Could we have a little golden rule session for Reagan and Clinton fans?

[Shodan]

@Stoid

That there wasn’t enough evidence of a single crime to indict Clinton is as close to proving a negative as you can get in this life.

Thanks for clearing that up. I look forward to your public statement that, since Bush has not been convicted (or indicted) of malfeasance of any sort while in office, he is completely innocent of everything people accuse him of.

Right?

Oh, and by the by, Clinton was indicted. Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment. Therefore, since Clinton was indicted and Bush has not been, by your standards Bush is more ethical than Clinton! And therefore your little jest above has been disproven. Ooopsie!

Oh, and rjung -

Later, when they were placed under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case, two of the troopers took back everything they told me.

Do you have a cite to show that the admitted liar Brock is actually telling the truth here? I am not willing to take his word for things without documentation. And he mentions that two of the troopers allegedly took back what they claimed - do you have a cite as to what the others said?

Regards,
Shodan

[Stoid]

What ** rjung ** said, AND

Good lord, SA, are you kidding? What of substance do you see in this list of yours? It’s almost entirely about his sex life, which he is welcome to lie about, since it is no one’s business but his and hilary’s!

This attempt to tar the man as a worthless, lying, scheming, manipulative bastard that can’t be trusted because of lies he told about his sex life never ceases to astonish me. Especially since it’s generally coming from people who have managed to completely deny and ignore the truly damaging and terrifying lies being told by our current government. The kind of lies that actually lead to pain, suffering and death.

But back to Clinton. If they are anything like the average American male, it’s a safe bet that anywhere from 60-80% of our presidents have cheated on their wives and lied about it. We know for sure about many of them. Does that mean that everything they ever did or said was not trustworthy? Is this really the standard you have for your leaders, marital fidelity?

It was never our business what Clinton did with his penis. Sex is a unique and uniquely personal area of life that really has little or no bearing on who we are in other contexts, and since you don’t appear to be stupid, SA, I feel secure that you know this.

By the way, before you even try to go there: the fact that Clinton participated in extramarital relations and lied about it (which we know for sure he did both before and after he was elected) does not even come CLOSE to proving that he is guilty of anything which can be labeled sexual misconduct. (harassment, rape, attempted rape, etc.) One does not flow from the other, no matter how much you’d like to connect them. That’s the kind of stupid thinking that makes homophobes rant that homosexuality leads to beastiality and child porn.

Furthermore, have you ever told a lie in your life, SA? (yes) Does that make you a liar? Do you know anyone who has ever lied? (yes, pretty much everyone) Does that make them all liars?

A little consistency and fairness would be so welcome.

I’ll offer some: if you came to me with irrefutable evidence that Bush spends every night with 14 hookers who rub him down with the urine of virgins while he blows Cheney, I’d tell you to put that stuff away and shut up about it. Ain’t our business, and doesn’t mean a thing. I don’t care, it doesn’t factor into it.

So, since the sexual bits have no bearing on anything, what are we left with? Let’s see:

**

d) “There was the issue of the travel office.”**

Really? What “issue” was that? What was teh great evil done here? Ken Starr didn’t find anything, what have you got? Do you even KNOW what “Travelgate” was? If every accusation turned out to be stone cold true, what would we have? A little cronyism…and of course, no president has ever been guilty of that! :rolleyes:

**
e) “Hillary’s lottery-scale profits in the stock market; questionable billings from her law firm”**

Wow. If making money from investments is a crime, a whole lot of people are in big trouble! Can we start our investigations with Dick and George, please? And what is meant by “questionable”? Padding? Evidence, please? Oh, you don’t have any? What a shock!

**
f) “files that disappeared, later to surface in the White House itself”**

The Case of the Disappearing Reappearing Files! OoooooooWEeeeeeOOOOo… I see a Twilight zone episode, don’t you? And what’s the problem with this again?

** g) “Vince Foster’s odd death”**

Yeah, suicide is odd, isn’t it? Why would someone want to kill themselves? That almost never happens. The 30,000 people per year who do it are just making it’s 11th place showing in causes of death a freak occurance, year after year.

**
h) “Susan MacDougal’s going to prison rather than testify as to what she knew”**

And why would she do that, do you suppose? Maybe because there was nothing to “know”? Don’t you think that, given her own conviction, she would be more likely to actually talk if there was anything to talk about? Why do you (and Ken Starr) conclude that because she doesn’t say what you want her to, that’s she’s lying? Why would she suffer that way? What is your leap of logic here?

**

i) “pardoning an FBI top 10 fugitive on his last night in office”
**

Sneaky bastard. Wanna talk about other presidents’ pardons?

**
k) “This is clearly a man who is inclined to do whatever he wants, as long as he believes no one can prove he did it.”
**

You must be talking about King Bush, because Clinton couldn’t wipe his ass without Ken Starr issuing a subpeona for toilet paper.
Why don’t you just own and admit that you personally dislike Clinton? You’re allowed. You don’t have to try and prove that you have a good reason, it’s your business. But your list, which is stratched to the point of breaking and snapping you in the fact, is a joke.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

I look forward to your public statement that, since Bush has not been convicted (or indicted) of malfeasance of any sort while in office, he is completely innocent of everything people accuse him of.

That was more than usually childish. Has Bush been subjected to a criminal investigation at all, much less one with infinite time and funding devoted to finding something to get him for? No? Why not? What would have happened if he were, do ya think?

Oh, and by the by, Clinton was indicted. Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment.

Been over that enough times, too. Impeachment is a political procedure having nothing at all to do with the legal system. Read the definition in the frickin’ Constitution. Yes, we know it was portrayed as just a special court for officeholders during the witch hunt by those persons, like yourself, who wanted to think it was a legitimate and solemn duty of state, and not a personal act of spite. It is certainly not surprising that you’d continue to hold to that comforting view. But the facts (ooh, those pesky facts again) say otherwise.

Do you have a cite to show that the admitted liar Brock is actually telling the truth here?

Do you have a cite that he was actually telling the truth then? What, pray tell, is the default conclusion? Yes, we know, the default *for you * is that Clinton is simply evil - except that’s not the conclusion, but the premise.

I am not willing to take his word for things without documentation.

Funniest thing you’ve written in a long time.

Regards,
ElvisL1ves

[Stoid]

@Shodan

Thanks for clearing that up. I look forward to your public statement that, since Bush has not been convicted (or indicted) of malfeasance of any sort while in office, he is completely innocent of everything people accuse him of.

Right?

You bet! After the 4 or so years of investigations are completed by a Democratic special prosecutor with 80 million dollars to spend and he comes up empty, I shall concede. I eagerly look forward to it! I will here and now make the public promise to send you a bottle of Cristal champagne with my apologies written in my blood on that day.

**
[size=1]Oh, and by the by, Clinton was indicted. Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment. Therefore, since Clinton was indicted and Bush has not been, by your standards Bush is more ethical than Clinton! And therefore your little jest above has been disproven. Ooopsie!**

For lying about the blowjob, (tarted up as something far more nefarious, yes, but it boiled down to the sex) which he did and we all know about it. Ooopsie!

** Oh, and rjung -
Do you have a cite to show that the admitted liar Brock is actually telling the truth here? I am not willing to take his word for things without documentation. **

Betcha good money you were all over it when you liked what he was saying.

[rjung]

It must be so luxurious to be a right-wing Bush apologist – you don’t need to be consistent or logical in your views.

When someone comes out to derail your ideologies, you simply toss some mud on 'em, even if it’s the same person you were upholding as a paragon of virtue the day before. David Brock, Paul O’Neil, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward – you’re only as trustworthy as the last time you lied for them…

[AHunter3]

On the 16th, on an earlier page of this thread, I wrote:

Actually, I must say that I’ve seen/felt a marked decrease in bashing lately from the conservatives on the board directed towards liberal and/or Democratic politicians

A general trend does not inhibit the occurrence of exceptions.

[Shodan]

@rjung

It must be so luxurious to be a right-wing Bush apologist – you don’t need to be consistent or logical in your views.

When someone comes out to derail your ideologies, you simply toss some mud on 'em, even if it’s the same person you were upholding as a paragon of virtue the day before. David Brock, Paul O’Neil, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward – you’re only as trustworthy as the last time you lied for them…

I’ll take this as a “No”, then, shall I?

Or, more accurately, “No, I have no way to verify if Brock is telling the truth this time, and took what he said at face value because he is now slamming conservatives. And I will try to cover up my partisan gullibility by accusing others of exactly what I do myself.”

Better luck next time.

Regards,
Shodan

[rjung]

@Shodan

Or, more accurately, “No, I have no way to verify if Brock is telling the truth this time, and took what he said at face value because he is now slamming conservatives. And I will try to cover up my partisan gullibility by accusing others of exactly what I do myself.”

Hey, you’re the one accusing him of being untrustworthy; why aren’t you bringing forth the evidence to back up that claim? After all, this is no different than when George W. Bush says something stupid; it’s up to the Bush-critics to drag out the cites for why he’s lying yet again, instead of asking apologists like yourself to explain why we should trust him.

But then, this train of thought requires consistency in logic, which… well, I’ve covered that already in my earlier message.

[Shodan]

@rjung

Hey, you’re the one accusing him of being untrustworthy; why aren’t you bringing forth the evidence to back up that claim?

I didn’t have to; your own cite does it.

@David Brock

I understand that what I’m saying now inevitably raises credibility questions, but I think that what I’m doing is more honorable than concealing my past, sweeping it under the rug and moving on.

In other words, “I was lying then - but I am telling the truth now. Honest!”

@ElvisL1ves

Do you have a cite to show that the admitted liar Brock is actually telling the truth here?

Do you have a cite that he was actually telling the truth then?

Well, I have only read The Real Anita Hill and Brock’s biography of Hilary, so I can only comment on those two instances of “then”. But, yup, particularly in the case of Anita Hill, Brock documents the chronology very extensively, with references to the public record and the hearings at nearly every point. So it makes sense to believe Brock when he can prove what he says, but to withhold belief when he makes statements off the cuff without proof.

Or maybe he lies about everything and anything, the way Clinton did. That helps rjung’s silly mistake not at all. If Brock is always lying, then rjung is citing one known and proven liar to defend another known and proven liar. And falling back on his usual ad hominems in embarassment.

Again, in the cite provided, Brock is confronted with an example of his making a very serious accusatoin, but not being able to prove it.

In the confirmation hearings this past year for South Carolina District Court Judge Terry Wooten you alleged he improperly reviewed FBI files to dig up dirt on a woman accusing Clarence Thomas of harassment during his confirmation hearings. After FBI interviews, it was shown that you had lied about these allegations and Judge Wooten was confirmed. Why should anyone trust you now when it has been proven conclusively that you will lie in order to get in the headlines?

David Brock: The FBI investigation of Judge Wooten was inconclusive. My allegations were not disproven. It was a matter of Wooten’s word against mine, so the FBI couldn’t resolve it.

Same thing as here. Brock made an accusation, and couldn’t back it up (there was no evidence that Wooten had improperly reviewed files - only the accusation). Does it make sense to believe Brock when he has no proof of his allegations? Not in my opinion. Would it make sense if he had been able to document what he said? Sure.

Which is why I asked rjung to show that Brock should be believed in this instance. Which he was apparently unable to do. Therefore we have only an accusation from someone who has admitted to being unreliable in the past.

It’s not that much different than the SDMB. Someone makes a claim. Someone else says, “Cite?” No credible cite is forthcoming. The OP comes from someone who is admittedly unreliable, and has confessed to misrepresentation for political purposes in the past. Who do you believe?

And, depending on how you answer, we get yet another example of what we see so often on the SDMB. The Usual Suspects will claim loudly that Clinton is pure as the driven snow, because he was never convicted in a court of law. Then, without a second’s hesitation, they switch immediately to condemnations of politicians with whom they disagree as the scum of the earth, despite the fact that those politicians were never convicted in a court of law - or even indicted or impeached.

And then we spend the rest of the thread watching the more hysterical partisans flip-flopping from one standard to another with the agility of the committed hypocrite.

Occasionally entertaining, but rarely productive.

Regards,
Shodan

[Stoid]

Dance around a little more, Shodan.

@Shodan

**
Or maybe he lies about everything and anything, the way Clinton did. **

What did Clinton lie about that wasn’t sex-related? Please see my earlier post before answering.

** The Usual Suspects will claim loudly that Clinton is pure as the driven snow, because he was never convicted in a court of law. **

Shodan shodan shodan…lying about words that are plainly written only a few lines before yours just makes you look silly.

I don’t get it when posters do the kind of cherry picking you do in order to make your point. Who exactly do you think you’re kidding? Some little fan club that doesn’t read any posts except yours?

[Stoid]

Do you suppose our artist actually starved to death?

[Starving_Artist]

No such luck, my friend.

Just lying low to tend to a few aspects outside the SDMB, you know…like life! If artists don’t produce, they really do starve, you know.

[Shodan]

@Stoid

What did Clinton lie about that wasn’t sex-related? Please see my earlier post before answering.

Read my earlier post to figure out why I think you aren’t worthy of an answer.

@Stoid

I don’t get it when posters do the kind of cherry picking you do in order to make your point. Who exactly do you think you’re kidding? Some little fan club that doesn’t read any posts except yours?

I am sure there are lots of things you don’t get. My audience is largely those who do get things, even when those things contradict their settled view of the world.

You’re not capable of understanding things that do that. Like a lot of other of the less rational voices on the SDMB, you have a view of the universe that no evidence will correct. Thus it is pointless to pretend that you are capable of debate.

Stop expecting to be treated seriously. You aren’t that sort.

Regards,
Shodan

[Starving_Artist]

@Shodan

You’re not capable of understanding things that do that. Like a lot of other of the less rational voices on the SDMB, you have a view of the universe that no evidence will correct. Thus it is pointless to pretend that you are capable of debate.

Stop expecting to be treated seriously. You aren’t that sort.

Regards,
Shodan

Very well said.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Stoid, Shodan, please take this tiff to the Pit. A few digs here and there I can understand, but if you really want to get into it this isn’t the place.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Given the convergence of two things I read tonight for the first time (one being the second page of this thread) I thought I would post this blog story about Lisa Myers. It describes how she misrepresented audiotaped discussion regarding Hillary Clinton’s billing practices to make it look more incriminating.

I never knew what a low-life piece of crap Lisa Myers was. Huh. I guess we should have been talking about the conservative media all this time.