Anyone for a nightcap?

[subkitty72]

Decent is a good term for his presidency. Decent meaning adequate or slightly more than adequate. The moral version of decent has no place with Bill

Hommy, i'd like to know if you could name one president in the past 50 years, hell, ever, who was morally decent?

Shit, i can only think of one, Jimmy Carter, and even he "sinned" in his heart.

Bill fucked around on his wife, sad, perhaps, but hell, he never promised me fidelity.

And if you think that Bill Clinton was only an "adequate" president, i can't wait to hear your expectations for one who you'd consider great.

Hello, by the way! i've missed you, don Hommy!

ETA: i am going to have some champagne here in a minute.

 

[Homburg]

Evil may be a slight overstatement, but ask yourself this: how much of the appropriation of executive power done by the Bush administration do you think HRC would give back? How much of the sullying of the constitution do you think she will willingly repair?

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. I would've spewed it all ove rmy monitor from the laughter this line caused.

------------------------

Dude, I am telling you that there is a diffeence between talking about God and being a fundamentalist Christan cum pol and appointing people who think protecting earth's environment is stupid, because judgment day is coming any minute.

I'm sorry, I'm not tracking. Are you, or are you not, tarring the republicans with a broad brush based largely on one admittedly prominent dickhead? There's a helluva lot more info out there on how the repubs have sold their souls to the christian right than just GWB.

I _agree_ with you on the whole repubs are far too much into the religious whackaloon thing, but what's the point? This somehow makes the democrats worthwhile? "Death by fire" or "Death by Ruru" is still death. Sure, being Ruru'ed to death sounds a bit mor ehorrible than dying in a fire, but, wow, it's still Death. So the repubs are oppressive dickheads that are pro-religion. The dems are oppressive dickheads that are anti/neutral-towards religion. Both are oppressive dickheads, they just do it in slightly different styles.

 

[Homburg]

Hommy, i'd like to know if you could name one president in the past 50 years, hell, ever, who was morally decent?

Shit, i can only think of one, Jimmy Carter, and even he "sinned" in his heart.

Jimmy Carter was my first response. He's a really decent guy overall, and one of the best ex-presidents ever. Gerald Ford struck me as decent. I don't know all that much about his personal life to really say though.

Bill fucked around on his wife, sad, perhaps, but hell, he never promised me fidelity.

Eh, it was symptomatic. I was less worried about the fucking about than I was the lying and verbal gymnastics trying to avoid the repercussions. Just admit to it and move on.

And if you think that Bill Clinton was only an "adequate" president, i can't wait to hear your expectations for one who you'd consider great.

Ha, a great president, by my definition, is one that would never get elected. Because the sort of person I would want in office would quote one of my favourite lines: "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."

To be frank, though, my definition of great is not a specific one, nor do I think we need a great president right now. Great presidents are presidents that do great things and are thus historically memorable. Great has nothing to do with me, my definition, or my admittedly weird politics.

But Clinton was merely decent. As I said, slightly better than adequate. Do you honestly consider him great?

Hello, by the way! i've missed you, don Hommy!

I'm sure. *ITW voice* You nevah write. You nevah call. You nevah come around to visit. And now you say you miss me?

Continuing on the idea of great presidents:

Washington (by default)
Lincoln (a total oppressor, but he had impact)
Both Roosevelts
Hoover (but in a bad way)
JFK (though his greatness was assured by his death.)

I would lightly tend to say Reagan for his part in the fall of Communism (more Thatcher than Reagan, but he was still involved), but only history can say.

 

[rida]

It's only noon but I need a drink so ...
*stumble in and gets herself a Campari-grapefruit ... follows the political talk and decide to go sit and just listen*

 

[subkitty72]

Well, it dpends on what the meaning of is, is

Jimmy Carter was my first response. He's a really decent guy overall, and one of the best ex-presidents ever. Gerald Ford struck me as decent. I don't know all that much about his personal life to really say though.



Eh, it was symptomatic. I was less worried about the fucking about than I was the lying and verbal gymnastics trying to avoid the repercussions. Just admit to it and move on.



Ha, a great president, by my definition, is one that would never get elected. Because the sort of person I would want in office would quote one of my favourite lines: "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."

