Batman, No offense taken. We just don't see eye to eye on this (do we see eye to eye on much of anything other than Bob Dylan and the Rockets, lol ). I feel that, and yes it is conjecture on my part, that Hillary's personality will come across just as bad or even worse than Dubya's with other countries. And really truly do I mean this, but I am not a staunch, die-hard conservative. It is true that I do probably lean more toward the conservative side than the other, and it is also true that I sincerely believe that this country is woefully behind in electing a woman president as well as a minority president. But my God, why does it have to be Hillary? Why can't it be someone who is unsmug ?
That very well may be, but not all of us willfully ignore evidence that our side might be wrong. I'm not saying ima always does that, but he's definitely doing it here.
Manny, Cool. A lot of people feel the way you do about Hillary. Obviously. Personality is a big deal. Even if I didn't disagree with pretty much every single terrible thing Bush has done as president, I'd still want nothing more than to punch him in the head to wipe the (smug) smirk off his dumb, dumb face. I wanted to do the same thing to Bill Clinton, purely based on his personality. I never could have imagined missing him this much as president. But people in other countries are far less concerned with the personality of our president than they are with policy. They are directly effected when we launch a pre-emptive, illegal war or pull out of Kyoto. And they would gladly trade Bush for the world's biggest ******* as long as he or she didn't lead so arrogantly and, more importantly, dangerously. Pat Buchanan might (MIGHT) be worse for world opinion, but not Hillary. The world didn't hate the first Bush anywhere near the way they hate this one. And that's not just a state of the world now thing. Daddy Bush understood the importance of maintaining friendly relations. Kid Bush likes nothing better than to thumb his nose at them. I'm glad we can agree on Dylan and the Rockets. Who do you think they'll be voting for in the coming election? Here's a hint: not the person who received less votes for president in 2000.
Just out of curiosity, who was the last President that you didn't have a deep hatred for, Batman? Bush = hate Clinton = hate Bush = hate Reagan = hate Was it the peanut farmer?
Well, Bob seems pretty far out there, so I see him voting for some 3rd party candidate that is also out there that is unknown to 99% of the population. As for the Rockets team: you mean they knew that they had to register to vote?
Dylan's not as far out there as he has been. And he had kind words for Paul Wellstone when he played in Minnesota. At any rate, it's a sure thing he's a lefty. I'm sure you're right about the Rockets, but I'm equally sure most of them lean left. Barkley didn't, though. He, along with McCain, Kemp and Lugar, is one of my favorite Republicans. Jorge, you've pretty much lost the privilege of my response, but I'll give you this one. Yes, it was the peanut farmer.
Maybe my fault. When reading the original post that started all this, I was really just talking about the "curtailing of civil liberties" part. I'm looking for a specific example, as opposed to just the patriot act. Not trying to be cute (I don't need to try ), just wondering. While I personally don't believe the administration is "hiding" information from the public, I can see how some people might think that given that Bush only has a press conference about once every 6 months. Yes, I'm a moderate conservative and I voted for Bush, but I don't blindly follow anyone just because of the letter they have next to their name on the ballot. I lurk (and occasionally post, to get my feet wet) in this forum every day because I like to hear both sides, even if I disagree with one side. As it stands now, I will probably vote for Bush again, but I need to see him be more forthright with the American public.
Let's begin with the original Patriot Act. If I recall, it was passed by a margin of 99-1 in the Senate. Hmmm. I wonder if any Democrats voted for it? Let's begin with a look at those of us who travel for business or pleasure. Personally, I am happy there is an orchestrated search for the instruments of my destruction -- even though I have to travel looking like a bum with sandals, Thank Goodness, the Good Lord judges us on our souls rather than our soles. Oops, sorry if I offended the atheists out there. Our courts won't allow that, although all the above are not offended enough to forego spending any coin or bill that says, "In God We Trust." Some say that the language of these laws, Patriot I and II, are too extreme and could easily be abused. Believe me, every law on the books can (and has been) abused. However, there are lots of checks and balances and a free press to cite injustices. (Yes, I rail at my former colleagues but the principle of a free press is one of America's most redeeming qualities). Just as an example, I successfully fought the IRS for 15 years over $12,000 I didn't owe. Sometimes you have to stand up for your principles. However, I know that laws can be abused. (I wish I could have fallen back on one of the liberal alarm bells on this one -- cotton swab genetic testing that could expose "flawed" people to discrimination by employers.) Come on, I know of few government bureaucrats (especially in the IRS) that wouldn't show genetic deficiencies. Actually, anyone born after 1860 probably would show some genetic deficiency, so how could that be used against anybody? Another example of liberal fear of the Patriot upgrade: authorities could snoop on your internet doings for 15 whole days without a court order. Consider this: what are you doing that you must do it in secret (kiddie p*rn?, narcotics trafficking?, blowing up a passenger airplane or train?). Hmmmm. For 15 days without a court order. If President Bush wasn't acting to keep us safe, who would be hollering the loudest? Granted, I wish we would have chosen Marc Racicot of Montana instead of John Ashcroft for Attorney General, but no one asked me. As it is, I am still glad they are doing something rather than do like Hillary -- wringing her hands and trying to find someone other than the terrorists to blame. Oh, yes, we could deport people likely to be blowing us up in our buildings and transportation centers. Somehow, that appeals to me. I very seriously doubt we would use this law to deport all the Alec Baldwins of the country -- even though he said he would leave but couldn't abandon all those little "In God We Trusts." The Victory Act has much of the same flavor only it applies to narco terror, and everybody (well, maybe not Rocketman Tex ) knows the dangers the nation faces in this regard. Only people with something to hide are afraid of this law, although there are some passages I would clarify to more closely define procedures for surveillance. What law is perfect? Let's look at "suppressing EPA air quality information." There's a hoot. There's not even any conclusions that the air quality is good or bad -- except that it smells like New York (for good or ill). Nothing is known; ergo, no conclusions can be suppressed. According to the EPA, "the answers... may not be known for years to come." This is really going to make Hilly look foolish. She assumes a cover-up because, after all, that was the Clinton modus operandi for years. Does anybody know if we have global warming or cooling? I've read lots of environmental studies that definitively conclude one or the other. OMG, none of this global warming (or cooling) was going on in the Clinton Administration! Sure. This problem started in January 2001 as a plot against the world. We are still keeping a 9-11 investigation from even taking place. What?!!!? You just accused Bush of random acts of despotism for trying to solve problems pinpointed in the in 9-11 investigation. For Heaven's sake (there I go again), you can't have it both ways. I'm not going to dignify this assertion any further. Hiding information? Has there been an American President starting with George Washington who has not withheld information from the public. When we as a nation elect a President, regardless of by how many popular or electoral votes, we expect him to do the job we elected him to do. How effective would a President be if he emailed everything he knew to everybody in the country? Yes, I am taking that allegation to the extreme just to show you how ridiculous it is. We probably know where the skeletons of the Mideast are buried (have you ever played any card games involving trump?), but we save them for when we need them for the greater good of our country -- not France, not Germany, not Japan ... our country. The marionette gig is silly -- you can make that argument for every man, woman and child in the U.S. We all get our strings pulled by somebody. Fortunately, George Bush's strings are pulled by the American public and not by somebody in the Mideast, Europe or Asia. If there are typos and stuff, please forgive. I just got in and pounded this out as quickly as I could. Forgot to log out of my wife's personna. I don't want ya'll to be mad at her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1118-2003Aug29?language=printer Sen. Clinton Dismisses 2004 Speculation By MARC HUMBERT The Associated Press Friday, August 29, 2003; 5:15 PM ALBANY, N.Y. - A drop in President Bush's poll numbers has increased speculation about New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton jumping into the 2004 Democratic presidential race - a notion the former first lady rejected Friday. "I am absolutely ruling it out," Clinton said during a visit to the New York State Fair in Syracuse, N.Y. She had insisted in recent months that she will not consider entering the race for president this year even if that is what some Democrats want. Fueling the speculation has been talk of a fall visit to Iowa, site of the nomination's kickoff caucuses Jan. 19, but no confirmation yet from her staff on whether Clinton will go. A meeting of her fund-raising team next month is expected to include at least some discussion of presidential politics - more likely the 2008 race, according to some familiar with planning for the session. And, there is her own campaign Web site, which includes a section called "Hill Notes" - a sampling of supportive e-mail messages assembled by her staff. On a recent day, seven of the first 10 messages urged a presidential run, or alluded to the possibility. "Please run for president in 2004. We need you," pleaded one from "Josh B." On Friday, the Web site contained similar messages including one from "Kim C." that read: "I would love nothing more than to see you in the White House - the sooner the better ... Go get 'em, girl!" Asked about the messages Friday, Patti Solis Doyle, executive director of HILLPAC, Clinton's political action committee, said: "We receive many e-mails in a day, Friends of Hillary posts two or three a day." Clinton has the celebrity and the fund-raising prowess to overwhelm the crowded Democratic field of nine candidates, even late in the campaign. She has not ruled out a run in 2008. Friends and advisers maintain that she has no interest in 2004. Calling the speculation "unfounded," Harold Ickes, a top political adviser and former White House deputy chief of staff, said simply, "She ain't going to run." A spokesman for the former first lady also sought to dampen the talk, at least for 2004. "Senator Clinton has repeatedly said that she will serve out her full, six-year term," said Philippe Reines. Not everyone is convinced. "To the extent that Bush's numbers go down - and they've been going down - her consideration of 2004 has to go up," said Maurice Carroll, head of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. A 2004 Democratic victory by another candidate would likely delay any Clinton run for the White House until 2012, when she should be 65 years old. Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic strategist who worked on former President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, said that while there will be pressure on her to run, she probably won't because Bush does not look beatable, at least not now. "There are those in the party who might like to see her go, so she can get knocked off (by Bush), opening up a different field in 2008," Sheinkopf said. "She is the big bear in the woods, and so long as she's in the way, anybody who wants to run (in 2008) can't consider it."
