When Clinton lied, no one died

  • #26
60
0
russ_watters said:
Hmm. I hadn't considered that. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, though - it doesn't seem like a worthwhile point to make unless concurrently it is meant to be a reason not to vote for (or to impeach) Bush.
Really? I think it's rather making the argument FOR impeachment.

Sure, what the founding fathers meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors", but I personally think that falsifying evidence in order to get involved in a senseless war that gets thousands of people killed and weakens the country in order to reap personal profit via no-bid military contracts is certainly something they would have frowned upon.
 
  • #27
Informal Logic
russ_watters said:
Is there basis for a right to lie about personal matters in the US Constitution, US law, western political theory, or western philosophy?
I seem to recall a thread in which conservatives argued that there are times when it is okay to lie--for the greater good--remember? I guess it does not suit your purpose now. It is all the more ridiculous when the lie is about a personal matter that is no one’s business.

As for the rest of the OP, here is a slogan: Would of, could of, should of. Are we going to go through each presidency and analyze every incidence (e.g., Granada?) and criticize when they should have intervened and when they should not? And then when we are done, I suppose by your logic it will vindicate the Bush regime for the deaths caused by their illegal invasion? Riiiight.
 
  • #28
russ_watters
Mentor
20,116
6,622
TRCSF said:
The basis of the stance is that it's immoral to get involved in somebody else's sex life. That's such a basic, obvious point that nobody bothers to include it in a "Western Philosophy" textbook, or wherever it is you hope to find it.
Ok, fine: lets say, for example, I have a particular sexual interest in 8 year old boys. Is pursuing that interest a basic and obvious freedom that I should have?

And contrary to your assertion, everything in the law has/has to have a philosophical basis. If someone decides they want to pass The TRCSF/ arildno Act, and someone asks you why, you can't just say "'cause I said so" if you want it to be passed (and not struck down).
Is this really just sour grapes because somebody from the Bush WH got indicted for perjury but Clinton never did?
No. As a matter of fact, I'd prefer to get of this Clinton-sex thing, it isn't really relevant my point: my point in this thread is that Clinton killed people, so implying that he didn't is, at best, political rhetoric.
 
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
20,116
6,622
arildno said:
You are the one dealing in insidious, dangerous rhetoric here. There never were any indications of Clinton committing a rape, but you choose to put a voluntary BJ into the same bracket as rape and call it "personal matters". Then you demand that "personal matters" should be investigated because your "personal matters" bracket includes rape.
arildno, you made a broad, sweeping assertion and I am challenging it. Are you now saying that there are limits to that assertion?

Specify those limits. Again, this goes back to the basis for your argument. You must have a logical/philosophical basis for your argument!
 
  • #30
russ_watters
Mentor
20,116
6,622
TRCSF said:
Really? I think it's rather making the argument FOR impeachment.
How would me or Joe Redstate being a hypocrite mean Bush should be impeached?
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
20,116
6,622
Informal Logic said:
I seem to recall a thread in which conservatives argued that there are times when it is okay to lie--for the greater good--remember? I guess it does not suit your purpose now.
I suspect you didn't finish reading my opening post - that is addressed. Please reread.
 
  • #32
67
166
russ_watters said:
I'd prefer to get of this Clinton-sex thing, it isn't really relevant my point: my point in this thread is that Clinton killed people, so implying that he didn't is, at best, political rhetoric.
I would prefrer you would get off the Clinton thing too. It only obscures the present.
There have been genocide and slaughter in Sudan and Darfur during the Bush presidency and what did he do? He even opposed sanctions, like sanctions against Sudan would have changed anything.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9622

Congress wants to act on Darfur, but the Bush administration is dead set against that.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
What "broad&sweeping" assertion did I make?
You are the one obfuscating the matter by lumping together criminal acts with a voluntary BJ.
 
  • #34
Informal Logic
arildno said:
What "broad&sweeping" assertion did I make?
You are the one obfuscating the matter by lumping together criminal acts with a voluntary BJ.
Precisely.
Informal Logic said:
...the lie is about a personal matter that is no one’s business.
= consenting adults = no harm = not illegal. The examples are not of this description.
 
  • #35
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
russ_watters said:
Besides being gibberish (jurors? offices?), that doesn't answer the question: what is the basis for your stance? In a country ruled by the law, there needs to be a real reason to disregard the law. 'arildno thinks what goes on in the bedroom should be free from scrutiny' is not a logical/legitimate basis for an argument.
1. Well, I thought "juror" was the name for a member of a jury.
2. From what I know, "office" may be used in English not only to designate a work-place, but also to designate the job itself (as in "to hold an office").
3. Disregard the law?
What law states that a court is empowered to demand answers concerning perfectly legal actions that have no bearing or relevance to criminal acts?
 
  • #36
Informal Logic
russ_watters said:
I suspect you didn't finish reading my opening post - that is addressed. Please reread.
You make reference to other threads (in philosophy), but seem to be arguing that a lie is a lie - Then you seem to argue that blood is blood regardless of whether it is caused by lies.
russ_watters said:
Is lying the key or is it the blood that matters?
In the case of the Bush regime, it is lying that causes blood that matters.
 
  • #37
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
russ_watters said:
my point in this thread is that Clinton killed people, so implying that he didn't is, at best, political rhetoric.
But I don't think that's related to the bumper sticker comment (though it's always hard to tell; I'm not very fond of bumper stickers as a means of conveying serious messages). The bumper sticker comment is focused on the lies, not on whether people died due to inaction/indecision/ineptitude, or whatever other reasons you can come up with for why people died under either the Clinton or Bush (or any other) administration. I think the idea is that if he lied about it, then he was fully aware he was wrong, and had he not lied, very different decisions may have been made on how to proceed.

