Do you believe in Democracy?

[Wanker]

Kieren said:

banana expressed the fear that people don't want dissenting opinions

You misunderstand, Kieren. I don't fear those people, I just want to be clear if that is what they really want. Some, and I repeat, some of the conservative posters here have been expressing opinions, which in my mind, come close to advocating the elimination of the democratic party.

Kieren, as long as I've known you on this and Argo's BBS, you've been one of the most rational people I've ever met. In fact, I thought you were a very open-minded kind of person. But something about BC has lit the fire in you. I think we all get the drift that you hate him.

I would argue with you that just like it would not be fair to accuse Gerald Ford of being as devious as Nixon, it is not fair to accuse Gore of being a liar like Clinton.

I find it very amusing that nobody paid any attention to Gore until he decided to run for President. Now, he's been elevated, to borrow from Nash, to the position of Anti-Christ. Talk about your Republican opportunism!

I have nothing personal against Bush, and I will ignore the fact that he lied about his DUI arrest. All that is in the past. I just don't happen to agree with his stance on a few issues.

Clinton is past history. He is gone in a couple of months. How far back in history do are we going to go to argue our points? George Bush Sr. looked at the camera and said "Read my lips, no new taxes". I would've thought that hit you Reps harder than Clinton lying about getting blown in his office. Your own president lied to you about taxes, something that directly affects your pocketbook, yet you place a blowjob far above that on your lists of presidential lies?

Using your logic paradigm, with your Bill/Hillary/Al statement, then we are to assume that George Sr/George Jr is a fair statement, right? So, we can expect to be lied to by George Jr. just as we were lied to by George Sr.

Now, if by some miracle(or disaster, depending on your POV) Gore is elected and becomes President, let's say he is assassinated or dies. That makes Liebermann president. You will then see him elevated to Anti-Christ status level, too, and the Jew baiting will begin.

 

[Fury]

 

Originally posted by banana:
.........George Bush Sr. looked at the camera and said "Read my lips, no new taxes".

The biggest reason why I did not vote for Mr. Bush Sr. in 1992.  I felt he lied to my face.  Whether he did or did not lie is a matter of opinion; mine is that he did.

Fury

[Toad]

Nash..not to beat a dead horse, but

I almost infer that you think a USAF pilot that did not go to VietNam during that era somehow equates to "draft dodging." Tell me it isn't so.

My brother graduated from UPT in '67...Bush Jr's time...he was a FAIP (First Assignment Instructor Pilot) or "plowback". He went right back into ATC training new kids. He fulfilled his committment and got out in '72. He applied for and was granted an "early out" by a few months. Was his service somehow less honorable? Were he to run for President, would we scupcake and denigrate him for not being a "real" pilot? BTW, at that time ATC got "first pick" when it needed pilots. He's damn good, third in his class I think.

Overall, a small percentage of USAF pilots served and flew combat in VietNam. Many were on duty in other places around the world and never rotated through the war zone. (No, no...please don't thank us!   ) Very, VERY, VERY few Guard guys went to the war zone and most who did were probably in Tanker or Transport squadrons on TDY. Should these Guard guys be ashamed of their service?

Bush Jr. got a good deal. He still served, however, just like thousands of other Guard guys that didn't go over.

I'll repeat that I have a strong suspicion that his committment probably WAS in the 24 month range and repeat that it can be waived by the Guard Unit. You could probably check this if you were interested in digging deep for the true situation at the time.

The only way you can really know what went on is to get his military records and see what actually went down. Probably impossible; somehow I bet the records have been lost.  

Was it the perfect "military hero" career? Not for a Hollywood movie. He didn't run away, however, he served. Just like Al the typist.

As for Bill again.... You tell me you are a "responsibility and accountability" guy.

Looking at Clinton's life story, from the ROTC lies and on through the TV Special "I did not have sex with that woman!", tell me how you can tolerate him at all, let alone respect him.

He, IMHO, is almost the poster boy for "no personal responsibility, no personal accountability".

I will always disdain him.

Now, I've reconsidered on the Scotch. Since I wouldn't pour my GOOD Scotch over his grave, I'll probably get something cheap I'd be willing to share....if the whole bottle still gets properly placed!  

[Nash]

Kieren,

 

Look, I am going to address the person I am talking to, therefore there is no mistake to whom I am speaking.

Huh? This sums up your reply to the post where I state that (my own paraphrasing here) I recieve 10 posts with "Nash, but.." and "Nash, you..", which is totally fine, but *you* attack *me*?

Hell yah address your posts to me if ya want. That only makes sense. The problem is your posts have not just been about the content of my posts, but the style, the intent, and question the very right I have to post in the first place. It's insulting.

 

If/when someone starts to defend them it creates a chemical and vitriolic response.

At least I know where yer coming from now, and I will read your posts within' this context.


Fury,

 

The discussion was about Clinton's lies, not the lies of Presidents who came before him. The fact that politicians lie is irrelevant to the discussion that Clinton lied and in fact sends the discussion on an unrelated tangent.

Actually Fury, this discusion was, again, of Republican hostility to such an extent that perhaps a 1 party system would suit them better. Not neccessarily about Clinton, and not neccessarily about past Presidents. Clinton was brought up as a possible reason for the hostility. Past Presidents were brought up to examine the almost double-standard in condemning Clinton's actions solely.

I apologize if I confused you. Kind of enlightening (though hardly suprising) that the mere mention of Clinton can trigger such a narrow focus.

[Nash]

Hey Toad,

No - though you're right, I *did* kinda slant my point that way, the gist of it was regarding his going AWOL. No disrespect intended to National Guardsmen.

Yah, I believe in personal responsibility/accountability. Strangely, I also have an enormous amount of respect for Clinton. Hey - I'm a complex person  

Thanks for the Scotch - even if it *is* the cheap stuff. As has been pointed out numerous times here (in case I forgot), I am Canadian. I will drink *anything*.  

[Fury]

Yer right Nash, I'm not sure how the whole Clinton thing relates to the original post    It sorta got brought up and then a lot of posts went in that direction.

Anyways, to go back to the original post, I don't really consider myself Republican even if I do vote a lot that way.  I've always thought that the two-party system sucked, and I wish there was more of a choice (of course there is already, we've got Buchanan and Nader and some other obscure people who run), but right now they're not really enough to do anything but swing votes from one party and possibly have an affect on the outcome of elections (Perot '92 was the best showing for a non two-party vote to date, I believe).  <wow, that is a long sentence>

Anything less that a 1 party system sounds like a dictatorship or monarchy (yuk, unless that's what you're looking for).

I enjoy a debate as much as the next OClubber (although I enjoy reading more than posting), so long as it stays civil and out of the gutter.  Regardless of which side or person is slinging, I can do without the tone of some of the posts.

Fury

[Nash]

Actually Fury - "anything less that a 1 party system" is *anarchy*  

[Kieren]

banana-

Bill/Hillary is a team, make no mistake on that point. They are intrinsically connected. It is said that Clinton would never have made the Whitehouse without Hillary. Hillary has her own laundry list, but that is neither here nor there- yet. She will run in 2004, and we can take that up then.  

Gore has left a slime trail too these last eight years. His inane ramblings aside, he has violated the very campaign rules he vowed to change (which, btw he vowed to do after McCain's movement gathered so much support). Ironic to see Mr. "No legal binding authority" champion campaign finance, right?

No one said anyone was the Anti-Christ that I have heard, except those defending the Clinton administration. I do strongly feel we have fallen into a moral abyss, with Bill Clinton himself providing the shove.

Where Gore lost me was when he fell in step with Clinton. I never, ever trusted Clinton after hearing the outrageous "I smoked, but I didn't inhale" line. "What a really stupid lie" I thought. I felt the wrong man had been forwarded by the Democrats, and Al Gore would have been better.

Then we have no legal binding authority, chinese campaign contributions, the victory lap around the Whitehouse, Monk shadow contributions, etc. that showed me that Gore was only Bill Clinton's protege'. Gore lies too, but he doesn't have nearly the charm or intelligence of Clinton to pull it off.

Notice how this isn't a rail against the DNC? I have targeted 3 individuals and as a voter and a citizen hold them responsible for their actions. The DNC disappoints me right now for their biased attempts to overturn this election through whatever means necessary. The Republicans can be similarly criticized, so I leave them out (beyond the "who sets the handcount standards" issue).

Al Gore cannot be trusted, and eight years of this administration underscores that point. I don't know if I can trust Bush, but I know I can't trust Gore.

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Nash:
Yah, I believe in personal responsibility/accountability. Strangely, I also have an enormous amount of respect for Clinton

I find those two sentences to be mutually exclusive. But then, I'm not a very complex person, at least when it comes to responsibility/accountability. Either it's there or it's not. In Bill's case, it clearly is not.




[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-30-2000).]