Actually, I’m more of an iconoclast.

I try to refrain from telling people I’ve never met who or what they are, but you are most amusing.

When did you tout the Democrats virtue? By mentioning Jimmy Carter? Hecks, that was helen, not you. And that’s not so good for you.

I think ALL politicians have a tendency to be liars and cheats

That’s what the nihilism is for.

was merely pointing out tht the fantasy world in which Republicans remain true to their mates by virtue of the Republicanyness didnt exist.

Which is called destroying ideals and beliefs of others, not propping up your own beliefs by the merits.

I’m not a member of “the left” Ymar, as I think there arguments of “left vs right,” “conservative vs liberal, ” Democrats vs Republican” are meant to blind people to the truth.

Which is why you’re a nihilist. And why I mentioned “the Left” in an entirely different sentence as an addendum.

Read what you quoted again and then tell me I was being partisan by calling you a member of the Left when I said you were a nihilist.

The Left always likes to tear down people and then say that their own are heroes. – Ymar

Wait a minute. Wasn’t Bookworm smearing Democrats with a wide adulterous brush, while touting Republican presidents’ virtues?

I think ALL politicians have a tendency to be liars and cheats, and was merely pointing out tht the fantasy world in which Republicans remain true to their mates by virtue of the Republicanyness didnt exist.

“Unfortunately for you, we already know you are a nihilist, O. The same applies to most of the Left, as well.” — Ymar

Unfortunately for me? hahaha. I’m not a member of “the left” Ymar, as I think there arguments of “left vs right,” “conservative vs liberal, ” Democrats vs Republican” are meant to blind people to the truth.

I’m a registered Independent who thinks the entire system is broken.

But it’s rip-roaring fun to read partisan arguments and look for gaping holes.

The Left always likes to tear down people and then say that their own are heroes.

Unfortunately for you, we already know you are a nihilist, O. The same applies to most of the Left, as well.

Didn’t anyone read the hyperlink I attached to Eisenhower’s name?

You can’t let the facts get in the way of winning for entropy. At least, that’s what the Left thinks.

There’s no point in sowing even more confusion in the ranks.

Since the Clinton-Lewinsky allegations became public six weeks ago, the rich and noble history of the presidency has been reduced to the trivial pursuit of salacious details about every previous president’s alleged peccadilloes. Dredging up this rogues’ gallery of philandering presidents feeds the modern “anything goes” mentality — as well as the “everybody does it” defense that we’ve heard from some Clinton supporters. It, however, also has done Dwight Eisenhower a disservice.

Some reporters have blithely included Gen. Eisenhower on their list, citing a wartime affair with his driver, Kay Summersby. In fact, the evidence has always been murky and many historians now doubt that Eisenhower and Summersby had a sexual relationship. (Emphasis mine.)

Also, Reagan’s presidency was never sullied by legitimate rumors of affairs. As the Times acknowledges, the charges against McCain are, to date, all smoke and no fire. Gingrich’s affair cast him into the wilderness for a long time amongst his own group — and he wasn’t running for President, a distinguishing point I made. Giuliani, too, wasn’t running for, or acting as, President when he messed around. I did point out, as you may recall, that lower level political operatives of both stripes have been involved in sex and money scandals, to their mutual shame.

Well…yes he did. Only in his heart, though.

I know it’s silly, but I believe that politicians of both political parties are prone to lying and cheating.

But people have long complained about the way the media reacted to George H.W’s Bush’s alleged affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald (though the London Times was on that one, too).