No. I don’t care what happens to these two individuals. I do care about what happens to society when it follows and adopts bad values.
BTW I’m quite successful in my chosen field.
It would appear that your chosen field is posting partisan snippets from the papers with the any portion that might contradict your carefully groomed message artfully omitted. Partisanship and bias can be accepted–the submission of a part of a news article represented as the whole, or without disclosure of the omission is deceitful and reprehensible. In my business it is called misleading the court and will get your license jerked unless you can show that it happened by inadvertence or through incompetence. You don’t even have that sorry excuse.
“Yep, I intentionally left out that pathetic excuse for an excuse. I figured some Clinton toady would mention it.”
You may just have gone too far this time.
As I tried to point out, the excuse sounds lame. Doesn’t it sound fishy that someone can give the President an expensive gift, the gift can go unreported, and the President can use his official position to do favors for the donor? Then, years later, after the First Family has used it, the gift finally gets reported as it goes to the Clinton Library.
Is the excuse legally valid? What are the actual reporting requirements in the law? At what point does an intention to donate something to their own library relieve the Clinton’s of that requirement? Is it even technically legal not to report these gifts. After all, these expensive objects were indeed giifts given to the President. It was his decision to send them to the Library, not the donors’ decision.
Even if it’s technically legal to keep the gifts secret, it’s disgusting. It evades the point of the law. That’s why even the liberal New York Times calls it “potentially embarassing.” That’s why the director of the Contressional Accountability Project said, “It’s a serious allegation if it’s true.”
BTW don’t forget that some of the Clinton last-minute pardonees tried to keep their payoffs secret by making them gifts to the Clinton Library. Since the Clintons will control the Library during their lifetime, a gift to the Clinton Library isn’t very different from a gift to the Clintons.
AND??? So what?
Ask me if I care.
Pay no attention to the economy circling the drain; Look over there it’s Osama!! No, over there, it’s Saddam!! Look, way back two years ago, it’s Clinton!!
It’s Still The Economy, Stupid!!
Hmm, under December’s logic, we should now all be looking up all the “bribes” that Nixon, Reagan and Bush (almost forgot Ford) didn’t disclose and put in their presidential libraries and call them corrupt for not disclosing them.
The snippet missing from the original article is exactly what Limbaugh and the conservative crowd do every day: they tell a half truth in order to get a rise out of people. The fact that it was intentional calls for moderator intervention.
I wonder what the actuarials are on dishonest and partisan posting…
Yep. corruption knows no party. We should look at all of 'em. If they or their Presidential libraries took expensive, secret gifts from government favor-seekers, they should be criticized for it.
It’s easy to make up an excuse, especially if nobody checks to see whether it makes sense. IAS, you accused the OP of having a material omission. That seems to imply that you believe the excuse was valid. I don’t think the excuse was adequte, and neither does the New York Times, apparently.
Since this is GD, I invite you (and your supporters) to demonstrate whether or not that excuse was valid. One way to start would be to try answering the questions I posed earlier…
First of all, December, I agree with the board here. I detest Clinton as much as the next person (well, almost). This despite the fact that I actually voted for the scoundrel the first time. yeesh
But, yeh, it’s time and then time to let it go.
However, Sparticus, you said, "The snippet missing from the original article is exactly what Limbaugh and the conservative crowd do every day: they tell a half truth in order to get a rise out of people. I happen to agree with you…sort of. Actually, it’s not just Republicans, but ALL politicians. Democrats have this wonderful tactic of proposing a $10 billion increase in a project, the Republicans will propose an $8 billion dollar increase…and the Democrats will accuse the Republicans of cutting funding for the project.
You gotta watch them all the time…BOTH sides.
I wish I was president and people gave me super-expensive gifts. pout. whine.
I wouldn’t mind if people hated me for it and accused me of corruption, either. I’d be happy to have my own library and many cool stuffs in there.
So, let me get this straight… The Clintons were given a gift of clothing, which they wore to an official function, then discarded via donating them to the Clinton Library?
Isn’t it customary to wear a gift of clothing, at least once, when visiting/interacting with the gift giver?
Also please note, the article said they may have used the gifts. Maybe.
And, out of curiousity, december will you crow as loudly when it turns out that Bush is just as corrupt, if not more, than Clinton, and has done the same things?
[list=1]
[li]Quote editorial or news story, omitting any facts that demonstrate falsity of assertion[/li][li]Question whether this proves all ________ are _________.[/li][li]Dispute initial showings of falsity (3 posts max.)[/li][li]Sit back. Wait for page to be at least half full.[/li][li]Return, acknowledging that there is some basis for dispute. DO NOT concede falsity at core of OP.[/li][li]Pretend the OP was really about a different question, e.g., “Isn’t it a terrible appearance of impropriety to donate expensive gifts to one’s own library?” instead of “Does this prove Billary broke the law by accepting bribes?”[/li][li]Play victim. They simply misunderstood the question.[/li][li]When interest wanes in non-inflammatory weaseling, repeat baseless accusation in OP.[/li][li]Return to Step 1.[/li][/list=1]
I sure will. I hate corruption. That’s why I joined Common Cause at its inception.
Not that it really makes much of a difference to anybodys opinion of the Clintons, but…
According to Dick Morris Hillary owes the NY post an apology.
A material omission that you admitted was intentional, making you a telling of half truths, and a provoker of false disputes, a demogogue.
By the rules of law and ethics for such a situation, the omitted paragraph indicates that the wonderful Clintons did nothing wrong. I use that as my citation for no illegality or ethical breach.
That leaves the question of morality. Was the action immoral? The burden of proof rests on the person making the accusation, and because the person making the accusation has demonstrated a long pathological hatred for the subjects of the accusation, an ipse dixit just won’t do.
What is debate worthy in this thread is the fact that the lies that the OP engaged in, the intellectual dishonesty, continue on a daily basis, in one Iago ish thread after another.
december-wait a minute.
I believe the rule is, if YOU state such and such, it is YOUR job to prove it. Not for us to prove it for you. So I think YOU should be the one trying to make a case about the excuse.
Well, at first they thought they had that issue beat but then realized flipping the keyboard upside down and typing the “M” key wasn’t working so hot.
Sigh
2 years of data entry down the drain.
I can’t agree more. I mean first the Clintons and then Bush. What’s next? Satan himself??