America 2004... Politics, demographics, etc.

It looks like I've got myself a lot of typing to do if I want to be understood, straight-up, without a lot of spinning extras tacked on. And it's my experience that it just gets worse. I'm not above doing the same thing. I did a bit on Friday. You may have noticed. A little venomous? Yeah, well bacatcha.

1) So there's this witch hunt, and it turns out he dropped trou and showed Paula Jones his johnson. Then he said he didn't have sex with Monica,,, and "is, is.". And all the oh so saintly themselves Grand High Defenders Of Morality go marching in. I don't know!?!?! The country paid a big big price,,, still is! And the kids.

2) Yes, Evie. I agree that some criticism can encourage the enemy. A lot of care and specificity needs to go into any such. It's not helpful to take a focused statement and zoom-out to make it sound like a sweeping over all principle. It's tragic that there were no WMDs. Don't you think that that is aid and comfort too? And all the snubbing and shunning and arrogance? That's all I'm trying to say.

Yeah, I'm bitter about the impeachment, but when it comes up I let it slide 99 times. I'm not going to make a carrier out of defending Willie C., so with your permision (please) I'm letting go for another 99. I'm not so interested in getting the last word, just stating my opinion. Unilateral withdrawal.

Everybody has put a lot of thought and emotion into their replies to me. A lot of good and true points. Thank you all. There's sure to be another opportunity soon enough.

Happy Magic Show

1. Or he could have respected his oath of office and kept his pants on. You are placing blame for that episode on everyone but the responsible party. Bottom line, he lied in a court of law. You stated he was supposed to lie and seem to believe that the court was a joke.

Tell me Bob, do you think that NOW and Co. would have tolerated even the admission of a consensual affair with an intern, let alone the attempts to smear her as a goo-goo-eyed stalker until "the dress" was uncovered, had he been a Republican? No. His being a Democrat doesn't give him a pass.

He was on the phone with a Congressman discussing sending our troops to Bosnia during one of those BJ's in the Oval Office. That should outrage everyone on so many levels that I find it inconceivable that anyone can yet defend his behavior by blaming Ken Starr and the Republicans.

2. No I don't think the WMD issue is aid and comfort except for the lying Democrats who also believed the very same intelligence and now have conveniently forgotten that in favor of telling the world our President lied. The threat of WMD remains real because we still do not know what happened to all of it. I'm sure Syria is counting on the discord in our country over this issue in their disclosures (or lack thereof) of what was in the trucks that streamed into their country. Iran is emboldened to continue to sponsor insurgents when the political atmosphere is such that Democrats will undoubtably take their side if America decided at this time (as good as any quite frankly) to go into Iran and root out the terrorists they harbor. Snubbing, shunning? I would say France, Germany and Russia did that, for national political and economic interests. Arrogance? Well it is about time we broke with "Old Europe" and their appeasement/containment dogma. That is what brought us 9/11.

Evie

So you feel that the Republicans were pretty much forced to shout about Billy's BJ from the rooftops because he just shouldn't have done it in the first place. - AND - That the Democrats need to shut-up about the fact that none of the stated reasons for going to war have panned out. ???

No WMDs is NOT a big selling point for the terrorists? I don't see how you figure THAT. Oh, you mean IF the Dems will just shut-up, then maybe they'll forget! That part of the world IS noted for their short memories, isn't it? Maybe the war was necessary. It IS a liberation for most Iraqis. Maybe it'll turn out good, but the reasons stated at the beginning was a tragic screw up and it feeds the fire. It was a very high stakes gamble and it came up snake eyes. I don't know what to tell you to do with your aid-and-comfort argument. It's going to be there. You'll have plenty of opportunities to pick it up and swing it like a dead cat. There IS going to be a lot more talk about Bush's reasons for this war, however. How can there not? What would you have us Dems do? Silence is not an option. Going to war is not just a blue dress, and remember that your guys were compelled to talk Billy's BJ into the ground. So here is your unpatriotic paint brush. It too was in the weft and weave. The Dems can give aid and comfort to the enemy by stating the obvious truth (which they ain't fixin' to forget anyway), or to George Bush with silence... if you want to paint it that way. I do hope everyone treads carefully here and stays focused, but I also think that silence is un-American, not to mention that it obviously was never in the cards anyway.

Bob, I don't recall Republicans screaming about the BJ. Personally, I was very concerned about the transfer of technology to the Chinese and other related issues. But I do believe that even the President is not above the law. Courts ruled that he had to answer to Jones' accusations, and he had an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as an officer of the court and as President, or as just American. He lied under oath. PERIOD.

You don't get it Bob. First of all, ALL the reasons to go to war with Iraq have not proven false. We haven't found the WMD. But there were other reasons presented. And these weren't Bush's reasons for war, they were our country's reasons, reasons agreed upon by every lying, sniveling, hypocrit Democrat that NOW claims Bush hoodwinked them when they had been calling for the same thing since 1998 and had the same intelligence as all the other countries and drew the SAME conclusions until it became politically expedient for them to take the anti-American position and accuse the President of lying.

