On 2/21/08 11:41 AM, in article Xns9A4B6CCB55740bat222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"tango" <tango@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
>
Actually, an independent will appear as a Democrat at times and Republican
at other times. Democrats in the 1960's would fit very well into the
Republican party today as Reagan was a Democrat and later a Republican
saying that the Democratic party left his positions. I'm Conservative for
the most part, believe in a strong military, believe in keeping Israel as
an
friend and feel that greed, cor****ate and individual is bankrupting this
country and our political system. I am against a welfare system and feel
that government can't seem to run anything due to bureaucracy and
ineffective employees in positions that can do the most harm but I feel a
strong government has to be in positions of regulation at times to keep
check on industry and others whose greed would put our entire country at
risk but then politicians are just as corrupt as executives in some
cor****ations except their pimps are the lobbies and special interest
groups
such as the Unions, National Education Association, Lawyers,
Pharmaceutical
companies, and the American Medical Association and a host of others whom
you nor I will ever have as much influence or power as. If that's
Republican then I'm a Republican that votes for Democrats from time to
time
or visa versa.
It really doesn't matter what you or I care about or think or if we vote
Democratic or Republican for if the person isn't rich before they get
voted
in then they will be after and they are going to vote for the ones that
buy
their meals, sponsor their trips and have their ear. Most of the public
vote the same way year after year and the crazy thing is Democratic,
Republican they all use the same arguments every time as to why they
should
be elected over the other party and how the exact same things will be
fixed
and done each time yet they never really ever get done or fixed. The
crazy
thing is ordinary folks, like on the NG here argue and get all bent out of
shape a times taking one position or another yet the ones that should be
arguing and doing something are all in bed together and nothing ever gets
done nor will it. Democrat or Republican they all are in it for
themselves
and to get what they can. Notice how much the Clintons are worth today
verses before they got into office? The Bush's were rich before, beyond
what they or anyone else would need and yes take care of their own people
in
the process of it. It's still a better system than Communism but like the
USSR crashed under the burden of attempting to keep up with the US
Military
now it's the US that's spending blindly and who knows how much longer our
own government will last.
Concerning my sup****t for Hillary that is for real. What I like about
Hillary is I feel she is a very smart, intelligent, and devious lady who
could get things done because she could yield the type of power and
influence to get things done, good things if she chose to. As far as a
good
person I don't feel that could be said about her in the least. I feel
she's
a lifetime politician and would kiss the babies, to get a vote and steal
their candy on the way up, if she was hungry. As far as speaking goes
Obama
is the best speaker out of the bunch but Huckabee is the best in my
opinion
because at least he speaks from his heart and own mind and writes his own
speeches from what I can tell. McCain or Hillary I feel would be the most
effective leaders and would hopefully keep our country's military strong.
Regardless where you or anyone else stands or what you believe it's not
worth some of the conflicts that have happened on this Newsgroup or in
other's lives around the country.
In my IDEAL world a truly talented business person that had this countries
interest at heart and could get a hand on congressional spending would run
say as a Federalist or Libertarian and overtake both the Republican and
Democratic candidate but the majority of voters are either so jaded or
blinded by party lines that this person would never really stand a chance
and if they did the media would take that away from them. So you tell me
what hope there is?
|