To be frank, though, my definition of great is not a specific one, nor do I think we need a great president right now. Great presidents are presidents that do great things and are thus historically memorable. Great has nothing to do with me, my definition, or my admittedly weird politics.

But Clinton was merely decent. As I said, slightly better than adequate. Do you honestly consider him great?



I'm sure. *ITW voice* You nevah write. You nevah call. You nevah come around to visit. And now you say you miss me?

Continuing on the idea of great presidents:

Washington (by default)
Lincoln (a total oppressor, but he had impact)
Both Roosevelts
Hoover (but in a bad way)
JFK (though his greatness was assured by his death.)

I would lightly tend to say Reagan for his part in the fall of Communism (more Thatcher than Reagan, but he was still involved), but only history can say.

Well, on Jimmy Carter we agree-and in fact his morality, his charity, the bulk of what will be considered his legacy, has become even more apparent since he left office.

I don't know if Bill's immoral marriage behaviour was truly symptomatic of his presidential behaviour- yes, he could spar verbally with the best of 'em, and, no, he didn't want to be truthful about the affair. But, in another day, we the public would never have been privy to his lusty dalliances.

Think about it: JFK had women being escorted out the back door as Jackie O was walking through the front door. No one talks about it. Frankly, i hardly think those things are A. newsworthy or B. relevant.

For the record, i do not think Bill was great, but i do think he was above average and a hell of a whole sight better than our current Commander in Chief-whores and interns aside.

i'm with you on not having an example of presidential greatness. I'm liking Washington and Jefferson. But time and distance have done what they always must. And i view them now through my safe 21st century glasses.

hehe. and i do tend to float away now and again. But i always carry a little piece of Hommy here in my heart.

 

[intothewoods]

Track this! Ok, I just wanted to say that.

I am not saying all Republicans are bad. I am saying that electing a Republican to presidential office is worse than electing a Democrat. More often than not, electing a Republican to the U.S. Senate or House is worse than electing a Democrat, because even if they are moderate, they are typically beholden to the party. And I'd rather have a pol beholden to the Dems than the Republicans.

I don't tar all Republicans with the same brush, or I didn't, until GW Bush became President. Party loyalty, or Bush loyalty has become even more prevalent. I'd rather have a rep from a party that at least wll more or less adhere to a platform that I can live with rather than one I can not.

Are you tracking?

 

[intothewoods]

Washington (by default)
Lincoln (a total oppressor, but he had impact)
Both Roosevelts
Hoover (but in a bad way)
JFK (though his greatness was assured by his death.)

I would lightly tend to say Reagan for his part in the fall of Communism (more Thatcher than Reagan, but he was still involved), but only history can say.

Lincoln was a total opressor? Washington only by default? Hoover???

I would say Lincoln and Washington. FDR, although wow, talk about sweeping powers! LBJ was amazing at making things happen, but he was so off on Vietnam.

 

[Homburg]

For the record, i do not think Bill was great, but i do think he was above average and a hell of a whole sight better than our current Commander in Chief-whores and interns aside.

i'm with you on not having an example of presidential greatness. I'm liking Washington and Jefferson. But time and distance have done what they always must. And i view them now through my safe 21st century glasses.

hehe. and i do tend to float away now and again. But i always carry a little piece of Hommy here in my heart.

Awww, thank you, sweetheart.

I do agree vis a vis : Clinton > Bush

Pretty blatantly obvious, actually. Bush will probably be considered one of the worst ever.

 

[subkitty72]

So...what about Iowa?

i was surprised, and delighted (surprisingly delighted as i was not in his camp) that Obama won by such a wide margin. i was equally happy that my guy, Kucinich, said he'd throw his support behind Obama should he lose Iowa (and yes, Kucinich always loses).

i am soooo fucking proud to live in a country where a black man (even marginally "black" by some people's standards) can be considered a viable candidate for President.

But Huckabee.... ok, the pundits had predicted it, but i am frankly AFEARED.

Huckabee scares me.

(is there an emoticon that shows horror?)

 

[Homburg]

Track this! Ok, I just wanted to say that.

I am not saying all Republicans are bad. I am saying that electing a Republican to presidential office is worse than electing a Democrat. More often than not, electing a Republican to the U.S. Senate or House is worse than electing a Democrat, because even if they are moderate, they are typically beholden to the party. And I'd rather have a pol beholden to the Dems than the Republicans.

You know who I want my polticos beholden to? Us. You know, the proles what elected them. They are party first, people second, when it should be the reverse. It's one of the reasons why I like Paul and Kucinich.

As to dem vs rep presidents, that's a non-starter on its' own. I'd rather examine dem/rep in regards to who controls the house and senate.

I don't tar all Republicans with the same brush, or I didn't, until GW Bush became President. Party loyalty, or Bush loyalty has become even more prevalent. I'd rather have a rep from a party that at least wll more or less adhere to a platform that I can live with rather than one I can not.

Are you tracking?

The dems don't have a platform. Not like they used to. same as the reps. Platforms are gone, replaced by soundbites and special interests. Where are the dems on gun control? Oh yeah, they gave up on that to make headway in rural areas. Where are the dems on civil liberties? Voting for the Patriot Act. Where are the dems on Defense of Marriage? Standing in the oval office signing it. Gay Rights? Don't ask, don't tell. Yup, em dems sure stick to their guns, I tell ya.

And party loyalty is more prevalent? Please. I saw the same shit during the Clinton years with partisan lines being drawn heavily, and in the Reagan years, and during Carter, and etc etc etc.

Bush is just an easy target. Roll it back ten years and you see the dem faithful defending Clinton. Whatever.

Lincoln was a total opressor? Washington only by default? Hoover???

I would say Lincoln and Washington. FDR, although wow, talk about sweeping powers! LBJ was amazing at making things happen, but he was so off on Vietnam.

Lincoln was an oppressor. Martial law was insituted in many areas in the North. Unions troops were brought in to strongarm state politicos to vote pro-Union. All kinds of fun stuff. I don't despise him, but I don't see him as some shining hero. FDR was a rampant oppressor.

And, yeah, by the definition I offered earlier in the post (and, darlin, it really does help if you read the whole thing), "great" was simply defined by impact on history.

 

[Homburg]

i was surprised, and delighted (surprisingly delighted as i was not in his camp) that Obama won by such a wide margin. i was equally happy that my guy, Kucinich, said he'd throw his support behind Obama should he lose Iowa (and yes, Kucinich always loses).

i am soooo fucking proud to live in a country where a black man (even marginally "black" by some people's standards) can be considered a viable candidate for President.

But Huckabee.... ok, the pundits had predicted it, but i am frankly AFEARED.

Huckabee scares me.

(is there an emoticon that shows horror?)

I'm largely in agreement with this whole post. And you thought that our politics were opposed =P

Obama is one of th ebest of the bunch insofars as the dems go. Kucinich is a good guy, and Huckabee just scares me.

 

[the_pet]

i will have a drink with you guys...but i don't talk politics or religion....but i do enjoy reading what other think



evening,
kamakazi anyone......



pet

 

[subkitty72]

I'm largely in agreement with this whole post. And you thought that our politics were opposed =P

Obama is one of th ebest of the bunch insofars as the dems go. Kucinich is a good guy, and Huckabee just scares me.

Great minds, dear Hommy, great minds...

i do have to admit that Kucinich and Gravell (and, yeah, i know he made that weird YouTube video where he just stared for over a minute) were both my most coveted candidates...

But i am just a cog in the whole machine. i just want to be part of a better mousetrap.

 

[subkitty72]

i will have a drink with you guys...but i don't talk politics or religion....but i do enjoy reading what other think



evening,
kamakazi anyone......



pet

pet!!!

i was saving (errr, kinda, saving) my champagne for you!

How are you, pretty girl?

i love talking about all the rude things. But i won't with you!

 

[the_pet]

pet!!!

i was saving (errr, kinda, saving) my champagne for you!

How are you, pretty girl?

i love talking about all the rude things. But i won't with you!

hey beautiful...what kind of champagne are we drinking tonight? now THAT'S something important to talk about!

i'm chillin, how bout you?


level pet

 

[rakess]

I'm all into the white russians after watching the big lebowski. God, I love half and half. Then decaf for me please.
Can't talk politics right now...savoring drink...

 

[subkitty72]

hey beautiful...what kind of champagne are we drinking tonight? now THAT'S something important to talk about!

i'm chillin, how bout you?


level pet

i'm drinking Freiuxnet (sp?) from Spain....

hey, it's cheap AND yummy.

i'm chilling too. Listening to Diana Krall "Live in Paris".

How are the kamikazes coming?

 

[the_pet]

How are the kamikazes coming?

i shake em' till they're frothy, for shooters they have to be icey


pet

 

[subkitty72]

i shake em' till they're frothy, for shooters they have to be icey


pet

Right on.

Haven't had one in a while, but i'm craving one right now.

 

[intothewoods]

Argh, Hommy, I read your entire posts. Jesus. That makes me nuts! Ooh la la. How hawt.

We are talking in circles. Of course I would like politicians to be beholden to us. I get it, the system is broken. They both suck. But unless we all decide that W was an anomaly, then I don't want another Republican in the White House. At least, not someone with similar foreign policy beliefs and not someone who believes they are divinely inspired, and not someone who will appoint people to positions of power who will allow the environment to be decimated, for example.

Now, HRC is questionable on one of those for sure. But would I vote for her over Huckabee? Hell yes. Only Guliani -- of those who still have a shot, mind you -- is not socially conservative.

 

[Homburg]

Argh, Hommy, I read your entire posts. Jesus. That makes me nuts! Ooh la la. How hawt.

We are talking in circles. Of course I would like politicians to be beholden to us. I get it, the system is broken. They both suck. But unless we all decide that W was an anomaly, then I don't want another Republican in the White House. At least, not someone with similar foreign policy beliefs and not someone who believes they are divinely inspired, and not someone who will appoint people to positions of power who will allow the environment to be decimated, for example.

Now, HRC is questionable on one of those for sure. But would I vote for her over Huckabee? Hell yes. Only Guliani -- of those who still have a shot, mind you -- is not socially conservative.

Ron Paul is not socially conservative either.

As to reps, I don't want another one in office either. They need to be punished for Bush, punished for allowing him to so egregiously fuck up a damned good thing. Yes, we were primed for an economic fall anyway, and 9-11 would've happened regardless of who the president was, but, wow, he still went above and beyond the call of duty in how resoundingly his policies have fucked up various things.

That said, I do not just feel like giving carte blanche to the dems to put whomever they want in office.


With this appointment issue that has you so riled, honest question a sI don't know, was that posted vetted by congress?

 

[midwestyankee]

<snip>

That said, I do not just feel like giving carte blanche to the dems to put whomever they want in office.


<snip>

But isn't it the very core of our electoral system that each party nominates who they want? Seems to me that if it's as likely for a Democrat to win this year as you imply here, then it's the Rethuglicans who have made it so.

And it's midday here, so make mine a cold beer.

 

[Homburg]

But isn't it the very core of our electoral system that each party nominates who they want? Seems to me that if it's as likely for a Democrat to win this year as you imply here, then it's the Rethuglicans who have made it so.

And it's midday here, so make mine a cold beer.

I agree, but the point I was making was that the democrats should not se ethis as a default win, and thus run a candidate that would possibly not win a more normative election.

And, yes, I do think that it is likely that the democrat candidate will win. ANd, yup, the reps have dug their own hole.

 

[intothewoods]

Ron Paul isn't electable - despite his recent fundraising surge. I said electable. That said, I agree with him on some things. Well, at least one! The war. Although in principle I see some validity to the idea of not having such a big federal bureaucracy, I don't think it would be a good idea to just shut down the Department of Education, EPA, etc.

Oh, on the appointments. I don't believe all or even most of the appointments require Senate approval. Also, when the Republicans were in the majority, well...I'll look that up though. This is like arguing with Mister Man. Grudgingly, I must admit it makes us more knowledgable - since we always end up looking something or other up.

I would say, the main things that make me fighting mad about Bush II are (1) misappropriation of power (wire tapping, all that), (2) decision to go into Iraq rather than focus our efforts in Afghanistan, (3) speeches by Cheney and Bush that implied there was a connection between Sadaam and Al Queda even after it was clear there was none, (4) appointments of people who just wrecked departments like DOJ, EPA, etc. and (5) Katrina.

As to Ron Paul, anyone have any thouhts on Fox News' decision not to allow him to participate in the upcoming New Hampshire debates? I can't believe it.

 

[intothewoods]

On a boozier note, I made blood orange cosmos last night - cranberry juice, fresh squeezed blood orange juice and vodka, with a squeeze of lime. They were so good. I wanted to make love to that drink.