This has degenerated into a pretty silly thread, in my opinion. We’re basically arguing over which politician is in which circle of hell.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
This has degenerated into a pretty silly thread, in my opinion. We’re basically arguing over which politician is in which circle of hell.
[/QUOTE]
GWB is the salt on Judas Iscariot.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
We’re basically arguing over which politician is in which circle of hell.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that what the thread title says, and what the OP is about? 
Again, Clinton’s problem wasn’t just lying - it was corruption. I posted cites of the 1996 Chinagate issues and the pardon problems. Like I said before, I don’t particularly believe honest Democrats support the fundraising mess or the Marc Rich pardon - nor Hugh Rodham’s pay-for-play pardon advocacy. And they can oppose these even if they preferred Clinton to either Bush or Dole in the elections for good policy reasons.
If you don’t want to hand ammo to Republicans by agreeing with this - that’s your choice. That choice, though, helped enable this behavior and kept it going through two presidential terms, a Senate career, and yet another presidential run. So you have to decide how far your support will go.
I think it’s the end of the road for most people - nearly all Republicans and most of the Democratic Party. Took long enough, though.
I guess so, if you switch the clauses.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
One Clinton official?
When you lie, it’s usually best to do so in cases where there are not readily available government documents to expose your duplicity.
From the GAO report, “Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition,” (June 2002). PDF document):Bolding mine.
[/quote]
Just to point something out - we were talking about vandalism and damage.
Indeed, which is much to your credit.
Note that none of the five could offer any comparison of how similar the damage and vandalism was between 1993 and 2001, since they did not observe the 2001 vandalism.
This is the part I was talking about, but you are correct - it was not a Clinton official.
Again, vandalism was observed in 2001 and not in 1993.
Again, not vandalism, which is what we were talking about.
Here again you are closer to right than I. The rest of the folks you quoted didn’t see the 2001 vandalism.
Gosh, do ya think? 
I would maintain that there is a significant difference between saving backup tapes and deliberately trashing keyboards. YMMV.
I was responding to this -
Which is, of course, false.
Regards,
Shodan
Real property usually doesn’t reference computer keyboards and such. It usually means land and structures.
BrainGlutton, mhendo linked earlier to a 2002 GAO report clearly showing that there was damage. How does your news story from 2001 disprove that? As a general rule the most recent information is more trustworthy.
It is especially so in this case, as the investigation by the GAO into this matter was pretty extensive, and shows not only that much of the damage in 2001 was deliberate, but that it was pretty limited in scope.
Doesn’t the fairly recent rise of intrusive TV media color this “who is the biggest politician liar” discussion a bit? Nixon didn’t face the same level of scrutiny and the constant barrage of questions, press conferences, cameras follwing his every move, etc in the 60’s and 70’s that current politicians face, right?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I posted cites of the 1996 Chinagate issues and the pardon problems.
[/QUOTE]
Which I appreciate, by the way.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
When you lie, it’s usually best to do so in cases where there are not readily available government documents to expose your duplicity.
[/QUOTE]
In this Forum, it is better to simply indicate the inaccuracy of one’s opponent’s statements. Hurling the accusation of “lying” is prohibited, here.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Sorry, I somehow dropped this little gem above from my previous response.
This from Wiki:
“He [Nixon] provided an independent third-party review of the [alleged slush] fund’s accounting along with a personal summary of his finances, which he cited as exonerating him from wrongdoing, and he noted the Democratic Presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson, had a similar fund.”
And Siam Sam, my memories go back to the days of Harry Truman. I have no recollection of Nixon being regarded as a prolific and demonstrable liar during any of his campaigns, vice-presidencies or presidencies prior to the Watergate era.
Further, I have no recollection of any of Nixon’s friends and supporters turning against him because of how easily and frequently he lied, as longtime supporter David Geffen has done with the Clintons. I have no recollection of his stating some bald-faced lie and then having forensic evidence prove it. I have no recollection of one ‘bimbo’ after another ‘erupting’ with demonstrable evidence of their veracity and having it denied time after time after time, despite evidence even from law enforcement personnel who were pressed into service to facilitate the occasions that eventually erupted.
The thing about the Clintons is that they use lies as an integral part of their operating strategy. They don’t lie just to cover things up, or to get out of some sort of trouble – they lie proactively in order to facilitate their ambitions.
They have always counted on getting away with it for three reasons: One, a pro-Democrat MSM that didn’t publicize their lies because it was more interested in seeing a Democrat win the presidency; two, they could lie to this or that constituency or special-interest group on a local level and then tell the exact opposite to someone else, and because these concerns were local the speeches never gained national attention; and three, they count upon the ignorance and gullibility of the people their audiences and know that virtually anything they say will be gobbled up at face value because most people aren’t as tuned in as we are here at the Dope.
But Internet technology has changed all that. Blogs, and news outlets not so partial to the left, have proliferated and now all their dishonest machinations are being exposed for all to see.
Hillary found herself virtually constrained in the early stages of the campaign from making any definitive statement as to what she’d do about anything as president because every time she did, evidence would immediately be brought forth that she’d said the exact opposite at some other time. This is what led to the equivocation and double-speak that so characterized her the early stages of her campaign.
And they still don’t get it. They blunder about saying this and that load of hooey to whoever they’re speaking to that day and then seem gobsmacked when a national furor erupts the next day.
