Lying politicians

  • News
  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
  • #1
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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,947
8,983
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 argument 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.
 
  • #3
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 [Broken]

Those don't matter, of course, because he didn't cheat on his wife?!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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!
 
  • #6
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?
 
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
21,947
8,983
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.
 
  • #8
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
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...:wink:
All this attention is truly 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
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.
 
  • #10
kat
39
0
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.
 
  • #11
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? :wink:
 
  • #12
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?
 
  • #13
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. :wink:

i meant in reference to Bush though.:wink:
 
  • #14
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
 
  • #15
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?!
 
  • #16
Tell me something,

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?
 
  • #17
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
 
  • #18
kat
39
0
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..:wink:
as long as you turn dishonest politicing into a partisian argument..you allow them to continue.
 
  • #19
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..:wink:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Sting
157
2
"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.
 
  • #21
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 preferred methods, their own particular lies.
 
  • #22
well personally; i don't think we have had a really good president sense Nixon.
 
  • #23
kat
39
0
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.
 
  • #24
Sting
157
2
Absolutely. It may become necessary to mention political parties, because they each have their own preferred 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.
 
  • #25
Absolutely. It may become necessary to mention political parties, because they each have their own preferred 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?
 
  • #26
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.
 
  • #27
kat
39
0
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.
 
  • #28
Kat, I did mention the lie that Clinton was a liberal, didn't I?
 
  • #29
well Clinton was liberal, with his ethics anyway.
 
  • #30
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
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" ?
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...:wink:
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.
 
  • #31
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.
 
  • #32
kat
39
0
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?
 
  • #33
are you trying to justify the situation with moral relativity kat?
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
kat
39
0
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 irrelevant 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? "
 

Suggested for: Lying politicians

Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
71
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
975
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
2K
Top