go on...
Where's Rudy?
- Thread starter RenegadeRick
- Start date
Devil's advocate: Clinton lied about a BJ.
They all lie, although it's a spectrum from keeping a secret to outright lying (and a spectrum of impact of the lie). If you want to elect a politician that hasn't ever lied, be prepared to elect a politician that will be completely paralyzed in congress and in international relations.
I think not electing people that are outright retarded or evil is about the only criteria that is actionable for me right now.
I would add to that people that are not outright Hillary Clinton as well.
It's a thin line between cognitive dissonance and outright lying. I think Bush genuinely believed a lot of these things because he so desperately wanted them to be true (ideologue + stupid = you don't have to lie to state things that defy reality). In the case of his cabinet, I believe most outright lied because they...
a) felt the ends justified the means.
b) were required by their role to parrot things they knew not to be true and were too pussified to risk their jobs.
I think the only cognitive dissonance going on was which hand is better to use....he had the CIA mine, and remine data until they gave him a report that sort of said what he wanted. He knew he was deceiving the public IMO. But, not much we can do about it now....I would prefer to have a politician in office that will tell the truth more often than not.
This brings me such a warm glow of satisfaction for a job well done.
I still think that Chunky moron pm is one of the funniest things I've ever read on RM!
I'd be carefulThis brings me such a warm glow of satisfaction for a job well done.
I still think that Chunky moron pm is one of the funniest things I've ever read on RM!
Dude, he's going to fvcking remove you from this worldhonkey donkey said:
of warcraft
This thread is chock full o' awesome.
I don't know, $tinkle using that faltering picture of myself as his avatar is damn funny too.I still think that Chunky moron pm is one of the funniest things I've ever read on RM!
I rather enjoyed this article about Bernard Kerik and Guiliani: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03kerik.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
To what end? Enjoyed it in that it provides reasonable excuses for outright lies told by Giuliani?
I rather enjoyed this article.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/11/02/is-the-real-rudy-for-real/
In a similar manner, they cannot find any factual errors, they just thought it wasn't fair.
Gee, isn't that just too funking bad.
FYI, I am not a demagogue that spouts propaganda for some ulterior motive.
I might like to argue, and I am very good at it, but I have an evolving opinion on most topics, and I am always interested in learning more, even if it is changes my opinion.
I appreciate your information about the pedophile priest on the payroll, and the controversy over the fire department radios.
I do wonder about the priest and, of course, Kerik. Loyalty is admirable, but not when your subordinates are scumbags. However, not everyone can be perfectly clean in their political life, and I do not know if this par for the course and a bad job on the cleanup.
I still have very strong feelings about Guiliani, however. It is a good question about leadership. I am pretty positive Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, and I know there will be major questions about her abilities. As for Ron Paul, I think his positions are popular, but there are other questions about leadership in crisis.
I remember when Nader was making a run at the Presidency, and my response was that his first act as President would be to surrender to Saddam Hussein.
As for what you think the NY Times article, I am sure you will dismiss it like most demagogues would.
Nope. You and I have met and you are a real person. Not for even a minute have I believed this.
Me too. I really prefer to form my opinions based on the available evidence, but at the same time, we each have our own bias based upon the things that have affected us in our lives. This affects the way we perceive the world. It is also why it is important to seek the opinions of others and even more important to LISTEN to what they have to say. The perspectives of others may uncover evidence or a possibility that you may not have even considered.
The most important thing a leader should do is protect his subordinates, however, knowingly lying to cover their asses is simply unacceptable. This undermines a leader's credibility and weakens the public trust.
Coming back to the idea of individual perspectives, our MTB Trail Crew works with the C[r]ook County Forest Preserve in Chicagoland and I understand that politics is a dirty business. Just yesterday we opened a new section of trail we have been trying to get open for years. How did we do it? Well there was some wheeling and dealing and we had to do some favors. Our group even had to sacrifice ride time to work parking duty at an Art Fair. But what we did not do was lie to get it approved.
There is evidence that Rudy lied about his knowledge about the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9-11. It suggests that he may have had foreknowledge of the events and that someone who MAY have been involved would promote himself based on his leadership in an event that he even could have involvement in is patently offensive to me. My individual perspective is very sensitive on this matter since I have a family member that died there. It deeply affected my family.
I don't know who the Democratic nominee will be, but the "top-tier" wants to continue the war and this is unacceptable to me. I cannot support anyone who wants to continue this fiasco that was based on a lie. Rudy is a war monger and therefore, I cannot support him.
Undoubtedly, Ron Paul's positions are popular, and your comment about questions about Ron Paul's leadership in crisis intrigues me. Please tell me more. I have never heard of anything to suggest that he may have issues here. If anything, I feel he would remain calm under pressure and not overreact as he was one of the few who voted against the USA Patriot Act. Most of congress voted for it in fear, without ever reading it.
Since you directed this comment at me, I had to look up the meaning to ensure I understood you properly.
Since these are not ancient times I can only assume you mean the first definition. Nevertheless it does not appear to apply to me since I do not seek power. The term seems to apply well to Rudy and Hillary and actually most politicians.
I understand why people may think Ron Paul is a demagogue, especially with his incredible claim that he would eliminate the IRS. However, since income taxes only provide for about 1/3 of the revenue of the Federal Government, this could be easily eliminated. How so? By stopping all this foreign intervention and minding our own business in the world. Something Ron Paul intends to do. I have seen no evidence that suggests he would not. If you are aware of any, please present it.
As far as dismissing your article goes, I did no such thing. The article you provided shows many instances of Rudy ignoring the advice of his staff, and proceeding as he sees fit. It clearly paints Rudy as a "stay the course" politician, and I think we have had more than enough of that under GWB.