Well in keeping with my current bad mood.

Ken mentioned my bad disposition, to me yesterday.

On this thread; I’m thinking lets just post all of the Politically Correct slogans that are ridiculous.

Anything - American
I.E. African - American, German - American, Chinese - American

Why do we need labels?

Are there African - British?

Anything - American
Hey Fofa,
It might be helpful if you explain that.

"Differently abled" "whatever-impared" etc. For the most part, these are stupid (although they make sense in some cases, like people with hearing or vision loss are impared but are not necessarily completely deaf or blind, so the term is more encompassing).

It's a noble idea to make people aware of the effect their use of negative language can have on people. But striving to shelter people from all negative experiences is equally, if not more, harmful.

Which reminds me of he handful of school boards who banned the use of red ink when grading papers. If failure doesn't feel bad, then what will motivate children to succeed? It's the psychological equivalent of overusing antibacterial cleaners in the home and then your children do not develop an immune system. :mad:

Anything - American
I.E. African - American, German - American, Chinese - American

Why do we need labels?

Are there African - British?

Agree totally. I've long thought that, while being proud of your ancestry is all well and good, actually labeling yourself as African-American/Polish-American or whetever is just providing fuel for those cretins who want to drive wedges into society. If you're American, great. Why the need for sub-classifications, unless you want to be treated differently?

In answer to your question, I've never once heard someone refer to themself as African-British, Chinese-Scottish. Doesn't mean they don't know their family's history, just that the terms aren't used.

On a different note, I hate the term 'Positive Discrimination'. It's either disriminatory behaviour, or it's not. The fact that it may be a misguided attempt to force 'equal' opportunities doesn't make it any the less harmful.

Agree totally. I've long thought that, while being proud of your ancestry is all well and good, actually labeling yourself as African-American/Polish-American or whetever is just providing fuel for those cretins who want to drive wedges into society. If you're American, great. Why the need for sub-classifications, unless you want to be treated differently?

In answer to your question, I've never once heard someone refer to themself as African-British, Chinese-Scottish. Doesn't mean they don't know their family's history, just that the terms aren't used.

On a different note, I hate the term 'Positive Discrimination'. It's either disriminatory behaviour, or it's not. The fact that it may be a misguided attempt to force 'equal' opportunities doesn't make it any the less harmful.

I always thought that this should be limited to to people who were born in another country/continent, and then moved here and became a citizen. That would make you a citizen of both countries and thus, ______ American.

I think that if you were born here, and your parents were born here, and your grandparents were born here, it's stupid to consider yourself _______ American.

I always thought that this should be limited to to people who were born in another country/continent, and then moved here and became a citizen. That would make you a citizen of both countries and thus, ______ American.
American.

Fair point, makes sense. Although I still think that it just creates artificial divisions.

On this thread; I’m thinking lets just post all of the Politically Correct slogans that are ridiculous.

We do not subscribe to this invasion at Afghanistan, but we will sent troops
Quote from J.P. Balkenende- Dutch Prime minister.

When someone says: "Newman is a little bit like kind of not thin."
I am 260 pounds. I am fat. Period.

I think that it is not what you say but how you say it that hurts.
If someone says: "Hey Dumbo bring your fat sumo a** here!", that's rude.
But if someone describes me like this: "Newman? He's tall and fat, with short brown hair and very funny.", then fat is just a description and in no way meant to laugh at my weight.

When someone says: "Newman is a little bit like kind of not thin.", that just mean that he doesn't like the way I look.
I like when people say the real words.

Another thing is when you say that women are not as strong as men and you here a women reply that it is not true some women are as strong as men. Yeah, right! Some are, but most women are weaker than most men. Period. I am not talking against women by saying this. It is just a fact. It doesn't mean that they are worth nothing. Women have a lot of qualities that men don't. But that one they do not have.

It applies to many things. Once, I said that latinos where good dancers. Someone told me that it was a racist thaught. What? Come on! Primo, it is on a positive note. Secundo, it is a fact that most of them are better than most caucasians.

It's like a famous doctor in psychology once said that the reason why black folks where often less intelligent was because the white folks wouldn't give them an equal chance in attending high schools.
He has been fired because some black folks says that he was racist. Please! He was trying to help the black community getting out of their guettos. He never said that they had no brain, he just said they never had the chance to learn like white kids had.

I know that some may disagree but that is what I think and I won't hide 'cause I am not politically correct.
BTW: I would have said the same thing if I was infront of you all, face to face. That's just me.

I think that it is not what you say but how you say it that hurts.
Precisely. If my friend says, "That's totally gay" or "You're such a fag" I couldn't care less because I know their intentions are not mean.

And you bring up another good point about sexism/racism/etc. Treating people equaly does not mean pretending differences do not exist.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who is gay and once said to me that I was a fag because I wasn't able to open a jar which he was able to do.
It was so funny to ear it in that context.

Are there African - British?
It's being suggested by our great and glorious leader Zog the almighty (prat):rolleyes:

It's being suggested by our great and glorious leader Zog the almighty (prat):rolleyes:

Joking aside, has he really suggested that?

I've been out of country for a couple of years, so haven't kept up with all the goings-on back home.

So, you are a Welsh-Canadian. ;)

Joking aside, has he really suggested that?

I've been out of country for a couple of years, so haven't kept up with all the goings-on back home.
Yep, put up for discussion. How would ethnic minorities like to be known etc.?:rolleyes:

I hear that on a regular basis :rolleyes:

That one, along with 'What will you class your kids as, if they're born here?'. Answer: 'Canadians, who have a Welsh Dad'. :D

Yep, put up for discussion. How would ethnic minorities like to be known etc.?:rolleyes:

Just when I think the guy can't go much lower in my estimation, he surpasses himself.

> Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all

> contractual conditions of registering for the draft.

>

> Selective Service Number 326 46 228.

>

> Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

>

> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

>

> Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

>

> Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military.

>

> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army

> Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of Col. E. Holmes.

>

> Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.

>

> Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of

> Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

>

> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with

> Army

> Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject

> to

> arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) registrant who has failed to

> report...remain liable for induction.'

>

> Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969,

> but

> anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is

> INELIGIBLE!

>

> Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice

> under

> Public Law 90-40.

>

> Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive

> from justice.

>

> Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21,1977, from President Carter.

>

> Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President of

> the

> United States.

Ain’t America great?

And he was still a good president. Certainly better that the current occupant.

Clinton bashing went out when we got a real jack ass in office.

Clinton bashing went out when we got a real jack ass in office.

You mean the lying drunken megalomaniac currently in office ? :rolleyes:
Bill was a saint in comparison :cool:

Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of

> Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

ROTC? Isn't that a sort of pretend military institution where young people practice killing and stuff before they join the real military?

a bit like joining the cubs before you become a proper scout.;)

Col

a bit like joining the cubs before you become a proper scout.;)

Col
I think there might be some confusion on the term scout here Col. Perhaps we'd better explain that our scouts are armed with nothing more than a Swiss army knife and brains, unlike some other countries where they're taught to shoot bazookzas, assault rifles, skin wild animals for display as trophies etc. :rolleyes: ;)

I think there might be some confusion on the term scout here Col. Perhaps we'd better explain that our scouts are armed with nothing more than a Swiss army knife and brains, unlike some other countries where they're taught to shoot bazookzas, assault rifles, skin wild animals for display as trophies etc. :rolleyes: ;)


In your case lucky for the Swiss Army knife.:D :D :D

Bring it, dude.

In your case lucky for the Swiss Army knife.:D :D :D

Bring it, dude.
One knife against all those guns and that's before I've even left the terminal at the airport :rolleyes:

And he was still a good president. Certainly better that the current occupant.
No Frigg'n way! The only good thing about Clinton was he didn't do anything, so he didn't screw up anything too bad. Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
I'll take GWB any time. :p
I'd sure like another Ronnie as a preference. :)

Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
I'll take GWB any time. :p


Foreigners lecturing the Yanks on what to do, talk about the kettle and black pot :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No Frigg'n way! The only good thing about Clinton was he didn't do anything, so he didn't screw up anything too bad. Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
I'll take GWB any time. :p
I'd sure like another Ronnie as a preference. :)

The main problem with his administration was that the republicans, headed by the tobacco and health care industries went on a witch hunt. They did every thing they could to cripple him.

He prevailed over them in spite of all of the millions they spent trying to discredit him.

The only good thing about Clinton was he didn't do anything, so he didn't screw up anything too bad.
Considering that Bush has screwed up at least, oh, five major things quite badly then even by your standards Clinton is far better.

Just let all those foreigners tell us what to do! :mad:
Hmmm... let's see.... record-low oil prices, arab nations actually felt like the President of the United States gave a crap about them, al-Queda was being sniped by the CIA (a fairly effective strategy), Iraq was little more than a pain in the ass, the economy and the dollar were strong, and the national debt grew at a slower rate than GDP for the first time in history. On top of that, the U.S. maintained a relatively positive global image despite the U.N. objections to military actions in Bosnia. Yeah, were sure were the international whipping boy of the 1990s.... :rolleyes:

Considering that Bush has screwed up at least, oh, five major things quite badly then even by your standards Clinton is far better.


Hmmm... let's see.... record-low oil prices, arab nations actually felt like the President of the United States gave a crap about them, al-Queda was being sniped by the CIA (a fairly effective strategy), Iraq was little more than a pain in the ass, the economy and the dollar were strong, and the national debt grew at a slower rate than GDP for the first time in history. On top of that, the U.S. maintained a relatively positive global image despite the U.N. objections to military actions in Bosnia. Yeah, were sure were the international whipping boy of the 1990s.... :rolleyes:

My dad made a good point:

“One good thing about GWB, he may have set the republican party back twenty years.”

Maybe not exactly his words, but it catches the spirit.

Unfortunately I doubt it. Perhaps if the Democrats had their skite together, but their party is in such shambles they won't be able to capitalize on it. The Republicans, on the other hand, have proven their ability to manipulate public perception and focus everyone's attention precicesly where and how they want it.

I'd give them immense credit for these impressive skills if it didn't make me so nautious.

Considering that Bush has screwed up at least, oh, five major things quite badly then even by your standards Clinton is far better.
Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.


Yeah, were sure were the international whipping boy of the 1990s.... :rolleyes:
OK, because we caved on everything (maybe Billy was too busy getting those hummers). Any who who gives a rats behind what the international community thinks, maybe some wishy washy, insecure, liberals. Let um whip, mostly all talk and no do anyway.

Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.

.

Haven't you heard of Iraq, it's been in all the newspapers, even yours :rolleyes:

Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.

.

Haven't you heard of Iraq, it's been in all the newspapers, even yours :rolleyes:

Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.

.

Haven't you heard of Iraq, it's been in all the newspapers, even yours :rolleyes:

Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.

.

Haven't you heard of Iraq, it's been in all the newspapers, even yours :rolleyes:

Haven't you heard of Iraq, it's been in all the newspapers, even yours :rolleyes:
Yep, and I think it was the proper move.
So no, not a mistake.

Nope, not getting it, can't think of one right off.
Here's a few:

1.) The economy tanked the minute he was elected (yes, it was already on a downturn before 9/11).
2.) He has failed to capture Osama bin Laden.
3.) He has failed to provide any proof of the allegations he made to justify the invasion of Iraq (ie., no WMDs, no evidence of intent to develop or aquire them, no links whatsoever to terrorism - and for a middle-eastern country that's a shock all by itself).
4.) Allegations of serious political misconduct are surfacing against people very close to Bush - from within his own party no less!
5.) He has admitted to illegal conduct and abuse of Presidential power by authorizing illegal wire taps - an impeachable offense.
6.) He has failed to fullfill his responsibility to keep Congress in check by not excercising veto power even once.
7.) His most significant contribution to domestic politics, the Department of Homeland Security, is ineffective or - at best - no more effective than the CIA, FBI and NSA were prior to its existence.
8.) His nomination of Meirs to the Supreme Court was a major political blunder.
9.) Although he started a necessary discussion on Social Security reform, he has failed to follow through in any meaningful way and his initial plan was summarily rejected by just about everyone.
10.) He took a balanced budget that set a course for paying down the national debt and created the largest increase in the national debt since Regan.
11.) He has a created the most severe political schism in this country since LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts 40 years ago.

That oughtta do for now.

Clinton, on the other hand, got a bj and lied about it. How terrible!

OK, because we caved on everything (maybe Billy was too busy getting those hummers).
Care to make a suggestion as to what we caved on?

Any who who gives a rats behind what the international community thinks, maybe some wishy washy, insecure, liberals. Let um whip, mostly all talk and no do anyway.
Yeah, we liberals tend to pretty much bitch and not do anything about it. But historicaly, people with the opinion of "who gives a rat's ass about xxx" generally get defeated, overthrown, or killed by xxx. Just tossin' that out there.

Sorry Krag,
You were week on a couple of points

The Homeland Security debacle has managed in 4 short years to decimate one of Americas’ premier Departments; FEMA

Making it go from one of the most desirable places to work in American government to one of the worst. Not to mention its ineffectiveness.

We are once again facing a transfer of wealth to the ultra-rich in historic proportions. America has lost 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs.

But hey; abortions on the run.

1.) The economy tanked the minute he was elected (yes, it was already on a downturn before 9/11).
Pretty much heading down under Clinton after about the 4-5 year mark. Of course the Iraq/Afganistan things don't help, but then you have to expect that when in military conflicts.
2.) He has failed to capture Osama bin Laden.
Give me a break. That is pretty dang weak. I saw that TV footage of GW out there searching for him himself. Yea right, LAME, LAME, LAME
3.) He has failed to provide any proof of the allegations he made to justify the invasion of Iraq (ie., no WMDs, no evidence of intent to develop or aquire them, no links whatsoever to terrorism.
Really, and those were the ONLY 3 things? And actually I saw on our news no less, expanded on the BBC America news evidence of WMD development found. (going on memory here) One by American troops, One or maybe two by British troops, and one by some other country's troops I can't recall.
4.) Allegations of serious political misconduct are surfacing against people very close to Bush - from within his own party no less!
Well we will have to let that play out and jump to conclusions, as we all know, innocent until proven guilty as O.J. should prove.
5.) He has admitted to illegal conduct and abuse of Presidential power by authorizing illegal wire taps - an impeachable offense.
Thens hos come he aint being impeached?
6.) He has failed to fullfill his responsibility to keep Congress in check by not excercising veto power even once.
Damn, you got me on that one, unless he just agreed with congress every time, he is not suppose to use his veto power unless it is required in his opinon.
7.) His most significant contribution to domestic politics, the Department of Homeland Security, is ineffective or - at best - no more effective than the CIA, FBI and NSA were prior to its existence.
OK, so the worst that can be said in this case is he is not any better than any other president in creating these departments.
8.) His nomination of Meirs to the Supreme Court was a major political blunder.
And why do you say that? I have not heard any contraversy.
9.) Although he started a necessary discussion on Social Security reform, he has failed to follow through in any meaningful way and his initial plan was summarily rejected by just about everyone.
Like EVERY president before him.
10.) He took a balanced budget that set a course for paying down the national debt and created the largest increase in the national debt since Regan.
See # 1
11.) He has a created the most severe political schism in this country since LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts 40 years ago.
According to who? The democrates? Big whoop

Clinton, on the other hand, got a bj and lied about it. How terrible!
Um, I don't consider adultery a minor offense, sorry.
Well, he screwed up Hillary's Health Care reform so bad the republicans took over the house and senate. (Ok in my book that was a good thing).
He got caught in that whole WhiteWater thing.
I would bring up his impeachment, but even I thought that was a real streach for the republicans.
One word, Bosnia.
Another word, Somalia.
Sanctiones against Haiti causing their economy to collapse and a flood of refugees leaving.
Clintons failure to develop an Anti-Drug program because many beleive due to the tie between the latin american drug cartells and his close friend Lasatar.
Expansion of NATO

US policy towards Iraq has been one of containment since the end of the Persian Gulf war. The coalition that elder Persident Bush forged to defeat the Iraqi Army in the war was all but desolved under Clinton's watch. Rather than steadfastness and resoluteness in our handling of Hussein, he showed weakness and vacilation. Leadership is providing purpose, direction and motiviation to accomplish a mission. He has failed to lead. So now, world opinion is divided, many people believe that it is the US that is causing the children of Iraq to suffer, not the policies of Saddam. Clinton failed to mobilize the world at large to understand the threat of Iraq, and failed unilaterally to carry out actions to futher our own interests. Only at the point where Clinton faced the loss of his own power did he choose to act. The two year bombing campaign begun on the eve of his impeachment became a farce. Unable to stop it because to do so would be to admit failure. So the bombs dropped almost every day to no strategic purpose. (OK I cut/pasted that last one can't take credit).

Sorry Kraj,
You were week on a couple of points
Sorry I missed those :o

FoFa, make no mistake I have no problem with a differing opinion, but in some you simply have your facts wrong.
Pretty much heading down under Clinton after about the 4-5 year mark. Of course the Iraq/Afganistan things don't help, but then you have to expect that when in military conflicts.
A brief look at historical data for the Down Jones industrial average shows an overall climb throughout the 1990s that ended in 2000 when the overvalued US economy slipped to a more reasonalbe level and plataeud. After Bush took office, the Dow took a big downward spike then recovered, was bitch-slapped by 9/11, recovered again, and then spent two years on a major decline until 2003.

It is a fact that economies progress in cycles and no individual can control it. The President's job, therefore, is to institute policies that help to lessen the severity of the cycle. Under Bush, the economy has been very volatile.

Futhermore, contrary to your belief military campaigns tend to have a boost to the economy (that's why we like them so much). WWII was almost entirely responsible for ending the Great Depression. As you might notice, since war was declared on Iraq in 2003 the economy has been strengthening.

Give me a break. That is pretty dang weak. I saw that TV footage of GW out there searching for him himself. Yea right, LAME, LAME, LAME
No thanks, I'll keep my breaks. If Bush is so intent on stopping terrorism, then apprehending the individual most directly responsible for organizing terrorists throughout the world should be a top priority. Not only have we not caught him, but we can't even prevent him from continuing his work. I think this is a very valid point and a major political failure.

Really, and those were the ONLY 3 things? And actually I saw on our news no less, expanded on the BBC America news evidence of WMD development found. (going on memory here) One by American troops, One or maybe two by British troops, and one by some other country's troops I can't recall.
Actually, WMDs were the one and only reason he gave. When that didn't turn out, he made up a new reason. When that didn't turn out, he made a new one. Finally, he's settled on "spreading freedom".

Well we will have to let that play out and jump to conclusions, as we all know, innocent until proven guilty as O.J. should prove.
Yes we will, but irregardless of outcomes, being connected to any scandal is a political blunder.

Thens hos come he aint being impeached?
Two reasons I can think of. First, the Republicans have little to gain by doing so (and yet the Republicans are interestingly the most vocal about impeachment). Second, the Democrats know they'll simply be labelled as going on a witch hunt if they push for impeachment, not to mention putting Cheney in office and run against an incumbent again. Better to let Bush hang himself and regain the White House next election.

Damn, you got me on that one, unless he just agreed with congress every time, he is not suppose to use his veto power unless it is required in his opinon.
Uh huh.... I'm sure that's what it is.

OK, so the worst that can be said in this case is he is not any better than any other president in creating these departments.
Possibly. The difference is that this is one of the few things that he's actually done. The less he tries to accomplish, the worse his failures are.

And why do you say that? I have not heard any contraversy.
Wow. Yeah. OK. Let me fill you in on this one. Everyone hated Harriet Meirs. Democrats said she was a terrible nominee. Republicans said she was a terrible nominee. She had no record whatsoever on which to be evaluated. No judicial experience, no scholarly works in which she clearly expressed her views. Her only qualification was that she worked for Bush (the same qualification that gets many of our stellar appointees their jobs). And yet out of what little was known about her, there was enough to piss just about everybody off. Yes, absolutely everyone agreed that it was a terrible blunder and it greatly weakened Bush politically.

Like EVERY president before him.
Are we including the Presidents who served before social security was established?

See # 1
See #1. Even as the economy took a downturn during Clinton's last year in office, the national debt grew in only a very small amount - less than the growth of the economy. Clinton gift-wrapped Bush a surplus budget and he flushed it down the toilet.

According to who? The democrates? Big whoop
I see now. So this doesn't actually have anything to do with facts, you just don't give a shit about anyone who disagrees with you. Nice.

Um, I don't consider adultery a minor offense, sorry.
Well then indict 85% of the adult population in this country because that's about the proportion who've had sex out of wedlock. If adultery had a damn thing to do with being President I'd be with you on this.

Well, he screwed up Hillary's Health Care reform so bad the republicans took over the house and senate. (Ok in my book that was a good thing).
He got caught in that whole WhiteWater thing.
I would bring up his impeachment, but even I thought that was a real streach for the republicans.
One word, Bosnia.
Another word, Somalia.
Sanctiones against Haiti causing their economy to collapse and a flood of refugees leaving.
Clintons failure to develop an Anti-Drug program because many beleive due to the tie between the latin american drug cartells and his close friend Lasatar.
Expansion of NATO
I'm not sure what's bad about expanding NATO, and I don't know how you could call Bosnia and Somalia a failure but Iraq a success.

Other than that, yes, those were all blunders by Clinton. Or at least they're not worth arguing against ;)

The coalition that elder Persident Bush forged to defeat the Iraqi Army in the war was all but desolved under Clinton's watch.
As far as I'm aware, the war ended while Bush was still in office. What, exactly was the coalition needed for?

Rather than steadfastness and resoluteness in our handling of Hussein, he showed weakness and vacilation.
Not really. He was firm and consistent with Saddam. He simply preferred to let the UN handle the situation their way if possible instead of charging in and starting a(nother) war.

Clinton failed to mobilize the world at large to understand the threat of Iraq, and failed unilaterally to carry out actions to futher our own interests.
And yet no one has been able to prove that Iraq was any kind of threat at all. All we have is Bush and Rumsfeld saying it is true over and over.

Only at the point where Clinton faced the loss of his own power did he choose to act. The two year bombing campaign begun on the eve of his impeachment became a farce. Unable to stop it because to do so would be to admit failure. So the bombs dropped almost every day to no strategic purpose. (OK I cut/pasted that last one can't take credit).
I see. Basically you're saying it's OK for a Republican to start a war for political and personal purposes (because that's exactly what happened) but not a Democrat. OK....

Yep, and I think it was the proper move.
So no, not a mistake.
Funny that Iraqis don't share your opinion, still it's good for Bush's pals in the armaments industries eh:rolleyes:

Funny that Iraqis don't share your opinion, still it's good for Bush's pals in the armaments industries eh:rolleyes:
Now see, it all depends on who you listen too. Because there are plenty of stories out there about the Iraqis who do share that opinon. And a lot of the stories argue that the Majority of the Iraqis share that opinon. So like I said, it appears who you listen too. And truthfully, as in most things like this, the real truth is most likely some where in between.

A brief look at historical data for the Down Jones industrial average shows an overall climb throughout the 1990s that ended in 2000 when the overvalued US economy slipped to a more reasonalbe level and plataeud.
Maybe, if you only use one single indicator. Mine was my paycheck vs cost.

The President's job, therefore, is to institute policies that help to lessen the severity of the cycle. Under Bush, the economy has been very volatile.
And some say it is a hold over from the Clinton policies. As Clinton got the credit for a good econmy brought around by GB Sr., so GWB gets the blame for the Clinton years.
Futhermore, contrary to your belief military campaigns tend to have a boost to the economy (that's why we like them so much).
But the point you seem to fail to point out, is it also boost the Gov. spending which you were complaining about to start with.
If Bush is so intent on stopping terrorism, then apprehending the individual most directly responsible for organizing terrorists throughout the world should be a top priority.
I still don't see how you can blame for not being able to find someone who could be hiding in 2 or 3 different countries, sorry, you are just LAME on that.
Actually, WMDs were the one and only reason he gave. When that didn't turn out, he made up a new reason. When that didn't turn out, he made a new one. Finally, he's settled on "spreading freedom".
I saw his speech, and I (OK I can't remember them) recall many more reasons than WMD for going into IRAQ, this was before the initial attack, so to say there was only ONE, is extremly flawed on your part, or you just like to mislead.
Wow. Yeah. OK. Let me fill you in on this one. Everyone hated Harriet Meirs.
My Bad, got her confused with someone else for some odd reason. Age does that to you I guess.
But I thought it good strategy, the next one went in without so much as a whimper basically.
Are we including the Presidents who served before social security was established?
Really out on a limb with that one.
I see now. So this doesn't actually have anything to do with facts, you just don't give a shit about anyone who disagrees with you. Nice.
AWW! You said a dirty word.
Not true, it is expected of the Dem's to take that stance, I would expect the same from the Rep's if the situation was reversed. So there is no real meaning there.
Well then indict 85% of the adult population in this country because that's about the proportion who've had sex out of wedlock.
People of weak stature. Today, backstab their sig. other, tomorrow backstab their country, the step is much shorter.
Other than that, yes, those were all blunders by Clinton. Or at least they're not worth arguing against ;)
But along those lines most of what you are complaining about here is along the same lines, so outward appearance is "I don't want to talk about Clinton, But I sure will bitch about Bush". That tends to lead one towards thinking you do not have an open mind then.
As far as I'm aware, the war ended while Bush was still in office. What, exactly was the coalition needed for?
Keeping a solid front to Iraq. Maybe we would not be there if Iraq saw all those countries steadfast on their borders, instead of getting all wishy washy. Just a thought.
I see. Basically you're saying it's OK for a Republican to start a war for political and personal purposes (because that's exactly what happened) but not a Democrat. OK.... Nope, I I beleive you incorrect, so there:p

This is just too much fun.

Maybe, if you only use one single indicator. Mine was my paycheck vs cost.
The Dow Jones industrial average is a pretty darn good indicator of the strength of the economy; a heck of a lot better than one individual's income versus expenses. :rolleyes:

And some say it is a hold over from the Clinton policies. As Clinton got the credit for a good econmy brought around by GB Sr., so GWB gets the blame for the Clinton years.
Yeah, "some say" a lot of stupid things. I really don't care about who gets credit or blame for what, I care about the real results of policy. But you know what, I just do not have the expertise in economics (mostly because I hate economics) to present an air-tight case on this one, so I'll just let it go.

But the point you seem to fail to point out, is it also boost the Gov. spending which you were complaining about to start with.
That comment had nothing to do with my points about Bush. I was simply correcting your misconception.

I still don't see how you can blame for not being able to find someone who could be hiding in 2 or 3 different countries, sorry, you are just LAME on that.
Why don't you just call me lame a few more times. It really strengthens your argument.

I don't blame Bush for not being able to find bin Laden; it's an extraordinarily difficult task. But we can't find him if we don't try and if he's hard to find then we have to try hard. What I blame him for is devoting the massive and extraordinary reasources of the U.S. government to Iraq instead of to finding bin Laden.

I saw his speech, and I (OK I can't remember them) recall many more reasons than WMD for going into IRAQ, this was before the initial attack, so to say there was only ONE, is extremly flawed on your part, or you just like to mislead.
Yes, back when I sort of believed what he said about terrorists and Iraq and such, I saw his speeches too. The reason you can't remember more reasons is because there weren't any. The reason you think there were more reasons is because he kept changing what the reasons were as time went by and made it seem like they were his reasons all along.

Here's (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) the State of the Union address from 2003. Care to find anything in there about Iraq other than terrorism and WMDs?

But I thought it good strategy, the next one went in without so much as a whimper basically.
Making a terrible choice in order to make your next one look better is a good startegy? Perhaps you might have noticed his first nominee, Roberts, was confirmed without a problem. Why? Because he was an excellent choice. The most recent nominee, Alito, has yet to be confirmed. But at least he's considered a good candidate and there is a healthy discussion occuring over his confirmation. As I pointed out before, even Bush's supporters couldn't stand Meirs, and angering your supporters is never, ever good strategy.

Really out on a limb with that one.
Tu quoque.

AWW! You said a dirty word.
Not true, it is expected of the Dem's to take that stance, I would expect the same from the Rep's if the situation was reversed. So there is no real meaning there.
FoFa, there will always has been and always will be disagreement between political parties. That's normal and healthy. But it is relatively rare to have conflict so volatile to the point of hatred; Dems hate Reps and vice versa. That is not normal and it is not good for the health and stability of this country. Bush has done everything to encourage this volatility and use it to his political advantage.

People of weak stature. Today, backstab their sig. other, tomorrow backstab their country, the step is much shorter.
Sorry, but that's a load of crap. There is no correlation whatsoever between fidelity and leadership. Do I really have to list great leaders who were unfaithful to their wives and terrible ones who weren't? Here's a short one: Thomas Jefferson and FDR vs. Hitler and Stalin. To quote Dennis Miller: "A person who regularly gets off is less likely to get off on offing someone." (Although I suppose if Hitler actually married Eva Braun, then those good old fashion family values would have prevented WWII all together! :rolleyes: )

But along those lines most of what you are complaining about here is along the same lines, so outward appearance is "I don't want to talk about Clinton, But I sure will bitch about Bush". That tends to lead one towards thinking you do not have an open mind then.
You're right, I don't have an open mind about Bush. I literally hate him and it is likely there is nothing that can be said or done to change that. Interestingly, though, the exact same thing you just said could be said about you. If I'm overlooking the exact faults in Clinton that I accuse of Bush, you're doing the exact opposite.

Keeping a solid front to Iraq. Maybe we would not be there if Iraq saw all those countries steadfast on their borders, instead of getting all wishy washy. Just a thought.
So, you're saying if we had been there all along we wouldn't be there now? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes: I might point out that it was George H.W. Bush's weakness that left Saddam in power in the first place. While I understand why he made the choice that he did, if the coalition had followed through and gotten the job done then and there, Saddam would have been gone. That was the time to get rid of him, not 10 years later when the worst thing he did was ignore the U.N., which is the same thing the U.S. has been doing since we formed it.

If I'm overlooking the exact faults in Clinton that I accuse of Bush, you're doing the exact opposite.


Bill didn't have any faults, one of the most popular Presidents for decades :)

If I'm overlooking the exact faults in Clinton that I accuse of Bush, you're doing the exact opposite.


Bill didn't have any faults, one of the most popular Presidents for decades :)

Sorry, but that's a load of crap. There is no correlation whatsoever between fidelity and leadership. Do I really have to list great leaders who were unfaithful to their wives and terrible ones who weren't? Here's a short one: Thomas Jefferson and FDR vs. Hitler and Stalin. To quote Dennis Miller: "A person who regularly gets off is less likely to get off on offing someone." (Although I suppose if Hitler actually married Eva Braun, then those good old fashion family values would have prevented WWII all together! :rolleyes: )

There you are gett'n all rude again. Funny how you accuse some one who disagrees with you of that, then turn around and use the same yourself.

Any way I found this:
“Edmund Burke wrote, ‘great men are the landmarks and guideposts of the state.’ And when guideposts misdirect, citizens who follow their leaders begin to wallow.”

So, as America sinks deeper and deeper into the mire of immorality, Professor Olasky gives us 13 “landmarks” that demonstrate irrefutably the link between religious beliefs and policy decisions, and the link between lying about adultery and lying about other matters.

AND THIS:
"What Bill Clinton does in his own private life is his business. He's still a good president, despite his sexual adventures." These words, or words to that effect, were at the heart of liberal apologetics, employed in defense of the former president at the time of the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal in 1998. Such sentiments were widespread at the time, and they say a great deal about our understanding of what constitutes the essence of political leadership. Interestingly enough, though, this very line has become part of the adolescent storehouse of ready-made lines that many young people today quickly retrieve and trumpet whenever the subject is brought up for discussion. Such a line on their lips is testimony to just how far a leader's influence can spread--for this line of defense has spread not only to another country, but to a younger generation.

And This:
Prov 6:32-35 -- But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away; for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

There you are gett'n all rude again. Funny how you accuse some one who disagrees with you of that, then turn around and use the same yourself.
Actually, FoFa, you opened that door by calling one of my posts lame. You started the disrespect, so don't go whining about it now. I never, ever make a disrespectful comment to someone who has been respectful to me. But when someone starts in on me, I have nothing against dishing it right back.

Any way I found this: “Edmund Burke wrote, ‘great men are the landmarks and guideposts of the state.’ And when guideposts misdirect, citizens who follow their leaders begin to wallow.”
Tell ya what: after you actually read Olasky's book instead of quoting the summary get back to me.

So, as America sinks deeper and deeper into the mire of immorality, Professor Olasky gives us 13 “landmarks” that demonstrate irrefutably the link between religious beliefs and policy decisions, and the link between lying about adultery and lying about other matters.
Call me crazy, but I don't exactly expect a born-again Christian to view the subject of morality and religion with an objective perspective. Christians (like Burke) tend to view moral standing as the source of absolutely every social success and problem, and that's just not realistic. This opinion of mine is supported by phrases such as, "as America sinks deeper and deeper in the mire of immorality". This phrase is extraordinarily biased and almost single-handedly proves the book is not an objective examination but an effort to lay blame at a perceived immoral leader.

Furthermore, the perception that America is becoming increasingly immoral is completely subjective. Personally I agree with Walt Whitman:
"There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now."

There is perhaps no social belief more consistently held among Christians since the religion's inception 2,000 years ago than the belief that society is increasingly becoming morally bankrupt. It's simply not true.

AND THIS:
"What Bill Clinton does in his own private life is his business. He's still a good president, despite his sexual adventures." These words, or words to that effect, were at the heart of liberal apologetics, employed in defense of the former president at the time of the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal in 1998. Such sentiments were widespread at the time, and they say a great deal about our understanding of what constitutes the essence of political leadership. Interestingly enough, though, this very line has become part of the adolescent storehouse of ready-made lines that many young people today quickly retrieve and trumpet whenever the subject is brought up for discussion. Such a line on their lips is testimony to just how far a leader's influence can spread--for this line of defense has spread not only to another country, but to a younger generation.
And....? What's your point?

Prov 6:32-35 -- But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away; for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.
Proverbs. Good one. Hey, the Proverbs were written by King David, right? And King David was hand-picked by God to rule Israel, right? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but King David could potentially be considered the greatest political leader depicted in the Bible, assuming you don't consider Jesus a political leader (which I don't and I doubt he would have).

Now, I'm going way out on a limb here, but I seem to recall something about David committing adultery! Oh yeah, and having his mistress's husband murdered. Then he appologized to God. It seems to me David was a lot worse than Bill Clinton, and yet David is considered to be a great leader and poster boy for repentance. Hmmmm.....

Actually, FoFa, you opened that door by calling one of my posts lame. You started the disrespect, so don't go whining about it now. I never, ever make a disrespectful comment to someone who has been respectful to me. But when someone starts in on me, I have nothing against dishing it right back.
LAME isn't rude, lame, is well, lame. Means you havn't a leg to stand on, your argument is too weak to argue, while on the other hand you defined CRAP as being rude in prior posts :p

And....? What's your point?
If you actually read the whole thing, you will notice that an entire generation has been effect by the mis-doings of a leader caused by adultery.
And as I can attest by having a 13 year old, they actually do use his excuses (only it holds no water with me).
So one could assume since great leaders have been adulterous in the past, and that fact didn't come out until long after their leadership was over, that hiding it changes things, but having it public can effect the people the leader is over. trust me, if I got a hummer and told wify it's no big deal, Clinton said so! Would not fly, but yet the current younger generation seems to think of it as an excuse to partake in that activity. They may or maynot do it regardless, but they seem to be justified in some sense since Clinton.

LAME isn't rude, lame, is well, lame. Means you havn't a leg to stand on, your argument is too weak to argue, while on the other hand you defined CRAP as being rude in prior posts :p
So some name calling is rude while other name calling is not? If my argument is weak, say my argument is weak and then prove it. That's fair and reasonable. If you say my argument is "LAME LAME LAME", that's rude. Justify it all you want, it's still rude.

If you actually read the whole thing, you will notice that an entire generation has been effect by the mis-doings of a leader caused by adultery.
I did read the whole thing. The quote said that the younger generation has been influenced by Clinton's leadership, evidenced by their repetition of the belief that Clinton is still a good President, regardless of what he does in his private life. You automatically see this as a bad thing because of your beliefs, but the quote makes no case for that and you follow it up with nothing. The quote is not evidence of your argument.

And as I can attest by having a 13 year old, they actually do use his excuses (only it holds no water with me).
Maybe you can enlighten me on this one. Is there any excuse a 13-year-old won't use? :confused:

So one could assume since great leaders have been adulterous in the past, and that fact didn't come out until long after their leadership was over, that hiding it changes things, but having it public can effect the people the leader is over.
I think there is some validity to that point. Then your problem with Clinton, though, is not that he was adulterous but that he was stupid, reckless and irresponsible enough to get caught while in office and embarass the country. If that is the case, then I completely agree with you.

trust me, if I got a hummer and told wify it's no big deal, Clinton said so! Would not fly, but yet the current younger generation seems to think of it as an excuse to partake in that activity. They may or maynot do it regardless, but they seem to be justified in some sense since Clinton.
I'll tell ya something, if I were a father I'd much prefer my children sexually express themselves through oral sex rather than intercourse. But since when did teenagers need justifaction to have sex, anyway? If you're concerned that the current generation doesn't feel guilty or ashamed enough about enjoying their sexuality because of Clinton, well I say, "THANK YOU, BILL!"

You know Kraj, I'm not a Democrat, but your argument is really well written, and almost changed my mind. :D

You know Kraj, I'm not a Democrat, but your argument is really well written, and almost changed my mind. :D
Thanks! :) I'm not trying to change your party alliegance, though (not that I'd mind) - there are things I disagree with the Dems over. I don't even think Kerry would've been a particularly noteworthy President and, if I had been old enough at the time, I probably would have voted for Bush, Sr.

BTW, I was rereading the thread and realized there was a point of miscommunication:

7.) His most significant contribution to domestic politics, the Department of Homeland Security, is ineffective or - at best - no more effective than the CIA, FBI and NSA were prior to its existence.
OK, so the worst that can be said in this case is he is not any better than any other president in creating these departments.
My response was:
Possibly. The difference is that this is one of the few things that he's actually done. The less he tries to accomplish, the worse his failures are.
What I should have realized at the time was that I was not clear enough in my initial phrasing. I did not mean the FBI, CIA, NSA and DoHS are not effective, I mean that the DoHS has done nothing to improve the effectiveness of homeland security; it may actually be worse now as the agencies that report to DoHS are bogged down by additional beaurocracy.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Thanks! :) I'm not trying to change your party alliegance, though (not that I'd mind) - there are things I disagree with the Dems over. I don't even think Kerry would've been a particularly noteworthy President and, if I had been old enough at the time, I probably would have voted for Bush, Sr.

Yes, I believe that nobody really agrees with all aspects of their favored party. Such is life.

However, I prefer not to debate in the political arena. I have lost friends over that a long time ago, and swore to never do it again. I will gladly give my opinions, and listen to yours, but never fully debate and have heated arguments over it. :rolleyes: Debating politics is not worth the loss of friendships.

Besides, there is other stuff to debate over. Once I find one worthy of my opinion, I will speak my mind. *giggles*. Nope not concided. :D :p

However, I prefer not to debate in the political arena. I have lost friends over that a long time ago, and swore to never do it again. I will gladly give my opinions, and listen to yours, but never fully debate and have heated arguments over it. :rolleyes: Debating politics is not worth the loss of friendships.
That's a pretty good policy. For me, I probably wouldn't want to be close friends with someone I couldn't have a good-natured discussion about something we disagree on. But that's just my personal preference. That reminds me of a quote...I think I'll change my sig :)

That's a pretty good policy. For me, I probably wouldn't want to be close friends with someone I couldn't have a good-natured discussion about something we disagree on. But that's just my personal preference. That reminds me of a quote...I think I'll change my sig :)

Yes, but our debate went past good-natured to down right venguful and mean. :( Then again, we were both young.

I try not to debate religion and politics. I think those are all personal items that can be shared but never truely have a heated debate over. Discussions are great, but no fighting or trying to convert someones opionions or views.

Besides I kinda like you and you're a Dem. :p It can be done if done tastfully. :rolleyes:

I was just taught your political opinions are personal. I mean why else are the voting booths concealed so no one can see who are you voting for. :rolleyes:

I mean why else are the voting booths concealed so no one can see who are you voting for. :rolleyes:
I don't know. With those awful punch cards, half the time I can't see who I'm voting for!

I don't know. With those awful punch cards, half the time I can't see who I'm voting for!

Nope, down here in the country, we have these new fangled computer type votin' machines. :D

If you actually read the whole thing, you will notice that an entire generation has been effect by the mis-doings of a leader caused by adultery.
And as I can attest by having a 13 year old, they actually do use his excuses (only it holds no water with me).
Don't drive whilst drunk son. it's a George Bush dad.
Don't buy somebody elses licence to escape punishment, it's a George Bush dad.
Don't tell me lies! it's a George Bush dad.
Don't beat up on that kid son, just because he called your daddy names, it's a Geoorge Bush dad.
Don't use your brother to rig your high school election son, it's a George Bush dad.
Don't start shooting that gun at somebody else just 'cause you can't get your own way son, it's a George Bush dad

Though shalt NOT KILL, God to Moses, the Book of Quotes:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hey Krja,

I don't want any part of jumping in on yours and FoFa's tango, but did want to let you know that Proverbs was written by Solomon not King David so your above "Poster Child" quote won't be able to fly since Solomon didn't commit adultery and murder. That's as close to this fire as I want to get so...

See ya,
Shane

Hey Krja,

I don't want any part of jumping in on yours and FoFa's tango, but did want to let you know that Proverbs was written by Solomon not King David so your above "Poster Child" quote won't be able to fly since Solomon didn't commit adultery and murder. That's as close to this fire as I want to get so...

See ya,
Shane
Ah yes, my bad. I tend to get Proverbs crossed with Psalms in my brain. Thanks for pointing that out.

Doesn't really change my point about David, though, (or a million other examples from the Bible, for that matter) but you're completely correct. And please, don't feel like you shouldn't comment. I may be acting like an ass right now, but that's because my posts tend to match the tone of the person I'm speaking with. If you argue a differing perspective with me in a respectful and constructive tone, I'll do the same. It's what I like best :)

Ah yes, my bad. I tend to get Proverbs crossed with Psalms in my brain. Thanks for pointing that out.

Doesn't really change my point about David, though, (or a million other examples from the Bible, for that matter) but you're completely correct. And please, don't feel like you shouldn't comment. I may be acting like an ass right now, but that's because my posts tend to match the tone of the person I'm speaking with. If you argue a differing perspective with me in a respectful and constructive tone, I'll do the same. It's what I like best :)

Hey Kraj,

I do believe you would be respectful. I've been following some of the posts here for about a month or so and have noticed that you always seem to be informed and fair, even when you don't agree. You also stick to the subject and seem to avoid the pop off remarks and actually have a point to make and not just a sarcastic remark. I've read enough of your post to know we don't see eye to eye and if I decide to post, sometime, then I would intend on being repectful and civil. (Gotten too old to argue).

Your welcome for pointing it out to you and you are right. It is true about King David and a bunch of others. That's what kind of makes one of the points in the Bible. Not perfect, just forgiven.

Have a good weekend, (what's left of it)
Shane

The term African-American, while maybe not racist, is certainly prejudiced. There are many Jamaican-Americans that are referred to as African-Americans based on the color of their skin. These people have no ties to Africa whatsoever. It would be like saying all white people with blonde hair must be Swedish-Americans. That is absurd!
The families that are called African-American in most cases are about 200 years removed from that country. I am a dual citizen (from Canada) living in the United States. I lived my first 30 years in Canada. I call myself an American (no hyphens).

The term African-American, while maybe not racist, is certainly prejudiced. There are many Jamaican-Americans that are referred to as African-Americans based on the color of their skin. These people have no ties to Africa whatsoever. It would be like saying all white people with blonde hair must be Swedish-Americans. That is absurd!
The families that are called African-American in most cases are about 200 years removed from that country. I am a dual citizen (from Canada) living in the United States. I lived my first 30 years in Canada. I call myself an American (no hyphens).

That term was on my mind when I started this thread.

That term was on my mind when I started this thread.

Yeah but what's there when you finished it ?:confused:

Where do Latin Americans fit into this topic? :confused:

Where do Latin Americans fit into this topic? :confused:

Harder to say on that one because South America is it's own continent and so they can be called Latin Americans by their own right. If they are citizens of the USA though, I would probably tend to go ahead and lump them in with the original statement. Why hyphenate it if you are an American (as in US citizen)?

This Advert is usually hit on one of my country's Local Radio Stations.
"If there are African-Americans, why not African-Europeans".
Just out of curiosity,would the Africans in europe mind being called that?