> From: iaamoac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > No, it just that it matters much more when it involves illegally > > selling arms to a country which has very recently held American > > diplomatic personnel hostage, then when it involves adultery. > > I must have missed the part where you changed the subject header, > Dan.... I believe that we were talking about whether or not Clinton's > *compulsive* lying mattered, not about events of the 1980's. Indeed,
No he was comparing the relative criminalness of his daddy's administration and clintons administration. 29 treasonous criminals... All of which were pardoned by W's daddy. And like vampires several of them have returned from the dead to do VV's bidding, like good little convicted treasonous criminals pardoned by daddy. > don't you find this kind of moral relativism a little distastefull > when you stoop to this level? How do you respond to your children > when they apply this same logic - deflecting attention from their own > misdeeds by pointing out the faults of a sibling? And if you > respond in that way, why do you suddenly endorse this line of thought > here in serious discussion? How can you even compare the scope of wrongdoing between clinton and bush senior / reagan? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/view.html?pg=4 Doonesbury from April 6 contrasts them interestingly. > Of course, if compulsive lying and perjury don't matter - how come it > only bothers you when you think that Republicans are doing it, and > not Democrats? How come it only bothers you when democrats are doing it, and not republicans? http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm Bush not only lies more often, his lies have a much bigger impact on americans. > Bill Clinton was questioned under the terms of the > Violence Against Women Act, which he touted and signed into law with > much fanfare. Instead of following his own law, however, he fought > implementation of his law at every step, and then he committed > perjury. I am sure he was just "faithfully defending the laws and > Constitution of the United States" when he did that. Isn't there I am sure poindexter was "faithfully defending the laws and Constitution of the United States" when he was committing treason against the United States. Oh wait he gets to "faithfully defend the laws and Constitution of the United States" all over again! > something very troubling to our republic when our leader arbitrarily > holds that his own laws don't apply to himself? Like when his daddy pardons criminals in his own / previous cabinet. > Fortuantely, we saw your partisan spots in the economics threat.... _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
