You have some glaring faults in your argument.
Firstly let me state that I'm not a huge fan of congressman Stanford, I believe that our representives should be held to a high standard of integrity because the nature of the job is pubic, and they are acting as a representive of the people.
With that being said...
1. Clinton was being impeched for lying to congress, not for getting a blowjob.
2. Obama's benghazi debacle has nothing to do with congressman Stanford's past wrongs, your analogy makes no sense.
3. Why should Obama get a pass for benghazi?! 4 members of our diplomatic corps were killed because administration officials were scared to take action to save them, the state dept was more worried about having egg on their face than protecting the lives of there own.
4. Gwb didn't 'let's 9-11 happen if you get to the nitty gritty of it Clinton ignored security briefs about the threat of terrorists planning operations in the US
Last edited by Theinquisition; 2013-05-08 at 04:12 PM.
Bzzzt! The GOP didn't attack Clinton because of his sleazy sexcapades. They attacked him for perjury when under oath. He lied to the American people, betrayed his oath of office, and tried to cover it all up. That's what the Clinton scandal was about. Clinton shot himself in the foot by lying, just like Nixon did by lying about what was otherwise a pretty stupid but harmless action. Only difference is that since Clinton was a favorite son of the liberal Democrats, they decided they had to fight it with everything they had and came up with the bogus "its all about sex" lie - which a stupid, low-information public swallowed like Monica.hypocritical for a man like Newt to attack Clinton for such sins.
But basically what you're implying is that sex scandals should only matter if you're a Conservative, and then you should not get elected, but if it's a Democrat then its fine. Nothing new here with that attitude. Standard have your cake & eat it hypocrisy in politics. Regardless, "Colbert" was such a joke. She never did interviews. She stayed away from any public event except fundraisers. She has an arrest record but no one bothered talking about it. She was just as damaged goods as Sanford, but with the added indignity of being an utterly incompetent party plant. And people are surprised that the voters went with the devil they knew? Well gaw-lee Sgt. Carter.
I agree that sex scandals are completely irrelevant to when it comes to politics. The issue here is different. Once you identify yourself as moral crusader, and you spend years pointing fingers, once you are caught engaging in the very actions you have spent condemning, you stop being a simple horn dog (like Clinton) and you become a hypocrite and turn coat.
Why should I believe your promises to cut taxes? You have lied on key conservative value issues before. What would prevent you doing the same to me on this topic?
This is why for example in Europe they try to separate public and private affairs, and they to cut back on the moral crusading. This way when you are caught with your pants down, nobody can call you a liar and a hypocrite. You can still save face on public issues.
Essentially the only conclusion I have to draw from this is, that if Morality is part of you political platform, then sex scandals should be very relevant. If morality is not part of your platform. I couldn't care less.
When under oath, they asked him if he had sex with Lewinski, and defined it as vaginal intercourse.Bzzzt! The GOP didn't attack Clinton because of his sleazy sexcapades. They attacked him for perjury when under oath. He lied to the American people, betrayed his oath of office, and tried to cover it all up.
Even if it is misleading, it was not perjury, as is evidenced by his acquittal. I suppose some GOP members still need to learn the meaning of "vaginal intercourse" as evidenced by their votes on the trial?
Although "family values" tend to include zero sex education, so I'm not all that surprised.
Also, he wasn't even impeached for breaking his oath of office, that went up for a vote as well and didn't even pass the house.
Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2013-05-08 at 04:19 PM.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
See what I mean?
"Newt didn't attack Clinton because of his "sleaxy sexcapades". They (sic) attacked him for lying about his "sleazy sexcapades".
...yeah... BIG difference... really big difference. Lying to your constituents about cheating on your wife is grounds for immediate firing.
If a co-worker walked up to you and asked if you cheated on your wife/husband, and you told them "no", should YOU be fired if it turns out you lied to them?
Tell me, where were you when Bush was caught lying about WMDs to the American People? Or were you part of the brainless herd saying "b...b...but the British told us so (clue: they didn't)!"
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
Conviction on perjury would have meant Clinton would have been tossed out of office. Five RINOs joined with 100% of the 45 Democrats on that vote to let him slide. However, even if all the GOP agreed to convict, the 45 Democrats refusing to convict for pure political reasons would have kept him from reaching the 2/3 vote needed. So that was entirely a party-bias decision - not a legal one. In any other court of law, Clinton would be guilty of perjury. It was simply that the Democrats had decided that no matter what Clinton was NOT going to be removed from office so they sold out their integrity and decided not to call perjury REAL purjury. It was bogus. A lie is a lie, and Clinton lied. Under oath. It was perjury, and in any just world he'd have been thrown out in disgrace.Even if it is misleading, it was not perjury, as is evidenced by his acquittal.
Since that's a liberal meme, and not what really happened, then your question is hard to address. However, my personal opinion was that Bush's administration was guilty of hyping up and exaggerating the reasons to attack Iraq. And I didn't like it either. But at what point did he lie under oath like Clinton did?where were you when Bush was caught lying about WMDs to the American People
Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-05-08 at 04:27 PM.