• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage 3...

head of joaquin said:
He probably did, but are you saying it's OK to be hypocritical so long as you don't do it under oath?

A new low for the moral bankruptcy of conservatism.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the difference between perjury and fathering a child? Please just say yes or no.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I find it funny that some of the people who made the biggest deal about Clinton getting some on the side, also got some on the side.
Click to expand...

On that specific front, there's an ocean of difference here. Yes, both women were very much younger than the cheaters they slept with and yes, both cheaters were in politics, but that is where the similarity in these situations go their separate ways. Clinton messed around with an intern, his office's intern, in the workplace and that workplace is the country's highest office.
 
clownboy said:
On that specific front, there's an ocean of difference here. Yes, both women were very much younger than the cheaters they slept with and yes, both cheaters were in politics, but that is where the similarity in these situations go their separate ways. Clinton messed around with an intern, his office's intern, in the workplace and that workplace is the country's highest office.
Click to expand...

You are right. Clinton might not be as bad as the guy who called Clinton's behavior reprehensible, but then abandoned the state to go have an affair in a foreign country lying saying he was going hiking. Mark Sanford might be more comparable to Clinton, but still Clinton's actions in terms of the affair was not as bad. None of this addresses my original statement, however, which was that it is funny that those who condemned Clinton for his affair actually ended up doing the same thing.
 
Grant said:
Do you not understand the difference between perjury and fathering a child? Please just say yes or no.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between private morality and those that claim moral superiority but have affairs, especially those who politicize morality like GOP did against Clinton?

And PS, the impeachment was about a blow job, not perjury. Stop pretending.
 
mike2810 said:
J. Jackson Jr. , etc.

Your political bias shows so well.
Click to expand...

Did Jackson vote to impeach Clinton while having an affair and politicizing how moral he was? I'm unaware of that!
 
clownboy said:
On that specific front, there's an ocean of difference here. Yes, both women were very much younger than the cheaters they slept with and yes, both cheaters were in politics, but that is where the similarity in these situations go their separate ways. Clinton messed around with an intern, his office's intern, in the workplace and that workplace is the country's highest office.
Click to expand...

So now conservatives are for workplace sexual harrassment law -- all while voting against making such lawsuits easier to pursue.

More dishonesty from the morally bankrupt tea party.

Are you beginning to discern why nobody takes conservatives seriously?
 
Disgusting ****ing asshole former senator of mine. Glad he's gone from public service even more now than before. Personally he's a disgusting pig and professionally he's got the attorney general scandal he slithered out of... only to have his pet that he used in that scandal to do his dirty work, Heather Wilson, attempt to run for his seat. Fortunately that failed.

This **** happened 30 years ago and he told his wife just "months" ago. Great guy.
 
pbrauer said:
I raise Sen. David Vitter who loves the prostitutes.
Click to expand...

As does recently fired Fox News hero prostitute toe licker Dick Morris.
 
American said:
Clinton lied to a federal judge and got disbarred for a while. How about including some truth in your posts for a change?
Click to expand...

Actually, he didn't, but it would take too long to unravel your rightwing memes. Like ACORN, they have taken root in your brain so it's best I let them just fester there.

Meanwhile, who voted for Clinton's impeachment while having an affair and moralizing about librals?
 
specklebang said:
Bill Clinton was my favorite President. Not my only one but his intelligence just awed me.

To be fair, Clinton got in trouble for the lie, not the blow-job. He did the wrong thing. He cost Al Gore the election and I was very interested in Al Gore as President. Certainly, the actions of individuals do not reflect moral bankruptcy of millions.

I will not judge all liberals by John Edwards or all Conservatives by Pete Domenici. While I don't know the back-story I will at least respect that the child was born and not aborted in secret. That would have been really repulsive. Personally, I support abortion although I feel it is over-used. But when an anti-abortion person participates in an abortion....well, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
Click to expand...

Clinton was a pathetic coward who is (imo) an accessory to genocide.

'An independent panel commissioned by the Organization of African Unity charged this weekend that the United States, France and Belgium, as well as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of as many as 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. It concluded that the three governments should provide "a significant level of reparations" to the Central African country.

The 318-page report challenged President Clinton’s claim that the United States’s failure to act in Rwanda was due to ignorance of the extent of the atrocities unfolding there. And it accused Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who represented the United States in the U.N. Security Council at the time, of using "stalling tactics" to prevent a military rescue mission.'

