Originally posted by Bardock42
Well...it's true though.
*Whispers:*
JFK was a philanderer as well. 👀
The real question should be....why the f!ck do people care what these people do with their personal lives? Why do people centre their arguments on the fact that these people are *GULPS* people, who make mistakes or aren't perfect?
As long as they aren't causing anyone harm against their will, or whatever, I don't give a - well, you know - what they do behind closed doors - or at the podium.
BTW: That being said, not submitting to the American symbolism that is the [EDIT:] "Pledge of Allegiance," et al., was (IMHO) a foolish move.
Originally posted by Bardock42He didn't lie.
Well...it's true though.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a true statement to him. Unless that was his excuse.
http://www.bandersnatch.com/bilsex.htm
Besides my obvious point is that it is not that big of an issue. Unlawful wars, poverty and contras are way more serious.
Originally posted by MelcórëW-what has the declaration of independence to do with anything?
*Whispers:*
JFK was a philanderer as well. 👀The real question should be....why the f!ck do people care what these people do with their personal lives? Why do people centre their arguments on the fact that these people are *GULPS* people, who make mistakes or aren't perfect?
As long as they aren't causing anyone harm against their will, or whatever, I don't give a - well, you know - what they do behind closed doors - or at the podium.
BTW: That being said, not submitting to the American symbolism that is the "Declaration of Independence," et al., was (IMHO) a foolish move.
Originally posted by lord xyzActually he just used his own, inaccurate definition of sexual relations. He did lie. Not that it matters, in fact, he shouldn't have been asked in the first place.
He didn't lie."I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a true statement to him. Unless that was his excuse.
http://www.bandersnatch.com/bilsex.htm
Besides my obvious point is that it is not that big of an issue. Unlawful wars, poverty and contras are way more serious.
Originally posted by lord xyz
He didn't lie."I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a true statement to him. Unless that was his excuse.
http://www.bandersnatch.com/bilsex.htm
Besides my obvious point is that it is not that big of an issue. Unlawful wars, poverty and contras are way more serious.
so in your opinion it is ok for a politician to tell half truths and be deliberately misleading when being asked about his conduct?
Honestly then you are also justifying the use of "Saddam/Al Qaeda" in the same sentence, so long as they don't explicitly say "Saddam supports Al Qaeda"
Originally posted by inimalist
Whether or not Clinton should be allowed to have extra-marital affairs while in office is one thing, the fact that he lied to the American public about it is another.Lying to the nation is bad, or don't you anti-Bushies apply that same logic to people you like?
True, he did lie. Oral sex is still sex, Bill.
That being said, everyone knew that JFK was a philanderer, and there was no uproar about it - although, I s'pose we'd then have to ask the question, would he have lied about it?
BTW: I meant to say "Pledge of Allegiance," not the "Declaration of Independence." I misspoke. 😛
Originally posted by inimalistI think lying is bad. But there are obviously differences. Lying about intelligence to drag your country into an unjust war, causing 3000+ US Americans and many more non-Americans (which of course doesn't count) to die and lying about your personal life, because it is embarassing and no ones business but yours, your wives and that cum hungry whore you let suck you off are just two extremely different things. THe second being close to not bad, and much less bad than it being dragged into the open in the first place anyway.
Whether or not Clinton should be allowed to have extra-marital affairs while in office is one thing, the fact that he lied to the American public about it is another.Lying to the nation is bad, or don't you anti-Bushies apply that same logic to people you like?
Though that's just my moral view, I see that 50% of US Americans feel that lying about who you **** is worse than killing hundred thousands of people.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think lying is bad. But there are obviously differences. Lying about intelligence to drag your country into an unjust war, causing 3000+ US Americans and many more non-Americans (which of course doesn't count) to die and lying about your personal life, because it is embarassing and no ones business but yours, your wives and that cum hungry whore you let suck you off are just two extremely different things. THe second being close to not bad, and much less bad than it being dragged into the open in the first place anyway.Though that's just my moral view, I see that 50% of US Americans feel that lying about who you **** is worse than killing hundred thousands of people.
I don't disagree with you, I have just never been a fan of distinguishing the lesser of two evils.
Once you can justify lying to the public for one reason, it can be justified for anything, imho, just given how easy it is to intellectualize and rationalize things.
But ya, it shouldn't have mattered at all to the public if Clinton had an affair.
Originally posted by inimalistI think he shouldn't have lied, but there should have been an option for him to refuse to answer and he should have used it. He should have no obligation to show his personal life to everyone. Of course lying was wrong. But I feel like distinguishing between the lesser of two evils is quite essential.
I don't disagree with you, I have just never been a fan of distinguishing the lesser of two evils.Once you can justify lying to the public for one reason, it can be justified for anything, imho, just given how easy it is to intellectualize and rationalize things.
But ya, it shouldn't have mattered at all to the public if Clinton had an affair.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he shouldn't have lied, but there should have been an option for him to refuse to answer and he should have used it. He should have no obligation to show his personal life to everyone.
absolutely, he should have said pretty much exactly what you did.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course lying was wrong. But I feel like distinguishing between the lesser of two evils is quite essential.
fair enough, so long as you don't lose sight of the fact that it is still evil
Originally posted by inimalistSurely not, but we both can see the difference between shoplifting a lolli and killing five people by kniving their *******.
absolutely, he should have said pretty much exactly what you did.fair enough, so long as you don't lose sight of the fact that it is still evil
One is just so totally a lesser of two evils...
indeed, but that is apples to oranges
in both situations we have a leader lying to the public, in one situation to start an unjust war, the other to ignore personal embarrassment.
I would say this makes Bush a worse person, but I will not excuse Clinton's act because someone did the same thing, only with worse consequences.
I'd rather be led by a Clinton than a Bush, but realistically, I wouldn't want either.