Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:
Then why is the CEO who gets a bonus for laying off workers not seen as a bad person by conservatives?

Because... business, and that bonus is gonna "trickle down" to those who just lost their jobs, and the economy is gonna be better for it.

 skyth wrote:
Then why is the CEO who gets a bonus for laying off workers not seen as a bad person by conservatives?

Their argument would be, because that has nothing to do with caring about other people. Like everything, some people believe that, others don't.

Why does using people with guns to tax working people to give to your pet project count of caring?

 skyth wrote:
I'm not saying that there aren't conservatives that care about other people...just that they don't believe there is a duty to care.

The sooner we all drop the broad brush us vs them thinking the better. "They" aren't all the same any more then "we" are all the same.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
They want to control who the donations go to so they go to the 'right' people. It's not a moral duty to care for people(in general), it's wanting to only help out certain people. Plus there is no moral duty to help out other people. That some do is irrelevant.

If by right people, you mean the specific groups being targeted by those charities then yes.

I guess I am one of those evilz ones who only want my money going to the right people ***Wink wink nudge nudge***
like:
...

The counterargument to your list would be that it leaves a lot of people uncovered: elderly, temporarily unemployed, etc etc etc.

The argument for charity via taxes would be that instead of only benefiting a very select group of people, your money, pooled together with everyone else's money, can then affect everybody that has a need.

Personally, I do agree with that argument to an extend. But I would want a larger chunk of money to stay at the city, county, and state level to meet our needs locally rather than going to DC. Although that does raise the risk of having poorer states end up with less resources to help themselves because they don't make as much in taxes because they are poorer even though they have a greater need because they are poorer.

And I'm sure that if we would plug every state as well as the federal government into one of those "how much money is spend on overhead and how much makes it back to the actual cause" charity evaluation websites none of us would like what we saw .

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?

If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.


So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.

I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.

I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.

In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.

If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:

1) Who is the other person?

2) Is POTUS being blackmailed

3) Is this a risk to national security?

As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...

Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...

A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...

The sooner we all drop the broad brush us vs them thinking the better. "They" aren't all the same any more then "we" are all the same.

Exactly. Note my original post was intended as a humorous redirect to endlessly calling their employer, a favorite tactic of activists on all sides to legally have changes made for stupidity such as that. Plus its way more fun.

So... did the Clintons gracefully leave the WhiteHouse after W won? You decide!
GAO on THE WHITE HOUSE Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition

Some of the stuff done:
♦ removing the historical door knobs
♦ cutting all the electronic cabling
♦ stealing items (lots of stuff)
♦ writing vulgar messages on the White House office walls
♦ spray painting the walls
♦ destroying furniture
♦ slicing chair cushions
♦ ripping phones out of walls
♦ gluing desk drawers closed
♦ carving into desk tops

My two favorites so far are:
♦ switching around the fax machines and location addressed telephones
♦ removing the “w” key from all the computer keyboards

This will definitely swing the election for Trump.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This will definitely swing the election for Trump.

I know, thats clearly not as bad as the giant T he would put on front of the White House, after he renames it the Trump House

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?

If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.


So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.

I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.

I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.

In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.

If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:

1) Who is the other person?

2) Is POTUS being blackmailed

3) Is this a risk to national security?

As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...

Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...

A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...

There are parts to the Clinton impeachment.

The first is the affair itself. While immoral in most people's opinion affairs aren't an impeachable offense. The fact that Lewinsky was a federal employee and Clinton was a higher ranking federal employee with the power to influence Lewinsky's job and career was a HR/labor law problem the same it would be for any other federal employees in a similar power relationship having an affair but that still probably wouldn't have resulted in any criminal charges.

The second part is that Clinton lied under oath about the affair. The lying under oath is the illegal act and impeachable offense that he committed. The affair was just the reason behind the lying. If Clinton hadn't perjured himself there would still have been a scandal but it's unlikely that he would have ever been impeached.

Politicians and the media being what they are of course they played to the cameras and put the spotlight on the salacious affair much more so than the perjury offense. Personally, I care far more about a President that deliberately sidesteps a legal obligation to tell the truth in court than I do about whether or not a President steps out on his wife.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This will definitely swing the election for Trump.

I know, thats clearly not as bad as the giant T he would put on front of the White House, after he renames it the Trump House

Trumps WH would be very classy you know, real exquisite:

Talk about bringing up gak that was talked to death in 2000, when it happened, and then talked to death again 2008, when it was back in the news as a counterpoint to how disciplined GWB's transition to Obama was.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?

If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.


So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.

I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.

I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.

In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.

If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:

1) Who is the other person?

2) Is POTUS being blackmailed

3) Is this a risk to national security?

As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...

Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...

A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...

There are parts to the Clinton impeachment.

The first is the affair itself. While immoral in most people's opinion affairs aren't an impeachable offense. The fact that Lewinsky was a federal employee and Clinton was a higher ranking federal employee with the power to influence Lewinsky's job and career was a HR/labor law problem the same it would be for any other federal employees in a similar power relationship having an affair but that still probably wouldn't have resulted in any criminal charges.

The second part is that Clinton lied under oath about the affair. The lying under oath is the illegal act and impeachable offense that he committed. The affair was just the reason behind the lying. If Clinton hadn't perjured himself there would still have been a scandal but it's unlikely that he would have ever been impeached.

Politicians and the media being what they are of course they played to the cameras and put the spotlight on the salacious affair much more so than the perjury offense. Personally, I care far more about a President that deliberately sidesteps a legal obligation to tell the truth in court than I do about whether or not a President steps out on his wife.

I suggest you don't vote for Bill Clinton for president then.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?

If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.


So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.

I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.

I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.

In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.

If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:

1) Who is the other person?

2) Is POTUS being blackmailed

3) Is this a risk to national security?

As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...

Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...

A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...

There are parts to the Clinton impeachment.

The first is the affair itself. While immoral in most people's opinion affairs aren't an impeachable offense. The fact that Lewinsky was a federal employee and Clinton was a higher ranking federal employee with the power to influence Lewinsky's job and career was a HR/labor law problem the same it would be for any other federal employees in a similar power relationship having an affair but that still probably wouldn't have resulted in any criminal charges.

The second part is that Clinton lied under oath about the affair. The lying under oath is the illegal act and impeachable offense that he committed. The affair was just the reason behind the lying. If Clinton hadn't perjured himself there would still have been a scandal but it's unlikely that he would have ever been impeached.

Politicians and the media being what they are of course they played to the cameras and put the spotlight on the salacious affair much more so than the perjury offense. Personally, I care far more about a President that deliberately sidesteps a legal obligation to tell the truth in court than I do about whether or not a President steps out on his wife.

So...

Isn't it time to have an official White House Harem?

If it's sanctioned, wouldn't that remove those Honey Trap scenarios with threats of extortion?

I've no issue with Bill. Just one huge disappointment. Lewinsky?!?! SERIOUSLY!?
Most Powerful man in the world and he choose Lewinsky!!

Jennifer Flowers on the other hand...

 Frazzled wrote:
Jennifer Flowers on the other hand...

Jaunita Broderick has something to say...

When the Benghazi well finally ran dry, this is the best you could come up with, huh?

 Ouze wrote:
When the Benghazi well finally ran dry, this is the best you could come up with, huh?

That HRC is a rapist enabler?

Heavy topic my good man...

But, do go on and snark away.

It's not snark, more of a sad little laugh. Mostly sad.

Enjoy voting for Trump.

 Ouze wrote:
When the Benghazi well finally ran dry, this is the best you could come up with, huh?

Ouze.......why....why....whywhywhwy bring Benghazi UP

 Ouze wrote:
It's not snark, more of a sad little laugh. Mostly sad.

Enjoy voting for Trump.

Right because the past is past and we should be looking into the future?

Will you subscribe to that when evaluating Trump? Or Republicans?

Or does Democrats only get this pass?

The amazing part about this thread is that right after multiple posters have pointed out that the Republican Machine is going to spit out the same old crap that they have been spitting out for the past two decades, and that nobody will care because the scandals from the 90s have been overplayed for the past two decades, the Republican Machine comes along and posts about crap from two decades ago and then complains that nobody cares.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It's not snark, more of a sad little laugh. Mostly sad.

Enjoy voting for Trump.

Right because the past is past and we should be looking into the future?

Will you subscribe to that when evaluating Trump? Or Republicans?

Or does Democrats only get this pass?

Please just tell us you're not going to vote for Bill Clinton then shut up and stop posting off topic crap.

 d-usa wrote:
The amazing part about this thread is that right after multiple posters have pointed out that the Republican Machine is going to spit out the same old crap that they have been spitting out for the past two decades, and that nobody will care because the scandals from the 90s have been overplayed for the past two decades, the Republican Machine comes along and posts about crap from two decades ago and then complains that nobody cares.

99 times out of 100 I'd agree with you, but perception is very important in politics.

Here's an easy line of attack for the Republicans:

Remember what happened the last time the Clintons were in the White House? The scandals...and now we have HRC, who wants to be C-in-C of the most powerful nation on Earth, and yet, she didn't even know what her husband was up to half the time. Do you trust her with the nation's security? Do you trust her with the red button?

Iran Contra damaged Reagan, not because of the scandal, but because the perception was created that Reagan didn't know what was happening in his own office half the time.

If people think HRC hasn't got a grip on things, the support for her could slide...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It's not snark, more of a sad little laugh. Mostly sad.

Enjoy voting for Trump.

Right because the past is past and we should be looking into the future?

Will you subscribe to that when evaluating Trump? Or Republicans?

Or does Democrats only get this pass?

Please just tell us you're not going to vote for Bill Clinton then shut up and stop posting off topic crap.

I'm talking about his wife.

She has a past too...

There's a difference between what just happened and what happened over 20 years ago.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The amazing part about this thread is that right after multiple posters have pointed out that the Republican Machine is going to spit out the same old crap that they have been spitting out for the past two decades, and that nobody will care because the scandals from the 90s have been overplayed for the past two decades, the Republican Machine comes along and posts about crap from two decades ago and then complains that nobody cares.

99 times out of 100 I'd agree with you, but perception is very important in politics.

Here's an easy line of attack for the Republicans:

Remember what happened the last time the Clintons were in the White House? The scandals...and now we have HRC, who wants to be C-in-C of the most powerful nation on Earth, and yet, she didn't even know what her husband was up to half the time. Do you trust her with the nation's security? Do you trust her with the red button?

Iran Contra damaged Reagan, not because of the scandal, but because the perception was created that Reagan didn't know what was happening in his own office half the time.

If people think HRC hasn't got a grip on things, the support for her could slide...

Actually, it'll bubble up *because* people either forgot or simply do not know.

There'll be a 16 year gap between Bill Clinton presidency to Hillary's presidency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
There's a difference between what just happened and what happened over 20 years ago.

Again. I don't know how simply I can ask this...

Of all the scandals, from whitewater, rape enabler, FBI enemy list, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, etc... all of it, we ignore it from this point forward for HRC.

Are you willing to do it for Trump too? His past is shady as feth as well...

(disclaimer: I won't do it)

 skyth wrote:
There's a difference between what just happened and what happened over 20 years ago.

Agreed. Thats Bill Clinton, not his wife.


Bill looks bad now days. I hope he's ok.

It's hard to ignore something that has been shoved down the public's throat for the past 20+ years.

There is a difference between "don't talk about this" and "you've bitched and moaned and screamed and kicked everybody for the past 20+ years, during those two decades we fething get that you guys hate everything Clinton, maybe in another two decades you will get that nobody fething cares, so just shut up about it already because there is nothing you can add to the same bitching and moaning that has been going on since the 90s and it's getting a bit old already".