Hmm, if one doesn't agree or disagree with everything but does care how do they vote?
Yep, even being a strong Republican doesn't mean I'm going to blindly agree with Bush on everything. He's made some errors that offend conservatives as much as liberals. But most presidents do.
Now, if we could only have Reagan back... WooHoo!!
Now, if we could only have Reagan back... WooHoo!!
You said it!!!
I am so glad that I grew up while Reagan was president. It was a very proud time to be an American. From what I have heard, he had so much respect for the Oval Office, that he wouldn't remove his suit jacket in the room. Then we got Clinton, who would cheat on his wife and stick cigars in unmentionable places in ugly, fat women in the Oval Office. I miss Ronnie!!
he and his cabinet's problem is that they act like they're so above criticism. they refuse to admit realities that everyone sees daily on the news. i, like many other americans, am tired of seeing our guys get shot at, blown up, and disrespected. you'd have to be a complete fool to believe that that country will be in any kind of shape to run itself in the next 5-7 years minimum which means we keep financing this bullshit for the next 5-7 years minimum. it's hell. i've talked to family members that have been over there, and for every soldier they show on tv that says they're 100% behind the president, there's another who is pissed(this is coming from multiple family members and friends who have returned with medals). i don't care how well we pretend we've trained a police force over there. they're weak. the fact of the matter is, we went after the wrong guy. saddam was and could have been controlled the way we had been for a long time. he wasn't, nor will he be the last dictator on the planet to talk shit to the US and defy us. in fact, there are still some running countries today. there's a small problem now though, we don't have the man power to do shit to them. now, like we should have years ago, we ask the rest of the world for help.
look at this iran mess. it can't be blamed on bush, but our ability to handle it can. iran is sandwiched between iraq and afghanistan, and even if we wanted to, there's really nothing we can do about them. i've heard many politicians(elephants and donkeys) say the very same thing. how does a nation as powerful as ours get itself into a predicament like that? also, aside from what saddam did to the ethnicity of people in his country he didn't like, how is he any different than the fool that's running iran or the korean leader? i can't really speak about the iranian guy 'cause he's new, but the korean has no oil. let's be honest, bush, clinton(yeah some of this is his mess too), putin, blair, etc. didn't and don't give a damn about the people of iraq. they care about iraq's energy capabilities. that's fine with me, but it should be stated explicitly. if we're securing that precious premium fuel that my g loves to guzzle we should at least be more efficient about it too. they're still producing considerably less over there than they were when his ass was still in office.
lastly, the next person who says we're better off now than we were before we took saddam out is an idiot. the same threats still exist, and some would argue that there are considerably more than there were before. you still can't stand up the first thirty minutes out of dc and the last thirty in when you're on a plane or the flight gets diverted, that color-coded alert system is still at the same levels it's been at for years, tsa still must search much more extensively than it did in the past. the only difference now is a lot of our military bases are a lot less populated than they were before our buddy bush started to make his push for US history book fame.
-1-
oh yeah, howcome we almost impeached clinton for getting head, but we do nothing to bush and all of his buddies, like cheaney, when they break the rules? look at all of those republican legislators trying to get rid of that money. that's sickening.
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
I am so glad that I grew up while Reagan was president. It was a very proud time to be an American. From what I have heard, he had so much respect for the Oval Office, that he wouldn't remove his suit jacket in the room. Then we got Clinton, who would cheat on his wife and stick cigars in unmentionable places in ugly, fat women in the Oval Office. I miss Ronnie!!
ok. let's be real here. you're human. you've made mistakes in relationships. i'm willing to bet, like most of us here, you've strayed in some form from the person you were with, so trying to make clinton look like the devil for cheating on his wife is stupid. why don't you talk shit about all of your congressmen and senators who took money from that lobbyist? they're such good, honest, and patriotic americans for supporting native american casinos(huge sociological issue. there are big gambling addiction issues within some of those reservations).
anyway, the point of my reply is marital relations and world leadership are in no way shape or form related to eachother.
let's say you're a stockholder in microsoft. bill gates would be kin to bush. what would matter to you more?....bill cheating on his wife or bill deciding that he's going to trash the latest version of windows and stick with xp for the next five years? what would be more detrimental to the bottom line, the health of your stock, and the health of microsoft? easy answer. he can cheat on his wife all he wants, but if the stock plummets, your portfolio dies, the people that work for him lose their jobs, and microsoft loses a good amount of market share. i could give a damn about reagan's leave it to beaver ideologies. they don't fit into today's world. also, if you believe that reagan was a saint while he was in there, then you're kidding yourself.
who the president is has no bearing on my pride in this country. there has been shadiness within these borders since the country's inception. there are very few people in major leadership positions in this country's past that have been saints. my pride in this country, and the reason why i almost cry when i hear the national anthem at sporting events, is born out of what the flag that we fly supposedly stands for, not the political agendas of leaders past and present. reagan was a figurehead, clinton was a figurehead, and so is bush. money has run this country, like every other one, for a very long time.
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
ok. let's be real here. you're human. you've made mistakes in relationships. i'm willing to bet, like most of us here, you've strayed in some form from the person you were with, so trying to make clinton look like the devil for cheating on his wife is stupid. why don't you talk shit about all of your congressmen and senators who took money from that lobbyist? they're such good, honest, and patriotic americans for supporting native american casinos(huge sociological issue. there are big gambling addiction issues within some of those reservations).
anyway, the point of my reply is marital relations and world leadership are in no way shape or form related to eachother.
let's say you're a stockholder in microsoft. bill gates would be kin to bush. what would matter to you more?....bill cheating on his wife or bill deciding that he's going to trash the latest version of windows and stick with xp for the next five years? what would be more detrimental to the bottom line, the health of your stock, and the health of microsoft? easy answer. he can cheat on his wife all he wants, but if the stock plummets, your portfolio dies, the people that work for him lose their jobs, and microsoft loses a good amount of market share. i could give a damn about reagan's leave it to beaver ideologies. they don't fit into today's world. also, if you believe that reagan was a saint while he was in there, then you're kidding yourself.
who the president is has no bearing on my pride in this country. there has been shadiness within these borders since the country's inception. there are very few people in major leadership positions in this country's past that have been saints. my pride in this country, and the reason why i almost cry when i hear the national anthem at sporting events, is born out of what the flag that we fly supposedly stands for, not the political agendas of leaders past and present. reagan was a figurehead, clinton was a figurehead, and so is bush. money has run this country, like every other one, for a very long time.
I think CK's point was not just the fact that Clinton fooled around, many presidents have. The point is the total lack of respect that Clinton showed for the institution of the Presidency. Reagan understood that the President of the United States of America is not a person, it's an institution that demands the utmost dignity, respect, discretion, and humility. Clinton showed none of those. At some point in his life, Clinton realized he wasn't an actor, or musician, or athlete but he still wanted to be a celebrity. The Presidency was his ticket to that celebrity. Once he earned it, his narcissism made him think that it was all about him and exploited the respect and deference inherent in the institution by using it as a shield when he got himself into scandal after scandal. Reagan, on the other hand, respected it so much that he wouldn't even remove his suitcoat in the ovel office, because he understood that it wasn't about him. The Clintons carried that disrespect all the way to the end when, as they left the White House/Air Force One, they stole furniture, dinnerware, and silverware.
Not trying to speak for you CK, but I think that's the point you were trying to make.
i am? that's interesting. me typing right now is nothing short of a miracle then.
i'm assuming you're talking about the flack i'm about to catch for what i wrote. i don't mind it. i want it. the fact that this thread exists speaks to the wonderful place, aside from the crap that goes on here, america is. however, bush used to live about 6 blocks from where i went to college. i've had plenty of these arguments, so i welcome them.
as for the issues at hand, i don't even see it as a republican vs democrat thing. those lines, in the past, have been flipped around, and now they're so blurred on quite a few major issues, that the distinctions don't mean nearly as much as they used to. my arguments are based on principle and practicality. the government is a huge, multi-faceted corporation with a ceo that likely isn't corrupt, but has shown great and grave dificiencies when it comes to doing his job. i didn't expect much more though. look at what his resume looked like before he became president. he had absolutely no experience in washington. his political and financial base had always been in texas. his only connection was his father. you don't let a high school baseball coach skip from the high school ranks to being the manager of the yankees. true, our alternatives at the time weren't really that hot either. many said bush would bring on a host of competent people that would help him in his decision making thereby aleviating some of the inexperience he had as a national and world leader. YEAH RIGHT! he hired a bunch of yes-men, and the best guy he had left on him 'cause they butted heads so much....
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
I think CK's point was not just the fact that Clinton fooled around, many presidents have. The point is the total lack of respect that Clinton showed for the institution of the Presidency. Reagan understood that the President of the United States of America is not a person, it's an institution that demands the utmost dignity, respect, discretion, and humility. Clinton showed none of those. At some point in his life, Clinton realized he wasn't an actor, or musician, or athlete but he still wanted to be a celebrity. The Presidency was his ticket to that celebrity. Once he earned it, his narcissism made him think that it was all about him and exploited the respect and deference inherent in the institution by using it as a shield when he got himself into scandal after scandal. Reagan, on the other hand, respected it so much that he wouldn't even remove his suitcoat in the ovel office, because he understood that it wasn't about him. The Clintons carried that disrespect all the way to the end when, as they left the White House/Air Force One, they stole furniture, dinnerware, and silverware.
Not trying to speak for you CK, but I think that's the point you were trying to make.
did reagans respect for the white house really make your life any better? did his leaving his coat on increase the quality of your children's education, combat inflation(from what i remember, this was a huge problem of reagans), stop the escalation of the prevelence of crack and gangs in innercities, prevent arms races, etc? hell no. it did none of that. look, i don't care if nancy and ron had the toilets cleaned everytime they took shits 'cause they didn't want streaks on them. that stuff, in the grand scheme of things, means nothing. let's say your kid brings home a report card that's coverd in F's, but all of his conduct marks are excellent. what college is going to take him or her with marks like that? harvard doesn't care how polite your kids is. they do, however, care that one has the grades. clinton's "disrespect," one, was no different than JFK's disrespect(he didn't do a damn thing in office besides get killed and cheat on his wife, but he's a hero?), and two, had no bearing on the quality of life you or i lived during the eight years he was in office. no one sent troops anywhere 'cause bill finished on monica's dress, correct? please tell me why you don't beat up on bush for scandal after scandal? so many try to disassociate him from the shit that's gone on that's linked to him. why? why can't "you" or won't "you" tear him down as much as "you" do clinton?
hmm...can you picture yourself saying, "i'll pay four dollars for this inflatedly priced loaf of bread, but i'll be damned if president x sullies the oval office with the back of his dress shirt."
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
I think CK's point was not just the fact that Clinton fooled around, many presidents have. The point is the total lack of respect that Clinton showed for the institution of the Presidency. Reagan understood that the President of the United States of America is not a person, it's an institution that demands the utmost dignity, respect, discretion, and humility. Clinton showed none of those. At some point in his life, Clinton realized he wasn't an actor, or musician, or athlete but he still wanted to be a celebrity. The Presidency was his ticket to that celebrity. Once he earned it, his narcissism made him think that it was all about him and exploited the respect and deference inherent in the institution by using it as a shield when he got himself into scandal after scandal. Reagan, on the other hand, respected it so much that he wouldn't even remove his suitcoat in the ovel office, because he understood that it wasn't about him. The Clintons carried that disrespect all the way to the end when, as they left the White House/Air Force One, they stole furniture, dinnerware, and silverware.
Not trying to speak for you CK, but I think that's the point you were trying to make.
Thanks Navy. That was exactly the point that I was trying to make. When Reagan was president, we truly had respect for the presidency, partially because Reagan had so much respect for it and partially because we had confidence in the president to do what was right for the country (ending the Cold War, freeing the hostages, etc.).
The Clinton era resulted in a generation of children and young adults who not only no longer had respect for authority or the presidency, but now felt that it was okay to commit adultery while at work and lie about it while under oath. The was okay because he was a victim of the vast "Right-Wing Conspiracy".
