Why was it even an issue?

 

...you shrubbies and your righteous attitudes...

It may be my ignorance but I'm not familliar with the term "shrubbies". I'm guessing by the way you use it, it is an insult? You feel that my posts are pushing my morals and my ethics? My posts are not a matter of honor, I'm simply passing on my opinion. Is that what you're doing when you criticize peoples intelligence and administration policies? Do you have access to information that everyone else doesn't? Who has a righteous attitude?

...worst and prevalent proselytizing...

What am I trying to convert people to? Republicans? I'm not a republican. In earlier posts I have said that I am an opponent of the two party system, and I meant it. I'm not trying to recruit anyone into a system that I find narrow. You are the one calling people ignorant for not eating up your words. You can say this and that about what Bush and his administration have done. As I have said in earlier posts there is usually more to the story. And that holds true in your "stories". I'm not going to buy it just because you're selling it. I'm not going to buy it from anyone just because they're selling it. My life experience forms my opinions. It just so happends that my life experience leads me to believe that Kerry cannot do a better job for our country than Bush can. Are you sure it's not you that's preaching?

...bigoted posting styles and attitudes...

Who is prejudice? Who is a zealot? How do you surmise I am a bigot from my posting style? I don't try to tell people how it is. I tell people what I think. I think you would more likely be considered a fanatic.

...your candidates campaign...

I am an independent. I don't have a candidate. As I have said in an earlier post, I have never voted either of the "two parties". In the past I have voted for a larger percentage for an alternative to the "two parties". I have voted in a way that I think will some day make it known that there are people out there who could do the job who don't belong to the corrupt two party system. This year, however, I'm concerned. Like you are concerned (to put it lightly) that Bush will do a bad job, I am concerned that Kerry will do a worse job than Bush.

...sensationalist tactic to divert attention away...

Do you live underground? You haven't noticed this type of tactic used in every campaign, every election year? You think that the Bush administration is the first administration to try to distract attention? Yes, I think it's pretty ridiculous but this sensationalist tactic was in response to one that Kerry used in the debate. Don't tell me you think the Kerry campaign is holier than thou. I only wish that the Bush campaign could find a better way to divert more of peoples attention to Kerry's twenty year senate career and his actions in Vietnam. If people got more of those stories I'm not sure they'd be so gung-ho.

...you and your ilk sit on your hands...

By my "ilk" you are referring to people who support Bush? I am certianly not aligned with all that support Bush. I would like to see a better alternative, I just dont see that in Kerry. If me and my "ilk" are sitting on our hands because we don't feel your outrage then you and your ilk are sitting on your hands not questioning Kerry's leadership abilities when looking at his record. Perhaps it's previous administrations sitting on their hands that makes people like me concerned with what Kerry might do to our country.

...shout down those who point out...

I actually don't have a problem with those who point out things they feel are important. I don't believe that I "shout down" anyone. I have two good friends that I see regularly who are "liberal". They are upset with the Bush acministration and are looking to Kerry as an alternative. We discuss, debate if you will, issues but we don't call one another ignorant or stupid. We actually listen to each other and learn from one another. Your position is clear. The only thing that I have learned from your posts is that you come off as arrogent and you for some reason believe that people who hold beliefs that differ from your own are some how defective.

...So excuse me if I don't respect the selectivity of your outrage, as it is selfishly inconsistently applied and has no honor, just as your leader and especially his admin...

You are mistaken, it's not outrage that I feel it's disenchantment. Perhaps it's because I haven't been all that involved previously, but it's quite a dissapointment to see a whole movement determined not only on discrediting the president and his administration but also insulting those who feel that the current course is better than chancing a course that has a great potential for direct ill effects. Things in general are pretty good for me and the people I'm involved with in my daily life. Sure the country has made sacrifices but some of us feel that they are worth not having to live through events like thoes just over three years ago. Some of us feel that the way to make this country work is for every one to do their fair share, and not let people take a ride on the backs of people who have put in effort to get where they are. History tells me that especially in the long run the course were on is more likely to work than the course Kerry is proposing.

Before you go out to judge the the intellect of everyone perhaps you should check your self.

 

Oh thats rich... your claim to be an independant.

If none of that post applies to you, what compelled you to address all points and in a defensive manner I might add?

I smell covert shrubism.

 

Shruby! Shruby! Shruby!!!!






























Wow thatas kinda fun to say!

 

Oh oh... did I have my bull***** filter on?

All I can see is the first and last lines of your post, with a lot of nothing in between.
Not unlike your ears.

 

This is the jist of it. Kind of a simplified version.



I don't think the whole truth was ever learned. The Republicans whimped out in the end; and, Paula Jones ended up settling for $850,000.00, most of which went to her lawyers of course; but, a lot of people don't seem to know this part of the story.

 

Apply what is in that quote to the performance of this administration, and the veracity they have not exhibited, directly responsible for over 1000 troop casualties, 8000 wounded.
Over 15000 Iraqui citizens are dead.

What is worse in your view, a lie about a BJ, or lying in order to start a war?

I've asked you this more than once.
Why won't you answer?
Its a simple question.

 

First, I am on a program to try and be more civil with people I don't agree with here. At one time I was able to do it without trying. Hopefully, I can get back there.


As far as answering the question, I don't agree with the premise of the question. If I remove the assumption of deceit on the part of our current President, and answer the question at face value, "What is worse in your view, a lie about a BJ, or lying in order to start a war?" I would say the latter is worse. I do not think the President lied to get us into this war. He was apparently mistaken on the main point that got him some support from the left... WMDs. That wasn't the only reason supplied for entering Iraq; but, it is the reason most often quoted.


The lie, by the way, wasn't just about a BJ. It was an attempt to prevent the establishment of character and behavior that would possibly lose him a law suit. It was a display of pure contempt for the legal process, and not becoming of the commander in chief. Nixon stepped down rather than put the nation through the embarrassment of impeachment proceedings. He was guilty, not of the planning or commitment of the Watergate break in, but of trying to cover it up after the fact. Damage control. Essentially the same thing as Clinton, except Clinton actually did what he was trying to sweep under the carpet.

 

I support your quest.

Quote:

As far as answering the question, I don't agree with the premise of the question. If I remove the assumption of deceit on the part of our current President, and answer the question at face value, "What is worse in your view, a lie about a BJ, or lying in order to start a war?" I would say the latter is worse. I do not think the President lied to get us into this war. He was apparently mistaken on the main point that got him some support from the left... WMDs. That wasn't the only reason supplied for entering Iraq; but, it is the reason most often quoted.

Now now, there has been evidence that Bush had more intel that pointed away from Saddam being a threat on the terrorist level, as well as WMD's.
The BIG lie Bush propogated was that he presented excerpted intel that only pointed to the WMD and terror connections.
I have said this very thing no less than 5 times with quotes and links (I believe), yet you still ignore these facts in your responses.
You wonder why I don't take you seriously, and call you names, you ignoring of facts that don't fit your story is a chief reason.

Quote:

The lie, by the way, wasn't just about a BJ. It was an attempt to prevent the establishment of character and behavior that would possibly lose him a law suit. It was a display of pure contempt for the legal process, and not becoming of the commander in chief. Nixon stepped down rather than put the nation through the embarrassment of impeachment proceedings. He was guilty, not of the planning or commitment of the Watergate break in, but of trying to cover it up after the fact. Damage control. Essentially the same thing as Clinton, except Clinton actually did what he was trying to sweep under the carpet.

You have an interesting take on history.
Are you equating Nixon and Watergate with a dallience in the Oval office?
This is called selective application by the politicians.
The same hard line should be applied when the same howling congress and senate are ripping off the budget with pork attachments to bills, and the accusations against Clinton that turned out to be false. Remember Travelgate? Whitewater? Filegate? Accusing Clinton of having Vince Foster killed? Paula Jones was seeked out by and financed by Mellon-Scaife to dirty trick Clinton.
So you want to hold Clinton to a standard that the revengeful congressional republicans aren't held to?
Thats a bit unfair, don't you think?
I loved it when Larry Flynt offered a reward to anyone coming forward with proveable information against any of the constant attack dogs after Clinton. The howling and running for cover was priceless.
The old proverb "Ye who is without sin, cast the first stone" seems appropo.
Don't fall into the false righteous posture that the attack dogs fell into.

Lying about a BJ? No big whoop.
Lying about reasons to invade a country? Criminal, muderous, counter productive to the stategy of taking the fight to the terorists, and making us safer at home.
His invasion has increased terrorists and hatred for the US, not decreased it.
Its going in the wrong direction and we are in much bigger trouble than before.
He's gotta go. He's screwed the pooch. They've all gotta go.

 

well said!!

 

Well said Loudist!

"there has been evidence that Bush had more intel that pointed away from Saddam being a threat on the terrorist level"

No Bush supporter will acknowledge this. Even though Powell and Rice confirmed this prior to 9/11, it's conveniently forgotten. Bottom line, Bush used one of our country's greatest tragedies as a stepping stone to his agenda.

Clinton should not have lied, but there is a difference between sex and a bj. Righties like to make a joke out of what "is", but there is a difference. Right wingers have no problem believing that an army colonel setup and managed Iran-Contra, and that Reagan knew nothing about it, but think Clinton had a master plan because he couldn't keep it in his pants. I don't think the Republicans wimped out in the Paula Jones case, their goal was to smear Clinton, and they did.

 

That was a well spoken post Loudist.

 

They are "facts" when they support your view. All this information, from both sides, is open to interpretation. You might wonder why some express that people like you come off as arrogent. You are so certian that your interpretation of information is "fact". We all know the media can't get their facts straight. Why is it we're supposed to buy what you, some anonymous person on a Ford truck message board, are selling without question? You may very well be accurate that Bush did decieve the American people, history will tell for sure. There are some of us who don't buy it though. Does that make us wrong? Apperently to you. We are entitled to interprate the information just as you are.

Did you think that the Dan Rather had genuine documents, as they were touted to be?

My problem with people like you isn't that you say the things you say. It's that you accept no other interpretations. You should know that things like this are never cut and dry. I don't get how some one can be so rigid and narrow with the infinite variations of the information.

You feel lied to. I don't. My hope is that the effort against terrorist insures that we don't have to go through an event like 9-11. I think if the current administration is in for another four years my hopes will be closer to coming true.

 

That was a well spoken post wittom.

I could care less that Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office, good for him, I wish work was that much fun for me. That was one of the biggest wastes of government time and energy in this century. Bush saw all the intel, we'll never know all of what he saw, he weighed the facts and made a decision, that’s what the president does, he made a bad one, I’ll not vote for him but I don't think that he did any more lying than many other politicians and American presidents have in the past. I make football picks every week and sometimes I ignore or discount thing based on intuition or maybe even a hope that it’s not true, especially when there are clearly conflicting reports. What it comes down to is that any president is only human, he’s not an analytical computer who can calculate the odds and assign every report a numerical value based on its merits. He can weigh all the facts and read the reports and talk to the advisors (maybe the problem was here... hint hint shake up the cabinet) but in the end, he makes the call he feels he has to. He was wrong, I've been wrong on a lot of stuff I thought was correct, it happens all the time in science. No mater how sure you are that your data is good and the correct interpretation and that the opposing views are not correct or based on incorrect interpretations, there is always a chance that you will be wrong. When you are wrong, you have to accept the consequences, in this case GWB has lost a lot of support and maybe the presidency, but to portray him as some sort of evil, oil hungry wanna be dictator that threw American troops into harm's way for selfish reason alone does not do justice to the man. He served in the hardest job in the world for four years; at least he deserves a little civility and the benefit of the doubt that he isn't the devil himself. I don't like Kerry at all, but if he was in the same position I like to think I would at least try to remember that its the hardest job in the world, give him credit for doing it and at least give the man the benefit of the doubt that he was acting on what he THOUGHT to be America's best interests. Being mistaken about what is in those best interests are and ignoring them are two different things. Vote the man out of office if that’s what the punishment needs to be for being mistaken and bad policy but there are too many people out there ready to vilify and crucify GWB. JMHO

I'm not voting for George W. Bush and I approve this message.

 

Excellent points fm66,

This political campaign has been a campaign of the ultra negative, with each party (and the many partisan groups) spending most of their efforts vilifying the other party's candidate instead of explaining why their candidate should be elected on the basis of their platform. There's plenty of misinformation thrown in by both sides for good measure...factcheck.org has presented plenty of misleading information spouted by both sides.

Unfortunately, I think the RNC and the DNC both prefer this type of campaign. They each divert attention from their own party's deficiencies by highlighting their opponent's. They also try to appeal to a broader base by not specifically defining their many of their "plans"...instead we have a campaign of sound bites. I'm not satisfied with either candidate at this point (but I will vote).

Another matter that has not come up in many of these forum discussions is the influence that our nation's legislative body has. Congress certainly is vital in many of the economic and foreign policy matters that affect our nation. Many of our Senators and Representatives are able to "fly under the radar" while the Presidential candidates bear the microscopic scrutiny. We should all exercise the same level of interest in the Congressional elections as the Presidential...after all Congress must write and pass our laws.
As I was typing this, I found this link which expresses the importance of the Congressional elections more adequately than I can: Elections - Congressional Elections

This link details the Congressional races by state:
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/index.asp

I think that our President should be accountable for the decisons of his Office, but he is not the only one who is responsible for the state of our nation (good and bad).

~John