[VaBthang4]

"Help me"

Overhaul your decision making process for choosing friends.

[Numbers Guy]

I think the word "craziness" is the best way to describe your friend.

He's beyond saving, and likely beyond engaging in intelligent discussion.

It's interesting that people talked about "Clinton-haters" the past few years. Even people who really despised Clinton still loved their country. The "Bush-haters" are another breed, their venom is poisonous, and I've found it's not worthy of much response. Based on the e-mail, it looks like your correspondent fits the "Bush-hater" label to a "T".

Sorry that I can't offer you a neat and pat answer, but you'd have to attack his underlying premises (that Bush is evil, that Clinton was somehow a right-winger, etc) before you'd ever be able to get anywhere with him.

[Camachee]

All you were able to do was complain about Clinton while many CEO's of the right wing

What makes anyone think that all of the CEO's who got "righ" during the 90's were Repubs? That's classic lib propoganda, but it isn't true. Not all big Dem donors are from Hollywood, you know. Besides, we are seeing more and more info that the clinton admin was complicit in businesses going amuck.

[maro]

Who says they were Republicans?

[nhoward14]

4/10/1998

Saying "Iraq remains a serious threat to international peace and security," US President Clinton, in a report to the US congress, said that, "Until Iraqi intent to comply with the MOU [memorandum of understanding] is verified, it will be necessary to maintain our current augmented force posture in the region."

Clinton's report reiterated the US threat that "any further Iraqi violation of the relevant UNSC resolutions would result in the severest consequences for Iraq," under Security Council resolution 1154.



What has changed between 1998 and 2003, Mr. Clinton?

[Enough is ENOUGH]

Sorry, but he sounds like a lost cause. Shock therapy is about the only thing I can think of but the odds of that working are about 100 to 1. Liberals have a very low rehabilitation rate.

Get a new friend. You'll thank me for it.

[Fred Mertz]

Like me, he's Jewish and we argue over and over about how the Conservatives are the only friends the Jews have now.

From what I can determine, Christians and Jews are bound at the hip.

[socal_parrot]

Here is an article that was written as George W. Bush took office. It relates the state of the nation that Bill Clinton left.

Remember, although Bush gets the blaim for Enron, CEO Ken Lay was a guest at the White House several times during Bill Clintons presidency.

[luv2ndamend]

Who were the ones who gave the likes of Enron loans in the 90's?

[Damagro]

The first part of this message could pass for a message on national alliance or stormfront being said about jews. I don't lend credence to either.
For the reason behind 9/11, who knows what was going on in the minds of these heathen

[xrp]

Hahahaha

You may put all the blame on Clinton if you wish because he has always been the pawn of your right wing Republican Party.

Clinton did it to himself with his own corrupt, inept personality.

Where was the Repulbican Party during the 90's?

They were in control of Congress. Notice how the budget finally got balanced? Congress controls the purse strings.

All you were able to do was complain about Clinton while many CEO's of the right wing became filthy rich and took advantage of good economic times to rip off the working class and create havoc in the stock market by lying and commiting fraud.

Many people experienced a very nice rise in income during the 1990s. I know I sure did, going from $15,000/year to $50,000/year by 2000. I took advantage of opportunities available to me, including switching careers into the exploding IT industry. Not everyone made that choice. Welfare rolls dropped during that time, too, a result of CEOs creating jobs.

Clinton was not attacked for his economic policies but for his moral and deceitful ways. Even though he was impeached his legacy will not be harmed by the events of the 90's.

Clinton bears the scarlet letter of impeachment, only the second President EVER to be impeached. Clinton's economic policies (higher taxes) is what is has us where we are now.

We all were naive enough not to dream of 9-11 and for not taking the "evil of axis"seriously.

Clinton sure didn't take Islamikazes seriously. He figured he'd lob a few Tomahawk missiles at them, missing horribly. The then swept it under the carpet. Reagan would have bombed them further back than the Stone Age after the attacks on the embassies.

We as a nation are now paying for thinking we were untochable because of our might.

I prefer to think of it this way: We finally have a President who has the balls to get us payback

Why did 9-11 not happen until Clinton was out of office? I have heard that the Arab world upset about 41 wanted to take out there hatred on 43. Could this be why we are in such despair now?

9/11 would have happened if your man Gore would have been able to steal the 2000 Presidential election. 9/11 would have happened if Barney the dinosaur were President. The difference is that we have a President now who is fighting back instead of getting blow jobs from interns half his age.

[Rebelbase]

X42 just happened to be at the right place at the right time when the technology bubble floated to the surface.

Anyone could have been president and the same thing would have happened.

He had nothing to do with it, yet claims all the glory for the economic wealth that it created.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

My personal experience in situations like this-is that you might as well save your breath and typing fingers. No matter how much logic or rational thought you put into a reply,it just doesn't get through. You will only get more frustrated. The irony with these hard core liberals is that they are often very bright,which makes their stubbornness and resistance to even considering a different approach, maddening.Occasionally a life changing event,like 9/11, opens some hearts and minds.But,for the most part, they remain Stepford liberals,awash in propaganda,pettiness,anger,churlishness and self inflicted ignorance.

[davetex]

Ken Lay was also a frequent traveler on Dept. of commerce
missions all over the globe during cliton's days. Hell he
was for all practical purposes a cabnet member.

[MinuteGal]

I have no liberal friends. Only liberal acquaintences.

Leni

[bonfire]

This is so timely. My brother called me today in the same dilemma. He works for an EMOTIONAL liberal and had to leave work a half hour early cuz he couldn't take his crazy rantings anymore.

[El Cid]

Hi Hildy,

I, like the first few posters on this thread, can't offer you any 'answers' that will sway your friend because the questions he asks suggest that he and I live in a parallel (non-intersecting) universe. But anyways, here's a few quick comments:

1) I really don't blame Clinton, because 'we', as a country elected him. Our leaders are a reflection of our country, and we got a self-absorbed, narcissistic, poser - who was all image and no substance. His speeches looked and sounded good, but when you read the transcripts you realized they were gibberish. And yes, your friend is correct that we had CEOs in this time period that weren't a heckuva lot better.

2) We had a President who 'loathed' the military. He used them as nation building play things - simultaneously reducing their fire-power, while at the same time spreading them out on nation building assignments from Haiti to Bosnia.

3) We had the Twin-Towers bombing of 1993, Mogidishu, the Riyaddeh (sp?) barracks attack, the Cole bombing, and possibly TWA800 (and possibly OKC). What was our response? Nothing. What message did this give to our enemies - the USA was weak and unwilling to fight back when attack.

Add (2) and (3) together and of course the current President (elected by a mere ~500 votes .... at this point we can both shudder and fall to our knees and thank God) inherited a country with a bullseye painted on it. President Bush will do the right thing, and become a 'terror to evil' - but what happened on September 11th, 2001 was cast in the dark 8 years between 1992 and 2000.

[Steven W.]

Clinton was not attacked for his economic policies but for his moral and deceitful ways.

Clinton was totally challenged for his foolish economic policies, defeated for many (such as his attempts to put the American medical industry under government control and the tax packages which passed only by the vote of Algore, which even he admitted, later, taxed the American people too much), assisted in those he did right (like TIPs), and, ultimately, you're actually right, because in most cases, once the Republicans took control of the Congress, Clinton joined in and ultimately supported and passed the majority of items in the Contract with America, predominantly welfare reform, the balanced budget initiative and other positive and hugely successful economic programs, first proposed by the Republicans in 1994 and then "triangulated" by Clinton following the advice of his trusted advisor Dick Morris.

[telebob]

Just a few thoughts Hildy..

1. We are not in despair. I know a lot of people but I don't know any who are in despair, at least not geopolitically. Most people I know can't wait for real action against the Islamofascists. Most people I know still thirst for revenge against these dogs. The enemies of the jews are the enemies of the Americans. Even a child can understand that.

2. If your friend wants to blame right wing republicans for scandal in the business world, he should remember that demos recieve just about as much political money from Big Business as do repubs. BB's interest is in furthering their interests and not necessarily promoting one party over the other. Greed and avarice are two of the world's oldest vices. No political affiliation is necessary.

3. The Islamists waited until Bush Jr. was in office to attack the US? Check the action on Clinton's watch: First WTC bombing by the Blind Shiek and Co. Somalia. African Embassy bombings. The attack on the Cole. Does there appear a familiar pattern here? You can go back the last 25 years and find increasing bravado on the part of the Islamists in attacking America and her interests and allies. What was Clinton's response? Wasn't interested.

[Southack]

Your friend is trying to make some good points, but he/she's a little bit uneducated about the subjects in question.

True, very few people were criticizing Clinton's economic policies (other than his tax increase), but that isn't because his economic policies were "good", no, it was because Clinton had no policies to criticize.

What "policy" did Clinton ever have for our economy? Ask your friend that question.

clinton had no economic policies, and he was lucky enough to be in office during a boom (so no one had any real motivation to examine Clinton's policies or lack thereof).

But as for 9/11, your friend is a bit off base. Democrat Gary Hart and Republican Christopher Cox both were warning about that very thing, as was fiction writer Tom Clancy (who nailed the method and one of the two cities). But times were good, so who was really taking such warnings seriously?

Moreover, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Murrah bombing in 1995, the USS Cole bombing in 2000, and the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998 were NOT taken seriously, either.

So clearly the terrorists were emboldened over the lack of U.S. action taken against them during those (Clinton) years.

What has happened is that the world's policeman was busy enjoying an 8 year orgy (economic and sexual) during Clinton's reign, and now the nation is waking up to discover that the world's criminals have grown in power, reach, and boldness while we weren't looking.