When I bring up the hypocrisy that is Bush, all I get is 'But Clinton! whinewhinewhine'. Bush used 'family values' and morals to get the votes. I don't remember Clinton doing that (or NEEDING to do that) to get his votes. Can you post a link supporting a morals claim by Clinton? If not, can you answer my question about Bush being amoral, without bringing up Clinton? Thanks...
2006-08-15
03:43:44
·
10 answers
·
asked by
hichefheidi
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
turboweenie, my morals are not the same as yours. Doesn't mean I don't have them. Thanks, again, for crying like a little b, and offering no answer...
2006-08-15
04:04:03 ·
update #1
Thanks for making my point, MELT. Here's an excerpt from your sourc
"[Republicans] have claimed the exclusive allegiance of America's real Christians," Clinton said. "I looked at the recent meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention ... and one of their leaders was wearing a button he was giving everybody else that says, 'I'm a values voter' -- implying that those of us that didn't agree with them didn't have any values.
"And to them, values are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, concentration of wealth and power. But as I said, Jesus didn't have much to say about what they say are the values of Christians today. And yet, these people really do believe they are in possession of the absolute truth."
It was not clear whether Clinton was referring to Republicans or Southern Baptists when he said "these people."
The "religious right," Clinton said, "has tried to turn us all who disagree with them into two-dimensional cartoons."
"I have never met anybody that was pro-aborti
2006-08-15
04:08:06 ·
update #2
MELT, I didn't miss your point, but you may have missed mine. I put 'family values' and 'morals' in quotations to demonstrate that the right seems to think those are exclusive to them, and that anyone who isn't for them is amoral. This article was in response to just that...not a platform for the presidency.
2006-08-15
07:38:36 ·
update #3
Family values was a huge platform during his second campaign.
If a person doesn't need to express his morals (whether they're christian or other) in his bid for President then his voters may have a problem. However, that was not the case Familty Values platforms are used for Dem and Reps.
You seemed to have missed my point. Being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage are family values. They're just different from the ones on the right. He claims to have different morals not no morals. Therefore, he did claim to have morals.
OK, so we're going the same place here. LOL
2006-08-15 04:01:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by MEL T 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think you need to post a source showing a Bush campaign speech about morals and values first, don't you?
The claim is made so often that Bush was elected on morals and Christianity, but no one ever has their feet held to the fire to source their accusations.
Plus: All your article does is (continue to) bash Bush for not being a "real" Christian. It shows me nothing about Bush getting elected because of the Christian vote or a campaign based on morality, as Chef's question claims. I'm still waiting for the real evidence. All this talk about what Bush has done since getting into office (regarding morals and faith) is irrelevant to the claim that those things are what got him there.
2006-08-15 03:51:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by obviously_you'renotagolfer 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
vno, an article about "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House", a movie shown at the RNC.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8790
"Bush’s attraction to Jesus jargon is no accident. As an aspiring pol, he learned early on that religious language could give him the cowboy cred he needed to woo voters in Texas. Doug Wead is a close friend of the Bush family and a prominent evangelical motivational speaker. Wead worked closely with the president when he advised George Bush Senior during the 1988 presidential campaign. “There’s no question that [George W. Bush’s] faith is real, that it’s authentic … and there is no question that it’s calculated,” Wead told Frontline. “I know that sounds like a contradiction.” "
2006-08-15 03:55:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pitchow! 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
So, basically you're saying that you are being a hypocrite when you call Bush immoral because you don't care about morality?
We are just comparing the current moral president with what everyone can agree was a very immoral president.
You spout about Bush not being moral, yet you offer nothing to support your claim.
And here you go - whining like a little girl.
2006-08-15 03:57:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
True,he never claimed to be" moral" in the Bushian sense of the word,and he certainly never used the mask of religious morality that Bush has used to justify the atrocities his New Order has caused at home and around the world.
Clinton used only the standard amount of moral posturing in his election campaign.His problem was not even having sex,which democrats seem to do more than most Republicans,but that he was given bad advice to attempt to conceal it by lying about.
If this country wasnt so sexually repressed in the first place,maybe he would've felt more open about it!Maybe.
As for sexual atrocity,Clinton pales in comparison to Bush!
Consider:
-Abu Ghraib photographs,and the story they tell about what kind
of "values" we are exporting.
-Abstince-Only Sex ed,giving our young people religiously driven
misinformation resulting in greater teen pregnancy and hostility
among youths.The kids deserve better.
Those two examples SHOULD stop the whining over the fact that
Clinton apparently needed a break from Hillary.They are worse,far worse,in my opinion than slick willy catching some play.
Bush's morality.Dangerous and immoral as hell.
2006-08-15 03:51:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
No, I think he always acknowledged his poor white trash roots.
And his serial abuse of women certainly didn't leave him in a position to claim the moral high ground.
Hence, his and Queen Hillary the Great's penchant for vociferously attacking ANYONE who had the gall, the temerity, the chutzpah, the brazeness to question anything either of them said or did.
2006-08-15 03:59:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Walter Ridgeley 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Clinton never claimed to be a moral person. Bush used the moral stance to win over more republican votes. I do, however, find it funny that bush campaigned on morals, but doesn't care about global warming. Global warming is a moral issue. It is our planet, and millions could die because of it. Bush and the church are more concerned about stopping stem cell research, a process that could save millions of lives.
How's that for morals!!
2006-08-15 04:00:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Scott 2
·
0⤊
4⤋
Clinton claims to be a born again Christian, as does Al Gore. Didn't you see Clinton with his bible every Sunday during the Monica and Bubba scandal, coming out of church? As the scandal got worse and worse, so Bubba's bible got bigger and bigger....
2006-08-15 03:57:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
He made sure his Bible was EXTRA large and cheated on his wife after Easter Services......No class like most liberals amoral like most liberals
2006-08-15 04:44:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Hey, stupid girl. There are 5 members in that group so it would be 9 arms. Learn how to count you dumb h**. U.S.A. forever!!!!!!
2006-08-15 05:06:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 6
·
4⤊
3⤋