The impression all this creates is that they must believe down to their very souls that to tell the truth is self-defeating and that the only way they can win is to lie. Then, like a demonstrable child who can’t speak when told to sit on their hands, they are left mute when faced with having to speak honestly. It’s the only thing they know, and given that fresh lies erupt on an almost daily basis, it looks like they’ve decided to just 'go with what brung ‘em’ and ride that ship of prevarication all the way to the bottom.
[/QUOTE]
Truman called Nixon Tricky Dicki. That igo back far enough. He was red baiting for his entire career.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Truman called Nixon Tricky Dicki. That igo back far enough. He was red baiting for his entire career.
[/QUOTE]
You sure about that?
This from Wikipedia:
“In the 1950 mid-term elections, Nixon defeated Democratic Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas to win a seat in the United States Senate. Nixon called Gahagan “the Pink Lady”, accusing her of being a fellow traveler with Communist sympathies, and said she was “pink right down to her underwear.” Gahagan, for her part, bestowed upon Nixon one of the most enduring nicknames in American politics: “Tricky Dick”.”
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Gahagan, for her part, bestowed upon Nixon one of the most enduring nicknames in American politics: “Tricky Dick”."
[/QUOTE]
Now, what was that about a reputation that you were saying didn’t exist?
[QUOTE=Frank]
Now, what was that about a reputation that you were saying didn’t exist?
[/QUOTE]
It still stands.
I said Nixon didn’t have the reputation that the Clintons have, which is that of constant, blatant (and apparently shameless) lying. I never said that someone he defeated in a senate race didn’t call him names.
Much more ignorance could be fought around here (or at least less of it perpetuated) if people weren’t constantly misconstruing things other people say.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I said Nixon didn’t have the reputation that the Clintons have, which is that of constant, blatant (and apparently shameless) lying. I never said that someone he defeated in a senate race didn’t call him names.
Much more ignorance could be fought around here (or at least less of it perpetuated) if people weren’t constantly misconstruing things other people say.
[/QUOTE]
It was an enduring nickname. There’s a reason for that.
Much more ignorance could be fought around here (or at least less of it perpetuated) if people weren’t constantly blind to the facts of history that don’t mesh with their personal agenda.
[QUOTE=Frank]
It was an enduring nickname. There’s a reason for that.
[/quote]
Lots of politicians are tricky. Even the beloved Ronald Reagan was known to have left certain members of congress shaking their heads and wondering how he managed to either slip one by them or do an end-around by going over their heads to the people in order to get legislation passed (Tip O’Neil, are you listening?..Oh, yeah…guess not.)
[QUOTE=Frank]
Much more ignorance could be fought around here (or at least less of it perpetuated) if people weren’t constantly blind to the facts of history that don’t mesh with their personal agenda.
[/QUOTE]
Their is more than enough blindness to facts that don’t mesh with personal (and political) agendas around here on both sides.
Still, it would be delightful (and extremely rare) if I only had to defend what I have actually said. This very thread is a perfect example of how goalposts get shifted around here. I say [in another thread] that no other major politician in my lifetime has had the Clintons’ reputation for constant, shameless and bald-faced lying, and suddenly I’m confronted with allegations that this or that [invariably Republican] politician told a bigger lie, or a more important lie, or had a more dishonest character, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
To me this indicates that no real rebuttal is available, but, not liking what they hear and determined to win on some level, my opponents mischaracterize what I’ve actually said and then expect me to justify my comments in light of those mischaracterizations, and Starvy just don’t play that.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Still, it would be delightful (and extremely rare) if I only had to defend what I have actually said. This very thread is a perfect example of how goalposts get shifted around here. I say [in another thread] that no other major politician in my lifetime has had the Clintons’ reputation for constant, shameless and bald-faced lying, and suddenly I’m confronted with allegations that this or that [invariably Republican] politician told a bigger lie, or a more important lie, or had a more dishonest character, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
To me this indicates that no real rebuttal is available, but, not liking what they hear and determined to win on some level, my opponents mischaracterize what I’ve actually said and then expect me to justify my comments in light of those mischaracterizations, and Starvy just don’t play that.
[/QUOTE]
Nixon’s rep was and is worse than the Clinton’s. That’s not an allegation; it’s the truth. You’ve attempted no rebuttal. You’ve merely insisted that it ain’t so, and you’re wrong.
Starvy, it must be a hoot to play football with you. The game’s in overtime, we line up on the line of scrimage, snap the play, make a long pass, and throw it into the endzone. Touchdown. We win.
SA: “Why are you holding out your hand?”
Us: “Ummm…because it’s traditional at the end of the game to shake hands.”
SA: “Yeah, I know that, but so what? The game’s not over.”
Us: “Ummm…yes, it is. We just scored the winning touchdown in overtime.”
SA: “No you didn’t.”
Us: “What?”
SA: “You didn’t score a touchdown.”
Us: “Yes we did. Look, they’re showing a replay on the jumbo screen right now.”
SA: “That’s a different game.”
Us: “A different game? Look, that’s you right there on the screen.”
SA: “They must have photoshopped me in there.”
Us: “Right. Whatever. We’re leaving now. Better luck next time.”
SA: “If you leave in the middle of a game it’s a forfeit. We win.”
Us: “Tell that the score keeper. But you better hurry. He’s already left.”
SA: “You can’t just walk out like this.”
Us: “Game over, man. Bye.”
SA: “Well, then go ahead and quit. History will vindicate me and show that I won.”