I know what you meant, and yes, no matter who I say, it will sound ridiculous. That's because the question itself is ridiculous. An honest prominent politician? Does such an animal exist? Therefore, speaking comparitively about such an object is futile. The only politicians that I think are honest are not prominent. I don't think that's a coincidence at all. Just because you're naive enough to believe that Bush is honest does not mean that I am naive enough to believe that you'd feel the same way about Iraq had a democrat insisted that we invade it. (I reference Iraq because that is the most concrete example of the Bush administration lying and intentionally misleading it's people.)
the question is not ridiculous. i asked for the most honest prominent modern politician. even if you believe all of them are liars, there is still one that that lies the least. it is a simple question, and i suppose you would rather call me partisan than open yourself up for similar criticism. spineless. i am not naive, in fact i am just about the best there is at judging people's real motives. it is a gift i have. i am incredible. i wasnt tricked into believing the only reason to invade iraq was wmd. i read what bush actually said about iraq, not what the press portrayed. i know you probably just accepted what jon stewart told you and went from there. i am aware that you do not really know where you stand and are still formulating your views politically. at one point you were libertarian and you also mentioned you were intrigued by chomsky, although you knew nothing about him. well, i encourage you to keep at it, because you havent arrived yet. as of now you just echo the prevailing wisdom of most people of your intelligence and demographic.
on the subject of iraq, here is a nice column by christopher hitchens i think is worth reading: http://www.slate.com/id/2152548 hitchens is easily the most punishing mofo on the talking head circuit. i mean that guy is a firebrand. he absolutely nukes bill maher's zombie studio audience in this youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KNxelu2tQI&mode=related&search=
I found this article pretty interesting. New York Times That last section was written very vaguely and can be talking about either the 1990s or 2002, I really couldn't tell. But, if Iraq had documents about how to build a nuclear bomb and the very posting of said documents on the internet is enough that Iran may be able to use them to build their own nuke then why could Sadaam not sell said document to countries like Iran and N.K? I think that just that Sadaam possessed such knowledge and that a bomb could be built so fast was enough for us to invade.
hitchens bluntness/rudeness everytime hes on air is pretty funny. here's an article i read today. dialect throws it off a little though. Was Afghanistan Really the Good War? by Russ Wellen How many times have you heard someone preface his opposition to the invasion of Iraq by professing his support for attacking Afghanistan? To dodge the charge he's soft on terror, he holds up the earlier offensive as a model for the war on terror http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russ_wel_061103_was_afghanistan_real.htm good article. well i read that book by saddams right hand man about transferring the weapons to syria. was pretty intriguing. while i dont agree game, set and match it is all pretty interesting the way it has developed. http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=
No, it is ridiculous. I don't believe that any politician that has risen to prominence is 'honest,' per se. Therefore, rating any of them is ludicrous. Get it? I don't need to explain it again, do I? It's almost as ridiclous as you saying that I don't want to 'open myself up to criticism,' given the frequency of such an occurence on here in the past. Don't get hurt falling off your high-horse, there. I take Stewart for what he is, an entertainer. Somtimes, I agree with him. Sometimes I don't. But it only reinforces how naive you are to assume that he somehow shapes my views. Of course, I also realize that you feel obligated to insult those who disagree with you in som form, so I suppose that's your most convenient shot to take at me. Well, I encourage you to keep at it. I could have worse problems, like being gullible enough to believe that W is honest. :thumb:
spineless. completely spineless. content to criticize, but unable to answer a simple question. it was you who called me the blind partisan pal, not the other way around. then you refused to have the guts to answer the same question i was discussing.
