Sorry for the coding error there - I have too little patience for Preview, I know.
Libertarian, I’m sure you’re not really a bad guy at heart, and you do hold certain things dear - a quality too much in shortage here. But you do fly off into space fairly often, for whatever reason, and the reason is only my business because you’ve made it so. Frankly, given the OP, it’s not easy for me to care any more than that. But you’ve offered a gracious retraction, and it is required of me to accept it as graciously as I can, which I do.
Scylla has no excuse for his own behavior that I’m aware of, though, and has never been able to offer any kind of retraction of his own habitual slanders. He’s on his own, not only in front of us humans but in front of God.
Good thing I wasn’t drinking any soda when I read that.
**
Umm, I don’t think so. See, there’s a concept out there known as “truth.” I realize that you are unfamiliar with this concept, but trust me - truth is, generally speaking, a complete defense to slander.
Too bad you have too little patience for facts too.
The Lord is my Shepherd. I require squat. He lets me crash on his freshly mown grass, He rubs grease on my head. He gives me Kung Fu in the face on my enemies
His rod and his staff are kickass, and though I’m in the darkest corner of the Port authority Bus Terminal with a thick roll in my jeans, I ain’t sweating shit.
I really haven’t retracted anything. I’ve stated that I regret being so mean to you, but that’s not something I can retract. I can only apologize for it.
The fact remains that Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Whether you will accept the opinion of the court is up to you. But Clinton accepted it and paid his contempt fine. If only for that, he deserves respect.
In my opinion, it is the hallmark of intelligence and integrity that a man will change his mind when faced with a compelling argument. You alone can make your decisions, and you alone must live with them and the reputation they bring you.
Libertarian, fair enough, but the conclusion you’re sure about isn’t obvious, and it is far, far from just me who thinks so. This is being discussed in the “partisan scandalmeisters” thread right now, and was much more extensively discussed at the time. There are, in fact, numerous legal analyses that are widely available either right in GD or elsewhere that make the topic of perjury a pretty murky, dubious one, even if the propriety of the context is accepted. It is not a “fact” except to those who already wish to think so, any more than it is a “fact” that Iraq represented an imminent threat to US security.
I am quite contented to let my reputation rest on a willingness to explore facts directly, and not simply take on faith anyone else’s analysis, even that of the un-disinterested judge in a political case. I am also quite contented to continue pointing out the amorality of equating any such statement, in or out of context, with starting a war. But the hyenas in this thread are doing just that elsewhere, and fuck 'em all, ya know?
Manhattan and lucwarm, put up or shut up. As it is, you’re hurting your cause, both politically and personally, with this factless invective, not helping it. If you did have facts to bring to the table, perhaps you’d still be in GD, instead of crouching and sniveling in a corner of the Pit. Scylla, I’ve given up on trying to figure out your thinking. Perhaps you ought to reconsider just who you’re trying to convince, and of what, m’kay?
I refer you to IzzyR’s thread, where your dishonesty was demonstrated both carefully and clearly. Would you like me to quote from that thread?
**
Let’s get one thing straight: I didn’t post in this thread with any viewpoint in mind about Clinton, perjury, etc.
I posted purely to share my view that you are the most dishonest poster I’ve ever encountered on this board.
I have no idea what you perceive my “cause” to be, but for all I know, you could be right about Clinton. I don’t really care, because this thread is about you, not about Clinton.
**
The only fact I’m presenting is the fact that you are a lying weasel. And that belongs here in the Pit.
Libertarian, that’s the “lying” I’ve been referring to all along, under that assumption that those professing to be upset about Clinton’s “lying under oath” meant perjury. Do you mean something different? What other normal meaning is there, in this context? I’ve stipulated his evasiveness and full use of legal technicalities already, while pointing out that the circumstances actually required that of him as they would of any defendant for whom a trap is being set.
There are no other posts here requiring replies, since they say all that is necessary about their posters.
I’m just curious about how and where you’re drawing your bright moral line. Is it in the gap you’ve discovered somehow between “lying under oath” and “perjury”, or are you including all lying regardless of context, or somewhere else in the range? I’m really not clear on what standard you’re using, and if it’s in that little gap (if it even exists), it does somehow look, well, case-dependent, ya know?
ElvisL1ves, I sincerely wish to thank you for your contributions in this thread. I think that, because of your posts, I’m finally starting to understand logistical analysis behind moon hoax theorists. It’s been an eye opener.
