Re: The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>>>>>>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>>>>>>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>>>>>>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>>>>>>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion
>>>>>>> with your family and friends, yes?
>>>>>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone
>>>>>> turned them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty
>>>>>> money, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>>>>> into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>>>>> prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>>>>> just plain *mean*.
>>>>> They've been humiliated enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>>>> Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight skinny
>>> right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's because we are
>>> "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we "come to Islam"
>>> and live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated it's because we
>>> aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war "being nice" is
>>> considered weakness to be exploited.
>>>
>>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam don't
>>> you?
>> Oh ********! Almost all Muslim's consider bin Laden's religious ideas to
>> be wrong. The only reason they support him is because he stands up to
>> western imperialist bullying, unlike "President" Mubarak, King Abdullah
>> II, the House of Saud and other toady governments. If you actually knew
>> and talked to people from some Muslim countries you would realize this,
>> but instead you fill you head with propaganda garbage from the government
>> and media.
>>
>> Cripes, no wonder the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention
>> the "War on Terror".
>>
>> --
>
> Take it easy Mr. Sunset. I'm having a hard time understanding you.
>
> You're saying almost all Muslims consider bin Laden's religious ideas wrong
> (and you know that how?),

I happen to personally know Muslim's that live in some of these
countries. The general attitude is "US government bad, most US people good."

> but they support him because he stands up to
> western imperialist bullying, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Ok so? And we are
> losing the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror"
> because we aren't nice?

The only way to win a war of conquest over a reluctant population is
genocide.

> I saw a poll not long ago that claimed 75% of the US Muslims disapproved of
> suicide bombing. That's fine, but it's the other 25% that worry me.

How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing? In
late March and April 2003, before the Iraqi occupation resistance had
begun to fight and prove Kenneth Adelman's "cakewalk" prediction and
Bush's "major combat operations have ended" pronouncement wrong, most
USians supporting the bombing of Iraq.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>
>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>
> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its stock?
> LOL
>
>> and no friend of labor.
>
> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.

Actually, the Republican's better hope that Hillary Clinton wins the
Democratic nomination, since she turns off labor more than any
Democratic candidate since Joe Lieberman (who has been elected in large
part by cross-voting Republicans).

>> Why does the
>> political right hate her so much?
>
> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint: lies and
> opportunism.)

If Sorni knew what he was talking about he would know that no one on the
US left likes Hillary Clinton (and they didn't like Bill either).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>> still me? wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
>>>>> that's another story.
>>>> The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:
>>>>
>>>> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
>>>> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
>>>> of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
>>> There is no more ridiculous a figure in the world than a Bush hater like
>>> Tom Sherman. If only we had had Gore or Kerry, all would be right with
>>> the world! Maybe Hillary will lead us out of the quagmire!
>> Hillary the former and currently closeted Republican?
>
> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the wife of
> Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.

Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> The only bullshitter here is Tom Sherman. Fundamentalist Islam (Wahabism out
> of Saudi Arabia) is the mortal enemy of civilization. They want to take the
> world back to the Middle Ages. That is where I would like to see Tom Sherman
> go too. Then Saint Edward the Great would see to it that he was properly
> stoned to death for all his transgressions against Christianity and common
> human decency....

Like this
<http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html>?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>
>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>
>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>> stock? LOL
>>
>>> and no friend of labor.
>>
>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>
> Actually, the Republican's better hope that Hillary Clinton wins the
> Democratic nomination, since she turns off labor more than any
> Democratic candidate since Joe Lieberman (who has been elected in
> large part by cross-voting Republicans).
>
>>> Why does the
>>> political right hate her so much?
>>
>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint: lies
>> and opportunism.)
>
> If Sorni knew what he was talking about he would know that no one on
> the US left likes Hillary Clinton (and they didn't like Bill either).

You're delusional, Tom. (Otherwise, insightful commentary!)

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:

>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.

> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.

Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, and
LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also coerced perjury from
Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen "forced to rub his" ***** and Anita
Broderick and...well, at least one other. These matters were NOT about sex
or affairs; they were about illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to
cover it up. Monica was just...a vessel.)

Bill "I suppose they should be grateful he didn't Vince Foster 'em" S.

 

[Keats]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>>
>> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
>> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
>> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
>> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
>> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
>> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
>> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
>> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
>> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
>> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
>> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
>> Islam to exist.
>
> My God, I can't believe it! Jim McNamara is finally saying something
> sensible!
>

<snip>

Err......Ed, it's Tim McNamara not Jim McNamara. Thought you would want to
know. Seems Jim still hasn't said anything sensible.

(not Tom) Keats

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...I would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded head!...

Hey Ed, it is supposed to be a (clearly labeled) 16-ton weight that
falls on people.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
>> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
>> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
>> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
>> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
>> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
>> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
>> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
>> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
>> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
>> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
>> Islam to exist.
>
> My God, I can't believe it! Jim McNamara is finally saying something
> sensible!

Er Ed,

JIM McNamara lives in the north side of Chicago and rides a P-38.

TIM McNamara lives in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota and rides uprights.

Please keep your McNamara's straight.

>> By comparison there are many moderate Muslims whom I have met, primarily
>> through work. They are pleasant, generous people who work hard. They
>> are typically quiet and unassuming, a bit outside of the American
>> mainstream and aware of it but not necessarily uncomfortable with it-
>> and more than willing to explain their understanding of their religion
>> with people who ask about it with sincerity. I find them only
>> superficially different from the moderate Christians and moderate Jews
>> that I know. I know very few people of other faiths- just one Hindu and
>> a few Buddhists, not enough to claim any sort of understanding of the
>> cultural aspects of their religions. I have studied a lot of Buddhist
>> texts over the past 30 years and find much of high merit there, but have
>> had little contact with Buddhists (by which I mean people who grew up in
>> Buddhism, not Western converts. I know quite a few of the latter and
>> occasionally consider myself among them. Except that I am *such* a
>> crappy Buddhist when it comes to applying the principles to my daily
>> life).
>
> Forget Buddhism! Just another crappy, nutty religion which came out of
> India. India is an insane asylum of religions. I mean it just does not get
> any worse than that. But Hinduism is my favorite. It permits starvation in
> the streets. You know, all that **** about class and reincarnation!
>
>>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
>>> don't you?
>> However, I would quibble with your use of the term "fundamentalist
>> Islam" and would instead suggest "radical Islamists." Fundamentalists
>> are not necessarily radicals and radicals usually have twisted the
>> fundamentals of a faith to suit their agenda. We see it in the US with
>> the Christianists too, the main difference being that they are not
>> currently as violent as the radical Islamists. They have been in the
>> past, however- just tonight on TV I watched a member of the Ku Klux Klan
>> proudly proclaim that the KKK was a "terror group" 40 years ago. They
>> often justify their terrorism with perversions of Christian theology.
>
> You will go awfully astray if you attempt to compare fundamentalist
> Christians with fundamentalist Muslims. Christians have not been murdering
> anyone for quite some time now. This is the 21st century. What excuse can
> you dredge up for the Muslim murderers other than their medieval mentality.
> Islam has kept them permanently retarded and stupid.
>
>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>
> Yup, I knew it! Jim McNamara is just too god damn stupid himself ever to
> arrive at any sound conclusions about anything. And this jerk attended
> Loyola, a renown institution of Catholic education in Chicago.

Nope, wrong McNamara again. TIM McNamara went to St. Mary's University,
not Loyola.

> The Islamists would not amount to anything provided there were no weapons of
> mass destruction. That changes everything. Too bad liberals are forever too
> stupid to realize this brute fact.

And now for something completely different...

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>>> stock? LOL
>>>
>>>> and no friend of labor.
>>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>> Actually, the Republican's better hope that Hillary Clinton wins the
>> Democratic nomination, since she turns off labor more than any
>> Democratic candidate since Joe Lieberman (who has been elected in
>> large part by cross-voting Republicans).
>>
>>>> Why does the
>>>> political right hate her so much?
>>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint: lies
>>> and opportunism.)
>> If Sorni knew what he was talking about he would know that no one on
>> the US left likes Hillary Clinton (and they didn't like Bill either).
>
> You're delusional, Tom. (Otherwise, insightful commentary!)

Hey Sorni,

Go to your library and check out some of the left/progressive magazines
to see what they say about the Clintons. Or just check out some of the
websites of collected opinions. You will hardly find any support for
either of them, other than as the "lesser evil".

Don't believe what the "left" says/writes based on what you hear on the
radio.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>
>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>
> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, and
> LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also coerced perjury from
> Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen "forced to rub his" ***** and Anita
> Broderick and...well, at least one other. These matters were NOT about sex
> or affairs; they were about illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to
> cover it up. Monica was just...a vessel.)
>
> Bill "I suppose they should be grateful he didn't Vince Foster 'em" S.

Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition" in
1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms of Bill
Clinton and Bob Dole?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> >> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
> >> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>
> > Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>
> Red herring.

You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy initiatives.
Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful Republican
presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy perspective
rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton only looked
liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>
> > Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>
> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
> stock? LOL
>
> > and no friend of labor.
>
> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>
> > Why does the political right hate her so much?
>
> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
> lies and opportunism.)

I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative masquerading as
a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if she becomes the
Democratic candidate. There are no Republican candidates I can vote
for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote for H Clinton. A conundrum.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>>>> stock? LOL
>>>>
>>>>> and no friend of labor.
>>>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>>> Actually, the Republican's better hope that Hillary Clinton wins the
>>> Democratic nomination, since she turns off labor more than any
>>> Democratic candidate since Joe Lieberman (who has been elected in
>>> large part by cross-voting Republicans).
>>>
>>>>> Why does the
>>>>> political right hate her so much?
>>>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>>>> lies and opportunism.)
>>> If Sorni knew what he was talking about he would know that no one on
>>> the US left likes Hillary Clinton (and they didn't like Bill
>>> either).
>>
>> You're delusional, Tom. (Otherwise, insightful commentary!)
>
> Hey Sorni,
>
> Go to your library and check out some of the left/progressive
> magazines to see what they say about the Clintons. Or just check out
> some of the websites of collected opinions. You will hardly find any
> support for either of them, other than as the "lesser evil".
>
> Don't believe what the "left" says/writes based on what you hear on
> the radio.

So now the "kook lunatic fringe" is mainstream left? Actually, when all all
the leading Dem prez 'dates attend the Cos Convention and skip the moderate
Leadership Council, you might be right.

Still, you and all the others will support or at least vote for Hillary,
won't you? Or can Rudy/Mitt/Fred count on you?!? LOL (You won't back
Blumberg in large numbers, since that will elect a Republican.)

Bill "too soon to really care about this ****" S.

(PS: You might want to fix your sig file so it's deleted in replies; PITA
to "erase" it every time.)

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>
>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>
>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>> stock? LOL
>>
>>> and no friend of labor.
>>
>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>>
>>> Why does the political right hate her so much?
>>
>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>> lies and opportunism.)
>
> I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
> Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
> Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative masquerading
> as a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if she becomes the
> Democratic candidate. There are no Republican candidates I can vote
> for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote for H Clinton. A
> conundrum.

You'll do what practically all Dems will do: you'll vote for Ms. Strident.
Even if there's a 3rd party candidate you like. Sad but true.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>
>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>
>> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula
>> Jones, and LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also
>> coerced perjury from Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen "forced
>> to rub his" ***** and Anita Broderick and...well, at least one
>> other. These matters were NOT about sex or affairs; they were about
>> illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to cover it up. Monica
>> was just...a vessel.) Bill "I suppose they should be grateful he didn't
>> Vince Foster 'em"
>> S.
>
> Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition" in
> 1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms of Bill
> Clinton and Bob Dole?

The latter would not have further decimated the military for one thing, and
would have taken out OBL when the opportunity presented itself on a silver
platter for another.

HTH

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>
>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>
>> Red herring.
>
> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
> initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
> Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy
> perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton
> only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.

So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out there?
Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
> >>
> >>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
> >>
> >> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
> >> stock? LOL
> >>
> >>> and no friend of labor.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
> >>
> >>> Why does the political right hate her so much?
> >>
> >> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
> >> lies and opportunism.)
> >
> > I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
> > Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
> > Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative
> > masquerading as a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if
> > she becomes the Democratic candidate. There are no Republican
> > candidates I can vote for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote
> > for H Clinton. A conundrum.
>
> You'll do what practically all Dems will do: you'll vote for Ms.
> Strident. Even if there's a 3rd party candidate you like. Sad but
> true.

Not just practically all Democrats but everybody who feels strong party
affiliation. I don't feel a strong party affiliation, though. I'm a
liberal, not a Democrat. I vote Democrat more often, but I have cast a
lot of votes for Republicans and a few independents and third party
candidates. Like many people, I try to select the person I think is
best for the job based on the information I have available to me. If
it's Hillary vs. Romnianison I will probably vote Green. Hell, the
Democrats have let themselves become little more than the moderate wing
of the Republican Party. Cracks me up when people describe the Dems as
"liberals." ROFL!

Interestingly many of the "liberal" changes in US law came under
Republican presidents: significant parts of the environmental
protection laws, creation of the EPA, Title IX. And then later the
Republicans keep trying to gut their own achievements...

Amusing (to me) further off-topic story. It must have been in 1994 that
I voted in the Republican primary in Minnesota. We had a decent,
moderate Republican governor named Arne Carlson who was in all
likelihood not going to be endorsed by the part for re-election, because
the party was controlled by a few right wing nutbars especially a guy
named Allen Quist (who IIRC did win the endorsement). I liked the job
Carlson had done in his first term, so I wanted to cast a vote in
support of him. I didn't care for the Democratic frontrunners so I
wanted to have a good alternative on the ballot. Carlson did win
re-election without his party's endorsement and had a second term as a
reasonable, effective governor under whose leadership the state did
well. Then we elected Jesse Ventura and it went to hell in a handbasket
but that's for another time. Here's the part I find amusing:

Of course, in a primary you can only vote within one party, so I had to
make other choices for other candidates. As much as I could I chose the
person I thought would be the best of the available options. In the
primary for Attorney General, I spotted a name I thought I knew and
voted for her. Turned out it was a name similar to another well-known
person and my memory had betrayed me. And it further turned out that
the memories of a *lot* of voters had done the same and she won the
primary. It further transpired that this person really was a nut; the
Republican Party chairman very honorably came out and stated that while
she had won the primary, she was not fit for office as far as the
Republican Party was concerned and they would not support her and
encouraged voters to select someone else. It was a good day for the
Republican Party in Minnesota, I thought, to show that kind of
refreshing forthrightness. The party has declined in recent years in
terms of its ethics, but one can hope for a return to integrity at some
point.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was
> >>>> the wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
> >>
> >>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
> >>
> >> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula
> >> Jones, and LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also
> >> coerced perjury from Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen
> >> "forced to rub his" ***** and Anita Broderick and...well, at least
> >> one other. These matters were NOT about sex or affairs; they were
> >> about illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to cover it up.
> >> Monica was just...a vessel.) Bill "I suppose they should be
> >> grateful he didn't Vince Foster 'em" S.
> >
> > Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition"
> > in 1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms
> > of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole?
>
> The latter would not have further decimated the military for one
> thing, and would have taken out OBL when the opportunity presented
> itself on a silver platter for another.

Oh ********. The outcome would have been no different. Clinton ordered
strikes and was aggressive about getting bin Laden. Hell, the
Republicans criticized him and his security team for being obsessed with
bin Laden and not with Hussein. Turns out that the Clinton team was
right and the Republicans were out to lunch. And they continued in that
befogged stupidity after taking charge in 2001, marginalizing the effort
to find and neutralize bin Laden and al Qaeda in favor of planning to
overthrow Saddam Hussein- the neocon's favorite hobbyhorse.

As far as "further decimating the military" goes:

http://tinyurl.com/2xwyle

http://tinyurl.com/353qq

http://tinyurl.com/yubyyq

http://tinyurl.com/27nstd

Less time listening to Rush, more time paying attention to reality would
do a world of good.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was
> >>>> the wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
> >>
> >>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
> >>
> >> Red herring.
> >
> > You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
> > conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
> > Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
> > quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
> > initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
> > Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a
> > policy perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective.
> > Clinton only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were
> > insane.
>
> So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out
> there?

He's not. The right wing thinks he is, because they can only think in
black and white, but they are wrong (again).

> Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

In many cases, yes. He apparently has immense personal charm, or so I
am told, which may also account for it. I also think that Clinton
benefits from the contrast effect with the current President. By
comparison, the Clinton Administration was the shining city on the hill.