Politically Incorrect.

[FoFa]

Funny that Iraqis don't share your opinion, still it's good for Bush's pals in the armaments industries eh

Now see, it all depends on who you listen too. Because there are plenty of stories out there about the Iraqis who do share that opinon. And a lot of the stories argue that the Majority of the Iraqis share that opinon. So like I said, it appears who you listen too. And truthfully, as in most things like this, the real truth is most likely some where in between.

 

[FoFa]

A brief look at historical data for the Down Jones industrial average shows an overall climb throughout the 1990s that ended in 2000 when the overvalued US economy slipped to a more reasonalbe level and plataeud.

Maybe, if you only use one single indicator. Mine was my paycheck vs cost.

The President's job, therefore, is to institute policies that help to lessen the severity of the cycle. Under Bush, the economy has been very volatile.

And some say it is a hold over from the Clinton policies. As Clinton got the credit for a good econmy brought around by GB Sr., so GWB gets the blame for the Clinton years.

Futhermore, contrary to your belief military campaigns tend to have a boost to the economy (that's why we like them so much).

But the point you seem to fail to point out, is it also boost the Gov. spending which you were complaining about to start with.

If Bush is so intent on stopping terrorism, then apprehending the individual most directly responsible for organizing terrorists throughout the world should be a top priority.

I still don't see how you can blame for not being able to find someone who could be hiding in 2 or 3 different countries, sorry, you are just LAME on that.

Actually, WMDs were the one and only reason he gave. When that didn't turn out, he made up a new reason. When that didn't turn out, he made a new one. Finally, he's settled on "spreading freedom".

I saw his speech, and I (OK I can't remember them) recall many more reasons than WMD for going into IRAQ, this was before the initial attack, so to say there was only ONE, is extremly flawed on your part, or you just like to mislead.

Wow. Yeah. OK. Let me fill you in on this one. Everyone hated Harriet Meirs.

My Bad, got her confused with someone else for some odd reason. Age does that to you I guess.
But I thought it good strategy, the next one went in without so much as a whimper basically.

Are we including the Presidents who served before social security was established?

Really out on a limb with that one.

I see now. So this doesn't actually have anything to do with facts, you just don't give a shit about anyone who disagrees with you. Nice.

AWW! You said a dirty word.
Not true, it is expected of the Dem's to take that stance, I would expect the same from the Rep's if the situation was reversed. So there is no real meaning there.

Well then indict 85% of the adult population in this country because that's about the proportion who've had sex out of wedlock.

People of weak stature. Today, backstab their sig. other, tomorrow backstab their country, the step is much shorter.

Other than that, yes, those were all blunders by Clinton. Or at least they're not worth arguing against

But along those lines most of what you are complaining about here is along the same lines, so outward appearance is "I don't want to talk about Clinton, But I sure will bitch about Bush". That tends to lead one towards thinking you do not have an open mind then.

As far as I'm aware, the war ended while Bush was still in office. What, exactly was the coalition needed for?

Keeping a solid front to Iraq. Maybe we would not be there if Iraq saw all those countries steadfast on their borders, instead of getting all wishy washy. Just a thought.

I see. Basically you're saying it's OK for a Republican to start a war for political and personal purposes (because that's exactly what happened) but not a Democrat. OK....

Nope, I I beleive you incorrect, so there

 

[Kraj]

This is just too much fun.

Maybe, if you only use one single indicator. Mine was my paycheck vs cost.

The Dow Jones industrial average is a pretty darn good indicator of the strength of the economy; a heck of a lot better than one individual's income versus expenses.

And some say it is a hold over from the Clinton policies. As Clinton got the credit for a good econmy brought around by GB Sr., so GWB gets the blame for the Clinton years.

Yeah, "some say" a lot of stupid things. I really don't care about who gets credit or blame for what, I care about the real results of policy. But you know what, I just do not have the expertise in economics (mostly because I hate economics) to present an air-tight case on this one, so I'll just let it go.

But the point you seem to fail to point out, is it also boost the Gov. spending which you were complaining about to start with.

That comment had nothing to do with my points about Bush. I was simply correcting your misconception.

I still don't see how you can blame for not being able to find someone who could be hiding in 2 or 3 different countries, sorry, you are just LAME on that.

Why don't you just call me lame a few more times. It really strengthens your argument.

I don't blame Bush for not being able to find bin Laden; it's an extraordinarily difficult task. But we can't find him if we don't try and if he's hard to find then we have to try hard. What I blame him for is devoting the massive and extraordinary reasources of the U.S. government to Iraq instead of to finding bin Laden.

I saw his speech, and I (OK I can't remember them) recall many more reasons than WMD for going into IRAQ, this was before the initial attack, so to say there was only ONE, is extremly flawed on your part, or you just like to mislead.

Yes, back when I sort of believed what he said about terrorists and Iraq and such, I saw his speeches too. The reason you can't remember more reasons is because there weren't any. The reason you think there were more reasons is because he kept changing what the reasons were as time went by and made it seem like they were his reasons all along.

Here's the State of the Union address from 2003. Care to find anything in there about Iraq other than terrorism and WMDs?

But I thought it good strategy, the next one went in without so much as a whimper basically.

Making a terrible choice in order to make your next one look better is a good startegy? Perhaps you might have noticed his first nominee, Roberts, was confirmed without a problem. Why? Because he was an excellent choice. The most recent nominee, Alito, has yet to be confirmed. But at least he's considered a good candidate and there is a healthy discussion occuring over his confirmation. As I pointed out before, even Bush's supporters couldn't stand Meirs, and angering your supporters is never, ever good strategy.

Really out on a limb with that one.

Tu quoque.

AWW! You said a dirty word.
Not true, it is expected of the Dem's to take that stance, I would expect the same from the Rep's if the situation was reversed. So there is no real meaning there.

FoFa, there will always has been and always will be disagreement between political parties. That's normal and healthy. But it is relatively rare to have conflict so volatile to the point of hatred; Dems hate Reps and vice versa. That is not normal and it is not good for the health and stability of this country. Bush has done everything to encourage this volatility and use it to his political advantage.

People of weak stature. Today, backstab their sig. other, tomorrow backstab their country, the step is much shorter.

Sorry, but that's a load of crap. There is no correlation whatsoever between fidelity and leadership. Do I really have to list great leaders who were unfaithful to their wives and terrible ones who weren't? Here's a short one: Thomas Jefferson and FDR vs. Hitler and Stalin. To quote Dennis Miller: "A person who regularly gets off is less likely to get off on offing someone." (Although I suppose if Hitler actually married Eva Braun, then those good old fashion family values would have prevented WWII all together! )

But along those lines most of what you are complaining about here is along the same lines, so outward appearance is "I don't want to talk about Clinton, But I sure will bitch about Bush". That tends to lead one towards thinking you do not have an open mind then.

You're right, I don't have an open mind about Bush. I literally hate him and it is likely there is nothing that can be said or done to change that. Interestingly, though, the exact same thing you just said could be said about you. If I'm overlooking the exact faults in Clinton that I accuse of Bush, you're doing the exact opposite.

Keeping a solid front to Iraq. Maybe we would not be there if Iraq saw all those countries steadfast on their borders, instead of getting all wishy washy. Just a thought.

So, you're saying if we had been there all along we wouldn't be there now? Yeah, that makes sense. I might point out that it was George H.W. Bush's weakness that left Saddam in power in the first place. While I understand why he made the choice that he did, if the coalition had followed through and gotten the job done then and there, Saddam would have been gone. That was the time to get rid of him, not 10 years later when the worst thing he did was ignore the U.N., which is the same thing the U.S. has been doing since we formed it.

 

[Rich]

If I'm overlooking the exact faults in Clinton that I accuse of Bush, you're doing the exact opposite.

Bill didn't have any faults, one of the most popular Presidents for decades

 

[Rich]

If I'm overlooking the exact faults in Clinton that I accuse of Bush, you're doing the exact opposite.

Bill didn't have any faults, one of the most popular Presidents for decades

 

[FoFa]

Sorry, but that's a load of crap. There is no correlation whatsoever between fidelity and leadership. Do I really have to list great leaders who were unfaithful to their wives and terrible ones who weren't? Here's a short one: Thomas Jefferson and FDR vs. Hitler and Stalin. To quote Dennis Miller: "A person who regularly gets off is less likely to get off on offing someone." (Although I suppose if Hitler actually married Eva Braun, then those good old fashion family values would have prevented WWII all together! )

There you are gett'n all rude again. Funny how you accuse some one who disagrees with you of that, then turn around and use the same yourself.

Any way I found this:
“Edmund Burke wrote, ‘great men are the landmarks and guideposts of the state.’ And when guideposts misdirect, citizens who follow their leaders begin to wallow.”

So, as America sinks deeper and deeper into the mire of immorality, Professor Olasky gives us 13 “landmarks” that demonstrate irrefutably the link between religious beliefs and policy decisions, and the link between lying about adultery and lying about other matters.

AND THIS:
"What Bill Clinton does in his own private life is his business. He's still a good president, despite his sexual adventures." These words, or words to that effect, were at the heart of liberal apologetics, employed in defense of the former president at the time of the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal in 1998. Such sentiments were widespread at the time, and they say a great deal about our understanding of what constitutes the essence of political leadership. Interestingly enough, though, this very line has become part of the adolescent storehouse of ready-made lines that many young people today quickly retrieve and trumpet whenever the subject is brought up for discussion. Such a line on their lips is testimony to just how far a leader's influence can spread--for this line of defense has spread not only to another country, but to a younger generation.

And This:
Prov 6:32-35 -- But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away; for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

 

[Kraj]

There you are gett'n all rude again. Funny how you accuse some one who disagrees with you of that, then turn around and use the same yourself.

Actually, FoFa, you opened that door by calling one of my posts lame. You started the disrespect, so don't go whining about it now. I never, ever make a disrespectful comment to someone who has been respectful to me. But when someone starts in on me, I have nothing against dishing it right back.

Any way I found this: “Edmund Burke wrote, ‘great men are the landmarks and guideposts of the state.’ And when guideposts misdirect, citizens who follow their leaders begin to wallow.”

Tell ya what: after you actually read Olasky's book instead of quoting the summary get back to me.

So, as America sinks deeper and deeper into the mire of immorality, Professor Olasky gives us 13 “landmarks” that demonstrate irrefutably the link between religious beliefs and policy decisions, and the link between lying about adultery and lying about other matters.

Call me crazy, but I don't exactly expect a born-again Christian to view the subject of morality and religion with an objective perspective. Christians (like Burke) tend to view moral standing as the source of absolutely every social success and problem, and that's just not realistic. This opinion of mine is supported by phrases such as, "as America sinks deeper and deeper in the mire of immorality". This phrase is extraordinarily biased and almost single-handedly proves the book is not an objective examination but an effort to lay blame at a perceived immoral leader.

Furthermore, the perception that America is becoming increasingly immoral is completely subjective. Personally I agree with Walt Whitman:
"There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now."

There is perhaps no social belief more consistently held among Christians since the religion's inception 2,000 years ago than the belief that society is increasingly becoming morally bankrupt. It's simply not true.

AND THIS:
"What Bill Clinton does in his own private life is his business. He's still a good president, despite his sexual adventures." These words, or words to that effect, were at the heart of liberal apologetics, employed in defense of the former president at the time of the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal in 1998. Such sentiments were widespread at the time, and they say a great deal about our understanding of what constitutes the essence of political leadership. Interestingly enough, though, this very line has become part of the adolescent storehouse of ready-made lines that many young people today quickly retrieve and trumpet whenever the subject is brought up for discussion. Such a line on their lips is testimony to just how far a leader's influence can spread--for this line of defense has spread not only to another country, but to a younger generation.

And....? What's your point?

Prov 6:32-35 -- But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away; for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

Proverbs. Good one. Hey, the Proverbs were written by King David, right? And King David was hand-picked by God to rule Israel, right? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but King David could potentially be considered the greatest political leader depicted in the Bible, assuming you don't consider Jesus a political leader (which I don't and I doubt he would have).

Now, I'm going way out on a limb here, but I seem to recall something about David committing adultery! Oh yeah, and having his mistress's husband murdered. Then he appologized to God. It seems to me David was a lot worse than Bill Clinton, and yet David is considered to be a great leader and poster boy for repentance. Hmmmm.....

 

[FoFa]

Actually, FoFa, you opened that door by calling one of my posts lame. You started the disrespect, so don't go whining about it now. I never, ever make a disrespectful comment to someone who has been respectful to me. But when someone starts in on me, I have nothing against dishing it right back.

LAME isn't rude, lame, is well, lame. Means you havn't a leg to stand on, your argument is too weak to argue, while on the other hand you defined CRAP as being rude in prior posts

And....? What's your point?

If you actually read the whole thing, you will notice that an entire generation has been effect by the mis-doings of a leader caused by adultery.
And as I can attest by having a 13 year old, they actually do use his excuses (only it holds no water with me).
So one could assume since great leaders have been adulterous in the past, and that fact didn't come out until long after their leadership was over, that hiding it changes things, but having it public can effect the people the leader is over. trust me, if I got a hummer and told wify it's no big deal, Clinton said so! Would not fly, but yet the current younger generation seems to think of it as an excuse to partake in that activity. They may or maynot do it regardless, but they seem to be justified in some sense since Clinton.

 

[Kraj]

LAME isn't rude, lame, is well, lame. Means you havn't a leg to stand on, your argument is too weak to argue, while on the other hand you defined CRAP as being rude in prior posts

So some name calling is rude while other name calling is not? If my argument is weak, say my argument is weak and then prove it. That's fair and reasonable. If you say my argument is "LAME LAME LAME", that's rude. Justify it all you want, it's still rude.

If you actually read the whole thing, you will notice that an entire generation has been effect by the mis-doings of a leader caused by adultery.

I did read the whole thing. The quote said that the younger generation has been influenced by Clinton's leadership, evidenced by their repetition of the belief that Clinton is still a good President, regardless of what he does in his private life. You automatically see this as a bad thing because of your beliefs, but the quote makes no case for that and you follow it up with nothing. The quote is not evidence of your argument.

And as I can attest by having a 13 year old, they actually do use his excuses (only it holds no water with me).

Maybe you can enlighten me on this one. Is there any excuse a 13-year-old won't use?

So one could assume since great leaders have been adulterous in the past, and that fact didn't come out until long after their leadership was over, that hiding it changes things, but having it public can effect the people the leader is over.

I think there is some validity to that point. Then your problem with Clinton, though, is not that he was adulterous but that he was stupid, reckless and irresponsible enough to get caught while in office and embarass the country. If that is the case, then I completely agree with you.

trust me, if I got a hummer and told wify it's no big deal, Clinton said so! Would not fly, but yet the current younger generation seems to think of it as an excuse to partake in that activity. They may or maynot do it regardless, but they seem to be justified in some sense since Clinton.

I'll tell ya something, if I were a father I'd much prefer my children sexually express themselves through oral sex rather than intercourse. But since when did teenagers need justifaction to have sex, anyway? If you're concerned that the current generation doesn't feel guilty or ashamed enough about enjoying their sexuality because of Clinton, well I say, "THANK YOU, BILL!"

 

[selenau837]

You know Kraj, I'm not a Democrat, but your argument is really well written, and almost changed my mind.

 

[Kraj]

You know Kraj, I'm not a Democrat, but your argument is really well written, and almost changed my mind.

Thanks! I'm not trying to change your party alliegance, though (not that I'd mind) - there are things I disagree with the Dems over. I don't even think Kerry would've been a particularly noteworthy President and, if I had been old enough at the time, I probably would have voted for Bush, Sr.

BTW, I was rereading the thread and realized there was a point of miscommunication:

7.) His most significant contribution to domestic politics, the Department of Homeland Security, is ineffective or - at best - no more effective than the CIA, FBI and NSA were prior to its existence.

OK, so the worst that can be said in this case is he is not any better than any other president in creating these departments.

My response was:

Possibly. The difference is that this is one of the few things that he's actually done. The less he tries to accomplish, the worse his failures are.

What I should have realized at the time was that I was not clear enough in my initial phrasing. I did not mean the FBI, CIA, NSA and DoHS are not effective, I mean that the DoHS has done nothing to improve the effectiveness of homeland security; it may actually be worse now as the agencies that report to DoHS are bogged down by additional beaurocracy.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

 

[selenau837]

Thanks! I'm not trying to change your party alliegance, though (not that I'd mind) - there are things I disagree with the Dems over. I don't even think Kerry would've been a particularly noteworthy President and, if I had been old enough at the time, I probably would have voted for Bush, Sr.

Yes, I believe that nobody really agrees with all aspects of their favored party. Such is life.

However, I prefer not to debate in the political arena. I have lost friends over that a long time ago, and swore to never do it again. I will gladly give my opinions, and listen to yours, but never fully debate and have heated arguments over it. Debating politics is not worth the loss of friendships.

Besides, there is other stuff to debate over. Once I find one worthy of my opinion, I will speak my mind. *giggles*. Nope not concided.

 

[Kraj]

However, I prefer not to debate in the political arena. I have lost friends over that a long time ago, and swore to never do it again. I will gladly give my opinions, and listen to yours, but never fully debate and have heated arguments over it. Debating politics is not worth the loss of friendships.

That's a pretty good policy. For me, I probably wouldn't want to be close friends with someone I couldn't have a good-natured discussion about something we disagree on. But that's just my personal preference. That reminds me of a quote...I think I'll change my sig

 

[selenau837]

That's a pretty good policy. For me, I probably wouldn't want to be close friends with someone I couldn't have a good-natured discussion about something we disagree on. But that's just my personal preference. That reminds me of a quote...I think I'll change my sig

Yes, but our debate went past good-natured to down right venguful and mean. Then again, we were both young.

I try not to debate religion and politics. I think those are all personal items that can be shared but never truely have a heated debate over. Discussions are great, but no fighting or trying to convert someones opionions or views.

Besides I kinda like you and you're a Dem. It can be done if done tastfully.

I was just taught your political opinions are personal. I mean why else are the voting booths concealed so no one can see who are you voting for.

 

[Kraj]

I mean why else are the voting booths concealed so no one can see who are you voting for.

I don't know. With those awful punch cards, half the time I can't see who I'm voting for!

 

[selenau837]

I don't know. With those awful punch cards, half the time I can't see who I'm voting for!

Nope, down here in the country, we have these new fangled computer type votin' machines.

 

[Rich]

If you actually read the whole thing, you will notice that an entire generation has been effect by the mis-doings of a leader caused by adultery.
And as I can attest by having a 13 year old, they actually do use his excuses (only it holds no water with me).

Don't drive whilst drunk son. it's a George Bush dad.
Don't buy somebody elses licence to escape punishment, it's a George Bush dad.
Don't tell me lies! it's a George Bush dad.
Don't beat up on that kid son, just because he called your daddy names, it's a Geoorge Bush dad.
Don't use your brother to rig your high school election son, it's a George Bush dad.
Don't start shooting that gun at somebody else just 'cause you can't get your own way son, it's a George Bush dad

Though shalt NOT KILL, God to Moses, the Book of Quotes

 

[ShaneMan]

Hey Krja,

I don't want any part of jumping in on yours and FoFa's tango, but did want to let you know that Proverbs was written by Solomon not King David so your above "Poster Child" quote won't be able to fly since Solomon didn't commit adultery and murder. That's as close to this fire as I want to get so...

See ya,
Shane

 

[Kraj]

Hey Krja,

I don't want any part of jumping in on yours and FoFa's tango, but did want to let you know that Proverbs was written by Solomon not King David so your above "Poster Child" quote won't be able to fly since Solomon didn't commit adultery and murder. That's as close to this fire as I want to get so...

See ya,
Shane

Ah yes, my bad. I tend to get Proverbs crossed with Psalms in my brain. Thanks for pointing that out.

Doesn't really change my point about David, though, (or a million other examples from the Bible, for that matter) but you're completely correct. And please, don't feel like you shouldn't comment. I may be acting like an ass right now, but that's because my posts tend to match the tone of the person I'm speaking with. If you argue a differing perspective with me in a respectful and constructive tone, I'll do the same. It's what I like best

 

[ShaneMan]

Ah yes, my bad. I tend to get Proverbs crossed with Psalms in my brain. Thanks for pointing that out.

Doesn't really change my point about David, though, (or a million other examples from the Bible, for that matter) but you're completely correct. And please, don't feel like you shouldn't comment. I may be acting like an ass right now, but that's because my posts tend to match the tone of the person I'm speaking with. If you argue a differing perspective with me in a respectful and constructive tone, I'll do the same. It's what I like best

Hey Kraj,

I do believe you would be respectful. I've been following some of the posts here for about a month or so and have noticed that you always seem to be informed and fair, even when you don't agree. You also stick to the subject and seem to avoid the pop off remarks and actually have a point to make and not just a sarcastic remark. I've read enough of your post to know we don't see eye to eye and if I decide to post, sometime, then I would intend on being repectful and civil. (Gotten too old to argue).

Your welcome for pointing it out to you and you are right. It is true about King David and a bunch of others. That's what kind of makes one of the points in the Bible. Not perfect, just forgiven.

Have a good weekend, (what's left of it)
Shane