|
31 Jul 06 - 12:50 PM (#1797847) Subject: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST As some of you may have heard, almost VEEP Sen Lieberman is having a bit of trouble with the re-election campaign this year, due to his Demo Leadshit Council voting pattern. Like being pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush energy bill, pro-Bush "Save Terri Schiavo", and getting all kiss face w/Bushie Boy himself, etc. Well, in comes Demo Leadshit Council King Willie to the rescue. And he tells audiences in Connecticut: From the Washington Post: "On his political rescue mission, the former president made no mention of Iraq until near the end of his remarks. "The pink elephant in the living room," he called the conflict that has divided Democrats as it has grown increasingly unpopular nationally. Democrats "don't agree on everything. We don't agree on Iraq," Clinton said, urging Democrats to put the issue aside and send Lieberman on his way to a new Senate term." That's right all you liberal Democrats here in Mudcatville. Your fearless leader has spoken. Shut the fuck up with your dissenting views, ignore your party's support for and role in getting us into this immoral hellhole of a war, and vote for the status quo. Talk about your political blowjobs... |
|
31 Jul 06 - 01:18 PM (#1797874) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Amos Do I detect a faint trace of bitterness in your rant, there, Guest-me-gal? A |
|
31 Jul 06 - 01:19 PM (#1797875) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Barry Finn Bill also said that he'd back who ever got re-elected which I believe was his best way out. Senator Lieberman deserves to be dumped, that bastard has backed Bush's every step. He's become a piece of shit. Barry |
|
31 Jul 06 - 01:39 PM (#1797894) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST Bitter? Nah. Just appalled at the gall of the Lieberman camp to be so friggin' two faced and hypocritical about calling in The Man Still Swingin' the Biggest Dick on the Democratic Party Block to save his sorry ass from his Dixiecrat Leadshit Council record. But hey Amos--keep up that great liberal Democrat voting record of yours. Look at what a fine place it's gotten us after all these years. Can't blame this shit on Nader, the Greens, or left wing insurgents now. It's the bloody "centrist" (and they are bloody and vile, to be sure) Democrats playing appeasement politics as usual (your heros in the last election, as I recall Amos) that have gotten their party into this fine mess. Fearless prediction: Democrats will lose AGAIN in November this year, because their politics of appeasement strategies no longer represent the political views of their own party membership. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 02:11 PM (#1797942) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: katlaughing I agree with you, Barry, about Lieberman. He needs to be shut up and dumped outta the party for good! Senator Dodd from CT has announced he may run for president in '08. From what I heard in a speech to Florida Democrats, last night on CSpan, and from when I lived in CT and voted for him, I am pleased he is considering running. I haven't been floowing his record, but will certainly keep a close watch from now until the elections. He sounded GOOD. Oh, and for the record, I would vote for Bill Clinton, again, in a heartbeat, but not for Hillary and I am as liberal as they come,imo! |
|
31 Jul 06 - 02:27 PM (#1797960) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST So speak loudly and swing a big dick. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 02:36 PM (#1797978) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Barry Finn "Oh, and for the record, I would vote for Bill Clinton, again, in a heartbeat, but not for Hillary and I am as liberal as they come,imo!" I would too, Kat. Folks were working back then at decent paying jobs, we had a surplus, we weren't at war, health care was in a far better state & if it weren't for the Replubicans we'd most likely be very close to a good workable national health care plan. We'd have had twice the brain power sitting in the white house as we have now, which is exactly 1/2 of the intellegence that's presently on it's ass & out for a vacation now. I don't think that the dem's really have anyone that they can show case now for a presidental seat but these mid terms are sounding better & better. I've been following move on.org & others & they're part of why Lieberman's campain is being stumped by the "other guy" & they're pushing the same agenda all over. Republicans would just love to see good ol Joe keep his seat, he's one of the best they've got. Barry |
|
31 Jul 06 - 02:42 PM (#1797986) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Dave the Gnome You know - I thought this was one of them there cut short thread titles. I assumed it was the FU Bill Clinton Hammond. A bill passed in the Mudcat parliament giving CH carte blanche to say FU to anyone. Cheers :D (tG) |
|
