Left v. Right vs. Common Sense

Listening to Bush and his cronies, you can witness the evolution of the English language...The phrase 'staying on message' has evolved from a certainty of belief into lying.

If you tell the same lie for enough time it seems to transform into an accepted truth. Where is the Kenneth Starr of the Left to begin the impeachment for Bush's irresponsibility and questionable moral-code?

I've had my cigar smoked more than a few times, but I've never led a country/'coalition' into war based on false pretences...

bush reminds me of gs

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo

I've had my cigar smoked more than a few times, but I've never led a country/'coalition' into war based on false pretences...

You should try that.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
And there you go proving, though inadvertently, the point of this thread.

I do not have to conform to your way of thinking. Although I am surprised that you have made this thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not have to conform to your way of thinking. Although I am surprised that you have made this thread.

I believe that you are suprised possibly due to your preconceptions/misconceptions.

Common sense is an oxymoron, as sense isn't very common. As I have said many times, I am neither Democrat, nor Republican. But, I do belive in common sense. I just find it sad that no one seems to believe that beig informed is important. Most people, right or left, vote along party lines. The right supports one thing, the left another...and suddenly, that implies only two options. Life is rarely that simple.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I believe that you are suprised possibly due to your preconceptions/misconceptions.

Is it possible for you to be more vague?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it possible for you to be more vague?

Yes, but for now I'll try to be clear. You stated that you were surprised that I have made this thread. I stated that your suprise may be due to your preconceptions/misconceptions of me.

Got it?

jesus....

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes, but for now I'll try to be clear. You stated that you were surprised that I have made this thread. I stated that your suprise may be due to your preconceptions/misconceptions of me.

Got it?

That maybe true; I really don't know you. I hear some of the things you say and I assume the rest. If I have characterized you incorrectly, I apologize.

I have nothing more than a feeling about the some total of what I hear and read in the news. I think there is a political game going on that I don’t like. The reason I don’t like it corresponds to what you said in the opening post. I think that there are some in the Democratic Party that will do anything to get back into power. But if we destroy the presidency in the process, what have we gained.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But if we destroy the presidency in the process, what have we gained.

Why should the office be more important than the person occupying it? **** the presidency...how about the people the office controls? Shouldn't their best interest be on the radar at all? Lies about sex v. lies about war and death...which is better?

I hate to sound like a democrat...but, seriously!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Why should the office be more important than the person occupying it? **** the presidency...how about the people the office controls? Shouldn't their best interest be on the radar at all? Lies about sex v. lies about war and death...which is better?

I hate to sound like a democrat...but, seriously!

First question. The President is the commander and chief of the armed forces. There is a minimum amount of respect for the office that should be upheld. This is the way I feel. There are many good things that a President could do, and I hate to see the office of President degraded in any way. Which leads me to the second question. The person in the office of President should be held to a very high standard and if they fall below this standard they should be impeached, but this judgment does not belong to you or I, it belongs to Congress. If the President has lied, then the Congress should impeached him. If the Congress does not impeached him, then members of Congress should stop calling him a liar. Calling the President a liar without taking action is like a police officer calling someone a bank robber without arresting the person. It makes the Congress and President look childish and week and that is not a good imagine to project into the world at a time like this.

I cant believe you brought up Lewinsky !!!! LOL !!!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First question. The President is the commander and chief of the armed forces. There is a minimum amount of respect for the office that should be upheld. This is the way I feel. There are many good things that a President could do, and I hate to see the office of President degraded in any way. Which leads me to the second question. The person in the office of President should be held to a very high standard and if they fall below this standard they should be impeached, but this judgment does not belong to you or I, it belongs to Congress. If the President has lied, then the Congress should impeached him. If the Congress does not impeached him, then members of Congress should stop calling him a liar. Calling the President a liar without taking action is like a police officer calling someone a bank robber without arresting the person. It makes the Congress and President look childish and week and that is not a good imagine to project into the world at a time like this.

That sounds awfully subjective. Granted, one lie is the same as the next. But, if you'll lie about one thing, then you'll lie about the next. However, how is infidelity the same as WAR!?

I understand you hate a lie. As do I. But, the fact remains.

it amazes me how many republicans bring up lewinski and clinton as some means of defending their furer's lies and deception, never realising they just solidify the argument of the opposing side. so, lets make this clear.

clinton lied, and so he was...get ready for this...take notes:

IMPEACHED

not only that but his ass was dragged into the spotlight and he was humiliated before the ENTIRE WORLD. but thats ok. republicans loved that. back then the 'Presidency' wasnt worth a squirt of piss to them. back then, the whole "i support my president in whatever he does, cuz im a REAL american" mentallity was not so prevailant among them.

but NOW that lord bush is in office, the 'Presidency' must be viewed with sacred reverence. praise be to bush

well f*** that. i wipe my ass with your sacred Presidency the same way you did with the last Presidency

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
That sounds awfully subjective. Granted, one lie is the same as the next. But, if you'll lie about one thing, then you'll lie about the next. However, how is infidelity the same as WAR!?

I understand you hate a lie. As do I. But, the fact remains.

I was only speaking in general. I do not believe that Bush lied about the information to go to war, that must be proven first.

Yes Clinton was IMPEACHED...yet still was able to conduct business as usual....sad, sad, sad.....I guess IMPEACHED has change it meaning.

Originally posted by PVS
it amazes me how many republicans bring up lewinski and clinton as some means of defending their furer's lies and deception, never realising they just solidify the argument of the opposing side. so, lets make this clear.

It's Fuhrer*** 😛 Or to get really specific it could be Fuhrer Und Reichskanzler. 😂 😛

I'm pretty sure if the Democrats are brave enough we will see an impeachment. Crap I used Democrat and brave in the same sentence. That is exactly the dem's problem. They have no vision of anything and won't take a stand for what they believe in.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes Clinton was IMPEACHED...yet still was able to conduct business as usual....sad, sad, sad.....I guess IMPEACHED has change it meaning.

I think Clinton should have resigned.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think Clinton should have resigned.