Integrity is not an issue taken seriously by Republicans

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2003
2,701
142
48
North Missisippi
Unless, of course they are attempting to somehow discredit Democrats; I mean about real things like worker safety, fair wages, environmental protection, and on and on.

Dick Nixon ran in 1968 against a straplegged Democratic Party. The Viet Nam War was unpopular and the sitting Democratic President didn't have a clue as to how to get us out of it with honor and announced that he wouldn't run for re-election and further wouldn't accept a nomination despite his wishes. That's honesty, my friends. But Tricky Dick went further. He promised to get us out of the Viet Nam War which he did (I applaud him for that) and he also promised to balance the federal budget (he didn't do that) and bring responsibility to the industries that harm our environment, our economy and our American way of life. He, in my opinion, failed miserably on all those.

A Republican colleague of mine in 1970 announced that the EPA and OSHA acts would pass, marginally, but pass they did but they would be so onerous and ill conceived they would also be rejected by the American business communities and even the public within a year of their passage. My colleague was right and wrong. The EPA and OSHA acts were passed despite the overly cumbersome clauses that were placed in them by the Republicans and their ulteriour motives to get them totally rejected.

As a testament to the soundness of the EPA and OSHA acts they are still with us thirty someodd years later. The improvements are "no thank you" to the Republicans and reflect the true integrity of the American People, again, in my own opinion. Given the prevailing Republican mindset, as I saw it in the early '70's and even today, we would all still be earning (earning, ain't that a kick in the ass?) about a dollar an hour for shoveling 80 pound loads of shit with a 50 pound shovel and doing it in a spray of 111 inhibited Tricloroethylene because it makes us high and forget how dangerous our job is and about how we don't have much choice insofar as getting new gigs and besides our livers and kidneys are old folk's concerns. I don't expect most of you to really understand all that but I know that I understand it. I'll do my my best to answer your questions but I will not entertain frivolous pandering or critisism.

I could go on, but I think this is about enough to begin a conversation.

Catch you on the upbeat!!!!!!!!
 
I must assume that you don't have a serious thought about this, jimnyc. Were it not for the fact that you are the accepted leader of this message board I would not have acknowledged your ridiculous reply.
 
Originally posted by Psychoblues
I must assume that you don't have a serious thought about this, jimnyc. Were it not for the fact that you are the accepted leader of this message board I would not have acknowledged your ridiculous reply.

You're the dickhead that said you aren't going to bother with people that have criticism. I'll leave you here to discuss this with yourself.
 
You once lectured me about "personal" attacks. And now you call me "dickhead" and you demonstrate that you don't know the difference between "your" and you're". I think you're educated far beyond your ability, jimnyc, as I consider most Republicans to be. Why don't you comment on the points that I raise and refrain from your personal indignations, jimmy?
 
You once lectured me about "personal" attacks. And now you call me "dickhead" and you demonstrate that you don't know the difference between "your" and you're".

I believe I had it correct. Maybe your old ass needs a refresher in reading comprehension? Can you dig it?

I think you're educated far beyond your ability, jimnyc, as I consider most Republicans to be. Why don't you comment on the points that I raise and refrain from your personal indignations, jimmy?

Because all I would have would be criticism in response to your long winded drivel, and you said you didn't want that. You'll notice I spelled that CRITICISM, not "critisism" like you did in your original post, putz.
 
Originally posted by Psychoblues
You've proven my point, jimnyc. Integrity is not your forte' or the forte' of the party that you favor.

And you've proven yet again that you are an idiot. You can stop now though, we get the point.

Please enroll in reading comprehension courses and learn how to spell before calling out others. :laugh:
 
in·teg·ri·ty n.
Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

Do you mean integrity is not an issue taken seriously by Republicans because it happens to be a charaterisitc not actually an issue at all?

Maybe that's the problem with some contemporary democrats; they think integrity is an issue, and not something upon which you base your life.

Does anyone seriously believe President Clinton had any integrity? Not by the definition above certainly.

So do you mean the republicans make an issue out of pointing out their democratic rivals lack integrity? Well, I suppose I would have to agree with that.

I mean about real things

Of course. Real things....
 
First off, my miss-spelling was intentional. I just wanted to check your level of piousness. As far as comprehension is concerned, I'll never understand dilemmas of the working classes and common folk when they so consistently vote against themselves. My motto is "Educate the uneducated, motivate the unmotivated and free those that desire true freedom." Democrats won, although just numerically in 2000, and Democrats will win overwhelmingly in 2004. There just can't be that many stupid people unless they are being unfairly influenced by corporate media, don't you agree?
 
Originally posted by Psychoblues
First off, my miss-spelling was intentional. I just wanted to check your level of piousness. As far as comprehension is concerned, I'll never understand dilemmas of the working classes and common folk when they so consistently vote against themselves. My motto is "Educate the uneducated, motivate the unmotivated and free those that desire true freedom." Democrats won, although just numerically in 2000, and Democrats will win overwhelmingly in 2004. There just can't be that many stupid people unless they are being unfairly influenced by corporate media, don't you agree?

We have a humor section at the bottom of this board. No need to ruin a perfectly good thread with such hilarious comments.
 
I'll agree with this, Zhukov. Every president in my lifetime has had their failings as they apply to any definition of "integrity".. Some have had media protection and others have had media scrutiny. Considering the nature of today's corporate media, where do you think the "integrity" issue might be reported?

Politics is a nasty game. Given the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we've never had a politician in this country with inordinate "integrity". But attitude? That's what I vote for, my friend!!!!!! I want a candidate that will be truly compassionate and conservative. I find that most in the Democratic Party. GWB ran one way in 2000 and has since broken every promise he ever made and I think he did it for personal gain and some delusional idea of posterity. But November is coming up, I think another one term for a Bush is proof enough that Republicans lack the perception of integrity by most Americans.
 
"There just can't be that many stupid people unless they are being unfairly influenced by corporate media, don't you agree?"

Naturally, you lose an election and you blame the people for being to stupid to vote for you guys. You never consider that your out of touch with the common man. The American people dont take well at being told they are stupid.

As for Integrity. Lets look at it. We have a deffinition provided for us already. Who has a moral code among the two main candidates?

Bush:
Does what he says.
Active in pursuing policies that will make America safer like he said he would.
Stands for protecting marriage
he has kept most if not all of his campaign promises so far.

Kerry:
Takes six positions on every issue.
He is for the war, he is against the war, He supports the troops, he votes against giving the troops funding to survive.
He is for Israel building a wall, he is against Israel building a wall.
He insists that we should have gone into Haiti to protect a dictator unilaterally, yet we cant take out Saddam, and even worse dictator unless we get the permission of the French and the Germans.
He is Against gay marriage, but isnt for banning it.
He is pro military yet votes against almost every major military system that helped us win the cold war and build the army we have today.

Tell me, which of these guys has integrity? Neither is perfect of course, but which one stands for something and activities tries to promote that agenda?
 
Given the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we've never had a politician in this country with inordinate "integrity".

Well depending on how one defines 'inordinate', I think most Americans would agree that most of early Presidents were men of impeccable integrity, the founding father's in general and Washington in particular. A man offered a kingship who settles for 8 years of democratic rule. That's integrity.

Considering the nature of today's corporate media, where do you think the "integrity" issue might be reported?

It doesn't matter if it's reported. The undecided (those who won't be voting for the party even if the nominee is Mussolini) will have to determine themselves which candidate possesses more integrity. As Bush is the incumbent and has been on stage since 2000, the burden is on Kerry to demonstrate superior character. He is not rising to the occasion. I don't believe he will or is even capable of it.

GWB ran one way in 2000 and has since broken every promise he ever made

Come on.

But November is coming up, I think another one term for a Bush is proof enough that Republicans lack the perception of integrity by most Americans.

I would disagree with your prediction for the November elections, and although you may disagree with the code he follows, I tend to think Pres. Bush definitely possesses 'a strict moral or ethical code' to which he adheres.

See, the thing is, it's easy to point to what George Bush believes in. But what do democrats believe in? What does John Kerry believe in? What drives his actions and dictates his behavior? I don't know, and I don't believe anyone else does either; and quite honestly that isn't going to fly come election day.

At least Pres. Clinton tricked us into thinking he believed in something. Kerry isn't even capable of that, and that's why he'll lose. No moral or ethical code to follow equals no integrity.
 
Historically, it's unwise for any Senator to run for the Presidency of this country. There are far too many seemingly conflicting votes that a Senator must make to advance the ideology that he/she might truly possess. Even Abraham Lincoln was selected for the Republican nominee due to his abscurity and that he'd never made any votes or decisions that had any national impact. Nonetheless, he was considered a bumpkin by many in the republican party but he proved his determination and reluctance to adhere to predominate conservative ideolgies while in office. Check your history books. I guess you might say John Wilkes Booth was a more indicative "conservative" of that day.

In this case John Kerry seems to be the Democratic choice for the 2004 election. Certainly his votes might seem on the surface to be contradictory but from my years in politics I understand the dilemma. Unfortunately, most Americans might not. But we'll see how he handles all that. Like I said earlier, I vote for attitude, demonstrated attitude and John Kerry demonstrates the kind of attitude I can agree with. But that's a long subject, boring would be and understatement.

GWB ran on an attitude of "compassionate conservatism". He is neither compassionate or conservative. I don't think the American people will overlook that.
 
Originally posted by Psychoblues
GWB ran on an attitude of "compassionate conservatism". He is neither compassionate or conservative.

Well, I'd have to disagree with that assesment. He's clearly more conservative than moderate else the democrat's wouldn't constantly be so rabid, right?

As far as compassion goes, I suppose that depends on your definition. Certainly the large sum of money to help with AIDS in Africa, prescription drug relief of any kind, pseudo-amnesty for illegals, and his faith based initiative could all be categorized as 'compassionate' if you like. The first three certainly aren't conservative.

I vote for attitude, demonstrated attitude and John Kerry demonstrates the kind of attitude I can agree with.

I'm not sure what attitude you refer to. The guy doesn't even have a personality let alone attitude. What attitude? Quotes?
 
Even you admit that GWB is neither compassionate nor conservative, I can't read your reply any other way. As far as "quotes" you exemplify why Senators have heretofore been taboo for presidential aspirations. Like I said, it's attitude that I look for. The intricasies of the bills that are moved through the Senate are confusing to say the least. John Kerry exemplifies the best of American ideolgy as compared to GWB. At this point, that's all that matters.
 
"Even you admit that GWB is neither compassionate nor conservative, I can't read your reply any other way. "

I have to disagree. He is clearly showing how President Bush is both, which is sad because Conservative should automaticly mean compassionate. After all, we are the party who wants government out of peoples lives, we want people to keep their own hard earned money, we believe in the nobility of hard work and judging people by what they do rather than what their skin is.

BTW i have yet to see where you have shown that Bush is not a man of integrity
 
hmmm. psychoblues has "years in politics". Why is he still so ignorant? The world may never know.:rolleyes:
 

Forum List

Back
Top