| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2007 05:48:51 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
a lie is a lie. Are you saying that presidents should be able to lie under oath if they think that the consequences won't be that bad? |
No, a lie is not a lie.
If a girl you're dating asks you, "How do I look?", you aren't going to answer, "Like a troll, dear." unless you're unusually cruel, or totally clueless.
However, if you're justifying invading another country and starting a war that may cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, you better be telling the truth. |
okay, we will agree that telling your girlfriend that she looks like a troll would be a bad idea. I don't know that that can really be classified as a lie.
but how bout saying an oath in front of the entire country and then lying, are we just gonna let that slide as something that he had to do. |
Explore the consequences.
One is an extramarital affair, really a personal matter of great consequence to no one but the husband, wife and their marriage and family, regardless of their elected position.
The other is a war costing tens of thousands of lives, many times that in casualties and saddling this and future generations with trillions of dollars in debt.
Which would you say is more serious? |
first answer my question: do you consider what Bill Clinton did as lying?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:08:52 PM · #177 |
| I want to point out that no one has pointed out that people never really point out the innocent lives lost in Clinton's bombing campaign in the Balkans, nor the fact that our troops there have not come 'home by Christmas' over a decade later. Just wanted to point that out to those who would point out that our current self-serving scumbag leader is in some way worse than the last self-serving scumbag leader. Though pointing out that the last one was a far smoother liar and better politician would be apropos. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:16:10 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I want to point out that no one has pointed out that people never really point out the innocent lives lost in Clinton's bombing campaign in the Balkans, nor the fact that our troops there have not come 'home by Christmas' over a decade later. Just wanted to point that out to those who would point out that our current self-serving scumbag leader is in some way worse than the last self-serving scumbag leader. Though pointing out that the last one was a far smoother liar and better politician would be apropos. |
I think that's how gay marriage, abortion and other 'election issues' that don't impinge in any way on the majority of voters became such big issues in the US. Otherwise you'd have no way of telling one rich, right wing, politician running for president, from the other. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:17:23 PM · #179 |
Politician = liar
I believe it is a prerequisite for the job. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:19:21 PM · #180 |
Clinton is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
How can these people get overlooked, but all of the republicans get slammed on for small things that get way over exaggerated.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 18:25:57.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:22:04 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I'm taking that as a bash on republicans, so I will defend it that way, if you didn't mean it that way, well my bad for misinterpreting |
Yes, you totally misinterpreted it. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:25:31 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ryand:
I'm taking that as a bash on republicans, so I will defend it that way, if you didn't mean it that way, well my bad for misinterpreting |
Yes, you totally misinterpreted it. |
oh okay, edited accordingly
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:37:52 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Clinton is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
How can these people get overlooked, but all of the republicans get slammed on for small things that get way over exaggerated. |
Dude they are all Ivy League, spoiled brat, self entitled lawyers. Like I said they are all liars. Just cuz you are a republican you take comments from the liberals personally. On the flip most liberals take comments from conservatives personally. See it's all relative. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:51:13 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Clinton is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
How can these people get overlooked, but all of the republicans get slammed on for small things that get way over exaggerated. |
You are still totally misinterpreting it. They are all right winged, rich politicians. That's why you get to choose between one that would start a war in Iraq and one that would have started a war in Iraq. Or one that would tax and spend in a crazy fashion, and another that would tax and spend in a crazy fashion.
Then you get to argue about gay marriage and abortion rights as a means to differentiate their 'policies'. Because everything else is fundamentally the same between them.
Otherwise the elections would be fought on perhaps more generally important issues, like, I don't know, foreign policy, or the economy. Rather than who turned up for national service 40 years ago or who would respect women's right to choose/ murder babies/ be pro life/ anti life or however you'd like to dice it. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:04:17 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ryand:
Clinton is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
How can these people get overlooked, but all of the republicans get slammed on for small things that get way over exaggerated. |
You are still totally misinterpreting it. They are all right winged, rich politicians. That's why you get to choose between one that would start a war in Iraq and one that would have started a war in Iraq. Or one that would tax and spend in a crazy fashion, and another that would tax and spend in a crazy fashion.
Then you get to argue about gay marriage and abortion rights as a means to differentiate their 'policies'. Because everything else is fundamentally the same between them.
Otherwise the elections would be fought on perhaps more generally important issues, like, I don't know, foreign policy, or the economy. Rather than who turned up for national service 40 years ago or who would respect women's right to choose/ murder babies/ be pro life/ anti life or however you'd like to dice it. |
ok i got what you are saying, but the statement still stands, it just is no longer directed at you
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:04:46 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by ryand:
Clinton is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
How can these people get overlooked, but all of the republicans get slammed on for small things that get way over exaggerated. |
Dude they are all Ivy League, spoiled brat, self entitled lawyers. Like I said they are all liars. Just cuz you are a republican you take comments from the liberals personally. On the flip most liberals take comments from conservatives personally. See it's all relative. |
point taken
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:07:41 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by ryand:
How can these people get overlooked, but all of the republicans get slammed on for small things that get way over exaggerated. |
the republicans seem to currently being slammed for starting a few wars, killing a lot of people and creating a massive national debt ($9,143,651,622,347.11 and counting) Which one of those small things is being way over exaggerated ?
The other reason why it might be more relevant than say what the other lot did a decade ago, is that the republicans have been running things for most of the last decade, hence it would tend to be their current watch ?
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 19:08:46. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:29:13 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
a lie is a lie. Are you saying that presidents should be able to lie under oath if they think that the consequences won't be that bad? |
No, a lie is not a lie.
If a girl you're dating asks you, "How do I look?", you aren't going to answer, "Like a troll, dear." unless you're unusually cruel, or totally clueless.
However, if you're justifying invading another country and starting a war that may cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, you better be telling the truth. |
okay, we will agree that telling your girlfriend that she looks like a troll would be a bad idea. I don't know that that can really be classified as a lie.
but how bout saying an oath in front of the entire country and then lying, are we just gonna let that slide as something that he had to do. |
Explore the consequences.
One is an extramarital affair, really a personal matter of great consequence to no one but the husband, wife and their marriage and family, regardless of their elected position.
The other is a war costing tens of thousands of lives, many times that in casualties and saddling this and future generations with trillions of dollars in debt.
Which would you say is more serious? |
first answer my question: do you consider what Bill Clinton did as lying? |
How well did the impeachment proceedings go?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:38:12 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Clinton is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT, not a right winged rich loser.
How can these people get overlooked, but all of the republicans get slammed on for small things that get way over exaggerated. |
Because, once upon a time, the Republicans supposedly stood for smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
Instead, in a fit of unparalleled hypocrisy, they've grown the government and gone on a tremendous spending binge with the country's credit card, racking up enormous debt.
The Democrats, may want to increase taxes to pay for their government programs, but at least they want to actually pay for the programs they promote. The Republicans call the Democrats "tax and spend", but it's better than the Republican plan of "spend it all now and we'll pay later".
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:47:20 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How well did the impeachment proceedings go? |
Pretty nicely for Clinton, do you consider him a liar though?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:13:36 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How well did the impeachment proceedings go? |
Pretty nicely for Clinton, do you consider him a liar though? |
I consider EVERYONE a liar to some degree.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:34:14 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
Why do you do that? That's so freaking ignorant!
Screw you, don't put words in my mouth and say shit like that.
I said Clinton was a lying scum. I said nothing other than that and if you take a leap from that, that's YOUR problem. Don't tag me with that.
Is there some reason you feel the need to be so ignorant?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:36:01 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
Why do you do that? That's so freaking ignorant!
Screw you, don't put words in my mouth and say shit like that.
I said Clinton was a lying scum. I said nothing other than that and if you take a leap from that, that's YOUR problem. Don't tag me with that.
Is there some reason you feel the need to be so ignorant? |
Is there some reason you have to act like an adolescent? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:41:09 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Is there some reason you have to act like an adolescent? |
Yeah, you're right.....stooping to be like the kind of amoral pig that you are is acting like an adolescent.
You haven't one shred of common decency in the way that ypou treat people and I should know better than to rise to the bait.
I'm definitely done here, and you can just be as much of an inconsiderate, provocative ass as you like.
Have fun, I'm outta here.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:07:50 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
stooping to be like the kind of amoral pig that you are ... |
Has Louis hit a nerve?
It is hard to be objective in life, to consider the world without consistently clouding it with your own worldview. To be cognisant of the views of others when commenting on their actions. It is not amorality, but unjudgmental reality - after all, "glass houses" etc.
I don't blame people who fail to entertain objectivity and I am always interested to hear their views (it helps me understand the world better), but I hold their arguments themselves in very low regard.
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 07:08:16.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:53:34 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Is there some reason you have to act like an adolescent? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... the kind of amoral pig that you are ...
..You haven't one shred of common decency in the way that ypou treat people ...
... inconsiderate, provocative ass as you like...
|
Both of you deserve a seat on the naughty bench. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:55:43 AM · #197 |
| It's one thing to call someone adolescent, it's quite another to counter with "pig". |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:57:33 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's one thing to call someone adolescent, it's quite another to counter with "pig". |
Well, perhaps one of you deserves longer time out than the other... |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:35:26 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's one thing to call someone adolescent, it's quite another to counter with "pig". |
No, no, no. You were not just being called a pig, you were being called an "amoral pig", which is a creature very different than all the moral pigs out there. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:39:53 AM · #200 |
| I think of myself more of an amoral aardvark. |
|
