Political Disappointments

cawacko said:
that is funny as hell and so is when Chapelle is on the stand in court when they ask him if he thinks R. Kelly is guilty.
Click to expand...

I can honestly imagine half the jurors in that case voting to dismiss because their brats whined "MOMMY! IF YOU PUT R KELLY IN PRSION ILL HATE U FOREVER!"
 
But SF earlier in the post about Edwards you said:
I think the connection, so to speak, for myself is in that if they would betray the ones closest to them, how can we trust that they will do what is in our best interest when in one of the most powerful positions in the country?
Click to expand...
So when does that connection fall apart for you? When the betrayer has an (R) after his name?
 
Socrtease said:
But but but you said earlier, up above that it DID matter. So as time passes a person that is otherwise untrustworthy because of his betrayal becoms trustworthy again? Let me know when you start to believe that about Bill Clinton. You can send me a postcard care of the afterlife.
Click to expand...

Let me know when Clinton shows any change in his character. Then we can talk. Again, I do not think either is "right" or that it should be tossed out. But I will take into account the circumstances and timing of the action/decision when deciding how much relevance I give it.

Each of us has our own beliefs (obviously) on how we weigh the past and current decisions of politicians. For me it is not black and white. For others it might be black and white.
 
Socrtease said:
But SF earlier in the post about Edwards you said:
So when does that connection fall apart for you? When the betrayer has an (R) after his name?
Click to expand...

No... for me it has nothing to do with having an (R) after his/her name. But yes, that trust can be earned back. For the most part, I would not hold something that happened 10 or 20 years ago against someone running for office today. IF they had shown that they had learned from the errors/mistakes they have made. If Edwards runs in 20 years, that won't be a factor. Granted I still will not likely agree with his political views, but as long as he did not continue cheating then that would be a moot issue.
 
"Each of us has our own beliefs (obviously) on how we weigh the past and current decisions of politicians. For me it is not black and white. For others it might be black and white."

Well, it's kind of black & white with you. When someone is a Republican, they get the benefit of the doubt and a statute of limitations. When someone is a Democrat, particularly a Dem like Edwards who you have irrational hatred for, no such benefit is given.

See? It's simple.
 
"Let me know when Clinton shows any change in his character"

Are you aware of any affairs since Lewinsky?

How do you know that he hasn't changed, but that McCain has?
 
Superfreak said:
Close. What I said was is that both are wrong... but that timing of an action/decision is a factor in how much relevance I give a decision/action. Something that happened 30 years ago with no history of repeating the action/decision is going to have less relevance to something that was done today.

So again, to be clear.... both actions (by McCain and Edwards) were without question wrong (IMO). But the fact that McCain's was 30 years ago makes it less relevant to me today than Edwards actions (which supposedly just occured). I do beleive people are allowed to redeem themselves through subsequent actions.
Click to expand...

You know what SF, you see McCain as having redeemed himself. I honestly see him as a nasty selfish piece of work, whose nickname in High school, before he ever “got changed” in Vietnam, was “Mcnasty”, who jerked around even in flight school, and was the last in his class. Who crashed five planes. Who cheated on his wife over and over, until Cindy laid down the big bucks for her medical bills, guaranteed, and bought his ass and his wife’s silence. A man who tells nasty, gross jokes about women enjoying rape, and about young teenaged girls. (Chelsea). I believe that he did call his wife a cunt, and the reason I believe it is because it absolutely is in complete keeping with the other terrible things he has said before.

I have also read all of the first-hand accounts, by other republicans! Of how terrible and violent his temper is.

His character to me, is the bottom of the barrel. I also find that when people on his own campaign! Tell reporters that they stepped in to separate that lobbyist from him because their relationship was raising eyebrows, and when she looked so much like his wife in her younger days, and taking his known character into account…yeah I think that “oops he did it again”.
You guys are blinded to what this man really is, and the worst part is, the info is already out there, you only need look at it. If he became president, four years from now you’d say the same thing you now say about bush, “he tricked me”. But Molly Ivins wrote a book before bush became president which said “this is what he did to texas, and this is what he’ll do to America” and by God, he did it. You weren’t tricked then, you didn’t want to know. And you’re not tricked now…you don’t want to hear it.
 
Onceler said:
"Each of us has our own beliefs (obviously) on how we weigh the past and current decisions of politicians. For me it is not black and white. For others it might be black and white."

Well, it's kind of black & white with you. When someone is a Republican, they get the benefit of the doubt and a statute of limitations. When someone is a Democrat, particularly a Dem like Edwards who you have irrational hatred for, no such benefit is given.

See? It's simple.
Click to expand...

Irrational hatred? I don't like the guy or his policies. His political views go against most of what I believe. That is not irrational, nor do I "hate him".... I just cannot stand the divisive wealth redistribution types.

You SAY it is because McCain is a Republican.... and use that to pretend to justify your opinion. Yet you, like others, seem to fail to comprehend what I wrote. If McCain were to get caught cheating today, he would not get my vote. I would go third party. But I am not going to eliminate voting for him for something he did 30 years ago.
 
He’s a fucking violent animal who doesn’t like women. And women need to know about it. I’m working on something with a group of other women to ensure that the word starts to get around.
 
Darla said:
You know what SF, you see McCain as having redeemed himself. I honestly see him as a nasty selfish piece of work, whose nickname in High school, before he ever “got changed” in Vietnam, was “Mcnasty”, who jerked around even in flight school, and was the last in his class. Who crashed five planes. Who cheated on his wife over and over, until Cindy laid down the big bucks for her medical bills, guaranteed, and bought his ass and his wife’s silence. A man who tells nasty, gross jokes about women enjoying rape, and about young teenaged girls. (Chelsea). I believe that he did call his wife a cunt, and the reason I believe it is because it absolutely is in complete keeping with the other terrible things he has said before.

I have also read all of the first-hand accounts, by other republicans! Of how terrible and violent his temper is.

His character to me, is the bottom of the barrel. I also find that when people on his own campaign! Tell reporters that they stepped in to separate that lobbyist from him because their relationship was raising eyebrows, and when she looked so much like his wife in her younger days, and taking his known character into account…yeah I think that “oops he did it again”.
You guys are blinded to what this man really is, and the worst part is, the info is already out there, you only need look at it. If he became president, four years from now you’d say the same thing you now say about bush, “he tricked me”. But Molly Ivins wrote a book before bush became president which said “this is what he did to texas, and this is what he’ll do to America” and by God, he did it. You weren’t tricked then, you didn’t want to know. And you’re not tricked now…you don’t want to hear it.
Click to expand...

Again, I am well aware of his cheating on Carol 30 years ago. I am also well aware of his attitude while at the Naval acadamy. He talks about his insubordinate behavior in his book. He admits to his cheating on Carol. He admits it was a mistake. But again, you are pulling shit from over a decade ago, in some cases several decades ago.

The whole thing with the lobbyist... you act like it is proof he cheated again. Yet both McCain and the lobbyist say nothing ever happened. Yes, I know, he must have paid her to be quiet. Blah blah blah.
 
Darla said:
He’s a fucking violent animal who doesn’t like women. And women need to know about it. I’m working on something with a group of other women to ensure that the word starts to get around.
Click to expand...

So now he's a "fucking violent animal"??? and he doesn't like women. Gotcha.

Tell you what... show us some evidence that he is "violent"? or that he doesn't like women.
 
repukes only use morality when it's a negative for a dem, it's clearly a human mistake when McGoldigger does it again, and again, and again.
I could give to shits who they bang
Lets have an election on policy for a change.
 
Superfreak said:
So now he's a "fucking violent animal"??? and he doesn't like women. Gotcha.

Tell you what... show us some evidence that he is "violent"? or that he doesn't like women.
Click to expand...

SF, I wrote an entire post about why I believe that he is these things. A man who calls his wife a cunt, is violent, I know this. And he did it. And I know he did it. And it will never matter to me what you believe, because you believe nothing about a republican unless it’s on tape, and then, only if you are forced to comment.
 
Darla said:
SF, I wrote an entire post about why I believe that he is these things. A man who calls his wife a cunt, is violent, I know this. And he did it. And I know he did it. And it will never matter to me what you believe, because you believe nothing about a republican unless it’s on tape, and then, only if you are forced to comment.
Click to expand...

Right, as opposed to you who will make up shit about a Republican just because it better fits what you want to believe?

Using a swear word (granted a nasty one) does not make a person violent. There has never (to my knowledge) been any indication that McCain is violent. Yes, he has a temper, but that too does not make him a violent person. Do you have one single fucking piece of evidence that he has ever physically abused or threatened physical abuse? Do you?

If not, then you should quit spouting off such ignorance.

Though I suppose we could both play this bullshit game...

Obama likes Ludacris and enjoys his music in which Ludacris calls women bitches and ho's. Therefore Obama loves to demean women and yes, he is violent too... as are all gansta rap fans. Right? We'll just make shit like this up. Oh the fun.
 
I don’t need your permission, my own personal life experience has endowed me with the knowledge that man who will viciously turn on his wife and call her a cunt and a floozy, is a violent man.

I’m not the least bit interested in your false outrage. See if one of your co-workers is. But, I’d try it on a man. I’m far from the only woman who has gained this knowledge.
 
I wonder if that republican senator who said that he witnessed John McCain grab an opponent by the collar and drag him across the table, would doubt that that same man, was violent. That IS violence. Oh, he’s thrown things at women while verbally assaulting them, at the very least. At the very least.
And that’s what is going to get spread around. Don’t like it? Cry first about the fake emails being generated by the money boys in your party, from “soliders” who “usually aren’t political” but just “want their friends to know how they witnessed Obama diss the troops in Iraq”.

Man, you are the false outrage queen around her for sure SF. You have no idea how hard I’m actually laughing right now.
 
Darla said:
I don’t need your permission, my own personal life experience has endowed me with the knowledge that man who will viciously turn on his wife and call her a cunt and a floozy, is a violent man.

I’m not the least bit interested in your false outrage. See if one of your co-workers is. But, I’d try it on a man. I’m far from the only woman who has gained this knowledge.
Click to expand...

LMAO... there is no false outrage. The only thing false is in your projection of McCain being violent based on the use of a swear word. Now you are saying that he "viciously turned on his wife" when using the swear word. You may know people who have used the c word AND who are also violent. But that does NOT mean that everyone who used that word is also violent. You are projecting a correlation based on your personal experience.

So again I ask... have you any evidence that McCain has physically abused anyone or threatened to do so?

So enough of YOUR faux outrage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top