Bob Calco wrote: >> Many Republicans in the USA feel like the Democratic Party is >> illegitimate, and go to extremes, doing whatever it take, to insure >> Republican rule. Likewise, many Democrats feel like the Republican >> party is illegitimate and oppose it vigorously, as demonstrated by >> Democratic criticism of the Bush presidency over the last 8 years. >> Considering the vicious attacks by the Republicans against president >> Clinton during his 8 year Presidency, (eg investigation after >> investigation that found no wrong doing, but finally resulted in coming >> within one vote of impeachment of President Clinton for not being >> forthcoming when questioned about a moral issue), >> > > I grow weary of explaining this one over again, but I'll try anyway: > > 1. Clinton's dramatic overreaching in his first 2 years (which, for the > record, will pale in comparison to Obama's first 2 years if, God forbid, he > becomes president) spurred a reaction that cost his party what it never > thought it could lose: it's permanent majority in Congress; >
It's a little presumptuous of you to assume Obama's first two years in office might exceedingly parallel Clinton's; since, the election is still 24 days away. Considering the current mess being left behind by the Bush Administration, ( economic recession or depression, military spread thin with multiple ongoing wars, foreign relations frayed, a government dependent on deficit spending leading to a doubling of our national debt from 5 to 10 trillion dollars, an economy that is dependent on foreign petroleum leading to a transfer of wealth in the billions to the ME including ME terrorist, an increasing rouge Russia that is making a come back on petrol dollars, etc), its likely an Obama Administration would be overwhelmed just putting our house back in order over the first two years. There has never been a permanent majority party that controlled congress, but I think Carl Rove gave it his best shot to create a congress permanently controlled by Republican. LOL > 2. After Republicans took power, it was Clinton and the Democrats who > started the "politics of personal destruction". I remember very clearly how > Clinton politicized literally everything--if you were a Republican, you > wanted old people on the streets, children starving, and universal suffering > and misery of the poor, the weak, the downtrodden. I for one took it > personally, because he himself personally delivered this kind of message > every photo op he got, in a way Bush never has--to both his credit, and his > detriment, frankly; > > 3. To say that the investigations found no wrongdoing is a bad joke. Some > became dead ends because people took the fall for him (McDougal ring a > bell?) ... others nabbed people around him. Many found things a whole lot > more damning than, for instance, the recent report that accused Palin of > abusing her power by exercising her lawful and statutory power as governor > to hire/fire a subordinate. I remember the Dem manufactured scandal over the > firing of 9 judges who serve at the pleasure of the president--when Clinton > fired no less than 300 of them when they took over, and don't even get me > started about Valery Plame again; > OK, Clinton has a colorful history regarding some questionable, but no doubt exciting, sexual misconduct. That's just human nature, and the greater the danger the greater the pleasure, when it come to sex. Still, this is a moral issue and not a crime. If someone is harmed because of misconduct, a civil case might bring an award to the harmed party as a kind of amends, but that it. Otherwise, President Clinton was swarmed with allegation after allegation, which lead to investigation after investigation, but there was never an indictment for a crime. > 4. Monica Lewinsky was not about sex for those of us who cared about it. It > was about the monumental hypocrisy of Dems (including Clinton) preaching > "all sex in the workplace involving a superior and a subordinate is sexual > harassment by definition," then having the most powerful man in the world > boff an intern (albeit a willing intern) in the Oval Office -- and them > perjure himself about it. Your mind distorts Democratic behavior; because, you see the Democratic party as illegitimate. The relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was sexual OK, but there was no harassment. It was a relationship between a consenting male and a consenting female for sex. I think they should have gotten a room at a locale hotel/motel, but the sex was probably hotter on the spur of the moment in the oval office. LOL I wonder how many millions of other sexual encounters have taken place in a business setting during normal working hours? The fallout, when the incident became known, was pushed by the religious right in all its piety, which tended to exaggerate a normal human behavior into some kind of capital offense. I like the way Obama put it; phony outrage. > All his opponents--Gingrich, Livinston et al--lost > their jobs over that affair as their own personal indiscretions came out in > something of a scorched earth campaign by Clinton supporters, but not > BillyJeff, who went on to earn millions as ex-president; and his wife became > senator of NY, and almost presidential nominee, largely based on the > sympathy generated by the way they artfully spun the whole thing---which you > apparently bought hook, line and sinker. > It's amazing that Bill and Hillary Clinton are still together after all they have gone through. > >> I can only imagine >> the >> hell that awaits Senator Obama, if he is elected President. >> > > No matter who wins he will inherit the whirlwind that has become our > politics. > > >> I learned on ABC News - This Week with George Stephanopoulos that >> president Bush tried to push through legislation that would strengthen >> oversight of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but all >> attempts to pass the legislation fail, even though the first six years >> of the Bush Presidency came with a Republican control congress. New >> legislation finally passed within the first 5 months, after the >> Democrats won back control of congress, so I'm not sure why you're >> trying to place blame for the mortgage crisis on the Democrats. In the >> final analysis, there is more than enough wrong doing in the sub-prime >> mortgage crisis to pass around to all involved. >> > > Then tell Obama to stop trying to lay it all on McCain and "deregulation" > and laissez faire economics. Fannae Mae and Freddie Mac are hardly free > market institutions, and the bulk of what has poisoned our credit system has > come from those two government-run pseudo-"businesses"--several of whose top > execs are now economic advisors for Obama, and the "failed policies of the > past" that created the predatory lending practices were all Dem-inspired > "help the poor" schemes, as usual. > > That doesn't bother or concern you at all? > It is only in the last two or three years or so that the mortgage business went really crazy with sub-prime mortgages. Everyone involved were to busy making tons of money to let the housing bubble burst. Real estate agents wanted to continue to make their commissions, builders needed to be paid, so they could pocket their profits and build more houses, bank were looking for investments that promised high returns on there deposits and short term loans to mortgage companies seem to fit the bill, home owners wanted luxurious homes for very low payment in variable interest mortgages with anticipation for high appreciation in the future on their homes. The stock market wanted investments that would yield high returns to retirement mined investors, so the mortgage companies wrapped crappie mortgages in derivatives to sell to wall street. The value of the derivatives was based, (eg derived) from the underlying value of the packaged mortgages being passed off to unwary investors. Everyone wanted the housing boom to continue indefinitely, especially the Bush Administration; because, the housing boom and a strong economy made them look good. The leadership of the Federal Reserve assured the public, congress, and the president that the housing bubble was contained, even as the builders continued to build more houses. With an excess of supply of houses and the desire to keep things rolling, the real estate companies and mortgage companies practically shoved houses down the throat of unsuspecting buyers. When the housing market burst, everything collapsed like a house of cards. If there is blame, I'm not sure where to place it, but the blame is probably due to the greedy, selfish, ungodly nature of man, whether he is a builder, a banker, a wall street investor, a real estate agent, a mortgage company executive, a homeowner, or the President of the USA. >> I haven't seen you so active with post slanted toward persuading >> voters >> towards Republican party support; since, your hail of post rained down >> on OT shortly after it became clear that Iraq had no WMD, and was not a >> threat to the USA or ME region. Are you still looking for those WMD in >> Iraq, or a least plausible deniability regarding that huge mistake. >> > > I see some very evil forces behind Obama. I am very concerned about the > cult-like following the media has created for him, and the possibility he'll > have unchecked power for the first two years of his administration. His lack > of experience is an abstract concern--what is far more troubling to me are > the political alliances he's made in his rise to the top: > You have nothing to fear from Obama. If he is elected President of the USA, there are check and balances in our democratic system, so that no single person, or branch of government, can gain absolute power. Obama, like every president before him, would need to work within our constitution and democratic system, or he could be removed from office by impeachment. I think it's a little unfair to paint Obama as a black hearted terrorist, because of a few casual relations. Some of these casual relations could have been unavoidable. Quilt by association is a kind of character assassination, and calling for Obama to prove the innocents of his intentions is not warranted in a society that believes the burden of proof should be born by by the state. You have assigned terrorist motives to a man for doing nothing more that serving on a board of directors of which one of its directors was previously a member of a radical organization, for example. This is quilt by association and character assassination; a kind of juridical system where the accuser is judge, jury and executioner. Regards, LelandJ > - ACORN (currently under investigation for voter fraud on a national scale, > that received over $800K from the Obama campaign, and in fact derives much > of its funding from the federal government--whom he told in December would > help set his presidential agenda even before his inauguration) > - Bill Ayers/Bernadine Dorhn (who are communists, and Ayers may even have > helped ghost write his memoir) > - Tony Rezko > - Khalid Al-Monsour > - Jeremiah Wright/Black Liberation Theology and its bizarre nexus with > Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan and his gospel of hate (who recently > declared Obama "the Messiah") > - his last 2 "Muslim Outreach" coordinators' seriously questionable ties to > terrorist causes > - His political kinship and very active political support for and > collaboration with the communist thug Raila Odinga in Kenya (who has said he > believes he and Obama, from the same Luo tribe, are also cousins, and became > prime minister by inciting deadly violence after he lost the election last > December by more than 230K votes) while a US Senator. > - His high-level connections to top executives at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac > (Raines, Johnston and one other dude who's name eludes me) > - I'm sure I'm forgetting something... this is all off the top of my head... > > And on the issues: > - His radical Marxist views, whose answer to everything is "making > government cool again" and "sock it to the top 5%"/class warfare > - His extreme support of infanticide/abortion on-demand/no restrictions > whatsoever > - His disturbing record of attacking critics legally and with intimidation > tactics > - His asinine positions on national security, i.e., Iraq is in no way in our > national interest whatsoever, but somehow Darfur is. > - His commitment to end SDI and other critical defense systems--indeed to > diminish our military power. He can say what he wants to sound moderate now, > but his long history of saying the opposite of what he's saying now is > conspicuous. > - His 100% liberal rating and lack of any demonstrated bi-partisan > reaching-across-the-aisle. > > His character: > - Endless ambition > - Uncanny Ability to be dishonest and appear more non-threatening than he is > (which he reveals in his memoirs when talking about how he duped his mother > while on drugs and when he talks about feeling like a "spy behind enemy > lines" when he worked at a corporation once) > > I could go on and on but until he's president I don't have an army of > federal bureaucrats to chain me to my government-owned desk and mow my lawn > for me, so I have to do it myself. :) > > - Bob > > >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> >> >> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
