- #36
kat
- 42
- 0
Not a chance.
Do Politicians' Lies Depend More on Their Party or the Lie Itself?
- News
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the importance of lying in politics and how it is perceived differently based on party affiliation. The conversation also brings up specific examples such as Clinton's sexual escapades and Bush's evasion from the Air National Guard. The participants debate whether these lies or actions are more or less important and also mention other political controversies and scandals. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the different perspectives and priorities in the political world.
- #37
kyleb
then what is your point?
- #38
Zero
Hey, Kat, The last 'liberal' president was Kennedy, I'm sure. Politicians aren't ever truly liberal.
- #39
Sting
- 157
- 2
A little off topic, but just to note about the nature of politicians...
I was at a dinner party one night a few months ago and there was this politician who was currently running against an incumbent (party affiliation purposely withheld). This guy picked up my baby nephew and was just holding him with absolute interest. When notifying him that we lived in a different voting district and there was no recent gerrymandering, he hands the baby back and "well got to go."
Politics is such a dirty game
This is why I avoided becoming a political science major and going into politics because of the whole "going on campaign to shake babies and kiss hands" thing.
I was at a dinner party one night a few months ago and there was this politician who was currently running against an incumbent (party affiliation purposely withheld). This guy picked up my baby nephew and was just holding him with absolute interest. When notifying him that we lived in a different voting district and there was no recent gerrymandering, he hands the baby back and "well got to go."
Politics is such a dirty game
This is why I avoided becoming a political science major and going into politics because of the whole "going on campaign to shake babies and kiss hands" thing.
- #40
kat
- 42
- 0
oops, missed your post kyleb. I think if you glance back through this thread and read my previous post you'll see that I've previously made my point.
- #41
Nicool003
Dealings with Saddam Hussien?! Cheney?! Give me proof that isn't from Clinton or Al Gore!
And no I take into consideration BILL CLINTON dealing with Chinese and Russian military (HE GAVE THEM MILITARY SECRETS FOR PETES SAKES)
and his immature scum deliberately destroyed thousands of dollars of furniture and white house property before they moved out and PRESIDENT Bush moved in.
- #42
kyleb
well i have been reading along but that bit about Carter is what struck me off guard, it seemed like you were saying that what Bush is doing now is justfied somehow by what Carter did back then.
- #43
damgo
Nicool, I don't know about Cheney, but Rumsfeld was Special Envoy to Baghdad in 1984 (date?) or around then. At that point, the US was actively supported in Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war: selling them arms, providing them with intelligence, offering them US Navy protection, and 'reflagging' their tankers (putting US flags on them so Iranian ships could not sink them.)
Iraq had started the war against Iran, to seize the valuable land on Iran's side of the Shatt al Arab river -- just as it later started a war to seize Kuwait -- and by that time, Iraq had begun using chemical weapons against Iran, mainly against Pasdaran "human wave" assaults. At this time, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad, instructing Saddam on the finer points of killing Iranians. Take a look (sorry I couldn't find a better pic): http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~alis/rumsfeldnsaddam.jpg
There are plenty of recent articles about this if you do a Google news search.
Iraq had started the war against Iran, to seize the valuable land on Iran's side of the Shatt al Arab river -- just as it later started a war to seize Kuwait -- and by that time, Iraq had begun using chemical weapons against Iran, mainly against Pasdaran "human wave" assaults. At this time, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad, instructing Saddam on the finer points of killing Iranians. Take a look (sorry I couldn't find a better pic): http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~alis/rumsfeldnsaddam.jpg
There are plenty of recent articles about this if you do a Google news search.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #44
Zero
Just because you don't like facts, it doesn't make them go away...and you should stop ranting, you would come across much better if you turned the volume down, ok?
And if you still believe the lie about Clinton vandalizing the White House, you won't be able to keep up with political reality, now will you?
- #45
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,486
- 10,814
Thats not a lie, Zero, its a tradition. Most presidents do it. Clinton just took it to the extreme.
- #46
Zero
The way it was reported was a lie. It was reported that he cleaned teh place out, and broke whatever he couldn't take. Some people reported it like he was stealing from the White House. There were plenty of retractions...on page 17.
