Dear Partisan scandalmeisters of America:

I think what UncleBeer is going toward is that (and correct me if I’m wrong) no other president lied under oath about it.

As far as I’m concerned, Reagan lied to the American public during Iran-Contra (I never did buy how bad his memory was), and Bush Sr. with his “Read my lips: No new taxes” was either a liar or a fool. The current incumbent seems to have lied about the infamous weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At this point, it’ll be news to me when a top-level politician doesn’t lie to the American, be he Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian.

I swear I’m wearing my “Just once I’d like to vote for the greater of two goods” button next time I vote.


Then he should have said that.

Siege: where did you get that button? I want one too.

To play devil’s advocate, perhaps he avoided answering the question because he and every other politician today knows inherently well how badly they get crucified by partisan scandalmeisters by dredging up stupid irrelevant shit they did 20 years ago that has zero to do with their ability to govern?

Maybe it does show a prediliction for weasely behavior…or maybe it’s just knowing full well the politician has nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting to having human foibles and being a dumbass kid who experimented with things that weren’t necessarily smart choices, just like 99.9% of us were.

Clinton smoked pot (even though he allegedly didn’t inhale) and admitted it…see how far that got him?

What I never understood was why people seemed to be surprised that Clinton lied under oath. He’s a politician. That’s his job.

UncleBeer, even granting your premise (generously), that information was weighed and decided upon by We the People on Election Day. Twice.

But did you guys accept that? No, that would require some sense of responsibility.

Cerri, you may be right about Bush’s, er, Rove’s motivations. The comment was directed toward those willfully-ignorant souls who don’t think the past incidents ever even happened - they certainly have not weighed and judged its significance.

“Spock, what does that mean?”
“Just a moment Captain, I will run it through my tricorder.”

“Hurry man!”

“It appears Captain, that there will not actually be a cite forthcoming.”

Average American: Ya know, my guess is the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Psycho Pirate: Cite?

Average American: Hey look at the eastern sky. There’s good ol’ Mr. Sun.

Psycho Pirate: So I guess there will not be a cite forthcoming?

Would it help if I went to my sister’s home page, wrote “Bush Jr. Did Coke” with a nifty graphic, and posted a link to that very home page in this post? Would that be satisfactory? Hmmmmm?


Sorry. These “cite?” idiots get me every time.

If Its On The Internet - It Must Be True!

Wha – ?

Surely as a Cambrian you should understand that! (Me being an Oxonian, I’d feel the same way if he’d have gone to Cambridge ;)).

I do not think [cite] means what you think it means…

It wasn’t Psycho Pirate who said that, Blassie - but the scorn is appropriate anyway.

Jimmy cracked corn, and we didn’t care.

Perhaps ‘surprised’ would be better - I didn’t realise other people knew this :smiley:

Weirddave, just saying we haven’t agreed on a whole lot over the years besides being stuck on the subway with Superdude being a new kind of Hell.

No, actually I wasn’t trying to go anywhere. Except to say that there is legitimate reason to doubt the man’s judgment skills. While others obviously disagree, I think his lack of judgment displayed in one area can be reasonably expected to demonstrate a “global” trait.

No shit, dumbfuck. However, I did accept it when it happened—I didn’t try to impeach the guy. It’s you assholes that keep insisting that Bush isn’t the president now that seem to have problems accepting reality. Maybe you can use the same low tactic on Bush II the 'Pubbies used against Gray in California.

He lied about whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Scorn if you must, but the fact that nobody can provide any proof, any evidence, anything other than an implication that George W. Bush did cocaine speaks volumes.

Let’s say I said, ‘Bill Clinton eats babies.’ Now, Bill Clinton could say, “I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.” So he didn’t deny it outright. Does that make it true?

I’ve just never understood the accusation that George W. Bush did cocaine. I mean, if you want to use ammunition against the guy, he had a bit of a drinking problem. Isn’t that enough without making stuff up?

It appears that many merely want to believe that he did cocaine. So in this case, these individuals aren’t going to let facts (or a distinct lack thereof) get in the way of their desire to believe something.

Blassie, feel free to relabel “A Treatment” as “A Strawman”. Comparing a proven, observable fact with a non-proven, partisan accusation is unfair at best.

“the fact that nobody can provide any proof, any evidence, anything other than an implication that George W. Bush did cocaine speaks volumes.” How many volumes does his refusal to deny it speak, Blinkerboy? You’re also not getting the implication of his usage - it isn’t about that, and not entirely about his weaseling, but about the partisan hypocrisy of people like you, who willingly ignored it but who were willing to scrutinize and condemn Clinton for a single toke. You want moral credibility, you gotta earn it.

Lib, read a little more closely.

UncleBeer, did you oppose the impeachment? Or the years-long search for something to get him for? No? Then it would be wise to shut up now. Just to clarify a point you’re still having trouble with: Clinton was elected legitimately, and twice. Bush was neither. Yes, that matters - it’s called “democracy”. If that was too complicated for you, please say so and there will be a lot of people glad to help explain it for you.

Okay, I’ll try again…

[…reading carefully…]

Okay, my response:

He lied about whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

[sub]What did I miss?[/sub]