The Rwanda Genocide: How Does Madeleine Albright Live with Herself?


Imo, Bill Clinton is a smart, charming, shrewd coward.
 
head of joaquin said:
Actually, he didn't, but it would take too long to unravel your rightwing memes. Like ACORN, they have taken root in your brain so it's best I let them just fester there.

Meanwhile, who voted for Clinton's impeachment while having an affair and moralizing about librals?
Click to expand...

Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

And he ADMITTED to lying under oath.

So you can spew your stupid, unoriginal little quotes all night...but you're wrong.
 
Coward? You mean that it takes bravery to send other people's children to die in war?

Rwanda. Shameful, of course. In retrospect a terrible decision. Yes, probably. There is genocide in progress all the time. The earth has some pretty ****ed up countries, evil religions, brutal dictators. As world police, we make mistakes. That doesn't invalidate the good.

I think it's normal to gravitate toward some and be repelle by others. My opinion of Clinton would score "mostly favorable" and yours might score "mostly unfavorable". It's impossible to say which one is correct. I also would put Reagan (first term) and Elder Bush on my good list. Were they perfect? No. Did I respect them? Yes. It's all very subjective.

Respect.

DA60 said:
Clinton was a pathetic coward who is (imo) an accessory to genocide.

'An independent panel commissioned by the Organization of African Unity charged this weekend that the United States, France and Belgium, as well as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of as many as 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. It concluded that the three governments should provide "a significant level of reparations" to the Central African country.

The 318-page report challenged President Clinton’s claim that the United States’s failure to act in Rwanda was due to ignorance of the extent of the atrocities unfolding there. And it accused Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who represented the United States in the U.N. Security Council at the time, of using "stalling tactics" to prevent a military rescue mission.'

The Rwanda Genocide: How Does Madeleine Albright Live with Herself?


Imo, Bill Clinton is a smart, charming, shrewd coward.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Coward? You mean that it takes bravery to send other people's children to die in war?

Rwanda. Shameful, of course. In retrospect a terrible decision. Yes, probably. There is genocide in progress all the time. The earth has some pretty ****ed up countries, evil religions, brutal dictators. As world police, we make mistakes. That doesn't invalidate the good.

I think it's normal to gravitate toward some and be repelle by others. My opinion of Clinton would score "mostly favorable" and yours might score "mostly unfavorable". It's impossible to say which one is correct. I also would put Reagan (first term) and Elder Bush on my good list. Were they perfect? No. Did I respect them? Yes. It's all very subjective.

Respect.
Click to expand...

So a guy whose administration that an independent UN report states knew about a genocide (that killed 800,000 people) and not only did nothing to stop it - but also got the UN to pull out those troops that were there?

And you give a man like that a 'mostly favorable rating'?


Additionally:

'The OAU, consisting mostly of African leaders and led by Stephen Lewis, a Canadian, attempts to rebuke the United States by asserting that the reason for not sending troops to Rwanda was that “nothing was at stake for the United States in Rwanda. There were no interests to guard. … I don’t know how Madeleine Albright lives with this,” said Lewis, trying to shift even more responsibility onto the United States.

Albright, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., defended herself.

“I screamed about the instructions I got on this,” Albright told ABC-TV’s Cokie Roberts. “I felt that they were wrong, and I made that point, but I was an ambassador under instructions.”'


Read more at U.N. seeks reparations for Rwandan genocide

So even Albright admitted that she thought her instructions were so wrong that she literally screamed against them.

And you still would give such a man a 'most favorable' rating as POTUS?

No offense, but I find that repulsive.

Let me ask you this - how many people would have had to have died in Rwanda before you would noticeably lessen your opinion of that dickhead Clinton?

1 million? 2? 5? Or even if the entire country hacked themselves to death and Clinton knew about it and did absolutely nothing to stop it - would even that lose him your 'most favorable rating'?

Or if Rwandans killing off each other completely is not enough?

How many times would he have to do the exact same thing (knowingly turn his back on massive genocide) for your rating of him to drop?
 
Last edited:
Jack Fabulous said:
This thread is the holy grail of "WHO THE **** CARES"

Manufactured moral outrage over a man who participated in the same type of manufactured moral outrage 15 years ago. Have I pretty much nailed the gist of it?
Click to expand...

You're right. After all, no conservatives ever portray any manufactured outrage toward Bill Clinton, who was president 20 years ago. :roll:
 
I'm going to say "morally secure" in order to counteract the number of times I have read "morally bankrupt" within the first several responses.
 
I thought Clinton made a number of errors and I think that every President has done things that were abominable. I always hope and I am always disappointed.

So, I'm always forced to decide if my rating is favorable or unfavorable. I must weigh the good against the bad, I must weigh the efforts and their results. My rating is favorable and yours is unfavorable. It's amazing that 2 rational beings, faced with identical information, can draw such opposite conclusions. The mysteries of life.

I don't have a desired outcome preference. Whomever is President, I pray they will be wise in their decisions because so many are affected. I'm not morally certain that our Presidents are subject to hidden influences, but you know, anything is possible.


DA60 said:
So a guy whose administration that an independent UN report states knew about a genocide (that killed 800,000 people) and not only did nothing to stop it - but also got the UN to pull out those troops that were there?

And you give a man like that a 'mostly favorable rating'?


Additionally:

'The OAU, consisting mostly of African leaders and led by Stephen Lewis, a Canadian, attempts to rebuke the United States by asserting that the reason for not sending troops to Rwanda was that “nothing was at stake for the United States in Rwanda. There were no interests to guard. … I don’t know how Madeleine Albright lives with this,” said Lewis, trying to shift even more responsibility onto the United States.

Albright, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., defended herself.

“I screamed about the instructions I got on this,” Albright told ABC-TV’s Cokie Roberts. “I felt that they were wrong, and I made that point, but I was an ambassador under instructions.”'


Read more at U.N. seeks reparations for Rwandan genocide

So even Albright admitted that she thought her instructions were so wrong that she literally screamed against them.

And you still would give such a man a 'most favorable' rating as POTUS?

No offense, but I find that repulsive.

Let me ask you this - how many people would have had to have died in Rwanda before you would noticeably lessen your opinion of that dickhead Clinton?

1 million? 2? 5? Or even if the entire country hacked themselves to death and Clinton knew about it and did absolutely nothing to stop it - would even that lose him your 'most favorable rating'?

Or if Rwandans killing off each other completely is not enough?

How many times would he have to do the exact same thing (knowingly turn his back on massive genocide) for your rating of him to drop?
Click to expand...
 
mike2810 said:
think it would be better to state that many politicians are morally bankrupt. Or that many humans are.

Are you trying to say only conservatives are morally bankrupt. If you are, you will fail.
Click to expand...

But when it comes to hypocrits you have to admit Conservatives are the kings.
 
Bill Clinton was on trial for sexual harassment when he lied about current ongoing extramarital relationships. He was accused by a campaign staffer of having a trooper bring her to his room ostensibly to discuss campaign issues whereupon he was sitting on a couch with his sweatpants around his ankles and a towel over his waist while jerking himself off. When she was brought into the room the very classy democrat presidential candidate stood up, let his towel drop to the floor, and asked her to 'kiss it'. She felt that was sexual harassment and filed a lawsuit. Clinton lied under oath, committing perjury not about having an affair but about sexually harassing an employee. While determining patterns for evidence against him there were also instances involving at least one accused rape and several instances of sexual assault. The pattern of affairs dating back to his earliest days of marriage were used as evidence against him to support the perjury charges. Bill Clinton...the guy that would **** every chubby intern with low self esteem that moved, but wouldn't take one for the team and actually have sex with his wife. Now...who knows. Maybe its an open marriage. Maybe Hillary is a dyke or just a plain ol bitch of the highest order. Or maybe Hillary is a wonderful person that married a scumbag that cant keep his dick in his pants. None of that is relevant to the charge of sexual harassment and perjury committed while on trial for sexual harassment, nor is it an excuse for sexual assault and rape.

Unless PD was on trial for sexual harassment, the two are in no way equal, much as mindless Clinton supporters would like them to be.
 
I have said it before here and it is true again that men are pigs. Like dogs who hump on the end of a sofa.


I think congress was overdue for another sexual pig of the month club honoree. He was 50 yrs old and she was 24 yrs old. One should not be so naive to believe that was his first rodeo either.

Congress has no business at all talking about anyone's sexually activity with the record they got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom