Clinton/Bush dynasty

I think the real connection is that neither Bush nor Clinton are ideologues. They are motivated less by political ideology, than by results.

Of course, Clinton is competent. And he doesn't steal. Or snort cocaine. Or drive while drunk. Or go AWOL. Or li... well, OK, he lies.

But otherwise, they are just alike.

 

Naw, Bush doesn't fool around with other women.

Probably.

 

If so, he's unusual among the males in his family. They seem to be more active than most in that regard.

 

More stupid unfounded charges from someone with a political bias that is evident. When will this stuff stop??

 

I am sorry, but anyone who claims he or she has no evident political biases is only displaying hypocrisy and pharisaical moralism, or else blindness. Anyone.

I have evident political biases.

Better to be upfront about them rather than trying to fake some air of "pure objectivity."

Well C4K, you were instead attacked as someone who makes "stupid unfounded charges."

To answer your question, I think Clinton and Bush II did/do have important philosophical approaches to many things, not the least of which are international affairs.

 

This is simply untrue. Some people certainly do have them. And if you do, it is good to admit them.

Good for you.

Please go back and read more carefully. C4K was not attacked at all. In fact, no person was attacked. My comments were quite obviously directed at the stupid unfounded charges that Bush was a womanizer, made by Galatian.

Perhaps you have not been aroudn here much. However, it is customary that if you are referring to the post immediately above yours, not to quote it. It saves bandwidth and space. Please be more careful with your responses.

Galatian and others need to take a step back before making these personal attacks with outright charges of womanizing that have never even been suggested as being true (contrary to Clinton where they were proven and admitted). Even charges such as "lying" deserve much more serious thought than what is being given to them here.

 

Were you talking about President Clinton or Senator Clinton? She is a lot more intellectual than he is; he's more macho and more folksy. He has a much better, far more ruthless machine.

I don't think there is real or overt collusion, just two opportunists using what they have to their own advantage.

I'm not so sure that Sen. Clinton will run for president. IMHO, she stands a better chance for an effective political life as a senator.

 

But, but, but, isn't that what you did in that very post in which you're admonishing Anthro?

Or were you being facetious?

 

Like I said, anyone who claims some sort of "pure objectivity," and that they have no political biases, are either blind to themselves, or displaying pharisaical hypocrisy and moral superiority.

 

I don't think Senator Clinton has any chance of being elected in 2008. She is too far left for most Americans and I think the Democrat party will try to move back to the center by 2008 because I think the 2004 election will be like the Nixon/McGovern or Reagan/Mondale elections when the Democrats ran leftist candidates against popular GOP Presidents.

Hillary lacks the charisma of her husband. Bill Clinton in many ways was like Ronald Reagan. Great charisma, great communicator and seemed to be a man of the people. Hillary lacks those qualities and could never win the Conservative South like Bill did.

 

Naw, Bush doesn't fool around with other women.

Probably.

Barbarian observes:
If so, he's unusual among the males in his family. They seem to be more active than most in that regard.

Hmmm... The Houston Chronicle says...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2241139

I know I wouldn't have done that. I would like to think most males here would be smarter than to have sex with prostitutes.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/11/17/DD95647.DTL

Well, maybe I've got an excessively prudish family...

 

Hard to say. One of the first things Bush did as President was to make it virtually impossible to investigate Clinton on the more serious matters of FBI files, secrets to China for campaign contributions, etc. So it could be intentional collusion, or it could be that the investigations would point fingers where Bush didn't want them pointed. Or I guess it could be something else. It's certainly not justice.

Not too much. Bush is far more liberal fiscally, and much more of a "big government" type that Clinton(s).

Bush has also done much to advance the homosexual agenda, with numerous high level appointments of homosexual activists. I guess pretty much on a par with Clinton there.

Bush has been very slightly more pro-life, although he has avoided doing anything for the 3500+ babies who will be killed today.

Foreign policy is difficult to judge because Clinton didn't have 9/11 to deal with. But both seem pretty much the same philosophically in that they think our children's blood is expendable for use as the policemen of the world.

Both have apparently told big lies, although Clinton's didn't get anyone killed.

 

Again, to point out the customary practice, in the first, I was referring to his whole post. In my response to Anthro, I was referring to individual parts. There is a clear difference. If you observe the way posting is done, it has been that way for quite a while. It's no big deal, but it helps to know how to apply statements that are being made.

 

Identifying the Bush being talked about would help. This was Neil Bush, not GW.

Here again, a Bush not the president, a Bush who is underage messing around with his girlfriend. Not exactly scandalous adultery and you had to go to a nephew to get that.

So let's take a look ... Out of George I, George II, Jeb, and Neil, you have one who may have done this. Since when does 25% get to determine what is usual??? To get another person, you have to go to a nephew being a teenager messing around with his girlfriend. But even then, if we start looking at all the men in teh family at that level, the percentage likely drops.

ACtually, you have an agenda to say anything or intimate anything you can that might possibly look bad on the president. And you have a funny way of deciding what "usual" is.

There was no need for the baseless insinuation against the president. That is low and uncalled for.

 

To return to the OP, yes, it is possible that the US could be ruled by the same two familes for over a quarter of a century. Still, I guess that's part and parcel of being a democracy and a Republic...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Barbarian on the somewhat sexually adventurous Bush males:
Hmmm... The Houston Chronicle says...
(Describes Neil Bush admitting that he had sex with various women who appeared at his hotel room door)

Yes. The quote didn't identify him as Neil. However, the site I linked, did. And since the issue is Bush males romping with women to whom they are not married, it's certainly pertainent.

(Barbarian cites yet another Bush male caught flagrente delecto)

The issue was randy Bush males, not presidents.

Nude from the waist down is a bit more advanced than merely "messing around". Maybe it's not a big issue for you. If so, I can understand you defending them.

It's about Bush males. I'm assuming Jebbie is a male. Everyone apparently thinks so.

And his brother frequenting prostitutes. If you think this is normal behavior, you must have a very interesting congregation.

Barbarian on Larry's lack of concern about the Bush family habits:
Well, maybe I've got an excessively prudish family...

I'll grant you that I might be biased on that point. Let me just say that kind of stuff isn't usual for the people I hang out with.

It was actually an observation about his family. And I cited facts. "Baseless" is normally used for arguments not supported by facts.

I would think that should be applied the behaviors of Neil and Jebby, rather than to the people who find it unacceptable.

But again, your standards and mine may differ in that regard...

 

Well, we agree on that!

 

But you tried to slander the president by referring to two men in his family who did something wrong. YOu used two men to define what is "usual" and that is poor thinking on your part. Two people do not define what is normal for much larger group. And trying to insinuate something about the president because of what two others did is simply lame and desparate.

Where did I defend them?? Do you read these things???

Second, it is not a big deal for me because I am married. For unmarried people it is a big deal. But that was not the point you were making and it is not the point I was making.

Once again, to clarify, my point is that your attempt to slander the president because of what two men in his larger family did is poor thinking on your part and shows the lengths to which you will go to try to discredit someone.

Bush has done plenty of things worth criticizing. Having immoral relatives is not among them. But you finally stooped to something lower than accusing him of lying.

Very nice attempt to change the conversation. The question was not whether this behavior was normal. It was whether in the Bush family, it is the normal behavior. What they did was wrong. I am not questioning that. I am simply showing that your attempt to define "usual behavior for a particular group" is based on wrong thinking.

Why not comment on what I said?? I never said I had a lack of concern for their family habits. Surely you can do better than that can't you???

And a thinly veiled accusation about him.

But the facts weren't relevant. If I say that for 8 of the past 11 years, the White House was occupied by a Democrat, I would most certainly be right. That is a fact. If I then say that based on that Bush must be a Democrat, I would be wrong. You see, I took a fact and made an invalid conclusion from it.

That is what you did. You took a fact and drew an invalid conclusion.

But your point was not about the acceptability of it; it was about the prevelancy of it. Your attempt to slander the president on this issue was wrong. Period. You used poor logic to get there. I did not condone the activity of these men. To the contrary, it was wrong. But that does not mean it is usual in his family and it does not in any way suggest that the president did the same thing.

We differ in a lot of ways, but if you believe the actions of Neil and Jeb's son were wrong, we agree on that. But we disagree that their behavior defines what is normal for a family. And we disagree that the sins of two men provide a basis for slandering a third.

 

Originally posted by The Galatian:
And since the issue is Bush males romping with women to whom they are not married, it's certainly pertainent.... The issue was randy Bush males, not presidents.

Nope. I made no judgements about Dubya's morals. I just pointed out that the morals of his family aren't so good. I guess I could have mentioned the alcohol arrests of his daughter, and the drug bust on one of his neices, but I was talking about sexual misconduct only.

In my family, we don't have one sexual crime, much less two. And I have more brothers and sisters than Dubya. Remember, I'm gauging this by my family and associates. For some cultures, this might not be such a big thing.

Two sex offenses in two generations seems like a lot. But again, your experience might be different than mine.

Let's see...

Naw, Bush doesn't fool around with other women.

Probably.

Barbarian observes:
If so, he's unusual among the males in his family. They seem to be more active than most in that regard.

So it may be that sexual misconduct is the one vice Bush has never tried. Drunken driving, drug use, theft, and AWOL were perhaps all he could handle by himself.

Barbarian observes:
Nude from the waist down is a bit more advanced than merely "messing around". Maybe it's not a big issue for you. If so, I can understand you defending them.

I think "messing around" is a rather mild euphemism for what they were doing, don't you think?

Precisely what did I say about the president that was not true?

Well, I think when a man's offspring commit crimes, it's a reflection on him. Don't you?

What exactly did I accuse him of? Having randy relatives? It's true.

Barbarian observes:
If you think this is normal behavior, you must have a very interesting congregation.

No, it's whether it's normal to have several people people in one's family guilty of sexual misconduct. I don't think it is. Do you?

Barbarian on the discussion of sexual misconduct in the Bush family.
It was actually an observation about his family.

What exactly did I accuse him of, other than having some rather sexually adventurous relatives?

Barbarian observes:
And I cited facts. "Baseless" is normally used for arguments not supported by facts.

The assertion was that the Bush family has some unusually randy males. It wasn't that such behavior was average, or even average for the Bush family. But it seems to be more than you'd find in most families.