More Republican Dishonesty

April 27, 2005

Hehe - someone said 'if a man isn't a socialist before he's 30, he has no heart. If he remains one after he's 30, he has no brain'[1]. Neil seems to have reversed the sequence, so what's *he* gonna ask the Wizard for? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[1] Not a statement I agree with, btw, just one I found amusing.

April 27, 2005

"Dear Wizard...

Please take away the conflictedness I get from time to time in my political views.

And since I am in an asking kinda mood..

Could you please give me the ability to convince others that there is something wrong where injustice is and the ability to motivate others so that I don't have to work so hard...

I feel so wore out trying to point out all the injustices in the world .....

Thanks...

Your friend,

Neil "

April 27, 2005

I think a lot of that conflictedness (I get it too!) comes because the party labels are too narrow, and thinking about the world using only those is too constricting. Republicanism can't really easily contain fiscal, social and environmental conservatism, for example, just as Democratism (the party) can't easily contain all the principles of someone who might otherwise identify as 'Christian left'.

Here's a table of things I believe, divided up between the parties. How would I choose just one party and say 'that's me'?

[]http://www.ualberta.ca/~dgeelan/table.jpg[/]

April 27, 2005

Quote:

...You have a problem with the following sources????...

Actually, Neil, Shane doesn't accept any news until it is filtered, spun and fully laundered to Republican specifications by the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News...

Fox News - Fair and Balanced ROFL!!!! In comparison to what!?!? Maybe by a narrow margin in comparison to The National Enquirer...

And Bill O'Reilly has cornered the market on Kool-Aid....

April 27, 2005

Quote:

Actually, Neil, Shane doesn't accept any news until it is filtered, spun and fully laundered to Republican specifications by the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News...

Now, Tom. Don't misuderstand me...

I need to remind you that Shane lives by the highest of Christian standards and he is bound and determined to give the President a fair shake. But just because his sources are republican is, by no means, reason to be so hard on Shane. Limited biased information results in limited abilities to make reasonable judgement calls. While Republican sources tend to be entertaining, they do lack a certain amount of credibility, especially when other news organisations independently research the WHOLE story and not some tabloid bogus titallating tale of mayhem and mirth just so to sell thier story or make it more interesting.

Quote:

Fox News - Fair and Balanced

ROFL!!!! In comparison to what!?!? Maybe by a narrow margin in comparison to The National Enquirer...

Now Tom, you don't need to be so generous with your comparisons...The Republican Rag Scuttlebutt is only narrower in it's conservativeness than Fox News....

Quote:

And Bill O'Reilly has cornered the market on Kool-Aid....

And here is a great man who is a great talking head, 2nd only to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and only a bit more generous in his reporting....

Does anyone have something to remove my tongue from the cheek? I think I opened a bottle of superglue......

April 27, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You said that given the circumstances EVEN you would NOT have said what HE did

No, what I said was given the information I know, I would not have said what he did. However I suspect there is information that I don't know.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It would be nice to have the public censor this president.

We had open debate and the public decided to re-elect this President. The public decided that there wasn't anything to all the conspiracy theories. The public has spoken.

April 27, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

But just because his sources are republican is, by no means, reason to be so hard on Shane.

Is Jim Lerher a Republican? Is Tim Russert a Republican? Those are my two favorite news sources. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but I don't have cable TV and I don't have FOXNews - although I do surf their sites along with many others.

Bill O'Reilly is a regestared independant - not Republican nor Democrat. He is despised by those on the right like Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge and those on the left like Micheal Moore and the moveon.org crowd. He is pretty much in the middle from what I can tell.

FOXNews has the greatest political diversity among its staff. That is not up for dispute. Other networks are catching on that diversity in the newsroom isn't a bad thing - especially in light of the Dan Rather debacle. Does that make FOXNews accurate? Of course not. But it does put them a step ahead of the other news organizations (for now).

But why all this focus on me? Because when I point out that others are kool-aid drinkers they want to come back with "So are you". Well, I don't think so. My sources are various and I am not drinking Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's or Drudge's kool-aid. I am not a top. Nobody spins me.

