wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from
the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter,
which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim that
the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when Bush
was IN office?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim that
the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when Bush
was IN office?


You have to say the US was about as divided as it could get during the
Clinton administration. They impeached him and at least 40% of the
country thought that was the right thing to do. The vote was 45-55 in
the senate. That is "divided" no matter how you measure it.
There were plenty of Europeans who thought our Iraq policy was wrong.
It was really just us and the Brits.

At least 60% of the people thought it was a right-wing stunt. That's a
majority, btw. The country is ALWAYS divided, but compared to now? Come on.

On 7/12/10 2:28 PM, wrote:
You don't impeach a president without a significant number of
the American public supporting the measure in the house.


I disagree. The GOP House members were beside themselves in their
efforts to bring down Clinton. They hated him, they hated the fact that
he won his first election, and they thought that like Hitler, their
party would have a Thousand Year Reign.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:45:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim
that
the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when
Bush
was IN office?


You have to say the US was about as divided as it could get during the
Clinton administration. They impeached him and at least 40% of the
country thought that was the right thing to do. The vote was 45-55 in
the senate. That is "divided" no matter how you measure it.
There were plenty of Europeans who thought our Iraq policy was wrong.
It was really just us and the Brits.

At least 60% of the people thought it was a right-wing stunt. That's a
majority, btw. The country is ALWAYS divided, but compared to now? Come
on.


A lot of people didn't "like" Reagan or Carter but we didn't have
outright hatred.
I am saying that Clinton was the start of the great divide we see now.
You just don't see it because you were not the "out" party at the
time. You don't impeach a president without a significant number of
the American public supporting the measure in the house.

When Chris Mathews invented the Red Blue thing the division just got a
name and the unity of the country went down hill from there.

That's quite a different statement from what you said originally. Sure,
Clinton inspired people to hate. Are you blaming him for it? Seems to me
that the people doing the hating are the ones with the problem.

They impeached him because of basically nothing, led by a bunch of
hypocrites with delusions of grandeur. It had nothing to do with popular
opinion. Clinton was highly popular throughout.

Mathews articulated a situation. Obama said it's not true. Listen to his
2004 speech.

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:15:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

A lot of people didn't "like" Reagan or Carter but we didn't have
outright hatred.
I am saying that Clinton was the start of the great divide we see now.
You just don't see it because you were not the "out" party at the
time. You don't impeach a president without a significant number of
the American public supporting the measure in the house.

When Chris Mathews invented the Red Blue thing the division just got a
name and the unity of the country went down hill from there.

That's quite a different statement from what you said originally. Sure,
Clinton inspired people to hate. Are you blaming him for it? Seems to me
that the people doing the hating are the ones with the problem.

If anyone is to blame it is the media that poured gasoline on a
smoldering fire. I was just putting a stick in the time line when this
started. Folks on the left don't see it because he was your guy. When
it went the other way your guys went as nuts as the worst "wingnuts"
you were criticizing.

I think you're somewhat right that the media isn't doing their job. Anyone
who takes Fox seriously probably has brain damage. MSNBC is mostly
entertainment, but at least Olbermann doesn't lie.

It has swung back the other way now and you think Obama can do no
wrong and the people who are on the other side are nuts.

Not true. He's criticized plenty by Olbermann and many others on the left.
I'm not particularly left wing, except socially.

The rhetoric didn't even change much
You have the legitimacy argument
"Bush stole the election" (electoral college deniers)

Which he did by proxy of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt that it was
a political decision and not a judicial one. Even the language of their
decision say it.

"Obama is allowed to be president" (birthers)

That's just loony tunes. The two are not comparable.


If you actually look at policy, not much changed since Bush 1.
Big business is still calling the shots.The wars go on and we are
going broke because of it.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:15:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's quite a different statement from what you said originally. Sure,
Clinton inspired people to hate. Are you blaming him for it? Seems to me
that the people doing the hating are the ones with the problem.

If anyone is to blame it is the media that poured gasoline on a
smoldering fire. I was just putting a stick in the time line when this
started. Folks on the left don't see it because he was your guy. When
it went the other way your guys went as nuts as the worst "wingnuts"
you were criticizing.

I think you're somewhat right that the media isn't doing their job. Anyone
who takes Fox seriously probably has brain damage. MSNBC is mostly
entertainment, but at least Olbermann doesn't lie.

What? Olberman is just the mirror of Rush. They both have a vein of
truth in their spin but it is mostly spin.
I can't stand more than a minute of either of them.

It's pretty easy to find the many and ongoing lies told by Rush. Feel free
to point out a lie Olbermann told.

I certainly understand people not wanting to listen to either, but you can't
seriously claim that they're similar.


It has swung back the other way now and you think Obama can do no
wrong and the people who are on the other side are nuts.

Not true. He's criticized plenty by Olbermann and many others on the left.
I'm not particularly left wing, except socially.



I haven't heard Olbermann do the "how dare you sir" thing yet and the
same policies are still in effect.

He's come pretty close several times. I think the difference is in the
degree of egregious behavior between the two presidents. He's certainly
disagreed with him and got angry with him more than a few times.

The rhetoric didn't even change much
You have the legitimacy argument
"Bush stole the election" (electoral college deniers)

Which he did by proxy of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt that it
was
a political decision and not a judicial one. Even the language of their
decision say it.

"Obama is allowed to be president" (birthers)

That's just loony tunes. The two are not comparable.


They are both loony tunes, unless you think the SCOTUS is corrupt and
if that is true we are in big trouble.

Neither Obama nor Bush are crazy. Maybe crazy like a fox. SCOTUS made a
major mistake and basically acknowledged as much in their ruling, saying
"this is our decision, but don't use it as precedence." I'm not sure I'd go
so far as to say they're corrupt as a body, but some on the court are
flirting with ethical problems.. Scalia (whom I respect for his intellect)
and Thomas, who's wife is knee deep in right-wing politics. Many
opportunities for a serious conflict of interest.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:28:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What? Olberman is just the mirror of Rush. They both have a vein of
truth in their spin but it is mostly spin.
I can't stand more than a minute of either of them.

It's pretty easy to find the many and ongoing lies told by Rush. Feel free
to point out a lie Olbermann told.

I don't watch him enough to find a recent example but when I do I
usually find something misrepresented at least once a show.

Like?


I certainly understand people not wanting to listen to either, but you
can't
seriously claim that they're similar.


The only reason you say that is because he says things you agree with,
same for Rush and his listeners.

No. I say that because one lies on a regular basis. The other doesn't lie,
and he corrects his mistakes.



They are both loony tunes, unless you think the SCOTUS is corrupt and
if that is true we are in big trouble.

Neither Obama nor Bush are crazy. Maybe crazy like a fox. SCOTUS made a
major mistake and basically acknowledged as much in their ruling, saying
"this is our decision, but don't use it as precedence." I'm not sure I'd
go
so far as to say they're corrupt as a body, but some on the court are
flirting with ethical problems.. Scalia (whom I respect for his intellect)
and Thomas, who's wife is knee deep in right-wing politics. Many
opportunities for a serious conflict of interest.

I think there may have been a desire to bring that mess to a close ...
before we had President Strom Thurmond. The speaker (Hastert) said he
would not take the job so Strom was going to be our guy on Jan 20.
It was clear that without some decisive action, the lawyers could have
kept the dueling law suits going on that long ... assuming the Senate
didn't do something even more troubling when it came time to poll the
EC.