A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
Bill cavorting around the country and the world doing who knows what, etc. etc. etc.?

I thought the talking point was that the problem with Bill wasnt really the blowjob, but that he lied about it under oath? As in, whenever a liberal jokes about how the Republicans tried to bring a President down about a BJ, conservatives rush in to say thats not what it was about at all, it was that he lied about it?

Yes, to be politically correct and try to be nice, some Republicans said the sex was not the problem but lying was the problem. I never agreed with that. My thought on it was that Clinton had no respect for the country, nor for himself, by taking advantage of an intern in the room off the oval office. That of course was only one problem. Lying added to it. Using the IRS to harass his opponents with audits, Whitewater scandals, alleged rapes of women, then threatening them, the list goes on and on, any of it should have been enough to boot the weird guy out of the Whitehouse. Call it old fashioned if you want. I think it is basic decency and respect, and something we desperately need in a president.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh wrote:
okie wrote:
Bill cavorting around the country and the world doing who knows what, etc. etc. etc.?

I thought the talking point was that the problem with Bill wasnt really the blowjob, but that he lied about it under oath? As in, whenever a liberal jokes about how the Republicans tried to bring a President down about a BJ, conservatives rush in to say thats not what it was about at all, it was that he lied about it?

Yes, to be politically correct and try to be nice, some Republicans said the sex was not the problem but lying was the problem. I never agreed with that. My thought on it was that Clinton had no respect for the country, nor for himself, by taking advantage of an intern in the room off the oval office. That of course was only one problem. Lying added to it. Using the IRS to harass his opponents with audits, Whitewater scandals, alleged rapes of women, then threatening them, the list goes on and on, any of it should have been enough to boot the weird guy out of the Whitehouse. Call it old fashioned if you want. I think it is basic decency and respect, and something we desperately need in a president.

Getting a BJ in the oval office while conducting state business is not the kind of conduct we want from a President I think so in that sense I agree that many found President Clinton to be morally repugnant on that score and if there was no fire, there was certainly much smoke re the other stuff Okie cites. None of these were the issue for the impeachment however.

And finally sex was not the issue though it was involved in the offense that triggered the impeachment. Paula Jones brought (sexual misconduct) charges against the President and it was in the grand jury process of investigating that in which the President lied under oath. He not only lied but he coerced others into lying under oath on his behalf and in so doing was attempting to deny a citizen of the United States due process of law. It was that for which he was impeached and for which a Superior Court judge found him guilty of contempt of court and for which the Supreme Court of the land and the Arkansas Bar suspended his law credentials.

What Clinton, as head of state and defender of the Constitution, did would have sent him to the social underground forever 50 years ago. But now it all seems to be forgiven and nobody much cares. And that is unfortunate.

It is even hypocritical when you look at the microscope under which all presidential candidates, especially Republicans, are now scrutinized and any unfortunate choice of words, a couple of divorces, the church a person goes to, etc. etc. etc. can be disqualifiers. But apparently getting a BJ under your desk in the oval office is okay. Sandy Berger gets a modest fine and community service for stealing and destroying government documents to protect him and his former boss. Scooter Libby is sentenced to prison for forgetting who told him the name of a CIA employee. Strange world we live in anymore.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What Clinton, as head of state and defender of the Constitution, did would have sent him to the social underground forever 50 years ago. But now it all seems to be forgiven and nobody much cares. And that is unfortunate.

I think 50 years ago it wouldn't have even made the papers. There were different standards then. Don't think for a minute that he was the first US president to do such things.

Quote:

It is even hypocritical when you look at the microscope under which all presidential candidates, especially Republicans, are now scrutinized and any unfortunate choice of words, a couple of divorces, the church a person goes to, etc. etc. etc. can be disqualifiers.

Disqualified by their own party, you mean. Democrats and independents historically couldn't care less about such things.

But it is a strange world we live in today. A few years ago, the president was the "defender of the Constitution". Today he is the "defender of the safety of the people", not to mention "the commander guy", "the decider", and "our leader". I preferred the sleaze of Clinton to the current strange tendency to favor king-like rule any day of the week. And for the record, I never voted for either.

0 Replies

I voted for Clinton on his second go-around, because I saw him as a moderate. With his pardons before he left the white house, his credibility dropped a few notches - for me, at least. He gains on the basis of having decreased the federal deficit, increasing jobs, and doing somewhat of a half-arse job on diplomacy (none from Bush).

0 Replies

It's none of anyone's business who or what the president decides to do, sexually. It never has been. The only people who think it is their business are a bunch of moralizing jerks.

If blowjobs would help Bush, I think he needs to start getting them... <shudder>

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's none of anyone's business who or what the president decides to do, sexually. It never has been. The only people who think it is their business are a bunch of moralizing jerks.

If blowjobs would help Bush, I think he needs to start getting them... <shudder>

Cycloptichorn

So,if the president decides to commit incest or rape its not anyone's business?

What if he decides to have sex with a farm animal?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's none of anyone's business who or what the president decides to do, sexually. It never has been. The only people who think it is their business are a bunch of moralizing jerks.

If blowjobs would help Bush, I think he needs to start getting them... <shudder>

Cycloptichorn

So,if the president decides to commit incest or rape its not anyone's business?

What if he decides to have sex with a farm animal?

He doesn't have the right to engage in sexual acts which are against the law, as the acts you have described do.

This is an important distinction...

Why is it neccessary for Conservatives to argue against the most extreme version of any situation? Appealing to Extremes is a logical fallacy, MM.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

What Clinton, as head of state and defender of the Constitution, did would have sent him to the social underground forever 50 years ago. But now it all seems to be forgiven and nobody much cares. And that is unfortunate.

I think 50 years ago it wouldn't have even made the papers. There were different standards then. Don't think for a minute that he was the first US president to do such things.

It is true that the press protected our national leaders more in the 40's and 50's. Scandals were pretty much aired for political gaffes and controversial public issues and policy. But the public morality was much different then than now, and the antics of many popular public figures in sports, entertainment, and politics would not have been tolerated back then. And if a President or any other high or low ranking figure was caught in a sex or personal ethics scandal in the 50's, it was pretty much over for that person. It is a different world now.

Quote:

It is even hypocritical when you look at the microscope under which all presidential candidates, especially Republicans, are now scrutinized and any unfortunate choice of words, a couple of divorces, the church a person goes to, etc. etc. etc. can be disqualifiers.

Quote:

Disqualified by their own party, you mean. Democrats and independents historically couldn't care less about such things.

[/QUOTE]

Baloney. It was Democrats who forced Spiro Agnew to resign in disgrace, who went after Howard Carswell, Sherman Adams, Bebe Rebozo, and others, many for issues unrelated to the current positions they held or sought even as they protected Bobby Baker and re-elected Adam Clayton Powell Jr. following major scandals. To say that the Democrats have clean hands re 'getting people' then or now is ludicrous.

Quote:

But it is a strange world we live in today. A few years ago, the president was the "defender of the Constitution". Today he is the "defender of the safety of the people", not to mention "the commander guy", "the decider", and "our leader". I preferred the sleaze of Clinton to the current strange tendency to favor king-like rule any day of the week. And for the record, I never voted for either.

I prefer the reverence that a Ronald Reagan had for the office of President of the United States along with his deep understanding that he was representative of the American people to the world. He felt so much respect for the office that he wouldn't enter the oval office without being fully dressed in business suit, starched shirt, and tie. The Constitution charges the President with the responsibility of being the 'defender of the safety of the people" from all enemies foreign and domestic, and I think even a convictionless Clinton would have done that in the wake of 9/11. I've seen no evidence of king-like rule from any quarter, but you can be damn sure that if the President and Congress did not do everything they could reasonably do within their Constitutional powers to defend the people, they would be the ones blamed when the next disaster struck. Look how many blamed Bill Clinton and/or George W. Bush for 9/11 which is also ludicrous.

I would like to see return to a degree of ethics, honesty, and moraltiy in how we treat those who aspire to higher office so that we would again encourage the best of the best to run for public office for the purpose of serving the people and making a difference.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,if the president decides to commit incest or rape its not anyone's business?

Yes it is -- the distinction being that incest and rape are crimes, while sex by itself is not. A president committing crimes is of public interest, and a proper target of censure by the Congress. A president committing sex is nobody else's business. That's why Clinton's perjury was so crucial in his impechment proceedings.

mysteryman wrote:

What if he decides to have sex with a farm animal?

It depends. Is sex with a farm animal legal in the US?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
So,if the president decides to commit incest or rape its not anyone's business?

Yes it is -- the distinction being that incest and rape are crimes, while sex by itself is not. A president committing crimes is of public interest, and a proper target of censure by the Congress. A president committing sex is nobody else's business. That's why Clinton's perjury was so crucial in his impechment proceedings.

mysteryman wrote:
What if he decides to have sex with a farm animal?

It depends. Is sex with a farm animal legal in the US?

Re farm animals, I believe it generally is illegal. Not positive.

Re a president committing sex is nobody else's business unless he is making improper advances and exposing himself to a state employee which is what Paula Jones accused him of. And it was her legal team intending to show pattern that got Monica Lewinsky involved. Otherwise, if it had become public knowledge, it would have been fodder for Leno and Letterman and Saturday Night Live but it never would have become involved in a legal issue. Once it did become involved, however, Clinton was obligated to tell the truth or be guilty of perjury and obstructive of justice.

0 Replies

What Foxfyre mistakenly thinks:

Quote:

The Constitution charges the President with the responsibility of being the 'defender of the safety of the people" from all enemies foreign and domestic

No, it most certainly does not. The president is not charged with defending the safety of the people. He is charged with defending the Constitution:

What the Constitution actually says:

Quote:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is an important distinction, and it's very telling that you screwed this up. So, when you say:

Quote:

I've seen no evidence of king-like rule from any quarter

Maybe you should keep in mind, Fox, that you don't even know what's in the Constitution, and therefore perhaps aren't the best judge of what is and isn't 'Kingly rule.'

The phrase "foreign and domestic" or even "all enemies" doesn't even appear in the Constitution. You are most likely confusing the actual constitution and Oath of office for the President, with the Oath taken by enlisted officers in our armed forces:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

Quote:

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

And even then, you're botching it, as they take an Oath to defend the Constitution from enemies, not the nation itself.

Nothing but your usual fare, here...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution - to provide for the common defense. I believe that means pursuing homeland security within our own country as aggressively as we are pursuing terrorists in other countries.
-- Congressman Mike Ross, Arkansas

http://www.house.gov/list/speech/ar04_ross/radio_092603.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre, quoting Congressman Ross wrote:

As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution - to provide for the common defense.

The preamble to the constitution proclaims that, and explains the end to which, "we the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The preamble doesn't ascribe to the president the responsibilities that you said it ascribes to him.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre, quoting Congressman Ross wrote:
As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution - to provide for the common defense.

The preamble to the constitution proclaims that, and explains the end to which, "we the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The preamble doesn't ascribe to the president the responsibilities that you said it ascribes to him.

The Presamble sets the common defense as a priority of the Federal government. Every soldier and hopefully every politician and new citizen taking the oath knows what 'defending the Constitution against all enemies' means. Personally, I think every citizen should have to recite that oath before they can vote. The Constitution provides for a military to provide the national defense and places the President as Commander in Chief of that military. You can nitpick the Constitution to death article by article or word by word, but the fact is the U.S. government is charged with the defense and safety of the people, and it is in the President's job description to see that this is done.

0 Replies

Since discussing questions like this has frequently proven tedious and unproductive, I won't add any opinion of my own, but simply cite your constitution's preamble in full.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. May the readers of this thread draw their own conclusions.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Since discussing questions like this has frequently proven tedious and unproductive, I won't add any opinion of my own, but simply cite your constitution's preamble in full.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
May the readers of this thread draw their own conclusions.

Okay. You do understand that those who took the years of serious debate and conscience searching to hammer out that Preamble had very different ideas about what it meant than do many people, especially modern liberals, of today.

Too many people think there is small print (put in parenthesis here); i.e. "establish Justice" (for those we like), insure domestic Tranquility (unless we can get what we want by picketing, rioting, demonstrating, slandering, and libeling), provide for the common defense (aka the ACLU and sympatheic liberal judges), promote the general Welfare (surely they meant PROVIDE the national welfare meaning we get to buy votes from people using their own money and resources), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (meaning liberal Democrats). . . .

But since you didn't comment on my point addressed to the specific issue of defense of the people, I will repeat it. The Constitution establishes national defense as a priority and legitimate function of federal government, provides for a military to take care of that, and puts the President in charge of that military. A discussion of the Constitution in general, other than how it would be interpreted by a candidate for national office, would be better suited to another thread.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The Presamble sets the common defense as a priority of the Federal government.

Foxfyre wrote:

But since you didn't comment on my point addressed to the specific issue of defense of the people, I will repeat it. The Constitution establishes national defense as a priority and legitimate function of federal government, provides for a military to take care of that, and puts the President in charge of that military.

0 Replies

Nothing like forgetting about the "balance of power" of the three branches of our government.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay. You do understand that those who took the years of serious debate and conscience searching to hammer out that Preamble had very different ideas about what it meant than do many people, especially modern liberals, of today.

Modern liberals cannot even define what the meaning of the word, "is" is, Foxfyre, so maybe it is simply beyond them to figure out that doing things like insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defence has anything at all to do with defending the citizens living under the constitution? Hey, let all of the citizens be killed, and as long as the paper constitution is still safely housed in a museum somewhere, that should suffice.

0 Replies

okie wrote: Hey, let all of the citizens be killed, and as long as the paper constitution is still safely housed in a museum somewhere, that should suffice.

I don't think these guys understand anything about "reality, rational, or commonsense. They always seem to work with "fear."

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know