Home » My Reaction to Clinton was Wrong

My Reaction to Clinton was Wrong

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

No one ever likes to admit that they were wrong, but I am ready to do just that. Here goes:

I strongly disliked Clinton and everything that he stood for. During his presidency, I criticized his every move and reveled in every misstep he made. I was practically giddy during the impeachment trial and was angry when he wasn’t removed from office (although, I guess I wasn’t too angry since I knew that if Al Gore went into the 2000 elections as an incumbent, he probably would have won).

Watching all of the blind hatred of Bush coming from the Democrats and the liberals, it made me realize that I was wrong. I should have shown some respect for the man as our President. No one is perfect and, therefore, no one can do the job perfectly.

Does this mean that I agree with his policies or his actions, no. But he did deserve some respect as the President of the country that I love. I never should have hoped for him to make mistakes so that I could gloat. I never should have hoped for his downfall because by doing so, I was hoping for my country’s downfall.

I know that it is easy for me to say this now that Clinton is no longer president, but I pray that I will remember this in the future when my choice for president is not elected.

Powered by

About Lady Rep

  • Bennett

    Beautiful. A wise reflection, of thoughts that have echos in my own heart.

    Thanks for this!

  • Marty Thau

    Clinton was guilty about one thing — poor judgement when it came to Lewinsky. One thing for sure — the world liked him — and by now it should be evident that no country can go it alone. Not the case with Bush at all. Bush and cohorts are like a bull in a china shop.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Yeah Marty, uh, Clinton was guilty of just a LITTLE bit more Lewinsky. You might start with selling US out to the Chinese for campaign contributions.

    I’m perhaps less forgiving than Miss Rep, though I would have described my reactions to him at the time as perhaps exasperated, rather than really angry. I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    Barger — When was Clinton convicted about campaign fraud again?

    In general — Bush has had an easy, easy ride from the press as compared to Clinton.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    When was Clinton convicted about campaign fraud again?

    in the eyes of the wolf pack, on about the day after he first declared his candidacy.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Right, if he wasn’t convicted in a court of law, then it didn’t happen.

    Bush seems to be relatively mostly fairly honest. Folks go about hollering LIAR, LIAR at the top of their lungs for years- but that doesn’t make it true.

    Meanwhile, you’ll rally around the defense of Clinton, who was a serial liar in every direction from beginning to end. Policy aside, he was the most corrupt president since FDR. That he was never held accountable in court does not mean that he was innocent.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    …and spewing on about clinton being the most corrupt president since fdr doesn’t make it true either.

    more corrupt than nixon? right.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Absolutely Clinton was more corrupt than Nixon. Yes. Nixon never sold us out to the Chinese. Nixon was plenty corrupt enough in his own right, and deserved being run out of office. Yet Clinton was even worse.

    Perhaps Nixon appears worse to you. 1) He was homely and sweaty and had enough of a conscious to feel and project that he felt guilt. 2)He was a Republican.

    Clinton was not a corrupt president because Al Barger says so, but because he was constantly doing bad, corrupt things. That’s the facts, Jack.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    I know you are, but what am I?


  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    Barger, likewise one could make the argument that you’re biased against Clinton because he’s a goodlooking Democrat, so that argument doesn’t hold water in my book.

    Do all Presidents lie? Absolutely. So unless you have some kind of proof that the courts — and millions of dollars and Ken Starr and the rest of them — couldn’t come up with, I don’t see how you can make the argument that Clinton was “more corrupt” than any other President.

    So… it’s not really the facts, Al.

  • Marty Thau

    EB, Barger doesn’t need facts, or even want them. He has now spouted off about Clinton quite firmly but without any proof or substance. Whatever Clinton was or wasn’t, the world was a safer place when he was around and if he could run again he’d win in a landslide. That says something, doesn’t it, Al? Where’s the beef, Al?

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Monsieur Berlin, among many other well known things, Clinton overruled his own government to give waivers for his biggest campaign contributor to sell highly sensitive technology to the Chinese communist government. That’s fact, and uncontested, and damaging to America- even if they could not connect the dots to make an actionable felony charge against the president.

    Also, I don’t know that Clinton was all that good looking. He certainly does not make ME tumescent.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Even George Herbert Walker Bush has come to realize that President Clinton isn’t such a bad guy after all. Anyone who has kept up with the two former Presidents’ activities especially concerning tsunami relief understand where I’m coming from. A hundred years from now historians will be able to put his Presidency into perspective and give him the recognition he deserves for being one of our better Presidents.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    That’s fact, and uncontested, and damaging to America- even if they could not connect the dots to make an actionable felony charge against the president.

    Oh… I see now. They just couldn’t connect the dots. I hate it when that happens.

  • Anthony G

    Bill Clinton cheated on his wife in the White House then lied about it to the American people and then you left wing pigs forgive and claim he is one of the greatest presidents ever.

    George Bush Sr. is losing his marbles in old age.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    What happens when left wing pigs and Ozzy’s war pigs mate?

  • Anthony G

    Can you imagine if Bush cheted in his wife in the White House then lie about it. You commies would forgive him. NOT.

    You would keep pressing until he resigned.

  • Maynard

    And Bush lied about a pre-emptive war, and had his hatchet man leak info about a CIA operative, went from surplus to record deficit and tossed aside the whopel world being behind us in Afghanistan to a lot of them really not liking or being scared of us (and I don’t mean the terrorists are scared), eroding our civil liberties with the “Patriot” act…but you right wingnuts think he is the second coming and are waiting for himn to lead you to the end of days.

    and Sr. it twice the mensch that Jr. will ever be. Hell, Barbara is 3 times the man Junior will ever be.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    What happens when left wing pigs and Ozzy’s war pigs mate?

    People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are born. I would love a psychological profile performed on right wing zealot Christian preachers. Twenty bucks say they had dominant mothers, weak fathers and small penises.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Can you imagine if Bush cheated in his wife in the White House then lie about it. You commies would forgive him. NOT.

    Somehow I would respect G.W. Bush a little more if I knew he actually liked good head every now and then. Anthony, what’s worse: Monica Lewinsky’s stained dress or Karl Rove’s stained reputation? Even five years later right wingnuts still spew their poison against Bubba. Don’t you guys have anything better to do?

  • billy

    no they dont. they hate america so much they show their treason every time they talk about a great former american president like clinton

  • Maynard

    Part of hate radio’s sending out the message and talking points, Silas.

    Distract, Deny and Dilute. Right from monday’s memo, which can be seen and was covered in all the major press, even fox news.

    Now, I might be a bit harsh on Dave, because there are far worse and forthing rabid , examples running around. All the more reason to keep the sane ones, on both sides of the aisle, honest and grounded.

    Coalition of the middle ground is the only hope we got.

  • Anthony G

    I should be saying do you guys have anything better to do.

    What do Democratic Senators do? Do they write bills? No. They bash Bush. They give the terrists hope in Iraq by coplaing about Gitmo. Saying it was Bushe’s fault we got attacked. These terrorists are playing speeches of Senator Kenedy while they torture our brave troops.

    What did Clinton accomplish when he was president? Nothing useful.

    Bush severely weakened Al Queda. He took out the oppresive Taliban. Gave Afghanis the right to vote for the first time. He took out Saddam Hussein who massacered whole cities, even women and children, just because they were different. Saddam had the mind of the next Hitler, all he needed was nuclear weapons which he was trying to get. Bush gave 35,000,000 people in Irap the right to vote for the first time in 60 years. And what did they vote for? Democracy. What a surprise.

    All he needs to do is train an Iraqi Army that can take care of itself.

    Also we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.

    Bush should get the nobel prize.

    Now what did Clinton do besides get head.

  • billy

    here are some of the things clinton did

    balance the budget, create 100 million jobs, stop an ethnic cleansing in bosnia while people like Anthony G stood there shouting “No Blood For Monica” while endangering and demoralizing our troops.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Also we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.

    Unless you count the Anthrax.

  • Maynard

    or London, or Spain, or the west Indies, or Riyad

  • Anthony G

    Anthrax wasn’t the work of Terrorists you idiot.

