Law School Discussion

Presidential wisdom?

edit
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2004, 09:27:37 AM »
edit

L1

  • ****
  • 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2004, 10:47:05 AM »
General principles.  I don't care who he has sex.

He tanked on us on the issue of health care.

He gave many questionable pardons at the last minute.

He protected drug manufacturers while millions were dying of AIDS combined with poverty.

And so on  and so on .

None of this should be construed as support for Bush.  He's even worse.

I think Clinton should have been run out of town on a rail

Why, specifically?

I know you feel Bush is worse... for my part, I'll say that despite his policies that benefit the rich, on a moral level Bush is actually much better.  As a person, as a husband, and as an example for the people of this nation.  He didn't screw around with an intern, and at least he does have an independent set of principles on which he bases his life that aren't dependent on polls.  He may be wrong, but he's never in doubt that he's doing what's right in his own eyes.  Dangerous?  Perhaps in some ways.  But I prefer it to a scumbag who tells you what you want to hear for his own personal career advancement, then lies under oath to cover up his mistakes.  I realize that I'm a minority on this board in that I hold these views, and I accept that... but the minority voice should be heard too.  It's just too easy to bash Bush, and SOMEONE's gotta stand up for the guy when his character is unfairly assailed on a daily basis.

ZAP

Yes, the minority voice must be heard and I respect your opinions. I'm no fan of Bush but am one of Clinton. Let me begin by saying that there once was a leader that had no extra-marital affairs, didn't drink or smoke, didn't even lie about his intentions. This sure sounds like someone of great moral character...there's only one problem, his name was Adolf Hitler. Sometimes I think that the "He may be wrong, but he's never in doubt that he's doing what's right in his own eyes," line is very dangerous.

As for Clinton, I've met him twice and I know just how charming he can be. Believe me it would have taken an intervention from God to save Monica from not going down on him either that or listening to mass where they discuss how being a mistress is wrong. I don't think he should've been impeached since he lied about his private affairs. Hell, I bet each and every one of us on the board has lied about our private affairs at some point. My belief is that we elected him to be the President not the Pope.

To answer the original question about why modern presidents don't express wisdom, I'm going to go back to one of my polisci classes. Basically, in the past it was the Congress who had the eye of the public and media. They were the ones that were expected to discuss controversial issues. At that point, the President didn't discuss controversial issues really, thus it's easier to look wise since they would only discuss things that most ppl accepted anyway. After WWII, it switched to the Pres. having most of the power. The Pres was expected to be involved in such controversial issues and thus ppl will either support his claims or think he's a total idiot that lacks wisdom.

jas9999

  • ****
  • 726
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2004, 10:51:57 AM »
so being a raging alcoholic and coke-head until you're forty is an acceptable standard to which we should aspire? having your wife threaten to leave you if you don't sober up is an example of a good husband and father? coming home drunk, wrecking your car, and challenging your father to a fistfight is the behavior of a good man?

and if you think he doesn't govern by polls, consider this me laughing in your face. karl rove is probably the most poll driven political advisor working today.

jgruber

Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2004, 10:53:18 AM »
Bush:

No bid contracts to companies once run by close associates

Suspect military service

Felons in his staff

Half-truths on a regular basis

Secret energy summits

General reluctance to provide information to the public

The man is corrupt.

I think Clinton should have been run out of town on a rail

Why, specifically?

I know you feel Bush is worse... for my part, I'll say that despite his policies that benefit the rich, on a moral level Bush is actually much better.  As a person, as a husband, and as an example for the people of this nation.  He didn't screw around with an intern, and at least he does have an independent set of principles on which he bases his life that aren't dependent on polls.  He may be wrong, but he's never in doubt that he's doing what's right in his own eyes.  Dangerous?  Perhaps in some ways.  But I prefer it to a scumbag who tells you what you want to hear for his own personal career advancement, then lies under oath to cover up his mistakes.  I realize that I'm a minority on this board in that I hold these views, and I accept that... but the minority voice should be heard too.  It's just too easy to bash Bush, and SOMEONE's gotta stand up for the guy when his character is unfairly assailed on a daily basis.

ZAP
Quote

buster

Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2004, 11:50:38 AM »
Shrub, do you think they should have "convicted" him during the impeachment?

Either way you made by far the best case I've ever heard for why he should have been impeached.

That, but also simply the sexual relation he had w/ Lewinsky and other subordinates. Look - if he had an affair with the florist across the street from the whitehouse I wouldn't have given a damn and would be defending him. But he had sex with a subordinate - someone over whom he had direct promotion/firing power.

If a military commander has sex w/ a subordinate he gets severely reprimanded. If a college professor has sex w/ a student (and it becomes public knowledge) he gets fired. Most businesses have policies in place specifically prohibiting managers from engaging in romantic affairs w/ subordinates - you break the rules you get fired. And what makes the whole thing so especially hypocritical is that these are all measure that the Democratic party fought for. It's one of the central ideals of the Democratic party - those in a position of power should not be allowed to use that position of power to extract sex from subordinates, even if the sex appears consensual.

There are lots of practical reasons for this beyond just being right. It disrupts the natural heirarchy when a leader is having sex with one of the led. The led begin to wonder if they have the same opportunities for advancement as the person having sex with the leader. Bad morale invariably ensues.

So, in the real world of the military, universities, and business you get fired if you screw around w/ your subordinates. I do NOT hold the president of the US to a lower standard than a mid-level manager. If you're a president and you screw one of your subordinates, you should be fired/impeached. Really - it's not that difficult what's being asked. Just don't screw your damn employees. Go to Vegas and hire a hooker - fine. I've got no problem with that. Just don't bone the staffers. That really is not too much to ask and if a president can't adhere to this, and especially a DEMOCRAT president for whom this is a party platform, then that president has got to go.

Now i'm all worked up. Man, Clinton - what a major disappointment. Total scum - eloquent, but complete and total scum. You know, i wonder - what if Chelsea got boned by one of her 50 year old professors at college and it was completely consensual. The professor put the "look at me - i'm a smart and powerful professor at an important university" moves on Chelsea and she fell for it and let the professor bone her. You don't think Clinto would have gone balistic over that and done everything possible to get that professor fired and ruin his life? You bet he would! And Clinton deserves no less than the same retribution he would exact on this professor.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2004, 10:47:34 AM »
Posted by: giraffe205
"Yes, the minority voice must be heard and I respect your opinions. I'm no fan of Bush but am one of Clinton. Let me begin by saying that there once was a leader that had no extra-marital affairs, didn't drink or smoke, didn't even lie about his intentions. This sure sounds like someone of great moral character...there's only one problem, his name was Adolf Hitler. Sometimes I think that the "He may be wrong, but he's never in doubt that he's doing what's right in his own eyes," line is very dangerous."

Hitler lied so many times it's funny.  "No the Jews are not being killed."  "Just give me this little nation and I'll never attack anyone else." etc. etc......

L1

  • ****
  • 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2004, 10:49:26 AM »
To him it wasn't lies but a twisted truth. Scarily, it's an odd resemblance to Bush not lying about WMD but not telling the truth.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2004, 11:04:10 AM »
Now you are comparing Bush to Hitler and worse your acting like you know what Hitler and Bush think is truth.  "I will not do X (invade Poland)."   Hitler did indeed invade Poland.  Bush said he would invade Iraq if he thought it necessary and he did.  When did Bush ever say he had no intention whatsoever of invading Iraq?

Be careful who you compare to Hitler, perhaps Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and few others, but be careful.

L1

  • ****
  • 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2004, 11:15:29 AM »
Now you are comparing Bush to Hitler and worse your acting like you know what Hitler and Bush think is truth.  "I will not do X (invade Poland)."   Hitler did indeed invade Poland.  Bush said he would invade Iraq if he thought it necessary and he did.  When did Bush ever say he had no intention whatsoever of invading Iraq?

Be careful who you compare to Hitler, perhaps Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and few others, but be careful.

Dude, I never said that Bush denied that he'd invade Iraq. What I said was that Bush told ppl that there were WMD in Iraq. There aren't WMD in Iraq. To Bush, he probably doesn't believe that he lied to the public but rather that he just didn't tell the truth. 

And I never said that Bush is EXACTLY like Hitler. Each person has their own similarities and differences to everyone. The fact is that Hitler is a known figure so it makes for a better comparison than talking about my neighbor whom, other than me, nobody knows. I don't think he lied about his intentions if you are looking at Mein Kompf.

Be careful who you talk to like that, okay!?! JK.

Minc

Re: Presidential wisdom?
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2004, 11:17:25 AM »
To him it wasn't lies but a twisted truth. Scarily, it's an odd resemblance to Bush not lying about WMD but not telling the truth.

Twisted truth = lies. Calling it something else doesn't make it any less of a lie for the person telling it or the people hearing it. Hitler knew he was lying when he said Jews were not being killed. Bush has not lied about WMD. Comparing Bush & Hitler is, well, a little insane. Yes, Bush acted on poor information. I'm not defending him there. But Bush believed there were WMD, regardless of how well-founded the information on which he based that belief was. He went to war because of that. Bush did not lie about his intentions for the war. He has made them very clear. Now, granted he may have been wrong, but there was no lie involved.

As far as Clinton, I don't understand those who defend him. First, as has already been eloquently articulated by Shrub, he had sexual relations with a subordinate. That alone was enough for impeachment (check out the earlier post for more specific reasons). Second, lying under oath only gave more reason to impeach. The argument that what he did was his private life, and that what he lied about was his private life, is pretty irrelevant. Ordinary citizens are charged with crimes that take place in their private life. They are also subject to charges if they lie under oath about things that have happened in their private lives. Why should we hold a president to a lesser standard than that to which we ourselves are held?