-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
If Clinton is criticized for lying about a blowjob under his desk, let's remember that he lied because he thought the public would make a big deal out of it...
Or maybe because he thought he'd be impeached? :rolleyes:
Ya know what Feanor? Because I think you're just here to antagonize, I'm going to continue in my belief that you're not an idiot. Sound good?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
Or maybe because he thought he'd be impeached? :rolleyes:
Hmmm... I think Impeachment could be viewed as the public making a big deal of it... lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
Ya know what Feanor? Because I think you're just here to antagonize, I'm going to continue in my belief that you're not an idiot. Sound good?
Actually, I strongly suspect that Feanor believes what he says... and to some extent I agree with him...
Anyway, I find the differences between Democrats and Republicans really strange:
Republicans - Favour financial freedom aka small government and fiscal prudence (though Bush/Cheney seem to have ignored that whole fiscal prudence bit for the last 8 years!!!)... For the most part I agree with the Republicans on this issue...
Democrats - Favour personal freedom i.e. Pro-Choice, Gay Rights, etc... etc.. I tend to agree with the Dems on this one...
What I find weird is that I would expect one party to be about freedom and the other about Gov control, not this mixed approach where one is for personal but not financial freedom and the other is for financial but not personal freedom...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Hmmm... I think Impeachment could be viewed as the public making a big deal of it... lol
Actually, I strongly suspect that Feanor believes what he says... and to some extent I agree with him...
Anyway, I find the differences between Democrats and Republicans really strange:
Republicans - Favour financial freedom aka small government and fiscal prudence (though Bush/Cheney seem to have ignored that whole fiscal prudence bit for the last 8 years!!!)... For the most part I agree with the Republicans on this issue...
Democrats - Favour personal freedom i.e. Pro-Choice, Gay Rights, etc... etc.. I tend to agree with the Dems on this one...
What I find weird is that I would expect one party to be about freedom and the other about Gov control, not this mixed approach where one is for personal but not financial freedom and the other is for financial but not personal freedom...
The way I see it is that both parties are all about making themselves look good so that they can get more money from any businesses, whether they be legal or not. They say what they think the public wants to hear so that they can get in power. Both parties have made it such that any candidate that wants their backing will back that party to all ends. That includes, but is not limited to, putting the other party down at every turn. Some people believe one party's rhetoric over the other and form a deep hatred for the other. Both are equally corrupt.
-
Naive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
...
Republicans - Favour financial freedom aka small government and fiscal prudence (though Bush/Cheney seem to have ignored that whole fiscal prudence bit for the last 8 years!!!)... For the most part I agree with the Republicans on this issue...
...
Neither "small government" nor "fiscal prudence" are particular priorities with Republicans (or right-wingers in general). They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. Their only real priority is low taxes, (plus low regulation, etc.). The Iraq war has proven this point. ('Scuse me but Dah! That is so painfully obvious.)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Hmmm... I think Impeachment could be viewed as the public making a big deal of it... lol
With a little bit of Congress thrown in for good measure, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Actually, I strongly suspect that Feanor believes what he says... and to some extent I agree with him...
Well, to some extent on a few points I agree with him also. Doesn't mean he's not being antagonistic though in the big picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Anyway, I find the differences between Democrats and Republicans really strange:
Republicans - Favour financial freedom aka small government and fiscal prudence (though Bush/Cheney seem to have ignored that whole fiscal prudence bit for the last 8 years!!!)... For the most part I agree with the Republicans on this issue...
Democrats - Favour personal freedom i.e. Pro-Choice, Gay Rights, etc... etc.. I tend to agree with the Dems on this one...
What I find weird is that I would expect one party to be about freedom and the other about Gov control, not this mixed approach where one is for personal but not financial freedom and the other is for financial but not personal freedom...
You must be losing your eyesight because your sig sums it all up perfectly.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Citizen
Hi, new here and already into politics. Why do you say "that children's well being will have to be somewhat sacrificed in order to go down that road"? The children's haven't got a full time parent? The spouse will take an executive position in the White House? It is interesting that teenage pregnancy is rife in the US (I'm not American). I think this problem has nothing to do with politics. It is due to social values and weaknesses in the schooling system. The way I see it, the following causes could be responsible for this;
1. Peer Pressure. Americans seem to have strange moral values where it is acceptable for teenagers to be sexually active. Do American parents say to their teenage children, it is okay to have sex but please use contraceptives? In many other countries (mine is based on the British system) Co-ed schooling only exist in Primary school (that is equivalent to US grade 1 through 6 and College or A-levels. That means in Secondary schools (grade 7 through 11). it is either girls school or boys school. It is taught that at this age, children are not sufficiently mature enough to study together. Sexual curiosity gets the better of them and distracts them from their studies. But that doesn't mean they don't mix at all. They sometime cross paths through extra-curricula activities. When they go to A-levels or College their are already 18 and that is a legal age in most countries.
2. Lack of Parental Guidance. It is naive to say that teenage pregnancy don't happen in countries outside of the US. But they occur relatively less. In fact it is a rarity to learn of teenage pregnancy. Children getting pregnant tend to come from broken homes where parents are divorced or parents are both working and do not closely supervise their children. More often than not, these children grow up through hired servants that come and go.
3. Different Moral Standards. IMHO Americans tend to be more tolerant to social failures. Perhaps the thinking is that no one is perfect and people are bound to make mistakes. To forgive is divine. It is only that the level of tolerance in this aspect is higher than most other nations.
From what I perceive, children getting pregnant is not a desirable trait in the US yet the American society lack the resolve to overcome the problem.
Excellent points..... and welcome to the forum by the way
-
GM: I agree with you on the point made that Reps and Dems are equally culpable. Way I see it, the schisms between the parties are arbitrary. Washington is a large cabal--mebbe a caldron--of very influential people serving themselves...if the citizens get a crumb, well lucky them. Mebbe we ought to just get ride of the whole mess and just elect people by who they are and what they do than by the party they represent....
They're...bastages...ever last stinkin' one of 'em....!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auricauricle
GM: I agree with you on the point made that Reps and Dems are equally culpable. Way I see it, the schisms between the parties are arbitrary. Washington is a large cabal--mebbe a caldron--of very influential people serving themselves...if the citizens get a crumb, well lucky them. Mebbe we ought to just get ride of the whole mess and just elect people by who they are and what they do than by the party they represent....
They're...bastages...ever last stinkin' one of 'em....!
Oh great. Now I've got to go Google some of the words you used to figure out what you're saying.
:eek6: :eek6:
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
It's too bad that politicians personal lives are such a big consideration in U.S. politics. It's much less of a issue in other parts of the world. In France, I'm told, it wouldn't be a big deal if the president has a mistress, or whether his daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. If Clinton is criticized for lying about a blowjob under his desk,
Its not so much about getting a blowjob under your desk as where and who. If one is the leader of a country and your having this blowjob in the Oval office of the united states, well Its like the Archibishop of Canterbury getting a blowjob behind the Altar at Westminster Abbey.
The Oval office is the heart of the Whitehouse, and Bill Clinton mocked the his office in doing this. Moral leadership? ha, my foot,
I like Barrack Obama, but do feel that he lacks the experience as compared to McCain, which he has wisely addressed in his appointment of Senator Biden. I have been leainig towards McCain, until his ridiculous choice for running mate. His choice of VP, which, given his health and age could very well mean the next President of the most powerful and influential country in a very unstable volatile world, is proposterous. As far as a woman in this office, there are any number of women who could do a MUCH better job than Sarah Palin.
That decision by John McCain has made my mind up to vote for Obama and Biden:10:
-
Lessee....How am I goin' to compare B. Clinton, who lied about a BJ and Bush and the Gang, who either lied about WMD or failed to confirm their existence, the need to bomb Iraq into the Stone Age, kicked out the Geneva Convention, told the United Nations to kiss his ass, told the Kyoto Accords to funk off, supported a war strategy that advocated a ground policy that experienced military thinkers thought was a joke, and for setting the moral compass of the nation back to 3,000,000 BCE, hmmm.....
But who am I to wave flags and get a hoppity?
Get me a beer!!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
If Clinton is criticized for lying about a blowjob under his desk, let's remember that he lied because he thought the public would make a big deal out of it.
uuuhhhhh.....
[sarcasm]gee, I guess I never looked at it that way[/sarcasm]
:sosp:
-
We agree ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
...
I like Barrack Obama, but do feel that he lacks the experience as compared to McCain, which he has wisely addressed in his appointment of Senator Biden. I have been leainig towards McCain, until his ridiculous choice for running mate. His choice of VP, which, given his health and age could very well mean the next President of the most powerful and influential country in a very unstable volatile world, is proposterous. As far as a woman in this office, there are any number of women who could do a MUCH better job than Sarah Palin.
That decision by John McCain has made my mind up to vote for Obama and Biden:10:
... at least, about the ridiculousness of the choice of Sarah Palin for VP. To me it seems like an insult to the intelligence of Americn voters.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auricauricle
Lessee....How am I goin' to compare B. Clinton, who lied about a BJ and Bush and the Gang, who either lied about WMD or failed to confirm their existence, the need to bomb Iraq into the Stone Age, kicked out the Geneva Convention, told the United Nations to kiss his ass, told the Kyoto Accords to funk off, supported a war strategy that advocated a ground policy that experienced military thinkers thought was a joke, and for setting the moral compass of the nation back to 3,000,000 BCE, hmmm.....
But who am I to wave flags and get a hoppity?
Get me a beer!!!
It's really funny what the public will accept...
Bill Clinton lies about getting a BJ in the oval office and people wanted him impeached and still hate him to this day... George Bush and his gang, lie about weapons of mass destruction and the "link" between Iraq and terrorists in order to settle a grudge with Sadam Hussein, and yet no one seriously tried to impeach Bush... hell, the public even gave the man another 4 years in office...
So its OK for the president to throw away the lives of thousands of American troops and Iraqi citizens and leave America in economic crisis BUT its totally unacceptable for the president to have sexual activity in his office??? Ummm yeah :sosp:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auricauricle
Lessee....How am I goin' to compare B. Clinton, who lied about a BJ and Bush and the Gang, who either lied about WMD or failed to confirm their existence, the need to bomb Iraq into the Stone Age, kicked out the Geneva Convention, told the United Nations to kiss his ass, told the Kyoto Accords to funk off, supported a war strategy that advocated a ground policy that experienced military thinkers thought was a joke, and for setting the moral compass of the nation back to 3,000,000 BCE, hmmm.....
I don't know about the moral compass thing, but you're not wrong about Bush. This why I won'r vote for him. What Clinton did wasn't as egregious as starting a war, but the BJ thing is just the tip of the iceberg for his two terms in office; it just so happens that its funny, so it keeps getting brought up. Both of our last two presidents are great examples of what kind of person wants to run for the office, and what they're willing to do to get there. I won't vote for Obama either.
-
Okay, it's Friday. Time to stop talking politics and start talking about BEER!
Where's JSE???
-
If we drink enough beer, maybe Sarah Palin will start to look hot.
There. I managed to stay on topic.
-
Take those silly glasses off and Sarah would look hot beer or no beer. And I'll tell ya what else, Cindy McCain ain't bad looking for some one her age (don't know how old she is but nevertheless...) either. :yesnod:
And no BOT for me!
(BOT in this case stands for Back On Topic)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
Its not so much about getting a blowjob under your desk as where and who. If one is the leader of a country and your having this blowjob in the Oval office of the united states, well Its like the Archibishop of Canterbury getting a blowjob behind the Altar at Westminster Abbey.
Doesn't he already get them from the Alter boys behind the alter?
I'm actually going to Canterbury in three weeks.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
Doesn't he already get them from the Alter boys behind the alter?
No. That priveledge is reserved for Catholic priests only.
-
I'm proud t'say our boys are right 'n' honorable....Ain't that right Jim an' Tammy Fae?
Open the cooler an' get me a col' one....I'm feelin' warmish aroun' this-a-here collar...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
... at least, about the ridiculousness of the choice of Sarah Palin for VP. To me it seems like an insult to the intelligence of Americn voters.
Why, because she has about as much experience as a Junior Senator? Essentially she is as qualified as the top of the Democratic Party's ticket.
I don't remember anybody bringing "executive" or "legislative experience" up when Ross Perot ran. Oh yeah, he has a penis...and was old...and connected within the existing powerstructure.
Interesting too how some make only slightly more eloquent versions of the ill-received argument P-Diddy espouses up yonder in Rave Recs.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
Interesting too how some make only slightly more eloquent versions of the ill-received argument P-Diddy espouses up yonder in Rave Recs.
No no. Dually noted. I'll be there shortly... :ihih:
-
Well, 'Sticks
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
Why, because she has about as much experience as a Junior Senator? Essentially she is as qualified as the top of the Democratic Party's ticket.
I don't remember anybody bringing "executive" or "legislative experience" up when Ross Perot ran. Oh yeah, he has a penis...and was old...and connected within the existing powerstructure.
Interesting too how some make only slightly more eloquent versions of the ill-received argument P-Diddy espouses up yonder in Rave Recs.
What can I say? I was originally routing for Hillary.
In any case for me Palin is disqualified by her attitudes, any other criticism is just a bonus. However I dare say that 3 years as a senator is actually better experience for President than a 1.5 years as governor of a minor state.
-
I will just ask my GOP friends to put the kool-aid and talking points down for just a second and honestly ask yourself if the shoe was on the other foot and someone with her experience were on the Dem ticket if you all would not be howling with laughter.
I will agree that being governor of some states, such as California or New York, could provide the type of experience that is being pushed forward by the GOP spinners. Alaska is not one of those states that I would put in that category. With under 700,000 people it is smaller in size than many congressional districts, is running a budget surplus due to oil revenues (while governors of most states are trying to manage real spending cuts due to unfunded federal mandates and the down economy) and deals with a legislature controlled by her party. Taken as a whole the "executive" experience being touted is a stretch to say the least. Alaska politics and Palin's limited experience in it, is not the forge needed to temper someone to be a heart beat away from the Oval office.
|