ampage
Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!

 
Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  
previous: Pat A while back I posted a reply to so... -- 1115236854 View Thread

Re: Follow-up - civil discourse-long

5/5/2005 12:46 AM
Enzo
email
Re: Follow-up - civil discourse-long
Well, Pat, I made the Nixon reference, and it was to point out that it was the sort of thing that leads me to use the term asshole for W. I do it not because I am not a conservative, but because of the particular offenses of GWB. I really realy disagree with Pat Buchanan, but I perceive him as shooting straight from his way out there position. He at least is consistent and as far as I can tell honest. Same thing with McCain. I disagree with his politics but would never label him an asshole.  
 
It is easy to pick out a few flaws in an opponent and then present them as his entire being. Perhaps we all do it. I see conservatives labelling liberals as sour grapers as if they couldn't possibly have any other reason than losing the election to be upset with the president. Baloney. I didn't like GWB before the election when it looked like we would beat him.  
 
You say whenever consevatives express their views that liberals point out negatives. Duh, you bring something up in a forurm discussion, you better expect the opposing view to rear it head, where else would it more likely happen?  
 
I am particularly tired of the CLinton defense. Without Bill, what would you defend the malfeasance of the current administration with? But more importantly, the sins of one man do not diminish the sins of another. Or put another way, when you defend actions by stating that someone else did it earlier, it means you find it acceptable for any sin once committed to become acceptable behavior. Not in my book.  
 
I find it also telling that the typical conservative litany of CLinton offenses is as you state. They spent millions and millions trying to find something he had done wrong - Ken Starr made a career of it almost. In the end, none of the things they set out to pin on him turned out to hold water, not even white water, but they did turn up that he had cheated on his wife. He lied about cheating on his wife. He should have been honest, but he failed on that point. He was also denied the right to practice law, BECAUSE he has lied about cheating on his wife. He was also impeached BECAUSE he lied about cheating on his wife. That list of horrible things he did boils down to the lie and the following consequences. Note that those consequences are not things he did, they are things done to him.  
 
I for one am glad that Ford pardoned Nixon. Dick was gone and there was no need to tear the country up kicking him around. Jail Nixon, fine, jail Clinton. Pardon one, let the other alone. Fine with me.  
 
 
I don't follow your argument that if GWB had done something wrong, he would nave been "gone a long time ago." That is the flip side of the argument that someone must be guilty otherwise they wouldn't have charged him. Not valid thinking. Apparently Fox news is not elite in your view. In any case, it is not up to the "media" to prosecute the president, it is up to the COngress, and they have no intention of breaking lockstep with the president. The media have indeed brought up the various problems with the president, but other than tell us about them, they are powerless to make the COngress do anything about it.  
 
There you go again... No that is not Reagan, that is me. Blame Clinton for Korea. We have a very touchy leadership in North Korea, and we slowly get them to talk to us, like trying to befriend a stray dog or cat. Even at the beginning Bush was starting to get things warmed a bit, but the ongoing concern of the NKs is that we, the USA, are going to invade them. That is what they think. We tell them, no, we want to help and be friends. So what do we do with W at the helm?  
 
One, we have our navy stop and board one of their ships on the high seas because we claim it was carrying missles. Well it was carrying missles, and it was not a secret. In fact they had every right to sell their missles on the open market, just as we do and just as a number of other countries do. We wound up letting them continue on their way, but that destroyed a large amount of trust they may have built up. How would we react if they stopped and boarded one of our freighters?  
 
But the kicker was Iraq. Iraq did not attack us, nor did it directly threaten us, we went in there because they had the potential - supposedly - to do us harm. We have publicly stated many times that we view the NKs in the same way - they are a potential threat. SO there we are, invading with all our mighty armies the sovereign nation of Iraq. Why on earth would the NKs ever think we would not treat them the same? The only thing stopping us apparently is that we are too busy at the moment.  
 
SO please do not insult our intelligence by blaming the Korea mess on CLinton. Whatever detriment Bill might have caused inour relations, the current mess is all George W Bush.  
 
Ronald Reagan was in the WHite House when the Soviet Union finally collapsed under its own weight. It takes a lot more than "tear down this wall" to destroy an empire.

 
Replies:
Anonorant Finally, someone who follows direct... -- 5/5/2005 3:45 AM