I see some posters here can't defend Bush without slapping Clinton and the other way around too. So I was wondering who do you think hates more? Not talking about the two Presidents but about their supporters. Who has the stronger hate.
Who Hates More Clinton Haters Or Bush Haters
- Thread starter StevieD
- Start date
stevie,
i agree with you. the hatred each side has for the other is sickening. it's in every political discussion whether it's on tv or in congress. imo, it started during the clinton administration & has multiplied during bush's presidency. and it has infected the war on terrorism, & in particular the war in iraq. imo, during a time of war the country should be united, not hostile to each other.
i agree with you. the hatred each side has for the other is sickening. it's in every political discussion whether it's on tv or in congress. imo, it started during the clinton administration & has multiplied during bush's presidency. and it has infected the war on terrorism, & in particular the war in iraq. imo, during a time of war the country should be united, not hostile to each other.
IMHO The 2 are disliked for entirely different reasons.
One being political decisions the other character flaws.
One being political decisions the other character flaws.
One likes blow jobs, pot and wanted no part of the military.
The other likes cocaine, DUI's and went AWOL from his cushy military job .
I don't know that character flaws are a Clinton exclusive.
The other likes cocaine, DUI's and went AWOL from his cushy military job .
I don't know that character flaws are a Clinton exclusive.
almost everybody has character flaws. if we are going to base whether a candidate would be a good president, based on character flaws, we will have nobody who qualifies.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
This is exactly why I DESPISE the bi-partisan system that we have. More often than not one's political views are not based on anything but dislike for the opposing party. You can't tell me that if we had the right leadership in place AND that would get support from Congress, we could not clean up some of the things wrong with this country currently. I love this country and hate seeing the direction that it is going. Nothing ever really gets done because the opposing side is ready with claws out to rip it apart. It's complete bullshit. After an election, we should accept our RESPONSIBILTY and support the powers that were elected by our democratic system (and PLEASE don't bring up the election scandal).
Fauck CNN!
Fauck Fox News!
Fauck all the talking heads!
Every last one of them has their motives and nothing is ever going to change that. It's not news, it's spin.
Fauck CNN!
Fauck Fox News!
Fauck all the talking heads!
Every last one of them has their motives and nothing is ever going to change that. It's not news, it's spin.
:lol: Good one Kosar but I was thinking more in terms of honesty, greed, and flaws you get impeached-disbarred ect.
I can't really think of any president other than Clinton I disliked dem or reb. I think the thing than got my goat was watching a person who had never reported earned income of over $36,000 a year get rich off deception-kickbacks-bed and breakfast-pardons ect.
----but getting back to Stevies intial question of who hates more,speaking for myself I would say the Clinton haters. My reasoning ,I can be in total disagreement with anyone on political views and still genuinely like the person.As you know Kosar, you are one of my favorite people but we do have our differences but have never let them sway our opinion of each other and while I do not know Stevie near as well as you, I do not have any ill feelings for him what so ever in fact have a lot of respect for him because of his character in being able to disagree adamantly with someone but never seen him stoop to name calling ect.
In short while we disagree on issues we still have respect,however if any of us thought the other was a liar,backstabber or outright degenerate I am sure that the feeling of commraderie would disipate.
I can't really think of any president other than Clinton I disliked dem or reb. I think the thing than got my goat was watching a person who had never reported earned income of over $36,000 a year get rich off deception-kickbacks-bed and breakfast-pardons ect.
----but getting back to Stevies intial question of who hates more,speaking for myself I would say the Clinton haters. My reasoning ,I can be in total disagreement with anyone on political views and still genuinely like the person.As you know Kosar, you are one of my favorite people but we do have our differences but have never let them sway our opinion of each other and while I do not know Stevie near as well as you, I do not have any ill feelings for him what so ever in fact have a lot of respect for him because of his character in being able to disagree adamantly with someone but never seen him stoop to name calling ect.
In short while we disagree on issues we still have respect,however if any of us thought the other was a liar,backstabber or outright degenerate I am sure that the feeling of commraderie would disipate.
Definitely agree with your post, Dogs. Debating and conversing with guys like you and AR is a pleasure and I always look forward to seeing your viewpoints, along with some others. I wouldn't even bother occasionally chiming in if it was just ridiculous, absurd ranting from people like Dr. Freeze coming from the right of things.
Oh, also, I think we could extend out to your 'character barometer' of honesty, greed and flaws and still be able to closely compare Willy and Dubya without much problem. Willy lied about a blow job, which is starting to seem pretty trivial, as if it was really ever of monumental importance. Now, don't get me started on predicating an invasion of a third world country based on lies and more lies.
Oh, also, I think we could extend out to your 'character barometer' of honesty, greed and flaws and still be able to closely compare Willy and Dubya without much problem. Willy lied about a blow job, which is starting to seem pretty trivial, as if it was really ever of monumental importance. Now, don't get me started on predicating an invasion of a third world country based on lies and more lies.
good article below re economics:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268979.shtml
______________________
Another good topic StevieD I've also always wondered WHY each poster has chosen the party they vote for. For example, I used to consider myself a moderate Republican. That was years and years ago of couse. I liked a lot of the ideology that the moderate side of the Republican party expressed. As a matter of fact, I still embrace a rather conservative view on several issues such as abortion, affirmative action, fiscal responsibility, ect.
The problem with voting entirely because of one's political ideology is it simply doesn't work. Example: the Republican party recently passed 'the patriot act' which was supposed to be used exclusively against terrorist. We were assured by Bush and his co-horts that it was ONLY to be used against the war on terrorism. Over and over they campaigned as such. Six months after it was passed, Ashcroft was holding seminars around the country to explain how to use it against us citizens on issues like gambling, ect. We were promised and promised re the ideology of the law and look what we've got to deal with now.
The article above gives a great example as Bush and company have used different ideologies (democracy, protectionism, ect) to invade Iraq but the real reasons are not mentioned in their ideology given to the American people.
I came to the conclusion several years ago that the ideology that politicans expouse is the twentyith and now twenty-first century equivalent of kissing babies in earlier years. It is only good for getting elected. It means nothing. Zip. It will be totally disregarded once so elected. Just like a few elections ago there was the 'term limit' ideology that several candidates ran on and it was immediately forgotten and buried after the election.
It's simply impossible to use a 'mico' approach of voting for a canidate/party based upon the current ideology being expoused. You almost have to MACRO-manage. For example, you should question any meaningful legislation that's been passed in the past thirty years, who passed it and do you agree/disagree with it. Personally, I think the Welfare act in 1996 was one of the more meaningful pieces of legislation to be passed in years. At least the intent of this act was in the right direction. Perhaps the approach that's currently being used to implement the legislation might not be perfect, but the intent of getting welfare recipients off welfare by offering them a chance at developing skills was in the right direction. In short, I agree with the purpose and intent of the legislation.
Another example would be gun control. I'm a big proponent of some meaningful 'gun control'. The gun control legislation that was passed by the Democratic force was at least something. It didn't go nearly far enough thanks to the Republican party, but who among you would want to rescind it? If you could press a button on your desk and rescind gun control legislation which bars felons and mental patients from having any restrictions placed on them, would you press that button. Probably not. None of us want nutjobs buying ak47's and going to our local grade school for some target practice.
So as I kept inspecting all the relevant legislation that's been passed in the past 30 years, I couldn't find one piece of legislation that I hardily embraced from the Republican party even though I agree much more closely with so many of their ideologies. At some point you have to give up on completely using ideology to choose your politcal party. Obviously you have to agree with some of the ideologies of your party, but that alone without some expression in legislation is worthless. It's a mind fuk.
The really scary part of politics is the inherent selfishness of our politcal democratic process. Probably the next great technology that our country faces is the hydro-technology that is already out there. General Motors has a ten year goal of having hydro-cars in the market place. The technology is already out there and is obviously being impoved with each passing month, but it's already useable in it's current form. Once this technology becomes imprinted on the american economy there will be a complete shifting of energy from oil to hydro. The change will effect almost all technologies that use oil as a vital party of their manufacturing process. No one exactly knows what the eventual outcome of this policy change will mean but it's thought by many that it would do more to strengthen 'the dollar' as an exchange medium than any other thing in the world.
