Yes TWT, I disappear during all the big debates these days...I haven't been posting as much lately. I've been doing homework, getting my skate on, rocking the casbah, etc.
LOL, rocking the casbah. Hehe...I love that.
Let me ask you something: How would it make you feel to ask those questions that Kenneth Starr did? How would you react to questions like those if someone asked you? I can see myself reacting exactly like Clinton did in that situation, but asking the questions that Ken Starr did would have made me sick.
I can't really say how I'd feel, but regardless of that, it wouldn't excuse me if I lied...it really wouldn't.
And do you really, honestly think that Clinton's personal affairs had ANYTHING to do with how he did his job?
Honestly? I'm not positive...but regardless of that, do you really think the law should be ignored because he was in an embarrassing spot? I mean, the law is the law...so either you're saying it should be ignored so he is not punished, or you're saying it should be changed...which won't effect the past.
The facts speak for themselves - Peter's already posted plenty (and Wart's deconstructed your hero Reagan's stupidity for us all to see). I'm sorry, I don't see the connection. Newt Gingrich's affair didn't hurt anything. Neither did Kennedy's.
I already replied to Wart's post with plenty of valid arguments. What was it about those you disagreed with? I'm willing to go point-by-point with you any time you're ready basically.
Oh, and I detailed awhile back (one of my earlier responses to you) to try to demonstrate how a lack of morals can effect a person professionally...although even if we were to assume that Clinton is a perfectly moral person (highly doubtful), we still can't argue that breaking the law should not be ignored just because the situation was embarrassing. I imagine it'd be embarrassing for a rapist to admit he raped someone...but the law is the law, and if you start making exceptions, you're in dangerous territory.
I also don't appreciate the harshness there: stupidity? Honestly, Steve, what are you basing that on? You've been treating him like an idiot for quite awhile now, it seems, but you haven't provided much to back it up. Just recently, some others have made some arguments (some of which I've replied to) that you've seconded...but what was your cause beforehand?
And yeah, Nixon, from what I've heard, was a horrible criminal. I've never denied that...nor do I have any intention of doing so! My only argument was that Nixon being a horrible criminal doesn't really have any bearing on Clinton.
Yes, Peter, I'll be upset, too. I've done my best to explain to him that no disrespect was meant, and that I think he's a good person, even if I highly disagree with his politics. Hopefully he'll understand where I'm coming from.
Anyway, I realize PLite may dislike me, and I've realized for a very long time that Pigsnie thinks many unfavorable things of me, but I'm prepared to deal with it. I'm not sure what you'd expect...if I see something that, to me, is blatantly incorrect, would you rather I ignore it?
Reply to Topic
. BUT it may be a good idea to end this here.
