ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
I think they're all corrupt, its that the pubbs stand out because thay are more apt to get on a soap box and preach about morals. Morals that they go ahead and violate.
Some of the biggest moralisers turn out to be some of the most corrupt.
Yeah, I think you nailed it ref. Repubes make it personal with insults and stupid articles like the Naive article. I guess I should just let the children play.
See you at Super Bowl XLVI!
Last edited by godef; 08-12-2009 at 12:47 PM..
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I think to a degree all of them are left or right, it comes down to the person.
Only problem I have is, when you run on family values like most righties do, cause no one likes a hypocrites and most of them are just that. Their cheating,lying and stealing whille at the same time preaching about family values, funny thing is this is not the exception this is the rule.
A nice response PFnV, one that I agree with obviously. Also a good point that sometimes our favorites are the most nasty. I would add that sometimes they're the only ones that can get the job done! I look at 2 guys I think were successful in their jobs, Clinton and Bill Weld, and I see guys that would absolutely do some shady stuff, but they both were successful in part because of that mentality. Weld worked very effectively within a corrupt political system (and probably contributed to that corruption), and Clinton was able to change course dozens of times in his presidency while convincing us it was his plan all along.
Clinton is a case study in both hubris and intelligence. I personally think he was smart enough to survive pretty much the worst conflagration you can have as a president (impeachment,) and get out polling in the high 60s by the end.
He knew, and he knew we knew, that in the end the test would be not whether we want him having a drink with our wives, but whether he had done a good job.
I also think he exhibited something we claim we abhor: an ability to compartmentalize. Say what you want, he was able to get the hummer, go back to the wife, get the country's business done, blah blah blah. We liked how he did his job, we didn't like how he got his blowjobs, and to him -- and ultimately, to us -- the two had nothing to do with each other.
Ultimately, moral character is important to the job to the extent that his bad acts made it impossible to do his job, and they did finally constitute a major failing. He spent half the second term in a soap opera. Newt Gingrich seems capable of the same thing, just as an example. Sanford has to go and fall in love with his mistress; not good. Sanford also had the comparative disadvantage that he was among those trying to tell everybody else how to run their love lives, something Clinton did not dabble in.
At the end of the day you want the president to negotiate with other nations in a self interested manner -- including enlightened self-interest -- and get good deals. They have to be capable of doing some nasty things (Hiroshima comes to mind, though I believe that did not need to be done.) They need to say "do it," have it be done, and then sleep soundly at night. That's compartmentalizing.
That doesn't mean you have to have a philandering president. It does mean, however, that one prerequisite for the successful philanderer is also a prerequisite for a successful president.
To Stokes and PFinV: thanks for your interesting dialogue in this thread. I post here less and less, usually because I don't see any threads worth posting in. If I had anything to add to your conversation though, I would. I myself sometimes just post silly one liners, but I really miss some of the better debates people used to have here. So thanks fellas.
You point out that Repubs make it personal with insults...yet you do the same thing. You claim they use stupid articles yet you have done the same multiple times to try to argue your points...
Classic pot calling the kettle black, you yourself do exactly what you are accusing others of doing.
Care to list any of those?
Calling the Democrats genetically naive is nothing more than the right weakly trying to justify their bully tactics. And when we call you out, all you ever here is "I know you are but what am I?" You all sound like children.