We're all familiar with Godwin's law - anyone who starts making comparisons to Hitler basically loses the argument cuz there's nothing as evil as Hitler Should we start "Clinton's Law" - anyone mentioning the Clinton/Monica affair automatically loses the debate because a ************** is pretty irrelevant to anything going on right now. Whaddaya think? a) Yes, any mention about Clinton/Monica automatically loses the argument. It was a dumb, sordid episode in our history that is irrelevant to anything but another politician cheating on their wife b) No, Clinton misleading the country under oath in his deposition was an obstruction of justice and is fair game when comparing the lies and mistruths of future presidents c) I hate Clinton and just can't stop mentioning his ************** from that fat whore (which has nothing to do with the fact that I haven't had a ************** since before it all happened).
Voted yes. I'm no friend of Clinton and I despised all the hubbub around Monicagate, whatever you want to call it. But this is apples and oranges. If you are going to compare Clinton and Bush, compare their freaking foreign policy record, compare their economic record or domestic policies. If you want to bring up the ************** in the Oval Office, Bush's DUI arrest and coke habit from the 80s' or whenever are fair game too. Everybody has some skeletons in the closet, even the President while he's in office. Didn't JFK shag Marilyn Monroe while he was in the White House? While Clinton's actions did bring some shame on the Oval Office (admit it, the Presidency was somewhat diminished by the entire scandal), his lies did not lead to our nation to war. Iraq is a whole new ball game, and I hope we as a nation, get to the bottom of it and find out who is responsible, even up to the Commander in Chief himself.
OK, can we invoke a similar "Vietnam Law" Anybody who has ever compared any other conflict to Vietnam, especially Iraq, is automatically disqualified from speaking on the issue. Or how about a "red Herring law" saying anybody who post "Red Herring" polls about situations without giving the true nature of the situation is no longer able to make posts that include polls?
OK, Senator John McCain - your "I'm a treasonous pinko commie sympathizer" S&M ballgag is ready. Seriously? No. The history of warfare is rife with comparisons to other conflicts. While some comparisons of Iraq/Afghanistan to Vietnam are pretty dumb - the history/lessons of the Vietnam struggle are still relevant to a disussion of modern conflicts Huh? I had wondered if anyone else wanted to raise the level of debate about current affairs w/o mindless references a cheater with bad taste in women. I know its unfortunate to take away the primary republican defense of the current president...but come on - how do the misguided exploits and faulty targeting of an ex-president's purple helmeted warhead have anything to do with current events?
That was not the issue. The chllenge was, give a pecedent for the Domocrats defending their president when he lies. And the answer was yes, they did so in the Lewinski affair. But of course people who were actually following the thread at the time knew that. That is why it was more convenient to start a new thread implying something different was happening.
Both Godwin's Law and the proposed Clinton's Law are moronic, only worthy of the type of low level discussion found on the internet. Nazism is NOT some freak of nature, totally outside history and thus irrelevant to all other discussions. Likewise, perjury by a sitting president is pretty serious and certainly is relevant to "some" discussions on these boards.
Can we at least have the Whitewater Corrollary to Clinton's Law? Essentially, this theory holds that anyone who wants to go back over the details of the land deal in Arkansas should have all prior and future posts treated as if said person is brimming with JFK, Roswell, and Shoeless Joe Jackson conspiracy theories.
For the sake of historical accuracy, I want to, again, point out that the obstruction of justice charge relating around him talking to potential witnesses (Esp. Betty Currie) were much, much stronger than the perjury charges.
C'mon Dave, go back to the quotes in the thread that I posted. The perjury was a slam dunk. Now Obstruction may be a more "serious" charge in you book, but for that very reason, it may have been more difficult to prove to a jury.
I must apologize. I do not know "that" thread which you mention, unless it is every thread where somebody mentioned that Bush has lied. Cuz it all seems to boil down to a) semantics ("imminent! - is/is"!) b) blowjobs The chllenge was, give a pecedent for the Domocrats defending their president when he lies. And the answer was yes, they did so in the Lewinski affair. Ah, but most dems admit he lied (see my comments above) - but they see a difference between blowjobs and the death/maiming of hundreds of american heros. I am troubled that you and others do not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is that its OK for Bush to lie about his reasons for sending many americans to their deaths - because Clinton got head and tried to deny it. That's what I'm hearing.
I was refering to this thread https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79116 Which you posted to about an hour ago. And I have no idea why you claim that that is what you are hearing, because I haven't heard anybody say that. What I said was Democrats will defend a lying President just because he is a Democrat, and I cited the Lewinski affair as an example. I was not trying to say the Lewinski affair is the same as Iraq in any other way other than the partisans are much more likely to defend their own president, and more likely to attack a president of the other party. When I made the original statement I was actually suprised that another poster wanted to challenge me on it.
Because of Clinton's lie about Lewinsky, hundreds of soldiers are dead and wounded. You can't compare Bush's one - er, dozens - of perfectly innocent lies about his personal life and Iraq and 9/11 to that.
1-that thread is still alive and kicking sir 2-it is the issue because, on the aforementioned thread and every single other thread like it on this forum, clinton's lie is summarily brought up as some sort of non-answer defense whenever a republicon W-licker is confronted with a straight question about the current president - if you think this is about one thread, you are mistaken... not that you would notice
I'm surprised nobody picked choice C. I better go back to troll school. Anyway, I'd like to hear why some people think blowjobs are relevant to the discussion of the Iraq war - besides the fact that the neocons dropped some bukkake on america and some won't admit they love the taste
BJs are cool (receiving not giving). Clinton was getting some strange, that was fine until he got nailed (living dangerously seems to be a career trait) and refused to fess up about it. If you recall, many Dems. on the Hill were as pissed as Republicans at his infantile behavior. Especially when he selfishly hung them all out to dry when they supported him "100%." Remember that hilarious Rose Garden pep rally? OBL was blowing up US embassies and ships with impunity around the same time. Not too cool. Bill has a lot to answer for in that respect. To recap - BJs, not as big a deal as it seemed in '98. Many dead Americans due to ignoring OBL for 8 years - a VERY big deal today.
What could be more fitting than a "Clinton Law" where you are actually allowed to break it and not get into trouble!