Is this how you spell hypocrisy?

[rs7]

Originally posted by jficquette
I love Bush, thank God that incompetent crook and fool Clinton is out. BTW, Clinton could very well be first and only President to get AIDS. Too bad huh? Oh BTW, I guess you do not remember the bribe that Clinton got from Marc Rich. You liberals have short and selective memories.

John

I would be sure of my "facts" if I were you. I happen to be quite familiar with the Mark Rich fiasco, and I assure you it had NOTHING to do with a "bribe". You can hate Clinton, you can hate Rich, I don't say you are not entitled to feel any emotions you would like. Just that you are wrong about your REASONS in this particular case.

I love the "you liberals" broad stroke! How do you feel about the personal behavior of Newt Gingrich? Oh, let me guess. It is fine that he is was the only member of Congress to walk on his wife while she was ill in the hospital, and leave her to go on welfare. Then go on to be a blowhard about "family values".

And like it was said right here, Ollie North lied to congress, but is a patriotic hero. Of course he only lied about illegal arms deals. Clinton lied about sex....obviously the first man to do so.

Now I think Clinton is a despicable guy too, but it just makes me laugh that the right wingers have such double standards.

And no, I am NOT a democrat. But neither am I one of you ignorant "we are RIGHT" right wingers.... Rush Limbaugh doesn't even take what he says as seriously as you guys. He is an entertainer, and a thinker. Not a blindly unthinking follower of his own words as so many of his listeners are. He laughs at them as do I. Too bad you guys don't know entertainment from reality.
Oh, and tell us about how George W. financed the building of the stadium for the Texas Rangers. And how did he make out on the sale of the team? OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!

 

[Madison]

Originally posted by rs7

Now I think Clinton is a despicable guy too, but it just makes me laugh that the right wingers have such double standards.

"The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that one skins you from the neck down, and the other from the ankles up."

- Mark Twain (paraphrased)


Great post rs7. I agree completely - they are ALL liars, con-men, and thieves. It takes votes from BOTH sides of the aisle to pass horrendous laws like the "Patriot" Act, the DMCA, and the Federal Tax Code. There's more than enough blame to go around.

 

[darkhorse]

oh boy, i really don't want to get dragged into this one, but i have to say something.

first off, i'm a pro life libertarian- not a shill for either party.

republicans suck but democrats suck worse. not because democrats are necessarily less moral, but because their policies are a nightmare.

free trade, lower taxes, smaller government, more competition in the school system

vs.

restricted trade, union coddling, higher taxes, bigger government, more legislation, zero competition and innovation in schools, bowing down to the teachers' unions. Public schools are our internally biggest failure as a country and they are also the most socialist/ communist run entity we have with NEA acting as the politburo. coincidence? not at all. The second biggest failure behind public schools is the great society / LBJ's grand welfare experiment, also deeply humanitarian in a castro like way. Coincidence? Again, not at all.

As far as Bush vs Gore, yep they both have black marks on their records of equally dubious nature. (I love the fact that Gore has at least a million parked in Occidental Petroleum, and that the pious author of 'Earth in the Balance' turned a blind eye when indian tribes threatened to commit mass suicide if occidental drilled on their land).

BUT Bush is stupid and he knows it whereas Gore is too stupid to realize his half smarts are dangerous. I would much rather have a dumb president who knows when to lay chilly, like Reagan or Bush, than an overreaching jackass who thinks his brains give him a mandate to solve the world, a' la that smart moron Jimmy Carter.

So yes, most politicians are sleazeballs and most of them have skeletons in the closet. You have to be a bit of a wacked out power hungry fruit loop to be drawn to all that garbage in Washington.

BUT to say there is no difference in the parties is irresponsible in my opinion.

If we care about what is going on in the country, we have to be informed enough to make decisions. If I have to lean too far in one direction or the other, I will lean too far in the direction of greased wheel capitalism ANY day.

 

[trdrmac]

Darkhorse, while I agree with you on the below quote:

If we care about what is going on in the country, we have to be informed enough to make decisions. If I have to lean too far in one direction or the other, I will lean too far in the direction of greased wheel capitalism ANY day. [/B][/QUOTE]

And I would consider myself a Pro-Choice Independent.

I just do not see where there is much difference in the two parties.

free trade, lower taxes, smaller government,

Free Trade and not coddling unions would mean no steel or lumber Tariffs. No farm subsidies, no corporate welfare, and no cushy government contracts given out by incumbent government officials. These things all serve as an indirect tax on society. And serve to keep government larger and much less effective than it could be.

The second thing that would not exist in a true free market is the caving of the Republicans to the Religious Right. I find it a little ironic that the Justice Department took down Arthur Andersen for obstruction of justice and put 70,000 people out of work. Yet the justice department did not file obstruction of justice charges against the Catholic Church. In almost every state that I know of HealthCare providers and in many cases teachers are required to report suspected child abuse to the local authorities. And a failure to do so could cost them a loss of liscencing or personal liability. If a priest or cardinal fails to do it then what happens, nothing, and some of the guilty are still in the church, being given a second. third, fourth chance. But what do we hear of it, it's ok since what, they donate? Both acts were equally wrong, in fact I would say the latter is far more disgusting.

As for LBJ and welfare, I would like to see workfare. But the rub is that if a business man gets welfare it's a tax credit or subsidy. If a poor black women gets it, it is because she is lazy. And since most of the recipients of welfare are children, I can only point out that there are 100,000 children at an average age 8 years of age that are adoptable in this country. There are about 50,000 adoptions each year. So what to do? Well, Im sure the states that are blocking gay adoptions are really helping to end welfare. And I wonder how many people that voted for these laws or oppose them have adopted a child? An end to welfare means people have to step up to the plate and maybe take in a crack baby or two. (And let's not forget the homeless vets that sleep on the streets) And I will further this by saying that EVERY kids group I volunteer for is begging for people who will just commit an hour a week, must less 18 years with some of these kids who have often been abused, neglected or have serious mental and/or physical problems.

So it's all agenda driven, your's, mine, the donkeys, and the elephants.

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by trdrmac


So it's all agenda driven, your's, mine, the donkeys, and the elephants.

rather than go off on another long post I'll say we can no doubt agree that everyone has an agenda

i highly suggest 'The Vision of the Anointed' by Thomas Sowell and 'The Road to Serfdom' by F. A. Hayek for anyone interested in a logical and compelling look at the dangers of socialistic ideas and an overreliance on government

and with that ah be shuttin' up

 

[trdrmac]

Darkhorse, have you read

"The Ten Things You Can't Say in America" by Larry Elder I thought it was an interesting look at the libertarian Philosophy.

 

[darkhorse]

nope haven't read it, but from what i've heard through the grapevine on larry elder i would probably agree w/ most of his views....

p.s. with the one glaring exception being he is pro choice whereas i am pro life, murder in the name of convenience makes no sense to me and in the womb vs in the crib is an artifical location distinction

 

[trdrmac]

Originally posted by darkhorse
nope haven't read it, but from what i've heard through the grapevine on larry elder i would probably agree w/ most of his views....

You would probably like it. He writes for IBD sometimes, and has some pretty interesting ideas and studies in his book.

See ya on the threads.

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by trdrmac

So it's all agenda driven, your's, mine, the donkeys, and the elephants.

Great post....saved me a lot of typing.

BUT I can't resist just a few comments
...LBJ, who I absolutely loathed at the time, initiated the "Great Society" programs at a completely different period of history. So in retrospect, here is a guy who after 35 years now looks different to me than he did then.

I was a teenager at that time and I was concerned with Viet Nam (it was still two words then), because I didn't want to go. But his social programs were the moral thing AT THAT TIME. Today those programs have (mostly) outlived their usefulness, which would be a perfect result (if they were perfectly outlived...which unfortunately is not really the case).

As for "more competition in the school system"..well Darkhorse my friend (and you are my friend)....don't be naive. Do you think that school vouchers are about THAT????? I almost have to give one of fasterpussyarms ridiculous cackles to that one!! Please!!!!

 

[Babak]

Excerpt from Barron's:

Dozens of campaigning congressmen could be confronted with a public relations nightmare in the final weeks before the Nov. 7 general election. A new book by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is scheduled to hit the store shelves sometime in October -- and it will contain a chapter or two that will be downright embarrassing for some elected legislators.

Levitt's "Take On the Street," which will be published by Random House and excerpted by Readers Digest, details how Congressmen from both parties sabotaged his efforts two years ago to crack down on lax accountants -- the same Congressmen who are now scrambling in the wake of recent corporate scandals to tighten up those accounting regulations.

Some 46 Congressmen, all allegedly recipients of campaign contributions from accountants, wrote Levitt threatening or intimidating letters in a successful effort to block his proposed new rules. Levitt won't give away his goods yet, but says his book will contain several such missives that have never been made public.