I suppose we could debate whether it's really worse for people to die as a consequence of someone deliberately misleading those who made the decision to send them to death vs dying as a result of someone being totally honest but wavering on making a decision or making an error in decision while watching those people dying. I guess the main difference is active vs passive.
 
  • #38
106
4
Informal Logic said:
Precisely.
= consenting adults = no harm = not illegal. The examples are not of this description.
It's not so much as to what he did, it's where he did it. It is unacceptable behavior to turn the oval office into your personal sexual playground. It's disgraceful and disrespectful to the American people, the position and what it stands for. For people to make light of it is outrageous.
 
  • #39
Mercator
deckart said:
It's not so much as to what he did, it's where he did it. It is unacceptable behavior to turn the oval office into your personal sexual playground. It's disgraceful and disrespectful to the American people, the position and what it stands for. For people to make light of it is outrageous.
Hey at least we know what Bill "stood" for :smile:
And it's even funnier to see how some Americans take their personal moral values for the law.
Thought: why did nobody ever think of charging Monica with rape of an official in function? :surprised . If I would have been Bill...
 
  • #40
16
0
Actually, as much as I admire Clinton, he was at the helm during the US missile attack that destroyed the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory in Khartoum. The claims by Clinton and the US administration that the factory was making a chemical component of nerve gas have largely been discredited.

The death toll was placed at around 4,000 -- but the UN and many other analysts put the death toll much, much higher when you count the deaths caused by under-supply of medicines due to the bombing.

In a perfect world Republicans and Democrats would work together for peace. A dying child doesn't care who's president. Let's not be smug about who is right or wrong about Iraq, Sudan, etc.
 
  • #41
Mercator
RunDMC said:
Actually, as much as I admire Clinton, he was at the helm during the US missile attack that destroyed the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory in Khartoum. The claims by Clinton and the US administration that the factory was making a chemical component of nerve gas have largely been discredited.

The death toll was placed at around 4,000 -- but the UN and many other analysts put the death toll much, much higher when you count the deaths caused by under-supply of medicines due to the bombing.

In a perfect world Republicans and Democrats would work together for peace. A dying child doesn't care who's president. Let's not be smug about who is right or wrong about Iraq, Sudan, etc.
Do you think that it could be that some people in Khartoum thought of this as a terrorist attack?
 
  • #42
466
2
You're all arguing about global issues as they relate to a bumper sticker...
 
  • #43
wasteofo2 said:
You're all arguing about global issues as they relate to a bumper sticker...
Yup ... That's the attention span of the Average American.

Most are still waiting for the war to come out in re-runs because they missed an episode.:rolleyes:
 
  • #44
Mercator
The Smoking Man said:
Yup ... That's the attention span of the Average American.
Most are still waiting for the war to come out in re-runs because they missed an episode.:rolleyes:
I'd be more interested in the oral office episiode though.
 
  • #45
16
0
Mercator said:
Do you think that it could be that some people in Khartoum thought of this as a terrorist attack?
Some UN officials actually named the incident as an example of state-sponsored terrorism. But who cares about the labels? The results are the worst part. :frown:
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
When Clinton lied, no one died" - is factually true, but logically flawed and pointless and therefore just mindless, useless rhetoric
What a load. Factually true is where it ends, but I know that the facts confuse the issue for some people. The rest of your statement is in fact rationalizations and rhetoric intended to justify the actions of a criminal president. Using your standard, all president are guilty of many crimes. The difference is that Bush not only committed a crime against us and 2000 dead US soldiers, he and his kind seek to subvert the Constitution at every turn - according to the oath that you took, the very definition of the enemy. Your argument would suggest that there is no difference between Al Capone and the average person who cheats on their taxes.

"Shock and awe" and possibly starting WWIII vs what, sex?
 
Last edited:
  • #47
On whether or not any one had the right to investigate the president's sex life...
At my current job I work with several atractive females whom I have authority over. It is considered both unethical and a firable offense for me to "fraternize" with them let alone "get a BJ" from one. Why there would be any difference with regard to the president and someone working under him I have no clue.

On lying about the "BJ"... Lying is not considered an ethical practice in most situations and most especially when you are guilty of an unethical act. If receiving a "BJ" from a subordinate is generally considered unethical then lying about it is also unethical.

On the bumber sticker focusing on lies and not deaths...
It is a very common practice to imply something in a statement such as this by throwing around information you want the listener/reader to pay attention to while supposedly talking about something else. This often avoids direct inquiry into information you don't want being brought up. So the underlying impression given by the staement being discussed is that Bush is responsable for deaths and Clinton is not. It does not directly state this but it is implied by the manner in which the statement is made.
 
  • #48
GENIERE
Ivan Seeking said:
...Your argument would suggest that there is no difference between Al Capone and the average person who cheats on their taxes...
The difference is?
 
  • #49
GENIERE said:
The difference is?
Your confusion is of little surprise.
 
  • #50
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
deckart said:
It is unacceptable behavior to turn the oval office into your personal sexual playground. It's disgraceful and disrespectful to the American people, the position and what it stands for.
Why ? :confused:
 

Related Threads on When Clinton lied, no one died

Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
72
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
9K
Top