You mean the ones that didn't move to Canada or France?

 

Saw where Susan Sarandon is the latest to say she was moving out of the country if McCain is elected.

 

Can we enact a law that if you threaten to leave the country is someone is elected, you have to follow suit?

Let's see, immediately after the inaugauration in '93, Rush began every show with "the first day of captivity in Amerca." (or something like a countdown to how many days were left before the next election and America would be free of Clinton.)

 

I knew and heard from some servicemen that refused to acknowledge Clinton as Commander in Chief and went to great pains to avoid saluting him.

 

You can disrespect a person's office without having to say your leaving the country.

Who cares about Rush, he's an idiot.

Can you really blame some of the servicemen, Clinton claimed he loathed the military and did everything he could to dismantle it.

I agree on your last point, but Clinton didn't get abused by the public anywhere nearly as bad as Bush has.

Saw where Susan Sarandon is the latest to say she was moving out of the country if McCain is elected.

 

Can we enact a law that if you threaten to leave the country is someone is elected, you have to follow suit?

She's another nut job, the country would be well rid of her.

Who cares about Rush, he's an idiot.

Can you really blame some of the servicemen, Clinton claimed he loathed the military and did everything he could to dismantle it.

I agree on your last point, but Clinton didn't get abused by the public anywhere nearly as bad as Bush has.

 

I would say untill the very end of his Presidency after he did have sexual relationships with that women before he didn't have sexual relationships with that women. At that point, Clinton was treated pretty bad but brought it on himself with the bold faced lies he was telling and treating Americans like they were too stupid to know the truth.

Who cares about Rush, he's an idiot.

Can you really blame some of the servicemen, Clinton claimed he loathed the military and did everything he could to dismantle it.

I agree on your last point, but Clinton didn't get abused by the public anywhere nearly as bad as Bush has.

 

Your original statement was: GW hasn't seen that respect from the left since day one.

 

My simple reply was that the right did not show Clinton anymore respect.

 

I use the example of an extreme right like Rush and you use an extreme left example. Both are idiots but you seem to feel that one side is easier to be discarded for their actions than the other.

 

As to the servicemen issue, I find it ironic that Clinton was labeled a "draft dodger" while Bush used every string he could to get out of going to Vietnam as well. Is one more easily forgiven than the other because one will throw money in their direction?

 

As to your last statement, you are probably right if you want to measure the levels of abuse. I was merely saying that Clinton had heaps of abuse as well, I just didn't know we had to measure them. :thumb:

He may win the election, but I will never call Obama President.

 

Well, GW certainly hasn't seen that respect from the left since day one.

Both of these quotes are low. "Well, they did it, so I will."

I agree with LBBC:

And that is wrong.

He wins, he deserves respect for being the President of the US.

 

I may get on BGP on rail against nearly everything he stands for, and tell everyone who asks why his policies are poor, but I will never disrespect him in the manner that Bush is. And I will never support a Comedy Central program such as "Lil' Obama".

Both of these quotes are low. "Well, they did it, so I will."

I agree with LBBC:

 

 

I may get on BGP on rail against nearly everything he stands for, and tell everyone who asks why his policies are poor, but I will never disrespect him in the manner that Bush is. And I will never support a Comedy Central program such as "Lil' Obama".

What's low about pointing out that Bush hasn't seen respect from the left since day one? :confused:

Hugo Chavez is a socialist, do you not agree? Did he immediately nationalize every industry in Venezuela? Socialists can and do participate in governments having economies that are mostly based on capitalism. Does Venezuela own all means of production today? It is not unusual for certain industries to be owned by a government and others to be operated privately and it is not unusual for socialists to work within political limits of the possible.

 

Chavez is your poster-boy for incrementalism? As the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution Chavez has solely nationalized much of the Venezuelan economy, including its largest industry, while also re-writing their constitution to give himself more power (indefinitely) and strong-handing the opposition. And he did all of that in less than nine years. Sounds like a gradualist to me...

 

Of course not.

 

And there we have it. Your definition of socialism is anything that isn't 100% capitalist. That's convenient.

Saw where Susan Sarandon is the latest to say she was moving out of the country if McCain is elected.

 

Can we enact a law that if you threaten to leave the country is someone is elected, you have to follow suit?

Ever read The Man Without A Country?

Your original statement was: GW hasn't seen that respect from the left since day one.

 

My simple reply was that the right did not show Clinton anymore respect.

 

I use the example of an extreme right like Rush and you use an extreme left example. Both are idiots but you seem to feel that one side is easier to be discarded for their actions than the other.

 

As to the servicemen issue, I find it ironic that Clinton was labeled a "draft dodger" while Bush used every string he could to get out of going to Vietnam as well. Is one more easily forgiven than the other because one will throw money in their direction?

 

As to your last statement, you are probably right if you want to measure the levels of abuse. I was merely saying that Clinton had heaps of abuse as well, I just didn't know we had to measure them. :thumb:

1) My reply was that Clinton did get more respect from the right.

 

2) How am I discarding one more than the other when I said they were both idiots?

 

3) What, if anything, does your comment have to do with the servicemen issue? I said nothing about Clinton or Bush in contrast to Vietnam. In fact, I didn't even mention Vietnam.

 

4) You brought "measuring" into it when you mentioned Clinton, so I went with it.

 

I do agree that Clinton was hammered by the right, I maintain though that it wasn't anywhere near the degree of the left on Bush.

Ever read The Man Without A Country?

 

Nope.

He may win the election, but I will never call Obama President.

 

:lol:

Chavez is your poster-boy for incrementalism? As the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution Chavez has solely nationalized much of the Venezuelan economy, including its largest industry, while also re-writing their constitution to give himself more power (indefinitely) and strong-handing the opposition. And he did all of that in less than nine years. Sounds like a gradualist to me...

You did not answer the question. The answer is that Chavez was democratically elected and he was not able to socialize the Venezuelan economy overnight. So, if a dedicated socialist like Chavez cannot assume power and transform the economy of a country the size of Venezuela to socialism with a snap of his fingers, it is not realistic to believe that American socialists could transform the world's largest economy from capitalism to socialism overnight.

 

Aside from a few nutjobs like Maxine Waters in the House of Representatives and possibly self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders in the US Senate, Barack Obama is the closest thing in Washington to a dedicated socialist. That is probably why so many socialist organizations have endorsed him repeatedly. Organizations like the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America, for example.

What's low about pointing out that Bush hasn't seen respect from the left since day one? :confused:

 

I thought you meant "Bush hasn't been shown respect, so I don't have to respect Obama" but I must have misinterpreted

I thought you meant "Bush hasn't been shown respect, so I don't have to respect Obama" but I must have misinterpreted

No problem, I can see how you took it that way. That's not what I was getting at, however.