Good Article About Clinton

Repent,
I am a republican and also think the Tin Man has the chance of a snowflake in hell at the BC.
All is well with the world.

Repent,
when you went back to Texas did you have to say goodbye to your nubian princess?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

As long as the article isn't by Ann Coulter, it will be all right. That woman is a lunatic. I was reading a article by her the other day, and she said that she wished that Tim McVeigh (sp?) would have blown up the New York Times building. I was thinking to myself, "well, hey; even Hitler had followers"....

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

As long as the article isn't by Ann Coulter, it will be all right. That woman is a lunatic. I was reading a article by her the other day, and she said that she wished that Tim McVeigh (sp?) would have blown up the New York Times building. I was thinking to myself, "well, hey; even Hitler had followers"....

now we have common ground KYRoses, an utter distaste for Ann Coulter
she is truely psychotic and really nothing more than a hate-monger
I'm Dem., but listen to what GOP people have to say, not her
she's too far off the deep end

[Seattleallstar]

this article is consistent with all the other anti-clinton bs thats out there

[Assttodixie]

I am a democrat and i dont think the Tin Man has a chance.

[Seattleallstar]

ann coulter is hott, she would be a nice ****

[SentToStud]

Yeah, I'm a Republican too but it's not feeling that good.

What happened to traditional GOP policy centering around sound economics and restraint of spending? What is so unfortunate is there is seemingly no room for any centrist Republican. Chuck Percy, Danforth, Bush I, Reagan.... I doubt any of these guys could get elected to any office today.

10-15 years ago people like Falwell were on the fringes. Now, they control the GOP "base." It's ludicrous that Falwell gets press when he likens Hillary Clinton's candidacy to that of the Devil himself.

Is it just me or do other Repubs feel the party has moved much too far toward the interests of the Christian Conservatives? Personally I feel insulted by the moral/religous indignation plays run by the GOP. And, how long can this kind of strategy really work?

I know my finger twitched a bit for the first time when I voted for GW for a second term.

And, whatever happend to the Social Security crisis? Were we told to stop worrying about that for now?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Yeah, I'm a Republican too but it's not feeling that good.

What happened to traditional GOP policy centering around sound economics and restraint of spending? What is so unfortunate is there is seemingly no room for any centrist Republican. Chuck Percy, Danforth, Bush I, Reagan.... I doubt any of these guys could get elected to any office today.

10-15 years ago people like Falwell were on the fringes. Now, they control the GOP "base." It's ludicrous that Falwell gets press when he likens Hillary Clinton's candidacy to that of the Devil himself.

Is it just me or do other Repubs feel the party has moved much too far toward the interests of the Christian Conservatives? Personally I feel insulted by the moral/religous indignation plays run by the GOP. And, how long can this kind of strategy really work?

I know my finger twitched a bit for the first time when I voted for GW for a second term.

And, whatever happend to the Social Security crisis? Were we told to stop worrying about that for now?

B., I completely agree with you. While I grew up in the church, I do believe strongly that the GOP has gone too far overboard to appease the religious right. I will be a centrist Republican, come hell or high water. The GOP has lost touch with it's core base and it is gonna catch up with us and bite us in the ass....and it is closer to happening than most people think.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Yeah, I'm a Republican too but it's not feeling that good.

What happened to traditional GOP policy centering around sound economics and restraint of spending? What is so unfortunate is there is seemingly no room for any centrist Republican. Chuck Percy, Danforth, Bush I, Reagan.... I doubt any of these guys could get elected to any office today.

10-15 years ago people like Falwell were on the fringes. Now, they control the GOP "base." It's ludicrous that Falwell gets press when he likens Hillary Clinton's candidacy to that of the Devil himself.

Is it just me or do other Repubs feel the party has moved much too far toward the interests of the Christian Conservatives? Personally I feel insulted by the moral/religous indignation plays run by the GOP. And, how long can this kind of strategy really work?

I know my finger twitched a bit for the first time when I voted for GW for a second term.

And, whatever happend to the Social Security crisis? Were we told to stop worrying about that for now?

I love this post! The sell out to the religious right forced moderates like myself further left.

To add to what you are saying, what happened to small government? Wasnt this one of the most basic GOP ideals?

I like the fact that you are an open minded republican. Its a shame that conservatives with your ideals arent put more on the forefront. Instead, people are left with morons like hannity.

[repent]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Repent,
I am a republican and also think the Tin Man has the chance of a snowflake in hell at the BC.
All is well with the world.

thank you man.

I just dont know how anyone can feel he is a threat to win based on his performance at Arlington.
the Million is an important race, but its just a 10f race that was won by a horse getting a ridiculous easy lead.

oh well, Im hoping the same thing happens in his next(although it probably will not) so that he will take a lot of stupid money on BC day.


Repent

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by repent

thank you man.

I just dont know how anyone can feel he is a threat to win based on his performance at Arlington.
the Million is an important race, but its just a 10f race that was won by a horse getting a ridiculous easy lead.

oh well, Im hoping the same thing happens in his next(although it probably will not) so that he will take a lot of stupid money on BC day.


Repent

I don't think anyone here said they think The Tin Man is as good as horses like Hurricane Run or David Junior. I don't think anyone said that The Tin Man is as good at 1 1/2 miles as at 1 1/4 miles. The only thing I said is that he is better than EC and Cacique. I would expect the BC Turf to be a much tougher race than the Million.

I give TTM a shot in the BC. It will depend who comes from Europe and how they ship. If Hurricane Run ships well and runs anything close to his best, I think HR will win. I think The Tin Man is the best of the American horses.

[Seattleallstar]

The Tin Man only has a chance if they let him dawdle through fractions of 26...51..and 1:15

[GenuineRisk]

You know you're on a horse racing board when a thread entitled "Good Article About Clinton" winds it's way to The Tin Man.

Thanks for the links, O & RP; I'll read them once this crappy day at work calms down... Oracle, please quote to me where in any of my posts I said, "no one knows anything" since you are very concerned with making sure you are quoted directly. I don't think I've ever said anything of the sort.

But to brighten everyone's day (not)-- here's conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan on the pending torture legislation. I know, I know, BB, a gay columnist can't possibly be conservative. But I don't know what else you call a small-gov't, flat-tax, pro-life proponent, and that's what he is. Anyway...

<<Those of us trying to resist the Bush administration's seizure of permanent emergency powers have so far failed to alert the American public of the immense danger to their basic liberties that this administration represents. Maybe this story in the Washington Post today will help wake America up.

How do I put this in words as clearly as possible. If the U.S. government decides, for reasons of its own, that you are an "illegal enemy combatant," i.e. that you are someone who

"has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States,"

they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you. This is not just restricted to aliens or foreigners, but applies to U.S. citizens as well. It can happen anywhere in the U.S. at any time. We are all at potential risk.

Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. And check the vagueness of the language: "purposefully supported" hostilities. Could that mean mere expression of support for terror? Remember that many completely innocent people have already been incarcerated for years without trial or any chance for a fair hearing on the basis of false rumors or smears or even bounty hunters. Or could it be construed, in the rhetoric of Hannity and O'Reilly, as merely criticizing the Great Decider and thereby being on the side of the terrorists?

All I know is that al Qaeda is winning battles every week now. And they are winning them because their aim of gutting Western liberty is shared by the president of the United States. The fact that we are finding this latest, chilling stuff out now - while this horrifying bill is being rushed into law to help rescue some midterms - is beyond belief. It must be stopped, filibustered, prevented. And anyone who cares about basic constitutional freedom - conservatives above all - should be in the forefront of stopping it.>>

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You know you're on a horse racing board when a thread entitled "Good Article About Clinton" winds it's way to The Tin Man.

Thanks for the links, O & RP; I'll read them once this crappy day at work calms down... Oracle, please quote to me where in any of my posts I said, "no one knows anything" since you are very concerned with making sure you are quoted directly. I don't think I've ever said anything of the sort.

But to brighten everyone's day (not)-- here's conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan on the pending torture legislation. I know, I know, BB, a gay columnist can't possibly be conservative. But I don't know what else you call a small-gov't, flat-tax, pro-life proponent, and that's what he is. Anyway...

<<Those of us trying to resist the Bush administration's seizure of permanent emergency powers have so far failed to alert the American public of the immense danger to their basic liberties that this administration represents. Maybe this story in the Washington Post today will help wake America up.

How do I put this in words as clearly as possible. If the U.S. government decides, for reasons of its own, that you are an "illegal enemy combatant," i.e. that you are someone who

"has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States,"

they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you. This is not just restricted to aliens or foreigners, but applies to U.S. citizens as well. It can happen anywhere in the U.S. at any time. We are all at potential risk.

Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. And check the vagueness of the language: "purposefully supported" hostilities. Could that mean mere expression of support for terror? Remember that many completely innocent people have already been incarcerated for years without trial or any chance for a fair hearing on the basis of false rumors or smears or even bounty hunters. Or could it be construed, in the rhetoric of Hannity and O'Reilly, as merely criticizing the Great Decider and thereby being on the side of the terrorists?

All I know is that al Qaeda is winning battles every week now. And they are winning them because their aim of gutting Western liberty is shared by the president of the United States. The fact that we are finding this latest, chilling stuff out now - while this horrifying bill is being rushed into law to help rescue some midterms - is beyond belief. It must be stopped, filibustered, prevented. And anyone who cares about basic constitutional freedom - conservatives above all - should be in the forefront of stopping it.>>

This is not a partisan issue. It doesn't matter whether the President is a republican or democrat. The vast majority of congressmen from both parties would do the same thing. You really don't seem to get it. It's not that complicated. It comes down to this: Nobody from either party likes harsh interrogations. But but if you have to choose between a harsh interrogation vs thousand of Americans dead in a terrorist attack, I would take the harsh interrogation of a suspected terorrist every time. It's that simple.

I will ask you a simple question. If you were in charge and the CIA told you that they captured an Al Qadea operative and they believed he had information on upcoming terrorist attacks, what would you instruct them to do? Let's assume that they say that he won't talk voluntarily. I think the vast majority of Americans would want the CIA to get the information out of him any way they could. It's a tough choice but if it's going to possibly save thousands of lives, then I think they have to do it.

[Downthestretch55]

GR,
Here's an article worth reading.
Amazes me how some of them shut up when they get a push back...like C Wallace. The tv media only showed selected cuts.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0926-26.htm

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

GR,
Here's an article worth reading.
Amazes me how some of them shut up when they get a push back...like C Wallace. The tv media only showed selected cuts.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0926-26.htm

Gee. I guess Bill creates his own reality! Clarke wasnt fired by Bush and Rice hammers Clinton on spreading false info. What a shock.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Gee. I guess Bill creates his own reality! Clarke wasnt fired by Bush and Rice hammers Clinton on spreading false info. What a shock.

Clarke wasn't demoted?
Rice will cover Bush's butt...SHOCKING!
Believe your own "reality" Timm.

Genuine,
Clinton got a free pass for all of his bull**** and lies because it was peacetime.
I didn't have a problem with him screwing an intern, I did have a problem with him lying about it. My friend pointed out last night when watching the tape of his meltdown with Chris Wallace, that he used the same finger wagging when he told America that "he did not have sex with that woman". Same exact finger wagging and facial expression.
Genuine in poker that would be called "his tell". Hes lying when does that.
The guy basically inherited a peacetime economy from the republicans who won the cold war, then slashed and cut military, intelligence and defense spending. He then represented to the American people what " a great job he did in resolving the deficit".
He destroyed the morale of the military and intelligence. And he allowed Bin laden to get away. All this because he was too busy fighting scandals and while he and Hillary were trying to play FRD and Eleanor with that health care reform he thought was so important to his legacy.
His first and most glaring screwup was treating the first attempt on the WTC not as an act of war, but as a federal crime. What exactly was he thinking? That they wouldn't do it again?
His legacy to me, and to many others, will be allowing Bin laden to escape and not preventing the great tragedies that befell us afterward because of it.
I can assure you that people do not attempt to steal documents that will vindicate them, they attempt to steal documents that will embarass them. I loved Clinton rushing to Berger's defense after he was accused by actually telling the media that Berger always had a very messy desk(this is an actual quote!!!) and that it was very believable that he took them by accident. I guess he thought the bull**** would keep on playing and playing, even after he was out of office.
Any attempts to pin this situation on Bush are ridiculous. He inherited this nightmare. We'll never know what kind of president he may have been had he not been forced to deal with this war on terror 24/7 through just about his whole time in office.
As far as Seattle's assertion that he was one of our greatest president's goes, I am kinda wondering what exactly he accomplished in office to make that incredible statement.
Im a republican but noone tells me how to think. Two of the greatest presidents in our history were Democrats, FDR and Truman. Real men who had real guts and made hard choices when the country needed a leader who could make them, and needed them badly.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

GR,
Here's an article worth reading.
Amazes me how some of them shut up when they get a push back...like C Wallace. The tv media only showed selected cuts.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0926-26.htm

If you ask most people who saw the interview, they would totally disagree with the assessment that this author had.

Did you read the article that I posted the link to? I think that article is a much more accurate assessment than your article.

It seems like you think that every article on commondreams is gospel. I'm not going to say that every article on there is inaccurate but here is a good anaolgy. Have you ever watched a criminal trial? If you only listen to the prosecutor's opening argument, you would think that the defendant is guilty for sure. On the other hand, if you only listened to the defense atttorney's opening argument, you would think the defendant was definitely innocent. But after you listen to both sides, you realize that it's a tough call.

When you read an article from commondreams, it is the same thing as my trial analogy. You are basically getting a one-sided argument. And I admit that my article was a one-sided argument too. If you didn't know the facts and simply read only one of those two articles, you would think that the author has a slam-dunk case. But once you read the other article, you realize that there are two sides to the story.