Monday, October 08, 2007

Words of Wisdom, Forgotten by Time

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------
Here is a quote by President Bill Clinton, said in 1995:

"I say to you...there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other. "

As someone who despised President Clinton and his wife, I knew the difference between hating them and hating the Government. Most Democrats today, if forced to choose between rule of law by President Ahmadinijad or President Bush, will choose the president of Iran.

In my case, under no circumstances would I choose a foreign ruler over any American President. During 1993, I traveled through Europe during the summer and guess what I learned?

People hated the US back then too. And being overseas, I defended my Country and my President (even though I did not vote for him).

C'mon Liberals and Democrats, is that so hard to do?

10 comments:

  1. Most Democrats today, if forced to choose between rule of law by President Ahmadinijad or President Bush, will choose the president of Iran.

    Come on now JSF! That's just ridiculous. I personally wouldn't cross the street to piss on George Bush if he was on fire, but I know that there are degrees of bad and he's way lower down on the bad meter than Mr. Unpronounceable Guy. Neither one likes gays, but choosing between a president who fights against their equal rights and a president who publicly hangs them is a no-brainer. I think that all of the press that loonie Iran-boy got on his visit served as a reminder to many on the left that there are indeed worse people out there than Bush. There are even people in this country who are worse than Bush. And I'm not just talking about Dick Cheney.

    But do you seriously believe that democrats are so stupid that they would choose a murderous theocratic dictator over a bad American president? If you're playing it for laughs, I can respect that. But if you're serious, that's kind of scary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JSF, nice post. I love that quality in Conservative Americans (like you) that you can respect the office of President even if you don't like the person in it. I think it's a uniquely American trait which you don't see much elsewhere. Certainly in Australia, every politician is fair game and some of the mud-slinging is absolutely abysmal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jason,

    During the day, I listen to Air America (Thom hartman and Rhandi Rhodes) and pacifica radio -- during the time the President of Iran was here, I heard moral equivication and parsing.

    I keep on saying there is only one President at a time. Ours never get respected by the major partisans of the Left. It is a simple belief: You don't want your arguements against your political enemies repeated by dictators.

    Yet, the Left does not understand this. When I defended Clinton, I didn't parse, I didn't equivocate. It would be good for my ears and eyes if I could see that from the Democrats. If you don't like a President or his/her policies, there are always another election. By the way, thanks for the link!

    Aurora,

    I might be a partisan, but I learned to never disrespect the office. I disagree with the Congeess, but I would never wish ill will on them. Modern democrats (Post Howard Dean) have no qualms about wishing folks on our side dead.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JSF, while I never tire of hearing your endless partisanship and all, you're not answering my question. Do you truly believe that democrats would prefer a theocratic Iranian psycho over a guy who they just consider to be a really bad American president? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

    And what's the point of defending a president who you don't like? Defend the office if you must, but defending a guy whose policies go against what you believe in does not make you patriotic. Why does the way you choose to love your country have to be the way everybody should? Isn't that a tad on the arrogant side?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jason,

    Simple answer: No.

    Unsimple answer: The callers of Air America and pacifica as well as hosts seem to think there is little difference between Ahmadinijad and Bush.

    While you don't neccesarrily follow my lead on this, I read and listen (through Blogexplosion and the rest of the Left Blogosphere + pacifica/Air America) to folks on the other side of the aisle disparage the position as well as the person.

    We only have one President at a time. Why equivicate? Why parse? Why allow your criticisms to be matched by others who don't like this country? I would be absolutly offended if my words found their way into OBL's or Hugo Chavez's mouth.

    I was up on Capitol Hill during the begining of the Clinton era. I learned this from my mentor, the office must survive partisan battles. He said: "If you can't defend a President you disagree with, you are only a supplicant to a President you do agree with,"

    Also, in the valley, I mention the late Senator Vandenberg (R-MN). he said that Politics stops at the waters edge. It seems that Bush offends the Left sometimes more than Chavez or Ahmadinijad. It freaks me out, it really does.

    I worry if there is a Trifecta next year, those same attitudes will remain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. JSF, I tend to disagree with much of what you have to say here, but I truly appreciate the honest answer about democrats not really preferring what's his face over Bush (by the way, have you seen the SNL clip I Ran So Far yet? If not, YouTube it ASAP!). It absolutely burns my ass whenever some lousy dictator or terrorist says something that I happen to agree with (and in Chavez' case it burns my ass even more to see him turning into a dictator like you folks on the right said he would - up until his massive power grab I really liked him). But your freakout over Bush offending us on the left more often than some of these foreign despots really should be telling you something about Bush, because this sort of thing didn't happen with his daddy or Reagan. Think about what is it specifically about this particular president that infuriates half of the country to the levels that so freak you out?

    Slightly off topic and more fun - which hosts on Air America or Pacifica do you find most annoying? I don't listen to either very often because I find the tone to be rather obnoxious, but the host of Flashpoints, Dennis something or other, has to be the whiniest little bitch I've ever heard. He makes me embarrassed to be on the same side of the issues as him. Have you ever caught Hard Knocks Radio? It's on right before Flashpoints and it's the best show about HipHop I've ever heard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jason,

    Back when I was a Dem during the 80's, Reagan was going to blow up the world. Then Bush pere went to war for dictatorships and for oil. And Nixon was the most evil man in history.

    In 1992, I read Stephen Ambrose's bio of Nixon and learned he was a flawed human being not an evil man. We didn't blow up during the 80's, and we didn't steal the oil from Iraq in 1991.

    The rhetotic has not really changed, only the protocal following it. Remember, Reagan was not trusted by the partisans (the politicals such as Rostonkowski and O'Neill respected the office and worked with him, even if they disagreed): Gorbachev was.

    Now, the Democratic Party is saying Bush fils is evil as Nixon. That word gets thrown around a lot when Republicans are in office. Gingrinch, Delay (who did the same thing the Burtons in CA did when they were in the majority), Nixon, Bush I, Bush II, et. al.

    The Republicans might have disagreed with Clinton (and don't disregard History as Precedence either in DC), the impeachment was in response to saying our guy was evil, but damn it, disagreement or not, work got done in the Capitol, before, during and after impeachment.

    Same with Nixon. I did a 50 page report on Ambassadorial Appointments during Watergate, both branches co-operated with each other to get stuff done.

    Same rhetoric, just less supportive of an AMERICAN President. And I still worry about that Trifecta.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did my reply get eaten again?

    ReplyDelete
  9. JSF, I love how you just ignore the levels of vitriol that folks on your side throw at the democratic presidents, but I've been learning to expect such unevenhandedness from you. I know, the entirety of the problems in this country is because democrats won't behave the way you expect them to. As if all of a sudden both of these ridiculous gangs will all of a sudden start getting along.

    Since this ridiculous back and forth is going to just piss us both off, how about that question about who you find the most annoying on Pacifica. Have you heard that Dennis guy on Flashpoints? Most annoying whiny radio guy ever!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jason,

    I choose two: Lila garrett (of Connect the Dots) and Jerry Quickly (of Beneath the Surface). Both, very annoying.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...