News Do Politicians' Lies Depend More on Their Party or the Lie Itself?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of political lying, questioning whether the type and severity of lies matter more than party affiliation. Participants debate the significance of various lies from politicians, notably comparing Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct under oath to George W. Bush's alleged evasion regarding his military service. The conversation touches on the media's portrayal of these issues, suggesting that Clinton's personal life received more scrutiny than Bush's potential drug use and military record. There is a consensus that lies about significant government actions are more critical than personal lies, yet opinions diverge on the implications of these lies and their impact on public perception. Some argue that the focus on personal scandals distracts from more serious political deceptions, while others emphasize the importance of accountability for personal misconduct. The dialogue reflects deep partisan divides, with accusations of bias in media coverage and differing views on the integrity of past presidents. Ultimately, the thread illustrates the complexities and contradictions in how political lies are perceived and judged across party lines.
  • #51
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 definately support clinton. Read your posts.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Once again, class.

Its not what they say, but what they do.

More importantly, how has it affected you? Personally, I mean.
 
  • #53
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.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Nicool003
I am not wrong. You have not proven me wrong yet so sorry if you think you did. And you definately 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.
 
  • #55
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.
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #57
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
 
  • #58
Nicool003, either know nothing about Clinton and accept labeling blindly or you missed that he acted like a republican.
 
  • #59
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.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by kyleb
Nicool003, either know nothing about Clinton and accept labeling blindly or you missed that he acted like a republican.
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.
 
  • #61
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. :wink:
 
  • #62
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 definately 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.
 
  • #63
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.
 
  • #64
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.
 
  • #65
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.
 
  • #66
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, HEREis 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
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.
 
  • #68
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.
 
  • #69
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.
 
  • #70
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?
 
  • #71
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.
 
  • #72
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?
 
  • #73
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'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
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.
 
  • #75
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.
 
  • #76
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.
 
  • #77
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.
 
  • #78
"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.
 
  • #79
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?
 
  • #80
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.
 
  • #81
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.
 
  • #82
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.
 
  • #83
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 that's 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
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
 
  • #85
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

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.
 
  • #86
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?
 
  • #87
But to say that, you have already made the assumption that whatever the democrats say must be a lie.


that's a lie





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.
 
  • #88
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).
 
  • #89
A Republican LYING? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!

*snickers*
 
  • #90
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:wink:
 
  • #91
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #92
You're so weird Nicool003. Why don't you have an argument?
 
  • #93
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
You're so weird Nicool003. Why don't you have an argument?

Is this a personal attack, or is this going somewhere?
 
  • #94
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.
 
  • #95
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!"
 
  • #96
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

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm ? 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.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
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 that's probably the most important characteristic right now (and its the reason his approval ratings are so high despite a lackluster economy).
 
  • #98
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 isn't lying! duh! Maybe he doesn't 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 weird Nicool003. Why don't you have an argument?


I have an argument was this post by zero an argument:


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.
 
  • #99
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 that's 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 occurred 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.
 
  • #100
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.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
6
Replies
293
Views
35K
News Why Do Politicians Get More Public Adoration Than Businesspeople?
Replies
17
Views
8K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Republican lies used to trick the public
4
Replies
150
Views
22K
News What's wrong with the Republican party?
2
Replies
68
Views
13K
News More Americans now call themselves Republicans than Democrats
Replies
16
Views
3K
News What if the states had more power and responsibility in governing?
Replies
45
Views
16K
News Is There Really a Difference Between Democrats and Republicans?
Replies
24
Views
5K
News Right Wing, Left Wing and world peace
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top