Spew All About Politics Here

[Edric O]

You dont know Bush at all. You know nothing about him. Our media in America is filled with people like you who hate Bush, yet they cannot dig up any dirt on him. He has lived a morally upstanding life. He does not speak lies.

Well, if that is true, then I must have horribly misjudged Bush. You are right that I have no evidence to prove that he is a liar and that he lacks any morals, but my logic goes like this:

If Bush is such a honest moral person, how come all the immoral liars around him couldn't stop him from becoming President? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would just love to see themselves in Bush's place, and would do anything to get there. So how come they didn't succeed?

(if my logic is flawed, please point out the problem)

your ability to see people individually is lost in your generalized animosity against America. Instead of looking at George W. Bush the human being, you look at the "evil American Empire" and then equate the two.

George Bush the human being is one thing, George Bush the President is something completely different. When I talk about Bush, I talk about him as the President of the United States, not as the person he is in his private life. What he does in his private life is his business alone, but what de does at the White House affects us all.

P.S. Wow... talk about going off-topic! Acriku and Emprworm, I don't think this thread is about discussing Bush's sins... but I have to agree that drunk driving 30 years ago is completely irrelevant. It's ridiculous to blow it out of proportion like that.

However, always remember that the good liars are those who never get caught. Clinton got caught...

[Acriku]

This is funny as hell, here I am trying to tell empr that Bush is simply no saint, that's all I was saying, and he goes into tantrums about me "digging up his past". Keep it up empr!

[nemafakei]

Why do you continue to refer to 'my' media? You do realise that the main flaw with your media is that it is American, and the most powerful media in America is going to be the pro-American and (in international terms at least) pro-Bush media. And just because Bush may be paoular in America doesn't mean his decisions are responsible ones when considering the world scene(Spartan leaders were popular with spartans, but they weren't really good for the helots...). Blair is pro-bush, but such as the BBC being free from political coercion (eg investors in almost all US media), we end up with the world's best news service - and this is accepted (though not formally) even in the US.

So stop bashing my data sources!

[Anathema]

Lol Emp putting words into peoples mouths again ::)

Anyway, that sort of thing happens, not just to Bush. And half of the time it's not true either. There was this guy on Dutch telivision, who was an American radio announcer who spread lies about Al Gore smoking pot while he was in congres and he admitted to be lying too.

More repugnant was the whole Lewinsky incident with Clintonn. The republicans started digging into his personal life for political motives. That's repugnant. Clinton probably was ashamed of himself, betraying his family and the republicans and the media start spraying details about it publicly.

[Acriku]

I don't condone digging up someone's past to judge their "now", but if it is judging whether or not someone is a saint, they can if it's legal. Of course using it in malicious terms such as trying to take votes away from him, now that is bad mmkay.

[Anathema]

That's not the point. Clintons personal life was not related to his work as president. The republicans only publicized his personal life to make him look bad.

[Acriku]

Earth, I am not talking about Clinton here. I am talking about if someone was to have a discussion with say, someone else, about whether or not someone, say the president, is a saint. Then someone could provide evidence for the contrary. That's all someone did here. No one mudslinged, or atleast not with intention, no one "took votes" from the people, no one cares about what someone says, so why get all worked up about it?

[emprworm]

OK everyone I never said Bush was a saint as in the Catholic meaning of the term (I'm protestant anyway). I said Bush is a Christian- this means that he believes in Christ and the Bible- it doesn't mean he has a perfect past. No Christian does. Christians are forgiven people. to be forgiven means that you did wrong at one time.

Nema, you are very wrong to assume the american media loves bush. THey loathe Bush. CNN especially. CNN is run by Ted Turner- the mega Billionare that basically made the UN what it is today. He built the UN headquarters in New York and despises the republican party. He also hates religion, and came under massive scrutiny when he publicly mocked the pope, mimicing a dog lifting his leg to urinate. And this guy is a multi-BILLIONARE. PRO-UN, Anti-US. DEFINATELY Anti-BUSH. CNN Is "the communist news network"- thats what I call it. I HATE cnn. they are the largest in the US as far as media goes and they are not Bush friendly.

Earthnuker: I believe that if you have your penis sucked (Forgive the blunt language) by a secretary while on duty holding office in a government building as President of the United states, then ALL CITIZENS should know about such an outrage. I dont care about personal life, but when you are CURRENTLY PRESIDENT and conduct yourself in such a repugnant dishonorable manner, then your darned straight its my business now. Your political leaders are your business. If they are abusing their positions of power, that is a disgrace. Clinton was attacked for his abuse of power, and rightly so.

[emprworm]

George Bush the human being is one thing, George Bush the President is something completely different. When I talk about Bush, I talk about him as the President of the United States, not as the person he is in his private life. What he does in his private life is his business alone, but what de does at the White House affects us all.

i can accept your logic that gw bush the president affects you. however i really dont know what he's done that is so horrible. some really horrible things have happened in the world during the last 2 years and i just fail to see what awful international crime bush has comitted. what do you want from him?

i think he's handling the iraq situation well. he went to the UN like everyone wanted. he did not do it on his own. he listened to the world and sought international approval- which he now has. what else must he do?

[Anathema]

The fact that Clinton performed adultry does not concern you. The location does not concern you either. In what way were you harmed by Clintons sexual adventures?

There has been bigger scum in the white house you know. Nixon for example. If a president steals documents from political adversaries or has nazist ideas I think the public should know, but his personal life does not concern you at all.

[undsputed]

Lay off CNN :) I consider CNN to be a credible source. They are owned by Ted Turner and are thus linked to the parent company which is AOL-Time Warner. AOL-Time Warner is publicly owned and therefore is held in check by the need to provide honest material to maintain credibility. Failure to do so would cost them credibility and would adversely affect the stock price. Bad stock prices means pissed off investors. You get the idea?

CNN is along the lines of the BBC and i believe both are credible sources. Those in other countries who bad-mouth CNN are ones who don't understand what a free media is since their government is forcing stuff down their threats through their own media (like Iraq reporting a unanimous vote for Saddam when cameras show a guy voting "no").

CNN has plenty of shows that explore all areas of the topic, such as Crossfire. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's cause you haven't watched CNN.

[Acriku]

Oh I've watched Crossfire. Basically 5 or 6 people who argue argue argue about the issues at hand. I watch CNN all the time. And they sure are credible sources. But they do distort the truth, if it brings them good ratings! It's business as usual.

[emprworm]

[Edric O]

I believe that if you have your penis sucked (Forgive the blunt language) by a secretary while on duty holding office in a government building as President of the United states, then ALL CITIZENS should know about such an outrage.

I wasn't aware that the President's penis (forgive the blunt language) is a matter of national security... Maybe it should undergo close inspection by a UN team of experts then. And, of course, being such an important strategic asset, at least two high-ranking government members should give their consent before it is used. Also, for the sake of keeping the public informed, the entire event should be broadcasted live by at least one TV channel.

[emprworm]

wasn't aware that the President's penis (forgive the blunt language) is a matter of national security... Maybe it should undergo close inspection by a UN team of experts then. And, of course, being such an important strategic asset, at least two high-ranking government members should give their consent before it is used. Also, for the sake of keeping the public informed, the entire event should be broadcasted live by at least one TV channel.

well you are aware of it now. if you cant handle the spotlight of being a leader, then get out. When you are a president, all eyes are upon you. How you conduct yourself both professionally and MORALLY will have far reaching implications on how your people view you. That should be part of your consideration before taking the job.

Comitting adultery against your wife and doing it in an official government office reserved for the conduct of the nations affairs WILL be and RIGHTLY scrutinzed by moral citizens who want more from their leaders. Myself included. I would never vote in an adulterer who commits acts like that WHILE IN OFFICE. If he comits them in the past, and he is sorry for what he did, then that might be another story. How would the british feel if someone photographed their queen engaged in beastiality? wouldn't look to good now would it?

[Acriku]

That should be part of your consideration before taking the job.

Now which job are talking about? The one he was elected in...ah fuggetaboutit.

I agree with empr on this one (gee willickers), there is a time and a place to do such things. That time and place was not the time and place. Bad choice of timing and placing, if anything. If he did it at his hotel on vacation, hell what would be the matter with that. (besides committing adultery, disrespecting Hilary, etc)

[emprworm]

I agree with empr on this one (gee willickers),

cool!

hey its ok, I agree with you on most everything you say about Israel / Palestine conflict so nya nya. ;D

[sneezer3]

well you are aware of it now. if you cant handle the spotlight of being a leader, then get out. When you are a president, all eyes are upon you. How you conduct yourself both professionally and MORALLY will have far reaching implications on how your people view you. That should be part of your consideration before taking the job.

Comitting adultery against your wife and doing it in an official government office reserved for the conduct of the nations affairs WILL be and RIGHTLY scrutinzed by moral citizens who want more from their leaders. Myself included. I would never vote in an adulterer who commits acts like that WHILE IN OFFICE. If he comits them in the past, and he is sorry for what he did, then that might be another story. How would the british feel if someone photographed their queen engaged in beastiality? wouldn't look to good now would it?

I agree with you here. i don't like him anyway. he makes me sick :P

[Gobalopper]

Well it wasn't just commiting adultery, didn't he also lie about it under oath?

[emprworm]

yea he did. he lied about in sworn testimony.

that makes him even more unqualified to be a president. thats the kind of stuff that bush is not doing. if bush did that kind of stuff, i would not support him.

[undsputed]

Well, I wasn't that bothered by it, but:

-the investigation into Clinton cost A LOT of money. If Clinton would have been straightforward and honest about it, millions could have been saved. I can't remember the exact dollar figure but I expect honesty from my friends, family, girlfriend, etc. (any type of relationship) and I am always honest with them. So, I would also expect honesty from the President....that has got to make sense....right? We aren't talking about a pimp here....we are talking about the President.

I think a lot of people from other counries just aren't used to keeping their government officials at high standards. I suppose its good in some countries if the leader isn't executing minorities (see Iraq and Serbia) or fixing elections. Americans hold people in power with high regard and expect them to act like they are supposed to be in the position. But I can understand how some people just don't get what your saying, Emp, since they just don't want their leadere to be a complete piece of $hit and they are satisfied.

[Edric O]

Don't get me wrong, Emprworm, I agree with you about Clinton. Commiting adultery anywhere makes him moral filth in my eyes. But then again, most politicians were/are moral filth way before they get into any office, so I don't see why you're making such a big deal about it. I mean, it should not have come as a surprise... I never expect a President (of any country) to have any moral values whatsoever. If he had them, he would never have made it to the top.

[emprworm]

most politicians were/are moral filth way before they get into any office, so I don't see why you're making such a big deal about it. I mean, it should not have come as a surprise... I never expect a President (of any country) to have any moral values whatsoever. If he had them, he would never have made it to the top.

that is too harsh. and besides, regardless of whether its true in all cases or not, that does not mean i should stay 'silent' when i KNOW of specific absues

[Edric O]

Yes, of course not.

[Anathema]

The oath thing was true, but why did the media put him into a position to ly in the first place?

Some journalist discovers that a person is doing adultry. The journalist wouldn't think of publicising it. The journalist is a human being afterall, who respects privacy. It's not his business anyway.

Wait- the person is Bill Clinton? Where's the phone!?!