posted on December 24, 2000 04:02:55 PM
I realize most of the people on this forum are liberals, and I respect your right to believe as you do.
But the simple fact is that Bush will be our president for the next four years, barring a Monica incident (no, that won't get you impeached, will it?)
As Americans, we all have widely divergent ideas on how the government should be run. A consensus on what WILL be done is decided in the legistlature, by the representatives we elected. But once a decision is made, whether it's a law, or an election, we have a responsibility to uphold that decision. A responsibility to work TOGETHER for the greater good, even if we did not get the law or candidate we wanted.
Bashing Bush may be fun (I don't understand exactly why), but it is not the act of a responsible citizen. The campaigning is over. The election is over. It is time for us to show a little patriotism and support our government...and give up the sarcasm, rumors, and plain old sour grapes!
And merry Christmas-conservatives, liberals, and all those of us in the middle!
posted on December 24, 2000 05:35:49 PM
Clinton was impeached. The impeachment proceedings didn't result in his removal from office but that doesn't mean he wasn't impeached.
There were Clinton bashers from the time he was first elected. I imagine those folks considered themselves responsible citizens and patriots and would have resented being characterized otherwise. His subsequent activities gave them further reasons certainly but the criticisms, sarcasm, rumors and "sour grapes" were there from the start.
As did some other Presidents throughout US history, by the way. So it's nothing new. Lincoln and FDR come readily to mind.
At any rate, as long as people have the right to criticize the gov't and its representatives they will.
This isn't a dictatorship where criticism is equivalent to treason. Although as GW recently pointed out, if it were a dictatorship being President would be easier. But as Truman said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I'd like to ignore politicians entirely, but they keep mucking about with our lives. So, I guess, attention must be paid.
At any rate, have a happy holiday season regardless.
posted on December 24, 2000 05:50:41 PM
There is a major difference between constructive criticism and bashing. There was a legitimate reason to be concerned about the Monica incident. Clinton had been PROVEN to be lying to the American public. That is not the same as saying Bush is stupid, or you KNOW that he will cause a recession-you DON'T KNOW! You may think so, but if you are going to state something as a fact, be prepared to back it up with facts...not wild conjecture based on your personal prejudices.
I will always defend my right, and yours, to speak out about the things I believe. But I would never call someone stupid, or dishonest, just because I don't like them. That is the point where your rights and your basic decency have to compromise.
By the way, I did NOT vote for Bush. I'm a Texan, and a Republican, and still don't like him. But I'm not going to call him stupid until I see him Weschler scores!
And KRS, I love Dr. Seuss, also-and know many people more intelligent and well educated than I am who also read his books. I don't believe that is an indicator of intelligence, just of good taste in children's books!
[ edited by bearmom on Dec 24, 2000 05:52 PM ]
Now that you've gone to the trouble of a rude rant, how about YOU give it a rest?
Coda's right, ask for a respite but mention Monica for sure, don't ever leave that out! And make sure to bold your word Lied each time or some other republican may not believe that you care enough.
Did it ever occur to you that had not the republican part been more than willin to pay for the asking, investigating, and behind the scenes manuevering, Clinton nevver would have lied about the affair because he wouldn't have been asked.
posted on December 24, 2000 06:27:04 PM
Worthy sentiments, bearmom, and a good take on Dr. Suess.
"In almost every Dr. Seuss story, there was a hero. The heroes were often as weak as children but had moral integrity. It was easy for children to place themselves in the title role of a story. One of the best things about Dr. Suess’s stories was that the heroes always came “out on top.” The heroes won, not because of physical strength, but because life came round to their side again.
Dr. Seuss presented a moral in most of his stories. He avoided, however, preaching or making up the reader’s mind for him/her. On the contrary, he presented the morals in a subtle way. The moral issues that Dr.Seuss discussed were very often quite controversial, especially for children’s books. His characters faced racism, greed, disdain for the unusual, the problem of uninvited guests, as well as many other complicating issues. The issues were always solved in positive ways and the difference between right and wrong was always made clear. The messages never lost their importance. Children loved Dr. Suess as proved by the tributes they paid him. After writing Green Eggs and Ham, children actually sent him green eggs and green ham."
- by Stephanie Buck
http://www.iup.edu/~bnkupetz/AUTHOR_INFO.HTM#Dr. Seuss
"Dr. Seuss received virtually every child’s book award. He was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on March 2, 1904. He died at his home in La Jolla, California, on September 24, 1991. His inspiration for Yertle the Turtle was from Adolph Hitler. He wrote The Lorax on a laundry list while sitting by a pool in Kenya. Dr. Seuss was a great man who unlocked the room in a child’s imagination that others had not explored.
"In May of 1954, Life published a report concerning illiteracy among school children. The report said, among other things, that children were having trouble to read because their books were boring. This inspired Geisel's publisher, and prompted him to send Geisel a list of 400 words he felt were important, asked him to cut the list to 250 words (the publishers idea of how many words at one time a first grader could absorb), and write a book. Nine months later, Geisel, using 220 of the words given to him published The Cat in the Hat, which went on to instant success.
In 1960 Bennett Cerf bet Geisel $50 that he couldn't write an entire book using only fifty words. The result was Green Eggs and Ham. Cerf never paid the $50, btw..."
http://www.seuss.org/seuss/seuss.bio.html
The man was an original. Glad the new president is a reader with taste.
posted on December 24, 2000 06:49:48 PM
Has anyone seen a book out there, of Dr. Seuss' "serious" art? I saw this in a bookstore once, and should have bought it. Fantastic, very surreal stuff.
spelling edit... d'oh!
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 24, 2000 06:50 PM ]
posted on December 24, 2000 09:48:47 PM
James, I think you may be referring to The Secret Art of Dr. Suess. It's in print, available on Amazon, with reviews. And James, as a musician (especially if you were forced to practice piano in your early years), you owe it to yourself to see The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, Suess' only non-animation film. If you're not familiar with it, here's an unintentionally hysterical review that's actually pretty accurate on the plot line.
http://www.filmvalues.com/Review.cfm?RecordID=211
Bearmom, nevermind the hecklers. It's Christmas!
- Pareau
posted on December 24, 2000 11:43:21 PMBearMom: if Bush had won fairly, I'd still dislike his party and his ideas, but he would be my President and I would defend him.
The fact that Bush did not win fairly, but used Gestopo tactics to halt the Democratic process in order to ensure a win means that he is not my President because I feel his claim is illegal.
Had there been a quick and fair recount of all of the disputed votes in Florida, the absentee votes that the Republican party tampered with thrown out as they should have been, and STILL Bush had won, then I'd call him my President. He didn't, he used anti-American anti-Democratic tactic nothing short of organized-crime methods preventing a fair election. Therefore, he only has my contempt. I will NEVER accept him as the legal President of the United States of America.
All Pull Together? You Bet! Let's all pull Bush out of his illegitimate Presidency and have another election!
posted on December 25, 2000 12:50:36 AM
Well hi there group!
I see we are STILL criticizing PRESIDENT BUSH..my that sounds soooo nice!
The economy is going down hill fast. Nope, not because of Bush..but because of the last 8 years with the evil 'dems'
Now...don't you all go blowing your cool and spouting your nasty remarks my way. I've moved on..glad to see PRESIDENT BUSH has taken firm control. And you all thought he was a whim...haha...he fooled you!
So what do you Clinton lovers think about Mr. Clinton's new talk show? (ok..it's just a possibility)...and Senator Clintons new 'tell all' book deal?
Hmmm..book deal is just a cover up for them to line their pockets...been doing that for years...or perhaps it is a bribe?
Oh..and of course...Hillary is not running for President!(Didn't Bill say those same words the last time he was elected Govenor?)..you just can't trust anything those Clintons say...nope...nothing!
posted on December 25, 2000 04:16:36 AM
It is impossible for me to understand how there can be two groups of otherwise normal functioning adults who run businesses and raise children. Yet when the big political parties run out these candidates you pick one
over the other as if there is any real difference. Neither one is worth a bucket of warm spit. None of their promoses mean ANYTHING. Both of them will make similar little changes as much as they are able - which is not much. The press makes it sound bad that only half the people show up to vote. I can't understand how that many are fooled into thinking it matters which they pick. Is there one of them that will make any real difference in how the government takes my money away from me? No. Maybe some minor adjustment of the tax rate. No big change. No flat rate or major change of revenue source.
Same with any other issue. Minor differences.
You have the same people in Big Business who hold the purse strings that will decide what these boys can do.
Yes, once a bill is passed into law we must uphold or pay the consequences. Clinton paid but not with the noose so many wanted. That does not mean that we have to like that law nor do we have to pretend to.
I can respect the office and not respect the man just as your "bolding above" does for Bill Clinton.
I can't comment as to your respect of Bill Clinton during his years as president but I never saw that keep people from the other side from trying to tear him down from day one in office.
Yes, he did wrong but I've never seen so many people try to get rid of a president as this one and feel it continues even now with your bolding and IMLD2's seemingly constant knocks of the man and all democrats.
The hate mongering seems to be politically correct for the Clinton's but at least we know he won the office while Bush may very well be an imposter sitting at the head of the table only because the Supreme Court thought it would disrupt and confuse our country?
I can hardly wait for him to send a contingent of people to "watch" over another country when they vote to see that it is an honest election so while I can respect the office I can't respect the man but I can say I will at least give him the same respect that the other side gave the Clinton's.
posted on December 25, 2000 06:26:00 AM
I consider myself a responsible citizen. I served my country for 3 years. I vote. I go when called for jury duty. I pay taxes to support my government.
I've been critical of every president since Tricky Dick.
posted on December 25, 2000 07:37:12 AM
A great deal of the problem with these "give it a rest" type threads is that they assume the moral superiority of one party over the other, and automatically assume that ANY president in this century has been morally refined.
When I was a kid, I was like Snowy, not trusting any pres since Tricky Dick. Having grown up and actually read a few American histories and presidentail bios, it becomes rapidly apparent that the only difference in the moral fiber of "then" vs. "now" is that the poor man in office lives under a magnifying glass. Abe L., George W., Thomas J., all had problems that in today's world would have driven them from office it the voting populace had known about them.
As for Dubya, he's reading the book, but he's having trouble getting past the polysyllabic words.
As for bashing any pres or pol, that's part of the game and is an intrinsic part of Western politics and it's wonderful, doncha think? It's the first and foremost reminder that our 1st Amendment works.
posted on December 25, 2000 08:10:13 AM
Moderator, please close this thread. It was certainly not my intention to get another argument started. Let's really give it a rest. Merry Christmas, all!
