• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Clinton cheapens the office of President..again (1 Viewer)

dsanthony

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As President, Bill Clinton tarnished and cheapened the office of President. He used the Oval Office as a bordello, committing acts which would have gotten the CEO of any major corporation fired. He lied under oath and lied directly to the American people. He forced the country through a drawn out impeachment. Many liberals are now saying that his zipper problem left him incapable of dealing strongly with the Al Quaeda threat. A larger man would have put the interests of the country ahead of his own and resigned from office.

Now, Clinton has tarnished the office of ex-president as well. Throughout modern history, former presidents refrained from criticizing the actions of a sitting president. Both surviving Democratic ex-presidents have broken that tradition, taking partisan swipes at President Bush. Carter, whose disasterous single term should shame him, still finds room to criticize. Even worse, Clinton cheapened his legacy by taking partisan swipes at Bush to deflect criticism of his own failure to attack UBL and AQ aggressively.

Bush has wisely stayed above such partisan attacks on Clinton. In fact, Bush helped to rehabilitate Clinton by asking him to lead the Tsunami releif effort, along with Bush Sr. Democrats have become rabidly partisan, almost pathological. It is harming the traditions and structures of our political system.
 
dsanthony said:
As President, Bill Clinton tarnished and cheapened the office of President. He used the Oval Office as a bordello, committing acts which would have gotten the CEO of any major corporation fired. He lied under oath and lied directly to the American people. He forced the country through a drawn out impeachment. Many liberals are now saying that his zipper problem left him incapable of dealing strongly with the Al Quaeda threat. A larger man would have put the interests of the country ahead of his own and resigned from office.

Well, you have cheapened your argument with that cheapy little title you used for this thread. Clintons problems is not unique at all. Many political and presidential figures were just as culpable of wrong doing, regardless of what form of crime it is.

What you meant to say is that G.W. Bush also lied to the American people when he led us into war and justified it under false intelligents. He not only stained the highest office in the land but he ruined our reputation abroad.

Clinton is a Saint in comparison to Bush.
 
dsanthony said:
Democrats have become rabidly partisan, almost pathological. It is harming the traditions and structures of our political system.

And yet... you continue to show just how partisan a Republican can be on these forums

You and 80% of the other republicans or conservatives on this site who cannot admit when Bush was wrong, or even take Bush's own word for a mistake in which he "manned up" and admitted to. Still arguing well past the President's own decision to give up and admit wrong.
 
McTojo said:
Well, you have cheapened your argument with that cheapy little title you used for this thread. Clintons problems is not unique at all. Many political and presidential figures were just as culpable of wrong doing, regardless of what form of crime it is.

What you meant to say is that G.W. Bush also lied to the American people when he led us into war and justified it under false intelligents. He not only stained the highest office in the land but he ruined our reputation abroad.

Clinton is a Saint in comparison to Bush.

In the moonbat cathederal, Bill is a saint and Bush is the devil.

When are the denziens of the cave going to actually prove their shrieks that Bush lied?
 
TurtleDude said:
In the moonbat cathederal, Bill is a saint and Bush is the devil.

When are the denziens of the cave going to actually prove their shrieks that Bush lied?

Umm... It already has been.

Remember they all 'KNEW WHERE THEY WERE' they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and Mosul. (makes circling hand gestures).

But they were NOT in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and MOsul or anywhere for that matter.

And he admitted to them not being there.
So we were lied to.
 
Democrats have become rabidly partisan, almost pathological. It is harming the traditions and structures of our political system.

Y'know, every post I have ever read by dsanthony has been "rabidly" partisan. Off the hook partisan hackery.

I was wondering, if anyone other than I, got a chuckle when he wrote the above (in quotes.) :rofl
 
Captain America said:
Y'know, every post I have ever read by dsanthony has been "rabidly" partisan. Off the hook partisan hackery.

I was wondering, if anyone other than I, got a chuckle when he wrote the above (in quotes.) :rofl

Oh absolutely! :rofl
 
Where do these peole hide? Where do they come from? I only see them online. Nobody I ever meet are like these folks.:confused:
 
Oh I see. The original poster here is saying that we should have a Presidential Code of Silence. In other words, no matter how horrible the current president is, no matter how he has driven us to the brink of financial bankruptcy, no matter how he threatens to isolate us from our allies and plays with the lives of our soldiers like pawns in his chess game, all past sitting President's should sit back and remain silent.
This is the same ideal that allows corruption in police departments to flourish. The Code of Silence is nothing more than an unwritten policy of overlooking corruption and ineffectiveness.
 
TurtleDude said:
When are the denziens of the cave going to actually prove their shrieks that Bush lied?

Which of these arent self evident lies:
  • We will be greeted as liberators
  • This war will pay for itself
  • 6 months at most
  • WMD's
  • We dont torture
  • They hate us for our freedom
  • Iraq had something to do with 9/11
 
Caine said:
Umm... It already has been.

Remember they all 'KNEW WHERE THEY WERE' they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and Mosul. (makes circling hand gestures).

But they were NOT in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and MOsul or anywhere for that matter.

And he admitted to them not being there.
So we were lied to.

sorry-that doesn't prove a lie

Here is what a lie would be

IF BUSH KNEW there were no WMD and said there were that would be a lie.

another example-saying you didn't have sex with a woman after knowingly engaging in sex with that woman.

Now if clinton had said "I DID NOT HAVE sexual intercourse with that woman-Ms Lewinski" he might be honest. Or as they say-close, but no cigar?
 
disneydude said:
Oh I see. The original poster here is saying that we should have a Presidential Code of Silence. In other words, no matter how horrible the current president is, no matter how he has driven us to the brink of financial bankruptcy, no matter how he threatens to isolate us from our allies and plays with the lives of our soldiers like pawns in his chess game, all past sitting President's should sit back and remain silent.
This is the same ideal that allows corruption in police departments to flourish. The Code of Silence is nothing more than an unwritten policy of overlooking corruption and ineffectiveness.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Theodore Roosevelt -- May 7, 1918
 
Lachean said:
Which of these arent self evident lies:
  • We will be greeted as liberators
  • This war will pay for itself
  • 6 months at most
  • WMD's
  • We dont torture
  • They hate us for our freedom
  • Iraq had something to do with 9/11


another person ignorant of the term

An athlete saying "I AM GOING TO WIN THE TITLE from Federer isn't a liar if he gets beat

Saying he won when he lost would be a lie

Now show me where you can prove Bush said something that at the time he said it he knew that it was false or he -at the time he said it-had absolutely no intent that he would do what he said

example of a lie

Clinton saying he was going to enact a middle class tax cut
He knew at the time he had no intent of doing so and that is based on the fact he made zero effort to do so.

Bush I saying No new taxes was not a lie-he compromised a couple years later. He broke a promise, he did not lie

try again
 
TurtleDude said:
sorry-that doesn't prove a lie

Here is what a lie would be

IF BUSH KNEW there were no WMD and said there were that would be a lie.

another example-saying you didn't have sex with a woman after knowingly engaging in sex with that woman.

Now if clinton had said "I DID NOT HAVE sexual intercourse with that woman-Ms Lewinski" he might be honest. Or as they say-close, but no cigar?

Bush and his crew said that he "knew" that there were WMDs being made and where they were.

Unless you are a complete idiot, it is evident that he did not know.

Thus, he lied.
 
Who in their right mind don't know that politicians lie?
 
dsanthony said:
As President, Bill Clinton tarnished and cheapened the office of President. He used the Oval Office as a bordello, committing acts which would have gotten the CEO of any major corporation fired. He lied under oath and lied directly to the American people. He forced the country through a drawn out impeachment. Many liberals are now saying that his zipper problem left him incapable of dealing strongly with the Al Quaeda threat. A larger man would have put the interests of the country ahead of his own and resigned from office.

Now, Clinton has tarnished the office of ex-president as well. Throughout modern history, former presidents refrained from criticizing the actions of a sitting president. Both surviving Democratic ex-presidents have broken that tradition, taking partisan swipes at President Bush. Carter, whose disasterous single term should shame him, still finds room to criticize. Even worse, Clinton cheapened his legacy by taking partisan swipes at Bush to deflect criticism of his own failure to attack UBL and AQ aggressively.

