The 2006 USA Election!

[Erssa]

Heh....I didn't think clinton supporters would believe any of it, even though there's all these unanswered questions, all those dead bodies. And I'm not a big fan of BushII.....way too liberal for me. But the alternative in the last two presidential elections was not even close to acceptable for any conservative voter, no matter how he felt about Bush.

Look.....clinton was a liar all his life. Sad that some people bought into it....he sure has fooled many people. That Slick Willey.....who never had sex with "that woman".

I guess the reason why we "Clinton supporters" bought all the lies is, that unlike some, we weren't protecting ourselves with tin-foil hats.

[aristide1]

I'm pretty sure you supported the war too when it started, but have changed your views because it's not going as well as planned.

My views changed when it became obvious the facts were all lies. I was actually dumb enough to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

Now terrorism is what the party uses to get votes and make the CEO of Halliburton, president Cheney, and his company, rich.

Bin Laden wants the citizens of the US to run scared. Bush gave him that. He's a puppet for 2 leaders.

[Trip]

William S. Barkley Jr.

I Googled this, what a total waste of time, nothing even remotely related came up. Now feel free to address my list.

Try William S. Buckley Jr. I took a speech class from his brother's school. I'm not a big fan of Buckley. He seems nice, but perhaps not all that bright. I say this only because I've read a few misquotes by him, he allowed in the neocons to National Review, and he originally supported the Iraq War. He changed his mind on the Iraq War before it was popular to do so at least.

EDIT: Nvm, Clinton bodyguard? Wrong Person. I hadn't read the entire thread yet Well this post of mine is now worthless.

[aristide1]

Heh....I didn't think clinton supporters would believe any of it, even though there's all these unanswered questions, all those dead bodies. And I'm not a big fan of BushII.....way too liberal for me. But the alternative in the last two presidential elections was not even close to acceptable for any conservative voter, no matter how he felt about Bush.

Look.....clinton was a liar all his life. Sad that some people bought into it....he sure has fooled many people. That Slick Willey.....who never had sex with "that woman".

I guess the reason why we "Clinton supporters" bought all the lies is, that unlike some, we weren't protecting ourselves with tin-foil hats.

What do you mean just tin foil? Tin foil covered with popcorn! Anyway I find it downright comical that the simpletons of the world that vote the same party all the time or vote on just 1 issue all the time also believe the rest of the world does as well. Like all of humanity is running around with the same horse blinds, the same type of propaganda requirements, that they have. You look at the issues, the accomplishments, the mistakes, to weigh the pros and cons. Then you vote for the possible better outcome, the rest live with their hatred.

[aristide1]

Oh daddy, please come save the party. I messed up and now not only is my fat in the fire, but everybody's fat. Hurry daddy, hurry! All the pork is relying on you! In another month or so, the democrats will invite Bin Laden to dinner and give him a white flag. Hurry daddy! Boo-hoo!

[Beyonder]

Heh....I didn't think clinton supporters would believe any of it, even though there's all these unanswered questions,

1. Actually, I have never voted for a Democratic President in my entire life, and
2. I don't think I would have voted for Clinton either, had I the opportunity. I won't be voting for his wife either, should she be on the ballot in 08'. I did not vote for Al Gore or John Kerry. (although in retrospect, I wish I had voted for Al Gore; I think he's been terribly misrepresented by a number of maloderous sources)

...so it's nice that you think this is some issue of "Dems verses Repubs", but it's not. It's more an issue of accuracy and honesty, two things none of the rumors surrounding Clinton and "murder" have. Realize that you're quoting conspiracy theory (tin-foil hats isn't too far off base), and that you've chosen right-wing nutjobs over three independant investigations, one of which was conducted by an individual who was pretty far from being a Clinton supporter.

If you still want to believe Clinton to be a murderer, so be it.

Look.....clinton was a liar all his life. Sad that some people bought into it....he sure has fooled many people. That Slick Willey.....who never had sex with "that woman".

...and for what it's worth, he was prosecuted for it. You're proposing that he has directly or indirectly murdered dozens of people, yet somehow "slick willey" gets nailed for something like perjury? Doesn't sound so slick to me, if you want my opinion...

[aristide1]

I don't think I would have voted for Clinton either, had I the opportunity. I won't be voting for his wife either

I will never vote for H1-Billary either, but that's based on issues, not party.

H1-Billary should return to AR.

[Trip]

Bluefront, if I was more familiar with Clinton, I'd jump in to defend you.

There are some good books about Clinton that I've been meaning to read but haven't.

3 books come to mind:

Janet Scott Barlow's The Nonpatriotic President

Barr's The Meaning of Is: The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton

Joe Sobran's Hustler: The Clinton Legacy

[aristide1]

Anyway I find it downright comical that the simpletons of the world that vote the same party all the time or vote on just 1 issue all the time also believe the rest of the world does as well.

How is this defendable? Not to mention all the other questions about various issues (in this space time continuum) that remain unaddressed.

