Oh, the rhetoric .....
I certainly know what a Libertarian is, but one only has to read what you are writing Bill, to see how far to the right you lean. Call yourself what you will, but "a rose by any other name..."
Oh my... The natives are restless!
<Once again, someone who has a simple-mided view of politics. I've discussed this before. Perhaps some time you should look up the definition of a libertarian. If you viewed political point of view from more than one dimension, you would see the error in your statement. >
Since you brought it up, it's not my one-dimensional look on politics that's in question here. Libertarianism opposes all government action except that which is necessary to protect life and property. They recognize the necessity of government but believe that it should be as limited as possible. Do you wish to tell us which of George's policies, foreign or domestic fall into your realm of libertarianism?
<Give me a break, Mike. You were the one who started this Bush-bashing thread over a well-known practice called Google Bombing. Apparently you've never seen it before. And apparently you can dish it out but... What did you expect, Mike? >
I was just pointing out something funny. The fact that it was a Bush-bashing bombing doesn't make it mine; therefore, who carried it to Clinton bashing???? Dish out what?;-)
<I know how you and Gene and chewy think. Your views are pretty well known. I wouldn't be making comparisons with another second term president if I didn't see a little bit of symmetry here. Comparisons, after all, have been made before. And history shows that second term in the last century or so to be one fraught with "issues." (Bimbo eruptions, arms for hostages, etc., etc.) >
You're wrong here. It doesn't matter which term we are speaking about with any president. they are all fraught with "issues." Just read the history books.
<And once again, the sniping comments that come so freely from you and a few others contrast drastically with the facts. It only serves to point out that you hate Bush because he doesn't think the way you want him to think.>
I wonder sometimes where you live if you really think this. I hate Bush because he doesn't think the way I want hime to? How about I hate Bush becuase he has put us into a war that has no end in sight for oil (whether you wish to believe that or not), under false pretenses (just where are those WMD? Found any yet?); has glorified the death of almost 2000 young men and women; has ignored the the suffering of millions of Americans while he spends over 2 billion a week on this war; has personally destroyed the economic gain of the 1990s to add to the deficit; ignored the people during the worst natural disaster in US history; ignored the warning signs of numerous terrorists; hired incompetent people to run important agencies, etc., etc. How about I hate Bush because he hasn't done the job he was put into office to do.
<If a cat won't fetch, does that make it unintelligent? Quite the contrary...>
Just makes it a useless animal.
<id you know that Einstein was dyslexic? >
Did Einstein run the most powerful country in the world?
<George the silver-tongued he is not. Does that make him unintellient? >
He is a symbol of our government. As a guy who promotes programs such as "No Children Left Behind," shouldn't we expect a leader who ACTS as the example? Maybe you don't, but I do.
<Adolph Hitler was a master orator. Does that make him a great man?>
In a way yes. His demagoguery swayed millions to the Nazi cause. By 1939, Hitler was a great man in the eyes of Germans and other Europeans.
<News flash - I voted for Clinton. TWICE! >
Oh, you must be kicking yourself!
<I don't "hate" Clinton. And I'm glad Little Willie got to get out and play. >
Once again, what you say and how your posts come across are two different things I guess.
<I do find it objectionable that he was banging interns in the oral... I mean oval office. Whose office is that, anyhow? Whose watch was he doing that on? And what was happening in Afghanistan when Clinton was wagging his finger at a television camera, saying he didn't have sex with "that woman." >
This is where I find it interesting. You find Clinton objectionable for what he did at in the Oval office. Does that mean you wouldn't have a problem if he were banging Monica at Camp David or anywhere else or is it just the location that bothers you? Remember your icon Thomas Jefferson was out starting his own race of people on his watch, does that bother you? I bet you could probably count the presidents on one hand who didn't have something going own. Clinton happens to be the one that got caught and then have an extremely biased majority congress go on the witch hunt, which in the end proved nothing, except that money could be wasted (although the prosses was fun to watch).
<And do you know what they call it when you lie to a grand jury under oath? >
It's called perjury
<And do you know what the definition of "is" is? >
But it's such a great catch phrase now.
I'm sorry are you speaking of Bush or Clinton, I lost track.
<Meanwhile, yes - Osama was planning 9/11. Oh it's all Bush's fault, eh?>
<It happened on BUSH's watch, eh?> Yep
<This was the first attack on the WTC, right? It wasn't???> No, but it was worst terrorist attack in the history of the US. Did you see the tape? Were you sleeping through it all on 9/11? Bush was the president spin it anyway you wish.
<Don't you love history, Mike? >
<No, Mike. I happened to have read my history, and know how down the nation was during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. I know all the nasty details of those eras, because it fascinates me. >
Where is the correllation? If you read the history as you say, in which of those conflicts did the presdent, Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt/Truman invade a sovereign nation under the lie that he was looking for weapons of mass destruction? It doesn't matter that people were down on their president during those periods for anything because the causes were pretty well justified.
<History repeats itself. >
Not in the examples you give, but if you mean that we were stupid enough as a country to elect two Bush's to the presidency, then I guess you are right.
<I do fault Bush, Inc. for not knowing how to sell his vision. >
You sure you want to go so far out on the limb?
<Bush does not have a science degree; he has an MBA. >
So that means he doesn't have to be analytical in his problem solving? I'll have to take a few business courses and see what I'm missing. Probably starts with "Feelings 101," followed by "Your Best Guess 102."
<Are you familiar with Harvard case history training? Bush doesn't act on "feeling.">
You'll have to show me what you base this on.
<You are entitled to your political point of view. Different strokes... >
That's very left of you.
<However, you will rue the day when I come to you and say "Told you so!!" about Iraq. There will be major rueage, Mike! >
That will be quite the day. I think I will owe you quite the dinner up here in the bastion of liberalism if this comes to pass, but I won't be holding my breath
<By the way, don't you just love that Iraqi constitution vote? >
Keep this in mind that the vote didn't end the Shiite/Sunni hatred. All this did was ensure that US troops will have more duties upholding the new Iraqi constitution.