Interesting post in Freep land......

Post compares "effective" Clinton administration to "ineffective" Shrub circus. Original post is accurate for the most part.....Freeps are struggling to find comebacks. Drawing quite a lot of replies......will be interesting to see where this goes....lol

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999086/posts

Fine men have a problem killing other human beings..

this doofus seems to enjoy it.

but.. I see the point of your post and their scrambling to cover for their boy

They are having some knee jerk reactions.....can't seem to find any "real" data to debunk the articke....:)

the coming election. ;)

And of course he's obviously a supply-sider, spilling the same myth that it works, and that bush's tax cuts will somehow do the same magic.

Can't argue with Clinton's results though, so of course they attack the man, not what he did for this country.

The repugs......wasn't me, was it any of you?....lol

It just lowers you...

It's a good thing to know how others are thinking.

I wouldn't be so sure. My first thoughts about Dean were like yours.

But Dean is the closest thing that the Dems have to what you might call an avenging angel. That's kind of what got Arnold elected here in California. Not so much his stance on partiuclar issues. People who usually vote RAT voted for him because he promised to be the man on the white horse, who rides into town and cleans the place up.

If the status quo come next November is a bogged down war, a ballooning deficit, and a stagnant economy, an ongoing scandal (about the CIA thing), then an avenging angel will be just what people are looking for, especially all those who feel "aggrived" in one way or another by Bush.

all those are big ifs. But they are real. So I wouldn't be too sanguine about Dean being able to painted as a softie liberal from Vermont.


11 posted on 10/10/2003 1:34 PM PDT by rightbanker

"There's nothing on this Earth that would cause hardcore Democrats to vote for (Bush), and he's turning broken-glass Republicans into why-bother Republicans. I've been saying since the first six months of his term that he'll be a one-termer."

"Clinton) .... was an effective president- In what way? In the only way that counts. He got the people to support him at the polls. On the day he left office Clinton had a 58 percent job approval rating. They elected him president twice. Clinton survived impeachment because the people wanted him to survive. Other elected officials were afraid to convict a man the People did not want convicted.

This is not a dictatorship. It is a government of the people."

Oooo, I like that.

Eloriel

Clinton should have been shot, failed presidency, etc etc

insistence of DUers like this one) only solidify my belief that only stupid people could blindly support Bush.

These guys are morons. One poster spelled "surely" - "Shirley".

Can anyone really be that dumb?

Surely, you can't be serious.

I am serious. And don't call me, "Shirley".

Of course, only stupid people blindly do anything. We have a number of people here too that are just as blind, though walking in an obviously different direction.

Blind faith is certainly a multi-partisan issue and not limited to Republicans only. There is plenty of it to go around, unfortunately!

If all you gleaned from the post was one spelling error I'm not sure what that says about the depth of your intellegence.

BTW, while we're nitpicking, I think I see a grammatical error with your use of a comma in the last sentence of your post. Would it not be "And don't call me "Shirley". (sans comma??)

Before I respond, here's a small word of advice: if you are going to question another person's intelligence, it might be a good idea to bother to spell "intelligence" correctly. "Intellegence" it is not.

My point was regarding blind faith, not one typographical error. The typographical error was merely an example. My comment was a generalization based on various postings I have read at that web site. You would have understood that had you put more than one second of thought into what I posted.

Regarding comma usage, both ways are technically correct. A comma is usually placed before any quoted text. However, it is optional if the text is either one word or a short phrase or is in the middle of a phrase, such as, "We often say "Sorry" when we don't really mean it."

Thank you so much for your insightful post.

lol

but the content of your post was concerned mostly with the misspelling of a word. I see spelling errors all over DU and I never discount a poster simply because of spelling or grammer.

I'm sure that poor spelling is not a prerequisite for a person blindly following bush as simple a line of logic as that may be to come up with.

Stupid people are everywhere. Even me...from time to time.:)

"Shirley" vs. "surely" might top anything I've seen over here! :)

No, I really didn't intend to equate spelling with intelligence. It was meant only as a rather bizarre example (not sure how anyone could confuse a woman's name with "surely"), rather than an indication of the overall brightness level of the average Freeper. In that one Freeper posting alone, there are plenty of examples!

NT

liasons (sic)"... Er... Clinton didn't commit treason... and is the poster acknowledging that BUsh - or someone in his administration committed treason - just not between adulterous liaisons? ;-)

Is the poster implying that Bush is incapable of committing treason while being involved in adulterous liasons? Is he complimenting Clinton on the fact that he could "do" that?

I know of no act of treason that Clinton partook of.

Bush, on the other hand, perhaps should have a "liason", it might take some of the excess testosterone out of him. Then his "acts of treason" would bracket a "liason".

:eyes:

want to reach out to the more educated conservatives. Not all of them are shrill, bible-thumping, bigots. Just most of them. *sigh* But some very good points made in the thread, though. Like this one:

The right never figures it out. The left knows the score. For an ideology to win, it must first cause the center to believe in that ideology. The reasons that persuade the right do not persuade the center. It they did, the center would all be conservatives. So the right must learn to do what the left has done.... persuade the center with reasons that will convince the center. In the last 70 years the left has moved the center to the left.

When either party convinces the center to its point of view, that agenda that will be enacted and the center moves in that direction.

What part of this is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people confuses Conservatives the most?
What part of Leaders do what the people want escapes conservatives most often?
The right stupidly looks for leaders to do as they wish. But leaders always do as the majority wills. The right should try educating the people. If that is accomplished, all leaders will do what the right wants done.

And this one:

Or, maybe we give the American voter too much credit. After all, Algore did win the popular vote only 3 years ago. You'll not convince me the voters have gotten much smarter in the meantime (9/11 or not).

Chances are, Gov. Howard Dean could all-too-easily be made to look very much like a New England version of Gov. Bill Clinton to a lot of impressionable and worried soccer moms out there.

Clinton inherited a fine economy that was recovering from a recession, led it to extravagant excesses, and left office just as the bottom was dropping out from his mismanagement. <I wasn't aware Clinton mind controlled Ken Lay et al. regarding those excesses>
He did absolutely nothing about the one overriding political issue in the world, global terrorism. <I seem to recall the '93 WTC bombers were caught and convicted, also the millenium plotters were stopped before anything happended>

George Bush inherited a mess both economically and on the terrorism front. He has struggled painfully to correct both problems. He has made the tough choices Clinton avoided for eight years. <Oh yeah, those tax cust for the rich were so tough for him to make, and the fact is the Ostrich himself and Ashcroft CUT the terrorism budget for '02 that was on the books as of 9/10/01!>

The writer pays lip service to the differences, but fails to draw any implications. That no-nothing stance allows the author to ignore the need or rationale for tax cuts and simply look at their fiscal impact - an impact far, far worse than a severe recession or even depression that might have occurred otherwise. <WTF? The tax-cuts staved off a depression? What is this guy smoking???>
If the unemployment rate had gone to 10% because the economy went off the cliff due to lack of tax relief, this guy, I'm sure, would be the first to point fingers and wail about the jobless and the hungry and the homeless. <Guess what- creative accounting and all other things considered the unemployment rate is easily 10% now!>

explanations for everything Bush does and has done, as the alternative is to acknowledge the truth.

If they understood the reality and the impact of Bush's actions thus far, they might just go insane.

Or vote for a Democrat.

and that is what keeps them from losing it.

"Clinton IGNORED terrorist threats"

except when he went after them, but THAT was 'wagging the dog'. 9/11 happened on THEIR PRESIDENT BABY BUSH'S WATCH and Bin Laden was funded and trained by his pasty ass fathers very own spooks.

Freeper 1: ...Many, like me, will never forgive Bush for it and will never support him again, and I'm talking everyone I know at work, in my family, socially. He may not carry Texas in 2004, Gore didn't carry his home state either.

Freeper 2: And you will give us a demon for a president? You better think it through carefully in Nov. 2004.

Freeper 1: We don't have one now?

Freeper 2: You hate GWB that much? GWB = the bent one, and you are a conservative American? You must have gone through a traumatic experience to turn you 180 degrees in your perspective.

HA HA HA HA!!!! Stew in it Freepers! Stew away! :evilgrin:

There's nothing on this Earth that would cause hardcore Democrats to vote for him, and he's turning broken-glass Republicans into why-bother Republicans. I've been saying since the first six months of his term that he'll be a one-termer.

See, we're not the only ones that get nervous.