Bush has wisely stayed above such partisan attacks on Clinton. In fact, Bush helped to rehabilitate Clinton by asking him to lead the Tsunami releif effort, along with Bush Sr. Democrats have become rabidly partisan, almost pathological. It is harming the traditions and structures of our political system.

How did Clinton do that? When Clinton was asked about why he didn't kill bin Laden he explained what he did, he basically said why aren't you asking Bush the same thing?

When Bush was asked, he would not (ie could not) defend his own record, though in his typical pass-the-buck fashion he said he didn't want to point fingers, meaning of course *he* has no reponsibility for what the government did not do for 8 1/2 months before 9-11.
 
Caine said:
Bush and his crew said that he "knew" that there were WMDs being made and where they were.

Unless you are a complete idiot, it is evident that he did not know.

Thus, he lied.


again, that requires something you are incapable of doing-mind reading. If Bush believed reports that WMD were located in a certain area and said they were there that is not a lie.

I realize its in your poltical agenda's best interests to convince yourself or others that "Bush lied". Based on your definition, every poltician lies all the time

when clinton said we needed his gun ban to rid the streets of "deadly weapons" he was lying even if he actually believed the BS then

Dems lie all the time when they claim that they care for the poor.

Its really not constructive to spew Lie all the time
its even less useful when you prove you really don't understand the term
 
TurtleDude said:
Clinton saying he was going to enact a middle class tax cut
He knew at the time he had no intent of doing so

again, that requires something you are incapable of doing-mind reading.
 
TurtleDude said:
I realize its in your poltical agenda's best interests to convince yourself or others that "Bush lied". Based on your definition, every poltician lies all the time

No, Its called my common sense to realize when someone has told me a bold lie.

They said they knew... they didn't say "we think we know" they said they knew. If they knew, we would have found them. If they "thought they knew" then they wouldn't have been lying when they were not found.

There is also that tiny part about the administration tossing out the intelligence that didn't support going to war as well.
 
Caine said:
again, that requires something you are incapable of doing-mind reading.

his spokesweasel Stephanopolous basically admitted that there were no plans for a tax cut.
 
Caine said:
No, Its called my common sense to realize when someone has told me a bold lie.

They said they knew... they didn't say "we think we know" they said they knew. If they knew, we would have found them. If they "thought they knew" then they wouldn't have been lying when they were not found.

There is also that tiny part about the administration tossing out the intelligence that didn't support going to war as well.

yes, they ignored evidence that contradicted their views. we trial lawyers do that all the time. You still seem to not understand what a lie means.

I guess perjury isn't a criminal activity cops really deal with. Trust me, saying something you believe is true or has support in evidence you have examined is not going to be perjury.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes, they ignored evidence that contradicted their views. we trial lawyers do that all the time. You still seem to not understand what a lie means.

I guess perjury isn't a criminal activity cops really deal with. Trust me, saying something you believe is true or has support in evidence you have examined is not going to be perjury.

A guy once said something to the effect of...

"A half-truth is usually a BIG LIE"

Oh yeah, and there is a difference between the legaleese definition of lying when it comes to perjury, and just plain lying.
 
Trust me, saying something you believe is true or has support in evidence you have examined is not going to be perjury.

Which makes me wonder, is getting a BJ having sex?

I was told "eatin' ain't cheatin'" :rofl

But that time I told the wife, "Honey, I did not have sex with your sister! We only took a shower together!" It didn't fly. :mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
yes, they ignored evidence that contradicted their views. we trial lawyers do that all the time. You still seem to not understand what a lie means.

A lie is when you say or write something that you know is not true. When congress gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq it was because the congress believed that the threat to America was real and substantial. Mind you, it was the president who had first dibs on those intelligents reports to begin with. Bush was warned about the fallibility of those intelligents sources who were working in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

And I don't see how perjury fits into your little scheme; Bush was never hauled into a court room to begin with. During the 9-11 commission he was questioned in private, not public...go figure.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom