>Rob - I don't get it! What other comments?
>
>*edited to remove cynical remarks*
>
>You almost got me going there.

Nothing from this thread. My brain is still working cross-thread...

How nice of you to remove your cynical remarks... especially since they would have been uncalled for. Or does it anger you that we can tell you are a Clintonite from your writing(s)?

 

It may be the case that
>Clinton's bad aspects overshadow his good ones. You see, we
>need you to point out the good aspects of Clinton's
>Administration.

For Gosh's sakes, will somebody tell me something the man did that was GOOD?
(silence)

That's what I thought.

Seriously, I respect your opinion Carlene. I intend no offense.

However, I'm of the mind that G.W. and co. most likely had to fumigate the White House after that pathetic show of leadership and selling-out of America.

I've heard as well that the Chinese are some of his biggest fans. That information has been documented by now I'm sure. We all sleep a little better now that the Reds have ICBM technology. Geez.

He comes as close as I get to hating someone.

That said, again, I applaud you for sticking to your convictions. What was it Brien called it, "Hutzpuh?" Down here we just say, "you go girl."

My .02

Chuck

 

> It may be the case that
>>Clinton's bad aspects overshadow his good ones. You see, we
>>need you to point out the good aspects of Clinton's
>>Administration.
>
>For Gosh's sakes, will somebody tell me something the man
>did that was GOOD?
>(silence)
>
>That's what I thought.
>
>Seriously, I respect your opinion Carlene. I intend no
>offense.
>
> However, I'm of the mind that G.W. and co. most likely had
>to fumigate the White House after that pathetic show of
>leadership and selling-out of America.
>
>I've heard as well that the Chinese are some of his biggest
>fans. That information has been documented by now I'm sure.
>We all sleep a little better now that the Reds have ICBM
>technology. Geez.
>
>He comes as close as I get to hating someone.
>
>That said, again, I applaud you for sticking to your
>convictions. What was it Brien called it, "Hutzpuh?" Down
>here we just say, "you go girl."
>
>My .02
>
>Chuck
>


Ditto. Chuck, you did a good job of putting what I was also thinking. I'll leave it at that.

 

Guess ya'all are right, it takes alot of those little round things you see on the underside of your mouse for me to even have attempted to post anything positive about our past "President". I was just trying to point out an indiscrepency in a supposed truth, not trying to start a political battle against me and my beliefs.

I've seen many posts on this site and sites like it whereas it is almost criminal to say something against Mr. George W because he IS our president. I whole-heartedly agree. But, those same people have no problem whatsoever bashing a President they didn't like. I stand behind my president no matter what differences I may have with him (and not meaning specifically "W") This is my country and my president whether I voted for him or not. That's the great thing about this country, we have the right to dissagree, but upon defeat, will support the winner. I have a hard time listening to people and reading posts degrading a "President", past or present. Our commitment to our "elected" leaders is what makes this country great. Sometimes you have to stand behind and defend a leader that you don't particularly agree with. It's my turn for this part.

 

>How nice of you to remove your cynical remarks... especially
>since they would have been uncalled for. Or does it anger
>you that we can tell you are a Clintonite from your
>writing(s)?

Some observations here if I may. I do not share Carlene's convictions about our former president. Her stated support of ANY president is not only courageous but admirable. Few here can say they would or could do the same. Having said that, I do respect her right to present her OPINION of the man here, as I respect anyone else's OPINIONS. It is MY opinion that Rob has left the realm of stating an opinion and moved on to a personal attack, something I never thought to see here. To say I am disappointed is an understatement.

Ron

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-Sep-02 AT 04:26 PM (EST)]I was just trying to point out an
>indiscrepency in a supposed truth, not trying to start a
>political battle against me and my beliefs.

Ok, but you did step into it.
>
>I've seen many posts on this site and sites like it whereas
>it is almost criminal to say something against Mr. George W
>because he IS our president.

Not true (at this site) if you have a reason or something to back up your point.

I whole-heartedly agree. But,
>those same people have no problem whatsoever bashing a
>President they didn't like. I stand behind my president no
>matter what differences I may have with him (and not meaning
>specifically "W")

This is where the problem really mushrooms. There is no question that clinton engaged in unethical behaviour and there is evidence to support the accusation that he compromised the country's security.

This is my country and my president
>whether I voted for him or not. That's the great thing
>about this country, we have the right to dissagree, but upon
>defeat, will support the winner.

I'll accept that.

I have a hard time
>listening to people and reading posts degrading a
>"President", past or present. Our commitment to our
>"elected" leaders is what makes this country great.
>Sometimes you have to stand behind and defend a leader that
>you don't particularly agree with. It's my turn for this
>part.

This I disagree with. Our committment is NOT to our elected officials. Rather it is supposed to be their committment to US and they are to serve the Constitution and the will of the people - not themselves. Because we are committed to our officials does not make us great. That would be the old Soviet Union.

 

>>How nice of you to remove your cynical remarks... especially
>>since they would have been uncalled for. Or does it anger
>>you that we can tell you are a Clintonite from your
>>writing(s)?
>
>Some observations here if I may. I do not share Carlene's
>convictions about our former president. Her stated support
>of ANY president is not only courageous but admirable. Few
>here can say they would or could do the same. Having said
>that, I do respect her right to present her OPINION of the
>man here, as I respect anyone else's OPINIONS. It is MY
>opinion that Rob has left the realm of stating an opinion
>and moved on to a personal attack, something I never thought
>to see here. To say I am disappointed is an understatement.
>
>Ron

Where was the personal attack? Carlene admitted to removing cynical comments... and I simply pointed out that that was nice of her... since nothing warranted them in the first place. Base on that information, all I could figure is that she was mad I could tell she liked Clinton.

BTW, is your disappointment in me suppose to have any affect on this thread? Your reply sounded a little arrogant to me.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 16-Sep-02 AT 01:41 PM (EST)]I may be going out on a limb here because I will attempt to interpret what I think Carlene was alluding to when she said she supported our elected officials no matter what their party affiliation. My take on this was that Carlene supports the OFFICE and not just the person. She may have liked the former President and his performance in office, but that is no reason to challange her credibility.

I am not a Clinton fan, yet I still support the Presidency. Clinton may have done all of the allegations brought to the general public, but that does'nt mean one can't support the office of the Presidency.
We can judge the conduct of Presidents, yet that does'nt mean we don't support the office. I am certain we can find some good things that Clinton did while we was in office. However, I think, as I said before, his indiscretions far overshadowed anything he did on the positive side of the ledger. History will be the ultimate judge of the Clinton actions while he was in office. The Clinton legacy will be the ultimate resource for the American public to judge this man's
actions in the American political theater.

The public will always dwell upon the negative. Public memory is very short when it comes to beneficial actions. This is just human nature. The anti Bush camp will try and do anything they can to make dirt stick. This is the nature, unfortunately, of American politics.
No one wants to highlight the positive, and if they do, they become drowned in a cacaphony of negative litany. This is American politics and this is why negative campaigning is so successful.

Leave the spin to the spin doctors and the extreme media. Let those who seek the truth pursue that goal unencumbered from those who seek to stifle and rearrange the truth. Ferreting out the real story is difficult enough without having to wade through more BS than we have already. We need more facts like Carlene provides, not to undermine those who provide them.

So the fact that Carlene likes the former President really is irrelevant. She, from what I can see, is just seeking to separate the truth from innuendo for which I am thankful to her. We need more objective thinkers in this world. She may be party affiliated but I don't see her as moving lock step with any one person in our government, but rather I see her as an objective person with a penchant to know the truth.

:-)

 

>but that is no reason to challange her credibility.
>

I didn't see anyone doing this.