maxsdadeo wrote:Setanta wrote:Ah yes, let us waste no opportunity to cast slurs upon an entire class of people--in this case, liberals. Is it a good breeding deficit, Maxsdadeo, which leads you offer that blanket condemnation ?
Quote:No, is that your excuse?
I need no excuse, because i've not maligned an entire class of people as did you.
Quote:Of course it is easier to shoot the messenger, rather than address the message, ah, but of course!!
And pray tell me, what was the message you had that i've failed to address? In a discourse, one's message would need to be a good deal more specific than a sneer a "liberals" for an alleged failure of memory. Rather hard to address the message when there is none.
Quote:A "scroller", that explains it................
If by this, you refer to those who advocate ignoring "flamers" and moving one, i have once, and only once, posted that, the import of which i only learned in the last few days--and it was in the hope of getting a couple of our ladies to drop out of a potential bickering--i believe it worked, so i have no qualms about having advised them to do so. If you refer to how long i've been absent, i might note to you that i don't spend my life in front of this monitor--i have other things to do than to bask in the warmth of your oh so christian charity. But that, of course, would be a case of my casting a slur on an entire class of people--in this case christians--and i withdraw any such slur, for i have no reason to assume the that rest of them are as gratuitously and unnecessarily nasty as are you.
maxsdadeo wrote:Lying in a court of law is lying in a court of law, it is just that simple.
In fact, Clinton wasn't in "a court of law,"--and, if he lied, he lied to the witch hunters, not to a prosecution team investigating something substantial. Ah, yes, it does those gentlemen great credit to consider how much time and taxpayers' money they wasted in an attempt, in the end futile, to find something, anything, they could "get" him for. How very moral of them. How very noble. Oh yes, indeed, weren't Starr et al so much more upright, decent men than Clinton. You're a great source of entertainment as well, Max.
Apropos of character, presidency, corruption, and politics, Setanta, I hope you'll check out the latest long post at this address:
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6915&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20
...and let me know what you think?
I'm not terribly surprised. Justice moves me to point out that nothing is proven against the Shrub--justice also moves me to point out that the administration and the intelligence agencies are fighting tooth and nail to prevent Congress from releasing the 9/11 report.
Sofia wrote:Any liberal criticisms for Clinton...or was he without fault?
His right-wing approach to so-called welfare reform just drove me into the arms of Nader in 1996!
My two biggest criticisms are: Clinton's relationship with the DLC, and, though on the whole Nafta was a good idea, the god-awful flaws which were allowed to remain in Nafta giving (among other things) power to corporations over local elected officials.
Setanta -- But it's getting mighty close AND in court thanks to the suit brought by the victims.
Setanta: You are irretrievably hopeless if you are going to parse and say that a deposition, taken in a federal case, under oath, is not, "In a court of law".
It is the same as lying directly to the face of a judge.
You may suspend facts on your own, just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.
Max
Why do I suspect you are yet a big fan of Ollie North and Poindexter, fan of doe-eyed honest testimonials that you are?
maxsdadeo wrote:Setanta: You are irretrievably hopeless if you are going to parse and say that a deposition, taken in a federal case, under oath, is not, "In a court of law".
It is the same as lying directly to the face of a judge.
You may suspend facts on your own, just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.
I don't expect much of you at all, Max, you've displayed willful blindness and partisan rhetorical hysteria too often for me hope for much. The deposition was for presentation to a grand jury, and the wild-eyed bloodlust of Republicans notwithstanding, this nation still operates on the assumption of innoncence until guilt is proven--and not only was Clinton never hailed into court, no indictment was ever handed down against him, so your metaphorical judge with whom you pose Clinton as being face to face never existed--your statement is patently false.
He lied under oath.
Agree with his reasoning, if you will.
The only thing that continues to bother me is people who make excuses for it. Or who try to say it really wasn't a lie, because....
He lied under oath.
He got away with it. OK
He was wildly popular despite it. OK
But, he did lie under oath.
This is not OK to some people.
Stick a different President from a different party in Clinton's place. Try to look at it objectively.
Thank you for the assumption that i don't look at things objectively, how very arrogant and haughty of you. How about some objective thinking on your part. Why was such a deposition ever taken in the first place? The Republicans wanted to get him, plain and simple, and became even more incensed and vindictive after he thrashed Dole in the election. Ken Starr, one of the most bizarre choices which has ever been made for a Special Prosecuter (this is the guy who, in 1972, seriously stated that "hot pants" should be outlawed), was hired to investigate Whitewater. They couldn't pin anything on Clinton in that one (although, for my part, i thought the whole Whitewater thing had the stench of the kind of cryonism for which all state governments, of either party, can be taken to task). So Starr went fishing, and dredged up Clinton's inability to keep his dick in his pants. Ah, yes, let us protect the purity of our nation from such vile moral failings--we must remain pure and pious, so that we will each have the strength of ten when we go out to smite the evil, towel-headed infidel.
On the topic of other presidents: think of Watergate, think of Iran-Contra, and think of the Savings and Loan collapse--just to mention the three Republican administrations which preceded Clinton. The Republicans have nursed a grudge ever since 1973, and they were out to get Clinton--not because of who he was, just because he was a Democrat (to me, very right wing) and he was in the White House. And in the end, they proved that there was no depth to which they were unwilling to stoop in the attempt. Given those three examples, and the current example of Halliburton being awarded a multi-million contract, which may eventually gross them billions, without a bid, it's pretty disgusting and definitely hypocritical of the right to try to occupy the moral highground based on Clinton's sexual indiscretions.
Setanta,
I see you are in glorious form. :wink:
Setanta--
No need to get so worked up.
I don't think it's haughty or arrogant to ask someone to look at something objectively. I think if Bush lied under oath, you wouldn't be so forgiving.
I don't see an example of anyone claiming moral high ground.
I think sometimes people overreact to mention of Clinton's perjury because of past heated arguments, or assumptions of imagined moral superiority of the person taking issue.
And after all the bluster, he still lied under oath.
Tartarin wrote:My two biggest criticisms are: Clinton's relationship with the DLC, and, though on the whole Nafta was a good idea, the god-awful flaws which were allowed to remain in Nafta giving (among other things) power to corporations over local elected officials.
Setanta -- But it's getting mighty close AND in court thanks to the suit brought by the victims.
Oh, goodness, yes! The DLC and NAFTA definitely; NAFTA has been a disaster and the DLC is the 'Republican wing of the Democratic Party.'
There seemed to me to be an effort to bring down Bill Clinton because some thought he had risen too high. Else why would the reportedly liberal media attempt to verify each and every canard thrown out by the viscous right? Mena? Whitewater? Filegate? Foster? Rose Law? On and on and every one was chased down by reporters who were hopeful that they were on the trail of a Pulitzer. At the end it turned out there was a blowjob or two and a denial under oath of same.
==
One night after the (s)election of George Bush, I was at a party with a number of people from all sides of politics. A fella, okay it was me, said that what we intended to do was raise questions about every aspect of George's life, his business ethics regarding the Rangers, the oil business, his drinking, his military career, his ...... I was interupted by a very earnest GOP'er who said, I swear he did, "But spreading rumors about the the integrity of the President could paralyze the country."
The dems there hooted.
J
Joe--
The GOP didn't need a reason to bring Clinton down. Both sides have been at the "Find the skeleton in the other guy's closet" game since the advent of politics. They do it all the time. I think the GOP might have seemed a little over the top, because there was so much material on Clinton. But, ultimately, you be right. They couldn't nail him on the relevant stuff, so they went where the pickin's was fertile. And, no, I wasn't pleased that it amounted to bedroom behavior. I do wish that was off limits. It doesn't serve any purpose. It makes the perpetrator AND the sex police look stupid.
The earnest GOPer...
:wink:
BTW, tartarin, my qualm was not your opinion of the members, just that scrolling to avoid conflict is best done without taunting those who are being scrolled past and without calling them dumb.
If avoiding conflict was the intent there are safer ways to do it.
Just an opinion. I'm outta here.
Just one thing: Bush HAS lied to my estimation. About things much more important than blowjobs.
That being said Bush might get my vote. If he sticks to the roadmap despite Israeli and Palestinian attempts to stop it I will vote for him.
