La Vie En Rose for 2004 March 14 (entry 0)

< 21!!
Humm... >

[Comments] (26) Outline for my paper: I. Bush is an turkey
II. his daddy was a turkey also, but more furtively so
III. Clinton was neither turkey nor idiot
IV. bush is an idiot
V. ways to get the europeans on our good side again
a. grovel
b. get bush out of office
sent them free in-N-out


Comments:

Posted by sneeks at Mon Mar 15 2004 02:19

additions....
Ia. some even liken him to a monkey, eg., the way he always scrunches his face at the teleprompter

IIIa. clinton also had charisma and was sortof semi-attractive (in comparison to Ia, at least).

Vd ("vd" but NOT like the STD). elect a really really super hot president, because nobody wants to fight with you if you are attractive and affable. ok, so there was the whole cuban missile thing/bay of pigs with Kennedy, but BESIDES that, people generally liked him. shallow, but true. :) i think we should elect....A.W.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by sneeks at Mon Mar 15 2004 02:21

btw i dont think europeans would like inNout, good as the special pink sauce is, because they already make fun of us for being obese monstrosities. and they are ANTI american fast food cultural imperialism! remember jose bove and the french MACDO!!!

Posted by John at Mon Mar 15 2004 02:31

Unfortunately Rach, you're not the only one who thought Clinton was attractive. Remind me why we need the Europeans on our side? We're making a fortune off them because they can't seem to get their dumb euro to depreciate.

Posted by sneeks at Mon Mar 15 2004 02:39

ummmmmm i didnt say clinton was attractive, i said he was attractiver (more attractive?) than bush. but that does NOT make me monica. and if the euro is doing better than the dollar, doesnt that show that having a union of friendly nations and being on each others' sides is better than being a lone superpower that everyone hates?

Posted by Susie at Mon Mar 15 2004 04:21

Despite my lack of vocal political opinions, I must say that Bush is less unattractive than Clinton.

Posted by sneeks at Mon Mar 15 2004 05:17

REALLY !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!

Posted by John at Mon Mar 15 2004 17:57

Well, I agree that we shouldn't be making enemies. I was just curious why we NEEDED them on our side, besides because friendship is a good thing.

Posted by rachel at Mon Mar 15 2004 20:47

I'll send you my paper wehn it's finished, though it might be a little... to the left of your taste...

Posted by rachel at Mon Mar 15 2004 20:48

I'll send you my paper when it's finished, though it might be a little... to the left of your taste.

Posted by Pooca at Mon Mar 15 2004 21:10

Are we neverminding that Clinton was an adulturer? I think Kerry looks too much like him, but mostly I think that "Kerry" sounds more like a vice-president-or-lost-presidential-race name. ...Well, at least *I* think like that.

Posted by Frances at Mon Mar 15 2004 21:31

*I* am neverminding that Clinton was an adulterer. I betcha 98% of the people in the government business are. Clinton just got caught. All those other guys, their time will come.

Posted by Kristen at Mon Mar 15 2004 22:42

I will stay out of this one, except to say I think Bush is more attractive than Clinton. He is more my type- sporty runner. But what is up with his fro hair sometimes? It's called gel.

Posted by John at Mon Mar 15 2004 22:55

For once I don't feel outnumbered. I don't think the others are "uncaught" adulturers. The media is all over these people. If they were adulturers, we'd know.

Posted by Susie at Tue Mar 16 2004 03:26

Thank you Kristen! I don't think 98% of politicians etc are adulterers, but I think there are plenty of uncaught adulterers among them.

Posted by Sumana at Tue Mar 16 2004 16:35

In terms of just physical attractiveness - just bodies and faces - I think neither Clinton nor the current Bush are attractive. However, when you actually consider the people - their characters, their various levels of intelligence and competence, their political stances, and so on - I feel more visceral antipathy towards George W. Bush than I do towards Clinton.


This discussion, like all political discussion on Crummy.com weblog comments, demonstrates that liberals and conservatives really are in two completely different universes.

Posted by Kristen at Tue Mar 16 2004 19:24

I like these discussions, but I know I sometimes take them too personally and I will try not to. I just find it interesting to see how other people tick.

I do want to say however, I don't see how you can justify one's actions by pointing to other unjustifiable actions. Adultery is wrong point blank. Just because the crowd is doing it doesn't mitigate what you did. It just isn't a valid excuse in my book.

Posted by Rachel at Wed Mar 17 2004 00:28

Small point: while I consider adultry definitley wrong and would never put up with it personally, I don't think it's directly related to how good of a leader you are. Speaking very generally here, I would rather have a good president who was an adulter than a bad one with "family values"... BUT that's just me.

Posted by John at Wed Mar 17 2004 02:28

Yes, that is just me. You can't separate the person from the actions. The actions define the person.

Posted by Susie at Wed Mar 17 2004 02:46

I think for me to call someone a "bad" president, he would have to make some more obvious mistakes than the past two. I think country would have to go really downhill before I would blame whatever current government. I think.

Posted by Chris at Wed Mar 17 2004 02:55

Can't we all get along? Whatever happened to kinship towards each other, our fellow Texan president and snooty Europeans?

Posted by Sumana at Wed Mar 17 2004 15:23

One trendy left slogan is "Bush Lied, People Died." The emphasis here is that, while both Clinton and the current Bush have done immoral things, many find the lying, evasion, and incompetence in the various military actions that Bush has taken (which have led to many deaths) more abhorrent than the lying and adultery of Clinton.


I don't think the current mess in our country is ALL Mr. Bush's fault, but I gotta ask: how far would it have to go before you would say "enough"?

Posted by Kristen at Wed Mar 17 2004 20:14

What about the civilans who died in the bombings in Kosovo, ordered by Clinton. Or is it whoever has more deaths under his command is worse?

Posted by John at Wed Mar 17 2004 20:21

Just because we can't find the weapons of mass destruction, doesn't mean they don't exist, or that Bush is a liar. His intelligence said they were there. We can't find Bin Laden either, so does that make him a fictional character made up by Mr. Bush? Or worse yet, maybe Bush is behind September 11 himself? Come on people, the majority of Iraq is greatful for what we have done. It's the loud side groups that get all the attention that make it look like we are ruining their "way of life" over there.

Posted by John at Wed Mar 17 2004 20:22

I also don't know what the current mess in our country refers to. I just got a job, consumer confidence is rising, the Fed interest rate is stable, inflation is in check, corporate scandals are down, I haven't heard of huge crime sprees recently, so what is everyone referring to when they say enough is enough? Enough of what. We all have jobs, families, and freedom. What is it we are lacking?

Posted by Rachel at Thu Mar 18 2004 01:50

1. The mess in Yugoslavia, though I'm not saying whether or not is justified, was NATO, which has some legitimacy over the US military.

2. To quote my professor, "Because the inspectors couldn't find WMD before the war, it's not entirely surprising we can't find any now that the war is technically over." And, no offense of course, but he's one of the top political scientists in the nation, so he *might* know what he is talking about.
3. How do you know the majority of Iraqis are grateful for what we've done? I'm not saying they're NOT, but how do you know? All we have is the media, and I'm not about to trust them farther then I can throw them. For all we know, they too have a "Anybody's better than Bush" slogan, and that INCLUDES Saddam.

4. I for one had the most amazing difficulty finding a job, and it's not like I was being picky--the UCLA cafeteria didn't want to hire me. We at the lowly state schools are really feeling the budget cuts in programs, funding, finacial aid... Personally I think it's a shame when a nation puts military spending above education; it's like doubly undercutting our chances for peace. But if peace isn't something you value, well, then, there ya go. What really bothers me, above and beyond the economic stuff, is that fact that America really *doesn't* seem to value it's allies. There's a prevailing mentality, it seems, that we know what's best for the entire world, and that we don't need anyone else. Nope, we don't need to listen to the people who have been our friends since before we were a nation, let's just change the menu to "freedom fries." I don't know much about economics, but I do know that Europe is getting stronger, and that they've figured out cooperation is a much less costly way to do things. Perhaps we could do to follow their example, but I DON'T see this happening under Bush.

Posted by Sumana at Thu Mar 18 2004 17:13

I've been told that Jim Henley writes persuasively that the Bush administration's behavior is inconsistent with the principles of conservatism.


I appreciate that John and the other LDS people who post here don't try to convert me to LDS, and so perhaps I should give up on "converting" anyone here to my position on politics.


"We all have jobs, families, and freedom." John and I just live in different worlds.


[Main] [Edit]

© 2002-2010 Rachel Richardson.