Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by godef, Aug 11, 2009.
Nah its mainly the Democrats.
Deep thoughts........................ thanks for sharing.
:rofl: ... copycat.
someone struck a nerve ...
Hahahahahaha, Awesome. Did not see it. Thanks. I love this cartoon in the link.
A serious answer to a joking question, but my personal opinion is that politicians may be genetically corrupt. I think the ego that it takes to be a good politician predisposes many of these guys and gals to thinking that they are above the law or standard morality.
I'll agree with Stokes. Pretty much all politicians, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, are genetically corrupt. It's the reason they get into politics.
no, but godef is genetically an idiot
He only comes around here to soil himself.
Godef or Tanked?
Oh OK, thought you might have left it open to stand for both
Tanked is ... posts here all the time.
Godef just comes around to take a dump every once in a while.
Oh ok, thought you meant their posting style and not their participation amount
back to the one serious response, I think as said, by the time they're on our radars, most politicians have done things "in our name" we'd never do ourselves. There are many faces of this.... some will set up a side deal with the contractor building the local skating rink, to build our house for cheap... some just fix a bunch of tickets (which may be understood in his/her area to be exactly what one does as a politician.) All of them kiss babies and shake hands of people they believe at some level to be below them. They are "constituents," meaning you are nothing without the great mass of them, because they "constitute" you, but any given one of them is as important to you as a hangnail. Above all, the environment leads to the belief that you are of more importance than the people, and somehow distinguishable from the next guy who might take your place at the big politics bar if you decided to go away. You confuse the rarity of the position with the rarity of your own talents and personality. In some cases, in the politician's mind, his or her own importance makes his or her own personal pleasure a relatively unimportant infringement on the body politic, since it will "only" cost each person a dollar or a dime or some other figure.
When this goes on outside the law, it's criminal (QED.) When it's allowed for in the law, but is expensive, it's just the sort of thing opponents complain about. When the belief in being "above the law" goes to extreme lengths, expressions much more disasterous than a little graft can result.
And that applies across the board.
Oh, last observation? My favorite guys/gals, and my least favorite ones, are just as likely as each other to be the nasty variety. I take that as a given... I also take as a given that "you can just tell..." usually lines up with which individuals we favor in the first place.
We delude ourselves for one thing. For another thing, it brings up the question (in the world of politicians) of "compared to what?" Lastly, the one thing they have in common is they have developed an ability to evade our bullsh1t detectors (which may simply be an outgrowth of our willingness to believe.)
You guys know what I think of the character of the various players as of right now (who I like, who I don't like.) Now and then I see some who I don't think are terribly corrupt. One guy I think is too psycho to be corrupt is Nader. But there are only so many people who put integrity so high, in Nader's case because he had to live some kind of weird monk life b/c lobbyists have been looking for a smear campaign since day 1. A truly courageous man, though I don't agree w/all his politics, and he really showed his ***** vs. Obama in the last election...
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.
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.
It just gets really annoying and disheartening when Democrats expect reasonable political discourse, and instead get bullying and shouting idiots drowning out the message, and then get called naive for it. How patronizing is that? And please don't fire back that the Dems do the same thing, because that's bullsh!t. We fight back, but not nearly with the same venom and vile as the right. Government sponsored euthanasia? Sheesh, and you wonder why Dems think most Republicans are stupid. I was once a moderate Republican up to the mid '80s, voted for Reagen, but I was driven away from the party because of such stupidity.
It is the Republicans who are naive in believing their scare tactics constitute civil discourse, and are corrupt in doing so.
What, do you think I spend all my time here? I do have a life. And sure tanked posts more consistently than I do, but when I do post, it's never inane "so are you!" posts which seem to constitute at least half of what he ever posts; he is the king of useless posts.
And you IP, you once had my respect as a reasonable middle-of-the-roader, but I realize you're just another one who practices the tactic of debate-by-insult. How disappointing.
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.
The irony here is comical.
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.
No efin, you are comical. Can you explain what this "irony" is?
Repubes! Ignorance is bliss?
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.
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.
Philanderer in chief. Has a certain ring to it.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.