It's shit like this FOX

[Lobohan]

If William F. Buckley were alive today, he’d tell Starving Artist to go fuck off, and inform him that doddering, incoherent, shitstains have no place in the Republican party. He’d then smash a beer bottle full of urine and cigarette butts over SA’s head.

[elucidator]

Not his urine, of course. He had people for that sort of thing.

[Merijeek]

@Lobohan

If William F. Buckley were alive today, he’d tell Starving Artist to go fuck off, and inform him that doddering, incoherent, shitstains have no place in the Republican party. He’d then smash a beer bottle full of urine and cigarette butts over SA’s head.

Just like his pa, just with less porn?

-Joe

[Starving_Artist]

@Eonwe

As far as I know, neither court has issued a ruling on Clinton v. Nixon, regarding which exhibited “greater disregard for the tenets of law and the Constitution,” so I’ll refrain from judgment.

It is some bizzaro universe, though, in which a person could honestly hold Nixon above Clinton in this regard. Though, maybe you’ve got 18.5 minutes of knowledge that the rest of us don’t that informs your opinion.

If you’re going to start moving goalposts you could at least provide some cheerleaders to help pass the time till you get where you’re going.

I know you think you’ve stumbled upon some clever little trap which you’re trying ever so hard to spring upon me, but the fact is I said nothing about courts and Nixon. I said the Fox opinion piece did nothing worse with the “Impeached president Clinton” lead-in than the MSM did by starting articles on Nixon with “Disgraced former President Nixon.”

And then I noted to another poster that the Supreme Court and the Arkansas bar agreed with me as to the egregiousness of Clinton’s behavior, given that they’ve both seen fit to disbar him for it.

Neither of those have anything to do with whatever it is you’re going on about. If you want to try to create some sort of court contest between Nixon and Clinton, then knock yourself out. Just don’t expect me to play along.

@Lobohan

If William F. Buckley were alive today, he’d tell Starving Artist to go fuck off, and inform him that doddering, incoherent, shitstains have no place in the Republican party. He’d then smash a beer bottle full of urine and cigarette butts over SA’s head.

For some reason I suspect that beer bottles full of urine and cigarette butts have played a larger role in your life than was ever the case in Buckley’s.

[Lobohan]

@Starving_Artist

For some reason I suspect that beer bottles full of urine and cigarette butts have played a larger role in your life than was ever the case in Buckley’s.

If only from working as a doorman at a bar when I was younger, I’d agree with you.

[Kobal2]

@Jas09

How about a headline from a major news outlet that referred to Nixon as “Disgraced Former President Nixon”. Remember, headlines here.

Ah. I gather it’s your first time dancing with** Starving Artist**. Are you in for a treat ! Don’t want to be the one to dash your innocent, dare I say even idealist hopes ; but all you’re ever getting here is “Well I clearly remember them and that’s good enough ! Anyway, gotta run, don’t have time for this”. Which, considering the kind of “facts” Starkers has clearly remembered over the years… yeah.
This will be gollowed a couple hours later by a slick slinking back into the discussion and hammering of the same truthiness as if he’d proven his shit or something.

[elucidator]

The is no such word as “gollowed”, but there oughta be.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Starving_Artist

In my opinion Clinton’s behavior exhibited a greater disregard for the tenets of law and the Constitution much moreso than Nixon’s did. Nixon merely tried to cover up some illegal activity that was unknowingly perpetrated on his behalf; Clinton on the other hand was of the opinion that he could choose to lie deliberately to grand juries and the American people if he deemed it in his best interest to do so. This is a serious offense, especially for a person who was not only President of the United States but an officer of the court as well. And the fact that it is such a serious offense is the reason why he was impeached by Congress, disbarred by Arkansas and forbidden to practice before the Supreme Court. These punishments had nothing to do with Clinton’s having gotten a “blow job” and everything to do with his intentional disregard of the laws of the land, laws which he had sworn both before the Arkansas bar and the American people to uphold.

And this, in a nutshell, is why nobody has ever taken you seriously.

Incidentally, you do know that Nixon was also an officer of the court and was also disbarred, right?

[Enderw24]

@Kobal2

Ah. I gather it’s your first time dancing with** Starving Artist**. Are you in for a treat ! Don’t want to be the one to dash your innocent, dare I say even idealist hopes ; but all you’re ever getting here is “Well I clearly remember them and that’s good enough ! Anyway, gotta run, don’t have time for this”. Which, considering the kind of “facts” Starkers has clearly remembered over the years… yeah.
This will be gollowed a couple hours later by a slick slinking back into the discussion and hammering of the same truthiness as if he’d proven his shit or something.

Slap me silly and call me Sally, because I’ve put on my dancing shoes and I’m ready to boogie down.

@Starving_Artist

I know you think you’ve stumbled upon some clever little trap which you’re trying ever so hard to spring upon me, but the fact is I said nothing about courts and Nixon. I said the Fox opinion piece did nothing worse with the “Impeached president Clinton” lead-in than the MSM did by starting articles on Nixon with “Disgraced former President Nixon.”

Which articles? Where? Links? Cites? Sites? Endnotes? Footnotes? Works Cited? Appendix? Bibliography? Blue Book?

[Taber]

@Starving_Artist

It was significant enough to get him impeached and disbarred.

In my opinion Clinton’s behavior exhibited a greater disregard for the tenets of law and the Constitution much moreso than Nixon’s did. Nixon merely tried to cover up some illegal activity that was unknowingly perpetrated on his behalf; Clinton on the other hand was of the opinion that he could choose to lie deliberately to grand juries and the American people if he deemed it in his best interest to do so. This is a serious offense, especially for a person who was not only President of the United States but an officer of the court as well. And the fact that it is such a serious offense is the reason why he was impeached by Congress, disbarred by Arkansas and forbidden to practice before the Supreme Court. These punishments had nothing to do with Clinton’s having gotten a “blow job” and everything to do with his intentional disregard of the laws of the land, laws which he had sworn both before the Arkansas bar and the American people to uphold.

@Eonwe

Your opinion disgusts me, and I would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.

But, I suppose that, based on this and the general Republican response to the 2000 Florida debacle, you don’t really view election rigging/fraud as a particularly serious issue in a modern Democracy . . .

. . . unless someone might possibly be voting for a Democrat, that is.

@Starving_Artist

In the words of one William F. Buckley, Jr.: “Cancel your own damn subscription!”

Now that we’ve got that over with, does the Arkansas bar and the U.S. Supreme Court disgust you also, for their assessment of his behavior agrees with mine.

@Eonwe

As far as I know, neither court has issued a ruling on Clinton v. Nixon, regarding which exhibited “greater disregard for the tenets of law and the Constitution,” so I’ll refrain from judgment.

It is some bizzaro universe, though, in which a person could honestly hold Nixon above Clinton in this regard. Though, maybe you’ve got 18.5 minutes of knowledge that the rest of us don’t that informs your opinion.

@Starving_Artist

If you’re going to start moving goalposts you could at least provide some cheerleaders to help pass the time till you get where you’re going.

I know you think you’ve stumbled upon some clever little trap which you’re trying ever so hard to spring upon me, but the fact is I said nothing about courts and Nixon. I said the Fox opinion piece did nothing worse with the “Impeached president Clinton” lead-in than the MSM did by starting articles on Nixon with “Disgraced former President Nixon.”

Just quoting this in case anyone missed Starving Artist’s massive strawman here. I kind of want to not explain it because it will be funny when Starving Artist quotes me and misses the point completely, but I guess I’ll provide the paraphrased version to make it more clear:

SA: a verifiable fact, and a very controversial opinion
E: I don’t like your opinion
SA: Here’s a cite for the verifiable fact, and for some reason I’ll pretend that’s what you object to
E: what does that have to do with your opinion?
SA: Moving goalposts! Fallacy! Fallacy!

[Eonwe]

@Starving_Artist

If you’re going to start moving goalposts you could at least provide some cheerleaders to help pass the time till you get where you’re going.

I know you think you’ve stumbled upon some clever little trap which you’re trying ever so hard to spring upon me, but the fact is I said nothing about courts and Nixon.

Um, you’re missing completely the train of communication here.

You said:

@Starving_Artist

In my opinion Clinton’s behavior exhibited a greater disregard for the tenets of law and the Constitution much moreso than Nixon’s did.

. . . about which I expressed my opinion.

Then you responded with:

@Starving Artist

Now that we’ve got that over with, does the Arkansas bar and the U.S. Supreme Court disgust you also, for their assessment of his behavior agrees with mine.

To which I replied, flippantly, and correctly, that the courts have nothing to do with what I said to you; namely that your opinion about the relative badness of Clinton and Nixon is totally out of whack.

You brought up the courts, not I.

My issue is not that you think Clinton committed a horrible wrong, it’s that you think his wrong shows more disrespect for “law and the Constitution” than Nixon’s. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
ETA: Also, what Taber said.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Taber

Just quoting this in case anyone missed Starving Artist’s massive strawman here. I kind of want to not explain it because it will be funny when Starving Artist quotes me and misses the point completely, but I guess I’ll provide the paraphrased version to make it more clear:

SA: a verifiable fact, and a very controversial opinion
E: I don’t like your opinion
SA: Here’s a cite for the verifiable fact, and for some reason I’ll pretend that’s what you object to
E: what does that have to do with your opinion?
SA: Moving goalposts! Fallacy! Fallacy!

You should be grateful. Who else is going to provide us with information like “the standard for disbarment in Arkansas is whether you fucked up worse than Nixon.”