>For the millionth time, I dont think lying about the affair he had with a legal adult is any big deal.<
But it was breaking the law in that it was perjury, and if you will allow a man to have sex with a 17 year old if it is legal, and think it reprehensible if it is not, then you condemn exclusively on the basis of breaking the law.
You then must do the same thing in Clinton's case. He broke the law, and not just once. He did it repeatedly and continues to scheme about it.
>In fact, in some ways, I respect him for it.<
This is about the seventh time I have heard a woman say something like this, and each time it has come to me with a bit of a shock. Surely, madam, you cannot mean this.
>I dont care that he told the American people he didnt do it either. I dont think anybody should have asked.<
Whether you think this or not is irrelevant because he was asked it in courts of law, and in those courts he decided to lie, this, repeatedly. You have not the right, to defend yourself with lies in a court.
>I would feel differently had he broken the law and had an affair with a minor.<
But were the law to claim it fine to have sex with a 17 year old, and had the President had an affair with a 17 year old, you'd be all nice and happy, this, strictly because of the law. You are not being consistent madam. You want to allow breaches of the law only in those things for which you want to allow. It don't work like dat.
>I have never changed my stance on this.<
You should. |
