I'd agree you're pretty dopey, but this is as usual a surreal argument.
You wrote:
Oh, dopey me. I thought our government officials were interested in providing the American people with a representative government, where in the representatives don't lie to our faces and get away with it. I am naive enough to believe that when lies are exposed corrections are imposed. I even thought that maybe the individuals elected on the basis of a public trust would be the first to correct their own mistakes. But then, I guess I don't have the brilliance it takes to accept deception as the best recourse.
Uh, what corrections were imposed when the S&L lies were exposed? Is this like "if it doesn't fit you must acquit"?
The thing about Clinton lying , the matter he was lying about was very peripheral to running the government. His civil suit started outside the government, spearheaded by private Atty. Starr. Defending himself against it was a distraction, not a part of his job as President. At least you don't go through the usual felonious perjury/obstruction of justice thing, like it's now obstruction of justice to say anything bad about Starr. Of course, now that I mention it I'm sure you'll be happy to go off at length.
Most of the things I listed were very much to do with running the government, and the President acting as President. They were much bigger lies in general, too. And, in the case of the S&L failures and much delayed bailouts, far more costly than anything you could ever pin on Clinton.
You originally responded to J. Doe, who wrote:
<<You obviously don't understand politics; political warfare; and the lack of integrity of the people that have FORCED this upon us.>>
I wouldn't say you don't understand. If you're cheering on Ken Starr, you understand political warfare just fine, you're a part of it. Whatever merit the now moribund Paula Jones suit may have had, it almost certainly wouldn't have gone anywhere without (dirty) political warfare and political money behind it. Why, may I ask, are the particular lies told in that context somehow more "substantial" than, say, the S&L bailout being delayed to assure George Bush's election? Offhand, I would say you have no sense of proportion. That's just my perspective as a partisan hater, though. You follow jlallen, you'll understand that Clinton is causing the decline and fall of Western Civilization. Objectively speaking, of course.
I apologize in advance for being earnest in the face of such sincere moral outrage as you express.
Cheers, Dan. |
