Re: Kucinich to Force Vote on Cheney Impeachment

George Z. Bush wrote:
John Galt wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Rumpelstiltskin wrote:

(Snip)

I think I just fail to use the appropriate terms of indignation that
partisans demand and that they are used to seeing in partisan blogs and
by partisan pundits.

Strong emotion and reason never co-exist.

I don't *hate* Ken Starr, I don't *hate* the GOP for doing it,.....
I don't hate them for those activities either.....I simply think it was
despicable of them to spend the public's tax money burying their noses in
the presidential jockey shorts trying to sniff out some extra-curricular
semen. In my pantheon of emotions, despising someone is considerably below
hating him in the emotional pecking order and is therefore eligible to
coexist with reason.
Well.....OK....if you say so..... :-) That's pretty heavily nuanced,
by my way of thinking.


....and I definitely think that it is the public's business if the POTUS
is
engaging in marital extracurriculars in his publically-funded office in
his publically-funded building (hell, companies fire employees for
"misuse of company assets" if they get caught browsing porn, and that's
a far less egregious moral violation than doing Monica).
In the process of establishing that high ground in behalf of the taxpayers,
you've managed to disenfranchise those reprehensible people who you
disapprove of because they aren't bent out f shape over the existence of
oral sex and/or extra-marital sex. Those people by virtue of their annual
tax contributions also own the building you took claim of in behalf of the
missionary practitioners of America.
Twaddle. I'm one guy, and my opinion has no force that would
disenfranchise anyone. Further, people who disagree with me on this
matter I neither disapprove of nor find reprehensible for that reason.

I daresay in their behalf that it's NOT the public's business every time
George W. Bush's penis becomes engorged while seated behind his desk in the
Oval Office fantasizing the oncoming evening's events with his wife or
whoever. I think most adults might concede that such reactions or behaviors
(or whatever you wish to call it) are not uncommon and occasionally do occur
among normal males of that age.
We were not discussing sexual fantasies.

Why not? When he's engaged in such pursuits, he can't be adequately attending to the public's business. I think I once read somewhere that such sexual thoughts enter the minds of normal males on the order of scores of times per day.

Every 6 to 8 seconds, I think. Ergo, the matter is moot.


Is there some requirement that presidents surrender their
masculinity upon taking the oath of office when they have impious sexual thoughts, physical manifestations of them, or possibly even actively pursue them while on the taxpayers' property? You think Bush is somehow immune from that kind of thing? He was no more immune than any of his predecessors, including the obvious Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (who was honest enough to publicly admit harboring such lustful thoughts), Jack Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR, Warren Harding, Grover Cleveland and even Founding Father Tom Jefferson. Get real, man!


Those things happen.....they happen to everyone in or out of the White House, they happen day and night, on and off duty, at work or at play....they happen often and to everyone, with the possible exception of eunuchs. The only difference between Clinton and the rest of them is that the times changed and with them, attitudes about such things that permitted the public airing of those events that in the past would have been carefully hidden or at least ignored. You can't make him worse than the rest of them in that regard simply because of your politics.

Straw man argument. You're refuting a position I neither took nor implied.

I suggest you discuss using what I have said, not what you unilaterally assume I am saying (or what you assume I am thinking, for that matter).

JG



In fact, he was not
worse.....indeed, in some regards, he was quite good at what he did as President and indeed better than many.
Remember, one of the key tenets of our legal system -- often ignored --
is that the politicians are not above the law.
I thought we had already established that sex among consenting adults is not
criminal behavior, or are we now speaking of something else?
It seems that your "snip" was injudicious, as it included the rather
different (and more philosophical than legal, I admit) point I was
referring to.

Well, do forgive me.....I'm often addicted to editing out that which I think not necessary for the reader to be able to understand what I have to say. Sometimes deathless prose does get discarded in the process but, being an equal opportunity editor, I also discard my own previous ones as well that are no longer part of the topic being discussed. I believe that process is accepted internet behavior.

George Z.


.