- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
To different things. Nice attempt to derail the thread.
Of course.
:roll:
To different things. Nice attempt to derail the thread.
of course it's hypocritical. that's the very definition of hypocritical.......seeing things differently when you are in the same situation.
i personally don't care what people do in their private lives, but the clinton era changed the rules.
Except its not the same.
Clinton: Had an affair on the job, in his work place, with a person who was a subordinant under him in his position as a government official, who was able to have the job due to the tax payers, and then lied about it under oath.
Ensign: Had an affair with a woman a subordinant on his private staff under him as a person not as a public official, and did not lie to it under oath.
You may find them both morally dispicable, but to say they're the same situation is absolutely incorrect.
Rationalization....nothing more, nothing less.
For Ensign to try to couch it in these terms just continues the hypocrisy that defines him.
So you hold this same opinion of Clinton?
In terms of morality - absolutely. I find Clinton's personal morals to be on the level of a sewer rat.
In terms of hypocrisy - no. Clinton didn't preach a "holier than thou" attitude.
In terms of job performance - I find their personal sex life to be irrelevant completely in both cases.
disneydude;1058203523[I said:Sen. John Ensign told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his affair with a friend's wife was a mistake but not as bad as former President Bill Clinton's relationship with a White House intern because he didn't lie about it under oath.
"I haven't done anything legally wrong," the Nevada Republican said.[/I]
This guy still just doesn't get it. It reminds me of all those Bush Apologists that always say to put ethics and morality aside "Technically" there was nothing illegal about _____________________ (submit any number of excuses here).
Their own fault. Lefties don't go around preaching morality, right wingers do.
Rationalization....nothing more, nothing less.
For Ensign to try to couch it in these terms just continues the hypocrisy that defines him.
So you are saying that the "left" is the party for morality and family? That they go around preaching abstinence, no sex before marriage, no gay marriage as a core policy in their party program?
And they attacked Bill Clinton for his blowjob while they themselves hunted under-age pages, got gay sex in airport bathrooms and hired prostitutes?
Is that the "left" you are talking about, that preaches all that as core values of their party?
Sorry but the American right is the poster boy for hypocrisy and double standard when it comes to "morality".. they are no better than the rest of us, but they attempt to project an aura that they are snow white and look down on the rest of us that are not and then they get caught in their own hypocrisy when they are caught with their pants down.
I just wanted to add that what it is that pisses me off so much is this "I did something wrong, but someone else did something worse than I did" crap.
He had sex with a married woman and then had his parents attempt to pay her and her husband off. Yeah, he's a real stand-up guy, isn't he? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
That bothered me, greatly. He's was getting a blowjob on Tax Payer dime.
I don't mind a President with an active and freshly slicked willie.
I understand what you're saying. While I think it's normal to compare situation X to situation Y, it tends to show a lack of remorse by the person who committed situation X. He could ahve apologized and moved on. Don't apologize and then say, "But someone else did something worse than I did." Come on. It's like a drunk driver who seriously injures a person and tells the family, "Hey, other drunk drivers have killed their victims."
Unquestionably what Clinton did was illegal (lying under oath).
I don't have any opinion right now on whether he should resign. I don't feel strongly either way.
To different things. Nice attempt to derail the thread.
Get a grip. Clinton was not the first President with raging libido. Hell, Kennedy could barely keep his pants on and he had a wife who was legitimately hot.Why not re-write this and state that you don't mind a President who lacks in good judgment and has the behavior of a teenager.
Get a grip. .....but it's not like he accidentally pushed the button and launched a bunch of nukes at Russia or something.
Unless you want to argue that he made those bad decisions while Monica was going down on him, that really isn't relevant to the discussion, now is it?But he also perhaps cost the lives of 3,000 Americans through his dereliction to duty.
So his whole "is is" speach was not a holier than thow attitude?
In terms of hypocrisy - no. Clinton didn't preach a "holier than thou" attitude.
I give him more grief for lying about it than for doing it, because that was the really dumb thing he did.
Agreed. Now should it have really come to that??? :doh
Absolutely not.
It was a partisan witch hunt from the beginning and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
I hope his constituents vote him out. I'm conflicted on whether he should step down. There are slight differences to this and Clinton.
My issue with Clinton was not the affair, but the fact it was a subordinant. I consider this much like a CEO in a company using his position to sleep with secretary. Its professionally inappropriate and a conflict of interests. If a CEO of a company screws around with a mistress I think that's bad image wise for the company, but I wouldn't be calling for the CEO's resignation. If the CEO was banging away on his secretary during work hours in his office, then I would be.
Similarly, in Clinton's case, it was with a subordinant employee in his position as the President, in his office, during work hours. If he was just banging out Monica, the chick from Starbucks, I'd have been disappointed in our President but not calling out for resignation or investigation.
That bothered me, greatly. He's was getting a blowjob on Tax Payer dime.
I was going to say that was different than Ensign and thus I don't mind him not resigning, since the OP just said it was a friend of his wife. However, it appears it was a campaign staffer. This conflicts things for me a bit. In this case, it is a subordinate to him. However, it is one that is not under him in some form in his capacity as Senator. So that situation gets tricky.
But I guess that is me trying to explain why the Clinton thing is "different" in my eyes than some of the others that have happened. Its partially due to years of being in an organization where those at the top have a good bit of sway and power over those under them, either forcefully or just out of respect, and how important it has been ingrained in us that you do not take advantage of that. I don't care if he's dipping his Slick Willie into a warmer location (Seriously, look and listen to Hillary, its hard to blame him)...I have issues with him doing it in the office of the President with a woman that is his subordinant that is there due to a opening serving on behalf of the American people. I feel the same way if a Republican senator or Governor did it with an employee of the state under them (for example, foley's thing with a page...I have issue with that, because that page is technially a subordinant of him in his capacity as a congressman)
Arguable.
So you're in favor of Professors sleeping with their students, bosses sleeping with their subordinates, doctors sleeping with their patients, lawyers diddling their clients? You think these are all accusations that the various agencies and boards overseeing these various things should not look into when its accused of happening?