+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Shut the [] up Hillary! (/thread-220060.html)
Pages: 1 2
- Emme Effing Herd fan - 12-06-2003 01:11 PM
"This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it." - Hillary Clinton
Was she in a crack induced stupor during the Carter years?
Just another commie liberal with an agenda against "W".
- Wryword2 - 12-06-2003 05:56 PM
Worse than when Lyndon Johnson left? Worse than when Jimmy "Lust" Carter left it? Hillary! has a short and very selective memory, but that is probably understandable given what she has had to do about Billy's bimbo eruptions and billing records at the Rose law firm, not to speak of her friend Vincent's murder/suicide.
I wonder if Billy was right when he claimed that Hillary! had had more p___ than he had had. She's probably forgotten.
- Tulsaman - 12-06-2003 07:03 PM
look up the word liberal in the dictionary then look up conservative in the dictionary then watch how they each act.
Their just the opposite of each other.
The Liberals in politics act like conservatives.
And the Conservatives act like Liberals.
funny ain't it.
- KlutzDio I - 12-08-2003 09:58 AM
Yeah, but if you blame Carter then perhaps some of his shortcomings ought to be blamed on the president that preceded him--Gerald Ford!
Ford's programs were not passed in Congress and he did an ineffectual job of dealing with the economic woes this nation faced. Basically, Congress nor the press recognized him as an elected president. Ford got nothing done then handed a deplorable economy to the Carter administration.
It is so easy to blame Presidents and their predecessors but really, any blame on the state of the nation should like squarely on the voters' backs!!!!! After all, we are a government, "by the people and for the people."
- georgia_tech_swagger - 12-08-2003 05:52 PM
Hillary Clinton: Yet another reason to be libertarian.
- JoltinJacket - 12-08-2003 06:16 PM
![[Image: hillary.gif]](http://binrock.net/cowgod/crap/boards/hillary.gif)
- joebordenrebel - 12-08-2003 07:08 PM
Did Slick Willy leave with a record-setting budget defecit? Help me. I'm trying to remember. . . :roflol:
Ole King George is a fiscal geneus!
- T-Monay820 - 12-08-2003 07:45 PM
KlutzDio I Wrote:Yeah, but if you blame Carter then perhaps some of his shortcomings ought to be blamed on the president that preceded him--Gerald Ford!Carter did more than the economy. Try getting 66 hostages captured and losing 8 service men due to a botched plan by Carter to get them out? Note it wasn't till Reagan was inaugurated that they released the prisoners, cause they knew Reagan wouldn't take no BS from them.
Ford's programs were not passed in Congress and he did an ineffectual job of dealing with the economic woes this nation faced. Basically, Congress nor the press recognized him as an elected president. Ford got nothing done then handed a deplorable economy to the Carter administration.
It is so easy to blame Presidents and their predecessors but really, any blame on the state of the nation should like squarely on the voters' backs!!!!! After all, we are a government, "by the people and for the people."
Here's more:
Jimmy Carter: Unsuccessful President
by Neil Reedy
The thing about politics is that it is often very difficult to objectively decide who is right and who is wrong. Looking at the economic boom of the 1990s, for example, Republicans take credit for having control of the Congress which has the power of the purse, Democrats take credit for having he White House which usually takes credit or blame when the economy changes. But one thing I thought could be agreed upon was that Jimmy Carter
- T-Monay820 - 12-08-2003 07:45 PM
joebordenrebel Wrote:Slick WillyIs this suppose to be a compliment?
- Wryword - 12-08-2003 08:18 PM
That article reminds one of the continuing damage that fool Carter continues to cause. If he has recognized the lust in his heart, he has failed to see the greater sin of pride that resides in him. Everything he has done since his presidency has been designed to win the Nobel prize, which he finally received. But see how he cost us with North Korea, and see what the fool has advocated over the years. Democrats should have stuffed a rag in that fool's mouth years ago.
- joebordenrebel - 12-09-2003 10:10 AM
T-Monay820 Wrote:So, when you can't make a point, you just jump to another topic? Is that the way you argue?joebordenrebel Wrote:Slick WillyIs this suppose to be a compliment?
How's that campaign against France coming, Sparky?
- KlutzDio I - 12-09-2003 03:06 PM
Carter did the best job possible considering what he was facing when he took office. Studying his presidency and the late seventies and eighties in general, I've deduced that many presidents had many shortcomings, not just Jimmy Carter. Perhaps the man was just too moralistic to be an evil politician.
So many people blame Carter for the hostages, but he didn't detain them, the Iranians did and they were doing so in protest of our foreign policies regarding their country.
I think in some of Wry's and Rick's posts, I can firmly determine what they enjoy and they really like it when we kick arse. They like to see us display our military might. Why is that, y'all?
Anyway, Johnson was the worst president that I have studied and George W. Bush has succeeded him on that distinction. Carter was unfit for the presidency based on moral inventory, as I previously stated. While people like Bush (Jr.) and Clinton have absolutely no ethical fortitude, Carter had too much. Reagan had his problems, namely circumventing a federal law here and there, but hey, Nixon did the same thing. H.W. Bush was basically out of touch with the electorate, but no one seems to remember that. H.W. Bush could have taken that Iraqi oil 13 years ago, but he failed in that endeavor. No one seems truly upset about that.
It just perplexes me that so many people, conservatives and democrats alike, love to remember what a failure Carter was but they will not remember the shortcomings of other U.S. presidents. Why?
One thing here, Carter might have been a suck-arse president, but I know folks who got rich off of the skyrocketing interest rates of the late 1970s. I also know some Republicans that refer to the Carter years as a "golden age" in reference to those rates and inflation.
Lastly, like I said in an above post, we can't really blame presidents (except when they wage unnecessary wars), we must blame voters, or ourselves, for the predicaments we elect!
- T-Monay820 - 12-09-2003 06:47 PM
joebordenrebel Wrote:So, when you can't make a point, you just jump to another topic? Is that the way you argue?:stupid:
How's that campaign against France coming, Sparky?
[quote]Carter did more than the economy. Try getting 66 hostages captured and losing 8 service men due to a botched plan by Carter to get them out? Note it wasn't till Reagan was inaugurated that they released the prisoners, cause they knew Reagan wouldn't take no BS from them.
Here's more:
Jimmy Carter: Unsuccessful President
by Neil Reedy
The thing about politics is that it is often very difficult to objectively decide who is right and who is wrong. Looking at the economic boom of the 1990s, for example, Republicans take credit for having control of the Congress which has the power of the purse, Democrats take credit for having he White House which usually takes credit or blame when the economy changes. But one thing I thought could be agreed upon was that Jimmy Carter
- -Xavier- - 12-09-2003 07:10 PM
T-Monay.. Your signature confuses me..
You say dictators suck yet you're for Bush? Hm..
- Wryword - 12-09-2003 08:09 PM
Bush a dictator?!
Don't suppose you'd care to back that up with evidence.
Once again, y'all, sloganeering and ad hominem attacks aren't argument. In fact, they are worse than the lack of an argument. They use of such suggests that there is no substantive argument.
- T-Monay820 - 12-09-2003 09:50 PM
-Xavier- Wrote:T-Monay.. Your signature confuses me..:stupid:
You say dictators suck yet you're for Bush? Hm..
- KlutzDio I - 12-09-2003 10:23 PM
Wryword Wrote:Bush a dictator?!Conservatives are guilty of the same thing, Wry. Ever heard the term "liberal" media. That is an ad hominem. I can see Sean Hannity throwing his hands up, exclaiming, "They're liberals!" What he means is, "they're arseholes, or they're jerks, or they're anti-American."
Don't suppose you'd care to back that up with evidence.
Once again, y'all, sloganeering and ad hominem attacks aren't argument. In fact, they are worse than the lack of an argument. They use of such suggests that there is no substantive argument.
Liberal today is an insult, or it is used as an insult.
On the substantive portion of your post, I don't think GW is a dictator, just an ineffectual politician who is influenced more by special interest than the electorate. For that reason he is a poor president. And, since I'm responding to you, I'm assuming I don't have to get into the whole spending issue with GW!
- Wryword - 12-09-2003 10:45 PM
Point taken with Bush II's spending program. While I think I know why he is doing this, I despise the fact that he is.
Point taken with the mere statement "liberal" or "progressive". That is not an argument.
And so the real point is... they are all corrupt bastards. But there is a reason they subsist, and that reason is with the mob we call "citizens".
The genuine, serious concern should be that Repubs and Demos are scared shitless of debating issues on their merits, taking firm, certain positions, and defending them in terms of (1) the authority of government to do most of what it is doing; and (2) the wisdom of what they are doing and want to do.
Now this disasterous state of affairs is unfortunately understandable. With most people here now being functional illiterates, people who take their ideas from celebrities and song lyrics, we are living in a civiliation that simply is not capable of or even understanding of "government by the governed". The whole issue now seems to be what can the government treasury pay you? And, does the government guarantee you the right to an abortion, a job, health insurance, disaster relief and so on?
Government is not our ****ing guardian angel, but it effectively has been held to that standard. What you don't clearly understand is that there are some who will be glad to guarantee you all of this (after a fashion), if only you will trade in your right to make many choices for yourselve. I am disgusted with how the American people have been turned into wards of the government, helpless, impotent things who can only "trust" government,while at the same time demanding more and more "services" from it.
You younger guys are going to see the day when all of this ripens. I will certainly be, God willing, among the Grateful Dead at that time.
- KlutzDio I - 12-09-2003 10:56 PM
It is all in the Republic by Plato.
Representative government doesn't work because the reps spend all of their time vying for reelection. The public is then bombarded with so many truth claims that no one knows what really is and really is not. A form of sophistry develops and cripples the society. The same scenario has been playing out in governments all over the world spanning many different people and many different eras.
Plato was freaking genius, man.
One problem with our society today is that our kids are not educated properly as you allude to in your post. Our kids should be taught basic logic early on and that way they will have the proper tools to think clearly before casting that vote or buying that CD simply because all the other kids are listening to the same CD. WE need to nurture a society of thinkers but representatives and other gov. officials certainly don't want that.
Speaking of the me, me, me cries to the gov. You should have added the phenomenon of the filthy rich crying for tax cuts. Basically they are saying, "I don't want to do my share. I want our Marines to bomb country X, but I don't want to pay taxes. Screw that Marine, he/she can live without combat pay!"
- joebordenrebel - 12-10-2003 02:04 PM
T-Monay820 Wrote:So now you're not even attempting to construct an argument. You restrict your responses to one-click insults.joebordenrebel Wrote:So, when you can't make a point, you just jump to another topic? Is that the way you argue?:stupid:
How's that campaign against France coming, Sparky?
Quote:Don't suppose you'd care to back that up with evidence.
Once again, y'all, sloganeering and ad hominem attacks aren't argument. In fact, they are worse than the lack of an argument. They use of such suggests that there is no substantive argument.
Awww, ain't that sweet? Thanks for proving Wry's point!
Anyway, I'll assume you think Slick Willy was a fiscally responsible president if somewhat questionable husband/father. . .I'd certainly rather have the prez bedding interns than screwing the entire country.
I'll back that up with a "substantive argument" when you stop sticking out your tongue and gainsaying my posts, precious. :roflol: