The law? How about the right.......they put Paula Jones up to it.
Clinton set himself up by signing the law. Other people have to deal with it, Clinton shouldn't be above it. If it is a bad law it should be repealed but there shouldn't be one law for Bill Clinton and another for everyone else.
As for the right putting Paula Jones up to it - If sexual harassment law as it stands is just, and if Paula Jones was telling the truth then I don't see how the right "putting her up to it" (if they did) is really important. If she is lying then I would put primary blame one her for lying and perjuring herself. If it could be proved she could face severe legal penalties unlike Clinton who mostly got away with perjury.
That's other as in someone else besides the person who filed the harassment suit.
Of course, you mean the GOP again.
No. Clinton did not have "sexual behavior" with "the GOP", and "the GOP is not his subordinate.
Once again ""The law made his sexual behavior with other subordinates an issue, even consensual sexual behavior."
I have established the A premisethrough innumerable posts on this thread.
You have not established that Bush is leading the country to a major disaster. You have argued for it. That isn't the same thing. Its actually something that even if true probably couldn't be established until it happens.
he B premise is best on the majority of your posts.......which have been much more for Bush than against.
"Much more for Bush than against", does not equal "a strong and enthusiastic supporter of Bush."
I'll vote for Bush, and I defend him against charges that I think are false, but I'm far from enthusiastic about him. I wasn't enthusiastic about his father either. The closest I've been to enthusiastic about any president or presidential candidate was Reagan, but even then I think my feelings fell a little short of that term. I'm not really a man of wild enthusiasms, or strong emotional swings.
I have a few serious concerns about GW, starting with his high spending. I have quite a number of more minor or nuanced concerns about him. But if I am projecting a balanced or nuanced attitude about say the situation in Iraq, that puts me at odds with those who say it is an unmitigated disaster. Then as soon as I say it isn't I am all of the sudden I'm "defending Bush" or to use your more recent term I am for him rather then against him.
There are a number of Bush policies that I mildly endorse, or that I lead toward, or that I support compared to all the likely alternatives. For example I am not a support of Bush's tax policy. I'd rather see simpler and lower taxes. But I am a supporter of the change from higher taxes to lower taxes. Considered in isolation I disagree with Bush's tax policy, but it is IMO better then what we had before the tax cut. In some ways the tax cut is one of Bush's best policies IMO, but I can't get enthusiastic about a small to moderate tax cut that probably increases the complexity of the tax code.
I am unclear what you understand logic to be but if someone supports a person who is damaging the country than their first priority has to be either the person or themselves rather than the country.
If politician X is going to be a disaster for this country. It might be because 1 - He hates the country and doesn't have its best interest at heart, or 2 - He doesn't hate the country but he care more for himself, or his friends or some special interest then the country as a whole so once again he doesn't have the countries best interest at heart, or 3 - He loves the country and has its best interest at heart but he is mistaken about how to achieve those interests.
A voter for politician X can have the best interest of the country at heart even if scenario 1 is true and the politician hates the country. This voter could be mistaken about politician X.
And of course all of this assumes not only that the country is headed towards disaster but the "politician X" is leading us there. I don't think that our country is headed to disaster and I think some of Bush's policies make disaster less likely, but even if your thoughts about Bush are true it wouldn't make my plan to vote for him equivalent to "not having the best interests of our country at heart".
Tim |
