Re: OT *** sighting

It's threads like this which necessitate my getting a new means
of accessing the web-board. Using tin for free, if possible. It's
ridiculous to keep typing up people's quotes like I am (but I can't
see their posts except on google, so I need to in order to reply).
Anyway...

Sox_in_2006 said:
Sure is ok. And, no one ever said Slick Willy getting one was wrong.
It was WRONG to openly lie to the people, then committ perjury about
it.

Smacdo replied:
"Let me get this straight...
Lying about getting a blow job - BAD
Lying about the need to go to war - OK?

Sox_in_2006 answered with:
PERJURY. Its not about a BLOWJOB. Its about PERJURY. You dems
cannot understand that, huh?

To this, I would say three things:

(1) It's unclear you understand that it's about perjury as well. In this
very thread, you said that "Kids think Blowjobs are ok, thanks to Willy."
This statement gives ZERO indication that you are faluting Clinton for
the lying under oath. If Democrats should be expected to understand that
it's not about the blowjob, then don't bring it up with no reference to
perjury. When you say things that sound critical like "Kids think blowjobs
are ok, thanks to Willy," is sounds as if you yourself think the issue is
about the blowjob. Since you don't feel this way (as you stated later in
the thread, blowjobs ARE ok), don't state it in the first place. If you
want to fault Clinton for perjury, then bring up the perjury. (And don't
fault democrats for not getting that it's about the perjury when you seem
to be faluting him for the blowjob itself).

(2) Was Clinton convicted of perjury? All along I assumed that he
actually was, but was he? I can't find any indication that he was.
And I've found several websites which suggest that although he was
fined for contempt of court, he was acquitted of perjury charges.
Can someone give me a more definitive answer on this?

(3) Assuming Clinton was convicted of perjury, you're suggesting (perhaps
quite rightly) that his lying, which broke the law, is a bigger deal than
Bush's alleged lying which broke no laws. That may be the case -- context
can certainly be important, and respect for the laws of the country is
important, obviously. That said, others (perhaps also rightly) point out
that lies (like ones about getting a blowjob) which harm few people are
much more benign than ones which harm lots of people (like ones which lead
to the death of US citizen-soldiers).

Ignoring the context of the two lies for a second (one made under oath,
the other not) and assuming both Clinton and Bush did lie for a second,
Clinton lied... and who was harmed directly? It's not immediately obvious
who was harmed by the lie itself. I mean, Hillary was harmed by the
cuckolding, not the lie. The American taxpayers were harmed by footing
the bill for the investigation of the lie, not the lie itself. And so
forth. Now there may well be harm to the lie (and, again, in removing
the context, I'm removing the most important thing about the lie -- the
fact that it was made under oath), but I'm pretty sure that whatever
harm may have come from the lie itself, it pales in comparison to the
harm done by the lie (remember, we're making the assumption here that
Bush lied about the need to go to war) that Bush did. Bush's "lie" got
the US into a war in which US citizens have died. (And British citizens,
and citizens of other allies, not to mention Iraqi citizens, some of whom
were enemy combatants, but some of whom were innocent civilians and might
well have supported the US, had they not been killed). The harm done from
Bush's alleged lie is a lot greater than the harm of Clinton's lie, outside
of the context.

So what it comes down to is this: is the context of Clinton's lie
(he broke the law) more important than the effect of the lie (lots of
people dying)? You say it is. Others disagree. I think both are
reasonable positions, frankly -- I think the respect for law IS
important, and the President shouldn't break the law; I also think that
he should make damn sure he doesn't do things which lead to the deaths
of his citizens if he can avoid it, and lies would seem to be things
which we can avoid (at least for the most part).

Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer

--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
IF1, IF3, IF9: best films, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
Hot Properties on ABC: Friday, December 9th at 9:30 ET / 8:30 CT
.

Loading