not since Harding

by teejay 104 Replies latest jw friends

larc

teejay, my son,
Discussions like this have a way of meandering. Your original charge, re: Harding versus Bush was thoroughly discussed and then other subjects were brought up including your assertion that Clinton was one of our greatest presidents. I am sorry for asking for an explaination for your rationale. It was wrong of me. I also apologize for introducing facts about NAFTA which was clearly a Republican idea which ended up hurting the American work force. I also want to apologize for comparing the Family Leave Act with more important legislation, because obviously Clinton cares and Bush Senior didn't. Bush Senior must have had ulterior motives. Furthermore, I aplogized for saying that Truman was a great president. After all, our kind of people don't do that.
I would like to give a quote from today's newspaper from George F. Will, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist with the Washington Post Writer's Group regarding our great president Bill Clinton, and his stance towards world conflict.
"Many U.S. actions in the 1990's may have convinced watching enemies that this nation is pathologically unrealistic and risk-adverse to the point of paralysis. A secretary of State, Warren Christopher, visited Syria, a terrorist haven, 24 times in four years. (He visited China only twice in four years). This diplomatic groveling was done in the bizarre hope that Syria, a sponsor of terrorism, would be cooperative regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Arafat, the terrorist whose bloody trail runs back to the murder of U.S. diplomats in Sudan in 1973, was the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House."
PS,
I will tend to my garden. I have convinced my garden that lightning and thundrer can't hurt them, and that I am the author of nursery rymes.
DannyBear

Larc,
***Arafat, the terrorist whose bloody trail runs back to the murder of U.S. diplomats in Sudan in 1973, was the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House."***
Well hell Reverend wouldn't you take a couple of freebie nights in the Lincoln Room, considering that everyone else who did so, had to pony up $50,000 a nite, for same exact room. Lets see how many coffee clutches does it take, to provide a war chest for your wife to run for the senate? Sorry Teej just had to follow up on some larc's mercilous sarcasim. Reverend be nice to our democrat friend, he may go about telling stories about those nasty, mean, republicans....well maybe sometimes eh?
Enjoyed all the discussion fellas, we probably will never agree on our former president William Jefferson Clinton, but it was fun to try.
Danny
larc

teejay,
Why do you put a lable on me and call me a Republican, when I have tryed to be bipartisan and analyze Republicans and Democrats alike. I have tryed to be fair and even handed, and you accuse me of having an opinion. Shame on you.
I have no opinions on anything. However, it sure was fun getting you to express yours. Here are your opinions, young puppy that you are. Democrats are wonderful, always have been, always will be. Republicans are evil. always have been, always will be.
howdee oss mofo
COMF

not since Harding
Oh... Warren. I thought we were going to talk about Tonya.
COMF
Farkel

teejay,
: Just about every one of the Founding Fathers was a bigtime boozer, so I can't fault Jr. The problem I have is that he's repeatedly lied about it.
He only sipped it and then spit it out. He didn't inhale it.
IMNSHO, Bill Clinton was the biggest scumbag president we ever had, who also was married to the biggest scumbag First Lady we ever had.
I don't want to debate that point ad nauseum, but that's how I feel.
Read Bob Woodword''s recent book which deals with the office of the Special Prosecutor from President Nixon to Clinton. Woodword has done his homework. I read it several months ago, and will get the title for you, if you wnat.
Farkel
"When in doubt, duck!"
Black Man

Yo...TJ, DB, Larc, Big Boi & Fark:
This has been one of the best threads I've read in a while. Don't have time to post my opinions, but major props on putting together a TIGHT-ASS THREAD.....good reading......
teejay

Larc,
Your original charge, re: Harding versus Bush was thoroughly discussed...
No, I don't believe it was.
On the first page you mentioned some supposed "accomplishments" of dubya. I responded with a blistering rebuttal, backed up with the facts. Above, I mention a couple of others -- one about his military "career" and the other his criminal record. In both cases, on the first page and this one, you have been silent. If your lack of response to just these evidences of the man's lack of qualification counts as agreement, then I guess you are right... it has been "discussed" with you in nodding agreement. So be it.
I am sorry for asking for an explaination for your rationale... for introducing facts about NAFTA ... for comparing the Family Leave Act with more important legislation. Bush Senior must have had ulterior motives.
No need for an apology. You asked for an explanation of my rationale I provided it. You introduced information about NAFTA. No problem. Bush, Sr. had ulterior motives? Okay. If you say so.
... for introducing facts about NAFTA which was clearly a Republican idea which ended up hurting the American work force.
Do you suppose the Republicans knew it would hurt a part of the American workforce? As I mentioned, we have entered a world economy. As sad as it is, Americans will have to adjust. Some will have to take a hit to their standard of living. Education and flexibility will be essential keys that will help workers to fit in with the changing economy.
Locally, there are several companies, a couple in the hi-tech industry (together employing around 5 - 7,000) have either relocated or are in the process of relocating to Mexico in the last five years. Some America-firsters feel that should not have happened. Others see progress. All depends on your world-view. As I said previously, overall I'm in favor of it. Mexico has been impoverished since the days previous to the Alamo. Hate to see anyone loose their job, though.
I would like to give a quote from today's newspaper from George F. Will...
"... this nation is pathologically unrealistic and risk-adverse to the point of paralysis. Warren Christopher visited Syria 24 times in four years. This diplomatic groveling was done in the bizarre hope that Syria, a sponsor of terrorism, would be cooperative regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arafat was the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House."
Good 'ol George Will. <g> "Diplomatic groveling," eh? During other administrations that was called... "diplomacy." Bush's gung-ho, John Wayne, let's go get 'em approach is going to be expensive in more ways than one. He thinks he'll be able to extinguish a fire with a baseball bat. All he's going to do is start a lot of others.
This is where his stupidity, his arrogant appetite to undo all-things-Clinton, is going to cause a lot of hellish misery for a world of people. If he had shown a greater willingness to take the diplomatic approach, one favored by his Secretary of State (and every other president in recent memory, btw) and resisted by the young, hawkish turks surrounding him, it may have made a difference. Instead of taking an antiquated, 1950s America-first, to hell with the rest of the world approach and following Powell's more inclusive, multi-lateral stance (silenced, up 'till now), who knows? As it is, Bush is unstoppable in his aim to write a check that a whole lot of others are gonna hafta cash.
[FYI: Read Time magazine's Sept. 10 (!!) article about Powell. The title? "Odd Man Out -- Colin Powell is a global eminence. Yet on the Bush foreign policy team, his star somehow shines less brightly than expected. Why?"]
Why do you put a lable on me and call me a Republican, when I have tryed to be bipartisan and analyze Republicans and Democrats alike. I have tryed to be fair and even handed, and you accuse me of having an opinion. Shame on you.
Get a grip, Larc. Where did I "accuse you" of having an opinion? On second thought, what's wrong with the accusation? You DO have an opinion, don't you? I give you the right to accuse me of having an opinion any day. There will be no argument.
Here are your opinions, young puppy that you are. Democrats are wonderful, always have been, always will be. Republicans are evil. always have been, always will be.
No, that isn't my opinion and I challenge you to find support for your allegation. What I said was quite simple: Never said "Democrats are wonderful"... only that Clinton did a lot of good for a lot of people.
"Republicans are evil"? Nope, not from these lips ... only that Bush is an idiot, totally unqualified for the position he holds over the Free World (and without rebuttal of any kind from you or anyone else -- just a lot of Clinton-bashing). Furthermore, having a President who is also stupid is going to cost all of us a ton of pain and suffering.
peace
tj
_________________________________________________
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than
sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin L. King, Jr.
bigboi

Black MAn:
Thanks for the compliment bro. You must have a real life. Where in the hell you been?!! Anyways, nice to see ya still steppin in every now and then. This was a tight thread. I wish I had more time to contribute to it.
Teejay,
You said:
Good 'ol George Will. <g> "Diplomatic groveling," eh? During other administrations that was called... "diplomacy." Bush's gung-ho, John Wayne, let's go get 'em approach is going to be expensive in more ways than one. He thinks he'll be able to extinguish a fire with a baseball bat. All he's going to do is start a lot of others.
This is where his stupidity, his arrogant appetite to undo all-things-Clinton, is going to cause a lot of hellish misery for a world of people. If he had shown a greater willingness to take the diplomatic approach, one favored by his Secretary of State (and every other president in recent memory, btw) and resisted by the young, hawkish turks surrounding him, it may have made a difference. Instead of taking an antiquated, 1950s America-first, to hell with the rest of the world approach and following Powell's more inclusive, multi-lateral stance (silenced, up 'till now), who knows? As it is, Bush is unstoppable in his aim to write a check that a whole lot of others are gonna hafta cash.
You make a good point here. I didn't think that Clinton's diplomacy was grovelling in any sense of the word. I think that his efforts to resolve the conflict in Palestine was admirable. We really don't know for sure, but maybe if Bush hadn't taken the stand on the Middle east that he has then maybe, just maybe September 11 would've been just another day. We can never know for sure though.
ONE.....
Black Man

Wassup Big Boi: Yeah, man I've been mad-busy at work and life lately. It's like the plantation **(sound of whip cracks)**. Anyway, I pop in when I can. Peace to you bruh....
TJ: I agree that Clinton IS one of the most talented and gifted presidents that we have ever had and I think in time peeps will recognize that. What WAS/IS his weakness is his personal judgment. I mean DAYUM, he fucked up seriously on the ethical/moral tip. But if they didn't have term limits there's no doubt he would be PREZ right now. I often wonder how he would have handled this crisis. I am NO fan of George Dubya, but I feel he's done alright during this crisis. It's too early to judge the efficiency of his presidency. I think you need at LEAST 2 years for that. Dubya's presidency is more of a presidency-by-committee type deal to me. While Clinton was outstanding (in my opinion) his overall staff to me didn't blaze any trails. Dubya has a more distinguished and rounded out cabinet. So yeah...he can be somewhat of an idiot but combine the peeps around him, you MAY have the makings of a great PRESIDENCY (not a great president, but a great PRESIDENCY).
Another observation, and don't get me wrong on this. Clinton was one of the most outstanding presidential speakers far surpassing Dubya. But I think Bush is a lot better and way more personable one-on-one. I think back to the congregation setting with a body of elders and you would have some that were outstanding in charisma and speaking, and then you would have one that wasn't so great but was awesome one-on-one in showing compassion, sympathy and understanding no matter how crude it may have come out. I think Dubya may be like that. Peeps that Bush has worked with as Governor and etc., just gush over the man. That's gotta say something.
I think use his name to get where he's gotten, but who hasn't? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Now 2 years and 20,000 butchered english words later, my opinion may change. I don't have time to get into detailed accomplishments and failures of the two, but those are my casual observations.
Francois

The MOST ill-qualified? Are you forgetting Jimmy Carter and that boob from Mass. that ran against Regan, what was his name again? He DID look good riding in that tank.

not since Harding

Share this