It's find to disagree with whether we should have gone to war -- that was an argument for a year and a half ago. The Dems voted for it to get re-elected, and now they want to take that vote back. Sorry! We are in this war. I am sick and tired of hearing day after day about how Bush is failing. That is our country that is failing if indeed we are. I don't believe we are. Have we made mistakes. Surely. Have we had successes? According to everyone who has visited Iraq, many more than are being reported by the "mainstream" media.

I wouldn't have such a problem with all the dissent if for ONCE the dissenters would offer their wisdom as to what they would have done differently or would do differently now. Hence my "this man wants to be your President" thread. What has Kerry done or what will he do.

I don't want to see our sovereignty subordinated to a corrupt mobocracy with unelected bureaucratic socialists.

Evie

p.s. By all accounts the mass grave causus belli to go into Bosnia and Kosovo has not born out. We still have troops there. Can we have a little consistency and give Iraq a little longer before clanging the death knell on this battle in the war on terror?

Before you call out the patriotism police on me, do you want to point out where I've drubbed Bush so bad on Iraq? I assume that's what you mean by: "Enough of the neocommie aid to the enemy crap too." I am NOT getting any jollies on this. I was hoping and praying for WMD, same as you.

"Vietnam... Well, thanks to Kerry, I have now had many months to learn a whole heckuvalot about how we "lost" that war. If we lose this one it will be because the same anti-American forces succeed in undermining our country" You may have learned a whole heckuvalot about what some people say. And pointing out flaws in Bush's agenda and tactics is NOT anti-American. In fact it is quintessentially American. (unitifier my foot!) What would really be un-American is to sit silent.

Look, I'm just worried that the way he's gone about it, he is solidifying enemies that we didn't necessarily have to have. It's frustrating to sit here and listen to yall belittle the UN and our traditional allies. "It's saber rattling" I thought, "and it's working". I didn't at the time, and I'm not now goin'a "Wag The Dog" at President Bush for getting us into Iraq. Maybe he believed what he said. But now that it's done, out marches the old familiar patriotism police. "Aid to the enemy"! What enemy? GW's enemy. Before,,, we had a few whack-jobs left over from Ollie's "clever idea" out to get us. Look now! I know that any use of military force is going have this effect to some extent. It's unavoidable. If it had turned out as described,,, go-it-alone would have been a huge win for the USA and savior status for GW. I suppose it could still turn out to be an over all good thing. I hope so. But Bush rolled the dice on this one, not the Dems. And he did it his way. "undermining our country"? Damn, Evie! I'm afraid if this turns out a disaster that it was in the weft and the weave from the outset and "Old Europe" tried to tell us so.

If, as you said, "Before,,, we had a few whack-jobs left over from Ollie's "clever idea" out to get us. Look now!" was the case, you can't turn around and try to blame Bush for failing to discover and prevent the 9/11 plot and its organization. To be honest about it, you can't put that blame on Clinton either.

Please Bob, defend Kofi and the corrupt Oil for Food program and inspection process that was "working"

Yeah right. It was working in getting our planes shot at daily in the no-fly zones. It was working for Saddam's sons to cherry pick young girls on their walks home from school to be raped. It was working for Saddam and his thugs to imprison, mame, torture and execute countless men, women and CHILDREN. It was working to amass billions for Saddam and corrupt French, German and other high level officials and countries. Hog wash!

It was official US policy since 1998 for regime change in Iraq and the Clinton Administration did essentially nothing in that regard. There had been no compliance with the terms of the cease fire and UN Resolutions ad nauseum. France broke it's promises to Colin Powell as pertains to that last resolution on which we went to war.

If you had your way we would only go to war when Syria and France think we should. The UN is belittled rightly because it is a corrupt cesspool and if it didn't have such false stature that joke would be funny. Please feel free to provide me with reasons to hold this institution (not the ideals it claims to stand for, but what it actually does) in high esteem.

I guess you are with Kerry in belittling the many countries who are part of the coalition. Just because they aren't France, Germany or Russia doesn't make them dirt. Those were Ukrainian troops handling the heat the other day!

Especially when comparing consequences to all the NeoCon crap lately. -- Bob Graham

You throw this crap around it will come back and splatter in your face.

Bob, I've learned a whole heckuvalot about what all sorts of people have to say about Vietnam. And I've done more reading on the subject than I ever thought I would. Both sides.

You can criticize the President. I do. But this " it is quintessentially American" line is getting old when that criticism turns to insidious lies and gloating over any failure (perceived or real, his fault or not) that is not American in my book. It is clearly aiding the enemy when Al Jazeera and Muktada al Sadr are taking their talking points from Democrats in high places.

Everyone thought Saddam had WMD and was a danger. Kerrey and Kerry supported going into Iraq both before and after 9/11, as did Clinton, Albright, Gore, Levin, and the whole bunch now singing another tune. For them to all now conveniently forget this and use it to accuse the President of lying is deplorable.

