<strong>Again with this. How the hell do you "admit" to something after you're already caught?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the very definition of admitting something. Notice how Clinton didn't admit to the affair after he'd been caught?
You seem to be caught up on this idea of someone giving Bush "credit" or "points" for admitting it. All I said is that his being honest about it took the issue away from the press.
But I suppose if one isn't trying to crucify him they're obviously pumping him up.
He certainly didn't go into full-tilt "political weasel" mode or wag his finger and look into the cameras and lie his ass off about it. And then nitpick - with a serious face - the actual meaning of some very simple words like "is", "was" and "drunk driving".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course he didn't, because doing so would have been impossible at that point.
As far as parsing the meanings of simple words, Bush had his very own "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" moment when he feebly attempted to distance himself from "[that man,] Mr. Lay":
That's the very definition of admitting something. Notice how Clinton didn't admit to the affair after he'd been caught?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between responding to allegations and getting caught. You're not "caught" until there exists sufficient material evidence such that denial is no longer an option.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
You seem to be caught up on this idea of someone giving Bush "credit" or "points" for admitting it. All I said is that his being honest about it took the issue away from the press. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But he wasn't "honest" about it at all.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
But I suppose if one isn't trying to crucify him they're obviously pumping him up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>No, you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between responding to allegations and getting caught. You're not "caught" until there exists sufficient material evidence such that denial is no longer an option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And there was doubt that Clinton lied? No one on God's green Earth (who wasn't a moron, of course) actually bought Clinton's bullshit. The best defense that could be mounted was "it's not your business." Clinton was caught and he lied and that's why the press hounded him.
Again, you're hung up on this value judgement thing. Let it go.
Clinton lied after being caught and he got grilled for years.
Bush fessed up after being caught and he got grilled for a few months.
No value judgements. No "attaboy"s.
Let that part of it go, you've made it very clear you dislike Dubya, fighting support of his actions where support of his actions doesn't exist. It's a dead horse, no need to beat it more.
[quote]<strong>But he wasn't "honest" about it at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What was dishonest?
Press: "We found your drunk-driving arrest from 30 years ago!"
i just hope we stop asking these stupid questions....should anybody even have asked Clinton that question?? no. should anybody now ask Bush if at any time in his marriage did he have sex with someone other than is wife? no. Clinton was dumb because he didn't answer, "it's none of your business"...but now people know it is ok to not answer, it wasn't always that way...not answering was an admission of guilt...now it is a badge of honor...hopefully all these sex and drug questions are a thing of the past...i just hope it stays that way...
bush fessed up because there was a police report and he couldn't deny it....clinton lied because there was no police report and he thought he could get away with it...it was stupid and he was wrong...but i still maintain that the question should never have been asked at all...if we ask the same question of bush and he says, "no, i have never cheated on my wife", and then up comes the girls from when he was drinking and coking and his wife was ready to leave him, what happens then??
i am just hopeful that we have turned a page from the past and we will no longer use these questions of all our canidates as a "lithmus" test of morality or character...g
<strong>As far as parsing the meanings of simple words, Bush had his very own "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" moment when he feebly attempted to distance himself from "[that man,] Mr. Lay":
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "support" is?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, guess what, Josef? I don't give two flying damns about Bush. I didn't vote for him, I'm not a huge Bush guy (I was an Alan Keyes man, myself), so if he (Bush) gets nailed somehow in all this corporate stuff and its shown that he did wrong, then do whatever to him that needs to be done.
I'm not about to stand here and ride the Bush ship down to the bottom of the ocean, if that's what you're saying.
Support? I couldn't care less. I "support" him in the sense that he's the President and that's how it goes, but I didn't have "Bush/Cheney" signs in my front yard or bumper stickers on my car.
ALL I'm saying is that in this instance we're actually talking about, he performed a little more admirably than the other guy.
They're ALL rotten-to-the-core shitheads, Josef. You can't go into big-time politics and do what it takes to win without being somewhat of a despicable, conniving shifty-eyed turd of a human.
Don't mistake my pointing out the differences between Bush's DUI thing and Clinton's blowjobs as Limbaugh-approaved, GOP-sanctioned, Right Wing Conspiracy-funded Bush cheerleading.
I've dinged Mr. Bush in these forums several times and I don't intend on voting for him next time around either, so...
And there was doubt that Clinton lied? No one on God's green Earth (who wasn't a moron, of course) actually bought Clinton's bullshit. The best defense that could be mounted was "it's not your business." Clinton was caught and he lied and that's why the press hounded him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, of course there was doubt...otherwise he couldn't have lied about it. When people lie beyond the point at which the facts of the case are irrefutable, we've left the realm of dishonesty and entered into pathology. At the very least, there had to be a perception of doubt on Clinton's part, otherwise he never would have tried to extricate himself from his difficulty by misleading the public, no?
"I say it is the moon that shines so bright, [and I did not have sexual relations with that woman.]"
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Again, you're hung up on this value judgement thing. Let it go.
Clinton lied after being caught and he got grilled for years.
Bush fessed up after being caught and he got grilled for a few months.
No value judgements. No "attaboy"s.
Let that part of it go, you've made it very clear you dislike Dubya, fighting support of his actions where support of his actions doesn't exist. It's a dead horse, no need to beat it more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, groverat...you give me so little credit! This thread is brimming over with absurd praise and reverence for our ersatz president and his alleged "honesty" and "character," and it really pisses me off. I just wish people would stop venerating Bush as the second coming of Churchill (literally!). Credit where due, and none otherwise. I will continue to defend common sense against the onslaught of absurdity...
No DUI, no womanizing, no shady past, no questionable business dealings, no drug use (okay, I enhaled a LITTLE, years ago...but no snorting, injecting, etc. kind of stuff) and no weird family members to embarrass the Office with (no beer-swilling brother, no rock-star-wannabe brother, no alcoholic twin daughters, etc.).
I don't think ANYONE here is anywhere close to making Bush seem like the "second coming".
But I guess when you take a ding at Mr. Clinton, his supporters pull out the heavy ammo. If you're questioning, dinging or mocking William Jefferson Clinton in any way, that automatically means you're "those OTHER guys".
i got werid family members out the wahzoo...so that (and a rather active drug use in college) keeps me out of the running....dang, and i was so hoping to run on an all gelding/all the time platform.....g
Well, guess what, Josef? I don't give two flying damns about Bush. I didn't vote for him, I'm not a huge Bush guy (I was an Alan Keyes man, myself), so if he (Bush) gets nailed somehow in all this corporate stuff and its shown that he did wrong, then do whatever to him that needs to be done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the topic of the thread intimates that Bush is getting a free ride, and, in the process of arguing otherwise, several people have introduced the subject of Bush's character. You, in particular, criticized Clinton's "that woman" speech in the context of direct comparison to Bush's honesty. I think if you're going to be meting out this kind of criticism, you should do it fairly and evenhandedly. That's all.
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
I'm not about to stand here and ride the Bush ship down to the bottom of the ocean, if that's what you're saying.
Support? I couldn't care less. I "support" him in the sense that he's the President and that's how it goes, but I didn't have "Bush/Cheney" signs in my front yard or bumper stickers on my car.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm afraid you've misread the post. The "support" in question is not your support for Bush, but Ken Lay's support for Bush in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial campaign. I've made no direct comments on your personal support for Bush one way or the other.
It's really weird, the stuff you have to have complete control over in your life, if you intend to rise to the top in politics. Sometimes all it takes is a distant cousin or step-sibling who has a less-than-perfect criminal record or weird past to derail someone's plans to run for a higher office.
You'd almost have to start, the minute you left the womb, making sure everyone around you - friends AND family - are all on the up-and-up and aren't going to do something that can be brought up in 20 or 30 years to embarrass you.
I could never live that kind of life. Has to be torture because you'd feel like you had to wake up and have your thumb on everything, every single day.
Josef, I'm not handing out anything. I'm talking about two - only two - very specific incidents. Not an entire track history of both men and where they've acted nobly or less than honorable.
In the simple comparison of the two things, where they both gave those famous press conferences, I'm talking about the differences between those two. That's all.
In that context, there was a night and day difference.
As for Lay and "support" and all that, fine. I still don't care. If Bush has his own little Whitewater or whatever, then dammit, do something about it. If Democrats are itching for payback, then go get some. Write your Congressperson and demand they look into Bush's dealings.
<strong>I don't think ANYONE here is anywhere close to making Bush seem like the "second coming".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said the second coming of Churchill, not Christ! But I refer not necessarily to posters here, but to the media in general. Since 9/11 (and even before, in some circles) I've heard Bush compared to <a href="http://www.news-journalonline.com/2002/Sep/3/NOTE04.htm"; target="_blank">Churchill</a>, Lincoln, Teddy and FDR, etc.
<strong>Josef, I'm not handing out anything. I'm talking about two - only two - very specific incidents. Not an entire track history of both men and where they've acted nobly or less than honorable.
In the simple comparison of the two things, where they both gave those famous press conferences, I'm talking about the differences between those two. That's all.
In that context, there was a night and day difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, but that's the problem. The night and day difference was not so much in the way the two men handled the press conferences, but in the actual circumstances surrounding those press conferences. That's why I introduced the much more relevant "Ken Lay press conference."
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>As for Lay and "support" and all that, fine. I still don't care. If Bush has his own little Whitewater or whatever, then dammit, do something about it. If Democrats are itching for payback, then go get some. Write your Congressperson and demand they look into Bush's dealings.
I don't care.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're still not understanding my point. I don't care either, and I'm not itching to see Bush's "own little Whitewater." I just wanted to present a more relevant example of Bush's behaviour under similar circumstances to Clinton's. The point of comparison was Clinton's definition of "sexual relations" and Bush's definition of "support."
Why can't you just face the fact that we now have a president who has character, integrity and vision.
Bill Clinton had vision, but he was a flat out criminal. He has no character and almost everything he said in 8 years of public service was dishonest. He was the master communicator. He lied about everything.
Bush is actually a reasonable human being, and he's honest about his faults. See, integrity isn't about the mistakes you made, it's about your willingness to take responsibility and deal with the consequences. Then you move on with your life.
[quote]<strong>Well, of course there was doubt...otherwise he couldn't have lied about it. When people lie beyond the point at which the facts of the case are irrefutable, we've left the realm of dishonesty and entered into pathology. At the very least, there had to be a perception of doubt on Clinton's part, otherwise he never would have tried to extricate himself from his difficulty by misleading the public, no?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Ah, groverat...you give me so little credit! This thread is brimming over with absurd praise and reverence for our ersatz president and his alleged "honesty" and "character," and it really pisses me off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You perceive that, because it isn't there in explicit words. The only way you can see it is to read into it. Simply saying that Bush fessed up isn't saying that Bush is Jesus v2.0.
I certainly never said anything of the sort, yet you were so ready to bemoan the non-existant praise you didn't let that absence get in your way.
[quote]<strong>I just wish people would stop venerating Bush as the second coming of Churchill (literally!).</strong><hr></blockquote>
You see, now you're just going overboard. Please point that out somewhere, anywhere, in this thread.
And you will continue to defend against the spinning windmills that seem to you to be dragons of absurdity.
You see, now you're just going overboard. Please point that out somewhere, anywhere, in this thread.
And you will continue to defend against the spinning windmills that seem to you to be dragons of absurdity.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd say that inventing the story that he came out and said he'd been a drunk driver when in fact he tried to cover it up until he was caught is an example of absurd praise.
Comments
<strong>Again with this. How the hell do you "admit" to something after you're already caught?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the very definition of admitting something. Notice how Clinton didn't admit to the affair after he'd been caught?
You seem to be caught up on this idea of someone giving Bush "credit" or "points" for admitting it. All I said is that his being honest about it took the issue away from the press.
But I suppose if one isn't trying to crucify him they're obviously pumping him up.
<strong>
He certainly didn't go into full-tilt "political weasel" mode or wag his finger and look into the cameras and lie his ass off about it. And then nitpick - with a serious face - the actual meaning of some very simple words like "is", "was" and "drunk driving".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course he didn't, because doing so would have been impossible at that point.
As far as parsing the meanings of simple words, Bush had his very own "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" moment when he feebly attempted to distance himself from "[that man,] Mr. Lay":
<a href="http://www.tpj.org/press_releases/enron.html"; target="_blank">www.tpj.org/press_releases/enron.html</a>
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-06.htm"; target="_blank">www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-06.htm</a>
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "support" is?
<strong>
That's the very definition of admitting something. Notice how Clinton didn't admit to the affair after he'd been caught?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between responding to allegations and getting caught. You're not "caught" until there exists sufficient material evidence such that denial is no longer an option.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
You seem to be caught up on this idea of someone giving Bush "credit" or "points" for admitting it. All I said is that his being honest about it took the issue away from the press. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But he wasn't "honest" about it at all.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
But I suppose if one isn't trying to crucify him they're obviously pumping him up.
False dichotomy.
And there was doubt that Clinton lied? No one on God's green Earth (who wasn't a moron, of course) actually bought Clinton's bullshit. The best defense that could be mounted was "it's not your business." Clinton was caught and he lied and that's why the press hounded him.
Again, you're hung up on this value judgement thing. Let it go.
Clinton lied after being caught and he got grilled for years.
Bush fessed up after being caught and he got grilled for a few months.
No value judgements. No "attaboy"s.
Let that part of it go, you've made it very clear you dislike Dubya, fighting support of his actions where support of his actions doesn't exist. It's a dead horse, no need to beat it more.
[quote]<strong>But he wasn't "honest" about it at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What was dishonest?
Press: "We found your drunk-driving arrest from 30 years ago!"
Dubya: "It was naughty of me, I'm sorry."
[quote]<strong>False dichotomy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I love it when people break out the logic smack.
Nice work.
bush fessed up because there was a police report and he couldn't deny it....clinton lied because there was no police report and he thought he could get away with it...it was stupid and he was wrong...but i still maintain that the question should never have been asked at all...if we ask the same question of bush and he says, "no, i have never cheated on my wife", and then up comes the girls from when he was drinking and coking and his wife was ready to leave him, what happens then??
i am just hopeful that we have turned a page from the past and we will no longer use these questions of all our canidates as a "lithmus" test of morality or character...g
<strong>As far as parsing the meanings of simple words, Bush had his very own "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" moment when he feebly attempted to distance himself from "[that man,] Mr. Lay":
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "support" is?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, guess what, Josef? I don't give two flying damns about Bush. I didn't vote for him, I'm not a huge Bush guy (I was an Alan Keyes man, myself), so if he (Bush) gets nailed somehow in all this corporate stuff and its shown that he did wrong, then do whatever to him that needs to be done.
I'm not about to stand here and ride the Bush ship down to the bottom of the ocean, if that's what you're saying.
Support? I couldn't care less. I "support" him in the sense that he's the President and that's how it goes, but I didn't have "Bush/Cheney" signs in my front yard or bumper stickers on my car.
ALL I'm saying is that in this instance we're actually talking about, he performed a little more admirably than the other guy.
They're ALL rotten-to-the-core shitheads, Josef. You can't go into big-time politics and do what it takes to win without being somewhat of a despicable, conniving shifty-eyed turd of a human.
Don't mistake my pointing out the differences between Bush's DUI thing and Clinton's blowjobs as Limbaugh-approaved, GOP-sanctioned, Right Wing Conspiracy-funded Bush cheerleading.
I've dinged Mr. Bush in these forums several times and I don't intend on voting for him next time around either, so...
<strong>
And there was doubt that Clinton lied? No one on God's green Earth (who wasn't a moron, of course) actually bought Clinton's bullshit. The best defense that could be mounted was "it's not your business." Clinton was caught and he lied and that's why the press hounded him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, of course there was doubt...otherwise he couldn't have lied about it. When people lie beyond the point at which the facts of the case are irrefutable, we've left the realm of dishonesty and entered into pathology. At the very least, there had to be a perception of doubt on Clinton's part, otherwise he never would have tried to extricate himself from his difficulty by misleading the public, no?
"I say it is the moon that shines so bright, [and I did not have sexual relations with that woman.]"
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Again, you're hung up on this value judgement thing. Let it go.
Clinton lied after being caught and he got grilled for years.
Bush fessed up after being caught and he got grilled for a few months.
No value judgements. No "attaboy"s.
Let that part of it go, you've made it very clear you dislike Dubya, fighting support of his actions where support of his actions doesn't exist. It's a dead horse, no need to beat it more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, groverat...you give me so little credit! This thread is brimming over with absurd praise and reverence for our ersatz president and his alleged "honesty" and "character," and it really pisses me off. I just wish people would stop venerating Bush as the second coming of Churchill (literally!). Credit where due, and none otherwise. I will continue to defend common sense against the onslaught of absurdity...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
No DUI, no womanizing, no shady past, no questionable business dealings, no drug use (okay, I enhaled a LITTLE, years ago...but no snorting, injecting, etc. kind of stuff) and no weird family members to embarrass the Office with (no beer-swilling brother, no rock-star-wannabe brother, no alcoholic twin daughters, etc.).
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
But I guess when you take a ding at Mr. Clinton, his supporters pull out the heavy ammo. If you're questioning, dinging or mocking William Jefferson Clinton in any way, that automatically means you're "those OTHER guys".
"Support" indeed...
<strong>
Well, guess what, Josef? I don't give two flying damns about Bush. I didn't vote for him, I'm not a huge Bush guy (I was an Alan Keyes man, myself), so if he (Bush) gets nailed somehow in all this corporate stuff and its shown that he did wrong, then do whatever to him that needs to be done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the topic of the thread intimates that Bush is getting a free ride, and, in the process of arguing otherwise, several people have introduced the subject of Bush's character. You, in particular, criticized Clinton's "that woman" speech in the context of direct comparison to Bush's honesty. I think if you're going to be meting out this kind of criticism, you should do it fairly and evenhandedly. That's all.
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
I'm not about to stand here and ride the Bush ship down to the bottom of the ocean, if that's what you're saying.
Support? I couldn't care less. I "support" him in the sense that he's the President and that's how it goes, but I didn't have "Bush/Cheney" signs in my front yard or bumper stickers on my car.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm afraid you've misread the post. The "support" in question is not your support for Bush, but Ken Lay's support for Bush in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial campaign. I've made no direct comments on your personal support for Bush one way or the other.
You'd almost have to start, the minute you left the womb, making sure everyone around you - friends AND family - are all on the up-and-up and aren't going to do something that can be brought up in 20 or 30 years to embarrass you.
I could never live that kind of life. Has to be torture because you'd feel like you had to wake up and have your thumb on everything, every single day.
Ugh.
In the simple comparison of the two things, where they both gave those famous press conferences, I'm talking about the differences between those two. That's all.
In that context, there was a night and day difference.
As for Lay and "support" and all that, fine. I still don't care. If Bush has his own little Whitewater or whatever, then dammit, do something about it. If Democrats are itching for payback, then go get some. Write your Congressperson and demand they look into Bush's dealings.
I don't care.
<strong>I don't think ANYONE here is anywhere close to making Bush seem like the "second coming".
I said the second coming of Churchill, not Christ! But I refer not necessarily to posters here, but to the media in general. Since 9/11 (and even before, in some circles) I've heard Bush compared to <a href="http://www.news-journalonline.com/2002/Sep/3/NOTE04.htm"; target="_blank">Churchill</a>, Lincoln, Teddy and FDR, etc.
<strong>Josef, I'm not handing out anything. I'm talking about two - only two - very specific incidents. Not an entire track history of both men and where they've acted nobly or less than honorable.
In the simple comparison of the two things, where they both gave those famous press conferences, I'm talking about the differences between those two. That's all.
In that context, there was a night and day difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, but that's the problem. The night and day difference was not so much in the way the two men handled the press conferences, but in the actual circumstances surrounding those press conferences. That's why I introduced the much more relevant "Ken Lay press conference."
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>As for Lay and "support" and all that, fine. I still don't care. If Bush has his own little Whitewater or whatever, then dammit, do something about it. If Democrats are itching for payback, then go get some. Write your Congressperson and demand they look into Bush's dealings.
I don't care.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're still not understanding my point. I don't care either, and I'm not itching to see Bush's "own little Whitewater." I just wanted to present a more relevant example of Bush's behaviour under similar circumstances to Clinton's. The point of comparison was Clinton's definition of "sexual relations" and Bush's definition of "support."
Sorry about that Churchill/Christ mix-up. They both start with "Ch".
<strong>Hmm...okay.
Sorry about that Churchill/Christ mix-up. They both start with "Ch".
Remember in the 80's when people would wear t-shirts with their names pressed on the back with those "soft, puffy" letters?
Don't ask me why I just remembered that.
Why can't you just face the fact that we now have a president who has character, integrity and vision.
Bill Clinton had vision, but he was a flat out criminal. He has no character and almost everything he said in 8 years of public service was dishonest. He was the master communicator. He lied about everything.
Bush is actually a reasonable human being, and he's honest about his faults. See, integrity isn't about the mistakes you made, it's about your willingness to take responsibility and deal with the consequences. Then you move on with your life.
[quote]<strong>Ah, groverat...you give me so little credit! This thread is brimming over with absurd praise and reverence for our ersatz president and his alleged "honesty" and "character," and it really pisses me off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You perceive that, because it isn't there in explicit words. The only way you can see it is to read into it. Simply saying that Bush fessed up isn't saying that Bush is Jesus v2.0.
I certainly never said anything of the sort, yet you were so ready to bemoan the non-existant praise you didn't let that absence get in your way.
[quote]<strong>I just wish people would stop venerating Bush as the second coming of Churchill (literally!).</strong><hr></blockquote>
You see, now you're just going overboard. Please point that out somewhere, anywhere, in this thread.
And you will continue to defend against the spinning windmills that seem to you to be dragons of absurdity.
<strong>
You see, now you're just going overboard. Please point that out somewhere, anywhere, in this thread.
And you will continue to defend against the spinning windmills that seem to you to be dragons of absurdity.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd say that inventing the story that he came out and said he'd been a drunk driver when in fact he tried to cover it up until he was caught is an example of absurd praise.