|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
oval
|
|
response 50 of 133:
| 
Jun 10 15:54 UTC 2002 |
last i heard cocaine was criminal. and again .. bash clinton somewhere else.
he's an ass too .. but he's not running the country right now dammit. this
isnt a who's worse item cupcake.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 51 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:02 UTC 2002 |
Last I heard, marijuana wasn't legal, even if you didn't inhale.
If you're gonna bash who's running the country, you have to take a few shots
at the guy who left him with the mess, tiger.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 52 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:06 UTC 2002 |
And sexual assalt and money laundering were not proven in a court of
law.
I have to read the preceeding posts before I can comment further.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 53 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:10 UTC 2002 |
Okay...by the same logic, OJ Simpson never killed anyone.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 54 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:21 UTC 2002 |
Precisely. What, did you think you were going to get me to disagree?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:24 UTC 2002 |
I thought it was the president that was sexually assaulted. The problem
people have with that seems to be that he enjoyed it. Spoilsports.....
|
twinkie
|
|
response 56 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:31 UTC 2002 |
re: 54 -- No, not necessarily. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to the
fact that an overwhemling majority of Americans who are not of
African-American heritage believe that OJ Simpson did indeed kill two people.
Whether he did or not is impossible to know. He wasn't guilty "beyond a
reasonable doubt", as defined by a group of twelve people who apparently would
have reached any consensus, as long as it meant that they could go home
quickly.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 57 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:45 UTC 2002 |
What is your point? I know all of this. What one personally believes
and the law, or upholding the law are two different things. I
personally believe that OJ did it, but according to the rule of law, he
did not.
|
brighn
|
|
response 58 of 133:
|
Jun 10 16:59 UTC 2002 |
#47> I think this sentence fairly much sums up the reliability of the
allegations in the Guardian article:
Mrs Broaddrick's story surfaced in an American supermarket tabloid magazine
in January.
The Star. Where any yahoo who wants $250 for a "true story" can make up any
shit they want.
Beond that, #49 is amusing given that you want to bash Clinton for one alleged
mistake 20+ years ago, but you don't want to allow Bush-bashing for an equally
aged mistake. Personally, I think both issues are silly. Bush and Clinton are
both power-hungry recovering addicts.
Now, back to the potshots at what Bush has done, now, as President, and what
he did to get there.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 59 of 133:
|
Jun 10 18:00 UTC 2002 |
re: 57 -- Well, you just demonstrated the point I was trying to make. You
differentiate between what is legally known as "guilty", and what you believe
to be "guilty". While that's common, and all fine and good, it gets messy when
you start declaring a person's innocence, when the state of innocence is
purely subjective.
re: 58 -- For as much slack as they (often deservedly) take, not every tabloid
article is a fabrication. It's widely known that one of the most current and
accurate publications was the National Enquirer, during the OJ trials.
(Okay...this may drift in to a News vs. Entertainment vs. Morality
arguement..so I'll leave it at that.)
My point in raising Clinton's alleged sexual assault was precisely that it
happened nearly 20 years ago...it was essentially to keep some perspective
here. You can't call Bush a cokehead drunk, but say "That's ancient history!"
when Clinton is labeled as a pothead rapist.
Don't get me wrong...I hardly think Bush is the best person we could have as
President. I didn't vote for him in the primaries, and I had a difficult time
voting for him in the election -- but felt he was the best candidate out of
the choices available. So, regardless of how or why he's President, he's here,
and we have him for at least a little while longer. So, it's time to start
moving forward.
What I find rather sad, is that Bush Bashers will attack indiscretions that
happened decades ago, and the fact that he simply isn't a very good public
speaker, and that he's just plain dumb. All of this despite the fact that he
owned up to what he did, rather than say "I drank, but didn't swallow", and
that some of the best public speakers have been less than successful
presidents (Regan, anyone?), and that he has a handful of degrees from Ivy
League colleges (C average or not, that's better than your 3.71 at WCC, or
EMU).
Okay...so he's a bad guy, hellbent on making the rich richer, and the poor
poorer. Be creative, and attack a policy. Have the wit to attack him with
something legitimate, comprising of something at least marginally more
intellectual than "He's SO dumb!".
|
brighn
|
|
response 60 of 133:
|
Jun 10 18:15 UTC 2002 |
Reagan was a "less than successful president"? Not only did he get re-elected,
but his coattails were enough to bring the third worst President of my
lifetime into office. Even his detractors have a hard time denying his role
in ending the Cold War. His very presence in office was enough to end a
hostage crisis. Sure, he had a major scandal, but so do most Presidents.
He *is* just plain dumb. Anyone can buy grades, even at the Ivy Leagues. Also
ironic: You don't want us to damn him for something he did 20 years ago, but
you want to praise him for something he did 20 years ago. If he's no longer
an alcoholic drifter, then he's no longer an average student at an advanced
school.
Be consistent, cupcake.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 61 of 133:
|
Jun 10 18:33 UTC 2002 |
re: 60
I used that term so that the average Grexer would understand what I was
talking about. Presumably, when they hear "Reagan" they think "trickle-down
economics" and a myriad of other socio-economic changes his administration
made, that they disagree with. Personally, I think he was one of the best
presidents we've had.
And no, he's *not* just plain dumb. You're not President. You couldn't be
President if you wanted to. He was smart enough to get more degrees than most
people have. He was smart enough to be a governor. He's smart enough to get
an extremely high approval rating.
Writing it off as "bought grades" is just self-serving cynicism. Okay...you
bought your grades, too. And so did <insert name here>. So did anyone anywhere
at any school, who did better than a 2.0
I'm not suggesting that he be praised for anything. It's just simple fact that
the man has an education, and an education that most likely extends far beyond
yours or mine. I'm not saying that having a college degree is the ultimate
proof of a person's intelligence, but to call him "dumb" is really only
demonstrating your own ignorance.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your last line. What exactly
are you trying to say? If we forgive one event in a person's past, we then
wipe away anything that happened between the event, and the present day?
Obviously, he's not a student at any college. That hardly nullifies the fact
that he was, and managed to get degrees. Obviously, he's not an alcoholic
drifter, because he doesn't drink, and he tends to be where people expect him
to be. It's rather absurd to label him as such today.
|
jp2
|
|
response 62 of 133:
|
Jun 10 18:38 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 63 of 133:
|
Jun 10 18:47 UTC 2002 |
He has a Bachelor's in History from Yale, and a MBA from Harvard.
I thought he had more than that. My bad.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 64 of 133:
|
Jun 10 18:50 UTC 2002 |
What, no ph.D.???
|
twinkie
|
|
response 65 of 133:
|
Jun 10 18:58 UTC 2002 |
No other president in my lifetime went further than a Bachelor's, according
to infoplease.com.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 66 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:00 UTC 2002 |
Huh. I thought Carter had a Master's.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 67 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:01 UTC 2002 |
I think most of the folks here have legitimte grips about his
policies. When one sees Bush do something silly in public or hears a
story of how he does something incredibly stupid, quite naturally the
first thing one thinks of is their disagreement with Bush's stance on
the nuclear test ban treaty.
Regarding my demonstrating the point you were trying to make, I
commented on the last post you made with the argument about clinton,
and then mentioned that I wouldn't make comments on other arguments
until I read the previous postings. So you have an empty victory, I'm
afraid.
|
brighn
|
|
response 68 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:02 UTC 2002 |
Bachelor's in Liberal Arts fields are notoriously easy to get. That he only
managed a C average is indeed demonstration that he's not the sharpest knife
in the drawer. I got a 3.8 as an undergraduate, at a private school, in one
of the specialties of that school (Math/Comp Sci at Lawrence Tech). I also
have a Master's degree. Newsflash, twinkie, I knew some absolute morons in
Graduate School. Some of them had PhDs. Some of those were from prestigious
schools.
"I'm not suggesting he should be praised for anything," you say. That's a
crock. Your evidence that he's not a moron is that he graduated from the
Ivies. That's praising him for something, fencepost. And it was something that
happened 20 years ago.
I could never be President because (a) not only have I tried drugs (and
for
the record, I didn't inhale, either), but I think they should be legalized,
(b) I think that gay marriage should be legal, and that polygamy should be
legal, (c) I had sex with a 15-year-old when I was an adult, and the media
in this country doesn't care how long ago such things happened. It's got
nothing to do with my intelligence.
|
jp2
|
|
response 69 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:08 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:10 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 71 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:12 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 72 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:16 UTC 2002 |
re: 66 -- Infoplease doesn't list Carter's educational background, so that
may be true.
re: 67 -- I'm not saying that people don't or shouldn't have legitimate quips
about the President. I'm saying it takes a bit more than parroting "He's so
dumb!" to get anyone's attention these days. That is, unless the people you're
seeking attention from are like-minded, in which case, it's rather silly to
bother complaining to them.
re: 68 -- Again, I'm not saying that he is the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm not even saying that he's more than adequate. I'm sorry that you're
convinced that Lawrence Tech is even remotely at par with Harvard or Yale,
but it really does take a little bit more at those schools.
Sure...okay, maybe I am praising him for graduating from two Ivy League
schools. My praise is in the form of "His educational background is more
impressive than ours." If those are the semantics you're most comfortable
with, so be it.
Thank you for conceding that you're vastly underqualified to be President,
though. I'm glad to hear the reasons extend beyond your educational limits,
and reach in to immoral and/or criminal conduct. I was kinda nervous at first,
when you said you had a Master's, too ;-)
|
twinkie
|
|
response 73 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:18 UTC 2002 |
re: 71 -- While I'm sure Lawrence Tech is a fine school, I can tell you
first-hand that it doesn't take more than a good ACT score to get in. With
my illustrious 0.66 high school GPA, they were paying me some unsolicited
calls. (Then again...MSU offered me a scholarship...what does that say about
*them* <g>)
|
jp2
|
|
response 74 of 133:
|
Jun 10 19:23 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|