[maxiep]

Originally Posted by mac!

talkhard/maxiep/et.al.: find a broad-based political movement or system that doesn't have a radical fringe element.

Since you asked, there are tails to almost every large distribution group. The beauty of America is that you don't have to embrace everyone in the broad-based group to which you may belong. Barack Obama chose to embrace this radical fringe element. The problem with choices is sometimes you have to live with their consequences.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

My point, which didn't seem to come across, was that it is possible to listen silently to an opinion that you disagree with. At least, it is for me. Maybe not for everyone.

If I'm listening to a sermon where the reverend says women shouldn't be allowed to wear pants and should only wear skirts, I'll keep my contrary opinion to myself. However, the honorable reverend wasn't talking about pants vs. skirts. He was preaching about something a bit more important. If I did keep my mouth shut, it would be because I never planned to set foot in that church again.

Yes, it served his purpose at the time. So what?

I have no problem with a political candidate using organizations and them throwing them away, as long as they don't present themselves as "different" and "above the fray". My issue is that he didn't use this organization and move on. Obviously, he liked what he heard, and stuck around for 20 years. Only after confronted with several of the messages did he then try to distance himself from them.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

If I'm listening to a sermon where the reverend says women shouldn't be allowed to wear pants and should only wear skirts, I'll keep my contrary opinion to myself. However, the honorable reverend wasn't talking about pants vs. skirts. He was preaching about something a bit more important.

I dunno, I think women's rights are pretty important, maybe more important than whether the US is to blame for 9/11 or whatever it is that offends people about Wright.

I have no problem with a political candidate using organizations and them throwing them away, as long as they don't present themselves as "different" and "above the fray". My issue is that he didn't use this organization and move on. Obviously, he liked what he heard, and stuck around for 20 years. Only after confronted with several of the messages did he then try to distance himself from them.

So he's not a very good politician? Last night you were accusing him of being too much of a politician.

barfo

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

So he's not a very good politician? Last night you were accusing him of being too much of a politician.

barfo

Bill Clinton is arguably the greatest politician of his era, and he loved the trailer trash. Even terrific politicians can have their weaknesses.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Bill Clinton is arguably the greatest politician of his era, and he loved the trailer trash. Even terrific politicians can have their weaknesses.

A good point.

barfo

[Dan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Bill Clinton is arguably the greatest politician of his era, and he loved the trailer trash. Even terrific politicians can have their weaknesses.

Bill's weakness was a much less dangerous weakness than George's (and his cabinets). Bill's was a weakness in his pants, George's is in his brain and ability to understand that it's not the 1950's anymore and people in the US (and the world) have access to a lot of things he said.

George doesn't play the political game very well. He doesn't try to correct what he said in the past, he just says something new and doesn't even acknowledge that he said something idiotic in the past and that you are wrong for it.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hap

Bill's weakness was a much less dangerous weakness than George's (and his cabinets). Bill's was a weakness in his pants, George's is in his brain and ability to understand that it's not the 1950's anymore and people in the US (and the world) have access to a lot of things he said.

George doesn't play the political game very well. He doesn't try to correct what he said in the past, he just says something new and doesn't even acknowledge that he said something idiotic in the past and that you are wrong for it.

George Bush isn't a measurable percentage of the politician Bill Clinton is. He doesn't claim to be. I know it's hard for we that live in the Willamette Valley to see, but there was a huge swath of people (especially in the middle of this country) that were tired of the perceived slick double-speak that Clinton brought and wanted someone they viewed as plain-spoken, genuine and would do what they said they would.

You may not like Bush's policies, you may not like the fact he's not articulate, you may not like the people he appealed to in order to win two elections, but you can't deny he's tried to accomplish what he set out to do in the first place.

[Sug]

Originally Posted by maxiep

You may not like Bush's policies, you may not like the fact he's not articulate, you may not like the people he appealed to in order to win two elections, but you can't deny he's tried to accomplish what he set out to do in the first place.

He ran on an anti-nation building platform, and said he would never become the world's police. He used Kosovo as the major example...