So why am I nervous. Good for America right? Why worry? The people truly making policy in our political system might not want it is as it might be contrary to their own personal economic goals. I don't know if our politcal process will show the 'conscience' that is needed for the overall good of the people that live here. I don't trust the politcal parties that we currently have to pass meaningful legislation that will nurture and embrace this technology. That 'conscience' that I keep trying to examine with each new year of legislation seems to be only about their own agendas and goals. The good for the people is nowhere to be found
Sorry for the ranting, but the 'strengthening the dollar' issue (as noted in the article above) and the invasion of Iraq and the hyro-technology are both very very related. Sorry if it didn't come out real smooth but wine coolers in the afternoon and posting are seemingly opposing forces.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268979.shtml
______________________
Another good topic StevieD I've also always wondered WHY each poster has chosen the party they vote for. For example, I used to consider myself a moderate Republican. That was years and years ago of couse. I liked a lot of the ideology that the moderate side of the Republican party expressed. As a matter of fact, I still embrace a rather conservative view on several issues such as abortion, affirmative action, fiscal responsibility, ect.
The problem with voting entirely because of one's political ideology is it simply doesn't work. Example: the Republican party recently passed 'the patriot act' which was supposed to be used exclusively against terrorist. We were assured by Bush and his co-horts that it was ONLY to be used against the war on terrorism. Over and over they campaigned as such. Six months after it was passed, Ashcroft was holding seminars around the country to explain how to use it against us citizens on issues like gambling, ect. We were promised and promised re the ideology of the law and look what we've got to deal with now.
The article above gives a great example as Bush and company have used different ideologies (democracy, protectionism, ect) to invade Iraq but the real reasons are not mentioned in their ideology given to the American people.
I came to the conclusion several years ago that the ideology that politicans expouse is the twentyith and now twenty-first century equivalent of kissing babies in earlier years. It is only good for getting elected. It means nothing. Zip. It will be totally disregarded once so elected. Just like a few elections ago there was the 'term limit' ideology that several candidates ran on and it was immediately forgotten and buried after the election.
It's simply impossible to use a 'mico' approach of voting for a canidate/party based upon the current ideology being expoused. You almost have to MACRO-manage. For example, you should question any meaningful legislation that's been passed in the past thirty years, who passed it and do you agree/disagree with it. Personally, I think the Welfare act in 1996 was one of the more meaningful pieces of legislation to be passed in years. At least the intent of this act was in the right direction. Perhaps the approach that's currently being used to implement the legislation might not be perfect, but the intent of getting welfare recipients off welfare by offering them a chance at developing skills was in the right direction. In short, I agree with the purpose and intent of the legislation.
Another example would be gun control. I'm a big proponent of some meaningful 'gun control'. The gun control legislation that was passed by the Democratic force was at least something. It didn't go nearly far enough thanks to the Republican party, but who among you would want to rescind it? If you could press a button on your desk and rescind gun control legislation which bars felons and mental patients from having any restrictions placed on them, would you press that button. Probably not. None of us want nutjobs buying ak47's and going to our local grade school for some target practice.
So as I kept inspecting all the relevant legislation that's been passed in the past 30 years, I couldn't find one piece of legislation that I hardily embraced from the Republican party even though I agree much more closely with so many of their ideologies. At some point you have to give up on completely using ideology to choose your politcal party. Obviously you have to agree with some of the ideologies of your party, but that alone without some expression in legislation is worthless. It's a mind fuk.
The really scary part of politics is the inherent selfishness of our politcal democratic process. Probably the next great technology that our country faces is the hydro-technology that is already out there. General Motors has a ten year goal of having hydro-cars in the market place. The technology is already out there and is obviously being impoved with each passing month, but it's already useable in it's current form. Once this technology becomes imprinted on the american economy there will be a complete shifting of energy from oil to hydro. The change will effect almost all technologies that use oil as a vital party of their manufacturing process. No one exactly knows what the eventual outcome of this policy change will mean but it's thought by many that it would do more to strengthen 'the dollar' as an exchange medium than any other thing in the world.
So why am I nervous. Good for America right? Why worry? The people truly making policy in our political system might not want it is as it might be contrary to their own personal economic goals. I don't know if our politcal process will show the 'conscience' that is needed for the overall good of the people that live here. I don't trust the politcal parties that we currently have to pass meaningful legislation that will nurture and embrace this technology. That 'conscience' that I keep trying to examine with each new year of legislation seems to be only about their own agendas and goals. The good for the people is nowhere to be found
Sorry for the ranting, but the 'strengthening the dollar' issue (as noted in the article above) and the invasion of Iraq and the hyro-technology are both very very related. Sorry if it didn't come out real smooth but wine coolers in the afternoon and posting are seemingly opposing forces.
Last edited:
It started with Nixon. I can remember then when a few Right wingers from congress said the Deom's day would come. Seems it never ends now. As for nothing getting done in congress Dawgball. Man Republicans have complete control of both house. Have for two years. They ram rod through what ever they want. Problem is not all there doing is liked by many. The Polls are starting to show the love afair is over.
SteveiD both side can hate and do. But for the top haters. Look to the far right religious group. They are the ones that taught me to be independent. Dam anyone that can think as they do is really border line nuts.
SteveiD both side can hate and do. But for the top haters. Look to the far right religious group. They are the ones that taught me to be independent. Dam anyone that can think as they do is really border line nuts.
http://hypocrisytoday.com/alfred.gif
ALFRED E. NEUMAN FOR PRESIDENT
"He is just as smart as the other candidates, and twice as popular"
On the Issues:
Guaranteed Health Care: ban all HMO's and medical insurance.
Outlaw the American Medical Association. Change the medical deductions on the 1040 to 100%. Result: People will shop for their medical needs, thereby reducing inflated prices of pharmaceuticals, laboratories, doctors, and hospitals. After all, medical insurance is designed to guarantee that the medical industry be paid, not that people receive adequate treatment.
Social Security: Since when?
Education: The Government should stay out of it. Government interference only perpetuates existing stupidity.
Welfare: Get a job.
National Security: Who would be stupid enough to invade the U.S.? And what would they do with us if they won? Would it be any worse than what we have now?
Congress: Cut salaries to what these idiots are worth. Minium wage for entry level.
Protecting the public from itself: The government has no business interfering in people's lives or protecting us from our own stupidity.
Lobbyists and Special Interests: Tax all cash flow at 50%. Tax all religious institutions that engage in politics. (separation of church and state works both ways)
Equal Rights: Get over it.
Personal Income Tax: Dump it. Flat tax corporations 50% of gross with no deductions
On the Candidate
He decided to run for office because the other candidates were all so boring.
He has never failed at business, defrauded the Small Business Administration, sought special favors from the Government, or inhaled.
His brother never fixed his election.
He has no wife to cheat on.
He is not a politician and makes no promises, which he wouldn't keep anyway.
He has never been investigated by 60 Minutes, ATF, IRS, or the National Inquirer. He doesn't know Matt Drudge
Heads of State: "I don't know them. They're all foreigners anyway."
On Reforming the Government
Merge the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, DIA, and ATF. Move them all to a compound in Area 51 and post National Guard as sentries.
Disband the IRS, lay off all employees and relocate them to their own "retirement" community in Area 51.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I Want Your Vote on Election Day!
Vote Early, and Vote Often
ALFRED E. NEUMAN FOR PRESIDENT
"He is just as smart as the other candidates, and twice as popular"
On the Issues:
Guaranteed Health Care: ban all HMO's and medical insurance.
Outlaw the American Medical Association. Change the medical deductions on the 1040 to 100%. Result: People will shop for their medical needs, thereby reducing inflated prices of pharmaceuticals, laboratories, doctors, and hospitals. After all, medical insurance is designed to guarantee that the medical industry be paid, not that people receive adequate treatment.
Social Security: Since when?
Education: The Government should stay out of it. Government interference only perpetuates existing stupidity.
Welfare: Get a job.
National Security: Who would be stupid enough to invade the U.S.? And what would they do with us if they won? Would it be any worse than what we have now?
Congress: Cut salaries to what these idiots are worth. Minium wage for entry level.
Protecting the public from itself: The government has no business interfering in people's lives or protecting us from our own stupidity.
Lobbyists and Special Interests: Tax all cash flow at 50%. Tax all religious institutions that engage in politics. (separation of church and state works both ways)
Equal Rights: Get over it.
Personal Income Tax: Dump it. Flat tax corporations 50% of gross with no deductions
On the Candidate
He decided to run for office because the other candidates were all so boring.
He has never failed at business, defrauded the Small Business Administration, sought special favors from the Government, or inhaled.
His brother never fixed his election.
He has no wife to cheat on.
He is not a politician and makes no promises, which he wouldn't keep anyway.
He has never been investigated by 60 Minutes, ATF, IRS, or the National Inquirer. He doesn't know Matt Drudge
Heads of State: "I don't know them. They're all foreigners anyway."
On Reforming the Government
Merge the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, DIA, and ATF. Move them all to a compound in Area 51 and post National Guard as sentries.
Disband the IRS, lay off all employees and relocate them to their own "retirement" community in Area 51.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I Want Your Vote on Election Day!
Vote Early, and Vote Often
Buddy this guy has a few good ideas. But there to pro for us normal folks. Big companies can not suck us dry with some of his ideas so it's no go. They would have him shot.
Some great posts by everyone. Sometimes I wonder how much it really matters who is elected. I remember when LBJ ran as the "Peace Candidate." He wasn't going to send American boys off to Vietnam. His opponent Barry Goldwater well, he was not only going to send our boys there but he was going to bomb the Hell out of them.
Then we had Nixon. He campaigned as a peace candidate also. He had a secret plan to end the war. His big secret turned out to be the same policy Johnson was following. We thought we threw Johnson and his policy out!
On and on it goes. Bush Sr. "Read my lips."
I truly believe that this administration was going to invade Iraq whether 911 happened or not. Just look at the cast of characters and their history. What else could they possibly have been assembled for? But I also believe that someway, somehow Gore would also have our collected A$$es over there.
Then we had Nixon. He campaigned as a peace candidate also. He had a secret plan to end the war. His big secret turned out to be the same policy Johnson was following. We thought we threw Johnson and his policy out!
On and on it goes. Bush Sr. "Read my lips."
I truly believe that this administration was going to invade Iraq whether 911 happened or not. Just look at the cast of characters and their history. What else could they possibly have been assembled for? But I also believe that someway, somehow Gore would also have our collected A$$es over there.
You're right as usual Stevie. Who is to know that Gore wouldn't have pulled. Nobody.
Another example of what you're talking about would be the current Bush administration in thier chastising the clinton presidency for 'nation building' during Bush's campaign. Their (Bush)administration would have no part of that. Right-o. We're up to our friggin' eyeballs in nation building with no end in sight. Again the ideology of the party meant nothing. Sometimes it all does appear meaningless doesn't it? LOL
______________
But in response to your original question re sheer hatred for clinton vs bush......I'd say just get used to it. The strongest communication tool known to man (TV) has forever changed the polite politcal disagreements of years gone past. The fox channel has created a 'us vs the fuked-up liberal world' syndrom that is based on devisiveness and condesention. The situation is almost like what a football coach tries to create. A "us" against the world mentality. Screw them, our view is right. Only we have the secrets to blah blah blah. This psychological ploy has forever driven a stake in the heart of any kind of civil discussion,
understanding and aquiesence of politics in our society. It's rampant on almost all the political forums and has probably forever changed polite political discourse.
Another example of what you're talking about would be the current Bush administration in thier chastising the clinton presidency for 'nation building' during Bush's campaign. Their (Bush)administration would have no part of that. Right-o. We're up to our friggin' eyeballs in nation building with no end in sight. Again the ideology of the party meant nothing. Sometimes it all does appear meaningless doesn't it? LOL
______________
But in response to your original question re sheer hatred for clinton vs bush......I'd say just get used to it. The strongest communication tool known to man (TV) has forever changed the polite politcal disagreements of years gone past. The fox channel has created a 'us vs the fuked-up liberal world' syndrom that is based on devisiveness and condesention. The situation is almost like what a football coach tries to create. A "us" against the world mentality. Screw them, our view is right. Only we have the secrets to blah blah blah. This psychological ploy has forever driven a stake in the heart of any kind of civil discussion,
understanding and aquiesence of politics in our society. It's rampant on almost all the political forums and has probably forever changed polite political discourse.
Last edited:
But she always gets such great poll numbers. I don't understand it. They just had a gallup poll her numbers as first lady vs the now 1st lady Bush. 78% to 70%. Great for both. But 78%. And how do NYers like the job she has done so far as there senator.
63% say A OK. I dont know what it is about her. But either a ton of woman go for her. Or Independents and Demos alike give her the nod. Even fox a conservative think tank to say the least had high numbers for her. Maybe the haters have it wrong and just cant see past the end of there nose. But that would be no fun. To hate is a anxietey that many cant give up.
63% say A OK. I dont know what it is about her. But either a ton of woman go for her. Or Independents and Demos alike give her the nod. Even fox a conservative think tank to say the least had high numbers for her. Maybe the haters have it wrong and just cant see past the end of there nose. But that would be no fun. To hate is a anxietey that many cant give up.
I heard something interesting concerning this topic several days ago on the radio. The discussion involved the issue of why liberals hate Bush.
The crux of the conversation seemed to be that liberals hate Bush because he comes from an elitist, priviledged background yet portrays himself as the cowboy down to earth stand up for the common man prez. They want the public to associate him with the upper crust and are bummed that he's pulling off the scam.
Hell, I hate him cause he's stupid and a criminal. And I'm a moderate.
Eddie
The crux of the conversation seemed to be that liberals hate Bush because he comes from an elitist, priviledged background yet portrays himself as the cowboy down to earth stand up for the common man prez. They want the public to associate him with the upper crust and are bummed that he's pulling off the scam.
Hell, I hate him cause he's stupid and a criminal. And I'm a moderate.
Eddie
Eddie Never thought about that avenue.Seems logical.
Aupice about the oil thing--I think a case could be made much more for the US dollar vs the Euro dollar but lets just suppose the editorial from the far left Portland publication is 100% correct.
Ask yourself this question. Would those that believe this and raise such an issue be crying more now or in 10 years (when according to their article) U.S. gas prices would soar.
Do you think you might hear
"Why didn't our government do something to control these OPEC prices of $100 a barrel"
Personally If I knew the govs intent to invade Iraq was "solely" to set up shop in the middle of the terrorist community AND control future price of oil. I would be for it 110%
---an ounce of prevetion is worth a pound of cure
Aupice about the oil thing--I think a case could be made much more for the US dollar vs the Euro dollar but lets just suppose the editorial from the far left Portland publication is 100% correct.
Ask yourself this question. Would those that believe this and raise such an issue be crying more now or in 10 years (when according to their article) U.S. gas prices would soar.
Do you think you might hear
"Why didn't our government do something to control these OPEC prices of $100 a barrel"
Personally If I knew the govs intent to invade Iraq was "solely" to set up shop in the middle of the terrorist community AND control future price of oil. I would be for it 110%
---an ounce of prevetion is worth a pound of cure
Dogs that Bark
I understand your point of view. I really do. Many people don't want to know the facts. But the beauty of our country and all we're lead to believe as kids is that we the people are supposed to have some say in our countrys policies. That's the backbone of our entire political system. It's why we have elections. We the people are supposed to determine if and why we invade foreign lands and risk the lives of our children and friends. That is the American way. Sorry, but I can't see it any other way. NO offense meant but what's the use of elections or any democracy if we're not allowed to know any of the policies or have any say on our country's course of action. None.
I understand your point of view. I really do. Many people don't want to know the facts. But the beauty of our country and all we're lead to believe as kids is that we the people are supposed to have some say in our countrys policies. That's the backbone of our entire political system. It's why we have elections. We the people are supposed to determine if and why we invade foreign lands and risk the lives of our children and friends. That is the American way. Sorry, but I can't see it any other way. NO offense meant but what's the use of elections or any democracy if we're not allowed to know any of the policies or have any say on our country's course of action. None.
Last edited:
