Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Back when Clinton lied about nailing Monica my opinon of it was that it was lame that he lied about it and kept on standing behind that lie until he was proven wrong. I deeply believed it called his character into question.

When I said that many people cursed at me calling me a republican/ conservative sympathiser.

Nowadays I rail about Bush and his lies (which are definately worse in my opinon but that is not the issue right now) and the right curses me for being a democratic sympathizing lefty.

At what point do members of either party take responsibility, or acknowledge, for their leader or members' irresponsible or deviant actions instead of making excuses and attacking any one who's either just paying attention or trying to respond with common sense?

they never do.
our system of elections is built on the delusion that one side
is pious and perfect, and the other side is satan incarnate.
(given the current administration i would say the later may actually be accurate.)

personally, i dont think in dem/rep. in fact, my suspicion as of late is that in 08 the race will be between hillary and mccain...in which case guess who ill be forced to vote for? and on that day i will be labled a facist righty.

people just don't like to admit they are wrong/incorrect so both sides are the devil!

Originally posted by soleran30
people just don't like to admit they are wrong/incorrect so both sides are the devil! Truth...and on both sides there are wrongs committed.....It would be interesting if a 3rd party won....But most won't vote for a 3rd party thinking it a "throw away" vote....

Bottom line: Lying doesn't exactly help your credibility or the credibility of your supporters and opponents!

Originally posted by botankus
Bottom line: Lying doesn't exactly help your credibility or the credibility of your supporters and opponents!

Yeah, stay your ground...It's the pie in the face thing..

Originally posted by PVS
they never do.
our system of elections is built on the delusion that one side
is pious and perfect, and the other side is satan incarnate.
You forgot the part where you mentioned one side as being accepting, promoting peace and love whereas the other side is a bunch of intolerant rednecks who hate 'em queers.

Originally posted by FeceMan
whereas the other side is a bunch of intolerant rednecks who hate 'em queers.

well, since bush has managed to alienate moderate republicans and force his party to agree to one principle, it does seem that way doesnt it?

Originally posted by PVS
well, since bush has managed to alienate moderate republicans and force his party to agree to one principle, it does seem that way doesnt it?
No...not really.

Originally posted by FeceMan
No...not really.

PVS JUST GOT PWNED!!!!!!!!

(notice; that was a joke PVS...no harm intended)


I think the two-party system is lame. It is rather unfortunate that people are forced to vote for someone just because they are a Democrate or Republican.

Kharmadog>.........as for your question I'm not really sure... it would seem that the entire purpose of this thread is to bash Bush but what exactly is your opnion on the leadership responsibility?

Originally posted by Echuu
I think the two-party system is lame. It is rather unfortunate that people are forced to vote for someone just because they are a Democrate or Republican.

That's a stupid concept to begin with. I hate to sound like a cliche machine, but you should vote for the person that you think would do the best job.

Originally posted by Echuu
Kharmadog>.........as for your question I'm not really sure... it would seem that the entire purpose of this thread is to bash Bush but what exactly is your opnion on the leadership responsibility?
I think his purpose was to discuss political fanboi-ism.

Originally posted by Echuu
Kharmadog>.........as for your question I'm not really sure... it would seem that the entire purpose of this thread is to bash Bush but what exactly is your opnion on the leadership responsibility?

If you think that the purpose of this thread is to bash bush, I suggest you read my initial post again.

well, since you are questioning politics, then you MUST be bashing bush....and are obviously anti-american....and satan

Originally posted by PVS
well, since you are questioning politics, then you MUST be bashing bush....and are obviously anti-american....and satan

I prefer to be called Beelzebub, it sounds so much cuter and playful.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If you think that the purpose of this thread is to bash bush, I suggest you read my initial post again.

My experience in these forums is that if a thread is started about Bush it will be to bash him.



Beelzebub

Originally posted by Echuu
My experience in these forums is that if a thread is started about Bush it will be to bash him.



Beelzebub

I have also found that to be true. One day a Dem. will be president and all these Bush bashers will get all bent out of shape when the least little thing is said to taint their god in the white house.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have also found that to be true. One day a Dem. will be president and all these Bush bashers will get all bent out of shape when the least little thing is said to taint their god in the white house.

And there you go proving, though inadvertently, the point of this thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have also found that to be true. One day a Dem. will be president and all these Bush bashers will get all bent out of shape when the least little thing is said to taint their god in the white house.

derp

now you resort to projecting

and obviously you have not read the initial post.

must every post of yours be mindless? do you have a use?

Originally posted by KharmaDog


The ultimate goal of politicians is to stay in power. Sure they may want or try to do the right things but they can easily justify that instead they need to vote the party line to stay in power so they can do the more important "right things" in the future. So the more they allow their party members or leaders to be criticized or be attacked they know that the result is that the simple public generalizes that everyone in that party is bad and should be voted out of office. It's simply become a self-serving survival process.

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 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. I agree, if he had any dignity he would of...Instead he started signing executive type orders....would stop signing new things...

Originally posted by debbiejo
I agree, if he had any dignity he would of...Instead he started signing executive type orders....would stop signing new things...

Yes and some of his pardons were very questionable.

Originally posted by debbiejo
He should of resigned, but has no clue of what self respect is......His behavior was questionable and his pardons....like impeachment means nothing....the man has no self respect IMO.


Who needs self respect when he can go overseas and do speech's for 200k a pop.......I would eat some pride to eat more caviar with that kinda lecture fee

so tell me, how does the double standard work in bush's favor?
i know it must somehow, but please enighten me.
how are his lies which lead us into iraq seen as morally straight behavior?
the taliban continues to gain strenght in afghanistan and osama bin ladin is
still alive and well. the people who organised the attacks on u.s. soil have gotten away with it, and though there was no ties between iraq and al quaida...now there is because of his actions...but somehow we are 'winning the war on terror'. how is it that he is not obligated to resign? because his crimes did not involve lying about what he did with his penis? is that it?

Never said Bush was correct either.....

America at its best today.....such character.....Not as it used to be with our forefathers.

I'd love to see a third party in there.

first off morality and war hmm whats moral about it? I can only spout off what media allows to come to press when they have large political interest groups from disclosing everything.........

I am not justifying his behaviour its not my job. Here is a good question though does anyone really believe that this "war on terror" is done through one presidents ter/terms in presidency. Most decisions are round table discussions we will never hear with more then just the current presidents cabinet listening (ie previous presidents and affluent political figures)

I feel everything should be revamped including the Judicial system....I've lost faith in it all.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Back when Clinton lied about nailing Monica my opinon of it was that it was lame that he lied about it and kept on standing behind that lie until he was proven wrong. I deeply believed it called his character into question.

When I said that many people cursed at me calling me a republican/ conservative sympathiser.

Nowadays I rail about Bush and his lies (which are definately worse in my opinon but that is not the issue right now) and the right curses me for being a democratic sympathizing lefty.

At what point do members of either party take responsibility, or acknowledge, for their leader or members' irresponsible or deviant actions instead of making excuses and attacking any one who's either just paying attention or trying to respond with common sense?



Because rarely are the American people happy with their President.

And it's always been republican vs democrat in US politics.

And as long as the American people continue to elect men that come from moneyed backgrounds odds are that there will be a large amounts of deceit at the presidential level.

You know, everyone talks about honor and integrity when it comes time to describe the presidency. **** that! In this country honor means not getting caught, and it means you might have gotten caught, but as long as you get away with it, everything is okay.


A lot of people talk about Clinton getting impeached, and he should have resigned and on and on. But, why resign? What reason do you have to think he should have resigned?

Why should we trust any of our leaders? Trust can be a far too comfortable place...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You know, everyone talks about honor and integrity when it comes time to describe the presidency. **** that! In this country honor means not getting caught, and it means you might have gotten caught, but as long as you get away with it, everything is okay.

For me integrety = respect in my eyes.....and sorry, I have no respect for much this country is running on now....


A lot of people talk about Clinton getting impeached, and he should have resigned and on and on. But, why resign? What reason do you have to think he should have resigned?

Why should we trust any of our leaders? Trust can be a far too comfortable place... Because Nixon set the standard....

Besides for me it's too bad that the "got caught" is a matter....Nixon only got caught for what they always and were always doing.............

It's just an integrity thing that seem to be missing everywhere...Integrity = respect in my eyes....and my eyes haven't seen much of it as of late.

nixon had no choice but to resign
you honestly believe he did it by way of virtue and guilt?

Originally posted by PVS
nixon had no choice but to resign
you honestly believe he did it by way of virtue and guilt?


LOL nope he did it to make ALOT of money in lectures after his pardon from the new president

Who really does anything but rail these days?

Originally posted by PVS
nixon had no choice but to resign
you honestly believe he did it by way of virtue and guilt? NO...he did what everyone else did and got caught......Virtue is not something we have a lot of today.

Originally posted by Julie
Who really does anything but rail these days?

isnt that the truth the gdf has become one big b!tch boat anymore

These days there's little difference between the tow major parties. They may differ on a few social issues, abortion, gun control, but they are both firmly in the camp of free trade/big business on economic issues. Nader was right during the last election when he said "both major parties are whores for corporate America".

Yep...the two major parties are whores...........WE need a new virgin in there. ...But no one will vote for her....(third party that is.)

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yep...the two major parties are whores...........WE need a new virgin in there. ...But no one will vote for her....(third party that is.)
Vote for FeceMan!