31 Jul 06 - 02:57 PM (#1797998) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST Leftists aren't liberal Democrats and liberal Democrats are not leftists, no matter what the Republican right calls them. Liberal Democrats are cowardly political appeasement "centrists". They brought us the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush revolutions (I & II). There is precious little ideological difference between the current Republican administration, and the Clinton administration, or their voting public. It is middle class centrist liberalism that has resulted in the convergance of Republican and Democratic parties in the last 30 years becoming ideologically so similar, that has resulted in the worst partisan polarization in nearly two centuries. How can partisan polarization happen when ideologically the two parties are so similar? Easy. They aren't fighting over ideology. They are fighting over the spoils of victory, and to stay in their privleged positions of power and wealth. Lieberman, the Clintons, John Kerry, and the rest of the DLC are the essence of the power and privlege among the liberal Democratic wing of the Democratic party. They, like their Republican counterparts in the Reagan/Bush/Bush White Houses, are battling for the survival of their two-party grip on political and economic power that is crumbling in ways they never saw coming in their push towards corporate global domination by the US/UK. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 05:15 PM (#1798148) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: kendall Liberal democrats are cowardly... this from a nameless guest. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 05:47 PM (#1798187) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Greg F. Bill Clinton was probably the best Moderate-to-Right Republican President the U.S. has had since Grant. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 05:48 PM (#1798190) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST Says yet another liberal Democrat... |
|
31 Jul 06 - 05:50 PM (#1798193) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Bobert Greg F, Right on, brother... I've been trying to tell these Clinton haters that for years now... Best pure Repub in my life time... Bobert |
|
31 Jul 06 - 06:05 PM (#1798209) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST I was referring to kendall, of course. Willie the Dixiecrat sez, now don't y'all go worryin' your stupid heads over that Iraq war. That just means you are on Bush's side in all this. And further, Willie the Dixiecrat sez, just put aside thinking about that Iraq war thing entirely when you go into the voting booth this year. There is, according to the Dixiecrat Leadshot Council, nothing to be gained by holding your Democratic Party elected representatives accountable for their actions as your Congressional representatives. No sirreee. GOOD Democrats don't hold their Democratic Party representatives accountable for starting this war, because that would just help the Republicans. Sez King Willie that the libDem Cat Faction love to love. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 06:53 PM (#1798246) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: katlaughing GOOD Democrats, unafraid to post under their own moniker, QUESTION AUTHORITY and don't take ANYBODY'S word, including nameless cowards, for anything. They also do NOT believe every word they hear, unlike the fundie sheep who support the shrub et al. In CT, Dems are paying attention to what they know has been true in recent years...it is time for Joe (Lieberman) to Go! The NYTs agrees: On Sunday, the two most influential newspapers in Connecticut issued endorsements in the Democratic primary race between U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman and Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. The Hartford Courant offered a tepid endorsement of the incumbent, arguing that since the war is only one issue and Lieberman votes with his party 90 percent of the time, there isn't enough reason to turn him out of office. What the New York Times said, on the other hand, was momentous. The editors endorsed Ned Lamont, accusing Joe Lieberman not just of shilling for George Bush's war, but of providing Bush cover for his abridgement of civil liberties and expansion of presidential power. Whatever momentum Lieberman might've gained from Bill Clinton's recent drive-by in Waterbury had been slowed with a few sharp words from the paper of record. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 07:21 PM (#1798266) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: artbrooks I'd say that anyone who equates moderate "centrist" liberals and Bush Republicans has to be so far out on one wing or the other that he/she may well be out of touch in other ways. At this point, I also am unsure who I'm going to favor in 2008; right now Senator Clinton wouldn't be my first choice, simply because of her lack of experience...4 years as a senator doesn't count for much, IMHO. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 07:44 PM (#1798280) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Grab Did I really just read that the Democrats brought us Bush Senior and Junior? Call me an uneducated Brit if you like, but just how, when both were Republicans? How can partisan polarization happen when ideologically the two parties are so similar? Wow - people have finally realised that most people are pretty similar and want similar things. And that radical policies on either side ("let's take all the money from the rich and redistribute it to everyone else, via some huge inefficient system", or "let's have the rich keep all the money, and let starving children die in the street") are crap. Actually, I'm curious to see you saying anyway, at a time when the Republican President is possibly the most right-wing yahoo since Genghiz Khan (with one difference - Khan won his battles). Is GWB unrepresentative of the Republican party as a whole, then? But then, I guess I don't understand American politics. I was in the US last election time, and I would have backed Kerry in a heartbeat over GWB. I was frankly amazed that people couldn't see through GWB, given that he looked like some refugee from bad late-night cable. Graham. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 07:48 PM (#1798285) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: katlaughing LOL, Graham, that he did and still does. artbrooks, I'd say life experience counts for a lot with senators, esp. if they happen to have been the wife of a president. I don't want her to run because I don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting back the White House if she does. Whoever runs against the GOP has to be the most viable candidate in years. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 08:10 PM (#1798299) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST Yeah, like John Kerry? You people really are as stupid as Clinton assumes you are. Stupid, stupid sheep. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 08:15 PM (#1798301) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: jaze Martin? Is that you? |
|
31 Jul 06 - 08:24 PM (#1798303) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST If that is what you need to believe jaze, sure. I'm Martin Gibson. Won't change the facts, though. Bush is sitting in the White House, because the sheep followed the Democratic Leadership Council's directions to vote for John Kerry, or face four more years of Bush. We see how well that one worked out for the world, now don't we? Anyone heard about a press conference being called by US Democratic Party leadership condemnimg Israel's horrific acts of late? No? Imagine my surprise. The rest of the world can see the US and Israeli atrocities being committed and call a spade a spade, but our dear centrist liberal sheep here in the Democratic Leadership Council stronghold known as the Mudcat Forum don't question that fact, do they? Let's blame Nader for it instead. Or the Greens. Or the Christian Right. Instead of the party that rolled over and played dead once Ronnie Rayguns won the PR revolution. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 09:28 PM (#1798337) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Bobert Gotta agree with GUEST on this one 100%... The DNC called in every marker they could to kill off Howard Dean in '04... Might of fact, they teamed up not only the RNC but the media to do so... This left Howard Dean way out on an island with no chance to break thru the Repubocratic/meadia conspiracy... This is a prime example of how the Dems send off that message that they are perfectly content to be the Bush-lite party... (But, Bobert... What about "The Scream"???) What scream??? Listen to George "THE SCREAMER" during any of his campaign performances... Now here is a guy who has perfected "the scream"... But do you hear the media showin' over and over and over and over and over, Georgie Porgy's screams???? Well, of course you don't but when it comes to "the scream" Dean ai8n't got nuthin' on Bush's version... So Dean got the hatchet from the DNC, RNC and the media.... Pure and simple.... Maybe what Dean needs to work on is the Clinton "lower lip" thing since he can't scream with the best o' 'um???? Bobert |
|
31 Jul 06 - 11:22 PM (#1798400) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: katlaughing Naw, it's not MG...it's JR from Minnesota, bet ya anything. She enjoys being so hateful and divisive without offering any solutions...typical GUEST. |
|
31 Jul 06 - 11:39 PM (#1798409) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST,Old Guy Somebody's getting real nasty here lately and it ain't me. I was just thinking if starting a thread about what Clinton did right. |
|
01 Aug 06 - 03:29 PM (#1799089) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Donuel Hey I graduated from FU. I would have preferred Oxford like Bill but hey it still beats GUEST's alma mater AU. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 11:23 AM (#1846019) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Amos LEtter to an Illinois paper By STAN WAGGONER, Mattoon This month in remembrance of 9/11, ABC ran a fictional movie called Path to 9/11. Do I really have to remind everyone who was actually president on 9/11/01? Here are just a few of the things that President Bush's administration did, and did not do that allowed the attacks to be successful. Major events of 2001 Jan. 10 -- Attack on Cole the prior October was determined to have been sponsored by al Qaeda. Jan. 20 -- Bush 43 inaugurated. February -- John Ashcroft spends first two weeks as attorney general covering the breasts of Lady Liberty at the Justice department. March -- President Bush withdraws funding for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. These people were actually shooting at bin Laden, and his al Qaeda, but were unable to kill bin Laden prior to 9/11, mostly because President Bush refused to help them. March -- Richard Clark demoted, and denied direct access to President Bush about terrorist activities. Clark must now report to an under-secretary of state rather than the president as he did under President Clinton. March --Vice President Dick Cheney forms special anti-terrorist task force replacing Richard Clark's position. June -- An FBI agent in Minn., reports suspicious Arabs learning to fly, but not take off or land jumbo jets. June -- An FBI agent in Florida reports more Arabs learning to fly, but not land or take off. July -- John Ashcroft tells the FBI that the administration wants the FBI to stop bothering them about al Qaeda. August -- Special agent of the CIA goes to Crawford Texas during President Bush's vacation to deliver PDB "bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States." August -- President Bush tells the CIA they have "covered their ass." Sept. 11 -- We are attacked by al Qaeda. Sept. 12 -- Vice President Cheney has first meeting of his anti-terrorist task force. I do not see how anyone could think that had the Bush administration had its priorities right we might have been able to stop the attacks of 9/11. But no, President Bush was busy getting the likes of the Waltons a multimillion dollar tax cut. One last thing. The Republicans like to brag we have not been attacked since 9/11/01 and that is five years! Need I remind them that we did not get attacked after February 1993 until September 2001, and that was eight years! |
|
29 Sep 06 - 11:54 AM (#1846047) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: beardedbruce Amos- "Major events of 2001 Jan. 10 -- Attack on Cole the prior October was determined to have been sponsored by al Qaeda." "Need I remind them that we did not get attacked after February 1993 until September 2001, and that was eight years! " Oct 2000, then? 1993 Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected. 1995 Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen. 1996 June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001. 1998 Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large. 2000 Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 12:57 PM (#1846100) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: kendall When are we going to wake up and realize that all politicians are alike? The only choice we have is to determine which gang of self centered power hungry bastards will do the least damage. For me the answer is simple. On the basis of flawed intelligence, Bush invaded Iraq then admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Then we learn that the CIA warned him before the invasion that the intelligence was not to be believed, and it's cleasr that he intended to invade Iraq no matter what. Ok, since then he has admitted that at least 10 thousand people have died in Iraq. Now, anyone who thinks that Clinton's blow job was more damaging to this country than that needs help. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 01:47 PM (#1846143) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Don Firth Well, GUEST has a bug up his/her butt and a monumental ignorance of political realities. No constructive ideas, just a lot of spleen. No help there. Don Firth |
|
29 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM (#1846157) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST "She enjoys being so hateful and divisive without offering any solutions...typical GUEST." My god. Rich. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 05:50 PM (#1846364) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST,Diogenes No, the GUEST who started this thread is not Martin Gibson. This particular guest was formerly known as "GUEST, The Dreaded Guest," and distinguished himself/herself about three or four years ago by starting similar threads. He/she exhibited a pathological hatred (not just dislike, but hatred) for Bill Clinton, and a general paranoia about a whole batch of things, including prison camps and "chemtrails." He/she often winds up a post by accusing ALL Americans of being "stupid sheep," as if he/she is the only one who knows what's really going on. There is plenty around to feed conspiracy theories these days, and some of them are quite probably true, but this person is completely divorced from reality and consumed by hatred. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 06:11 PM (#1846378) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST Does she have an edit button? |
|
29 Sep 06 - 07:27 PM (#1846419) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: kendall Bob Woodwards new book is shedding some light on the White House. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 08:19 PM (#1846435) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST OK then. Instead of that I'll say this: Why is it apt for some guest to say blowjob in the first post and FU in the thread title but when I ask if maybe the causde is the poster gagged on a 'penis' it gets deleted? Maybe Shambles is right. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 08:21 PM (#1846437) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: GUEST The question is valid. So why not answer it? |
|
30 Sep 06 - 02:24 AM (#1846595) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Strollin' Johnny What a pile of pants. |
|
30 Sep 06 - 02:29 AM (#1846599) Subject: RE: BS: FU Bill Clinton From: Big Al Whittle For a minute - I misread this. I opened it when I thought it was about Bill Clifton. now there's somebody worth talking about. |