Clinton was not impeached because he cheated on his wife. He was impeached because he lied under oath. The presidency is supposed to represent freedom, dignity, justice, and responsibility. At least Clinton got the freedom part right...
let's say your kid brings home a report card that's coverd in F's, but all of his conduct marks are excellent. what college is going to take him or her with marks like that? harvard doesn't care how polite your kids is.
It's not about being polite. It is about morals. I would much rather have a moral person with normal intelligence work for me than have a brilliant ivy-leage educated immoral person. The Clintons had more scandals in the first four years than both Bush presidents will likely have in 12 years combined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTROD03
no one sent troops anywhere 'cause bill finished on monica's dress, correct?
Not exactly correct. During the 18 months that Clinton and Lewinsky had an affair, they had 10 sexual encounters in the Oval Office suite, including one instance in which the President, while engaged in sex, spoke to a Republican member of Congress on the telephone regarding sending U.S. troops to Bosnia. It would have been nice if he would have concentrated on foreign affairs rather than indecent affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTROD03
please tell me why you don't beat up on bush for scandal after scandal? so many try to disassociate him from the shit that's gone on that's linked to him. why? why can't "you" or won't "you" tear him down as much as "you" do clinton?
I am hard on Bush when I think that he isn't doing the right thing. He failed to act on the boarder control problem, is fiscally irresponsible and has yet to not approve spending for anything (as far as I know), and desperately needs public speaking training. That being said, I do support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and feel that these wars and 911 could have been prevented if Clinton would have had the balls to respond to the numerous terrist acts against the U.S. while he was president (WTC, USS Cole, U.S. barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). It's about time that somebody finally fought back against these bastards.
ok. let's be real here. you're human. you've made mistakes in relationships. i'm willing to bet, like most of us here, you've strayed in some form from the person you were with, so trying to make clinton look like the devil for cheating on his wife is stupid.
I never even came close to cheating on my wife, Thank You...and never will. My morals and self-respect are very important to me and I live my life in the best way that I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTROD03
let's say you're a stockholder in microsoft. bill gates would be kin to bush. what would matter to you more?....bill cheating on his wife or bill deciding that he's going to trash the latest version of windows and stick with xp for the next five years? what would be more detrimental to the bottom line, the health of your stock, and the health of microsoft? easy answer. he can cheat on his wife all he wants, but if the stock plummets, your portfolio dies, the people that work for him lose their jobs, and microsoft loses a good amount of market share.
If you think that Microsoft's market share wouldn't lose a considerable amount of value if Bill Gates lied to a grand jury, then you are sadly mistaken. He would probably be removed from the company by the stockholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTROD03
who the president is has no bearing on my pride in this country. there has been shadiness within these borders since the country's inception. there are very few people in major leadership positions in this country's past that have been saints. my pride in this country, and the reason why i almost cry when i hear the national anthem at sporting events, is born out of what the flag that we fly supposedly stands for, not the political agendas of leaders past and present. reagan was a figurehead, clinton was a figurehead, and so is bush. money has run this country, like every other one, for a very long time.
I share your pride in our country and certainly appreciate where you are coming from. I don't need a saint to be president. I need someone who will act in the best interests of the country, not only for now, but for years to come. Reagan did it and GW Bush is doing it now in some ways, but Clinton failed to protect this country in the future as GH Bush did in not finishing the job in Iraq.
i wasn't trying to say you've cheated on your current wife. hell, i haven't cheated on my current girlfriend. i have, however, done it in the past. the president is a human. humans do instinctively human things.
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
i wasn't trying to say you've cheated on your current wife. hell, i haven't cheated on my current girlfriend. i have, however, done it in the past. the president is a human. humans do instinctively human things.
yet we should critique every move that bush makes, correct?
at least the war in iraq will be finished. what about clinton and his issues in somalia?? explain to me what the hell that was all about?!?!? he put in our finest men into something we had no business being in the first place... then when we RETREAT for no damn reason, so what about the tens of american soldiers that died there??? their lives had no purpose?? they died fighting a cause that clinton then found to not be worth it???
__________________
Last edited by SmokeG305 : 01-22-2006 at 05:46 PM.
Bush Administration