But how would a book about his faults be anything other than that? Did someone say or imply he was perfect? That's why we're allowed to vote for the best choice, not limited to voting for 1 party, right?

A party zealot, who sides with his party regardless, doesn't need this book.

But perhaps you should read it and tell us if he's the mass murder he's accused of being right here.

[Erssa]

Anyway I find it downright comical that the simpletons of the world that vote the same party all the time or vote on just 1 issue all the time also believe the rest of the world does as well.

I find it comical too, in a sad kind of way. I have been able to vote in two presidential elections (we have elections every 6 years) and on both times, the candidates I voted have been from different parties (The Centre Party and National Coalition Party). I have never voted on parliamentary elections, because previously there haven't been any candidates I like or then I just haven't cared, I knew my candidate would get elected without my vote, but I didn't want to support the party with my vote. Next year we have parliamentary elections and this time I'm going to vote for yet another party or rather for a person.

Maybe it's the lack of choises that makes most americans so dull and keeps them voting for the same party year after year, or maybe it's lack of criticism. Personally I think it's just the fact that most people are stupid. Stupid as in the words original meaning. In the words of Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

...so it's nice that you think this is some issue of "Dems verses Repubs", but it's not.

Yeah, it's not. That's why I find it funny, that when I "defend" Clinton, I'm thrown into the democrat camp and described as "democrats, socialists, morons", eventhough my political views are much closer to republicans, excluding the religious zealotry and moral superiorism, features so typical for average republican, that I find non-political (moral superiorism is also typical for democrats, it just appears in different form).

I think Clinton did great as a president. It's rediculous that an act of consensual sex between two adults is turned into a big political issue, when it wouldn't have had any effects how the country is run, had it not been brought on the table. The oral sex made him no worse as a president. Maybe worse as a husband, but no worse as a president. I would have lied in the grand jury hearing as well (although technically he didn't lie), because I don't think that matter is or was a any concern of american citizen.

I think this thread has made me realize how practical it is, that politics has been a tabu in conversations here in Finland. It seems to bring out the worst out of people. It seem Americans have two camps, they stand in either one and proclaim it proudly. Here people don't reveal who they vote.

[Bluefront]

The USA political system is divided into two camps....Democrat and Republican. Only rarely is another party elected to anything, and almost never on a national level. So if a person votes for an Independant, for instance, his candidate will almost certainly lose. Then we have the Conservative/Liberal thing......this does not define whether you are a Democrat or Republican in the USA. Although you can say something like More Republicans are Conservative than are Liberal".......or "Republicans have Conservative leanings, more so than Liberal leanings". And the opposite is certainly true.

So just how do you define who you are, with respect to a party affiliation? Depends.....depends on what you consider most important. Keep in mind that if you find a candidate that thinks exactly like you do, he will not win an election if he is not either a Democrat or Republican. And you will never find a candidate that mirrors your own views exactly. So if you want to have any say at all in just who is elected, you must vote for either the Democrat or the Republican. There are a few exceptions to this, but very few.

How you judge a person, when you step into that voting booth? Depends....depends upon your own knowledge of that particular person. And this is a hard one, requiring a conscious, determined effort to separate the truth about a person, from the deceptions. And even if you make this effort, and who has enough time to do so, there is little assurance your final judgment will be correct.

That's why the Democrat/Republican split is so important. If you call yourself a Democrat, and run for office with that label, you are saying a lot about who you are, and how you will do things.....and the opposite is true.

The biggest thing here is the word "Trust". Can I trust this candidate to do what he says he will do? To make this decision you have to go by past performance.....the paper trail we all leave. If you are unaware of a candidate's past performance....you are left with that Democrat/Republican label, since that label at least tells something about a person.

When Clinton ran for president the first time, a major theme of his was a "middle-class" tax cut......something that is of major concern to me. Of course he broke that promise immediately. But I wasn't fooled by his false promises concerning taxes, for several important reasons. He calls himself a Democrat, and democrats in general, always bring higher taxes. And I knew him to be completely untrustworthy, from his past doings in Arkansas, both political and private. So I voted for the Republican who ran against him.....the lesser of two evils, if you will. At least I had a remote chance of being satisfied with the Rebublican candidate......with Clinton I had no chance at all. The next eight years with Clinton as president proved my judgment correct....my taxes went up, the security of the USA went down, and Clinton was exposed on live television, as a total liar.

Next time you vote in the USA, keep all this in mind.....when you might be tempted to vote Democrat.

[aristide1]

If you call yourself a Democrat, and run for office with that label, you are saying a lot about who you are, and how you will do things.....and the opposite is true.

Every group has extremists and moderates, as we have seen right here.

Some deal with reality, some not.

