[QUOTE=Evil One]
…Try it, luci. Surely some point or two that the Republicans advocate are whispering a gentle siren song in your ear…
[/QUOTE]
“Fucky sucky five dollah, hippie boy, love you long time…”
[QUOTE=elucidator]
“Fucky sucky five dollah, hippie boy, love you long time…”
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been there too. But you are using humor to avoid the question.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
I’ve been there too. But you are using humor to avoid the question.
[/QUOTE]
There was a question? Hey, no snark, what question?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
There was a question? Hey, no snark, what question?
[/QUOTE]
We are hijacking the heck out of this thread. Apologies to Dinsdale and luci will have the last word here.
My question is…are there any positions or policies that are generally accepted to be advocated by the Republicans that you agree with and support?
In utter solidarity with The Leader, I firmly oppose animal-human hybridization experiments.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
He’s pro-torture, and is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents. Monster.
[/QUOTE]
Before we blame anyone, we need to look inside our own hearts and souls and see that we are totally depraved as well, in our own way. As for Clinton, he couldn’t even be faithful to his own wife. How could he be faithful to his country? Are the rumors about his activities in Moscow when he was a long-haired hippie true?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
In utter solidarity with The Leader, I firmly oppose animal-human hybridization experiments.
[/QUOTE]
You had your chance…
[QUOTE=elucidator]
In utter solidarity with The Leader, I firmly oppose animal-human hybridization experiments.
[/QUOTE]
But if Bush opposes animal human hybridization, why does he keep making an ass out of himself?
Oh, come off it! You start slinging around vintage crap about Clinton using State Hway cops to snag him some strange. Old stories, long discredited. If you had to respond to a cite call, you would have to reveal that you’re serving tea brewed from toilet water. So you cover yourself in advance, claiming immunity because none of us will believe you anyway. And besides, you were asked your opinion.
What, if someone asks your opinion, you have some dispensation? Those stories are pure buttwhistle, and remain so whether you were asked for your opinion or begged for it on bended knee.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Before we blame anyone, we need to look inside our own hearts and souls and see that we are totally depraved as well, in our own way.
[/quote]
I’m not.
Yeah, that’s really cleve and original…and meaningful. What does "faithful to his country mean exactly? Does fidelity to the Constitution count as loyality?
I don’t know which rumor you’re talking about but the answer is probably no.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Before we blame anyone, we need to look inside our own hearts and souls and see that we are totally depraved as well, in our own way.
[/quote]
Err, no. I’ve never tortured or killed anybody, nor ordered it done. That puts me ethically far, far above Bush and friends.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
As for Clinton, he couldn’t even be faithful to his own wife. How could he be faithful to his country?
[/quote]
No connection.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
But if Bush opposes animal human hybridization, why does he keep making an ass out of himself?
[/QUOTE]
He fears replacement by a cheaper, synthetic version of himself.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’m not. You’re not blaming anyone… or you’re not depraved?
Yeah, that’s really cleve and original…and meaningful. What does "faithful to his country mean exactly? Does fidelity to the Constitution count as loyality?
Well, we could get into a GD about the original intent of the Constitution, but I would think that a Democratic Republic would only work for people who were able to govern themselves personally, people full of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, and temperance (self-control), (against which there is no law?). In other words, it wouldn’t work unless the people were individually goverened by God (the one in the Bible), which would really make it a theocracy, wouldn’t it? We’re talking ideally. But if we live in a Democracy where 51% of the people vote that it’s OK to kill someone (or whatever else you think is abominable) if you think you have a good reason…hmmmm…then we are governed by our desires, our flesh, which produces adultery, fornication, unclanness, lasciviousness, (sound familiar yet?) idolatry, witchcraft, hatred (of people, not evil), variance, emulations, wrath,strife, seditions, heresies,envyings, murders,drunkenness, revelings, and such like. (Some of these might need an updated translation to sound familiar.)
I don’t know which rumor you’re talking about but the answer is probably no.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in Republican circles they liked to talk about how he hob-nobbed with the Communists during the cold war and may have even burned a flag. ( U. S.)
No option to edit after clicking preview?
Make that “responsible.”
(and “clever” in the original post)
Also add: There is no law against being/doing good, but there sure is a lot of hatred for the self-righteous version. (Or even the real version in the case of Jesus.)
In a word: Abortion.
Clinton was the first president who openly supported abortion rights and this was Not Acceptable to a Religious Right accustomed to having the president on their side. We all know how absolutist fundamentalists can be.
Clinton’s infidelities were somewhat significant and embarrassing to Democrats, but he was a smart man and his policies were pretty reasonable.
With Bush, apart from his idiocy, he himself is but the tip of the right-wing extremist iceberg for whom he can do no wrong. It’s the horrible attitudes and tactics of Bush’s supporters as much as the man himself.
Look no further than the comparitive reactions to the 2 men’s respective Vietam War records .
But much more serious was the relentless opposition to Clinton’s military actions by a party that has traditionally supported military action. There is no question that this was to prevent Clinton from enjoying any kind of success. And this was to prevent the “secular humanist agenda” he represented from gaining any legitimacy.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Err, no. I’ve never tortured or killed anybody, nor ordered it done. That puts me ethically far, far above Bush and friends. …and Bin Laden, Saddam et. al. Bully!
No connection. ???
He who is faithful in that which is least is also faithful in much, and he that is unjust in that which is least is also unjust in much. (Hey, you could use this one against YOUR enemies.)
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
You’re not blaming anyone… or you’re not depraved?
[/quote]
I’m not depraved. Neither are most people.
Is there a point to any of this or is it just empty witnessing? What does it have to do with my question about whether a president should show fidelity to the Constitution.
I don’t have a problem with most of the stuff on your list, by the way. With the exception of murder and (for me) adultery, that sounds like the recipe for a pretty good party. Personally, I just love to get down and dirty with with some “variance and emulations” after I’ve got a couple of belts in me.
Not true on either count. I believe he visted Russia as a tourist while he was in college (like thousands of other Americans), but he didn’t “hobnob” with the Politburo and he never burned any flags.
[QUOTE=sqweels]
In a word: Abortion.
Clinton was the first president who openly supported abortion rights and this was Not Acceptable to a Religious Right accustomed to having the president on their side. We all know how absolutist fundamentalists can be.
Well, just witness an abortion and see if you find it acceptable. Get your wife, or significant other, pregnant, let her carry it to term, and watch as the head comes out and the doctor inserts the scissors at the base of the skull. Or if you please, imagine the writhing form of one not yet born as the saline solution burns it to death, or the forceps rit it apart limb from limb and toss it piece by piece in the waste can. This is a child left behind. I don’t identify myself as either “religious” or “right” but I can see how a holy God would find this unacceptable. No better than any other torture, they wouldn’t let you treat an animal that way.
Shock and ewwwwww!
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’m not depraved. Neither are most people.
Is there a point to any of this or is it just empty witnessing? What does it have to do with my question about whether a president should show fidelity to the Constitution.
I don’t have a problem with most of the stuff on your list, by the way. With the exception of murder and (for me) adultery, that sounds like the recipe for a pretty good party. Personally, I just love to get down and dirty with with some “variance and emulations” after I’ve got a couple of belts in me.
Not true on either count. I believe he visted Russia as a tourist while he was in college (like thousands of other Americans), but he didn’t “hobnob” with the Politburo and he never burned any flags.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I haven’t been able to substantiate the rumors, but all the people that are accusing Bush of lying (and they may be right) can point the same finger at Bill C.
or anyone else for that matter. At least you admit to liking to get “dirty” but that is what some of the framers of the Constitution would have called “depraved.” You’ve come a long way, baby!
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Well, I haven’t been able to substantiate the rumors…
[/quote]
For good reason: they’re crap.
No such equivalence. I told my Mom once that I didn’t eat those cookies, but I never said that Jimmy Leggit from next door planned to kill our dog, and got Dad to go over and break his arm with a tire iron.