Condit: RESIGN!

[Giancarlo]

What do you think is going to happen to Condit now? You think he had something to do with that Intern's Disappearance? I certainly do think so, he probably hired a hitman or something but let's wait and see. He is giving the US a bad name, so I must say he should resign.

Latest News:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/24/missing.intern/index.html

(Hopefully this doesn't get deleted)

[rmsharpe]

At first I thought it was a hitman too, but I don't know if professional killing is true, and not so much a media hoax.

Can you imagine, though, if Gary Condit was a Republican? The liberal media (NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC) would be all over this guy, saying that he has "disgraced America" and has "destroyed hope for the Levy family", but instead they're basically praising Condit for just talking to police.

If you ask me, he did it.

[Giancarlo]

This guy is worse than JFK... he has scandals up his armpits... and you should of seen what kind of gross stuff they found in his house. I say he did do it, and did an exceptional job hiding the body.

Oh and believe it or not, the Republicans have been making a lot gains of large parts of the media.

[niv]

I don't think he did it, but I think his behavior as of late was extremely foolish.

[Giancarlo]

Yeah, he should resign anyways if he either did or didn't do it. Or articles of impeachment will be passed.

[niv]

he did a commit a criminal offense: purgery.

with the added media attention, that just may be an impeachable offense

[Giancarlo]

Yup, he better resign in disgrace.

[WorldWarGeneral]

I doubt he'll resign, unless he's found guilty of murder or something. And I doubt impeachment will even be considered. I doubt he'll even get a censure. Congress members just don't like to attack other congress members. There was a thing on Fox news last night that was talking about how the House Ethics committee almost never took any action.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by WorldWarGeneral
Congress members just don't like to attack other congress members.

*Faints*... that entire statement is a oxymoron. :D
Do you know what politics is about?

[whatevah]

here in Delaware, a lot of people think this case is similar to the Capano - Fahey case...

a rather prominent person, Capano was having an affair with Fahey, and killed her... he and his brothers dumped her into the Atlantic Ocean... never did find her body..

CBS even did a mini series about it... http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/03/22capano-breaking.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=capano+fahey

one of his brothers is in construction out here.. I heard he got in trouble, recently for making a hotel a story too tall, violating some city law, or something..

[Giancarlo]

Capano? Italian? ;)

[whatevah]

yeah.. I guess Italian... not Mafia type though. :)

[Giancarlo]

Common Stereotype that I hate: Italian, must be with mob then.
Hey I am partily Italian, and I hate this stereotype. :D

(Notice My name)

[whatevah]

yeah.. I'm half Italian, myself... I just figured that's where the question was going. sorry ;)

I'm half Italian, and the rest I dunno... german mostly... and native american.. Pocohantas was my 12th-great-grandmother, or something.... hehe

btw.. my last name is Horn.. very german. there are a ton of Horn's and Van Horn's

[Giancarlo]

I am Spanish/Italian with a bit of Moroccan, since the Moors controlled Spain for a long time.

[whatevah]

hmm... maybe it's time for another "what is/what are" thread.. hehe

[Giancarlo]

You think so?

[jason]

i found this article posted on another website discussing the case, i doubt the credibility because of the style its written bur they give many details i hadn't heard before. maybe someone from the U.K. could tell if the Daily Telegraph is a respected paper or not
my personal opinion, he seems guilty as hell but theres not much phsyical evidence to prove he killed her. ppl want to believe the worst when it come to politicians and americans love a scandle. the sad thing is this case gets so much publicity simply because it is connected with a congressmen when there are 1000's of these cases out there that no one seems to care about. he should probably resign but if every congressman who has affairs resigns i doubt there would be many left. but messing with an intern half your age, that is something different. though clinton got away with it. check the post below for the article as its too big for one post.

[jason]

Daily Telegraph, July 15, 2001
The congressman, the missing intern, his wife and his lovers By Mark Steyn
IF Gary Condit didn't kill Chandra Levy, he's the unluckiest adulterer in Washington. Until April, he was just another horny congressman, cheerfully nailing - as with many, if not most, of his colleagues - one of the town's vast herd of obliging interns.
Not his own intern, perish the thought, but some other fellow's: after all, three years ago, when President Clinton ran into a little difficulty intern-wise, Congressman Condit was one of the few Democrats to vote for the impeachment inquiry, so it was important for him to set an example and only screw around with young federal employees not directly under his authority.
In the two-and-a-half months between the disappearance of his "friend" and his belated recollection this week that, oh yeah, now you mention it, they were having sex, we have learnt nothing about the fate of Miss Levy, but an awful lot about America's most famous obscure congressman. To whit:
He has had at least seven other mistresses, some of them simultaneous with Chandra.
To ease pressures on his business and personal lines, Mr Condit has a special telephone number for his mistresses to call on. You dial up, get an answering machine that plays soft'n'easy favourites, and leave your message.
One mistress was the 18-year-old daughter of a Pentecostal minister and gardener from Modesto, California, in Mr Condit's home district. The congressman may have sired a child by her. The dates match and, on the birth certificate, the father's name is "withheld".
During his stint in the California State Assembly, he was known as "Gary Condom" and was such a prodigious legover maestro that female staffers planned a "Condoms for Condit" fundraiser to ensure that he would at least be able to practise "safe sex".
Except that he's into unsafe sex, according to another mistress, Anne Marie Smith, the "flame-haired flight attendant" with whom Gary was two-timing Chandra - or three-timing if you take his wife into consideration, which evidently Gary doesn't terribly often. Miss Smith says the congressman has sexual tastes beyond those of the "normal heterosexual male". She looked under his bed and discovered a string of neckties roped together, such as could be used to tie someone up.
Of all the interns in all the apartments in all the District of Columbia, why did his have to disappear? Why couldn't The Mystery Of The Missing Mistress have starred, say, fellow stickman Jesse Jackson? Against that, it has to be said that, since April 30, Gary Condit has been doing a superb impersonation of a guilty man, even before anyone thought there was anything to be guilty about. On May 3, Chandra's mother telephoned the
congressman to say she hadn't heard from her daughter in a couple of days and did he know where she was. "No," he said. "But would you like me to put up a $10,000 reward?" This seems a very curious reaction, given that Mrs Levy had not yet contacted the police and was not yet suspecting the worst. But Mr Condit was.
On May 5 or 6, well before Chandra's disappearance became news, the congressman told his other other woman, Miss Smith: "I'm going to have to disappear for a while. I think I may be in some trouble."
Mr Condit had also embarked on what would be two months of lies, big and small. Aside from lying to the police, he also lied to Chandra's parents about the date on which he had last spoken to his "good friend", subsequently justifying it with the
Clintonian explanation that he had thought the Levys meant "in person" rather than "on the phone".
In another Clintonian touch, he had his lawyers draft an affidavit for Miss Smith denying that she'd had an affair with the congressman. Miss Smith declined to sign and instead went to Fox News.
Mr Condit, in two months of perfunctory, evasive formulations, has nevertheless been eloquent on one point: he does not have a car. His public statements are at pains to point this out at every opportunity.
For example, take the official timeline that he provided for the weekend on which Chandra Levy was last seen: "Saturday, April 28: Carolyn Condit, the congressman's wife, arrives from California at 7.30pm ET. Rep. Condit, with a staffer because he has no car, picks her up at the airport. They go to a Xando coffee shop."
Sub-text: I couldn't have put the body in the boot of the car, because I don't have a car to put the body in. But, according to Miss Smith: "He does have a car here in DC." Whether or not he has an automobile, he seems noticeably short of several other essentials of modern political life. When police were finally admitted to his flat this week, they were struck by the absence of a home computer. They did take away some long dark hairs unlikely to have come from Mr Condit's grey thatch, and a piece of a blind that appeared to have blood on it.
And, though there's no stained dress, they did find a stained pair of trousers with a noticeable red spot, which the congressman's ferocious high-rent lawyer, Abbe Lowell, refused to let them impound. Possibly it is an old ketchup stain arising from Mr Condit's small part in the 1978 film Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes.
The congressman had strict rules for his girlfriends, one of which was that, whenever they were in his flat, they were to have no ID on them whatsoever. Miss Levy disappeared, leaving all her ID - driver's licence, credit cards, etc - back at
her place.
Even the news on Friday that Mr Condit had passed a polygraph test hasn't helped. A "lie detector" is, more accurately, a nervousness detector, which is why the fluttery tickertape is inadmissible in court.
A guy who has successfully held off the DC cops for two months is anything but nervous, and, in this instance, the polygraph test was administered not by the police, but by a private expert hired by Mr Condit's lawyer and included only three
questions relevant to Chandra, with no follow-ups. Abbe Lowell's announcement that it proved his client's "innocence" provoked the police into their strongest criticisms of Mr Condit yet.
Indeed, the only thing to be said in his favour is that Mr Condit is behaving so guiltily that, if this were a Hollywood movie, he'd be the guy you assume did it until five minutes before the end, when, in a stunning courtroom coup de theatre, Perry Mason reveals that the popular Democratic congressman was, in fact, framed by an embittered Republican opponent.
Real life is duller: the obvious suspect is usually the guy who did it. If he's not a killer, there's a prima facie case of obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury. As we know from impeachment days, for Democrats such piffling offences don't "rise to the level" of high crimes.
With Bill Clinton, the defence was that it was only about sex; but, with Mr Condit, it's not only about sex, it's about possible murder: Monica Meets OJ, in tabloid-speak.
Yet, throughout two long months of obvious lying, Democrats have been in full Clinton mode, or, as the House Democratic Leader, ---- Gephardt, told AP: "Gary is co-operating in every possible way with the police investigation. He's doing what he's been asked to do."
Even as Gephardt was blandly standing by his man, federal officials were opening a criminal investigation into whether the congressman had obstructed justice. What does a Democrat have to do to get disowned by his party? In public, some
Dems deplore the intrusion into Mr Condit's "private" life. In private, a couple have cited his sleaziness as the best evidence of his innocence: why would he kill this mistress when he's never killed any of the others?
So what if, as some reports have it, she was pregnant? He didn't mind when the 18-year-old preacher's gal got knocked up. And, naturally, everyone understands that Gary lied because he wanted "to protect his family". If he had a "romantic relationship", that's his business.
"Romantic" hardly seems the word. As Chandra's aunt tells it, her young niece had to spend much of the day alone in Mr Condit's apartment waiting for him. The best that Auntie could advise to while away the hours was to try to please him by
arranging his shirts according to colour.
Let us do as we should and presume the congressman's innocence. He nevertheless encouraged behaviour that could lead a young woman into danger. Gary Condit persuaded Chandra Levy to compartmentalise her life - to conduct a secret affair, behind closed doors, her driver's licence, her purse, her formal identity left behind at home. Suppose she started doing that with someone else, too?
Congressmen are not like MPs, wedged on to the benches of the Commons, sharing offices and one aged secretary. A member of the House of Representatives has multiple offices and a vast professional staff, and all the time in the world to "mentor" as many interns as he wants.
The received opinion says that we must be careful to criticise Gary Condit only for his stonewalling of the police and not for his multiple affairs. But the one led to the other. Seedy deception, droit du seigneur, an enabling staff and uncritical colleagues: that's the world Gary Condit lives in and, in some furtive corner thereof, Chandra Levy may well have died.
As long as Democrats insist that it's OK to screw interns, stewardesses and teenagers just so long as you don't kill 'em, the Condits and Clintons will flourish. And, whatever happened to Chandra, there's plenty more where she came from.
Or, as the announcement on Gary Condit's website, put it: "Intern Opportunities. Whether interning in Modesto, Merced, or Washington D.C., working in one of Rep. Condit's offices can be an extremely rewarding experience."

