my friend, you are all over the place, denying you are a Republican
when your posts prove beyond a doubt that you agree with their big
business policies which have gotten us back to the same mess Reagan left
the country in. Republicans had the audacity to try and blame the huge
deficit left by Reagan on Clinton. Then you voiced sup****t for Hillary
which is totally 180 out. I don't think you know what you are.
I am an independent who doesn't have any allegiance to either of these
bankrupt lobby driven parties.
My dislike for the Republican and those who sup****t it blindly is this,
they see no problem with wealthy cor****ations stealing us blind, they
make excuses for every thief and criminal who agrees with their
philosophy.
Democrats also do some of this but on a much smaller scale.
I am consistent on my criticism of crooks and that will never change.
If all the Republican *** offenders in congress who were making
statements on the floor of congress against these terrible perverts and
then got caught doing these *** acts and it didn't bring one comment from
most of the holier than thou Republicans and their right wing Christian
coalition lackeys.
If you sup****t hypocrisy in politics or any other endeavor, don't
complain when I or anyone else calls you on it.
|
