1. #126
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    Gingrich did that? I seem to remember how he was shoved into the corner by thje Democratic mutt named Clinton and had no choice.
    I remember it differently. Remember Gingrich voted against the Balanced Budget Act. He was playing brinksmanship with Clinton and lost.

    Then as we know it was found out that Gingrich was boinking one of his staff while he was married to someone else and the rest as they say is history.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  2. #127
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    I remember it differently. Remember Gingrich voted against the Balanced Budget Act. He was playing brinksmanship with Clinton and lost.

    Then as we know it was found out that Gingrich was boinking one of his staff while he was married to someone else and the rest as they say is history.
    Why is such a tryst forgiveabel when your Democratic icon is involved, byt Newt should have been beheaded for his moral lapse?

  3. #128
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    Why is such a tryst forgiveabel when your Democratic icon is involved, byt Newt should have been beheaded for his moral lapse?
    I never said anything of the sort. Newt made his public moral beliefs a jihad against Clinton and it is ultimately what brought him down as well.

    I hope that clears things up.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #129
    Forum Member
    xploded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    I never said anything of the sort. Newt made his public moral beliefs a jihad against Clinton and it is ultimately what brought him down as well.

    I hope that clears things up.



    So what we are going to start using terrorist phrases now to describe what goes on in this country? We all know that anything Clinton or Hanoi John has done or will do is ok in lib eyes but let a non-lib do anything and it is a mortal sin. You folks are the picture of a hypocrite.

  5. #130
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by xploded

    You folks are the picture of a hypocrite.
    Pot, meet kettle.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #131
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    I never said anything of the sort. Newt made his public moral beliefs a jihad against Clinton and it is ultimately what brought him down as well.

    I hope that clears things up.
    That is not true either. What brought Newt down was GREED. Had he not accepted a large sum of cash in violation of the Ruels of the House in exchange for his book, he would arguably be the most powerful politician in Washington today.

  7. #132
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    That is not true either. What brought Newt down was GREED. Had he not accepted a large sum of cash in violation of the Ruels of the House in exchange for his book, he would arguably be the most powerful politician in Washington today.
    Doubtful. His infidelities would have brought him down eventually. Otherwise the GOP leadership would looked foolish looking the other way after they had spent $70M dollar staring at Clinton's pants.
    Last edited by scfire86; 09-18-2004 at 05:03 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #133
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    This is why it is important to be consistant, and fair in the philosophy you use. It is equally important to criticize even your friends if the actions they take are similar to those that you criticize of your foe. If what Clinton did with Monica is disgusting, and immoral then that line needs to be kept accross the board. Don't take me as supporting Clinton here, but I do believe in fairness. I don't always practice it, but I am getting better. I don't think we need to re-open or start a new debate regarding actions in the past, there is plenty of that going on already.

  9. #134
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Doubtful. His infidelities would have brought him down eventually. Otherwise the GOP leadership would looked foolish looking the other way after they had spent $70M dollar staring at Clinton's pants.
    When the allegations about Newt came out, he acknowledged them like a man. Clinton denied them for months and accused the "vasy right-wing conspiracy" of making them up. He lied and forced the Congress to investigate him. He bears full responsibility for that $70 million.

    If Clinton's sex life was "his business" as the libs claim, then so was Newt's. But you guys, as usual, want it both ways.

    It is also intellectually dishonest to disagree that Newt's business dealings did not bring him down.

  10. #135
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

    If Clinton's sex life was "his business" as the libs claim, then so was Newt's. But you guys, as usual, want it both ways.

    It is also intellectually dishonest to disagree that Newt's business dealings did not bring him down.
    Newt's business dealings were a factor. I will agree.

    But his infidelities didn't help much. I could care less who Newtie is diddling.

    But he lived by the sword and he died by it (no pun intended). When you claim the moral high ground (such as he did), you should be prepared for the scrutiny that comes with it.

    And admitting it 'like a man' doesn't make it any less wrong.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #136
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Newt's business dealings were a factor. I will agree.

    But his infidelities didn't help much. I could care less who Newtie is diddling.

    But he lived by the sword and he died by it (no pun intended). When you claim the moral high ground (such as he did), you should be prepared for the scrutiny that comes with it.

    And admitting it 'like a man' doesn't make it any less wrong.
    No. Newt's business indiscretions were THE reason for his resignation. There was a total of over 30 GOP Representatives who were publicly stating that they would no longer support him as Speaker. There was a possible criminal investigation. There were also several other Deomcratic-filed ethics complaints pending. He did the only thing he could do, which was resign.

    His marital status had ZERO to do with it. Try to rewrite history all you want. But it still is not the truth.

  12. #137
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    1. My mind remembered the book deal as his downfall...didn't remember about the affair.

    2. And admitting it 'like a man' doesn't make it any less wrong.

    But he lived by the sword and he died by it (no pun intended).

    I know I'm getting a bit technical on the facts, again...but Clinton wasn't impeached for his relationship with that woman, Miss Lewinsky...

    On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
    (Article I of the bill of impeachment)

    I guess I'm a bit contrary to some, but I consider the "personal" ethics of the politicians more important than their political ethics. There are decisions and actions that from time to time need to be made that are difficult, and may involve deception or bending of the truth. That's reality of running a nation, and in light of that reality having leaders -- whether congressional or executive, that can be trusted personally matters a lot. If someone is unfaithful to the person who should be able to trust them the most, it's really questionable if they can be trusted with issues of natinal importance. If you don't act personally in a moral & ethical way, you're that much less likely to act with appropriate discretion when national needs require a compromise.
    Last edited by Dalmatian90; 09-19-2004 at 07:21 PM.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  13. #138
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Maybe you can explain this to me. It has always been one of the odder paradoxes of the whole impeachment process of Clinton.

    Conservatives constantly bemoan the intrusion of government. Especially as it relates to an individual's private life.

    But yet felt perfectly justified in spending almost $70M doing just that with Clinton.

    Why is that? Does the indignation of the intrusion of one's private life not apply to liberals?

    Why would anyone care except for the two (or three) principles involved? Would you want private matters between you and your wife aired for the entire world? Yet I've heard any number of times conservatives defend Ken Starr as someone who handled his investigation with dignity. If you consider staring at someone's pants dignified, I guess you're right.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #139
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    I guess in my opinion, when you are dealing with the President, anything he does in the oval office is our business. Barring matters of natonal security requiring security clearances. I do feel that Clinton's exploits with Monica is our business. I think it is an indicator as to the make up of an individual. Was the actual affair impeachable? Absolutely not, but his perjury was. It would not have been a big deal had he not covered it up. Just like almost every scandal out there, it becomes scandolous because of the cover up.

  15. #140
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by jasper45
    I guess in my opinion, when you are dealing with the President, anything he does in the oval office is our business. Barring matters of natonal security requiring security clearances. I do feel that Clinton's exploits with Monica is our business.
    Good to know there are places where everything that happens and is discussed is everyone's business. I hope that gets put into the orientation manual for all incoming presidents.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #141
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Conservatives constantly bemoan the intrusion of government. Especially as it relates to an individual's private life.

    But yet felt perfectly justified in spending almost $70M doing just that with Clinton.
    This liberal mantra is getting old and tired also. One more time...

    CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE GOT A QUICKIE IN THE OVAL OFFICE. CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE LIED, UNDER OATH, TO INVESTIGATORS INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT.

    I know, they shouldn't have been investigating the incident. WELL HE SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH UP FRONT AND THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN INVESTIGATION.

    CLINTON IS A LIAR AND HE GOT IMPEACHED (ARGUABLY NOT CONVICTED) AND DISBARRED FOR LYING. SOME LEGACY.

    I guess I'm a bit contrary to some, but I consider the "personal" ethics of the politicians more important than their political ethics. There are decisions and actions that from time to time need to be made that are difficult, and may involve deception or bending of the truth. That's reality of running a nation, and in light of that reality having leaders -- whether congressional or executive, that can be trusted personally matters a lot. If someone is unfaithful to the person who should be able to trust them the most, it's really questionable if they can be trusted with issues of natinal importance. If you don't act personally in a moral & ethical way, you're that much less likely to act with appropriate discretion when national needs require a compromise.
    If you cannot be trusted with the little things, you have no right to expect to be trusted with the big things. Dan Rather is going to find that out, too.

  17. #142
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    I guess all that talk about staying out of a person's private life is just talk. The usual bloviating conservative mantra. "It wasn't about sex" is also getting a little weary.

    When the investigation took that turn someone who actually believed in concept of staying away from that topic would have stepped forward. Yet no one did.

    Like I said. All that posturing somehow doesn't apply to liberals.

    You couldn't be any more hypocritical.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #143
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    I guess all that talk about staying out of a person's private life is just talk

    Hypocritical applies all around, SC.

    The Gay & Lesbian community first launched a campaign that the Gov't has no business in your bedroom, and overturned laws about sodomy and the such. Fine, government can't regulate "sex."

    Now it's about extending marriage to "loving" couples -- i.e. an implicit sexual relationship. Now they want the government to determine because certain people in a domestic situation are sexually attracted to each other, that's the standard for extending marital priveleges? The same government they said had no business in the bedroom? But pushing for sex-neutral Domestic Partnership laws that, for instance, would allow a domestic partnership between two elderly, bachelor brothers to give them similiar protections as a spouse would have when one passes away...well, that wouldn't serve the agenda of using the State's endorsement of gay marriage to further legitimize a homosexual lifestyle.

    It's liberal, it involves sex and private lives, and it's hypocrytical to change their stance on how the state should view sex to suit their political purposes -- saying the state has no business knowing what you do in the bedroom, but at the same time saying the state should give marital rights only to couples sexually attracted each other.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  19. #144
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Dalmatian90
    I guess all that talk about staying out of a person's private life is just talk

    Hypocritical applies all around, SC.

    The Gay & Lesbian community first launched a campaign that the Gov't has no business in your bedroom, and overturned laws about sodomy and the such. Fine, government can't regulate "sex."

    Now it's about extending marriage to "loving" couples -- i.e. an implicit sexual relationship. Now they want the government to determine because certain people in a domestic situation are sexually attracted to each other, that's the standard for extending marital priveleges? The same government they said had no business in the bedroom? But pushing for sex-neutral Domestic Partnership laws that, for instance, would allow a domestic partnership between two elderly, bachelor brothers to give them similiar protections as a spouse would have when one passes away...well, that wouldn't serve the agenda of using the State's endorsement of gay marriage to further legitimize a homosexual lifestyle.

    It's liberal, it involves sex and private lives, and it's hypocrytical to change their stance on how the state should view sex to suit their political purposes -- saying the state has no business knowing what you do in the bedroom, but at the same time saying the state should give marital rights only to couples sexually attracted each other.
    79% of the voters in Louisiana weren't hypocritical about this subject were they?

  20. #145
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by Dalmatian90
    I guess all that talk about staying out of a person's private life is just talk

    Hypocritical applies all around, SC.

    The Gay & Lesbian community first launched a campaign that the Gov't has no business in your bedroom, and overturned laws about sodomy and the such. Fine, government can't regulate "sex."
    I don't know how you managed to construe an approval of gay marriage out of my query.

    So I'll try again.

    With all their posturing about the intrusion of government into someone's private life, why did conservatives look the other way when Ken Starr did just that?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #146
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    I don't know how you managed to construe an approval of gay marriage out of my query.

    So I'll try again.

    With all their posturing about the intrusion of government into someone's private life, why did conservatives look the other way when Ken Starr did just that?
    I simply pointed out the non-hypocrisy displayed by Louisiana voters.

    You can keep trying to ask your inane question all you want. You are asking the wrong question. There were multiple issues that Ken Starr was investigating. AMong them was the fact that a sittgin US PResident lied when asked specific questions about whether he had sex with a barely legal subordinate in the White House.

    There were a plehtora of other issues, but libs love to spin the "He was investigating the President having sex" lie.

  22. #147
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    There were a plehtora of other issues, but libs love to spin the "He was investigating the President having sex" lie.
    Explain it to me Norm. Why is it a lie? If he wasn't investigating Clinton's sex life, what was he investigating? And more importantly, how was any of it related to the original purpose of Whitewater?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #148
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Why is it a lie? If he wasn't investigating Clinton's sex life, what was he investigating?
    Did you read the 3 or 4 posts here that have said it was the lie being investigated? My goodness man. It may have been innapropriate to go through all of that crud but for goodness sake if we could get a politician to admit that he's a man adn made mistakes it would be a great day.

    Personally, I was not surprised by it. There are more important things out there for me to worry about. That being said, if you lie, I lose respect for you, ergo I lost more respect for Mr. Clinton, since I had already lost a lot it didn't really mean anything.

    So can we get back on track here to how Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards are going to improve our lots in life or are we going to have a circular argument that won't accomplish much?
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  24. #149
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Now it's about extending marriage to "loving" couples -- i.e. an implicit sexual relationship. Now they want the government to determine because certain people in a domestic situation are sexually attracted to each other, that's the standard for extending marital priveleges? The same government they said had no business in the bedroom?
    Typical neo-con stereotyping. You have a lot to learn about these people. Open your mind. These people are no different than you and me...and they want the same things the average person wants out of life. The right can demonize them all they want, but they are just like you and me.

  25. #150
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Originally posted by DaSharkie


    Did you read the 3 or 4 posts here that have said it was the lie being investigated? My goodness man. It may have been innapropriate to go through all of that crud but for goodness sake if we could get a politician to admit that he's a man adn made mistakes it would be a great day.
    whoaa Sharkie. Norm stated that libs keep up with the mantra "He was investigating the President having sex" lie. How is that a lib lie? When someone asks me if I've had sex with someone (oral or otherwise) I believe they are asking questions about my personal life. Which is in contradiction to the conservative mantra against govt intrusion. Yet it was okay to ask Clinton about his personal life. How do you as a conservative reconcile that contradiction?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register