RM95: You lied about the spelling of 'perjury'. You should go to jail. ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? - Dubyah in Florence, SC. 01/11/2000
One thing I find amusing is the hypocrosy that exists amongst a lot of people here and in America in general. Clinton supporters provide the perfect example. All they ever do is say how who cares, it was his private life, or is this really a big deal, etc, etc. Well, I agree with all that. I dont care what he did and dont think it was a big deal. A lot of Americans cheat on their significant others, so what if the President does too (he shouldnt have lied under oath, but who cares really). Most of these Clinton supporters happen to be Bush haters though. ANd they always harp on him for the same thing. "Boy is he dumb..he doesnt know who the president of Zimbabwe is" IMO, Bush not knowing who the president of Ramalia or whatever, and Bush maybe trying cocaine 20 years ago is the same kind of thing as Clinton "accidentally" sleeping with another women and "accidently" lying under oath. These are all not big deals. Im not talking about anybody here in particular, but people shoud stop judging these guys for these dumb little mistakes, which most Americans make at one point or another, and should really concetrate more on the different candidates platforms. Sorry if that was off tangetn abit, jsut htought it was odd that an argument in favor CLinton is usally the same argument against Bush or vice-versa. ------------------ Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women! [This message has been edited by JayZ750 (edited July 31, 2000).]
While I agree with you JayZ, there is a difference between one's private life and one's knowledge and intelligence. While I'm backing off my stance that Bush is a complete idiot, I still think that one should be totally prepared for the job. A presidential candidate should know that kind of stuff. Achebe's signature is hilarious. While talking about today's youths' lack of education, he makes a blunder himself. That's not why I don't want him as president, I just find it hilarious. About his drug use, I could care less about it if Clinton's wouldn't have been made such a big freakin' deal. BTW, I didn't inhale the first time either. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
I am an attorney..and I can tell you for a fact that there are more than a few individuals (including a court-martialed military officer) who have been prosecuted for lying about past sexual behavior in a sexual harassment case. And this is the president of the united states. ------------------
RocketMan95- Clinton is every bit as dumb as Bush. That is exaclty the point I was trying to make. They are just mistakes that make them seem dumb to us. If your going to try and call Bush an idiot for not knowing who the leader of Afganstahkimani is but not say that CLinton is not an idiot for lying under oath and trying to get away with it through an interpretation of the word is, you gotta be crazy. I mean Clinton was so dumb he did something illegal to try and get away with it. That man made a mockery of himself on the stand. Im sure everybody watches COnan Obrien from time to time. DOnt tell me you havent seen the Clinton face with the moving lips. That is proably Conans most famous one. And all it ever does is make a fool out of Clinton. The character acts very much like a redneck and a "hooch-monger" . Now certainly Clinton isnt like that, but there is some basis to the character, they dont just make it up out of the blue. Look, my point is that by calling Bush an idiot but then by excusing CLintons actions, as you are, you are just being a hypocrite. Neither of their actions have much of anything to do with their ability to lead or to be a successful president. Bush is a smart man...there is no denying that. He is a Yale graduate (connections or not, it is a topnotch school where you have to have brains) and a successful businessman. Hes had his bad times and made his mistakes, but he is not an idiot or dumb. Otherwise, poeple can just call Rocketman an idiot too, as Achebe did, for not spelling perjury correctly. One last thing...Achebe, I cant understand if your signature is completely quoting Bush or only the question part is from his mouth?? Its two completely different interpretations. (some people might call you an idiot cause you didnt put quotes around what Bush said... ) ------------------ Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women! [This message has been edited by JayZ750 (edited July 31, 2000).]
Achebe- First, I really wasnt talking about you in particular. I havent spent the time to catalogue your responses to gain an appreciative grasp on your position (and your signature is still a little fuzzy ("Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" is much different than Rarely is the question asked: "Is our children learning?") , so therfore I wasnt referring to you. That said, I agree with most everything you say. Bush did lead "most of his life as an irresponsible booze hound" I disagree with your take that he was constantly vying for his fathers love. Neither you or I know Bush Sr. or Jr. well enough to be able to distiguish what Dubyah's motives were. I seriously doubt that he is a puppet of his father though. It is basically another aspect the media attaches onto to attack one candidate or another. I do know people, though, who have met the majority of the Bush family, have played golf with them, etc,etc and their perspective does not have him as a "puppet" of their father either, and I trust their perspective entirely. Clinton has spent a large portion of his adult life chasing after easy women to fufill his sexual fantasies. Thats pathetic too, IMO. Anyway, Im not advocating a drunken, drugged up, wife beating, rapist, etc, etc to run for presdency. Obvioulsy if anyone has gotten this far, they are for the most part upstanding citizens. I dont know what the majority of the American people want and statistics generally wont be able to show me the pulse of the American people. Would I vote for a cheating, non-excercising, candidate who doesnt pay attention to foreign affaris over the exact same candidate minus those three attributes. No, I wouldnt. But does that mean that that isnt what the majority of Americans would vote for or that the first guy might acutally be better for America. I dont know..and you dont know. "Initially I felt that I could personally give a 'she-ot' about Bush's past, but now you have me asking myself the aforementioned (counter) example:" Once again, I am not directing anything at you. Just because my original post in this thread happened to follow yours and talked about something you mentioned does not mean I was referring to you in any way. If I was, I would have quoted you. I dont have you asking anything...you have yourselfasking youself the counter-example. Anyway, you seem pretty adamant at keep bringing it up, so you are correct...I dont think the fact that someone once tried cocaine has anything to do with their ability to be president. If you disagree thats fine. I dont like cocain and dont do cocaine. I also generally dont like frat-boys, which Bush was one of them. And I would expet a future president to be up to date on the leader of every country (but if he isnt Im not going to go around blasting a man as an idiot and making fun of him, especially when Ive never met the fellow. Im sure I could find a question of similar difficulty level about your profession that you wouldnt be able to answer but I wouldnt start questioning your intelligence or ability to do what you do). I also dont respect men who cheat on their wifes, despite what kind of relationship they have, putting their family in jeopardy, and lying under oath. But both these men have generally proven to be upstanding citizens, certainly capable of being a leader. Im cant tell, but to me it seems like your bashing Bush for all of these life choices he has made while you dont really have much of a problem with Clinton. That is the irony I was referring to. From the tone of your post it seems like you just dont like Bush and thus are jumping on the bandwagon more of attacking him and attacking him, like a lot of people do... If your not going to vote for Bush, dont vote for him because of the policies he stands for, dont turn it into "Your an idiot...your a papa's boy, you a dumb-beer drinking frat boy" kind of debate because that is really useless. These are the types of arguments that I think are of minor significance anyways. We could have spent the last few hours actually talking about what Bush's platform is versus Gore's, but instead we argued about essentially trivial stuff when it comes to being the President (as Clinton's sleeping around has really trivial compared to his general success in economic policy, etc) ------------------ Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women! [This message has been edited by JayZ750 (edited July 31, 2000).]
JayZ, Agreed. Hopefully this thread can get 'back on track'. ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? - Dubyah in Florence, SC. 01/11/2000
Is there really a difference with platforms between Bush and Gore. Is there a difference at all? Bush would be more fun to have at a party. Gore would be more impressive to "bring home to the parents" He is so serious and quite. Bush sounds like a yokel. Gore doesn't sound quite as much like one, but he is from Tennessee. Bush comes from a priveledged background Gore comes from a priveledged background. Gore likes to take money from foreigners to use illegally. Bush does not know where any foreigners live. Bush is goung to use his nephew, George P Bush (half hispanic) to get more hispanic votes. Gore is going to use his wifes "music" background (die PMRC, die!) to get hip votes. Bush's speeches will be filled with rhetoric that will not really address any issues. Gore's speeches will be filled with rhetoric that will not really address any issues. Gore's hair is darker. Bush looks like a famous person (George Bush). Gore will try to escape the character issues of the past administration. Bush will try to escape the character issues of his past life. Both are white. Both are men. Both are "moderates". Both are Christian Protestants. Both are middle aged. Bush has used his time in the governor's office to make Texas a much bigger state for pollution (go Houston, #1). Gore is "big on the environment". Notice the change? Really, this is too difficult for me to determine. ------------------ "One evening I seated Beauty on my knees. And I found her bitter." "I am a sick man...I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."
I watched the first day of the Republican Convention. Sad, sad, sad. I don't think I will be voting this year if the Democratic convention is gonna stoop to the level of the Republican one. Is Jeff running anytime soon or am I gonna be stuck with the "none of the above" choice? ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Lets see... Its ok to lie about selling arms and guns then go under oath and CONFESS but its not ok to LIE about under oath about something that has nothing to do with the military, the economy, national security or national issues. Be removed for lying about sex, but build you an airport for selling firearms illegally. That settles it, I am running for president. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Bush is a good businessman? That's news to me, and to the investors of his companies. I've seen many talk shows that make fun of Bush's intelligence, or lack thereof. So are you saying there is some basis for that as well? Or is there just a basis for Clinton being portrayed as a "redneck hooch-monger"? My whole point is that being smart is much more important than whether you lied under oath or not. Bush should know these things. That's the kind of stuff you have to know if you want to be president. Sure I wouldn't expect my girlfriend to know such things, but I do expect Bush to know them, God forbid he gets elected. We could get into all kinds of comparisons about Bush and Clinton, they are a lot alike. Drug use, infidelity, questionable service in the armed forces, etc. However, it is widely recognized that Clinton is one of the smartest presidents ever. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited July 31, 2000).]
Well, he did manage to turn about half a million investment in the Texas Rangers into nearly 15 million dollars. If thats not a good deal I dont know what is. Have you turned that kind of profit? ------------------ Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women!
At the expense of the Arlington taxpayers. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
JayZ, Did you read the entire quote by Bush? I thought that it was funny. I also thought I was being funny in my post towards RM95. I do not think that either mistake, though, shows an inherently evil quality. In fact, in my most recent research of George W. Bush I have come to the conclusion that he is not an idiot. He led most of his life as an irresponsible booze hound trying to figure out what next activity would win his father's love. That doesn't make him an idiot, merely pathetic. He is the icon of the disassociated baby-boomer white male. Recently my wife told me a horrible statistic: 75% of American men cheat on their wives (Damn, my dad is an alcoholic too... I have one hell of a rope to walk). I seriously question that percentage, but from previous arguments that you have made about the benefit of the President being 'a man of the people', should you not suggest that the President be an obese infidel that watches three hours of sitcoms a night? With your apparent disregard for knowledge in foreign affairs, I imagine that you are suggesting exactly that. Who are we, the Chicago Bulls now? Should we elect Marion Berry just to settle? I was not angry that Clinton cheated on his wife. She became informed of the transgression and it is now in her court to determine what action to take. If they do not have some sort of 'understanding' and she continues to tolerate it, so be it. I was angry that Bill Clinton addressed the nation and said unequivocaly, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." That made me furious. However, I tried to be objective, so I examined the facts. If the definition of "sexual relations" was laughed off, then Clinton would have lied under oath. However, the charge would not have been perjury because his sexual relations in a consenual affair was immaterial to the Paula Jones case. Back to Bush: You are pretty adamant about this notion that cocaine does not infract upon someone's ability to govern. I originally made a comment about Bush's cocaine use to query why the social/Christian conservatives do not find themselves unenamored with their candidate. Initially I felt that I could personally give a 'she-ot' about Bush's past, but now you have me asking myself the aforementioned (counter) example: Is Marion Berry presidential material? If not, why? Can I sniff glue and paint cans for the next few years and then run for president? As soon as I 1) start cheating on my wife, 2) stop working out and 3) stop paying attention to foreign affairs, then I'll be your ideal 'man of the people', ehhh JayZ? ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? - Dubyah in Florence, SC. 01/11/2000 [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited July 31, 2000).]
Well everybody makes money at the expense of someone else. Thats the way it works. If your saying you would have thought about the taxpayers and not made that investment than maybe you ahve a few screws loose there and not Bush ------------------ Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women!
Almu -- just curious...what did you find "sad" about it? Even the liberal commentators were saying how happy Bush must have been by Colin Powell's terrific endorsement and speech. They were all talking about what a good opening night it was and how opening nights of conventions usually don't go as well as this one did. The message was EXTREMELY moderate compared to recent Republican conventions. ------------------
It was a pretty good night, message wise, with all the right things stressed and not just ass kissing the Republican party. However, what I think Almu finds sad is the fact that there were gazillions of corporate dollars pumped into that thing by somekind of loophole voted for by the congressmen themselves. I really dont like to see corporate money that can so easily sway our elected officials, but I think we will probably see it at the Democratic convention too, as it was a loophole voted in by all of hte congressmen. At least from a political standpoint it didnt go badly. ------------------ Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women!
no, i think what is sad (as one msnbc commentator put it) is that the whole convention is a facade.. masking over the differences that is central to a working democracy.. it is "democracy made for tv". the catchphrase was "consensus", but i think that it takes away from issues being debated back and forth and the machinations of democracy.. while i realize this is all about ratings and polls... the fact that the convention chose to put on a show instead of a lively forum is somewhat dissappointing... plus, does anyone find it somewhat curious that there is now (3) possible george bushes goin for political office? hail king george. that said. i think it's pretty cool. ------------------ i need a vacation
Nope, that is not what I thought was sad. What I thought was sad was that Laura Bush needs to work on giving speeches. Her speech SUUUUUUUUCKED big time. What I thought was sad was Colin Powell, who before tonight, never looked bad in front of me. What I thought was sad was all the fake stuff that went on. The classrooms, the children stuff, etc. But most of all, the saddest part was the Republican Party trying to make America think that its now the party for everyone. The black choir? Showing black people in the audience during the entire songs? Showing old congressmen who never kept a beat in their lives or listened to any gospel music whatsoever try and dance to it? Its all a charade. Fake, fake, fake. I tell you, the Democrats better have something more to offer in their message than what I saw tonight from the Republicans. On the first night, they bombed big time. They have a couple of more nights to make up for it. But in my mind, I am either voting Democrat or none of the above. The more I think about it, the more I think that this country remains so great DESPITE the politicians and the games each party plays. More and more it starting to look like its because of the common sense, intellect and courage of the common American and not the airheaded attempts of politicians to sell us a bridge at every turn. And it seems to get worse every 4 years. Sad. Sad. Sad. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
JayZ, A platform of inclusion wouldn't hurt. ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? - Dubyah in Florence, SC. 01/11/2000