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
He is giving the US a bad name,

*NEWSFLASH* The US already has a bad name.

Who the ---- is condit, and why should i, or anyone else care?

[LastActionHero]

Woah cudn't you just post a link Jason?

Condit is a politician and like almost every politician has sex with his interns. Politicians are corrupt and perverts.

Just think what clintons daughter must have thght when he admitted to having oral sex. "Gee I didn't know my father was capable of that"? She must have been damn embaressed and sick.

sick ppl . very sick.

[LastActionHero]

BTW the daily telegraph is a very respected paper.

[Gayowulf]

Newspapers are on a downhill slide. I find that many are drifting away from responsibe journalism.

I dont see why so many poiticians sex lives have to be made public. It would be easier for everyone if they kept quiet about it, or shot their partner after they were finished.

[LastActionHero]

Originally posted by Gayowulf
...or shot their partner after they were finished.

Do you really mean that? If you do then I think you have a mind of a murderer.

[jason]

i would have liked to post a link but i couldn't find the article on their site, so i just copied from another message board where i first saw it. sorry.
it seems ppl in positions of power, money or fame have the most skeltons in the closet but maybe that just because they're the only ones who make headline news with it.

[lucifer]

Originally posted by lastactionhero
BTW the daily telegraph is a very respected paper. It is a broadsheet (serious newspaper) it is seen as a voice of the conservative party i.e. right-wing

[Giancarlo]

Obviously most of the scandals you are talking about inflames the Liberals/Democratic Party. It is Conserative/Republican Politicans that don't have as much as scandals as the Democrats do. So you better watch what the hell you say, because I might go into politics myself, in clean party, the Republican Party.

Condit did it, and did a good job covering the evidence.

[LastActionHero]

I don't know what the republican party is or what the democratic party is. All I know Politics is the most lucrative profession and all modern day politicians are corrupt.

[lucifer]

Originally posted by lastactionhero
I don't know what the republican party is or what the democratic party is. All I know Politics is the most lucrative profession and all modern day politicians are corrupt. I agree about corruption - Also all this democrat/republican stuff gets me down there is so much more to politics than one countries two party system.

[niv]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Obviously most of the scandals you are talking about inflames the Liberals/Democratic Party. It is Conserative/Republican Politicans that don't have as much as scandals as the Democrats do. So you better watch what the hell you say, because I might go into politics myself, in clean party, the Republican Party.

Condit did it, and did a good job covering the evidence.

:rolleyes: you really are biased aren't you?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by needcgispace


:rolleyes: you really are biased aren't you?

Yes I am, and probably because I don't want to vote for a party that has corruption all the way up its ---.

[niv]

i'm sure it does. (note the sarcasm)

not every member is involved in a scandal, mind you.

[Giancarlo]

More than the Republican Party.
Nearly all Democratic Members are involved in scandals, where at least not all Republican Members aren't. JFK, Clinton and his entire family, Condit, that one Rep that was accused of laundering money. All Democraps.

[niv]

nearly all? *cough* please state all of the democrats (denote them with a D) that are involved in scandals and all the republicans (denote them with an R) in scandals. ALL. don't bs any or leave any out just to make your party look good.

[WorldWarGeneral]

Republicans have just as many scandals as democrats. Republicans like to put on the facade of being moral in all things, but they aren't. Look at Watergate. Or that thing with Newt Gingrich. Republicans have scandalous peope in office like all parties. Republicans spend too much time nosing around other people's private lives and trying to make the other side look bad. (Not that democrats don't do it too, but Republicans are just more successful at it) That whole Lewinsky thing was ridiculous. Millions (if not billions) of tax payer money went out to investigate Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. As if his sex life is anyone's business but his own and Hillary's. JFK was a good president, even if he had affairs. Who he slept with had nothing to do with how well he ran the country. I'm sure someone has already dug up all sorts of juicy details about the Regan administration.

[Giancarlo]

YOU KNOW NIXON AND REAGAN WERE GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY! LIBERALS ARE INVOLVED WITH MURDER NOW. Watergate, in my opinion had nothing to with Nixon, just his out of control staff. And that stupid --- Contra Scandal was brought up by some idiotic liberals who think they could tear down the greatest President in the US History. Clinton was behind tons of corruption, and take a look at his brother.

[niv]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
YOU KNOW NIXON AND REAGAN WERE GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY! LIBERALS ARE INVOLVED WITH MURDER NOW.

whatever hothead :rolleyes:

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by needcgispace


whatever hothead :rolleyes:

You think you want to incriminate some of the best Presidents this country ever had? JFK was weak as hell, Edgar Hoover was running the country... and Carter was something else, the economy went sprialing out of control. Johnson was an idiot who intensified the war for the next guy to take office, Nixon. The Democrats just have a history of having weak as hell leaders.

[niv]

No, I think it is just your pure hatred of the Democratic Party.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by needcgispace
No, I think it is just your pure hatred of the Democratic Party.

I want to vote for a party that really represents this country, and not one that is so far left it has left the people behind.

Reagan cut taxes and increased infrastructurial spending, and the economy boomed. Nixon signed more treaties than any other President ever did, and visited more countries even if he was not welcomed. He visited Mao, and Brezhnev came over in 1973 to seal up agreements.

[WorldWarGeneral]

No need to get that upset Giancarlo. Despite what you hear in your right-wing ultra-conservative propaganda, all Liberals aren't a bunch of adulterous thieves who leave the people behind. Regan, Nixon, and republican party are not the greatest things to happen to this country since the Boston tea party. It has flaws. Major flaws. All parties do. Republicans don't always know what's best and neither to the democrats. Sure, republicans have done great things for America, but you can't just ignore the contributions of Democrats and Liberals just because you're so far right you can't see straight.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by WorldWarGeneral
No need to get that upset Giancarlo. Despite what you hear in your right-wing ultra-conservative propaganda, all Liberals aren't a bunch of adulterous thieves who leave the people behind. Regan, Nixon, and republican party are not the greatest things to happen to this country since the Boston tea party. It has flaws. Major flaws. All parties do. Republicans don't always know what's best and neither to the democrats. Sure, republicans have done great things for America, but you can't just ignore the contributions of Democrats and Liberals just because you're so far right you can't see straight.

Propaganda? Now you are calling what I say utterly false? Reagan was an excellent President, and was a hero to this country. Name one Democratic President after WWII that has helped the people? Don't say JFK, Johnson, Carter or Clinton. So Far Right so I can't see straight? How about this... so far left you left the country!

[niv]

Actually, Lyndon B. Johnson was a good president. He made PBS a reality too :)

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by needcgispace
Actually, Lyndon B. Johnson was a good president. He made PBS a reality too :)

Sure... I am wondering why you didn't mention anything about the Vietnam war? Johnson threw tens of thousands of Troops and many thousands died. JFK and Johnson were responsible for making the Vietnam war a failure. One notable thing Johnson did was the Civil Rights thing that gave African-Americans equal rights, but that is it.

[WorldWarGeneral]

Okay, maybe "propaganda" was too strong. Sorry about that.


Don't say JFK, Johnson, Carter or Clinton
Well, that sort of narrows it down, don't you think? How many other democratic presidents were there after WWII? No, I am not extremely left. Like I've said in other threads, I agree with a lot of (but not all) the republican platform. I just don't agree that Republicans are "perfect" and are always the best party for America. You seem to think that politics are black and white, where on one side you have democrats and on the other republicans. And all democrats and liberals are evil people that can only hurt America and have dreams of turning the US into a Socialistic state. While all republicans and conservatives are saints with only the best interests of the country at heart. That's not the case. There are as many bad eggs within the republican party as the democratic party. And believe it or not, Republican presidents weren't the only ones to make positive contributions to America after WWII.

It's all well and good when republicans tear a democratic president apart (Clinton, JFK) but when a democrat attacks a republican president (Regan, Nixon) it's wrong. All people have faults. Pointing them out in republican leaders is no better or worse than pointing out faults in democratic presidents.

[WorldWarGeneral]

The Vietnam war was something the Republicans wanted too, you know. They were the staunch anti-communists during the Cold War. Don't act like all of Vietnam was the democrats fault. If Vietnam was a dazzling success, the republicans would take full credit for it and you know it. Nixon only took troops out of Vietnam because there were riots and he'd never get re-elected if he didn't. If Vietnam had popular support in America, Nixon wouldn't have taken troops out. He did it for politics, not to save troops lives.

And no, Vietnam wasn't a failure because of JFK and Johnson. Most of Vietnam was run by the commanding Generals. JFK and Johnson weren't up at the front planning individual attacks...

[Giancarlo]

If Johnson was so great, why did he not want to seek another term? And remember the saying "Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can for the country", and within several hundred days twenty five new spending programs were launched. Change the saying to: "Ask not what you can do for the government, but what the government can do for you". In my honest opinion, Republican presidents have always been better for this country. Franklin Roosevelt was okay, I must admit, but it wasn't his New Deal that led the nation out, it was WWII.

[WorldWarGeneral]

I never said Johnson was a great president. He didn't seek another term because popularity for the vietnam war was at an all time low. He'd never get re-elected. That doesn't mean Vietnam was the democrat's responsibility. Like I said, Nixon pulled out mostly because of politics, not because it was "better for the country" And Roosevelt was a republican, albite a moderate one. (at least I think he was a republican) His new deal didn't help the economy right away, but we're left with the lasting contributions of the CC's, social security, etc. Roosevelt was one of the presidental greats.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by WorldWarGeneral
I never said Johnson was a great president. He didn't seek another term because popularity for the vietnam war was at an all time low. He'd never get re-elected. That doesn't mean Vietnam was the democrat's responsibility. Like I said, Nixon pulled out mostly because of politics, not because it was "better for the country" And Roosevelt was a republican, albite a moderate one. (at least I think he was a republican) His new deal didn't help the economy right away, but we're left with the lasting contributions of the CC's, social security, etc. Roosevelt was one of the presidental greats.

Roosevelt was a frigging socialist, he did nothing to help the country and his new program initated over 400 new Government Programmes, half of which were cancelled out in the 1980s because they were completely useless. You don't have a clue about U.S History. Roosevelt was a socialist and Truman was a Republican. John F. Kennedy threw troops into Vietnam, so it is his fault.. he was a democrat, so yes I am blaming the democrats. Nixon didn't want war if you heard from his inaugural address of 1969, and he said "For the first time the leaders of the world are afraid of war, and want peace". You really don't have a good understanding of history do you?

By the way, the New Deal did ---- for the economy... I am really for the Republican Hoover's Private Measures instead of Government instrusion, that is why Roosevelt is definitely on the left. The economy didn't really start recovering when the economy was transfered to war mode on December 8, 1941. The manufacturing sector recovered instantanously, and consumer confidence went up. No offense or anything, but you need to reread your history books.

[WorldWarGeneral]

Yes, I do have a good understanding of history. You, apparently, don't. Anyone that isn't a "true republican" is a socialist. You give the republican party a bad name. Roosevelt was a good president. Of course, I know you have a completely closed mind, so I don't know why I bother. I know that in your mind republicans are the greatest political leaders ever and anyone that doesn't believe 100% in their (your) ideology is obviously stupid, ignorant, and a socialist. Neither Regan nor Nixon were the greatest political leaders. Neither was Roosevelt. But just because he wasn't a hard-core republican doesn't make him a bad leader. His plans helped people. Sure, many were repealed in the 1980s. That doesn't mean they were bad ideas, just dated. What's appropriate at the height of an economic depression may not be appropriate when things are economically better. Without Roosevelt's influence, the economy may not have been able to switch to war mode so quickly and successfully. You are way to right to debate anything unless it's "Was Regan a good president or a great president?"

Sure, Kennedy put troops in Vietnam, that doesn't make the entire thing his fault. Of course, if Desert Storm had been a complete disaster, it would of been those "evil liberal democrats" fault. Bush Sr. would come out smelling like a rose, at least in the eyes of republicans. If it had been a republican president putting troops in Vietnam, you'd be touting it as a "great patriotic war" You will make a great political figure - only hearing/seeing/reading what you want to hear and what makes you and your "great party" look good, and discounting the rest and blaming every problem anyone has ever had on the other side. All the while getting other republicans stupid enough to believe it to follow you. You're no better than Rush Limbaugh.

[niv]

WWG, expect a very harsh reply. :rolleyes:

[WorldWarGeneral]

Yeah, I know. He'll come in here ranting and raving in all capitals telling me about how he's in an economics class and he's had x number of years of history classes, so I don't know what I'm talking about. You know the old Giancarlo. Well, let him. He's a lost cause. Unless you agree with him and worship his heroes, you'll get a very harsh reply. If he wants to carry on in this thread, let him. In my opinion, this thread is done. All I'm waiting for is some threatening private message or e-mail...

[niv]

He's in an american high school abroad, correct? that means he's had only two years of history advanced placement courses (AP european and AP american history/economics). :p

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by WorldWarGeneral
Yes, I do have a good understanding of history. You, apparently, don't. Anyone that isn't a "true republican" is a socialist. You give the republican party a bad name. Roosevelt was a good president. Of course, I know you have a completely closed mind, so I don't know why I bother. I know that in your mind republicans are the greatest political leaders ever and anyone that doesn't believe 100% in their (your) ideology is obviously stupid, ignorant, and a socialist. Neither Regan nor Nixon were the greatest political leaders. Neither was Roosevelt. But just because he wasn't a hard-core republican doesn't make him a bad leader. His plans helped people. Sure, many were repealed in the 1980s. That doesn't mean they were bad ideas, just dated. What's appropriate at the height of an economic depression may not be appropriate when things are economically better. Without Roosevelt's influence, the economy may not have been able to switch to war mode so quickly and successfully. You are way to right to debate anything unless it's "Was Regan a good president or a great president?"

Sure, Kennedy put troops in Vietnam, that doesn't make the entire thing his fault. Of course, if Desert Storm had been a complete disaster, it would of been those "evil liberal democrats" fault. Bush Sr. would come out smelling like a rose, at least in the eyes of republicans. If it had been a republican president putting troops in Vietnam, you'd be touting it as a "great patriotic war" You will make a great political figure - only hearing/seeing/reading what you want to hear and what makes you and your "great party" look good, and discounting the rest and blaming every problem anyone has ever had on the other side. All the while getting other republicans stupid enough to believe it to follow you. You're no better than Rush Limbaugh.

My lack of knowledge? How the hell do you know anything about me? And what do you care? I know most major events occuring in the 20th century, from WWI to the U2 Deception to the Collapse of the Soviet Union. I would have prefered President Hoover to be elected instead of Roosevelt, because I liked his plan of reducing government insitutions that were not useful anymore, trying to attack the problem by private measures. Roosevelt was an okay President, I never did say he was horrible, he led this country through WWII which I must admit took a lot of leadership. I really don't look at different beliefs as being socialist, because people are entitled to have different opinions. However I do think Roosevelt was a Socialist, I don't know if this was a good thing at the time, because over years... the word liberalism has changed in meaning. I understand your support for the New Deal, however I support Herbert Hoover's Private Measures instead because it would prevent Government intrusion in our lives, that is why most of Roosevelt's plans were repealled by Reagan. Roosevelt however did do an excellent job in WWII, better than Truman did in the Korean war which was a disaster. BTW, why do you keep on misspelling Reagan?

Desert Storm wouldn't of been a disaster, for one reason: The Iraqi Armed Forces lacks training and technology to fight against the United States and its Allies. I don't discredit the Democratic party, I just don't like what they stand for now. Did you know I would be taken as a liberal one hundred years ago? The word certainly does change quite a bit when time goes on, but now I do not discriminate against liberalism. This country needs diversity to survive, it needs more than one opinion. You my friend need an attitude change.

[niv]

Most Democrats and Republicans only have one opinion on certain issues. Be an Independant!

[Giancarlo]

Guys, can we be friends instead of arguing? There I provided my opinion on the history. You know history can be looked at in many different ways, perspectives... catch my drift?

Needcgispace: I am Republican though, don't want to be an independent.

[niv]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Needcgispace: I am Republican though, don't want to be an independent.

See, if you acknowledge the fact that sometimes your Republican/Democratic colleagues are wrong, and you may be thinking the other way, then you are Semi-Independant. Senator McCain of Arizona is a great example.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by needcgispace


See, if you acknowledge the fact that sometimes your Republican/Democratic colleagues are wrong, and you may be thinking the other way, then you are Semi-Independant. Senator McCain of Arizona is a great example.

Do you know in the Republican party there are several different view points to things? I however stay in party lines... so I am not a independent and quit saying I am.

[WorldWarGeneral]

I never wanted a fight, things are better when everyone gets along. But I admit, I didn't help the situation. Sorry about the Reagan spelling, I didn't know I was spelling it wrong. Didn't show up in my spell check.

I also never meant to say you had lack of knowledge. Well, that's what I said, but I was just mad. I'm sure you know plenty about historical events, but it aggravates me when you start saying presidents were bad, and blaming historical events on certain people just because they aren't republicans. Maybe that's not what you intended, but that's how I interpreted it. Yes, the Iraqi armed forces were vastly inferior to US and Coalition forces, but that isn't the point. My point is, that if it was a complete fisasco, republicans wouldn't come out and admit "hey, we screwed up" Some how or another, it would be the democrats fault. Democrats do this too, I guess, so it isn't fair to isolate the republican party.

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a democrat either. I don't care for many of their policies, but I couldn't call myself a republican either. I guess I'm independent, since I go left on some issues and right on others. I like some of what Senator McCain is proposing as well.

Of course there needs to be diversity in politics. Where would the fun be in a one party system? ;)

I don't wish to make an enemy of anyone.

[Giancarlo]

I don't want to make an enemy of anybody either, I also must admit I said quite a few things that were cruel and cold-hearted and am sorry for that.

[LastActionHero]

Bah! This is boring :rolleyes: