# "He has no credibility left"



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

"He has no credibility left." -- Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), quoted by the Las Vegas Sun in 1998, urging Bill Clinton to resign after he admitted an extramarital affair.

How does that quote about people in glass houses go again?

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB124525720150723815.html


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, he said Clinton "has no credibility left" because Clinton perjured himself, then called a press conference and lied to the American people about his affair with an intern, on the job. As the leader of the free world.

This guy...cheated on his wife. Maybe too subtle a distinction for you.


----------



## robertbpratt (Mar 2, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> "He has no credibility left." -- Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), quoted by the Las Vegas Sun in 1998, urging Bill Clinton to resign after he admitted an extramarital affair.
> 
> How does that quote about people in glass houses go again?
> 
> https://online.wsj.com/article/SB124525720150723815.html


Come now, that same quote could apply to you. We may choose to not follow his actions in our life, but we have no moral basis on which to judge him. If you're truly anxious to find faults in people, look to yourself, and let others tend to themselves.


----------



## eulerthegrape (May 4, 2009)

*take this to redstate or dailykos*

does not belong on this forum. take it to redstate, dailykos, or whatever floats your boat.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

eulerthegrape said:


> does not belong on this forum. take it to redstate, dailykos, or whatever floats your boat.


Stick around. You'll be surprised at what goes on on this forum sometimes.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

eulerthegrape said:


> does not belong on this forum. take it to redstate, dailykos, or whatever floats your boat.


only cause most posters on the interchange think its an extension of Fox Noise


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

You do realize that by accusing this Senator of hypocrisy, you are accusing Democrats/liberals (including perhaps yourself) of hypocrisy as well, don't you? 

I mean, I don't know how old you are, but I lived through the Clenis episode, and the entire Left half of the country spent a year saying that Clinton's affair was no big deal, that it was a private matter, that it didn't affect his job, that the fate of the USA and humanity was hanging in the balance while small-minded scolds wasted time on a petty bourgeois sexual-morality melodrama. 

You can't criticize this Senator without doing exactly what the entire Democrat establishment lambasted for all of 1998. 

So, either you must admit that you are a hypocrite for criticizing this Senator, or you must conclude that the pro-Clinton Democrat position on the Lewinsky affair (i.e., "No big deal") was inappropriate and indefensible.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

i think the point is more about the pot calling the kettle black. clinton didnt preach the traditional family values like this senator did. the big deal with clinton was he lied not the sex, with this senator it's the sex


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

young guy said:


> i think the point is more about the pot calling the kettle black. clinton didnt preach the traditional family values like this senator did. the big deal with clinton was he lied not the sex, with this senator it's the sex


Either the sex is "no big deal" and a "private matter" and thus off-limits as a topic for political gain, or it's not.

That principle can't change when you change parties.

So, which is it? Is this Senator's personal life being unfairly and unjustly intruded upon, and thus meriting the services of the Clinton Media Machine's No Big Deal Private Matter defense, or not?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Either the sex is "no big deal" and a "private matter" and thus off-limits as a topic for political gain, or it's not.
> 
> That principle can't change when you change parties.
> 
> So, which is it? Is this Senator's personal life being unfairly and unjustly intruded upon, and thus meriting the services of the Clinton Media Machine's No Big Deal Private Matter defense, or not?


i dont think his person life is being intruded upon because he brought it up first, clinton did not


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Phinn said:


> You do realize that by accusing this Senator of hypocrisy, you are accusing Democrats/liberals (including perhaps yourself) of hypocrisy as well, don't you?
> 
> I mean, I don't know how old you are, but I lived through the Clenis episode, and the entire Left half of the country spent a year saying that Clinton's affair was no big deal, that it was a private matter, that it didn't affect his job, that the fate of the USA and humanity was hanging in the balance while small-minded scolds wasted time on a petty bourgeois sexual-morality melodrama.
> 
> ...


Completely agree Phinn. Both Democrats and Republicans are prone to cheat on their wives or husbands at the same exact rate as each other and the rest of the American public for that matter.

Only difference is that one party tries to claim the moral high ground on this subject - playing the religious and social conscience of the country card on every possible occasion.

If you cant see that distinction, I can assure you the many people in this country can.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

young guy said:


> i dont think his person life is being intruded upon because he brought it up first, clinton did not


Right.

Clinton called a news conference to wag his finger in the face of the American people.

He denied denied denied, even sent his wife out to lie for him and call it all a vast right-wing conspiracy.

He's a hero of the left and you want talk about hypocrisy?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Completely agree Phinn. Both Democrats and Republicans are prone to cheat on their wives or husbands at the same exact rate as each other and the rest of the American public for that matter.
> 
> Only difference is that one party tries to claim the moral high ground on this subject - playing the religious and social conscience of the country card on every possible occasion.
> 
> If you cant see that distinction, I can assure you the many people in this country can.


I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that its o.k. for a Democrat politician to cheat on his wife because Democrats openly state that its morally defensible to cheat on one's spouse? I'm not sure I've heard any Democratic politician say that, not even Clinton or Edwards.

Or are you saying that its o.k. for a Democratic politician to cheat on his wife, even though they say its morally wrong to do so, because we all know they don't really believe that because we know they're just trying to fool the rubes?

As far as I'm concerned, its wrong for anyone to betray their spouse's trust. That doesn't mean that it can't ever happen, everyone has weakness and can make a mistake. But when it does happen one should admit their mistake and try to make amends and make sure it never happens again. Ensign seems to be doing that. Clinton and Edwards never really have.

Religious conservatives are actually pretty good about forgiving all kinds of 
transgressions, as long as a person admits their mistakes and tries to live well going forward. Can the same be said of liberals?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

You understand my point exactly and trying to PLAY DUMB doesnt change the fact that Republicans are reaping what they have sown for so long.

Republican hypocrites preach family-values and try to legislate the same into our daily lives, while they slink around doing drugs, having sex with homosexual escorts, allowing their teen-aged daughters to get pregnant, and in this case breaking their marriage vows by having adulterous affairs.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> You understand my point exactly and trying to PLAY DUMB doesnt change the fact that Republicans are reaping what they have sown for so long.
> 
> Republican hypocrites preach family-values and try to legislate the same into our daily lives, while they slink around doing drugs, having sex with homosexual escorts, allowing their teen-aged daughters to get pregnant, and in this case breaking their marriage vows by having adulterous affairs.


You seem to be evading my point. I have yet to see a Democratic politician repudiate family-values. And I haven't seen a whole lot of difference between Democratic and Republican politicians when it comes to legislating family-values. The democrats have the presidency and both houses of congress and I don't see them legalizing gay marriage or marijuana, or lowering the drinking age or legalizing prostitution. The President won't even rescind the don't ask don't tell policy for the military, which is well within his power considering it was instituted by Clinton.

You need to face the fact that there just isn't a whole lot of substantive difference between the majority of Democratic and Republican politicians. And you should stop looking at all conservatives as social conservatives. A very large minority are libertarian leaning and may well be more socially liberal than you.



mrkleen said:


> allowing their teen-aged daughters to get pregnant


I don't know if you have any teenage kids, but if you do how successful are you at getting them to do what you say? Should we always blame the parents for a teenager's mistakes?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm not talking about the Republican Party being hypocritical. I'm not even talking about the Democratic Party being hypocritical, for that matter. As a far as I am concerned, electoral politics is one giant exercise in hypocrisy, and it doesn't interest me very much.

I'm talking about you.

_*You*_ have announced the principal that it is unacceptable for someone to espouse a principal or value which he does not himself follow. You have announced the proposition that hypocrisy is unacceptable.

Fine.

*You* must either consider extramarital affairs to be:

(a) "no big deal, a private matter, which doesn't affect a politician's job, and should not be grounds for political posturing," or

(b) not.

Which is it?

If so, then I expect to see you defending Ensign and decrying the media frenzy over this event with the same vigor as the Democrats (and maybe yourself) defended Clinton back in the day, and up to this day. Instead, you apparently take a childish glee in his being caught, thus revealing your own hypocrisy for failing to abide by your own standard.

If not, then I expect you to disavow, retract and negate every defense of Clinton you ever made on those grounds, and tell us how critical and disapproving you are of the Democratic Party and every left-liberal sympathizer who ever uttered such statements (which they did, a lot). Instead, you apparently defend the Democrat media strategy of 1998, thus revealing your own hypocrisy for failing to abide by your own standard.

Either way, you are hypocritical.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Phinn said:


> I'm not talking about the Republican Party being hypocritical. I'm not even talking about the Democratic Party being hypocritical, for that matter. As a far as I am concerned, electoral politics is one giant exercise in hypocrisy, and it doesn't interest me very much.


Nice try at making this personal Phinn. 

This tread is about John Ensign and his brand of high and mighty, blow hard, false moral outrage coming back to bite him.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Nice try at making this personal Phinn.
> 
> This tread is about John Ensign and his brand of high and mighty, blow hard, false moral outrage coming back to bite him.


You know, when I first read that I mis-read John _Edwards _instead of John _Ensign._ But I guess it's correct either way. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

norton said:


> You seem to be evading my point. I have yet to see a Democratic politician repudiate family-values. And I haven't seen a whole lot of difference between Democratic and Republican politicians when it comes to legislating family-values. The democrats have the presidency and both houses of congress and I don't see them legalizing gay marriage or marijuana, or lowering the drinking age or legalizing prostitution. The President won't even rescind the don't ask don't tell policy for the military, which is well within his power considering it was instituted by Clinton.
> 
> You need to face the fact that there just isn't a whole lot of substantive difference between the majority of Democratic and Republican politicians. And you should stop looking at all conservatives as social conservatives. A very large minority are libertarian leaning and may well be more socially liberal than you.


I agree.

And when people like John Ensign and Mark Foley, David Vitter and Larry Craig get off their high horse and admit that to err is human, we can have a reasonable discourse on these kind of subjects.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Anyone who thinks that (a) either party is morally superior or (b) that either party really cares about the other's morality except to gain a political advantage is mistaken in my experience (over a decade working on Capitol Hill). It's mostly the political amateurs around the country who get most ventilated about this stuff.

Interestingly, the Ensign case has an interesting parallel in Alexander Hamilton's career. Hamilton, too, had an affair and was blackmailed to keep it quiet. Word got out that he was making payments, and there were allegations that it was related to his official duties as Treasury Sec. Rather than appear corrupt, he went to his political opponents and confessed, reassuring them that the activities for which he had been blackmailed were all personal, producing letters, etc.

Reassured that the matter was not one of state, they let the matter drop quietly.

If only we could be as dignified today.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> I agree.
> 
> And when people like John Ensign and Mark Foley, David Vitter and Larry Craig get off their high horse and admit that to err is human, we can have a reasonable discourse on these kind of subjects.


I don't know who Larry Vitter is, I must have missed that one. But didn't all the rest resign their positions? Ensign is still a senator but he resigned from leadership.

Why doesn't the press call on Democrats to resign when they get caught? They even covered for Edwards during the campaign. It's like we have two different moral codes, and that's what frustrates Republicans.

If a man betrays his spouse's trust can he be trusted not to betray his constituent's trust? I think that's the question that should be asked regardless of party affiliation.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> I agree.
> 
> And when people like John Ensign and Mark Foley, David Vitter and Larry Craig get off their high horse and admit that to err is human, we can have a reasonable discourse on these kind of subjects.


its not about sex really, its about preaching one thing and getting caught doing the opposite


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

young guy said:


> its not about sex really, its about preaching one thing and getting caught doing the opposite


No, its about betraying a trust. For instance, I can see where extramarital affairs or polyamory may be acceptable if both spouses are aware or involved, but in all these cases, Democrat and Republican alike, no one is making that claim. They are all cases where one spouse was cheating on another.

And no one has come flat out and claimed that Republicans are the only party that say that cheating on one's spouse is wrong.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Nice try at making this personal Phinn.
> 
> This tread is about John Ensign and his brand of high and mighty, blow hard, false moral outrage coming back to bite him.


No, if I were to accuse you of engaging in extramarital affairs, _that_ would be making it personal.

What I am saying is that your entire _argument_, your _post_, your _position_ on this subject is self-defeating and self-contradictory.

It's like saying "I do not exist." But before you can even say that, you must first exist. So, by saying it, you defeat the content of your own proposition.

You are _engaging_ in hypocrisy in the course of _accusing_ others of hypocrisy. You instruct us that we should not accept the hypocrisy of others, even as the very basis of your instruction is itself an act of hypocrisy.

The inherent self-contradiction in your position is the reason you are ineffective at persuading anyone that you have a valid point.

In contrast, you would persuade a lot more people if you reacted to this Ensign story by saying things like, "As I said back when the Clinton-Lewinski story was raging, extra-marital affairs are no one's business. This is a non-story, and it's wrong for the media to exploit it, and wrong for political opponents to try to use it for political gain."

Not everyone would agree with that proposition, but at least you wouldn't be undermining your own argument.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Adultery is an integrity issue—regardless of party. My experience is that a man who is willing to betray the most serious vow he will make in his life will betray anyone and anything if he feels it is necessary. Every man I have worked with who cheated on his wife eventually lied to me and others. 

No man who lacks the integrity and the self-control to live his marriage like a grown-up is fit to serve as a leader. And those who continue in office have severely limited moral authority.

If your marriage has deteriorated, either fix it or get a divorce. Cheating is for the weak, cowardly and selfish.

There are lots of people who can serve as our leaders. There is no reason we have to settle for those who are moral cripples.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Perjury is much, much more serious than adultery, especially from a public official. And calling a press conference and lying to the entire country you're supposed to serve and lead?

And banging an intern on the job? A firing offense from any other job...

But this all goes over the heads of the leftie dips.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Perjury is much, much more serious than adultery, especially from a public official. And calling a press conference and lying to the entire country you're supposed to serve and lead?
> 
> And banging an intern on the job? A firing offense from any other job...
> 
> But this all goes over the heads of the leftie dips.


yes lying to the country is worse than adultery, and some lies are worse than others, oh lets see lying about a bj or lying about weapons of mass distruction, yellow cake uranium and al qaeda involvement


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

You guys are letting the politicians play you. All of them mentioned on this thread are cads, and arguing about which is "worse" just makes us lower your own standards.


----------



## eulerthegrape (May 4, 2009)

Seriously, I was hoping to come back here and see gentleman step up their game. This thread brings the whole forum down.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

In Mufti said:


> Adultery is an integrity issue-regardless of party. My experience is that a man who is willing to betray the most serious vow he will make in his life will betray anyone and anything if he feels it is necessary. Every man I have worked with who cheated on his wife eventually lied to me and others.
> 
> No man who lacks the integrity and the self-control to live his marriage like a grown-up is fit to serve as a leader. And those who continue in office have severely limited moral authority.
> 
> ...


You seem to be taking a rather simplistic and harsh view on something that has been a moral dilemma throughout the ages. Straying alone does not make one a moral cripple.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

young guy said:


> yes lying to the country is worse than adultery, and some lies are worse than others, oh lets see lying about a bj or lying about weapons of mass distruction, yellow cake uranium and al qaeda involvement


Yawn.

Such trite talking-points make me yawn.

Don't you have anything new?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> Adultery is an integrity issue-regardless of party. My experience is that a man who is willing to betray the most serious vow he will make in his life will betray anyone and anything if he feels it is necessary. Every man I have worked with who cheated on his wife eventually lied to me and others.
> 
> No man who lacks the integrity and the self-control to live his marriage like a grown-up is fit to serve as a leader. And those who continue in office have severely limited moral authority.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with you. Adultery is the breaking of a trust and such a person, it must be assumed, would be prone to breaking other trusts provided the rewards were sufficient. Having said that, I think it should be for the people of Nevada to decide whether or not he is to represent their state in the Senate. After all, I'm quite certain the Senator did not break any human law.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> Yawn.
> 
> Such trite talking-points make me yawn.
> 
> Don't you have anything new?


i apologize, the deaths of over 4 thousand young Americans i do not find 'trite' which is the result of lying about the wmd - sad that you do


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^While I too shed tears over the loss of even just one American life, you seem to overlook the reality that it was Saddam Hussein who elected to play a game of chemo-biological and thermonuclear chicken (AKA; Let's Hide the WMDs!) with the rest of the world...and he lost! He also committed repeated acts of genocide against the Iraqi people. Good guy's don't stand idly by and watch the play yard bully beat up on the little guys!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^While I too shed tears over the loss of even just one American life, you seem to overlook the reality that it was Saddam Hussein who elected to play a game of chemo-biological and thermonuclear chicken (AKA; Let's Hide the WMDs!) with the rest of the world...and he lost! He also committed repeated acts of genocide against the Iraqi people. Good guy's don't stand idly by and watch the play yard bully beat up on the little guys!


well except for north korea, dafur and ruwanda to name a few, oh we stand by sometimes


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

young guy said:


> yes lying to the country is worse than adultery, and some lies are worse than others, oh lets see lying about a bj or lying about weapons of mass distruction, yellow cake uranium and al qaeda involvement


Wow, what a great way to change the subject when you can't com up with a coherent argument.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

young guy said:


> well except for north korea, dafur and ruwanda to name a few, oh we stand by sometimes


So, are saying we should have invaded and changed the regimes in Korea, Darfur (Sudan) and Rawanda (you neo-con you:icon_smile_big or are you saying that since we can't solve all the worlds problems we shouldn't solve any?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Perjury is much, much more serious than adultery, especially from a public official. And calling a press conference and lying to the entire country you're supposed to serve and lead?
> 
> And banging an intern on the job? A firing offense from any other job...
> 
> But this all goes over the heads of the leftie dips.





young guy said:


> yes lying to the country is worse than adultery, and some lies are worse than others, oh lets see lying about a bj or lying about weapons of mass distruction, yellow cake uranium and al qaeda involvement





norton said:


> Wow, what a great way to change the subject when you can't com up with a coherent argument.


Norton, keep up with the discussion as you can see i was responding to PT's post, my arguements may not be the most coherent but i was not changing the subject


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^While I too shed tears over the loss of even just one American life, you seem to overlook the reality that it was Saddam Hussein who elected to play a game of chemo-biological and thermonuclear chicken (AKA; Let's Hide the WMDs!) with the rest of the world...and he lost! He also committed repeated acts of genocide against the Iraqi people. Good guy's don't stand idly by and watch the play yard bully beat up on the little guys!





young guy said:


> well except for north korea, dafur and ruwanda to name a few, oh we stand by sometimes





norton said:


> So, are saying we should have invaded and changed the regimes in Korea, Darfur (Sudan) and Rawanda (you neo-con you:icon_smile_big or are you saying that since we can't solve all the worlds problems we shouldn't solve any?


again, follow the discussion, eagle said good guys don't stand idly by...we didnt invade iarq because the little guys were getting beat up but because of the lie of wmd and al quaeda connection - which even now the former vp says never existed - in essence admitting one of their own reasons was a lie


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

young guy said:


> again, follow the discussion, eagle said good guys don't stand idly by...we didnt invade iarq because the little guys were getting beat up but because of the lie of wmd and al quaeda connection - which even now the former vp says never existed - in essence admitting one of their own reasons was a lie


Completely right. Eagle and so many on the right want to try and change to rules of the game - years after the fact. So sad.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

young guy said:


> again, follow the discussion, eagle said good guys don't stand idly by...we didnt invade iarq because the little guys were getting beat up but because of the lie of wmd and al quaeda connection - which even now the former vp says never existed - in essence admitting one of their own reasons was a lie


I guess it makes sense to you somehow. I've been hearing the same claims for years, but have been unable to find any logic.

As you gain experience in life you find you sometimes have to choose the best alternative from a plethora of bad alternatives, often while only having bad or incomplete information. When its your responsibility to make the tough decisions that's what you have to do. I am not a big fan of Bush and I disagree with many of his decisions but I respect him and think he did the best he could with the situation he was given.

Pretty soon you'll find that you can no longer blame all the world's problems on Bush. Take Guantanamo for instance. Bush set it up to hold prisoners captured while acting as terrorist or fighting against our soldiers. They weren't prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention because they weren't fighting for a nation or in uniform. Of the approximately 700 prisoners that were at Guantanamo less than 200 were still there when Obama came to office. That's right, Bush released or transferred around 500. Now its Obama's problem and, while he says he'll close the prison, he has yet to suggest an alternative, or what will happen to the prisoners or request funding for the closure from congress. How do stories like this affect his decision - ?

Obama is now in the same position Bush was five years ago, only he has five years of hindsight to guide him. What would he have done if he had been president five years ago when these men started to be captured? We don't even know how he intends to handle it today.

Obama is now finding that he has to choose the least bad alternative, maybe with insufficient information. How will he deal with the protests in Iran? Will he allow a N Korean ship with a history of carrying weapons to deliver its cargo? Maybe there is no really good solution, just the least worse. Will you be pointing a finger at him and saying he did the wrong thing, without being able to suggest an alternative?

I remember when Reagan was president. The left absolutely hated him. They screamed that he was a stupid, senile old man that was sure to get us into a nuclear war with the soviet union. They said that he was destroying the economy by following agenda driven supply side economics and driving deficits to ruinous levels by cutting taxes while beefing up the military. Now his economic policies are generally credited with setting up the boom in the 1990's and his foreign policy is credited with being a major force in toppleing the Soviet Union. What remained of the military that he built and technologies that he funded allowed us to win desert storm and iraqi freedom with remarkably few casualties. I suspect that despite all his faults, Bush set into motion foreign policies that may be looked at similarly in twenty years. Not so much his economic policies.

So anyway, don't get so tied up with the idea that a politician lied or was a hypocite. They may have but its just as likely they were ill informed or weak. If you expect them to always do the right thing you're a fool, they're only human. You'll always be able to find something you can point to and say (rightly or wrongly) that they were wrong and hurt the country, but it doesn't contribute anything useful to the question at hand, unless you can suggest a rational alternative. Please try to get past the method of argueing that uses the formula: I'm right because Bush (or any random Republican) did or said something bad. People who already think like you may agree, but you won't convince anyone else.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

young guy said:


> well except for north korea, dafur and ruwanda to name a few, oh we stand by sometimes





norton said:


> So, are saying we should have invaded and changed the regimes in Korea, Darfur (Sudan) and Rawanda (you neo-con you:icon_smile_big or are you saying that since we can't solve all the worlds problems we shouldn't solve any?


Indeed, it is a fool's errand to try to be everything to everyone. However, it remains good sense, good politics and, most importantly, the right thing to do to attempt to "put the iron on target," where it will do the most good!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Completely right. Eagle and so many on the right want to try and change to rules of the game - years after the fact. So sad.


Those on the far right, as well as on the far left could be found guilty of the charges you level, mrkleen. However, I think the biggest difference between folks like you and me is that, throughout the course of my life, I have repeatedly put my butt on the line, consistent with the words uttered from my mouth. Can you say as much?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

norton said:


> Please try to get past the method of argueing that uses the formula: I'm right because Bush (or any random Republican) did or said something bad. People who already think like you may agree, but you won't convince anyone else.


If by "people who already think like you" you mean the majority of the people that voted in the last two elections, you are correct.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Those on the far right, as well as on the far left could be found guilty of the charges you level, mrkleen. However, I think the biggest difference between folks like you and me is that, throughout the course of my life, I have repeatedly put my butt on the line, consistent with the words uttered from my mouth. Can you say as much?


Putting your butt on the line with your words? Wow, thats some brave stuff there Eagle.

Certainly much more courageous than those asked to ACTUALLY put their butts on the front lines.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Actually mrkleen, I've been there, done that but, there was nothing brave or courageous about it...I went where I was ordered to go and did what I was ordered to do. As for the present conflicts, DOD seemed to think I was too old to be of much use to them this time!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

young guy said:


> again, follow the discussion, eagle said good guys don't stand idly by...we didnt invade iarq because the little guys were getting beat up but because of the lie of wmd and al quaeda connection - which even now the former vp says never existed - in essence admitting one of their own reasons was a lie


Or an honest mistake. I was skeptical of the Iraq invasion, but let's not go over the top in evaluating motivations.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Putting your butt on the line with your words? Wow, thats some brave stuff there Eagle.
> 
> Certainly much more courageous than those asked to ACTUALLY put their butts on the front lines.


Eagle has been in the front lines of the military.

If you end up being half the man he is (I know him personally.) you will do well.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle has been in the front lines of the military.
> 
> If you end up being half the man he is (I know him personally.) you will do well.


I'll second that.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> If by "people who already think like you" you mean the majority of the people that voted in the last two elections, you are correct.


I doubt that everyone who voted for a democrat agrees with you on all points, but if your satisfied with that, very well. There's really no point in boring the rest of us then, is there?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle has been in the front lines of the military.
> 
> If you end up being half the man he is (I know him personally.) you will do well.


Just what I need, affirmation of my worth from some guy on a message board.

As an aside, thank you for your service Eagle. I also served, though not during war time.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Just what I need, affirmation of my worth from some guy on a message board.
> 
> As an aside, thank you for your service Eagle.


That was not one tenth as nasty as what you said to Eagle. When you become more mature and fair with what you write, I will be more concerned with what you think.

Keep displaying your maturity for all to see!!!

Before you do the kneejerk response, keep in mind that most of the "righties" who are more extreme in their opinions and tactless in their postings don't think highly of me either. I've been known to post similar things to extreme, tactless "righties".


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> That was not one tenth as nasty as what you said to Eagle. When you become more mature and fair with what you write, I will be more concerned with what you think.
> 
> Keep displaying your maturity for all to see!!!
> 
> Before you do the kneejerk response, keep in mind that most of the "righties" who are more extreme in their opinions and tactless in their postings don't think highly of me either. I've been known to post similar things to extreme, tactless "righties".


Funny to see someone using the term "maturity" while simultaneously getting upset about things posted on a "message board"

I have two goals on this board. Reading and learning about clothes, grooming, and upcoming sales and deals - and occasionally coming to the Interchange to tweak the right wing neocons who like to practice revisionist history out here.

Sorry I offended you and your buddy Eagle. I had no idea of his service and thank him for that and apologize for my crude comments.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Enough said. Thank you for the apology.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Wow...I lot has occurred in this thread since I was on this AM! 

First, thanks to forsbergacct2000 and KenR for the kind words and support. I appreciate both. 

Second, mrkleen thanks for the apology but, while we both are entitled to our differing political opinions, perhaps both of us can find less confrontational ways of expressing them in the future. We and these fora we frequent, will be better for it!


----------