April 27, 2005

Brother Bravus, your Republican/Democrat table seems to reflect the party positions in the 1920s and 30s. It is a little outdated.

April 27, 2005

I guess I was talking more about commitments and underlying themes than about specific policy platforms, and about the kinds of arguments people tend to bring to bear. If I get a little time I might be able to do a table comparing the pieces I subscribe to that are specific to each party's platform, but that's a lot fo work for me simply because I'm not an American and not familiar with the detail of the specific platforms. You'd be very welcome to do a similar table, though. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, you already understand the point I'm making - that our principled set of beliefs isn't easily captured by a party platform. As you've said, you'll vote for pro-life Democrats, if you can find them. I think all of us recognise this truth, but we do tend to forget it sometimes and get behind our party-political barricades and toss grenades.

April 28, 2005

I think too many that are politically involved start to cling to political positions and defend them regardless. Most people, I think, are not that politically involved and not only can they not completely identify with a party platform, but their political positions change from year to year. This is evident with the abortion issue. The percentage that favors and opposes it varies within 4% from year to year.

I am not rock solid in many of my political beliefs. I am one that always listens to both sides and lets them bring my positions into question. I am not afraid to change my mind. As I stated before, this past year I served as a campaign consultant for a Congressional canidate and seriously started questioning my vote for him before the election. In the end it was only his pro-life position that got me to vote for him.

April 29, 2005

Quote:

No, what I said was given the information I know, I would not have said what he did. However I suspect there is information that I don't know.

And as I said, even your conscious recognises that Bush is wrong. You just won't admit it to yourself or at least publically.

Quote:

We had open debate and the public decided to re-elect this President. The public decided that there wasn't anything to all the conspiracy theories. The public has spoken.

And he has, since the debate, shown his true colors, to which his popularity is down dramatically...And the public is not happy with MR. Bush...

Quote:

But why all this focus on me? Because when I point out that others are kool-aid drinkers they want to come back with "So are you". Well, I don't think so. My sources are various and I am not drinking Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's or Drudge's kool-aid. I am not a top. Nobody spins me.

Hahahahahahahha......I have seen ostriches before Shane...Never seen one with it's head in the ground, but I think that is changing....

April 29, 2005

Quote:

"When Bill Clinton lied, nobody died."

Tell that to the 800,000 dead Rwandans.

April 29, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

even your conscious recognises that Bush is wrong

I cannot say it any clearer. I don't know everything Bush knew and neither do you. I don't see a conspiracy here nor has Congress after investigation. This is just like the one of the many Clinton scandels. There is just nothing to it.

April 29, 2005

Quote:

I don't see a conspiracy here nor has Congress after investigation.

Congress has NOT investigated, only the FBI has and then it has been stone-walled by the public officials in high places.

The main stream media has documented these five scandels, as these are very sensational stories with the good possiblity of creating more selling of newspapers and poles for TV outlets, And the news sources want to very much, be well within the boundarys of telling the truth and not making things up......And anything embarrassing, the administration would definately attempt to explain away. Journalist are like that,....you know, like to give both sides of an issue...

So, I am pretty sure that these issues are well documented and pretty accurate...

April 29, 2005

Congress did look into the intelligence failures that lead up to the Iraq War. We have had two major intelligence failures. One was 9/11 and the second was Iraq.

The Iraq failure wasn't just the CIA but was most, if not all the world. The UN, our allies and some of our enemies believed Iraq had WMDs. Russia believed Iraq was preparing to attack us on our soil with a WMD via terrorists. It seems the various intelligence agencies tend to infect each other with bad intelligence. Of course one big factor with 9/11 is that Saddam was trying to mislead the world in regard to his WMDs or lack of them.

April 29, 2005

I have documented 5 scandles of the Bush administration...scandles that go unanswered, scandles that put our CIA operatives at risk deliberately because family spoke out against the president, scandles that show that members of Bushes administration have "lingering financial interest in the company"s, scandles in which Bush's administration lied " About Medicare Costs and Threatening Whistleblowers", scandles in which there was credible evidence that the evidence in hand was NOT credible, but yet he chose to give it to the American people and sold them on fear...

The problem, Shane, is that your "darling" president, isn't a darling...

April 29, 2005

The reason they go unanswered is because there is nothing to them. Remember Whitewater? How about travelgate? How about Vincent Foster? There was nothing to them. They were "scandels" created by a President's enemies that went unanswered.

If Bush is guilty, there are enough people that hate him that are paying investigators lots of money to search every crack and crevice, that the truth will come out. If there is nothing to the scandels, they will go unanswered.

May 1, 2005

Yeah, and I remember the millions of $$$$ that whitewater and the monica scandel and the many years of time it took to reach that, all because of some ultra-conservative republican gingrich-types who hated Clinton and feared what he was doing was for the worst of the country. Instead, those republicans were out to embarrass clinton anyway they could...and they could look all they wanted, cus they were in control....And all they could show was some bedroom activity and it was a "scandle" that affected the runing of the country...NOT!

Now, they are again in control, and they are halting the investigations and stonewalling cus there is some actual affecting the country and conficts of interests. There are too few democrates and not enough honest republicans to force a probe(s).

Cheny alone, by his own admission, is showing conflicts of interests with all of the Halliburton contracts.

May 1, 2005

Again, we should not fear investigations unless we fear the truth. Clinton's problems extended outside the bedroom. In fact, I think his sexual conduct with Monica took place in the Oval Office. Will you still say we don't need to worry about what a President does in the Oval Office? I believe she was giving him oral favors while he was on the phone with Congressmen. She was providing him with a cigar show while a head of state was waiting for him. Yet the sex was never the issue, the Democrats just wanted to focus on the sex. The issue was the obstruction of justice, abuse of power and misuse of the Secret Service. If Bush has done such things, sex or no sex, an investigation should reveal it and he should be forced to resign.

Just remember, if Clinton had done the honorable thing and stepped down, Bush would have never become President and Al Gore would have been President on 9/11.

May 1, 2005

BTW, I really don't appreciate the gory details that you obsess over explicitly on this subject. Your post gives evidence to the atheist's claim that Christians are, in general, under sexed and over obsessed with the subject. Please refrain from descibing in detail any sexual experience of anyone...

Quote:

Will you still say we don't need to worry about what a President does in the Oval Office?

Depends upon what you are refering to...If you are refering to sex in the Oval office, the answer is "No". Is it unprofessional? probably, but the thrill would still be exciting. I suspect that every Newly elected couple in the WH has at least concidered it...

If you are refering to politics, the answer is "Yes" we should be concerned as to what goes on in the WH.

Quote:

Just remember, if Clinton had done the honorable thing and stepped down, Bush would have never become President and Al Gore would have been President on 9/11.

Honorable thing????...What Newt/Starr did was not honorable! They spent over 6 YEARS and $50 MILLION of YOUR tax money investigating Whitewater which proved absolutely nothing and they had that counsel after only 1 year into the investigation.

HOnerable thing??? What the republicans wanted was for him to step down from office...Clinton stayed in just to spite them.

Humiliated, none the less, and it was the right thing to do.

The only reason to make public the personal life of a President, working for the little man, is to humiliate him for spite and hatred. That proves that the republican party value system is skewed. It also proves that the republican party is not working for the american people, but for interests that are counter to the american people.

Now, if the republican party wants to get my respect, they will collectively sensure the President for those 5 very evidenced situations and if they want my vote, they will impeach Bush for the needless deaths of our boys, for WMDs that he claimed "KNEW existed" and for lying to the American public as to the reason for invading Iraq.

As it is, I will have to be satisfied that his popularity polls is below 50%.

May 1, 2005

My language in speaking about President Clinton's sexual excapades was not explicit. If you were offended I suspect it was because what he did was offensive, not because I reminded you of it. Yet again I will remind you, it was the Democrats that wanted to focus on sex. Having sex in the Oval Office wasn't illegal - although he should have at least done it after working hours. It was the cover-up that was illegal. Just like President Nixon. The Watergate break in was a minor thing - although illegal. It was the cover-up that sunk him. In trying to cover up his sexual indescretions President Clinton obstructed justice by solicitating purgey, purgered himself and misused the Sercret Service.

President Reagon learned the lesson from President Nixon that President Clinton failed to pick up on. When President Reagon was confronted with the Iran-Contra scandel he stepped back and let the investigators do their work. He didn't try to cover anything up. If President Clinton had come clean when the story first broke, he would have never been impeached.

I have no problem using our tax dollars to investigate our politicians. I don't want to have a corrupt government like what we see in Mexico. Do you know that Mexico has as much wealth in its natural resources as the US does? The only reason it is a third-world country is because of its government corruption. $50 million is a small price to pay for investigating the head of the free world. Don't forget that President Reagon and President GHW Bush were both invesitgated too.

Trying to make Starr or Gingrich out to be the bad guys is like the crook trying to put the focus on the police. Starr was doing the job he was hired to do and Gingrich was fulfilling his Constitutional responsibilities. Do you know who the investigators were that investigated Reagon or GHW Bush? I don't. The Republicans didn't put the focus on the investigators as they shouldn't have.

The best thing President Clinton could have done for his party and his nation was to step down. As a result the Democrats lost the presidency and failed to gain back either house of Congress. They gain control of the Senate only by convincing an elected Republican to switch parties. The following election the people once again returned a Republican majority to the Senate and now jumping Jim Jeffords has decided not to seek re-election.

May 2, 2005

Quote:

If you were offended I suspect it was because what he did was offensive, not because I reminded you of it

You recently had a episode of this nature with Bravus and Nico. You were asked not to be explicit and you went to great lengths to be very explicit. In this episode, I mention it, and now you are going to great lengths to explain that you are NOT explicit...

I have only one thing to say to you over this posting of explicit sex...Shut up! NO MORE.

Quote:

If President Clinton had come clean when the story first broke, he would have never been impeached.

What he did was of a personal nature, it did not affect the runing of the country, except where legislators MADE it an issue. It was something that the newspapers were to print,but the legislators should have butted out. Newt Gringrich was scandlized with a sex scandle of his own, Lott is branded as a racist...Oh, yeah, like there is justice here....

Quote:

Don't forget that President Reagon and President GHW Bush were both invesitgated too.

Not to the extent that Clinton was. It is pretty well documented that Starr wasn't going to quit until he found SOMETHING.....6 years later he found something...Regans and Bush I were NO WHERE near that long.

Quote:

Trying to make Starr or Gingrich out to be the bad guys is like the crook trying to put the focus on the police.

Do you remember the deals that these guys offered to the MacDougals? Mrs Susan MacDougal went to jail because she told them that to make "the deal" was to lie...She had the integrety to tell them that there was NO scandle...It was just plain poor planning on Jim's part. Starr went in to this with a chip on his shoulder and kept at it untill he could get Clinton...And then Monica came to town...And guess who found out....

May 2, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You recently had a episode of this nature with Bravus and Nico.

And you are trying to capitalize on that to make some hay here. You have learned from the lessons of the politics of personal destruction. When you cannot compete in the arena of ideas you start to attack personally.

I stated nothing wrong in the Adultry/Stripper thread nor did I here. In fact I learned from the Adultry/Stripper thread that some people here at C/A can be overly sensative so in this thread I went above and beyond not to be explicit.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I believe she was giving him oral favors while he was on the phone with Congressmen. She was providing him with a cigar show while a head of state was waiting for him.

Note that I not only didn't use vulgar terms to describe what happened, I only eluded to it in nonsexual terms. The reason you knew I was talking about sex is because you know what President Clinton did. You need to learn how to take the high road in intellectual discussions and not attack personally.

May 2, 2005

Quote:

You need to learn how to take the high road in intellectual discussions and not attack personally.

Oh good grief....I asked you to stop and you got defensive and are continuing to justify your actions.

Sign In

More Republican Dishonesty

Recommended Posts

Bravus

Neil D

Bravus

Tom Wetmore

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Neil D

there buster

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity