My intent of the original post was to say: Clinton got crucified for his lie. No one cares a rip about Bush's lie. Neither lie is right, neither is ok. I do understand the 'under oath' aspect. I just feel an oath shouldn't be what keeps politicians from lying. And as a comparison I think it's fine, because it illustrates two diametrically opposed reactions to lies by politicians (and/or their organizations).
I said that using Clinton's name might not have served my interests because his name is so astonishingly distracting. It distracts from any substantive discussion anyone attempts to have. I still stand by the original question, and naively thought the theory could be discussed. But the rabid response (oh! that word again!) comes from
all sides, and certainly overcame my topic. Perhaps someday there will be an internet law around Clinton's name, as there is for that stinkin 30s politician.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by matthew330
A little reminder...you didn't "just" bring Clinton's name into things, you titled this "a lie worse than Clinton's", and then suggest that not only was the point of this not was not to "justify or put into perspective" what Clinton did, but any mention of a BJ is a "rabid" response.
|
What I found rabid was the focus upon the bj, not the topic. And for the record, I didn't point that word at anyone specifically. In fact, it was in a different post than the post I responded to you in. I would suggest that my usage of that word falls into a 'if the shoe fits, wear it' category. I hope my explanation above covers why I called this thread that.
Quote:
|
Love has never existed in TFP politics; but just to clarify, there was ZERO animosity in my post.
|
Love sure doesn't. Respect is supposed to. I find zero respect in:
Quote:
|
...considering it's been what, 8 years, since your candidate lied under oath, shaking his first looking at the entire country, and in every sense of the word "lied" to you, and to this day you're still trying to minimize, justify, or put into perspective i'm gonna have to go with "no, no you probably won't be crediible enough to say so"
|
Not that I expect you to recant, but I
didn't try 'to minimize, justify or put into perspective' anything of Clinton's. I merely compared his action to Bush's.
And for you to say flat out that I won't be credible in 4 years IS an attack. I'm sorry you don't see that. But perhaps I'm just being a martyr again.
I
would still like your opinion on the original issue. Why does no one care about the Bush White House's misuse of official statements? Is a blatant lie for political gain
so much better than self serving, cover his ass, reactive lie? Has partisan politics sunk so low that no one on either side will ever condemn his or her candidate when they behave like an opportunistic jackass?
Thoughts?