View Full Version : Lying politicians
Hmmmm....
We all know that politicians lie. Do the types and level of lying matter, or is party affiliation more important. Are Clinton's sexual escapades more or less important than Bush's evasion about his lost time(desertion?) from the Air National Guard? Do we blast Gore for claiming to have 'Invented the Internet', or do we blast the political strategists who made up that story?
russ_watters
Apr1-03, 01:39 PM
Do the types and level of lying matter, or is party affiliation more important Wow, holy loaded question, batman. Types matter and party does not. Clinton's lie matters for several reasons:
1. It was under oath.
2. It was about direct dereliction of duty.
3. It was about something bad enough to get any CEO in the country both fired and sued.
4. It was something illegal under the UCMJ, which the president SHOULD be held to since he's CINC (I realize he is not held to it though).
For Bush and the National Guard, I haven't heard a compelling arguement that he in fact deserted.
Do we blast Gore for claiming to have 'Invented the Internet', or do we blast the political strategists who made up that story? Neither. We LAUGH at Gore for not understanding what he was saying.
And why was Clinton even asked questions about his sex life, while Bush's possible cocaine conviction, desertion, and shady business practices were glossed over by the 'liberal' media, while focusing on Gore's personality 'flaws'?
Politicians lie...Bush lies more substantially, about actual issues...Clinton didn't feel like talking about his sex life, big difference.
Some Bush lies(there are probably thousands)
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
Those don't matter, of course, because he didn't cheat on his wife?!?
It was about something bad enough to get any CEO in the country both fired and sued.Whoa.... what? Cmon, what percentage of CEOs do you suppose are actually faithful? Snide comments on the golf course, maybe, but not fired...
IMO I would rank the importance as follows:
1) Deliberate lies/deception about important, illegal government actions or policy: for example, Nixon & Watergate, Reagan & Iran-Contra, the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco.
2) Deliberate lies/deception about controversial government actions/policy: eg Bush's claims of budget surpluses early on.
3) (much lower) Lies/deception about a politican's personal public life - military service, draft-dodging, etc.
4) Lies/deception about a politicans's personal private life - "I did not inhale," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," etc.
Nicool003
Apr1-03, 03:28 PM
Are Clinton's sexual escapades more or less important than Bush's evasion about his lost time(desertion?) from the Air National Guard?
Oh please. Bush's EVASION. Evasion isn't straight out LYING to your country. and besides. President Bush hasn't DESERTED us! Not like a certain BILL CLINTON who ran up to canada to avoid getting caught up in the draft!
1. It was under oath.
EXACTLY! one of the most important points to remember along with him saying this too the whole country.
And why was Clinton even asked questions about his sex life, while Bush's possible cocaine conviction, desertion, and shady business practices were glossed over by the 'liberal' media, while focusing on Gore's personality 'flaws'?
Because he is the president and was cheating on his wife that's why! Second you say POSSIBLE cocaine conviction. You have no proof that it actually happened and also how about GORE being an alcholic at one point? "Shady Business practices?" Oh my god. Bill clinton sold secrets to the chinese and many of our enemies including military secrets!
Originally posted by Nicool003
EXACTLY! one of the most important points to remember along with him saying this too the whole country.
but the basic old "Oath of Office" doesn't hold any weight eh?
russ_watters
Apr1-03, 04:31 PM
And why was Clinton even asked questions about his sex life, while Bush's possible cocaine conviction, desertion, and shady business practices were glossed over by the 'liberal' media, while focusing on Gore's personality 'flaws'? Zero that wasn't my perception at all. I saw lots of people asking about Bush's possible cocaine usage and business practices. The desertion thing is relatively new.
Whoa.... what? Cmon, what percentage of CEOs do you suppose are actually faithful? Snide comments on the golf course, maybe, but not fired... No, damgo. You miss the point. Sex with an intern or other subordinate in your office will get you fired every time. Adultery is not the issue there. Sexual harassment is such a touchy issue companies don't mess with it any more. The APPEARANCE of impropriety is enough for them to tell you not to bother coming in today - we'll mail you your personal items from your desk.
Greetings !
Originally posted by russ_watters
Wow, holy loaded question, batman. Types matter and party does not. Clinton's lie matters for several reasons:
1. It was under oath.
2. It was about direct dereliction of duty.
3. It was about something bad enough to get any CEO in the country both fired and sued.
4. It was something illegal under the UCMJ, which the president SHOULD be held to since he's CINC (I realize he is not held to it though).
It was a sexual act for cryin' out loud !
So what ?!
So, Clinton was a great politician and president,
he is known and respected in most parts of the
world. Everyone's human, in fact, you'd expect
a great leader to be popular among the ladies...[;)]
All this attention is truely pathetic. Like the
British reading royal gossip on the fisrt front
pages of the newspaper.
Then again, maybe it's better to have such crap
as your main news rather than see the more
"fitting" for such role pictures of war.
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by russ_watters
No, damgo. You miss the point. Sex with an intern or other subordinate in your office will get you fired every time. Adultery is not the issue there. Sexual harassment is such a touchy issue companies don't mess with it any more. The APPEARANCE of impropriety is enough for them to tell you not to bother coming in today - we'll mail you your personal items from your desk.
na it usually just leads to back scratching or payoffs, only when it gets really heated does it lead to getting fired.
I think this is a great example of one reason why politicians get away with lying....
It always leads to nothing but partisan bickering and one upmanship.
Nicool003
Apr1-03, 10:09 PM
but the basic old "Oath of Office" doesn't hold any weight eh?
Did you even read my post or are you trying to cause trouble? I quoted Russ saying how he was under oath and that DOES include oath of office. He was under that oath until he left office. I said russ was right and merely added he lied to the whole country.
So, Clinton was a great politician and president,
Riiiiggghhhttt......... so what planet did you say you're from? [;)]
I notice that the ONLY lie you all talk about is the one about Clinton's personal life...why is that more interesting than asking about lies about policy?
Originally posted by Nicool003
Did you even read my post or are you trying to cause trouble? I quoted Russ saying how he was under oath and that DOES include oath of office. He was under that oath until he left office. I said russ was right and merely added he lied to the whole country. [;)]
i meant in reference to Bush though.[;)]
Nicool003
Apr2-03, 03:54 PM
Give me true straight proof that bush has lied to us. That doesn't come from a Decocratically run station! which eliminates ABC and NBC
Nicool003
Apr2-03, 04:00 PM
I notice that the ONLY lie you all talk about is the one about Clinton's personal life...why is that more interesting than asking about lies about policy?
Clinton had a policy with so many crazy twists it hurts my head to even think about it. And Bush has not lied about policy The website you gave is run strictly by democrats. I truly hope that since the republics have finally regained the majority in the senate so we don't have to put up with more ALL DEMOCRATIC crap that they shut down or change some of the democrats lying websites.
Do we blast Gore for claiming to have 'Invented the Internet', or do we blast the political strategists who made up that story?
Oh please Gore is an idiot if any politcal strategist said that I would be surprised. Like anyone believed him?!
let me know if this is wrong. ->NBC - owned by Disney(republican) , CBS - owned by GE(republican) , ABC - owned by ?(I don't remember)(Likely republican also) anyone?
Nicool003
Apr2-03, 04:18 PM
Please you're suggesting THEM republican? No. If they were republican owned then the owner has either had their powers robbed from them or you are dead wrong. Watch those programs! They are almost all anti republican. Fox is an equal balance of republicans and democrats and you guys complain about them all the time. I never here anything about NBC or ABC or CBS. They cut parts out of interviews. And NBC or ABC (cant remember which) didn't even play one of president Bushes speeches. So republican owned? DOUBT IT
Originally posted by Zero
I notice that the ONLY lie you all talk about is the one about Clinton's personal life...why is that more interesting than asking about lies about policy?
I don't either, why do people people concentrate on the lies in reference to the lewinsky scandal when there were so many more?
For instance, Clinton said: "I expect to review our arms sales policy and to take it up with the other major arms sellers of the world as a part of a long-term effort to reduce the proliferation of weapons."
But instead, while he was at the helm, arm sales more then doubled.
There were many more lies..I could go on..but I think it's absolutely stupid to go partisan on this. Divide and conquer..[;)]
as long as you turn dishonest politicing into a partisian argument..you allow them to continue.
Originally posted by kat
I don't either, why do people people concentrate on the lies in reference to the lewinsky scandal when there were so many more?
For instance, Clinton said: "I expect to review our arms sales policy and to take it up with the other major arms sellers of the world as a part of a long-term effort to reduce the proliferation of weapons."
But instead, while he was at the helm, arm sales more then doubled.
There were many more lies..I could go on..but I think it's absolutely stupid to go partisan on this. Divide and conquer..[;)]
as long as you turn dishonest politicing into a partisian argument..you allow them to continue.
Yeah, like when everyone(including Clinton) lied and said that Clinton was liberal? I think both parties lie, in different ways. The Republicans lie constantly about Democrats to give the impression that the far Right is a centrist point of view. Th e Democrats lie by saying they are liberal, while only being Republican-lite.
"Politics is the game of scoundrals"
- Oscar Wilde
This thread started off with the attempt to discuss the nature of politicians and it has become that along with accusations of "your president did that" or "your president did this".
My modest suggestion: Let's not try to focus on particular individuals or parties but, as the topic suggests, the nature of politicians.
Originally posted by Sting
"Politics is the game of scoundrals"
- Oscar Wilde
This thread started off with the attempt to discuss the nature of politicians and it has become that along with accusations of "your president did that" or "your president did this".
My modest suggestion: Let's not try to focus on particular individuals or parties but, as the topic suggests, the nature of politicians.
Absolutely. It may become necessary to mention political parties, because they each have their own prefered methods, their own particular lies.
well personally; i don't think we have had a really good president sense Nixon.
[:D]
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, like when everyone(including Clinton) lied and said that Clinton was liberal? I think both parties lie, in different ways. The Republicans lie constantly about Democrats to give the impression that the far Right is a centrist point of view. Th e Democrats lie by saying they are liberal, while only being Republican-lite. I'm more concerned with how they each lie to us, then how they lie about each other..except in how their lying about each other confuses and creates diversions to my main concern..as stated above.
Absolutely. It may become necessary to mention political parties, because they each have their own prefered methods, their own particular lies.
Sure, I understand what you are trying to get at (and I wasn't expecting anybody to actually pay attention to my suggestion).
My only suggested solution is to keep the discussion pertaining to particular parties to a minimum.
Nicool003
Apr6-03, 11:11 AM
Absolutely. It may become necessary to mention political parties, because they each have their own prefered methods, their own particular lies.
Oh please zero. Look how you started the topic! Making comments about Bush and if clintons down right lying to the country under oath was more or less important about Bush POSSIBLY doing things and about EVASION which is different from lying by the way.
We all know that politicians lie. Do the types and level of lying matter, or is party affiliation more important. Are Clinton's sexual escapades more or less important than Bush's evasion about his lost time(desertion?) from the Air National Guard? Do we blast Gore for claiming to have 'Invented the Internet', or do we blast the political strategists who made up that story?
Oh, please, Nicool003, you think Clinton's personal life is more important than Cheney's illegal activities with the energy companies, or his dealings with Saddam Hussien, or any of the countless un-American acts of the current cabal occupying the White House.
The two of you do realize that if a graph covering large money contributions and business interest against beneficial acts towards those companies (and there was one somewhere, I'll see if I can hunt it up) during the Clinton and Bush admin. the only difference was that one gave slightly more for a slightly lower payoff? or that a comparision of lies for all of the past presidents is absolutely, embarrasingly across the party lines? It's like comparing..apples..and well..apples.
Kat, I did mention the lie that Clinton was a liberal, didn't I?
well Clinton was liberal, with his ethics anyway. [:D]
Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, please, Nicool003, you think Clinton's personal life is more important than Cheney's illegal activities with the energy companies, or his dealings with Saddam Hussien, or any of the countless un-American acts of the current cabal occupying the White House.
"Un-American" ? [:D]
No offense Zero, but you clearly have no idea
whatsoever of how the world really works -
or to be more "accurate" you're playing the
innocent too much...[;)]
And, since there's no way you can possibly not
know history - you also appear to ignore it too.
The only reason that we have come to hear of much of
this stuff is because the cold world ended and things
get more "open" all over the world. The US and
indeed any powerful country, not mentioning a
super-power in this case, can not exist in the
REAL world without some "Un-American", as you called it,
stuff involved.
In recent years however, I believe the US "Un-American"
acts level is very small and low by comparisson to
the past and much of it has positive purposes,
while it appears to have decreased much less in
France, for example. Also, after 9/11, there are
many relevant acts that are no more "Un-American"
to the majority in the US. (Now it is OK to shoot
a missile at a terrorist - finally !)
Live long and prosper.
Clinton was a political moderate, which brings up a few lies about him, and Bush, seeing as how Bush was blasted for continuing certain programs started by Clinton.
As far as this administration's anti-American behavior....of course they use the WTC attack to justify anything, but it is certainly traitorous to let them.
Originally posted by Zero
Kat, I did mention the lie that Clinton was a liberal, didn't I?
Lol, Zero..which president do you consider a true liberal that didn't lie?
I don't really remember specifics about Carter, I suppose I should some day delve into his presidency..I do remember that he wasn't a particularly good president, even if he was very intelligent and maybe even a good man..but other then him I don't know of one that did not have something shadey going on. Do you?
are you trying to justify the situation with moral relativity kat?
Originally posted by kat
Lol, Zero..which president do you consider a true liberal that didn't lie?
I don't really remember specifics about Carter, I suppose I should some day delve into his presidency..I do remember that he wasn't a particularly good president, even if he was very intelligent and maybe even a good man..but other then him I don't know of one that did not have something shadey going on. Do you?
Carter was...better than people say, but faced with tough decisions. He has found his true calling post-presidency. Of course, the current pack of ultra-right wing hacks is degrading him publicly, for daring to speak against their messiah, Bush. When someone wins a Nobel Prize, you should maybe respect the man, if not his views.
Gore isn't that bad at all, actually, since most of what I heard about him was lies and stories blown way out of proportion.
Originally posted by Zero
Carter was...better than people say, but faced with tough decisions. He has found his true calling post-presidency. Of course, the current pack of ultra-right wing hacks is degrading him publicly, for daring to speak against their messiah, Bush. When someone wins a Nobel Prize, you should maybe respect the man, if not his views.
Gore isn't that bad at all, actually, since most of what I heard about him was lies and stories blown way out of proportion.
Well, I don't really care to judge by what people say, I'll judge on my research when I get time to do it. I only meant that my remembrances of his presidency were that he was a bit wishy washy and maybe not as effective as he could have been..but I wasn't so old then either so my memory may reflect that of the adults in my life more so then a factual basis.
As for the Nobel prize, I respect Carter for what he has done that I am familiar with..but not because of the Nobel Prize..Arafat won the peace prize as well, and well I'm sorry..I cannot give him my respect.
As for Gore, I don't think he was a bad man..but his honesty as a president can not be proven or disproven as he has not reached that office. So to me it's irrelevent to my questions, of which you really haven't answered, so I will repeat, if you don't mind.
"which president do you consider a true liberal that didn't lie?"
" but other then him I don't know of one that did not have something shadey going on. Do you? "
Originally posted by kyleb
are you trying to justify the situation with moral relativity kat? Not a chance.
Hey, Kat, The last 'liberal' president was Kennedy, I'm sure. Politicians aren't ever truely liberal.
A little off topic, but just to note about the nature of politicians...
I was at a dinner party one night a few months ago and there was this politician who was currently running against an incumbent (party affiliation purposely withheld). This guy picked up my baby nephew and was just holding him with absolute interest. When notifying him that we lived in a different voting district and there was no recent gerrymandering, he hands the baby back and "well gotta go."
Politics is such a dirty game [:)]
This is why I avoided becoming a political science major and going into politics because of the whole "going on campaign to shake babies and kiss hands" thing.
oops, missed your post kyleb. I think if you glance back through this thread and read my previous post you'll see that I've previously made my point.
Nicool003
Apr9-03, 09:38 PM
Oh, please, Nicool003, you think Clinton's personal life is more important than Cheney's illegal activities with the energy companies, or his dealings with Saddam Hussien, or any of the countless un-American acts of the current cabal occupying the White House.
Dealings with Saddam Hussien?! Cheney?! Give me proof that isn't from Clinton or Al Gore!
And no I take into consideration BILL CLINTON dealing with Chinese and Russian military (HE GAVE THEM MILITARY SECRETS FOR PETES SAKES)
and his immature scum deliberately destroyed thousands of dollars of furniture and white house property before they moved out and PRESIDENT Bush moved in.
Originally posted by kat
oops, missed your post kyleb. I think if you glance back through this thread and read my previous post you'll see that I've previously made my point.
well i have been reading along but that bit about Carter is what struck me off guard, it seemed like you were saying that what Bush is doing now is justfied somehow by what Carter did back then.
Nicool, I don't know about Cheney, but Rumsfeld was Special Envoy to Baghdad in 1984 (date?) or around then. At that point, the US was actively supported in Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war: selling them arms, providing them with intelligence, offering them US Navy protection, and 'reflagging' their tankers (putting US flags on them so Iranian ships could not sink them.)
Iraq had started the war against Iran, to seize the valuable land on Iran's side of the Shatt al Arab river -- just as it later started a war to seize Kuwait -- and by that time, Iraq had begun using chemical weapons against Iran, mainly against Pasdaran "human wave" assaults. At this time, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad, instructing Saddam on the finer points of killing Iranians. Take a look (sorry I couldn't find a better pic): http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~alis/rumsfeldnsaddam.jpg
There are plenty of recent articles about this if you do a Google news search.
Originally posted by Nicool003
Dealings with Saddam Hussien?! Cheney?! Give me proof that isn't from Clinton or Al Gore!
And no I take into consideration BILL CLINTON dealing with Chinese and Russian military (HE GAVE THEM MILITARY SECRETS FOR PETES SAKES)
and his immature scum deliberately destroyed thousands of dollars of furniture and white house property before they moved out and PRESIDENT Bush moved in.
Just because you don't like facts, it doesn't make them go away...and you should stop ranting, you would come across much better if you turned the volume down, ok?
And if you still believe the lie about Clinton vandalizing the White House, you won't be able to keep up with political reality, now will you?
russ_watters
Apr10-03, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Zero
And if you still believe the lie about Clinton vandalizing the White House, you won't be able to keep up with political reality, now will you? Thats not a lie, Zero, its a tradition. Most presidents do it. Clinton just took it to the extreme.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats not a lie, Zero, its a tradition. Most presidents do it. Clinton just took it to the extreme.
The way it was reported was a lie. It was reported that he cleaned teh place out, and broke whatever he couldn't take. Some people reported it like he was stealing from the White House. There were plenty of retractions...on page 17.
Nicool003
Apr10-03, 06:57 PM
Just because you don't like facts, it doesn't make them go away...and you should stop ranting, you would come across much better if you turned the volume down, ok?
No I am not "ranting" for petes sakes I should probably just leave PF because almost EVERYONE that comes into the PaWa forum is a blasted democrat! You say "i can't accept the facts" what bull crap! You are the one that twists everything me, russ, alias, or one of the few other republicans, independents or FAIR PEOPLE that come here. You are the one that is Pro Bill clinton, the jerk that didn't do ANYTHING but since most Americans got lazy until 9/11 woke us up, that was just "FINE" because they didn't want anything to happen. Well thanks to his laziness we weren't ready for anything. Had another president won things would have faired much better. He brought down the military pay, cut people out of the military, gave secrets to the enemy... oh the list doesnt end. And by the way, I'm not a republican exactly, although since I have started looking at the PaWa forum and seen all the democratic Lies, I have started leaning that way.
lol Nicool003, you should stick around and learn something instead. you might be supervised to know that i am not a democrat by any means. i live in one of the most republican states in the country, and while i am not as right wing as most of the people here Kansas, i tend to prefer republican candidates in general. i am generally against authoritarianism but personally i am rather conservative; but it isn't about taking a side for me, it is standing up for what i belive is best for us all.
Nicool003
Apr10-03, 07:51 PM
lol Nicool003, you should stick around and learn something instead. you might be supervised to know that i am not a democrat by any means. i live in one of the most republican states in the country, and while i am not as right wing as most of the people here Kansas, i tend to prefer republican candidates in general. i am generally against authoritarianism but personally i am rather conservative; but it isn't about taking a side for me, it is standing up for what i belive is best for us all
I didn't say you were democrat. Although when we first met we didn't get along at all, that wasn't a political matter such as world affair. I never thought you were democrat.
Originally posted by Nicool003
No I am not "ranting" for petes sakes I should probably just leave PF because almost EVERYONE that comes into the PaWa forum is a blasted democrat! You say "i can't accept the facts" what bull crap! You are the one that twists everything me, russ, alias, or one of the few other republicans, independents or FAIR PEOPLE that come here. You are the one that is Pro Bill clinton, the jerk that didn't do ANYTHING but since most Americans got lazy until 9/11 woke us up, that was just "FINE" because they didn't want anything to happen. Well thanks to his laziness we weren't ready for anything. Had another president won things would have faired much better. He brought down the military pay, cut people out of the military, gave secrets to the enemy... oh the list doesnt end. And by the way, I'm not a republican exactly, although since I have started looking at the PaWa forum and seen all the democratic Lies, I have started leaning that way.
This isn't a rant? Calm down, and if you can't stay calm, take up fishing or something. It isn't my fault you are wrong. Very often wrong, if you think I 'support' any politician.
Nicool003
Apr12-03, 10:31 PM
This isn't a rant? Calm down, and if you can't stay calm, take up fishing or something.
Ha. That was no rant. It's called a well thought out and written post. And I hate fish.
It isn't my fault you are wrong. Very often wrong, if you think I 'support' any politician.
I am not wrong. You have not proven me wrong yet so sorry if you think you did. And you definetly support clinton. Read your posts.
Ganshauk
Apr12-03, 11:04 PM
Once again, class.
Its not what they say, but what they do.
More importantly, how has it affected you? Personally, I mean.
Originally posted by Ganshauk
Once again, class.
Its not what they say, but what they do.
More importantly, how has it affected you? Personally, I mean.
By your definition, Clinton was one of your better moderate Republican presidents. And, of course, much of Bush's policy-making that was blasted by the 'left' was simply continuation of Clinton policy.
Originally posted by Nicool003
I am not wrong. You have not proven me wrong yet so sorry if you think you did. And you definetly support clinton. Read your posts.
I think you make a mistake. Zero prefers Clinton over Bush. I agree with him. I would prefer most presidents over Bush. It's relative, really.
Originally posted by FZ+
I think you make a mistake. Zero prefers Clinton over Bush. I agree with him. I would prefer most presidents over Bush. It's relative, really.
Oh yeah, in the same way that I prefer Bush to a hot poker in the eye...it is all relative.
Originally posted by kyleb
well i have been reading along but that bit about Carter is what struck me off guard, it seemed like you were saying that what Bush is doing now is justfied somehow by what Carter did back then.
no, I only pointed out that I had no recollection of Carter lying and that, that did not mean he did not, only that I could not recall. Other then Carter I can't think of a president I don't recall lying.
In fact, other then Carter, I can't recall a president that I could not give a long list of lies and shadey dealings.
Therefor, this is not a partisan issue.
If it is not a partisan issue then..argueing it in a partisan manner prevents resolution.
Nicool003
Apr13-03, 11:10 AM
Clinton was one of your better moderate Republican presidents
Zero either you know nothing about clinton and defend him blindly or you missed that he was a big time DEMOCRAT
Nicool003, either know nothing about Clinton and accept labeling blindly or you missed that he acted like a republican. [:D]
Originally posted by Nicool003
Zero either you know nothing about clinton and defend him blindly or you missed that he was a big time DEMOCRAT
This is why I suggested in another thread to avoid generalizations. Policy-wise, Clinton was moderate leaning towards conservative in most cases. The comfortable lie is to believe that moderates are liberals, isn't it? That way, the conservative extremists can claim to be moderate themselves.
russ_watters
Apr14-03, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by kyleb
Nicool003, either know nothing about Clinton and accept labeling blindly or you missed that he acted like a republican. [:D] Yeah, most republicans want to cut the military, increase spending on social programs, and ignore foreign policy... [?]
If you guys think that Clinton was conservative, that pegs you WAAAAY left on the political spectrum.
Yeah, and most liberals studiously avoid using the word liberal, concentrate on the economy, maximise exploitation of the weak and poor....
If you think Clinton was liberal, that pegs you waaaayy right of the spectrum. [;)]
Nicool003
Apr14-03, 07:49 PM
Nicool003, either know nothing about Clinton and accept labeling blindly or you missed that he acted like a republican.
How did he act republican? If he acted republican the democrats wouldn't have made him their candidate first off. Second off Kyleb since when did you pay attention? Most of your posts are either insulting, or simple yes or no's or "i'm not sure" or
i think your wrong. Back to clinton. He and Gore are definetly democrat in nature. Oh and both are liars. For instance Clinton said if there was no age limit he would get in the trenches and fight with our troops. What bull crap the wimp ran to canada to escape the draft! Oh and like zero started the topic with; Gores inventing the internet was SOOOO pitiful. Also, they both stood for democratic things when they ran for president. Especially Gore. And before I read russ's post I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, most republicans want to cut the military, increase spending on social programs, and ignore foreign policy...
I mean come on Bill clinton totally broke down military! Yeah sure you see President Bush doing that.... Only democrats do such things.
Russ, you'll note I said the Clinton was MODERATE...the middle does exist, no matter how much some radicals on the Right like to pretend otherwise. Overall, Clinton was moderate, not liberal at all. And, heck, the military NEEDS to be cut, there's far and away too much pork involved. Of course, the liars in teh Republican party always tell teh 'small government' lie, while lining the pockets of contributors, and starting new and improved wasteful programs.
Oh, and Gore was instrumental in the creation of the Internet(along with Newt Gingrich), and NEVER claimed to have invented it...another Republican lie.
Originally posted by Nicool003
I mean come on Bill clinton totally broke down military! Yeah sure you see President Bush doing that.... Only democrats do such things.
The LIE is that Bush supports the military...he supports tons of pork, but he also supports cutting VA benefits, reducing wage increases, etc.
OK, a couple points: first, all of our recent presidents have avoided military service in one way or another. Clinton slipped out of the draft, and Bush's dad got a nice cushy Texas Air National Guard appointment thousands of miles from Nam. Decorated veterans such as McCain lost out.
Second, Clinton was a "New Democrat." This group, represented by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), is pretty damn centrist compared to old Democrats -- this is what I think Zero and others are referring to (right?). As the country becomes more conservative, it is becoming more and more the face of the Democratic Party.
Third, it's not fair to blame Clinton for "gutting" the military. He did commission the Bottom-Up Review, to determine how the military should be reorganized in light of the end of the Cold War. This led to two major recommendations: 1) a higher-tech, lighter, more mobile military for regional conflicts, and 2) cutting the number of heavy Army divisions and bases, esp those in Europe.
IMNSHO this only makes sense: it would be foolish not to seriously alter military spending in light of such a huge event as the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. The more mobile, rapidly-deployable forces emphasized since then have played a very important role in recent conflicts.
It's interesting to note that Rumsfeld's original big goal as Defense Secretary was to make the military even more light and flexible; a policy that brought him into conflict with many military elites -- just as it did Clinton.
russ_watters
Apr15-03, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Zero
Russ, you'll note I said the Clinton was MODERATE.... Oh, did you. Maybe I misread. I thought you said:Clinton was moderate leaning towards conservative in most cases. "...leaning towards conservative in most cases" is either bad grammar or a statement that Clinton was a moderate conservative.Oh, and Gore was instrumental in the creation of the Internet(along with Newt Gingrich), and NEVER claimed to have invented it...another Republican lie. Oh, c'mon Zero. As the mod of a forum on the internet, I know you must know a little about the history of the Internet. What specifically did Gore do? Did he fund CERN's invention of the World Wide Web? Did he fund Mosaic? Where was he in 1969 when the ARPANET went online? Gore supported ONE bill. I'm sure you know what that bill did. I know you know better than this. If not, HERE (http://www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/timeline/70s.html)is a great little timeline. Notice how much treatment Gore's bill gets. Also notice before Gore's bill there were already more than 1,000,000 hosts online.reducing wage increases, etc. Zero, the military doesn't have scheduled pay scale increases. So you can't reduce them. Under Bush there have been 2 increases in 2 years. That quite simply didn't happen during Clinton's term.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, the military doesn't have scheduled pay scale increases. So you can't reduce them. Under Bush there have been 2 increases in 2 years. That quite simply didn't happen during Clinton's term.
I'll get back to the 'Internet thingy' later...Daily Howler has much to say on the subject...
Military pay raises? Well, I should have said 'cost of living increases', which we got under Clinton, and the rate of which Bush voted to lower.
Nicool003
Apr16-03, 09:20 PM
The LIE is that Bush supports the military...he supports tons of pork, but he also supports cutting VA benefits, reducing wage increases, etc.
Hahaha!!!!!! That is so funny! Are you implying clinton ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THE MILITARY?!?!?! Bush supports it very much beliebve it or not he is repairing the damage your chimpanzee of a president did. And how did Gore even help with the internet? Give me proof that doesn't come from dirty gore or clinton hands. And I will have to make sure the source you give me is not democratic before I read it.
russ_watters
Apr16-03, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Nicool003
And how did Gore even help with the internet? Give me proof that doesn't come from dirty gore or clinton hands. And I will have to make sure the source you give me is not democratic before I read it. Gore's law funded internet access for schools and infrastructure (maybe a little research too, not sure). Its nice but it has nothing at all to do with the internet's creation. The enabling technologies happened over 40 years and in multiple countries.
Originally posted by Nicool003
And I will have to make sure the source you give me is not democratic before I read it.
You accept lies or nothing, huh?
russ_watters
Apr17-03, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Zero
You accept lies or nothing, huh? Lies, huh? Speaking of which, you never did get back to me on that Gore & the internet thing...
BTW, I don't accuse people of lying unless they cling to their mistakes (as per the thread on the subject). I believe you are just very often mistaken.
schwarzchildradius
Apr18-03, 04:28 AM
OK hey, our national energy policy was dictated (literally) by Harken energy, read it in the newspaper - the white house attempted to intervene in a court investigation about it, siting national security. I can't think of a single thing 43 has proposed that was NOT a lie, in some form or another. The right-wing press is a tremendous echo chamber for whatever national sellout the administration is unloading that day.
Despite public delusion, 43 was indeed absent without leave from his duty in the air national guard for a period of about 2 years. Yeah, it's expected to pump up the rhetoric during an election year, and then turn to your real buddies the polluters and hand them most of the national treasure, if you're a Bush.
The wierdest and maybe most desparate was the blatant fabrication of official Iraqi documents designed to lead the UN to believe that Iraq was persuing Nuclear weapons. The IAEA took one look and within a week rejected them as fakes and frauds.
Finally, how is Democracy to be spread by leaders who do not understand its first Principles?
Originally posted by russ_watters
Lies, huh? Speaking of which, you never did get back to me on that Gore & the internet thing...
BTW, I don't accuse people of lying unless they cling to their mistakes (as per the thread on the subject). I believe you are just very often mistaken.
Alias, you already told me you wouldn't believe anything I said on teh subject, so why bother?
For the record, here is what Gore actually said:
"Well, I will be offering - I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead."
H
ere Gore appears to have been caught off guard a bit by the question, rambling a bit as he seeks to vocalize a responsive answer(but he is clearer than Bush has often been, and been forgiven for). He emphasizes his work during his years in the Congress ,as well as his leadership on various issues. He mentions "initiative" three times; clearly his overall message is that he worked hard on a number of issues, and took a leadership position . The overall thrust is that Gore feels he has been instrumental in getting legislation pushed through that helped move the Internet to what it is today, not that he 'invented the Internet'.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
OK hey, our national energy policy was dictated (literally) by Harken energy, read it in the newspaper - the white house attempted to intervene in a court investigation about it, siting national security. I can't think of a single thing 43 has proposed that was NOT a lie, in some form or another. The right-wing press is a tremendous echo chamber for whatever national sellout the administration is unloading that day.
Despite public delusion, 43 was indeed absent without leave from his duty in the air national guard for a period of about 2 years. Yeah, it's expected to pump up the rhetoric during an election year, and then turn to your real buddies the polluters and hand them most of the national treasure, if you're a Bush.
The wierdest and maybe most desparate was the blatant fabrication of official Iraqi documents designed to lead the UN to believe that Iraq was persuing Nuclear weapons. The IAEA took one look and within a week rejected them as fakes and frauds.
Finally, how is Democracy to be spread by leaders who do not understand its first Principles?
The experts say one thing, the administration says another...and, as with their economic fiasco, if someone doesn't follow their lies, they are replaced.
russ_watters
Apr18-03, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
OK hey, our national energy policy was dictated (literally) by Harken energy, read it in the newspaper - the white house attempted to intervene in a court investigation about it, siting national security. That is not new, nor is it illegal.Here Gore appears to have been caught off guard a bit by the question, rambling a bit as he seeks to vocalize a responsive answer(but he is clearer than Bush has often been, and been forgiven for). He emphasizes his work during his years in the Congress ,as well as his leadership on various issues. He mentions "initiative" three times; clearly his overall message is that he worked hard on a number of issues, and took a leadership position . The overall thrust is that Gore feels he has been instrumental in getting legislation pushed through that helped move the Internet to what it is today, not that he 'invented the Internet'. Yes. I agree completely with your updated assessment.
Did I win some points? To be fair, neither side is ever reported on objectively, but the claims of 'liberal media bias' don't explain how people have been dragging around this 'Invented the internet' story without ever looking back on what he actually said. Irresponsible media, is what it is.
I don't really blame any person for believing a lie when it is so well-spread, so universal, and so darned catchy...Gore explained the misunderstanding by saying he had been tired...he was up late the night before inventing the camcorder.
russ_watters
Apr19-03, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Zero
Did I win some points? To be fair, neither side is ever reported on objectively, but the claims of 'liberal media bias' don't explain how people have been dragging around this 'Invented the internet' story without ever looking back on what he actually said. Irresponsible media, is what it is.
I don't really blame any person for believing a lie when it is so well-spread, so universal, and so darned catchy...Gore explained the misunderstanding by saying he had been tired...he was up late the night before inventing the camcorder. Well hey - even you believed it - and you brought it up. I knew what he said and I knew it wasn't a lie - he just said it because he's dumb.
Yeah, I guess you get some points. This falls into that "if you correct yourself, its not a lie" category.
schwarzchildradius
Apr22-03, 07:17 AM
"That is not new, nor is it illegal."
The NEW part is that the white house is interfering with the justice system that is investigating possible wrongdoings on the part of Harken. It IS illegal or more accurately, undemocratic (contraindicating our system of checks and balances... remember that from school-house rocks?) for the EXECUTIVE branch to interfere with the justice system.
The executive branch acts as if it is above the law. One of the First Principles of a Republic is that a Code of Laws exists, and is enforced, applicable to all citizens. When the Code of Law is not upheld by the government, the Republic ceases to exist, and must default to something like Monarchy.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well hey - even you believed it - and you brought it up. I knew what he said and I knew it wasn't a lie - he just said it because he's dumb.
Yeah, I guess you get some points. This falls into that "if you correct yourself, its not a lie" category.
So, if you agree that Gore didn't lie, what do you think of Bush and Co., and their intentional misrepresentation of Gore's comments for political gain?
russ_watters
Apr22-03, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Zero
So, if you agree that Gore didn't lie, what do you think of Bush and Co., and their intentional misrepresentation of Gore's comments for political gain? What misrepresentation? Gore is an idiot. That's all that quote shows.
Originally posted by russ_watters
What misrepresentation? Gore is an idiot. That's all that quote shows.
You see that he didn't claim to invent the Internet, I see it...so everyone else who spead that he DID claim to invent the Internet was a liar. That covers all of the media, with very few exception, and the Shrub crew took full advantage of a LIE.
Never mind, Russ, go back to the lies you tell yourself.
schwarzchildradius
Apr23-03, 05:34 AM
Gore probably did smoke a little too much pot during the college years... too bad. It may have injured his killer instinct or whatever. Somehow I remember some video of him saying "we took the initiative to... invent the internet" but clearly the internet was 'invented' by the pentagon in the '60's, the public side was pioneered by local 'BBS's' in the late 70's. What Gore said was goofy, but no major deception. More importantly his statement is relatively irelevant. I believe that you can determine the 'evil' of a lie by the damage it causes, and Gore's statement caused no damage except to himself.
russ_watters
Apr23-03, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Zero
You see that he didn't claim to invent the Internet, I see it...so everyone else who spead that he DID claim to invent the Internet was a liar. That covers all of the media, with very few exception, and the Shrub crew took full advantage of a LIE.
Never mind, Russ, go back to the lies you tell yourself. Zero, I didn't bring it up (you did), I didn't dwell on it during the election, and I didn't see the media or the republican party dwelling on it. Like I said, the reason it mattered to me was not that it was a lie, but that he was too dumb to know he was wrong - and thats all I saw the media and the republicans using it for. Whenever I saw it mentioned it was for a laugh. Thats it.
I don't think anyone (except you maybe - which could be why you are getting mad about it) really believed he invented the internet or believed he believed he invented the internet.
Since you admitted you were wrong about the meaning of what he said, you should also admit to being wrong about how other people USED what he said. The two are the same thing. Or were you tricked into believing it was a lie?
Its so ironic - you complain that others dwell on it when YOU brought it up. So the question is why do YOU dwell on it? You claim others are lying when YOU mis-interpreted it. I think you are lashing out to cover for (save face over) your own mistakes. With that you lose any points you earned by admitting your mistake.
Ugh, this is so pointless. You really shouldn't have brought it up.
And as a mentor, you really should rephrain from direct or even thinly veiled insults.
Nicool003
Apr23-03, 12:43 PM
You accept lies or nothing, huh?
That's a load of bull who told you that one? No I listen to the truth or nothing. Demiocratic lies and propoganda are lies and therefore are inn the NOTHING category. Bet you guys have missed me...wait till I come back from vacation[:D]
Originally posted by Nicool003
That's a load of bull who told you that one? No I listen to the truth or nothing. Demiocratic lies and propoganda are lies and therefore are inn the NOTHING category. Bet you guys have missed me...wait till I come back from vacation[:D]
But to say that, you have already made the assumption that whatever the democrats say must be a lie. You can't determine truth or lie by who says so. That is only a possibility of bias, not such an absolute measure. You don't determine to begin with x is true, and select evidence in that way. Unless you have an obscure definition of truth, you need to display contrary evidence with objectively greater credibility.
Thanks FZ+, that was exactly what I was going to say. If you are only going to accept as true what you already believe, even in the face of contrary evidence, why even bother posting, or reading, or anything at all?
Nicool003
May10-03, 08:36 PM
But to say that, you have already made the assumption that whatever the democrats say must be a lie.
that's a lie
[:D]
Haha but actually no I have not made that assumption. Some great presidents were democrats and I'd be behind them all the way. However the democratic party has not been chosing well candidate wise.
schwarzchildradius
May12-03, 01:45 AM
I think Nader was right, just not articulate enough to prove it. Both sides can be construed as being damaging to democracy - the democrats are allegedly not going along with the mandate of the people by blocking the republicans, yet the republicans definitely do not include the wishes of the people in their plans although they say that they do. The fact is that although high-minded, the purported goals of the republicans do not reflect reality (in almost every case!) while their actual goals remain 'secret.'
GWB senior was involved up to his neck in Watergate, he was in charge of Laundering money for Nixon, and later appointed to the CIA. He used Gestappo tactics against the media when running for president (and after he was president), pulling press releases to Newsweek when it ran a 'negative' story on him. During press conferences, 41 would make demagogic statements about the economy, telling flat lies that the nation was in a recovery when it was obviously in a deep depression with millions of lost jobs.
GWB senior's Stalinesque (probably closer to Slobo-esqu) media manipulation makes him the greatest lying politician in modern history. Subject to uncontrolled fits of anger because of a hyperactive thyroid condition, he often made irrational decisions. Luckily, competant military handlers prevented Gulf War from becoming a complete disaster (although the behavior of the US right after is nothing to brag about).
A Republican LYING?!?!? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!!!
*snickers*
Nicool003
May12-03, 08:07 PM
[QUOTE]A Republican LYING?!?!? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!!!
*snickers*QUOTE]
A SEX SCANDAL IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION?! CLINTON LYING UNDER OATH?!?!??! AL GORE LYING ABOUT INVENTING THE INTERNET?!?!
NOT THEDEMOCRATS! THEIR SO PERFECT IN EVERY WAY!
*Snickers*
hungry? grab a snickers[;)]
Hmmm...but, somehow, Bush's lying about EVERYTHING is less important than Clintons' lying about his personal life, repulsive though it may have been?
The point is, why do some people think that Bush is somehow Clinton's opposite?
*EDIT*
I even started a thread about how, instead of refuting the claims that some Republican is lying, some people skirt the issue by yelling 'Clinton' at the top of their lungs.
schwarzchildradius
May13-03, 06:49 AM
You're so wierd Nicool003. Why dont you have an argument?
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
You're so wierd Nicool003. Why dont you have an argument?
Is this a personal attack, or is this going somewhere?
Hmmmmm....or to make things even more general, to make a better point. Just because politician A is caught in a lie by politician B, it is no guarantee that B isn't also a liar.
schwarzchildradius
May13-03, 09:33 AM
How could that be construed as a personal attack? Nicool003 just simply doesn't seem to be taking a coherent viewpoint. A personal attack would be "~~~~ is an idiot!" or "~~~~ should leave!"
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
How could that be construed as a personal attack? Nicool003 just simply doesn't seem to be taking a coherent viewpoint. A personal attack would be "~~~~ is an idiot!" or "~~~~ should leave!"
Well, that is the strategy of the right-wing politicians and media, isn't it? Go on the counterattack whenever attacked, and hope that you simply drown out your opponents, instead of addressing an issue.
For instance, I've posted
this link (http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm) a few times, and no one has addressed any of teh points of it. We still don't know where Bush was for his missing year of draftdodging...I mean NG service. What about this other link (http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html) ? America spent years and millions of dollars to find out that Clinton was a lousy husband...can we spend a few minutes actually looking at the facts about Bush? (We can look up the word 'facts' if you like...you won't find them on Fox News.)
russ_watters
May13-03, 12:56 PM
Clearly nearly all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Bush is no exception. Integrity is important to me so its one of my criteria for voting. I voted for Bush as a lesser of two weevils - I didn't really like either him or Gore (I voted for McCain in the primary). But Bush has shown leadership and thats probably the most important characteristic right now (and its the reason his approval ratings are so high despite a lackluster economy).
Nicool003
May13-03, 01:20 PM
Hmmm...but, somehow, Bush's lying about EVERYTHING is less important than Clintons' lying about his personal life, repulsive though it may have been?
Bush hasn't luied about anything. Give me some real true proof that he lied. You say he EVADES some topics. That isnt lying! duh! Maybe he doesnt have answers or would like to think them through. And everything clinton did for us was bad. Breaking down the military giving away military secrets...things like that. His wife practically ran the administration, he just destroyed things.
You're so wierd Nicool003. Why dont you have an argument?
I have an argument was this post by zero an argument:
[QUOTE]A Republican LYING?!?!? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!!!
*snickers*QUOTE]
no it was a commmment so i did the same thing except for the democratic party. What are you a sore loser? And I have plenty arguments left in me.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Clearly nearly all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Bush is no exception. Integrity is important to me so its one of my criteria for voting. I voted for Bush as a lesser of two weevils - I didn't really like either him or Gore (I voted for McCain in the primary). But Bush has shown leadership and thats probably the most important characteristic right now (and its the reason his approval ratings are so high despite a lackluster economy).
I don't really think Bush has shown any real leadership. In fact, I'm sure there is someone right now writing a book about the almost insane brainwashing that has occured in America, that so long as teh man in charge shows teh symbols of leardership, and has teh right PR team, he doesn't have to do anything but stand there, and people will fill in the gaps for him. People are desperate for a leader, and teh media tells us that leader is Bush; therefore, most Americans believe Bush is a leader. Our general need, fed by fear, is the only reason people don't see him for the joke he is.
russ_watters
May13-03, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Zero
I don't really think Bush has shown any real leadership. There is no better way to get the respect of your troops than to mingle with them - for example by landing on a carrier and staying there for a night. The main purpose was probably publicity, but the action was still leadership at its purest.
Originally posted by russ_watters
There is no better way to get the respect of your troops than to mingle with them - for example by landing on a carrier and staying there for a night. The main purpose was probably publicity, but the action was still leadership at its purest.
Hmmmmm...that's a joke of leadership, and you should know it. We used to LAUGH at people like him.
schwarzchildradius
May14-03, 04:54 AM
If he's not lyin', then most economists are dead wrong abount the first principles of economics. This insane budget will simply destroy state infrastructure. Most states can't go into debt, and the Fed has a debt limit of about 600 Billion/yr, which we will soon exceed. My state has already raised taxes to cover the gap; a sales tax has been proposed as well as hiking the rates of auto registration. That's rediculous in a state of half a million people with lots of oil.
russ_watters
May14-03, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmmm...that's a joke of leadership, and you should know it. We used to LAUGH at people like him. Thats not the way it was on my ship.
Nicool003
May14-03, 08:13 PM
We still don't know where Bush was for his missing year of draftdodging...I mean NG service.
Your only saying that because we KNOW where your favorite president went. Bill Clinton RAN TO CANADA to avoid the draft. Then he gets in office and breaks down the military. And now he is out of office and he said in one interview "If there wasn't in age limit I would get in the trenches and fight with the troops" Huh yeah if the trenches were covered with 3 inches of bullet proof material and it had an escape root to china where his military friends are since they are happy about all our military information he gave them.
Nicool -- This is not a valid technique of debate. When I criticize X, and then you criticize Y, all you have claimed are X and Y are equally bad. So are Bush and Clinton *both* draft-dodgers?
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Originally posted by Nicool003
Your only saying that because we KNOW where your favorite president went. Bill Clinton RAN TO CANADA to avoid the draft. Then he gets in office and breaks down the military. And now he is out of office and he said in one interview "If there wasn't in age limit I would get in the trenches and fight with the troops" Huh yeah if the trenches were covered with 3 inches of bullet proof material and it had an escape root to china where his military friends are since they are happy about all our military information he gave them.
And this refutes what I said about Bush...how? Clinton avoided Vietnam, but so did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc...Gore went as a journalist, and has played down his involvement. Bush Sr. was an actual airman, I guess, and Kerry and McCain both served honorably, to my knowledge.
schwarzchildradius
May15-03, 11:02 AM
If there were a draft today, lots of people would avoid it. There are different ways of avoid it than dessertion.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
If there were a draft today, lots of people would avoid it. There are different ways of avoid it than dessertion.
Is this a hint about Bush's missing year from the military?
BTW, obviously Clinton didn't 'flee to Canada'...that's just a silly thing to say, don't you think?
schwarzchildradius
May15-03, 01:04 PM
He fled to Oxford and learned how to be a lawyer, as a Rhodes scholar.
Just a correction...Donald Rumsfeld was already a Navy veteran before Vietnam. Cheney, however, avoided the war through student deferments, just like Clinton. “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service,” said Cheney, and so did Clinton. You don't pass up being a Rhodes scholar for much.
The wierdest and maybe most desparate was the blatant fabrication of official Iraqi documents designed to lead the UN to believe that Iraq was persuing Nuclear weapons. The IAEA took one look and within a week rejected them as fakes and frauds.
Nicool, you haven't addressed this. If you want to say that they didn't in fact lie you could argue that they were simply too stupid to have the documents checked over for veracity.
Which is the scarier assumption?
And Bush's PR tactics are just amazing. His administration is obsessed with looking good.
And how about the sacking of the Baghad National Library and Museum? And Rumsfeld's flippant response--I can't remember it exactly, but it went something like 'oh, the TVs show the same vase being stolen 20 times.' Completely disregarding the fact that the pentagon was *repeatedly warned* about the necessity of protecting these two infrastructures containing 7000 years of history? I consider the loss of these artifacts to be one of the most devastating losses that could have been easily prevented if Bush had had the foresight to put just *one* tank. But apparently culture doesn't matter anymore. And the White House's statement that they didn't anticipate that the Iraqis would be looting their own buildings: patently untrue. Unless they want to claim ignorance to history. Same thing happened on a much less tragic scale during the Gulf War. There is precedent for it.
Where does your venom come from Nicool? Please construct a rational argument that has some semblance of a thesis, or at least a point. A point that is not, Bush rules, Clinton sucks. Even so called Democrats have reasons and arguments as to why they dislike Bush, which they can then put forth and debate with others who may have different points of view. IN A RATIONAL MANNER.
Originally posted by Adam
Politicians lie???
Only when their lips are moving...
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.