Calling all Belgians

Jack Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:02:45 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

Who says they were lies? Perhaps it's Kerry who lied. Then again,
sometimes there are different versions of the truth.
Baloney in this case. Just plain baloney.

This sort of relativism "he said, she said" is so lame -- it;s the
retreat of the weak minded.

It's the weak minded who blindly believe one side over the other just
because they agree with them politically.

+5 irony points.

Jack Hollis wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 22:22:43 -0700, "
wrote:

In principle, it's a bad thing to have the
president so isolated and out of options when he still
has to govern the country for almost two years.

Actually, it's the Democratic Congress that have no options other that
to be petty. Bush is running the show and will until he leaves
office.

This is kind of meaningless unless someones defines what they mean by
"options".

Everyone always has options. The options available may not enable you to
reach some specific goal, however.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...

Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.

Actually, you're right. It does.

Jack Hollis wrote:

Not one piece of legislation has reached the Presidents desk.

There's truth here, but we're in danger of confusing political theater
with actual substance. I'm not sure we should do that just because the
media does.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:31:16 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:

On 5 Apr 2007 15:45:16 -0700, "Bill C"
wrote:

I'm betting history treats Bush a lot more like Grant, Hoover, and
Nixon, than Lincoln.

These are at worst mediocre presidents, in some cases overtaken by a
scandal largely beyond their control (Grant) [OK, he was a weak
administrator] and another a president that was one of the most
competent, but with major character flaws (Nixon). History will
probably be fascinated by the Nixon-Kissinger duo for the next
century. In any event at least Grant and Nixon accomplished far more
than Bush before and, in Grant's case, after their presidency than
Bush has to date.

I do find it interesting that three different Republican pundits have
said that essentially Nixon was too much of a moderate to be nominated
by the Republican party today.

You aren't thinking that JFK would have a prayer in the current Democratic Party
primaries, are ya.

Ron

On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...

Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.

Actually, you're right. It does.

Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.
Bill C

Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...
Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.

Actually, you're right. It does.

Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.
Bill C


Gore is the anti-Christ? I'd always imagined the anti-Christ to be in
some way effectual.

On Apr 6, 9:19 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...
Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.

Actually, you're right. It does.

Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.
Bill C

Gore is the anti-Christ? I'd always imagined the anti-Christ to be in
some way effectual.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well he talks the talk, but when it's time to walk, he's Richard
Simmons. Gore's hatred, and total disdain for the military is
legendary on the inside. He considers 99% of the military to be the
lowest scum in the country. The 1% he likes are kissing his ass to get
ahead.
It amazes me that he can still poll high with the democrats, even
when he's "not" running. After all the **** Bush has done. I'm still
not sure that Gore wouldn't have been worse.
He needs to run with Ted Kaczynski as his running mate. They're
soulmates.
Bill C

Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:19 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...
Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.
Actually, you're right. It does.
Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.
Bill C
Gore is the anti-Christ? I'd always imagined the anti-Christ to be in
some way effectual.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well he talks the talk, but when it's time to walk, he's Richard
Simmons. Gore's hatred, and total disdain for the military is
legendary on the inside. He considers 99% of the military to be the
lowest scum in the country. The 1% he likes are kissing his ass to get
ahead.
It amazes me that he can still poll high with the democrats, even
when he's "not" running. After all the **** Bush has done. I'm still
not sure that Gore wouldn't have been worse.

Hmmm ... if what you say about Gore's view of the military is true, it
would have been weird. Regardless of who was president in 2001, we HAD
to invade somebody. That's the clear and unmistakable lesson of the
Carter administration. I can't imagined Gore passing on that lesson. And
if a Gore administration that disdained the military invaded somewhere,
what would that look like? The wouldn't listen to intelligence
assessments, choosing instead to pick and choose the information that
fit their preconceived notions. Military commanders opinions on what
they needed to do the job would be disregarded. Etc.

How do you suppose that would have turned out?

In article ,
RonSonic wrote:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:31:16 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:

I do find it interesting that three different Republican pundits have
said that essentially Nixon was too much of a moderate to be nominated
by the Republican party today.

You aren't thinking that JFK would have a prayer in the current Democratic
Party primaries, are ya.

Regarding both Nixon and JFK as if they were running today: I really doubt they
would have the same policy positions that they did then if they were running today.
I think their outlooks would have evolved. If we were to speculate on neither
changing with the times, then I do think that JFK would stand a much greater chance
to win with his early '60s era policies than Nixon would with his late '60's -
early '70s policies.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?