2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

What Bush has done/is doing is not just disagreeable to the left for political reasons, it is morally repugnant. He has lied and defrauded; he has done his damnedest to cover up his awful "mistakes". Do we need once more to run down the list?

At which point the right chimes in, blow job, blow job. And for me (as I gather for many others) those particularly blow jobs were none of our business, politically or in any other way. Blow jobs are not immoral or repugnant UNLESS one is the peeping Tom, and then it is the peeping Tom who is immoral and repugnant. Congress made itself and all of us collaborator peeping Toms. That was what was disgusting. If I were looking for ways to blame Bill Clinton, I'd question elements of Nafta and a number of other political moves he made up front and in the open. Now those would be worth discussing. We have documentation. He informed the people. And he didn't make up reasons to send troops into danger. He didn't play fast and easy with what was once a surplus. He dealt with political problems -- and would have dealt with 9/11 -- out in the open, fully visible. Stepping into the kitchenette for sex was, ohmigosh, the worst thing he did? It insults our intelligence.

Bush, on the other hand, has taken every possible measure to hide his actual policies (vs. his promises) from the public -- even to the point of extending presidential secrecy by years. He has clearly separated himself from his constituents, has shown no sense of responsibility to voters. As each of his ghastly, costly mistakes has leaked out (in spite of his cover-ups and prevarications) the facts have spoken for themselves. Many -- many in this forum -- have chosen not to listen. They would rather blame the messengers. The press is too liberal; Democrats are traitors. How can one discuss this situation with them? Does one treat them as mentally deficient? As tender souls in denial? Or just as damn fools?

One can respect the political views; one should not tolerate lying and denial in defense of those views.

0 Replies

Tartarin, it is not the blowjob that was the issue, it was the lying about it. And I would submit that NAFTA, which was sold by Clinton as the key to US prosperity, is in large part responisible for the flight of American Business offshore. I would submit that Mr. Clinton's last-minute Presidential Pardons were egregiously partisan and self serving manipulations of a time-honored tradition. I would submit that Mr. Clinton's foreign policy encouraged and emboldened International Terrorism, while his weakening of our defense and intelligence establishment negatively impacted our ability to appropriately and proactively respond to the increased threats brought on by Clinton's mismanagement. I would submit that Mr. Clinton's dealings with North Korea and with Iran encouraged both to assume their current intransigence. I would submit that the economic policies of Mr. Clinton set the stage for the recent economic downturn. I would submit that the bulk of the excoriation, nasty tricks, denigration, context-skewing, misrepresentation, factual error,and name-calling evidenced in today's political arena originates on The Left. As example, I point to Gephardt's website; I challenge you to find a mainstream Conservative website, particularly one published by a Conservative of national political stature, that is similar. Please note that I ask for mainstream example, not from the fringe.

I would submit that The Left attributes to The Right the very faults it suffers itself. I would submit that to be the very personification of denial, demonization, and dissemblance. I do not exclude The Right from share in these faults to some extent or another, but I take issue with The Left holding itself free of them, and exempt from similarly valid criticism.

0 Replies

At a moment such as this, my ex mother-in-law, in the east tower, could be counted on to violently puff up her brocade pillow and shout out "The FRONT PORCH is dreaming of LIVER AND PENISES!"

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Tartarin, it is not the blowjob that was the issue, it was the lying about it. And I would submit that NAFTA, which was sold by Clinton as the key to US prosperity, is in large part responisible for the flight of American Business offshore. I would submit that Mr. Clinton's last-minute Presidential Pardons were egregiously partisan and self serving manipulations of a time-honored tradition. I would submit that Mr. Clinton's foreign policy encouraged and emboldened International Terrorism, while his weakening of our defense and intelligence establishment negatively impacted our ability to appropriately and proactively respond to the increased threats brought on by Clinton's mismanagement. I would submit that Mr. Clinton's dealings with North Korea and with Iran encouraged both to assume their current intransigence. I would submit that the economic policies of Mr. Clinton set the stage for the recent economic downturn. I would submit that the bulk of the excoriation, nasty tricks, denigration, context-skewing, misrepresentation, factual error,and name-calling evidenced in today's political arena originates on The Left. As example, I point to Gephardt's website; I challenge you to find a mainstream Conservative website, particularly one published by a Conservative of national political stature, that is similar. Please note that I ask for mainstream example, not from the fringe.

I would submit that The Left attributes to The Right the very faults it suffers itself. I would submit that to be the very personification of denial, demonization, and dissemblance. I do not exclude The Right from share in these faults to some extent or another, but I take issue with The Left holding itself free of them, and exempt from similarly valid criticism.

True, yet everyone on the left in politics wants to consult him on political decisions, he's considered a 'political genius'. That should scare the hell out of anyone! That term in it's very nature equals being conniving, slithery, shady, underhanded, dishonest, backstabbing, manipulative, disloyal, self serving etc. He is still the leader of the democratic party, that party is still declining, you think they would figure it out, but no, they're salivating to have Hilary run in 2004. That would be the same as Bill basically.

0 Replies

Who is "salivating to have Hillary run?" Not the majority of the Democrats. Now, having made that comment, I also have to point out that there seems to be a major disconnect between the Democrat Party Leadership and the american people. Consider the reluctance with which the party is finally coming to accept teh candidacy of Dean. Dean is not "business as usual" and this seems to unnerve and confuse those who prefer all politicians to be cut from the same mould.

0 Replies

hobitbob

Yes, I think that is so. There are power structures, somewhat incestuous, heading both parties. McCain was such a threat too.

But Timber's claim that Clinton was rightfully set upon for lying about a blow job is the party line, but it suffers from inconsistency (unless one wants to asume/claim that Bush has been entirely truthful and straightforward about all matters) and far worse, it suffers from severe selectivity of memory. Didion and others have documented very thoroughly the depth of the organized campaign to remove Clinton (and democrats) from the White House, all of which began long before that blowjob tidbit came to light. Timber might be saying that the lie is where Timber finds fault, but then the consistency point applies.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Who is "salivating to have Hillary run?" Not the majority of the Democrats. Now, having made that comment, I also have to point out that there seems to be a major disconnect between the Democrat Party Leadership and the american people. Consider the reluctance with which the party is finally coming to accept teh candidacy of Dean. Dean is not "business as usual" and this seems to unnerve and confuse those who prefer all politicians to be cut from the same mould.

Well, everywhere she goes, every interview, her name comes up all the time in presidential campagn articles and speculation. She has been almost as transparent as Clark about her hidden intentions. If the current 9 weaken to a point where she see's Bush a winner, she will announce and the Dem party will get all sugared up like ten year old on a sleep over. Your opinion may differ, but I think she would be embraced because the party would view her as bringing back power, and wouldn't they love to say they had the first minority president.

I also think we're waisting energy talking about the 9, I think they're going to get trumped by her. I doubt she and make believe hubby, Bill want to see Clark make it because he's form Arkansas, and that's their territory also.

0 Replies

Hey, kids ... I know what we'll do! Lets play a game, OK? How many of you can "Find The Lie"?

Quote:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
G W Bush

Quote:

"I did not have sex with that woman"
W J Clinton

Now, as to "The 16 words", I submit that Bush the Younger said that "The British Government has learned ..." and that at that time, and to the present, there is no indication that Bush The Younger was lying; The British Government informed Bush the Younger that they had found the evidence cited. The British Government might have lied, or might not have, but Bush the Younger merely cited second-hand information, clearly acknowledging it as such. It may have been reference to erroneous information, but it was not intended to deceive. As to Mr. Clinton's remark, only the most sophistic, word-parsing argument can lend any semblence of truth to that assertion.
I'm not sayin' that Bush hasn't lied, nor am I sayin' that Clinton always lied; I merely point out that what is claimed by The Left to be a "Bush Lie"
clearly is no such thing, while the quote from Mr. Clinton clearly and specifically was meant to deceive. In all honesty now, partisanship aside and irrelevant, which of the two statements more closely fits the definition of "Lie"?

0 Replies

Hmmm...let's see. The definition of a lie is, making a statement that you know to be untrue at the time that you make it. Given that, I would say the second quote in you post was the lie.

0 Replies

apparently both statements are lies, depending on what information you use. the British government did not state they knew that Saddam sought uranium, some members of that government did make that statement while others denied its accuracy same as some members of the US goverrnment stated that it was inaccurate information. To make the statement that Bush made, sans qualifications that were known to both British and US Intelligence, can just as easily be deemed a lie as Clinton's statement that he did not have sex with that woman. I have to call you on this one Timber, it doesn't hold up.

0 Replies

Hey, kids...spot the lie:
"We gave him the chance to let the inspectors in, but he refused, so we had to go to war."-Bush
"For those who say we haven't found WMD, they are wrong. We have. " -Bush
"We know exactly where they are. They are in Tikrit, to the North, South, East,and West."-Rumsfeld
"Mission Accomplished."-Bush
"We didn't start this war..."-Wolfowitz
Need I go on?

0 Replies

I just typed "bush lies" on Google, and got only 906,000 hits. Here's one link that goes beyond what timber posted above. Maybe one truth forgives all the other lies. http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

0 Replies

I typed "clinton lies" on Google and got 500,000 hits. Considering the clinton lied about his "personal sex life," vs bush's lies that got thousands killed, I'm just wondering if we're comparing apples and oranges?

0 Replies

The big difference is in Clinton's case it was proved that he lied with intentions to lie with evidence.

0 Replies

True! And they disbarred him to practice law and fined him for lying about his sex life. If you're trying to convince us that Bush's lies don't have any evidence, you haven't dug deep enough.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Hey, kids...spot the lie:
"We gave him the chance to let the inspectors in, but he refused, so we had to go to war."-Bush
"For those who say we haven't found WMD, they are wrong. We have. " -Bush
"We know exactly where they are. They are in Tikrit, to the North, South, East,and West."-Rumsfeld
"Mission Accomplished."-Bush
"We didn't start this war..."-Wolfowitz
Need I go on?

You need to study the definition of a lie again. To say all these were lies you would have to prove that they intensionally did based on the fact that they had full and complete knowledge of the outcomes of all these instances, can you do that? If the info you base your statements on is wrong it isn't a lie, that doesn't fit the definition.

0 Replies

The simple fact remains, dyslexia, that Bush did not assert anything other than that second-hand information asserting Iraqi activity had been received. Perhaps a greater caveat might have been appropriate, but the assertion was that "The British Government" had found evidence, and whether or not such evidence was valid, and whether or not Bush was aware of the disputed nature of that evidence, The British Government provided the information to which Bush referred. Disputed or not, the evidence was provided government-to-government, and one government took the word of another. Bush's assertion maybe could better have been phrased "The British Government has informed us they have learned that ...", but then, hindsight is always 20/20. I see no duplicitous intent in The Sixteen Words.

I just don't see any other way to see it.

0 Replies

Brand X, I doubt very much that the people on this forum needs to be given a definition of a "lie." The only difference between one lie and another lie must be evaluated on the basis of "how many people it hurts or kills." How many people did clinton's lie hurt? How many people did bush's lie hurt? Please give a full accounting of both. Thank you.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brand X, I doubt very much that the people on this forum needs to be given a definition of a "lie." The only difference between one lie and another lie must be evaluated on the basis of "how many people it hurts or kills." How many people did clinton's lie hurt? How many people did bush's lie hurt? Please give a full accounting of both. Thank you.

You are still saying he lied, and it doesn't fit the definition. Get over it, I'm not going to let you slide on bending the definition.

0 Replies

Hey, kids...spot the lie:
"We gave him the chance to let the inspectors in, but he refused, so we had to go to war."-Bush
After hostilities ahd commenced, with Annan at his side.
"For those who say we haven't found WMD, they are wrong. We have. " -Bush
To Polish TV, in reference to the H2 trailers, when even captive DOD analysts were saying these were not WMDs.
"We know exactly where they are. They are in Tikrit, to the North, South, East,and West."-Rumsfeld
Saying you know "exactly" where something is, imlplies one will tehrfore produce it after the bang bang phase, no?
"Mission Accomplished."-Bush
Doesn't even deserve further comment.
"We didn't start this war..."-Wolfowitz
Apparently he's been reading Anne Coulter.

The alternative to these statements being lires is that our "leaders" are complete and total barking idiots. I prefer to think they are liars.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know