Ann Coulter ~ under fire for this article ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LanSite
Michael Moore Michael Moore Michael Moore ... Didn't he write a book titled Stupid White Men or something like that?

---

Yes, and also the movie Robert and Me in which he targets the head of GM for pulling out of Flynt , MI leaving the city destitute

The differences in the parties have narrowed in the last few years ,mostly because Dems and Reps don't argue derisive issues like abortion, they argue about campaign finance reform-so I think they have kind of ignored the really polarizing views and choosen to fight each other on issues that are not that important to a vast majority of the public and do not infringe on beliefs that can be very polarizing. Bush even took a more moderate stance on cell stem research than most of his Republican predecessors,and the whole thing kind of disapearred. but if you think way back to about 10 years ago, he would have spent half his term embroiled in the "stem-cell controversy"

CNO, are you saying that this guy is right?

Gee whiz. Another conpiritorialist looking for alterior motives in everything.

I've heard the same thing said about FDR and "social security". There are some people that are just meant to be ignored.

Average american left of center?

Let's look at the past decades of presidents. . .

Nixon: R
Ford: R
Carter: D
Regean: R
Regean: R
Bush: R
Clinton: D
Clinton: D
Bush: R

Dems are behind by this scale. . .

Sounds like wishful thinking.

crap not this again-

a majority of the people voted for Gore rather than Bush so yes a majority would have to be considered by their voting preference slightly left of center ,or at least they where voting against Bush. Then you can take the other 5% of the voting population (pretty good for an independant) that voted for Nader as being left of center as well.

Then of course there's the milliions who did't bother to vote-who knows,and who cares

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cyk
crap not this again-

a majority of the people voted for Gore rather than Bush so yes a majority would have to be considered by their voting preference slightly left of center ,or at least they where voting against Bush. Then you can take the other 5% of the voting population (pretty good for an independant) that voted for Nader as being left of center as well.

Then of course there's the milliions who did't bother to vote-who knows,and who cares

---

Not this again. :)

I hope everyone here understands why we have the electoral college. :rolleyes:

Besides, that was only one on my list.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by clifgriffin

Quote:

---

Besides, that was only one on my list.

---

Nixon- crook, anti-semite
Ford- not elected
Reagan- really charming actor
Bush part 1- lived on actors coat tails

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cyk

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin

Quote:

---

Besides, that was only one on my list.

---

Nixon- crook, anti-semite

Reagan- really charming actor -
Bush part 1- lived on actors coat tails

---

Ford was not elected, I forgot about that.

You other remarks are stupid. Who cares if he was a crook. He was still elected as a republican. That's what were talking about. (I gave you Clinton...talk about corrupt.)

Your explanation of Regean and Bush is dumb, for lack of better word. :)



[Edited by clifgriffin on 05-25-2002 at 08:24 PM]

ok fine , but Micheal Moore was talking about our current state of mind, so really your list is irrelevant too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cyk
ok fine , but Micheal Moore was talking about our current state of mind, so really your list is irrelevant too.

---

People vote based on what they think.

Why is the list irrelevant?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
You other remarks are stupid. Who cares if he was a crook. He was still elected as a republican. That's what were talking about. (I gave you Clinton...talk about corrupt.)

---

who cares if he was a crook? guess only the stupid people that also thought that Clinton's extramarital affairs were their problem too :rolleyes:

I'd personally rather have a president that's getting some than one that's not. He's probably more laid back than a Viagra endorsing candidate. Or at least you'd think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gerbick

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
You other remarks are stupid. Who cares if he was a crook. He was still elected as a republican. That's what were talking about. (I gave you Clinton...talk about corrupt.)

---

who cares if he was a crook? guess only the stupid people that also thought that Clinton's extramarital affairs were their problem too :rolleyes:

I'd personally rather have a president that's getting some than one that's not. He's probably more laid back than a Viagra endorsing candidate. Or at least you'd think.

---

You have a problem with honest/moral leaders?

If you're suggesting that I'm a fan of Bob Dole, guess again.

Not only was the guy a weak canidate, he's become such a joke here lately.

I think most will agree that we don't need a president whos getting oral sex in the oval office.

Remember Regean? He refused to even take off his suit coat while in the oval office. Out of respect to the postion and the men that preceeded him.

Clinton strolled around in jeans and took off, well, more than his suit coat.

That's not the president I want. That's just sick.

not too many people in politics are moral anymore. That's my statement.

never understood why somebody would want to be a politician. only job where people pay millions in dollars in campaigning to get a job that pays only thousands. ever thought about that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
Remember Regean? He refused to even take off his suit coat while in the oval office. Out of respect to the postion and the men that preceeded him.

---

Well, at least Clinton was/is a damned good public speaker. Unlike our current representative, whose grasp and comprehension of the English language sometimes seems tenuous at best, and he has the audacity to make a joke of it.

And yet, he champions education.

I think it's rediculous to bring the private lives of public officials into discussions about their effectiveness, lest we dredge up Bush's booze hound daughters, etc.

I'm still of the opinion that it's been a long time since we've has a President who really reflected the desires of the people, quote me all of the statistics you want.

I'd challenge you to ask yourself whether the President is reflecting the desires of the people, or the people reflect the desires of the president.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CNO

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
Remember Regean? He refused to even take off his suit coat while in the oval office. Out of respect to the postion and the men that preceeded him.

---

Well, at least Clinton was/is a damned good public speaker.

---

True, and that's one of the only reasons he managed to get reelected.

Bush's command of the english language is probably better than yours. (No offense intended. Just an assumption.) I don't think he should be judged by his texan accent.

What Bush's daughters do shouldn't be a reflection on Bush. They're old enough to make their own decisions now.

If were looking for a president that really represented the people, it would have to be Regean.

Regean won by a landslide. They couldn't get anyone to vote for the democratic candidate...and Regean was as conservative as they come. I think they finally found some guy in Montana to vote for the other guy.

Regean was a communicator and the people understood him.

Gerbs, that is a common view. I believe that few candidates can make it through washington without becoming completely ruined. Completely politicized, and completely out of touch with the real world.

Time will tell whether Bush can weather the storm.

As for Bush being moral...I believe he is. He is a professing Christian, as Jimmy Carter was, and I believe he is a good man.

I hope he can hang on to his beliefs.

If our politicians are corrupt, it's probably because the American people don't seem to care enough to get rid of 'em. Very unfortunate.

(See Clinton)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
What Bush's daughters do shouldn't be a reflection on Bush. They're old enough to make their own decisions now.

---

lemme guess. he can rule the country, but not his household? it makes him look weak.

and I don't have a misconception about politics. look around you.

and I disagree with the "trickle down" economy of Reaganomics. That money stayed in the military and higher socio-economic structures to this day. Guess I have a problem with a politician that allows his own cabinet to replace each and every desk with a new desk that costs $2000.00, but can't afford to buy a school a computer, or better pay for teachers.

I seriously doubt that Bush's grasp of the English language is as strong as 50% of this boards.

Quote:

---

who cares if he was a crook?

---

Shouldn't everybody?

How can we trust a president that lies under oath*, breaks the law, and turns the oval office into a playground?

*For any reason. I know what you're going to say and it doesn't matter. Law is the law.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
You other remarks are stupid. Who cares if he was a crook. He was still elected as a republican. That's what were talking about. (I gave you Clinton...talk about corrupt.)

---

maybe I'm reading this wrong. but you didn't seem to care if he was a crook or not.

please correct me if wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gerbick

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
What Bush's daughters do shouldn't be a reflection on Bush. They're old enough to make their own decisions now.

---

lemme guess. he can rule the country, but not his household? it makes him look weak.
[/small]

---

Last time I checked nobody ruled this country. That's why we have republic.

If you're going to make fun of Bush's daughters than make fun of yourselves. I've been around on this board long enough to know that many of you enjoy a good drink.

For you to criticize them is hypocritical.

About the desks...sources?

I had a good laugh when I heard about Dick Ghepart's "trickle up" economics.

Yeah, let's go give money to poor people and they'll hire rich people. That way it will "trickle up". . .wait! Something's wrong here.

It may surprise you to know. . .

Regean's economic boom was far greater than Bush Sr./Clinton's:

Economic growth under Regean was at 3.2%. Clinton never topped 2.7% .

The average family income went up 3 - 4,000 dollars...without inflation.

Taxation the rich steadily rose during the 80's while taxation on the middle class an poor went steadily down. . .


Most significantly, the economy of the 1980s outperformed that of the 1990s in virtually every measurable category. Economic growth was higher, job creation was faster, incomes rose much faster, and productivity climbed at a healthier pace.


Sources?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CNO
Well, at least Clinton was/is a damned good public speaker. Unlike our current representative, whose grasp and comprehension of the English language sometimes seems tenuous at best, and he has the audacity to make a joke of it.

And yet, he champions education.

I think it's rediculous to bring the private lives of public officials into discussions about their effectiveness, lest we dredge up Bush's booze hound daughters, etc.

I'm still of the opinion that it's been a long time since we've has a President who really reflected the desires of the people, quote me all of the statistics you want.

I'd challenge you to ask yourself whether the President is reflecting the desires of the people, or the people reflect the desires of the president.

---

Not that I'm taking any sides or anything, but I don't think it's fair to judge someone's ability on their (lack) of public speaking skills ... sort of like basing someone's intelligence on their ability to spell well ;)

I don't think it's "rediculous" (sic) at all to expect the leader of our country to behave himself in an appropriate manner. He is in a position that commands respect - being a leader of our country, certainly he is a role model ... I more than hope my son never looked to Clinton for 'appropriate behavior'.

Our current president is exactly what I wanted for our country. I pale at the thought of what sort of condition this country would be in right now, were Gore to be our 'leader'. Even prior to 9/11 I still didn't want Gore - the man is a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gerbick

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clifgriffin
You other remarks are stupid. Who cares if he was a crook. He was still elected as a republican. That's what were talking about. (I gave you Clinton...talk about corrupt.)

---

maybe I'm reading this wrong. but you didn't seem to care if he was a crook or not.

please correct me if wrong.

---

No. I care. I just said that it didn't effect my original point was that Americans have elected more republicans than democrats to the executive office over the last 10 terms.

The only thing that gives Nixon credit is that he honorably resigned.

Another thing that gives Nixon good marks in my book is his handling of losing the election to Kennedy.

The election was extremely close...so close that a one state difference could have given him the presidency.

Evidence was heavy that there was lots of fraud in Chicago related to William "Bugs" Daily's dad.

Instead of demanding a recount that very possibly could have given him the election he stepped down "for the good of the country."

If only some other well known polotician could have done the same. . .

Well said lanny. ;)

<edit>
Interesting you should mention Clinton as a roll model. . .

Read a story about 3 weeks ago about Ophra Winfrey.

She had a show with 11 to 16 year olds on of all things...oral sex.

2 of the kids used Clinton as their justification. They said that they never even realized what it was until they say him on tv. They said basically, "if he can do it, i can do it."

I was just sickened.

Anyway, maybe I'm being to pessimistic all the time. . . at least we got rid of him...
</edit>
[Edited by clifgriffin on 05-25-2002 at 10:07 PM]