[aristide1]

Maybe it's the lack of choises that makes most americans so dull and keeps them voting for the same party year after year, or maybe it's lack of criticism. Personally I think it's just the fact that most people are stupid. Stupid as in the words original meaning. In the words of Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Like education in America, people seem to think that the teachers or the politicians are now totally responsible, that they can attend personal issues and no longer need to be involved. That's why both politics and education have become a mess in this country. Politicians are like kids in a candy store, sucking up to the lobbyist with the most money. "We The People...." is now "We The Corporations....". The people allowed this to happen.

[Trip]

here, here!

oh and on a side, unless what Bluefront has said is true, I do tend to think Bush worse than Clinton though neither is allowed in my house.

I only meant earlier that I didn't like Clinton and thought people were embracing him too readily as the alternative to Bush when in fact neither is good.

[aristide1]

If I based my "not voting for someone" on the truthfulness of his statements, then I would never vote for anyone.

So much for that piece of wisdom.

[Mar.]

At least one good thing happened for the Senate....the new female Senator from Missouri is real good at making cookies and coffee for those long Senate committee meetings.....

In general, I agree with your first and last paragraphs. So, why do you have to go and prove to us all over again what a charming and intelligent person you are, by making a silly, sexist statement?

I laughed.

[Bluefront]

Well keep laughing, because this new female, Democrat Senator, will be good for nothing else. The first thing she did.....she missed the Freshman-Senator orientation meetings. This is a traditional thing to introduce all new Senators to the whole washington scene. She went on a vacation at a very critical time.

The next thing.....she got assigned to the Senate Committee on Aging, even though she and her husband own a large string of bad nursing homes. Do I smell a conflict of interest here? I thought this new congress was through with all that......

[dago]

The first thing she did.....she missed the Freshman-Senator orientation meetings. [...] She went on a vacation at a very critical time.

Remind me of somebody else ... but who ???

------------
Remember 11/11/1918

[vertigo]

I thought this new congress was through with all that......

You credit them (all) with far too much integrity.

[aristide1]

Well keep laughing, because this new female, Democrat Senator, will be good for nothing else.

The inability to address issues doesn't appear to be confined to them.

She went on a vacation at a very critical time.

She pulled a "Bush?"

[Bluefront]

In case nobody ever told you, doing something stupid because someone else has done it, doesn't get you off the hook. Or as children are told....two wrongs don't make a right.

[aristide1]

In case nobody ever told you, doing something stupid because someone else has done it, doesn't get you off the hook. Or as children are told....two wrongs don't make a right.

You see things that are not present, because I never defended a democrat.

I thank you though sir, for agreeing with me about Bush.

Shall we address the remaining crooks and pedophiles?

[aristide1]

She went on a vacation at a very critical time.

She pulled a "Bush?"

But of course every error has to be taken in regard to severity. Now here a woman missed an initiation meeting, while Bush took what? Two months off between Jan 20, 2001 and Sept 11, 2001? Now let's weigh the impact of those two mistakes, as you so accurately put it.

Of course I'm assuming here that if Bush had paid attention it would have made a difference. Feel free to argue that it would not have. Who's going to stop you?

[Mar.]

She went on a vacation at a very critical time.

She pulled a "Bush?"

But of course every error has to be taken in regard to severity. Now here a woman missed an initiation meeting, while Bush took what? Two months off between Jan 20, 2001 and Sept 11, 2001? Now let's weigh the impact of those two mistakes, as you so accurately put it.

Of course I'm assuming here that if Bush had paid attention it would have made a difference. Feel free to argue that it would not have. Who's going to stop you?

When the status quo is just fine, as it was on most things at the time, there's not as much work for a President to do. Still, I'd agree that he should have been spending more time at work, especially since that time encompasses his first hundred days.

[aristide1]

If it's possible to set aside whatever you think about whatever party you endorse and the viewpoints and language of the writer (which hurts the articles objectivity, but then note the source) and simply address the facts presented, which must be accurate to some reasonable degree (it shouldn't be that hard to find out how many days someone is on vacation a year or how many sessions of congress have actually occurred, as well as prior press stories of fly by night bills already on record) that clearly there is something really wrong with Washington, from head to toe, in ways that have surpassed any and all prior antics.

I'm addressing the "worst congress ever" article in Rolling Stone recently. While being hard to believe (and stomach) I think they have more credibility than any blog.

My viewpoint is totally irrelevant. Have a nice day.

[aristide1]

Lets take another look at the all American party.

[mathias]

( tl;dr )

So how many third party candidates were elected?

[aristide1]

So how many third party candidates were elected?

Not enough, but even with Spitzer I pulled the independant ballot, not the democratic.

You can still send a message.

[Bluefront]

aristide1.....could you please Photo-chop out that picture of Dick Gephardt? That man during all his years in congress, cost the US taxpayer more dollars than all those other men put together. My fists clench whenever his name is mentioned......typical Democrat.

[aristide1]

So the rest are fine with you. What does that say?

Gee, you know I didn't realize blue scum is different than red scum.

I just figured scum is scum.

By the way, just how much glass is in that house you live in?