You go girl!...........I think.....

#76
#76
What would this world be without Bush haters?

product.jpg
 
#77
#77
volinbham said:
And the left has made it's core values to be diversity, tolerance, free speech (eh hem), etc. They should give her an award for speaking "truth to power" in the manner of Al Franken, Bill Maher etc.

Both sides practice hypocrisy with equal talent and zeal.
Click to expand...

Does that make it right? Do the moralists condone such immoral behavior?
 
#78
#78
melissa hyberger said:
you keep telling yourself that. how long did it take libya to come clean about its weapons of mass destruction after we invaded iraq. clinton was a world president, bush is an American president. who is sitting in the white house does matter. go and do some studying on world history. im not saying Clinton was a bad president. Carter on the other hand was horrible. Reagan was a force to be reconed with and the world knew it. Go back and look at how the USSR considered Reagan, and how they looked at Carter. huge, huge differance.
Click to expand...

The President of the United States is oftentimes referred to as "the leader of the free world." It's not a bad thing to have a "world president."

Reagan was a force because he was out of his mind, he scared the crap out of people. The problem is, we don't need the world to fear us, we need the world to respect us.

Now seeing as how this conversation is about Clinton and Bush, I don't know why you are talking about Reagan and Carter. Iraq is not Soviet Russia, we are talking about two completely different situations here.

Lastly, Saddam knew Clinton meant business, Unfortunately, under pressure from critics who claimed Clinton was "wagging the dog" to divert attention from impeachment procedings, he could not continue his attempt at unseating Saddam.
 
#79
#79
emainvol said:
The President of the United States is oftentimes referred to as "the leader of the free world." It's not a bad thing to have a "world president."

Reagan was a force because he was out of his mind, he scared the crap out of people. The problem is, we don't need the world to fear us, we need the world to respect us.
Click to expand...

It is a bad thing to have a "world president" if that subordinates U.S. interests. Last time I checked, we don't vote for world president.

I suppose that Clinton is considered more of a world president. If you think the world respected us then I think you are being naive. Countries that had something to gain from us were fine. Others thumbed their noses at us knowing that the response would be minimal. Iran, Iraq, Korean, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and on and on - show me how they respected the US then.

I've repeated this many times - our current approach is too heavy handed. However, the Clinton approach was too light. It isn't a popularity contest.
 
#80
#80
emainvol said:
The President of the United States is oftentimes referred to as "the leader of the free world." It's not a bad thing to have a "world president."

Reagan was a force because he was out of his mind, he scared the crap out of people. The problem is, we don't need the world to fear us, we need the world to respect us.

Now seeing as how this conversation is about Clinton and Bush, I don't know why you are talking about Reagan and Carter. Iraq is not Soviet Russia, we are talking about two completely different situations here.

Lastly, Saddam knew Clinton meant business, Unfortunately, under pressure from critics who claimed Clinton was "wagging the dog" to divert attention from impeachment procedings, he could not continue his attempt at unseating Saddam.
Click to expand...

Personally I could care less what the world opinion of the US is. I have a very low opinion of most of them too. Do what is best to protect and serve the US people and it will pay off. It's a trickle-down theory (since you referenced Reagan :p) We are a very compassionate bunch when given the chance.

And do not tell me Clinton meant business. Did he also mean business with Kim Jong-Il? How did that turn out?
 
#81
#81
Coulter is threatening to keep this behavior up all throughout the cycle. I know some consultants who are already writing statements to distance themselves from her.

I love her rebuttal to the criticism. She is now saying "******" does not link with gays but yet is a playground taunt meaning "wuss". Funny now Ann is the expert on playground terminology and gay bashing terminology. Makes one wonder where she spends her free time....
 
#82
#82
utvolpj said:
And do not tell me Clinton meant business. Did he also mean business with Kim Jong-Il? How did that turn out?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind Bush just adopted the Clinton approach. If it didn't work for Clinton why would Bush adopt that same failed approach.

Line starts here for hurling Clinton insults at the guy who uses the same diplomacy methods that failed.....W just can't seem to catch on to what works and what doesn't.
 
#83
#83
CSpindizzy said:
Keep in mind Bush just adopted the Clinton approach. If it didn't work for Clinton why would Bush adopt that same failed approach.

Line starts here for hurling Clinton insults at the guy who uses the same diplomacy methods that failed.....W just can't seem to catch on to what works and what doesn't.
Click to expand...


There is a difference - the Bush approach has a more meaningful involvement of China. Also, he was dealing with a different situation due to the cheating done by Korea under the Clinton agreement. Finally, the approach is more phased with more verification steps.

Will it work, who knows. It is the same in the sense that it is a diplomatic approach. It is different on other aspects.
 
#84
#84
volinbham said:
There is a difference - the Bush approach has a more meaningful involvement of China. Also, he was dealing with a different situation due to the cheating done by Korea under the Clinton agreement. Finally, the approach is more phased with more verification steps.

Will it work, who knows. It is the same in the sense that it is a diplomatic approach. It is different on other aspects.
Click to expand...

It is basically the exact same thing. More meaningful? Not really. So seeing this method result in cheating makes going down the same path more promising? What does previous 'cheating' have to do with making the same path choice again? Add to the fact that we've been fed the line how wrong and careless this path was and how this guns blazing approach for the past few years would be right....why all of a sudden is the wrong path now the presently chosen path? Has someone seen the err of their ways?
 
#85
#85
CSpindizzy said:
It is basically the exact same thing. More meaningful? Not really. So seeing this method result in cheating makes going down the same path more promising? What does previous 'cheating' have to do with making the same path choice again? Add to the fact that we've been fed the line how wrong and careless this path was and how this guns blazing approach for the past few years would be right....why all of a sudden is the wrong path now the presently chosen path? Has someone seen the err of their ways?
Click to expand...

If it is the "basically same exact thing" then virtually all multi-lateral diplomacy is basically the same exact thing. There are differences and they are real.

The cheating means we are in a weaker position. Negotiating before they have nukes and after is quite a different thing.

Your proposition is wrong since it is not the same thing. What was wrong with the other was it was too weak and open ended. Also, it didn't have as strong a buy in from the player that has the most control - China. The situation is different now. It hasn't been guns a blazing and then all the sudden this path. The 6 party talks have been under way for several years.
 
#86
#86
How is China more involved? How is it any different?
The fact remains we have sat back under Bush's previous tactics while N Korea has achieved a viable nuclear program. They can now back down to get concessions from the west including Bush's call to unfreeze assets (a Clinton tactic) and even sell off what they've achieved to third party nations. They get money and everything else they want all while our previous methods did absolutely nothing.
 
#87
#87
Back to Coulter...it seems several sponsors and papers are dropping her. The Mountain Press in Sevierville dropped her.
 
#89
#89
Coulter is proving her point. She said the word "fa**ot" and before long, she's going to end up in therapy.
 
#92
#92
I guess her begging for money on Coulter Cash is for show? She's lost quite a few large sponsors. Had you taken time to read the article, she lost more than just as you say Hillbilly Times. Nice of you to think of the next town over from Knoxville in that manner as well.
 
#93
#93
Your trying to make her out to be a pauper is just silly.

Should I have some high opinion of Pigeon Forge, too.
 
#94
#94
I can understand being true to your base, but defending Coulter is just scary.
 
#95
#95
OWB said:
I can understand being true to your base, but defending Coulter is just scary.
Click to expand...

She is moronic but being held by a double standard. Had a Democrat said it, it would be cutting edge satire.

I'm Republican, but I think that Bush is far from great.
 
#97
#97
justingroves said:
She is moronic but being held by a double standard. Had a Democrat said it, it would be cutting edge satire.

I'm Republican, but I think that Bush is far from great.
Click to expand...
Yeah but here's the thing, a Democrat didn't say this. You can't talk about double standards when it comes to Coulter unless you're talking about her being a transgender..
 
#98
#98
BigPapaVol said:
Your trying to make her out to be a pauper is just silly.

Should I have some high opinion of Pigeon Forge, too.
Click to expand...

Did I say pauper? You taking me out of context is laughable as well. I said she's losing cash. Her source of revenue, sponsors and syndicate buys from papers, are dropping her. Sponsors to her website are dropping her, USA Today dropped her, and now the synicated hosts she has are dropping her. Again, her asking for website donations must be an indication she's still on top of the world and doesn't need 50K a pop hate speeches to survive.
 
#99
#99
I wonder how GA Christian Coalition feels about her now since they recently had her speak at their convention. I need to give my old buddy Sadie a call.
 
#100
#100
justingroves said:
She is moronic but being held by a double standard. Had a Democrat said it, it would be cutting edge satire.

I'm Republican, but I think that Bush is far from great.
Click to expand...
How is it a double standard? She made an idioic statement, and sponsers responded by dropping her, news media responded by dropping her. I don't seem to remember anyone on the right complaining when every major radio station in the country responded the exact same way to the Dixie Chicks.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top