- #47
Nicool003
No I am not "ranting" for petes sakes I should probably just leave PF because almost EVERYONE that comes into the PaWa forum is a blasted democrat! You say "i can't accept the facts" what bull crap! You are the one that twists everything me, russ, alias, or one of the few other republicans, independents or FAIR PEOPLE that come here. You are the one that is Pro Bill clinton, the jerk that didn't do ANYTHING but since most Americans got lazy until 9/11 woke us up, that was just "FINE" because they didn't want anything to happen. Well thanks to his laziness we weren't ready for anything. Had another president won things would have faired much better. He brought down the military pay, cut people out of the military, gave secrets to the enemy... oh the list doesn't end. And by the way, I'm not a republican exactly, although since I have started looking at the PaWa forum and seen all the democratic Lies, I have started leaning that way.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #48
kyleb
lol Nicool003, you should stick around and learn something instead. you might be supervised to know that i am not a democrat by any means. i live in one of the most republican states in the country, and while i am not as right wing as most of the people here Kansas, i tend to prefer republican candidates in general. i am generally against authoritarianism but personally i am rather conservative; but it isn't about taking a side for me, it is standing up for what i believe is best for us all.
- #49
Nicool003
I didn't say you were democrat. Although when we first met we didn't get along at all, that wasn't a political matter such as world affair. I never thought you were democrat.
- #50
Zero
This isn't a rant? Calm down, and if you can't stay calm, take up fishing or something. It isn't my fault you are wrong. Very often wrong, if you think I 'support' any politician.
- #51
Nicool003
Ha. That was no rant. It's called a well thought out and written post. And I hate fish.
I am not wrong. You have not proven me wrong yet so sorry if you think you did. And you definately support clinton. Read your posts.
- #52
Ganshauk
Once again, class.
Its not what they say, but what they do.
More importantly, how has it affected you? Personally, I mean.
Its not what they say, but what they do.
More importantly, how has it affected you? Personally, I mean.
- #53
Zero
By your definition, Clinton was one of your better moderate Republican presidents. And, of course, much of Bush's policy-making that was blasted by the 'left' was simply continuation of Clinton policy.
- #54
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
I think you make a mistake. Zero prefers Clinton over Bush. I agree with him. I would prefer most presidents over Bush. It's relative, really.
- #55
Zero
Oh yeah, in the same way that I prefer Bush to a hot poker in the eye...it is all relative.
- #56
kat
- 42
- 0
no, I only pointed out that I had no recollection of Carter lying and that, that did not mean he did not, only that I could not recall. Other then Carter I can't think of a president I don't recall lying.
In fact, other then Carter, I can't recall a president that I could not give a long list of lies and shadey dealings.
Therefor, this is not a partisan issue.
If it is not a partisan issue then..argueing it in a partisan manner prevents resolution.
- #57
Nicool003
Zero either you know nothing about clinton and defend him blindly or you missed that he was a big time DEMOCRAT
- #58
kyleb
Nicool003, either know nothing about Clinton and accept labeling blindly or you missed that he acted like a republican.
- #59
Zero
This is why I suggested in another thread to avoid generalizations. Policy-wise, Clinton was moderate leaning towards conservative in most cases. The comfortable lie is to believe that moderates are liberals, isn't it? That way, the conservative extremists can claim to be moderate themselves.
- #60
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,486
- 10,814
Yeah, most republicans want to cut the military, increase spending on social programs, and ignore foreign policy... [?]
If you guys think that Clinton was conservative, that pegs you WAAAAY left on the political spectrum.
- #61
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
Yeah, and most liberals studiously avoid using the word liberal, concentrate on the economy, maximise exploitation of the weak and poor...
If you think Clinton was liberal, that pegs you waaaayy right of the spectrum.
If you think Clinton was liberal, that pegs you waaaayy right of the spectrum.
- #62
Nicool003
How did he act republican? If he acted republican the democrats wouldn't have made him their candidate first off. Second off Kyleb since when did you pay attention? Most of your posts are either insulting, or simple yes or no's or "i'm not sure" or
i think your wrong. Back to clinton. He and Gore are definately democrat in nature. Oh and both are liars. For instance Clinton said if there was no age limit he would get in the trenches and fight with our troops. What bull crap the wimp ran to Canada to escape the draft! Oh and like zero started the topic with; Gores inventing the internet was SOOOO pitiful. Also, they both stood for democratic things when they ran for president. Especially Gore. And before I read russ's post I was thinking the same thing.
I mean come on Bill clinton totally broke down military! Yeah sure you see President Bush doing that... Only democrats do such things.
- #63
Zero
Russ, you'll note I said the Clinton was MODERATE...the middle does exist, no matter how much some radicals on the Right like to pretend otherwise. Overall, Clinton was moderate, not liberal at all. And, heck, the military NEEDS to be cut, there's far and away too much pork involved. Of course, the liars in teh Republican party always tell teh 'small government' lie, while lining the pockets of contributors, and starting new and improved wasteful programs.
Oh, and Gore was instrumental in the creation of the Internet(along with Newt Gingrich), and NEVER claimed to have invented it...another Republican lie.
Oh, and Gore was instrumental in the creation of the Internet(along with Newt Gingrich), and NEVER claimed to have invented it...another Republican lie.
- #64
Zero
The LIE is that Bush supports the military...he supports tons of pork, but he also supports cutting VA benefits, reducing wage increases, etc.
- #65
damgo
OK, a couple points: first, all of our recent presidents have avoided military service in one way or another. Clinton slipped out of the draft, and Bush's dad got a nice cushy Texas Air National Guard appointment thousands of miles from Nam. Decorated veterans such as McCain lost out.
Second, Clinton was a "New Democrat." This group, represented by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), is pretty damn centrist compared to old Democrats -- this is what I think Zero and others are referring to (right?). As the country becomes more conservative, it is becoming more and more the face of the Democratic Party.
Third, it's not fair to blame Clinton for "gutting" the military. He did commission the Bottom-Up Review, to determine how the military should be reorganized in light of the end of the Cold War. This led to two major recommendations: 1) a higher-tech, lighter, more mobile military for regional conflicts, and 2) cutting the number of heavy Army divisions and bases, esp those in Europe.
IMNSHO this only makes sense: it would be foolish not to seriously alter military spending in light of such a huge event as the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. The more mobile, rapidly-deployable forces emphasized since then have played a very important role in recent conflicts.
It's interesting to note that Rumsfeld's original big goal as Defense Secretary was to make the military even more light and flexible; a policy that brought him into conflict with many military elites -- just as it did Clinton.
Second, Clinton was a "New Democrat." This group, represented by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), is pretty damn centrist compared to old Democrats -- this is what I think Zero and others are referring to (right?). As the country becomes more conservative, it is becoming more and more the face of the Democratic Party.
Third, it's not fair to blame Clinton for "gutting" the military. He did commission the Bottom-Up Review, to determine how the military should be reorganized in light of the end of the Cold War. This led to two major recommendations: 1) a higher-tech, lighter, more mobile military for regional conflicts, and 2) cutting the number of heavy Army divisions and bases, esp those in Europe.
IMNSHO this only makes sense: it would be foolish not to seriously alter military spending in light of such a huge event as the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. The more mobile, rapidly-deployable forces emphasized since then have played a very important role in recent conflicts.
It's interesting to note that Rumsfeld's original big goal as Defense Secretary was to make the military even more light and flexible; a policy that brought him into conflict with many military elites -- just as it did Clinton.
- #66
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,486
- 10,814
Oh, did you. Maybe I misread. I thought you said:
"...leaning towards conservative in most cases" is either bad grammar or a statement that Clinton was a moderate conservative.
Oh, c'mon Zero. As the mod of a forum on the internet, I know you must know a little about the history of the Internet. What specifically did Gore do? Did he fund CERN's invention of the World Wide Web? Did he fund Mosaic? Where was he in 1969 when the ARPANET went online? Gore supported ONE bill. I'm sure you know what that bill did. I know you know better than this. If not, HEREis a great little timeline. Notice how much treatment Gore's bill gets. Also notice before Gore's bill there were already more than 1,000,000 hosts online.
Zero, the military doesn't have scheduled pay scale increases. So you can't reduce them. Under Bush there have been 2 increases in 2 years. That quite simply didn't happen during Clinton's term.
Last edited:
- #67
Zero
I'll get back to the 'Internet thingy' later...Daily Howler has much to say on the subject...
Military pay raises? Well, I should have said 'cost of living increases', which we got under Clinton, and the rate of which Bush voted to lower.
- #68
Nicool003
Hahaha! That is so funny! Are you implying clinton ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THE MILITARY?! Bush supports it very much beliebve it or not he is repairing the damage your chimpanzee of a president did. And how did Gore even help with the internet? Give me proof that doesn't come from dirty gore or clinton hands. And I will have to make sure the source you give me is not democratic before I read it.
- #69
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,486
- 10,814
Gore's law funded internet access for schools and infrastructure (maybe a little research too, not sure). Its nice but it has nothing at all to do with the internet's creation. The enabling technologies happened over 40 years and in multiple countries.
- #70
Zero
You accept lies or nothing, huh?