Wouldn't you trust him your bachelor party?Turquoise wrote:
For the most part, I agree with you. Carter pretty much proved that. I'm just saying Clinton is not someone I would trust on a personal level. I would trust him with most political decisions, but he's not the kind of person I'd want to hang out with (or leave my girlfriend alone with).sergeriver wrote:
His moral fiber? He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.FEOS wrote:
It's not his marriage in particular, but the nature of his character that was brought to light with his actions. Yes, he was a good president (I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth) but his moral fiber left much to be desired. It's been quite some time since we had a good mixture of the two.
OMG. You forgot to say appeasement man.lowing wrote:
Jimmy Carter started the quest to PUSSIFY America. It is damage that has carried forward to today's terrorist attacks. Read on.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2984
They are one in the same to me. Bush couldn't do what Bush did (and still does) without democratic Backing. Don't forget whose writing the checks now Turq. Shit, Clinton bombed Iraq just to get the attention off him and Manica Lewenski (As he was getting impeached). That's pretty Damn bad in my book.Turquoise wrote:
True enough... but again, which is worse? A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?Kmarion wrote:
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.Turquoise wrote:
Maybe... but it's hard to say whether that's better or worse than a president that only cares about his circle of corporate friends (Bush).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Should we have stood by while Muslims were being executed en masse then?Kmarion wrote:
They are one in the same to me. Bush couldn't do what Bush did (and still does) without democratic Backing. Don't forget whose writing the checks now Turq. Shit, Clinton bombed Iraq just to get the attention off him and Manica Lewenski (As he was getting impeached). That's pretty Damn bad in my book.Turquoise wrote:
True enough... but again, which is worse? A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?Kmarion wrote:
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.
That's politics.Kmarion wrote:
They are one in the same to me. Bush couldn't do what Bush did (and still does) without democratic Backing. Don't forget whose writing the checks now Turq. Shit, Clinton bombed Iraq just to get the attention off him and Manica Lewenski (As he was getting impeached). That's pretty Damn bad in my book.Turquoise wrote:
True enough... but again, which is worse? A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?Kmarion wrote:
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.
My discontent knows no party lines..lol .sergeriver wrote:
That's politics.Kmarion wrote:
They are one in the same to me. Bush couldn't do what Bush did (and still does) without democratic Backing. Don't forget whose writing the checks now Turq. Shit, Clinton bombed Iraq just to get the attention off him and Manica Lewenski (As he was getting impeached). That's pretty Damn bad in my book.Turquoise wrote:
True enough... but again, which is worse? A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Clinton dropped bombs because of Saddam's refusal to follow UN regulation.. so he said at least. My point is things are not always what they seem. Wagging the dog a bit me thinks.ATG wrote:
Should we have stood by while Muslims were being executed en masse then?Kmarion wrote:
They are one in the same to me. Bush couldn't do what Bush did (and still does) without democratic Backing. Don't forget whose writing the checks now Turq. Shit, Clinton bombed Iraq just to get the attention off him and Manica Lewenski (As he was getting impeached). That's pretty Damn bad in my book.Turquoise wrote:
True enough... but again, which is worse? A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ … ky_Scandal
Xbone Stormsurgezz
...but the question you have to ask yourself is.... Are the interests of the military industrial complex and multinational corporations the same as your personal interests? I generally find myself at odds with both groups.imortal wrote:
Well, I personally feel that if you elect a person to be the President of the United States, and by that I mean the leader of this (well, my) country, that president should take the priorities of the country he is running to be of the highest priority. Sorry to the rest of the world, but I want my leader to place my country above all the others.Turquoise wrote:
True enough... but again, which is worse? A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?Kmarion wrote:
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.
EDIT: That website is about as valid as moveon.org, lowing.
I am sure that, deep down, many of you would like your leaders to look after your nation's intrests as well. If you didn't, you could just adopt the UN as the rulers of your nations.
It's not in my best interests to have our country tied up with Iraq. It's not in my best interests to have tax policy geared toward benefitting companies that outsource their labor to mostly Third World countries.
