The latest scuttlebutt in the American Southeast is that one of the Dixie Chicks, in London of all places (and NOT London Ontario) is quoted as saying "I am ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

I am sorry, but that is uncalled for! Disagree if you wish, that is your right! But to be ASHAMED of your President!

I might not agree with our President, but there is no way in hell I would ever state publicly and internationally that I am ASHAMED of him (with the possible exception of Clinton).

Yes, and I am ASHAMED that somebody let that WHORE have a passport OUT OF AMERICA with out locking her silly little cunt up in a CHASTITY BELT and locking a DILDOE gag in her HOLE of a mouth!

THEY SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BITCH A ONE WAY TICKET ONLY!

A-1

I totaly agree with you, except I believe Clinton is from Arkansas. OH gee it is in the same part of the country. As I think back the last ass hole we had that was from Texas was LBJ. I think what you said could be applied to him as well.

All kidding aside, I dont have a problem with an American calling our President anything insulting, its our job. At least half the country will agree with you. I do have a problem with someone from another country calling our President a jerk etc. Its different than that prick who is the president of France, I think he should be open season on him. Now insult my FLAG and in the words of Roy D Mercer "somebodys gonna get a ass kickin".



River

Hell, I'm not ashamed of the witless, overprivileged little weasel, I'm embarrassed to tears that he's sitting in an office once held by people like FDR and Harry Truman.

To all you Clinton haters: When Bill was Pres, gas was a buck a gallon, unemployment was below 3%, and the Dow was at 11,000. Just what, exactly, was the problem with that?

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie...

Your true colors are showing again.

You can't say that you would never publicly proclaim this (being embarassed) about the president then in the same breath say "

Charlieje (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2003 6:51 pm with the possible exception of Clinton.

" If you're going to stand by your statement, you stand by it for all US Presidents, regardless of what you personally believe about them.

Honestly, to be a Republican you have to belive in quite a few odd things. Things such as 49.9 being more than 50.1. You have to think that "Clinton is a scumbag for doing what he did to that woman" and then think that people like Newt Gingrich, Bob Packwood, etc. are the best thing that ever happened to American politics, even though they did similar things while in office. You also have to think that the National Rifle Association is really great because they protect the constitution, but you have to hate the ACLU because they do the same thing.

To return to my main point, you can't say that US citizens should support all presidents, regarless of personal views, then say you would do the same thing this person from the Dixie Chicks did, to the last Democrat to hold the office. One would have to be a hippocrite and unfair to think otherwise.

MaxPgh (imported) wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:43 am Hell, I'm not ashamed of the witless, overprivileged little weasel, I'm embarrassed to tears that he's sitting in an office once held by people like FDR and Harry Truman.

You left out Ronald Regan.

What was wrong with him?

After all, he was a union man, a past President of the Screen Actors Guild.

Now I want you to answer me one thing...honestly.

How much of Saddam's horseshit do you think Harry Truman would have tolerated?

Harry Truman would have had it over by now and Saddam would have been out long ago.

Tell the truth, now.

A-1

Losethem,

You are absolutely right, at least in your criticism of what I said, but you didn't understand what I said.

I quite agree that we can and should disagree, criticise, our president, or anyone else in position of leadership. What I do NOT agree with is going to a foreign country and washing our dirty laundry there. Those gals write and sing anti-war songs and are quite vocal about their position, and that's fine here at home - as has been said, it's our job! But things are different when we're away from home (or they should be).

I was out of line to infer that I would condone what the Chick did if the president were Clinton. I make no secret that I think he is slime, not because of what he did to "that woman" or any other woman, man, girl, boy, but that he stood and looked the entire country in the eye and lied about it!

Anyway, please do NOT get the idea that I am a Republican, or a Democrat... I am neither. I try to keep an open mind at election time and try to evaluate the issues... I know, it is VERY difficult, but I believe that approach is better than blindly following any single party.

Losethem (imported) wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:18 pm Charlie, Charlie, Charlie...

Your true colors are showing again...

To return to my main point, you can't say that US citizens should support all presidents, regarless of personal views, then say you would do the same thing this person from the Dixie Chicks did, to the last Democrat to hold the office. One would have to be a hippocrite and unfair to think otherwise.

A-1

Actually at the time Reagan was the leader of the Screen Actors Guild, I believe he was a Democrat. One of the things many people do not realize is that Reagan was initially a Democrat. It was sometime between his leading the SAG and running for Governor of California that he became Republican. I think it had something to do with his marrying Nancy. <grin>

As for Truman not taking this garbage from Saddam. I'd agree with that, but the world was a much different place then too. That's the problem with looking into the past... the solutions that may well have worked there, may not work in the modern era. Of course, some tried and true things do work. Guess I'll be a fence sitter on this one.

While I agree with GWB on Iraq, I disagree with him on nearly every other major policy he has. Especially those relating to homeland defense and privacy. One of the great things we've had in this country is the ability to be anonymous, but that is going away more quickly than at any other time in our history. I mean they want to track all of our purchases! What good could come out of that. I'm telling you, the thought police can't be far away. <shrug>

Oh well, hopefully by the time it all happens I'll be too old to care.

Hey Charlie--

Thanks for understanding. Guess I get a bit heated once in a while. Perhaps the entertainers were catering to their audience? I suppose that they are something like ambassadors from our country, but they have the right to speak their minds like the rest of the citizens of the US.

As for inferring Democrat or Republican... Guess it doesn't matter. Most Americans like to think of themselves as middle of the road/independent. I think quite a bit of my frustration is that I don't belive the previous President should ever have been put into a position to lie. If the investigation wouldn't have meandered from failed real estate deals into a witch-hunt on his sexuality, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Even though it would have looked like a move from Nixon, he should have fired Ken Starr and had the justice department come up with another Independent Counsel of their (DOJ) choosing, that would have investigated the original complaint. I could never understand what the connection was between Whitewater and his sex life anyhow. Just goes to show that both sides in the 2 party system engage in witchhunts.

In the end I think I'm getting rather tired of the if you don't like George Bush you're not patriotic/you're un-American mentality that has been floating around for the last couple years. It's the first step into dictatorship. When you can no longer dissent, that's how people get the kind of absolute power that corrupts absolutely. At that point we will get leaders that are on par with Saddam Hussein.

Anyhow, thanks for the mental exercise. I'm enjoying it.

--LT

Charlieje (imported) wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:15 pm Losethem,

You are absolutely right, at least in your criticism of what I said, but you didn't understand what I said.

I quite agree that we can and should disagree, criticise, our president, or anyone else in position of leadership. What I do NOT agree with is going to a foreign country and washing our dirty laundry there. Those gals write and sing anti-war songs and are quite vocal about their position, and that's fine here at home - as has been said, it's our job! But things are different when we're away from home (or they should be).

I was out of line to infer that I would condone what the Chick did if the president were Clinton. I make no secret that I think he is slime, not because of what he did to "that woman" or any other woman, man, girl, boy, but that he stood and looked the entire country in the eye and lied about it!

The thing that i dont understand is entertainers entertain us and when thay make a statment like this woman made it is bound to hert thair standings with thair folowers and i thank it was just plane stupid.How would you like to be thair pr man now big job for that person now.