posted
Actually the point I hoped to make with this thread, until Bdgee got me wound up, or maybe somebody spiked my Copnhagen, was that both sides have compromised their values to support their guy. Hence we all have compromised our expectations. In the end guys who would have ever thought that a person with a shady war record could be elected Pesident? We've done it 4 times in row. A president with a drunk driving conviction ? A well known womanizer? How did this happen? How do we rise up and say we demand beter when it's all we have to choose from? What has happened to the great men of this country? I know politicians are a reflection of society, I know a lot of things ave ben brushed under the rug in the past, but aren't there better men out there?
posted
That's the point bro' We have a right to expect more from those who lead us: morally and ethically and in leadership skill because they asked for the role. In that respect they asked for the public to scrutinize them.
That said, throughout history, powerful people always seem to have an Achille's Heel. What is the balance?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I didn't start this topis as "where have all the good men gone" is because I felt we needed to come to a consensus that both sides had been somewhat hypocritical and have compromised their beliefs in electing their party's leaders, so that we could move on too broaden the topic. My intention was too move on to solutions once we reached the consensus. I thought the Vietnam issue was a perfect issue to chrystalize this hypocracy.Only problem was Bdgee wouldn't admit that Clinton was shady during Vietnam. thus stalling the whole thread. I spent the whole night digging up evidence and Bdgee spent the whole night, well being Bdgee.
posted
"My intention was too move on to solutions once we reached the consensus."
Solutions to what?
Clinton has nothing to do with the fact that the Nation is in a dire condition from the policies and actions of the current administration and neither fact nor fantasy about Clinton is or could be a solution. It was not Clinton and it was not anything he had any part in that put the U.S. in Iraq as the invader of a sovereign Nation that did not attack nor even have the capacity to attack the U.S.
What consensus is it you are seeking?
The only consenus you are willing to reach is for the world to accept as fact some specious republican generated propagansa about Bill Clinton so as to change the subject from the real facts and the real problems that the republicans won't and can't solve, because they first have to accept responsibility for the mess they have caused. The consensus you are striving for is freedom to claim further falshoods about Clinton are facts (such falshoods as the multi-year multi billion dollar campaign to destroy the man with lies about a 40 - 50K profit on an options deal you claim had to be crooked because no one makes that sort of profit? It's done every day! And your whole Whitewater campaign of lies was proved (at federal expense) to be exactly that, lies) and change the subject and alter the focus of the public on the actual problem.
The world needs us to focus directly on the problem and concentrate on finding the best way to procede from this pont, not to hide our heads in the sand and claim our problems are the specious propaganda you generate about history.
You will not reach a consensus that ignores that the problems are generated via republican policies. (Those of you of actual and honorable republican leanings, please forgive me for calling this bunch of liars and crooks republican....they hijacked the name....another shameful act.)
AGAIN, neither Bill Clinton not anything he did or didn't do has anything to do with or any responsibility for the problems this nation currently faces.
Let's reach a consensus that Bill Clinon is not the President, has not been for years, can not, by law, become President again, has not been in a position to be and is not responsible for the current conditions of the Nation, and the subject of Bill Clinton (or any character he has or doesn't have) does not provid any possible approach to the problem of what the Nation should do from this point on.
IP: Logged |
posted
No, Bush lied....it's his trademark. He continues to lie about his draft dodging. Sadly, that is only one of his lies and and a relatively minor one. Many of the other lies he has told have led the entire world into very very dangerous times and circumstances. We, this Nation and the world's people may never recover from them.
Clinton never denied his draft status or lack of service record.
IP: Logged |
posted
Gordon- Provide the link that says Clinton was honest about his actions during the war. Oh and please make it at least as credible as the Congressional record, while the democrats controlled congress.
"....This account would not have been imperative had Bill Clinton been completely honest with the American public concerning this matter. But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news conference this evening (September 5, 1992) after being asked another particular about his dodging the draft, "Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make".- Col Holmes
How was Clinton being open when he said that?
Clinton benefited from yet another lobbying campaign in order to evade this induction notice. "Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who has said he did not pull strings to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was able to get his Army induction notice canceled in the summer of 1969 after a lobbying effort directed at the Republican head of the state draft agency." Arrangements were made for Clinton to meet with Col. Williard A. Hawkins who "was the only person in Arkansas with authority to rescind a draft notice.
Find me where Bill Clinton said "I did benefit from my political connections to avoid service in Vietnam" Than he is being truthful and honest about his service.
posted
Gordon - Now I will move on. How did we get to the point that both parties have now nominated a person with a questionable war service record? How is it that both parties accepted that the last 4 elections? Throw in allegations of womanizing, OWI convictions etc. Where have all of our real leaders gone? I know that things have been brushed under the rug in the past, but did we always have this poor of a choice as we seem to have now? Maybe it's just the result of the Vietnam era. The WWII generation seemed to produce alot better leaders than the Baby Boomer generation has.
posted
And the time of the geek trash continues. Two men not to long ago in public life would have been totally ashamed to show there faces now they are and were president. Bush on one hand is so bold to have a draft dodger for a V.P. and also Rove as his closest advisor.No shame at all. completely disgusting. But I sure liked Clinton better and so did the world. Makes no difference America is on a new path for leadership. And service to your country is going to be very rare indeed
IP: Logged |
posted
Man if we could just all stand up and say we demand better leaders! But nobody seems to fit that description. Military service is not a necessity, but honesty, integrity is. There has got to be somebody better from this generation than what we've had so far. Or is it just that society has slipped so far we don't produce good leaders anymore?
posted
On May 1, 2003, President Bush stood underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced that “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Here’s a look at the situation then compared to the situation now, by the numbers:
................................May 1, 2003...............Today U.S. Troops Wounded...............542..............18,777 U.S. Troops Killed.....................139...............2,556 Size of U.S. Forces.............150,000............132,000 Iraq Security Forces.......7,000-9000............250,500 Number of Insurgents.............5,000..............20,000 Insurgent Attacks Per Day.............8...................75 Cost to U.S. Taxpayer.......$79 billion........$320 billion
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
"Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make".
amounts to a coverup? He didn't hide or ask that anyone or any agency keep secret any thing ever said or filed.
The entire record of his deferment is all there today, just as it was then and characterizing that statement as a coverup and dishonest is a bit more than far fetched, indeed, it is more than disingenuous.
As to your,
"Find me where Bill Clinton said "I did benefit from my political connections to avoid service in Vietnam" Than he is being truthful and honest about his service.". Why would any person make a false claim like that to apease the hate mill of the republicans. He didn't say that because he didn't have the influence to get favorable treatement and didn't have reason to confess to a lie.
Why on earth would he make such a statement.
My god, man, in that day, the first act of any draft board was to classify every young man to be 1A upon his 18th birthday or as soon thereafter as their lottery number was up. Maybe half the youth of that day had their draft status reviewed after direct contact or meetings with "...the only person in (their State) with authority to rescind a draft notice. It was the only way to get a student deferment and was the expected and accepted practice. Student deferments had to be applied for through channels and only came about through the "recending" of a previous draft status. You could not get a student deferment from a 4F classification, for example, only from an "existing" status that placed you in jeopardy of being drafted.
You are asking for the condemning of a man for following the rules!
On the other hand, dubya has repeatedly lied about his draft dodging as well as the circumstances of his beein allowed to enter the Guard and his desertion from his assigned duties for the Guard and has secreted records away so he can claim the records are different from what they are.
IP: Logged |
posted
Does anybody think the reason the last two Presidents have been of low moral character is because that is the way society is? Or is it more that society is forced to accept the short comings of it's leaders?
posted
When the majority vote doesn't count, citizens can't be held responsible for those elected.
I would further argue that Bush could probably use a good BJ. It might temper his obsession with world domination if he was gettin' a little lovin' action on the side.
LOL
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
posted
I don't agree that the "last two Presidents have been of low moral character". Unless you wish to characterize Eisenhower, Bush, Rosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Reagan, Harding, Kennedy, and so on and so on and so on to be of "low moral character" because of their activities with women they were not married to (a very backward appeal to religion, actually), there is no reason to so label Clinton. (In truth, the lure of women seems to be associated with particularly outstanding leaership and diplomatic abilitiies.)
On the other hand, dubya is of only the basest of moral character in most ways. He is a druggie and a drunk and stock fraud and a tax cheat and - - -.
Perhaps worst of all in a President, dubya is a habitual liar of the constant variety.
IP: Logged |
posted
I am looking to single out these two because of their age and am using them as an example because what I am trying to figure out here is our society only producing these leaders or are we accepting them. In other words are we missing better candidates or is this the best we get?
posted
Wow, all you guys know is lies and hatred. Just because you lost the election for lack of any substantive stands on issues other than "hate Bush." I switched to Independant after Clinton endorsed genocide in Rwanda by his inaction.
The fact that he purjured himself makes no difference to me in specific, but look at the consequence: as Clinton was in the process of purjury, he was distracted from running the country at full effectiveness. 5,000,000 were dying around the world as victims of brutal dictators and Clinton was busy covering up his lies about the draft and keeping a lid on Monica Lewinski. The only place Clinton did anything in response to genocide was when it affected white folks in the Balkans. Pure ethno-phobia.
Let's be honest too. In any major corporation Bill Clinton would have been fired for such conduct. What he did constitutes abuse of power and creation of an un-safe work environment. There are state and federal statutes that in effect say: "hands off the help." Anytime you use your title to get coerse, invite, or engage in sex with someone who is clearly in a subordinate professional job title, it constitutes sexual harassment.
Thus it is against the law to protect employees and interns from predatory bosses. Consentuality cannot be used as a defense because there is no proof a person was not coersed or intimidated by the authority of the boss. So it is not a move from religion as you have so arrogantly asserted, it is a protection policy instituted by legal eagles to protect corporations from sexual harassment suits.
But after all, Clinton lied and 800,000 Rwandans died. Now we cry because the sitting president told the truth and 3000 Americans have died with honor. Interesting that Dems value the 3000 American human beings more highly than they did 800,000 Rwandans. Is that racism all that surprising though given that we let as many Somalis die because they weren't worth the valor and dignity of 12 US troops during Clinton's reign. Once again my point is valid: Democratic policy is racist in supporting genocide.
By the way Gordon, I was wondering if you are actually George Bush. Both with the same initials. But then, GB doesn't talk with intolorance about his political opponents the way you do, so I guess not.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
GB your vote counted, it was just in the minority. In the first case, the electoral college made sure small state votes counted. In the second case Bush just clobbered Kerry because hate doesn't win. Wow that has some theological implications too.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
"Sadly we have to survive the next two years of Hell first."
Actually GB Hell comes later. War is often called Hell, but this war will go on beyond that. The enemy combatants will persist because like brutal people all around the world they see that as their only means to power. It's interesting they haven't struck France yet but pretty much everywhere else has felt the chill of terrorism.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