You're wrong on one count. Between 2001 and 2006, Democrats played a very minor role in the federal government. It was one of the few times where one party has managed to run both houses and have the presidency. But yes, I would agree with you that Democrats are part of the problem currently. As far as Clinton is concerned, I've heard that Bosnia was a distraction for that purpose, but Iraq seemed different. It was still a bad idea, but the motivation was different.Kmarion wrote:
They are one in the same to me. Bush couldn't do what Bush did (and still does) without democratic Backing. Don't forget whose writing the checks now Turq. Shit, Clinton bombed Iraq just to get the attention off him and Manica Lewenski (As he was getting impeached). That's pretty Damn bad in my book.Turquoise wrote:
True enough... but again, which is worse? A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?Kmarion wrote:
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.
Even as a minority.. the majority of Dems voted for invasion. All the same, believe that . Two years now.. whats changed?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ok, I'll give you that one. As I've said before, one thing I strongly agree with Ron Paul on is foreign policy. We need more people in both parties with more of an isolationist streak.Kmarion wrote:
Even as a minority.. the majority of Dems voted for invasion. All the same, believe that . Two years now.. whats changed?
Ron Paul is not an isolationist.Turquoise wrote:
Ok, I'll give you that one. As I've said before, one thing I strongly agree with Ron Paul on is foreign policy. We need more people in both parties with more of an isolationist streak.Kmarion wrote:
Even as a minority.. the majority of Dems voted for invasion. All the same, believe that . Two years now.. whats changed?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
He practically is compared to all the other major players.
I only say that because Paul's words burned into my head here.Turquoise wrote:
He practically is compared to all the other major players.
PS: McCain was the worst debater by far on that stage. He is using the classic "We need to look very carefully at it" tactic to dodge the heat.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Touche.... Well, I guess I'm not a true isolationist either, but I'm certainly in favor of less intervention -- like Paul.
As is 99% of all true conservatives .Turquoise wrote:
Touche.... Well, I guess I'm not a true isolationist either, but I'm certainly in favor of less intervention -- like Paul.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yer right, Jimmy Carter was the biggest appeasing pussy of you all.sergeriver wrote:
OMG. You forgot to say appeasement man.lowing wrote:
Jimmy Carter started the quest to PUSSIFY America. It is damage that has carried forward to today's terrorist attacks. Read on.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2984
It's not really that he did what he did in the Oval...it's more that he lied about it under oath. If he wants to fuck around on his wife with pudgy interns, there are a lot of politicians who have done far worse. But he lied about it when questioned under oath. Regardless of whether it was appropriate to ask the question or not, he flaunted the law...felt he was above it or that it didn't apply to him. That is a far worse character trait than adultery.sergeriver wrote:
I DO think morality is important, I just don't think he wasn't that bad in that field. If he's real good at his job, let him have some fun. What a big deal.FEOS wrote:
I never said moral character means more than job performance, but I don't believe that it means any less, either.sergeriver wrote:
His moral fiber? He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.
So you're fine with having a craven, morally depraved person running your country, so long as they do a good job?
I'm not saying that Clinton was necessarily either of those things, but moral character DOES matter...no matter how much the Clintons tried to convince the rest of us that it doesn't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well, yeah, he lied, but he had the balls to admit he lied. GWB will never admit he lied to the American taxpayer about something a lot much worse than screwing an intern.FEOS wrote:
It's not really that he did what he did in the Oval...it's more that he lied about it under oath. If he wants to fuck around on his wife with pudgy interns, there are a lot of politicians who have done far worse. But he lied about it when questioned under oath. Regardless of whether it was appropriate to ask the question or not, he flaunted the law...felt he was above it or that it didn't apply to him. That is a far worse character trait than adultery.sergeriver wrote:
I DO think morality is important, I just don't think he wasn't that bad in that field. If he's real good at his job, let him have some fun. What a big deal.FEOS wrote:
I never said moral character means more than job performance, but I don't believe that it means any less, either.
So you're fine with having a craven, morally depraved person running your country, so long as they do a good job?
I'm not saying that Clinton was necessarily either of those things, but moral character DOES matter...no matter how much the Clintons tried to convince the rest of us that it doesn't.