    It was proved that it was done by American teenages.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    Anthony — Personal attacks = no no on Blogcritics.

    Keep it on topic, my man.


  • billy

    the facts are that bush has helped create more terrorists. terorism is a psychosis in these people brought on by helplessness and poverty and no ability to change their lives. they need an enemy to lash out at and george bush has put an even bigger target on our country.

    the terrorists would still attack us even if we did everything they want. but george bush has made us much unsafer because now there are millions more terrorists ready to attack us than there were before.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    First, I’m not an idiot. [Terrorists, in your sentence, needs a small “t,” by the way.]

    Second, the act was an act of terrorism, by definition. Anyone who perpetrates an act of terrorism is a terrorist. Even if they’re lilly white American teenagers.

    Third, who proved that it was done by American teenagers? This is news to me, if not the world!

  • Maynard

    Anthrax attacks were proved ot have been done by teenagers? You gotta show your proof on that one. I ain’t even heard of that shit theory.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    It was proved that it was done by American teenages.
    Anthony, hunney, could you back up that statement?

  • Anthony G

    Billy, where do you get your information. There is not more then 50,000 terrorists not millions. And if Bush put an even bigger target on us then why haven’t we been attacked again.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Still waiting on the teenagers + Anthrax proof.

    Something tells me it’s going to be a long wait.

  • Anthoony G

    I can’t believe you are still talking about Anthrax.

    I don’t know where i would get proof, but my advice is to google “Anthrax” and see what you get.

    But anyway didn’t like 3 people die with Anthrax. Don’t get me wrong I care about there lives but that is nothing compared to the 3,000 that died on 9/11 not to mention the effect it had on our country.

  • KYS

    Anthony, why don’t you share with us whatever information you have that convinced YOU that the anthrax attacks were committed by teenagers- you know, since you made the claim and all……

  • Bennett

    Ya gotta love it when some new guy comes along, spews a bunch of hate, calls people idiots, defames a former president, and then totally discredits everything he’s written by claiming about the anthrax attacks:

    “It was proved that it was done by American teenages”


    Go on along young fella…

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I don’t know where i would get proof, but my advice is to google “Anthrax” and see what you get.

    No, sweetheart, I won’t be doing that. YOU called ME an idiot on the topic of the anthrax attacks. Now put your money where your mouth is.

    Also, please explain how the anthrax attacks were not acts of terrorism.

  • billy

    i guess 2000 dead troops, attacks in spain, london, 9-11, dont count as being attacked.

    you see when clinton was president we were NOT attacked (except internally by some seditious republicans). when bush became president the attacks really havent stopped at all.

  • http://northshorepolitics.blogspot.com Lady Rep

    All of you that are bashing Bush totally missed the point of my article.

    First of all, in no way was Clinton one of our best Presidents. He just happens to be the only Dem president elected in the last 25 years, so you are just being wishful. But, that being said, I still think that I should have shown a little respect for the office (even though he used it as his own personal playground to get “babes”).

    Regardless of who is in office, the job is a tough one. And those who occupy the office deserve respect.

    There are respectful ways of disagreeing. You can disagree without being disrespectful. And stop exaggerating and distorting in disputable facts to support your opinions.

    The eyes of the world (including our enemies) are on us. To spew such hate towards our leader gives our enemies ammunition to destroy our country.

    Yes, I am guilty of this during Clinton’s years in office, but it is not something I am proud of and something that I hope to avoid in the future. Try to see all of this fighting as our enemies see it. All they have to do is fuel our internal fires and we will self-destruct.

    BTW, Islamist terrorists considered the United States to be their number one enemy long before George W. Bush was president. Don’t kid yourself into thinking otherwise. Terrorism had been increasing in intesity for years until 9/11. Put yourself in Bush’s shoes on that day with the information that was available at that time and ask yourself what you would have wanted him to do. No fair using information that is now available and remember that he was in the job less than one year.

  • Maurice

    Anthony –

    left wing pigs are people too..

    perhaps a little more study and a little less caffine…

  • MCH

    Is Anthony G one of Dave Nalle’s illegitimate sons?

  • Bennett


    Frankly, and with no offence intended toward anyone, especially those that just jumped in to respond to attacks one way or another, no one got your point except for the guy who posted the first comment on this thread.


  • billy

    let me quote lady rep

    “The eyes of the world (including our enemies) are on us. To spew such hate towards our leader gives our enemies ammunition to destroy our country.”

    i guess that proves my point. All the hate spewed at clinton, including 4 years of government time and resources investigating his sex life instead of al qaeda emboldened them and caused 9-11. In that respect you and all republicans should be filled with sorrow for what you did. but to come out now and say it just because you dont like what you are hearing about bush is a little self serving.

  • Bennett

    billy – I don’t see this post that way at all. I see it as the personal growth that comes with time.

    The office of the President is something that should be respected, despite our (mine included) personal feelings oward the man or party currently holding sway.

    THAT’s what LadyRep’s post is about, in my opinion anyway.

  • http://northshorepoltics.blogspot.com Lady Rep


    Me thinks that you don’t know your history too well.

    you see when clinton was president we were NOT attacked (except internally by some seditious

    What about

    (1)1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
    (2)the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers, housing facility for U.S. and allied forces in Dharan, Saudi Arabia.
    (3)1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Nariobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    (4) the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole

    We were attacked, but there was very little done. I guess the hope was that if we ignored them, they would go away. We can see how well that strategy worked.

  • billy

    i hate to bring this up but when bill clinton fired a cruise missile to kill osama, the republicans took to the house floor and cried “no blood for monica”. This is at a time when our troops were in the field and in danger.

    do you not think the republican resistance to bill clinton trying to kill osama emboldened the terrorists?

    is sending a cruise missile into osama’s bedroom doing nothing?

    how did bush go after osama BEFORE 9-11 when it counted?

  • http://northshorepoltics.blogspot.com Lady Rep

    Thank you, Bennet. That is exactly the point of my article.

  • http://northshorepoltics.blogspot.com Lady Rep

    He bombed an aspirin factory that had nothing to do with Osama.

    Bush was in office for LESS THAN A YEAR! What, besides bombing the wrong building, did Clinton do?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Lady Rep, maybe I’ll get to the point you’re at about 5 years after W. leaves office. Only time will tell!

    Nice post, and very refreshing to hear.

  • http://northshorepoltics.blogspot.com Lady Rep

    Before you have a chance to respond, I am quitting arguing with you about this. It is off topic for one thing and for another, you obviously don’t want to stop blaming Bush. There is absolutely nothing that I can say to get you to see reason (no, what you think is reason is tainted by your partisanship.) I have better things to do than verbal combat. Think whatever you want. Nothing (let alone facts) has stopped you from doing that thus far

  • billy

    better than doing NOTHING which is what bush did. i would just submit to you that your statement that

    “The eyes of the world (including our enemies) are on us. To spew such hate towards our leader gives our enemies ammunition to destroy our country.”

    applies much more to republicans than democrats. from the dems i hear more about how they would manage the war better than bush. the republicans simply undermined the president by investigating his sex life or pretending his war and the troop’s war on terror was not real or serious.

    which is exactly what you did with the “aspirin factory” comment.

  • Anthony G

    You are the guys who brought up the Anthrax thing so if you won’t to know why it isn’t in the news anymore you can look it up. Anthrax is not something that my kids will read in history books so I don’t care about it.

    Do not ever compare me to that moderate sissy Dave the moderate Nelle you fascist liberals.

    The only reason I left is because unlike you guys, who sit in front of the computer all day, I have a life.

  • Luke Warm

    “What do Democratic Senators do? Do they write bills? No.”

    Since Republicans control the Senate and the House, they prevent Democratic bills from coming to the floor, they exclude Democrats from plicy-making meetings, they prevent Democrats from speaking, and so on. You want to see more positive action from Demcrats in Congress, well that will only happen when the death grip the GOP has over Congress is loosened.

    Since the approval rating for Congress is in the toilet, I expect that will happen in 2006.

  • Anthony G

    Would you please explain one of the bills that was recently blocked by the republicans, because I can’t think of any.

  • Anthony G

    What do you liberals think about on what the four democrats and the moderate on the supreme court recently approved. On how the government has the right to cease your house and land and demolish it to build things like mini malls and office buildings.

    It all sounds like communism to me.

  • KC

    It’s an interesting post, and I’m sure you’re being honest, but there’s a small nagging doubt this reflection on Presidental respect would be brought up if Kerry had been elected instead.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    You are the guys who brought up the Anthrax thing so if you won’t to know why it isn’t in the news anymore you can look it up.

    AnthonyG, try to be a man and admit that you made a mistake.

  • http://northshorepoltics.blogspot.com Lady Rep

    Honestly, you’re probably right, KC. It was only by watching those that currently oppose this administration that I decided to examine the “log in my eye.” I decided that because I hated that behavior in others that I should avoid it in myself.

    I just pray that I remember this lesson in the future. I know that it is difficult, but I believe that it will be a sign of maturity if I can achieve it. I guess time will tell.

  • Bennett

    You will be able to do it LadyRep. Just remember this thread, all the comments, all the hatred, all the wasted energy that accomplished what?

    Absolutely Nothing.

    I don’t rage against our current president because it does no good. It does raise my normally peaceful blood presure, for what?

    Rage = Self destruction

    Raging over the past is foolish to the extreme.

    JMO however…

  • Maynard

    OK, I am all for hoping that this post is completely sincere, but I was taught to be a bit cynical when it comes to those espousing purely altruistic motivations because they are usually hiding an ulterior motive. Not saying Lady here is but a few points bother me.

    Clinton is long gone, more than 5 years now, why do republican bloggers keep bringing it up? Simple answer woudl be distraction and to put that bad taste back in the mouths of those folks in the middle.

    This constant call for everyone to unite behidn the administration, no matter what they do because to do otherwise emboldens the enemy.

    Here I must strenously disagree. A much larger bit of encouragement stems from actions taken, rather than minor political strife. Examples: surrounding all of Afghanistan, doing a great job taking out the Taliban, but not finishing it. World media’s eyes on the Tora Bora assault, but still not catching Osama. To this day, still not capturing their “robin hood”. That emboldens people.

    Scenes of looting and rioting right in front of the troops in Iraq after taking out that bastard Saddam, nothing being done, Rumsfeld saying “Freedom is messy”. That encourages them

    If you think about it, you can find more examples.

    I still believe it is not only a citizens right, but his or her civic duty to question and argue and be informed, to hold our representitives responsible for both the good and bad.

  • Bennett

    Excellent points Maynard, but I too am willing to take the main thrust of LadyReps post as sincere.

    I don’t *rage* against the prez, but I am far from trusting him or his motivations.

    Always question authority is what I was taught, doubly so for government.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>I still believe it is not only a citizens right, but his or her civic duty to question and argue and be informed, to hold our representitives responsible for both the good and bad.<< That sounds great, but what we actually get from the left these days isn't informed questioning, it's uninformed ranting and paranoid raving and shrill attacks with no substance behind them. I'm right with the common man who looks at Bush's record and is concerned. I can do without the spoon-fed zombies who hate Bush because he IS Bush and for no other reason than that and because someone told them Bush was Hitler. Dave

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    it’s BroadBrushFriday folks.


  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Methinks I was using more of a razor than a broad brush, to differentiate thinking folks on the left and Bush hating zombies. It would be a broad brush only if I suggested that all on the left were in one of those categories.


  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    That sounds great, but what we actually get from the left these days isn’t informed questioning, it’s uninformed ranting and paranoid raving and shrill attacks with no substance behind them.

    Sounds like you’re talking about all lefties.

  • Mel

    “Raging over the past is foolish to the extreme.”

    True, if it is truly past, but given that the electorate might well re-elect him given the chance, I’d say the problem remains with us.

    Thank you Bill Clinton for violating your oath to uphold the constitution, for obstructing justice, for the diplomacy that gave us a nuclear Korea, for pussyfooting with terrorism, for cursing us with Senator Clinton, for advising Jennifer Flowers to “just deny”, for leaving us with an America more divided than at anytime since the Civil War, for lying at every single opportunity, for the pardons, ….

    Imagine what this guy would have been up to had Ken Starr not spent his millions? Money well spent I’d say.

    Remember Juanita Broaddrick!

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    Wow — I guess a strong economy and eight years of peace don’t count for very much these days…

  • HVario

    Mel, it is people like you take make any kind of informed debate untenable these days. These unfounded accusations taken straight from a Fox News broadcast only serve to antagonize people. Put a little thought and a little truth on your arguments and people might listen to you.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Ms. Lady Rep, I understood your point perfectly. Good for you. I disagree with the concept that one must support someone or respect someone simply because their job happens to be POTUS. If the person is a respectable human who does respectable things, fine. But if not, no way. For the record, I have little respect for either Clinton or Bush. And the presidency itself? It’s just another line of work, like dogcatcher or prostitute or pool-hall attendant. Why should I give that job any more stature than any other?

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    Natalie — There’s a big difference in the level of respect/reverence afforded to the US President as compared to the UK Prime Minister. The clearest example is in how aggressive the British press is as compared to its US counterparts. Follow-up questions are rare for those in high office and even more rarely hard-hitting.

    Maybe it has something to do with the monarchy, or lack thereof?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. Berlin, what’s your point? I have no respect for the office of prime minister either. It’s a job. Or the titles of queen or senator, for that matter. They’re jobs, Mr. Berlin. Big deal.

  • Anthony Grande

    What do you liberals think about on what the four democrats and the moderate on the supreme court recently approved. On how the government has the right to cease your house and land and demolish it to build things like mini malls and office buildings.

    It all sounds like communism to me

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    The reworked eminent domain? It blows.

  • Bennett

    Anthony – What, you copy and paste your old comments into every thread? Lame.

    btw, we’re still waiting to hear any proof at all that teenagers were behind the anthrax letters….

    Mel – “but given that the electorate might well re-elect him given the chance, I’d say the problem remains with us.”

    Clinton served two terms. That’s it for him. Got more hate?

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    Natalie — My point is that the US press (and populace) has far more reverence for high office than do the Brits.

    I don’t think it’s necessarily a good or bad thing. It’s just different. I do wish that US officials were forced to be as transparent and available to grilling as are their UK counterparts.

    And I absolutely love that the UK Prime Minister must stand before Parliament at regular intervals to take questions from all comers.

    Can you imagine Bush doing that even once?

  • Anthony Grande

    Bennett, what, you go back through all the posts to find a flaw.

    You still didn’t answer my question on your opinions on the supreme court rulling, or your probabally not up to date on current events. You probabally get your news from MTV. Do you still believe Bush will still insert the draft? Or has MTV let that news go?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Yes, Mr. Berlin, I understood that. I am quite familiar with the governmental workings of your country and the UK. And, no, I can’t imagine the Shrub doing that.

  • Bennett

    No Anthony, I remember that talking point from one of your earlier comments. It jumped right out as something you had *written* before.

    Does your insulting attitude get you what you want from life? Hope so.

    Re: Supreme Court Ruling. I’m not happy about it. But what does that prove or disprove? You don’t know me, or how I vote, so what does that question have to do with anything about this thread?

    Is eveyone who writes or comments on blogcritics a “Liberal” to you?

    …and where’s the info on them anthrax teenagers?

  • Anthony G

    I am glad to see that you you agree with me on the supreme court ruling. The reason I asked you about it is because you a democrat I thought you could tell me why all four democrats on the supreme court ruled that way.

    And yes everyone on Blogcritics is a liberal. When was the last time you saw a support our troops or a pro Bush post.

    P.S. Dave Nelle is a liberal. He supports killing babies in the whom and dudes marrying dudes, therefore he is a liberal.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    By your definition, Mr. Grande. Many, many others see things differently.

  • Bennett

    If eveyone on blogcritics is a liberal, and you are posting on blogcritics, then YOU are a liberal?

  • Anthony Grande

    99.9% of people on blogcritics are liberal. I am sorry for the inconvenience I put on you Mr. Bennett. I hope you are o.k.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    if dave nalle is a liberal then al barger is a hippie.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Your assertion, Mr. Grande, is patently false. Of course, having been banned for egregiously bad conduct, you probably have not had the opportunity to read all of the postings and see the myriad of non-liberal viewpoints expressed here.

  • Anthony Grande

    What you think Dave is a Conservative?
    Yeah right. And if Dave Nalle has to be considered a moderate than he is a moderate that leans on the liberal side.

  • Anthony Grande

    Nancy, you don’t know why I was banned.

    Secondly, point out another conservative besides me.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    If all you read on BlogCritics is anti-Bush politics posts, it’s easy to conclude that BC is a liberal hotbed, Bennett.

    Besides, we’ve all seen how thoroughly Anthony researches what he writes about. [/sarcasm] Why let his opinion get your goat?

  • Anthony Grande

    Comment 89, if the Sarcasm was directed at the Anthrax thing, I have found the site that proves the culprit is an American instead of a terrorist.

    I will give it to you in a second.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Is Ms. Nancy taking part in this thread?

  • Anthony Grande
  • Anthony Grande

    If anyone is having trouble finding it then type in keywords “anthrax” and “culprit”

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I have found the site that proves the culprit is an American instead of a terrorist.

    More excellent reasoning. The acts perpetrated make someone a terrorist, not his/her nationality. Whoever perpetrated the anthrax attacks is a TERRORIST, even if s/he is American.

    Now, what about those pesky teenagers?

    It’s been almost 4 years since the attacks. Why aren’t those kids in jail?

  • Bennett

    DrPat – Knuckleheads? Get my goat? Not quite. He’s somewhat amusing in his narrow-minded barely-schooled rants.

    Seems unable to create a clickable link as well.

    Still waiting for a link to a credible news source that indicates “teenagers” are responsible for the anthrax letters…

  • Anthony Grande

    You obviously haven’t been to the sight.

    I remembered teenages when I wrote that but that turned out to be wrong. Though it was an American like I said I apoligize for that post.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Okay, so it wasn’t teenagers, or at least that’s what investigators think. But the American who sent the anthrax, if it was an American, is a terrorist.

  • Bennett

    That’s cool Anthony, appology accepted. Ya see, what most of the adults around here knew is that anthrax is a highly controlled virus, not something teenagers could get their hands on.

    That the source was an American has been out there for a while, and as bhw says, whoever did it was a terrorist.

    Home grown, or foreign.

  • Anthony Grande

    Clinton’s accomplishments as president:
    Four terrorist attacks(1st World Trade Center Bombing, Oklohoma City Bombing, U.s. Embassy Bombing in Kenya, and the Us. Cole) and our great president refused to start a war over them, which led terrorists to believe they can get away with 9/11.
    Also, the Waco Texas incident when U.S troops bllew up a building with close to a hundred kids in it, just because a few men were suspected to be armed.
    Also, Clinton made sure five year old Elion Gonzales was sent back to Castro’s Cuba.
    Then, Clinton became the first president to become impeached.

    Bush’s Accomplishments as president:
    One terrorist attack thanks to Clinton.
    Took out the terrible Taliban, with it’s oppresive Islamic Government which caused it’s people to starve.
    Destroyed the power of Al Queda and is close to eliminating it.
    Took out Saddam Hussein who had the potential of Hitler, paid suicide bombers in Palestine, massacred entire cities because they chose to follow a different religion other that Sunni Islam and very dangerous to his neighbors.
    Set up the first Democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which it’s cobined population of 60 million overwhelmingly voted for.
    Ended suicide bombings in Palestine, which caused major terror among Israelis.
    Is in process of taken out Mousoui’s terrorist organization in Syria.
    Pissed off France and Germany, but made up for that with the new close alliances with Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Made the U.s. the first country to occupy a country without stealing it’s resources or raping it’s people of independence. And for what? World Peace.
    Set a record numbers for fewest casualties in combatical war.

    But of course Clinton was by far the greatest president(sarcasm).

  • Kara Rockenbach

    Tony: You hold your own well in a politically hostile environment. I see that you quite effectively silenced the liberals for one week since posting the Clinton v. Bush accomplishments. Might I add one further accomplishment to Bush’s list: National patriotism.