Evie

That engenders rational discussion doesn't it Bob

Whatever the circumstances, Republicans didn't cause them as pertains to Paula Jones and the rest of his accusers. A court of law held that her case had enough merit to proceed. People are welcome to disagree with that ruling, and whether it should have waited till after his Presidency, but if it were you, Bob, are you saying you would lie in a court of law? This had nothing to do with Newt or Livingstone, this had to do with a lie under oath.

Evie

So you think there are times when it's OK to lie in a court of law after swearing to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth.

What else would you like to share with us about your character?

You are making some very bitter statements this morning on what should be a very happy day

Easter is the time of greatest giving for those of us that define ourselves as Christians.

It appears that you, along with a lot of others that tend to lean hard left, really don't understand the GREAT DIVIDE between the left and right.

>>> "First, all lies are NOT equal. You're SUPPOSED to lie about a BJ. You're not necessarily supposed to get one... but once it's a done deal you are supposed to lie. It's the only thing you can do."

No! Those of us of the "other color" part of the country (conservative side) find that statement highly offensive and inflammatory, and your making it - along with a few others here - clearly indicate that y'all don't understand the rift and probably have no desire to understand. Your opinions tend to be of the "I am right and your are wrong variety" and that just cannot be so. An opinion is just that, an opinion. Right, wrong, indifferent, just an opinion nonetheless.

>>>> "Yall must have to squeeze the old indignation pretty hard to feel so very righteous about this one. Especially when comparing consequences to all the NeoCon crap lately."

Again, NO. There is no "righteous" associated with that. It is our (my) position. As for the NeoCon statement, well, that is so beneath you that it doesn't deserve any response

All the best to you and yours.
Happy Easter to you and your's

from which he was disbarred for 5 years and fined $25,000. It also got him disbarred permanently from SCOTUS.

Very telling that you think that is a laughing matter.

...gotten used to liberal arrogance and how to overlook it. Almost don't notice it anymore.

Hello, Angeline. Very happy to see you out and about.

I am frequently here reading (when I can find interesting subjects). Many times its at night because I haven't been sleeping very. I guess I am just trying to use the time I have left

I used to love to discuss politics, religion, personal liberties, etc., but most of those "opinions" have been very harsh and both sides take an I'm right your wrong position -- NOT very conducive to an open and honest discussion. I thought Bo and Dave were going to have a good discussion about education, but, IMO, Dave went over the top, again

I think you and I are similar, not alike -- a little bit country, a little bit rock 'n' roll -- in that we recognize there is a nominal 50% of this country that will disagree with us at any moment. I have been having serious problems with all of the self-centered, egotistical comments and just out-right rejection some people have for other's opinions and/or views. Sad state for a country of people [supposedly] of Christian upbringing. Love thy neighbor is not just a dumb quote. If there is no love between you and your neighbor, then...

Usuall, unless they are too extreme, I consider the positions and opinions of others, then try to stay true to my beliefs without excessive pushing nor compromise. The middle (for most people) is a pretty good place to be.

This vision problem is a real pain in the lower extremities. In re-reading some of my post I see that I made a few, shall we say unusual, combinations of words. I hope the meanings don't get lost

You're talking to somebody who sees about every third word, y'know.

Seriously, you expressed yourself very well, as usual. I agree that we are cut from much of the same cloth. IMO, it's stimulating to be able to exchange opinions when there might be some shaking of heads, but no shaking of fists.

When I hear extremists on either side, I get a feeling that they feel threatened by conflicting views. . To me, that means that they have so little confidence in their positions that they opt to try to destroy their opponent.

I find myself thinkling of what I think are funny replies, but am not sure if some would see the humor.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Hi, Angeline.

>>In both their eyes, compromise is a sign of weakness. <<
I disagree there -- I see that as primarily a Republican position, that began with "Newt's revolution." BTW, the last time that "compromise" became a dirty word in American politics, it led to the Civil War. And note which side started that, too...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

.

And I disagree in turn, DaveK.

IMO, comproomise was an integral part of governing in my lifetime. That was back when there were some statesmen on the Hill. A couple were from my state - Estes Kefaufer (D) and Howard Baker (R). It was also back before candidates had to start raising money for re-election the day after taking office.

IMO, the country was ripe for the Newts due to the lack of confidence in our government from the Vietnam Wat.

Newt was an embarrassment to most Republicans. His "revolution" smacked of "If you're not for me, you're against me", and was so set in stone as to not allow for compromise. IMO, he was also of the school that still snarted from Watergate. No consideration given that there had been scandals for generations, he was on a mission to get even.

Thus, IMO, the Clinton years escalated to the present polarization of our country. (The previous scale comparable prior to the Civil War.)

Though the climate has ben building over the years to where more people think it is OK to kill those with whom they disagree, the vast majority conduct only a war of words. Radicals on both sides fuel this war.

Compromise on the Hill can be viewed as weakness because it implies some changing of minds.

IMO, what sparked the Civil War was holding the Union together. During the fighting it was brother against brother, I doubt that their political party of choice motivated them.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

A few to many IMO's, but that's OK. As I have stated here before, the Historians on a couple of the news groups that I participate in generally agree that the current trashing, by both sides, started with the vicious attack on Judge Bork

Happy Easter, and all the blessings it brings to you and yours.