Before you come at me with 9-11 logic, we know that there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11. Oh and under our watch Afgahnastan has become the world's largest exporter of opium. That ends up on our streets, and kills our people. More than 3,000 per year for sure.

Just saying Maxie, we can all adjust our perspective based on our personal beliefs. If your strongly aligned with Bush, that is of course your right. Just don't come with that to the rim, becuase just like Joel I will send it back as "postage insufficent". It's a block party and you're all invited.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

George Bush isn't a measurable percentage of the politician Bill Clinton is. He doesn't claim to be. I know it's hard for we that live in the Willamette Valley to see, but there was a huge swath of people (especially in the middle of this country) that were tired of the perceived slick double-speak that Clinton brought and wanted someone they viewed as plain-spoken, genuine and would do what they said they would.

I was tired of Bill's double talk too. But I wanted someone who at least was smart. I mean for gods sake, when Al Gore and John Kerry are vast improvements on articulation and diction (and intelligence)..wow..

You may not like Bush's policies, you may not like the fact he's not articulate, you may not like the people he appealed to in order to win two elections, but you can't deny he's tried to accomplish what he set out to do in the first place.

You mean be a uniter? and not a nation builder?

he hasn't exactly been a uniter (unless you count us united, collectively, against the war) and he's tried to build a nation in Iraq.

[maxiep]

[quote=Sug;5386846]He ran on an anti-nation building platform, and said he would never become the world's police. He used Kosovo as the major example...[quote]

War has a funny way of changing what's on your table. And exactly what are we policing other than Iraq and Afghanistan?

Before you come at me with 9-11 logic, we know that there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11. Oh and under our watch Afgahnastan has become the world's largest exporter of opium. That ends up on our streets, and kills our people. More than 3,000 per year for sure.

Hindsight is wonderful. You conveniently leave out that not just the CIA, but the Russian, Chinese, French, German and British intelligence services also believed Saddam Hussein had WMD and an active nuclear program. It looks like even Saddam Hussein believed he had those programs at work. Furthermore, the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein wasn't started by the Bush Administration, but by the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration believed after the East African Embassy bombings that Iraq was offering chemical weapons (which we know Iraq had) to Al Qaeda to strike at the US.

As for the poppy seed, where have you been? Afghanistan has been the world's largest exporter of opium since the Soviets left. And you're confusing a problem that needs to be surmounted with something we're actively encouraging. It was a problem for us under the Taliban (and still is in Taliban-controlled areas) and it is now Karzai's problem. It's not like the Bush Administration is sending over DOA officials to the country to show them how to get higher poppy seed yields.

Just saying Maxie, we can all adjust our perspective based on our personal beliefs. If your strongly aligned with Bush, that is of course your right. Just don't come with that to the rim, becuase just like Joel I will send it back as "postage insufficent". It's a block party and you're all invited.

We certainly can adjust our perspective. Just as you're so confident about Joel and the US Mail based on your perspective. However, I'm not in anyone's back pocket. I'm a registered independent who voted for Bush in 1988 and for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. My vote is based first on security issues and second on economics. I could care less whether they're Elephants or Donkeys.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hap

I was tired of Bill's double talk too. But I wanted someone who at least was smart. I mean for gods sake, when Al Gore and John Kerry are vast improvements on articulation and diction (and intelligence)..wow..

To be fair, George Bush had better grades at Yale than John Kerry. John Kerry sure sounds a lot smarter, but when the data comes in, it may be a different story. We all have stories about how grades don't matter, but Bush was supposedly the party animal at Yale, while Kerry was the serious student with the eye on his future.

Gore had arguably better connections than Bush did, but Gore couldn't be bothered to attend graduate school. He did graduate magna from Harvard, but Bush has to get some credit for graduating from HBS (and I say that as a Chicago GSB guy).

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Gore had arguably better connections than Bush did, but Gore couldn't be bothered to attend graduate school.

Interesting way to put it. Gore enlisted in the army after college. After that, he went to grad school twice - one divinity school, one law school. He dropped out of both, however.

barfo