Hypathia Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 300 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 Why don't you talk about Richard Nixon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 Why don't you talk about Richard Nixon. I'd love to. You start a thread and I'll play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypathia Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 300 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 Why don't you talk about Richard Nixon. I'd love to. You start a thread and I'll play. I'm more interested in talking about the current administration since they're the ones in power now. I only suggested Richard Nixon for you folks who want to dredge up Clinton and Carter as excuses for this administration; if you're really fair and balanced instead of a politcal hack then don't leave Nixon out next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 Why don't you talk about Richard Nixon. I'd love to. You start a thread and I'll play. I'm more interested in talking about the current administration since they're the ones in power now. I only suggested Richard Nixon for you folks who want to dredge up Clinton and Carter as excuses for this administration; if you're really fair and balanced instead of a politcal hack then don't leave Nixon out next time. I wasn't even alive (well, barely, anyway) when Nixon was President! Proximity is important in discussions and debates. I'd say even Carter is a little far removed. Clinton and Bush are contemporaries; many of the same cast of characters are still around. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 Would you say you're a partisian hack Marnie? Nope. I'd say I'm on the side of facts. I dislike Republicans and Democrats who ignore the facts or misstate the facts to score points with the uninformed. Now Marnie, you know you are very ideologically partisan, so you might as well just say it. It's no secret that I lean left of center on many issues, but I would suspect that I voted for more Republicans than you have voted for Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 Would you say you're a partisian hack Marnie? Nope. I'd say I'm on the side of facts. I dislike Republicans and Democrats who ignore the facts or misstate the facts to score points with the uninformed. Now Marnie, you know you are very ideologically partisan, so you might as well just say it. It's no secret that I lean left of center on many issues, but I would suspect that I voted for more Republicans than you have voted for Democrats. I would say I am "genetically predisposed" to lean way to the right, a fact I have never denied. A partisan hack is somebody who touts the party line regardless of the party line, and I am not like that. You well know there are many things about the current Administration I don't like. And, there were things in the Clinton Administration I liked and dare I say even admired, but I could never vote for them on idealogical grounds. However, I did vote Democratic ONE time in my life. It was during a very rebellious phase of my wayward youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted July 16, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 16, 2007 In addition, since Bill Clinton's wife is running for President, it is important to remind everyone of the corruption that existed in Bill's administration. It's also important to remind everyone of the corruption that exists in the republican party, top to bottom. That is what left-wingers like yourself are trying to do constantly, while trying to get us to ignore the indiscretions of the Clintons, as well as William Jefferson, and more recently, Diane Feinstein. Both parties have corruption, and if the Democrats want to go down that road, I will be glad to keep bringing up the people in their party. The problem is, when we are discussing Bush commuting the sentence for Libby, Clinton is not at all relevant. Two wrongs do not make a right, and whatever some person may have done over a decade ago does not justify anything done in the present situation. It is a complete non-sequiter. If we are discussing morally whether Bush did the right thing in a current event, if someone else did something right/wrong, that does not matter as to whether or not what BUSH did was right or wrong. What Clinton did or did not do more than a decade ago, regardless of whether may as well be as relevant as to whether you consider unicycles to be furniture. Once again, whether corruption existed somewhere else does not matter when considering whether current corruption exists and the implications thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted July 16, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 16, 2007 Just because something is legal does not make it moral. For example, it is fully within the authourity of the President (We think) for him to call the constitution "just a God****ed piece of paper", and continue to shred rights for Americans and non-citizens alike. I personally know people who have been affected by that. I can give you examples if you wish of what else happens when the President does something "completely within his authourity" and how that has affected peoples lives. It doesn't make it the right thing to do. Libby was convicted on Four counts. 2 Counts of Perjury, 1 Obstruction of Justice, and 1 Lying to the Jury. Regardless that he didn't out Valerie Plame, he committed crimes and should have been brought to justice for without any interference, for the full due and just process of law to be served. By pardoning Libby, George Bush showed that loyalty is again more important than the law. Was he able to do it? Yea. But was it right to do it? No. I am so tired of the attempts to find something on Bush, I would support a pardon of everyone in his administration as a way of ending the Democrats ability to wage this battle. In addition, Bush should resign one week before leaving office, and allow Cheney to pardon him from any potential crimes Democrats may want to set him up with. Ordinarily, I wouldn't support such actions, but considering the way the Democrats are behaving, I would have no problem with it in this instance. So even if they may be guilty of impeachable offenses, just because you don't like the way the democrats are behaving, they shouldn't do what is fully within their authourity? Whereas its fine for Bush to Pardon Libby, its not ok for Democrats to use their authourity in a similar manner? Hypocrisy much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted July 16, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 16, 2007 Just because something is legal does not make it moral. For example, it is fully within the authourity of the President (We think) for him to call the constitution "just a God****ed piece of paper", and continue to shred rights for Americans and non-citizens alike. I personally know people who have been affected by that. I can give you examples if you wish of what else happens when the President does something "completely within his authourity" and how that has affected peoples lives. It doesn't make it the right thing to do. You discredit yourself by even mentioning a lie about Bush's alleged quote. The very fact that you would cite such nonsense as credible evidence that Bush may or may not have morals is absurd at best. If you know ANYONE who was 'hurt' by that nonsense then I feel sorry for you...and them. Personally...I don't care WHY Bush did it...nor do I care If Libby was guilty or not. All that matters to me is that Libby, Cheney, Armitage, Rove, Bush and the rest of the administration are fighting a war against socialism and liberalism...and as such they have my support. I personally don't care if GW Bush himself outed Valerie Plame...because I dispise EVERYTHING she stands for. Its a battle for the future of this country, and as such, Bush can (and should) do everything he can to support those who are fighting it...including legal protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted July 16, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 16, 2007 You discredit yourself by even mentioning a lie about Bush's alleged quote. The very fact that you would cite such nonsense as credible evidence that Bush may or may not have morals is absurd at best. If you know ANYONE who was 'hurt' by that nonsense then I feel sorry for you...and them. A lie? Bush on the Constitution: 'Just a ******** piece of paper' By DOUG THOMPSON Dec 9, 2005, 06:39 Email this article Printer friendly page Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act. Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. "I don't give a god****," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a god******* piece of paper!" I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a god****** piece of paper." http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_7779.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts