PenisPeople Ruining the World

Are the polititians doing a good job could you do better, debate your views with others
Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:56 am

jojo22 wrote:And so you think that makes him President material?

More so than Hillary Clinton.

Serving effectively as Mayor of New York City renders one much more qualified to be President of the United States than serving as a United States Senator.

The critical similarity between a mayor and a president is that each is the chief of the executive branch of their respective governmental systems. Save for foreign policy, a mayor and a president have similar and analogous duties, functions and powers, only on different scales.

A U.S. Senator is not an executive but a legislator, part of the legislative branch of government. There are 100 U.S. Senators, but only one President and only one Mayor of New York.

American Presidents usually have come from executive backgrounds. Most Presidents previously served as state governors, not U.S. Senators. A State Governor is the chief of that state's executive branch of government.

George W. Bush was Governor of the State of Texas. Bill Clinton was Governor of the State of Arkansas. Jimmy Carter was Governor of the State of Georgia. Ronald Reagan was Governor of the State of California.

Rudolph Giuliani excelled as Mayor of New York City, commonly referred to as the second hardest job in America after the President. And Hillary Clinton has not exactly been a superstar int the U.S. Senate.

User avatar
jojo22
Mahatma
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:02 am

Postby jojo22 on Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:26 am

However, some might argue that having been at her husbands side through both a Governership and two terms as President might have given Hillary a great deal of learning about the job she would walk into.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:56 am

jojo22 wrote:However, some might argue that having been at her husbands side through both a Governership and two terms as President might have given Hillary a great deal of learning about the job she would walk into.

Although I dislike him for many reasons, there is no denying that Bill Clinton is a natural-born politician. He is intelligent, articulate, quick on his feet, disarming, and above all else, he is charismatic. Hillary may match Bill in intellect, but she lacks those other critical traits which cannot be learned or acquired by proximity to someone who has them.

And the argument that Hilary was “at her husbands side through both a Governership and two terms as President” is belied by her genuine or feigned ignorance about Bill’s myriad affairs throughout his political career.

User avatar
jojo22
Mahatma
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:02 am

Postby jojo22 on Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:38 pm

Ouch - to denounce a woman for her husbands ill behaviours - rather unfair to say the least.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:39 pm

jojo22 wrote:Ouch - to denounce a woman for her husbands ill behaviours - rather unfair to say the least.

I didn't denounce anyone for anything.

I merely refuted your claim that she was "at her husbands side through both a Governership and two terms as President."

But now that you bring it up, I wouldn't vote for a Presidential candidate of either gender who tolerated serial adultery from their spouse because I consider such person a weak doormat lacking self-respect.

User avatar
jojo22
Mahatma
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:02 am

Postby jojo22 on Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:06 pm

It's terribly easy to judge another person's life and their decisions when you aren't walking in their shoes :no:

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:10 pm

jojo22 wrote:It's terribly easy to judge another person's life and their decisions when you aren't walking in their shoes :no:

Every voter is entitled to make such judgements concerning a candidate for the most powerful position in the world.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:38 pm

. wrote:
jojo22 wrote:It's terribly easy to judge another person's life and their decisions when you aren't walking in their shoes :no:

Every voter is entitled to make such judgements concerning a candidate for the most powerful position in the world.


But you assume that these personal issues impact someone's ability to lead. I care less about someone's sexual activity, or lack of, or with whom or what they engage in sex, than their ability to lead.

I have a different perspective on the accomodations others make to keep their marriage together. My perspective is, what's behind closed doors belongs there.

This isn't defending Clinton (no!) , it's disgust at rolling around in people's personal lives that has no bearing on their public life and philosophies.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:46 pm

. wrote:
. wrote:
jojo22 wrote:It's terribly easy to judge another person's life and their decisions when you aren't walking in their shoes :no:

Every voter is entitled to make such judgements concerning a candidate for the most powerful position in the world.

But you assume that these personal issues impact someone's ability to lead. I care less about someone's sexual activity, or lack of, or with whom or what they engage in sex, than their ability to lead.

I have a different perspective on the accomodations others make to keep their marriage together. My perspective is, what's behind closed doors belongs there.

This isn't defending Clinton (no!) , it's disgust at rolling around in people's personal lives that has no bearing on their public life and philosophies.

I don't "assume" anything.

My judgement as to the fitness of someone to be President and thus my vote is based on numerous considerations, including character, because my experience in life has taught me that personality traits and principles affect professional performance.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:54 pm

Nonsense. My ability to bring a women to orgasm with my mouth has no bearing on my ability to use that same mouth to get a bill passed to law, nor on my ability to tell someone what to do.

User avatar
mogadishu
Regent Empress
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Postby mogadishu on Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:55 pm

yes, but perhaps someone's sexual activity tells you something of their moral character, which will impact on how they run the country.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:07 pm

What makes a homosexual cross dresser any worse or better on a planning committee? I assume you wouldn't mind as long as the homosexual in the powersuit was female?

Morals are variable.

If the Clintons had an agreement and it appears they did, why should Mrs. Clinton be said to be a "weak doormat lacking self-respect"? It looks like she decided to value her marriage. That sound moral I think.. for them anyway.

User avatar
jojo22
Mahatma
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:02 am

Postby jojo22 on Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:08 am

Morals are indeed variable and people are often faced with hard decisions about their relationship, which is weighted by the nuances of the history of that relationship - nuances that we are not privy to.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:42 pm

jojo22 wrote:Morals are indeed variable and people are often faced with hard decisions about their relationship, which is weighted by the nuances of the history of that relationship - nuances that we are not privy to.

I'm not referring to Bill Clinton's morality on adultery but to his abysmally poor judgment, immaturity and lack of self-restraint unbefitting any adult much less the person entrusted with the sober responsibilities of the most powerful job in the world.

Clinton’s inability to keep his dick in his pants was his Achilles Heel throughout his political career, distracting and undermining him again and again as Governor of Arkansas and as President of the United States. Recall that the biggest concern of his campaign staff in the 1992 Presidential election were “bimbo eruptions” from the time he was Governor of Arkansas.

Although I never liked Clinton and don’t share his politics, I recognize his gifts. Clinton had the opportunity and the potential to leave a legacy of historical accomplishments as President, which he squandered by wasting time and political capital on dealing with the sex scandals resulting from his poor judgment, immaturity and lack of self-restraint.

When he became sexually involved with 21 year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky in 1995, Clinton was already facing a sexual harassment lawsuit by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones. His sexual exploits were already under intense media scrutiny. He displayed monumentally poor judgment by nonetheless taking the risk of further scandal by bedding Lewinsky.

Then on March 15, 1998, White House volunteer aide Kathleen Willey alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Clinton had sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993.

Then in November 1998, Juanita Broaddrick gave an interview to Dateline NBC in which she claimed that Bill Clinton had raped her in 1978, during his first campaign for the governorship of Arkansas. NBC interviewed four people who said Broaddrick had told them years ago that Clinton had assaulted her. One was a nurse who stated that in 1978, Broaddrick claimed Clinton had sex with her "against her will" and had facial bruising, which she treated with ice.

During his second term, from 1996 to 2000, Clinton was distracted from his Presidential duties by sexual scandal. It was during this same period that al Qaeda was perpetrating terrorist attacks against American targets outside the United States and actively preparing for 9/11.

The Lewinsky affair evidences why Clinton’s abysmally poor judgment, immaturity and lack of self-restraint rendered him unfit to be President in a literal sense: Clinton became vulnerable to political blackmail affecting American foreign policy. In a TV interview shortly after the Lewinsky scandal became public, the Lewinsky family lawyer stated that neither Lewinsky’s parents nor Monica nor the lawyer himself had any desire to damage Bill Clinton because Clinton “is a friend of Israel.” Anyone who understands politics would interpret that statement as a veiled threat to damage Clinton if Clinton acted in a manner contrary to the interests of Israel. That's quite a high price to pay for a few blowjobs.

User avatar
jojo22
Mahatma
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:02 am

Postby jojo22 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:34 pm

Cripes - I had never heard about these r**** claims before - from your description he wasn't just a bit of a sex addict, but a sexual predator.

My comments about the naunces of deciding to stay in a relationship were more about Hillary than Clinton.

Please clarify something for me - one of the things that came out of Clinton's interview with one of the Fox News guys was that the one thing he was derided for (by the republicans) when he was in presidency was going on and on about Osama Bin Laden - he claims that no-one took him seriously and he could not get a mandate to take viable action against Osama but that he left detailed plans for going after the guy before he left office. This seems to be quite different from your take on things.

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest