Saturday, June 7, 2008

Re: FW: Hey Ed

maybe i do hate bush, but

 possibly you mistake my dislike for his public policy as hate, not unlike your brothers (and sisters!!)  who accuse us liberals of being traitors?

 how can i be led by a person who can't (wont try to correctly) pronounce  "nuclear".

 especially in comparison to a president who was a nuclear engineer.

 you can never take bush on the merit.  only in comparison to the clinton of the moment.

 that's what i fail to understand. 

 you are on the wrong side of history when you try to find any merit in the bush presidency.   and what galls me about your stance is when you switched from being  a mccain supporter to a bush loyalist when the bushies thoroughly trashed your man in '00 SoCarolina.  had mccain been the republican candidate in 00, this country would have surely avoided the madness delivered by the bush selectancy.

 you can't/won't admit the destruction of comity in the political arena is a direct result of the hate _you_ spew.  by repeating coulter, hannity, rush, ... arguments.    is there anything these people say you disagree with?   assuredly, the _only_ thing they say I will ever agree with is when they deliver an ironic comment meant to deride.   to paraphrase:  "if we followed the hillary, hussein obama health care plans we'd actually have _socialized_ medicine,   { accompanied by audible sneer } " how can a sentient person do anything but hate that thought (if you can call it thought),  hate the person who delivered it, since they are being evil ( if not un-christian), and hate the persons who would profit, either politically or economically.

 as to the "rant vs rant" approach,   i can't _even_ begin to pay you back for the dreit you delivered during the clinton years,   the problem with your arguments is they have nothing to do with todays problems,
and little to do with the problems of the moment when you made them.

  pointing out that bush's tossing the kyoto protocol is a rant?   you have much to learn.

  " bush's assault on civil liberties ...

  " bush's attempt to fool the working poor that a tax cut for the wealthiest 0.5% favors them ...

  " bush's quashing veteran's benefits ...

  " bush's gutting regulatory agencies in behalf of big donors ...

  what you take as "rant" are legitimate disagreement with his complete disregard of public service in behalf of a narrow group of the powerful.

  your actual rant against the clintons are hung on salacious behavior which has little to do with public policy.

  what i'd like to know is, before the salacious became public, why did you hate him so. my hypothesis is the republican bile was  building for years w.r.t. revenge for nixon, and not able to find a sticking point with carter.   clinton, being a man of the flesh (not, say carter's spirit) was the perfect target.  my data point on this are the republican mis-truths on why bork was turned down for the supreme court:  the current myth is "because of his strong pro-life stance".   nothing could be further from the truth.  while it is a position of bork's, he was really refused the "thumbs up/down" because of his overtly political act of firing the one special prosecutor who was investigating official crimes against the public: namely Archie Cox.   but _that_ little detail, like so many other items of "factiness" escapes capture by the republican myth machine.

 you, my friend are on the wrong side of history.

 witness your opening statement.  "it is you who constantly ... "   were i to lay out a time line of the 8 clinton years against the 8 bush years and and ask who was asking whom to "join you with a pitch fork and demand { }'s head on a stick" ..  you could only conclude i had been the patient one.

 i'll stop "rant"ing against bush when he is no longer president; though i will be writing my democratic majority to conduct a thorough investigation of his administration and recommending appropriate action by the world court

 i'm looking forward to your rants against president obama.   can we count on useless drooling rush-like-dwelling on his "non-christian" names hussein, obama.   to the extent you don't repudiate the idiots who represent your views, you embrace them.

 i'm not solicting your hate, just your finally honest appraisal of the failure he's been.

+=+-- Marty

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:56 AM, <> wrote:
For the record, it is you who constantly barrage me with emails on how I should join you with a pitch fork and demand Bush's head on a stick.

In the spirit of getting along I usually offer up some level of agreement on a certain amount of short comings with the current President while chastising you for what amounts to wild-eyed over-the top-rhetoric which is far overstated and stipulate that for whatever shortcomings the current President has, they pale in comparison to the jokes offered up by the competing party, including the liar-in-chief and favor seller CLINTON crime family.

If you do not wish to talk about it, then leave me out any emails solicitating hate on Bush. I could do without it. I have never wavered once in my belief that George W. Bush is a far better President than Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Clinton. The two improvements with Obama are he's honest and forthright about his policy positions (i.e. not taking both sides of every issue) and he keeps the dialogue on the substance of the issues. I watched his speech to AIPAC and found it refrreshing to hear him say that he doesn't think keeping troops in Iraq helps Iran-----I strongly disagreee with it---but its nice to hear him defend his own positions in comparison to last three Democrats who ran for President who would obfiscate such things.

Again---if you don't want to hear me rant against the Clintons or any other Democrat, the solution is simple, don't rant against Bush or McCain or any other Republican to me. (i.e. you started it, but I'm ending it.)

No comments: