The Worst President in History?

JTT, They wallow in it because democrats allow it; they have no back bone.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

JTT, They wallow in it because democrats allow it; they have no back bone.

I agree CI, but I'm talking about the conservative people here who blindily support this type of sleaze, corruption and hypocrisy and it doesn't even dawn on them.

At least I hope it doesn't dawn on them for the alternative is really too awful to contemplate.

0 Replies

JTT, I know what you meant, but the democrats are also to blame for allowing it. In politics, one party can't allow the other party to practice hypocrisy with candor and not challenge it.

Do democrats know where they stand on anything? It's highly questionable.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

If these blind conservative folk who frequent these pages had any sense whatsoever, they wouldn't defend this stunning hypocrisy and yet, shockingly, they wallow in it.

Um, the big deal with Clinton was he lied under oath. I didn't particularly give a rat's ass that he cheated on Hillary. Similarly, I don't particularly give a rat's ass whether McCain or any other politician cheated on their wife, unless it relates somehow to their fitness to hold office.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

You've got all the time in the world. Come up with any. You have not come up with a single citation yet.

As for Bush...he is a fukin' moron...but what has that got to do with my question?

I gave you a couple examples, which you refuse to acknowledge, so why waste my time on more?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

JTT wrote:
If these blind conservative folk who frequent these pages had any sense whatsoever, they wouldn't defend this stunning hypocrisy and yet, shockingly, they wallow in it.

Um, the big deal with Clinton was he lied under oath. I didn't particularly give a rat's ass that he cheated on Hillary. Similarly, I don't particularly give a rat's ass whether McCain or any other politician cheated on their wife, unless it relates somehow to their fitness to hold office.

I meant the alternative was really too awful to contemplate for others, for the naive ones, Tico. You've left your wallow long enough. Best get back to it before the sun burns your skin.

Tico obsesses over this one Clinton incident as opposed to the litany of lies that has been gushing out since the repugs took office. How many have died because of the lies?

I couldn't have asked for, in a million years, a better example of precisely what I described above. Thanks Tico. I do believe that you're every bit as intelligent and savvy as your avatar illustrates.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You've got all the time in the world. Come up with any. You have not come up with a single citation yet.

As for Bush...he is a fukin' moron...but what has that got to do with my question?

I gave you a couple examples, which you refuse to acknowledge, so why waste my time on more?

Perhaps you ought to learn what a "citation" is in one of these discussion threads, Okie, before shooting off your mouth.

Parapharasing is not citing.

I understand your cutting and running, though, and if I were advising you, that is exactly what what I would suggest you do.

My guess is you have damn near no chance of making a substantive case for your original strawman.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
JTT wrote:
If these blind conservative folk who frequent these pages had any sense whatsoever, they wouldn't defend this stunning hypocrisy and yet, shockingly, they wallow in it.

Um, the big deal with Clinton was he lied under oath. I didn't particularly give a rat's ass that he cheated on Hillary. Similarly, I don't particularly give a rat's ass whether McCain or any other politician cheated on their wife, unless it relates somehow to their fitness to hold office.

I meant the alternative was really too awful to contemplate for others, for the naive ones, Tico. You've left your wallow long enough. Best get back to it before the sun burns your skin.

Was it too much for me to expect your sentence to mean what it purported to say? The "stunning hypocrisy" you referred to was adultery, and it was your attempted point on that issue that I was responding to. Later, in your exchange with c.i., you blathered on about sleaze, corruption, and how the "alternative is really too awful to contemplate." I haven't the foggiest idea what bizarre thoughts you might be having which you are refencing in that later post, but in any case, as I said, I was referring to the issue of Clinton's adultery. If you have other issues you want to discuss, I suggest you articulate them, unless you want the conversation to remain a private discussion between you and c.i.

Quote:

Tico obsesses over this one Clinton incident as opposed to the litany of lies that has been gushing out since the repugs took office. How many have died because of the lies?

<looking around> Who are you talking to?

You seem to be of the belief -- based on your comments in support of the article you posted -- that Republicans are obsessed with Clinton's adultery. My post was an attempt to disabuse you of that notion.

JTT wrote:

I couldn't have asked for, in a million years, a better example of precisely what I described above. Thanks Tico. I do believe that you're every bit as intelligent and savvy as your avatar illustrates.

Similarly, I believe you to be every bit as intelligent and savvy as your avatar illustrates.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I only repond to where some of you seem to want to go on some of these threads. Business is bad. Corporations are evil and the source of all of our problems. We are all victims, blah, blah, blah. American partriots are evil nationalists, bordering on fascists. On and on. I don't recall if you've said those things, but since I've been on this forum, the same old mantra constantly rears its ugly head from various sources. I get the drift, Parados, that many people must think there is utopia waiting for them somewhere sometime, if they could just get rid of evil corporations and turn it all over to the government. Their government of course.

I would rather debate more reasonable and less benign policy decisions within the system that we have, but the posts seem to head off over the horizon, claiming the system we have is broken and something else more radical is needed. I am only responding to the posts by defending the system we have, thats all.

You might wish to consider the millions of victims of communism, before you start throwing out the "boogyman" word, which you guys love to use.

"Business is bad!". Yea, thats our messege. Laughing

0 Replies

The Bush economy? Here's a summation:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Perhaps you ought to learn what a "citation" is in one of these discussion threads, Okie, before shooting off your mouth.

Parapharasing is not citing.

I understand your cutting and running, though, and if I were advising you, that is exactly what what I would suggest you do.

My guess is you have damn near no chance of making a substantive case for your original strawman.

Heres a couple, all I have time for now:
From: plainoldme post 2102803 in "Democracies and Mutual Respect":
"THESE CORPORATIONS AS THEY EXIST TODAY RUN OUR LIVES. EVERYTHING WE WANTED AS HUMAN BEINGS FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT ON IS BEING DESTROYED BY CORPORATIONS."

And this from Anton post 1885152 in "An open letter to all those decent Americans":
"President George Bush talks a lot about bringing democracy to the Middle East when in fact he has demonstrated an evil that is on a par with Nazi Germany the world doesn't need another evil despot; since Bush became President the world has sunken into a mire of fear and uncertainty not seen since the Second World War this is undoubtedly the most arrogant US President I have ever seen his administration has destroyed the reputation of a country most of us held in high regard and kinship."

There is plenty of this type of stuff on this forum. And if you spend fruitless time debating with plainoldme, as she spouts out nonsense like the above day after day, and you also find sympathizers to her opinions, you begin to think for good reason that libs are antagonistic toward corporations, business, and free enterprise while not displaying the same antagonism toward the likes of Castro and his fellow travelers. Although the sympathizers to plainoldme do not say the same words as she does, it indicates that type of thought is fairly common amongst liberals.

0 Replies

There right. Money is the new American god. That above all.

0 Replies

Amigo, if you find money and property ownership distasteful you can give them away to the homeless. Most of us like having money and owning property ... the more the better.

0 Replies

You know I burned a lot of gas.
Oh Lord! Diesel gave me thrills.
But I've never touched nothin'
That made our soldiers kill.
You know I've seen a lot of people walking 'round
With hydrocarbones in their eyes.
But George Bush don't care
Ah, If you live -- or if you die.
God Damn! The Busher,
God Damn! I say The Busher,
I said God Damn! God damn the George Bush man.
You know the driller, the driller is a man
With a lump of oil on his hands.
But the Busher is a monster
That guy is
Not a natural man.
The driller for a barrel
Goin to sell you miles of sweet dreams.
Ah...but the Busher will ruin your country;
Lord he'll leave your mind to scream.
God Damn! The Busher.
God Damn! God damn the Busher.
I said God Damn! God damn the Bush man.
Well now if I were a citizen of this land
You know I'd declare total war on the Bush man.
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he run,
And I'd kill him with my bible, and my razor and my gun....
GOD DAMN! The Busher
God damn the Busher.
I said God damn! God damn the Bush man!

Carl de Boulloche.

0 Replies

I did. I gave everything in my apartment away and walked out the front door with 1000$ and a full backback. In the state of having no possessions I became enlightened to the reality of modern western culture whitch has nothing to do with the eastern philosophies you claim to subscribe to. Buddha was not happy because he was a millionaire and neither is the Dali Lama.

Money and property are not evil. The methods and ethics that we compermise to get can become though. To the point that we deny other people the same rights and means to property and wealth and justify the denial of those rights as our "rights" and "freedoms".

It's a corruption of our Ideals.

I have gone deeper and put my potential for my own greed aside and that has allowed me to see the truth in natural law, inalienable rights, justice and freedom.

I do not need to create a perversion of ligitamit ideals to justify greed. I have taken the necessary journey outside myself to see the truth of the big picture beyond race, nationalism, class or religion.

Only a handfull are willing to do it. I did it. I live without deceiving others or myself. I do not simutaniuosly defend and deny the same ideals.

Or as Lincoln said "As I would not be a slave I would not be a master"

Where as you would say "The peasents have the right to eat cake and if they don't like it then they hate freedom"

0 Replies

Materialsim often clouds our zen.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Amigo, if you find money and property ownership distasteful you can give them away to the homeless. Most of us like having money and owning property ... the more the better.

A post of mine from some years back:

Quote:
While i may be charged with being prejudiced, and prejudiced i certainly am. I am prejediced against tyranny over both humanity and nature. I am prejudiced against sacred cows, the favorite pets of tyrants. I am prejudiced in favor of democracy and nature. I am prejudiced in favor of an equitable and settled domesetic life. I am prejudiced in favor of wild creatures and their wild habitats. I am prejudiced in favor of charitable relations between humanity and nature. I am prejudiced on behave of the personal proprietorship of land, of proper property. I am prejudiced in the cause of private landowners, small farmers and small ranchers. But my prejudice is balanced by another kind i call public property, not "government land", but as wild land, wild property, that belongs fo everybody, inculding the wild creatures native to it. I understand the the likelihood of one kind of property is not safe without the other. You canno lose you land and remain free, if you keep your land, you cannot be enslaved. My great fear is is the fear of dispossession. There is not longer any honest way to deny that a way of living that our leaders continue to praise is destroying all that our country is and all the best that it means. If i am to keep the sancitity of my property that i am indebted to keep the sanctity of "public" property for when i allow public property to be ursurped for the "common good" i likewise allow the ursupation of my personal property. If we as a nation to not keep the faith of protector of what is wild in nature we will lose the faith in what is our own personal freedom.

Yes indeed a liberal to the extreme or, perhaps to Asherman and others just another commie/socialist living off the dole. Sorry Asherman but sometimes your inherent bias clouds your reasoning. The are at least 16,000 shades of grey between black and white.

0 Replies

There's a lot more than 16000 dys.

0 Replies

Amigo, if you ever need a place to stay, PM us. It's an open invitation.

0 Replies

You see Asherman! I am very rich. People have made me rich and I did not compromise my soul. An honest days work for an honest days pay is all this honest man ask.

Thanks Diane. You just made my day. I am grounded at the moment and plan to move north.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know