the former president did a fine job as president
the recession that George Bush has created 33 days into office
You have a right to believe those things. But what you are typing is tripe to many people. I'm going to try and tell you why.
I think I speak for more than myself here.
There are people in the United States that don't share your point of view. As a matter of fact, the whole country has become divided on this entire issue of President Clinton, his wife, and the things that went on while he was in office. Some people are defending him, and some people are attacking him.
The real nationwide rancor started, if you recall, on the day that Al Gore decided to contest the Florida election, and it hasn't stopped.
The truth is that this has all been brewing for many years.
I'll tell you why, but before I do, I want to make it clear that I am not 'defending' anyone. Try and understand that I am simply trying to make you aware of some things that you don't seem to fully grasp.
It's a well-known fact that if a group of people is oppressed unjustly for long enough, they will revolt. It's part of the fabric of human behavior.
And rightly so. It's been called many things, but let's call it "the fight against social injustice" just so we have our terms straight. We can define social injustice as a group of people that has power exerting that power unjustly against some other less-powerful group, in order to stifle or oppress that less-powerful group.
The key word here is "unjustly". For example, I think we would agree that the normal operation of a police force acting against a group of heroin smugglers and exerting police power to stifle their actions would not be considered "social injustice" (unless you are a heroin addict and think it should be legal).
Similarly, I think we would strongly agree that a police force that exerts its power to prevent an African-American from entering a publicly funded university solely on the basis that his or her skin is a different color than anyone on the police force would be an excellent example of "social injustice". Anyone who would side with the cops on this scenario would be a racist. So, if you are not a racist, then we would agree.
I think we can agree on these things, yes?
If we can, then we can have a 'base line' for the discussion.
Now, here is where the disagreement comes in. Let's take a specific example. Your assertion is that Bill Clinton did a fine job as president. However, Bill got a blow job in the Oval Office from one of his interns. He was married at the time. He then denied any wrongdoing, in public. When he got caught, he hired some lawyers to massage an explanation of what he did. When he was asked about it under oath, he lied. He lied under oath. (He later admitted he lied under oath, so we don't need to argue about that.)
The point is this: there are some people in this country that believe very strongly that the president of the United States should not do that. He should not do what Bill did.
If you just thought about arguing that "all presidents have done that stuff so what's the big deal" you are not alone. There are many people that would agree with you.
What you may be missing is that there are many people that DO NOT AGREE that criminal behavior is acceptable or right or just. There are many people that believe that if the married Security Guard in the parking lot of Barf Reclining Chair Manufacturing Company in Dink, New Mexico hires a 21 year old secretary, gets hummers for a year, then gets busted by the owner of the company, then lies about it to the owner, then lies about it to all the employees, then lies about it to the newspapers, then lies about it to a judge, then smiles and walks away, that he is a criminal, and he should be fired, and a new Security Guard should be hired.
Like it or not, some people in this country don't want to have criminals working for them, because they believe that criminals cannot be trusted.
Some people in this country don't agree that everybody should be allowed to do anything they want, or say anything they want, because some things are wrong to do, and some things are wrong to say.
The question then becomes: what is right and what is wrong?
That's a good question. We might have a good discussion about that. We could probably agree that it might be based on the law, yes? Like the law that exists in that state or that country, yes?
So if you think that Bill Clinton was a fine president, and George W. Bush has caused this recession by being in office for 33 days, that is your right as a citizen.
What you must understand is that someone who does not agree with you on those points probably disagrees because they, for whatever reason, insist on better character from their employees. You should also understand that your defense of a criminal assumes that you share some or all his qualities of character...and that's fine too...everyone has their own mountain to climb...that's America.
The problem arises if you try to enforce acceptance of those criminal qualities on people who refuse to agree to them as acceptable for the leader of the free world.
You are free to continue to argue and snipe about the evil of conservative values and how wonderful it is that such values have been corrupted over the last several years.
What if you were the owner of Barf Reclining Chair Manufacturing, and you had a 21 year-old daughter who worked there, and Bill Clinton applied for a job. You would hire him? What if he asked you to assign your daughter to the Security Force on the night shift?
To many, many people in this country, you can say whatever you want, but it does not mean you are right. It's also a well-known fact that criminals assume that everyone else falls into two groups; criminals like them, or morons that are too stupid to be criminals.
Remember, if a group of people is oppressed unjustly for long enough, they will revolt. It's just the fight against social injustice.
No need to worry about your daughter, she should be fine if everything goes the way we want it to.
Say hello to Bill for me, will you?
On second thought, don't. |
