The Weight Of Lies

freemonkey · 10-13-2004, 08:39 PM

Something has troubled me (not to say that this is the only thing that has troubled me) a great deal over Bush's term, and especially over the recent months of the campaign.

Back when Clinton was being tried in the public opinion over his affair, many people could not stop talking about how if he lied about an affair, he'd lie about anything, and thus, cannot be trusted to be president.

As Bush's lies are being uncovered, I'm not hearing the same kind of talk. I'm not sure I understand why.

IMO, lies about whether or not a guy is having an extramarital affair and lies about what we are doing in Irag, among other lie, are hugely different. If it were just a media thing, I'd understand, spin, yadda, yadda. But I'm talking about people I know. Why would people think Bush's lies are lighter than Clinton's? I just don't get it, where's the perspective?

Godless Dave · 10-13-2004, 08:42 PM

It doesn't make sense. Except that when Clinton lied, there was a Republican majority in the House and Senate to villify him and a right wing press that was already geared up for the task.

The Dems don't have a majority in either house, but even considering that most have them have been far too meek about it. I don't understand it at all, unless it's part of a vast Democratic conspiracy to lose elections.

The press is easier to understand. Even the section of the media that isn't controlled by or in hock to Bush's camp is far too lazy to do anything but report what politicians and pundits say, and the politicians and pundits aren't saying much about Bush's lies.

Ymir's blood · 10-13-2004, 10:19 PM

In addition, as I understand it, it was part of a long campaign to smear Clinton dating back to his days in Arkansas politics. That is what Hillary was referring to by the 'right wing conspiracy' comment.

lpetrich · 10-13-2004, 10:59 PM

It baffles me why the right wing hates Bill Clinton so much, especially as he is not exactly a left-winger. Is it something about his personality?

But for whatever reason, the right wing has been willing to go to great lengths to invent specious objections to him. Protesting some official policy they have deemed to be treason, though they have never said that if it is equally traitorous to find fault with him outside of American territory. They have also objected to Hillary supposedly being an un-elected "co-president", although she would be no more un-elected than any other Presidential assistant.

Clinton was also the first president in a long time to make right-wingers become pacifists; though right-wingers normally consider criticism of US military adventures to be treason, they turned into Chomskyish pacifists when it came to Clinton's wars.

Further turnarounds. Clinton also made right-wingers become feminists, if only to give them a stick to beat him with. Likewise, the sieges of Ruby Ridge and Waco made them take positions that they would normally dismiss as opposed to law and order. To explain further, they would normally claim that anyone who resists arrest deserves what happens to them as a result, a position that they completely abandoned with Ruby Ridge and Waco.

freemonkey · 10-14-2004, 12:59 AM

I think what I'm trying to figure out is why people think its OK to lie about something as big & consequential as the whole Iraq deal, but its not OK to lie about something as personal as a blowjob.

Dingfod · 10-14-2004, 01:24 AM

I don't get it either. No one died because of Clinton lying about the blowjob.

Oh, I forget. These are the same people that would give Team America a NC-17 rating for puppets simulating sex, but not for puppets getting their heads blown off. Violence and death are good, sex is bad.

I thought the thread was going to be about carrying the burden of guilt around for lying. I can identify with that, it's heavy.

Godless Wonder · 10-14-2004, 01:55 AM

How does what Bush has done compare with what Nixon did.? I don't think I know that much about watergate, but a google of of "nixon bush" turns up some pages . . . I don't know why Bush is getting a pass, is it because they can't really really nail him with some rock solid evidence of deliberate lying?

livius drusus · 10-14-2004, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godless Wonder

I don't know why Bush is getting a pass, is it because they can't really really nail him with some rock solid evidence of deliberate lying?

That's what I thought. He wasn't under oath and he had just enough plausible deniability to play the innocent.

Scotty · 10-14-2004, 04:01 AM

It all depends on what filter you are running. If you have GOD 3.2 installed, your PRESIDENT .09-sh will appear to tell the truth no matter what the context. This filter can be un-installed, but requires REASON 1.01 applied in even stokes to achieve a thick coating and a lusterous shine.

-Scott

freemonkey · 10-14-2004, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty

It all depends on what filter you are running. If you have GOD 3.2 installed, your PRESIDENT .09-sh will appear to tell the truth no matter what the context. This filter can be un-installed, but requires REASON 1.01 applied in even stokes to achieve a thick coating and a lusterous shine.

-Scott

I know, I know, I guess maybe I was overestimating my fellow Americans.

Godless Dave · 10-14-2004, 03:03 PM

I have bolded the problem in your statement below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by freemonkey

I think what I'm trying to figure out is why people think its OK to lie about something as big & consequential as the whole Iraq deal, but its not OK to lie about something as personal as a blowjob.

Thinking has nothing to do with it. It's all about feeling the president is a good God-fearing gay-hating Christian, so whatever he does is right, and/or killing Muslims needs no justifications.

quiet bear · 07-05-2006, 04:18 AM

Well, I don't follow politics much. Next to creation vs. evolution, it's the most boring subject under the sun.

I do know, however, that the majority of Americans prefer a good sex scandal over something so mundane as a war. It's a sad mindset.

On another note, somewhat similar, I found it interesting that, at the same time the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing was dragging on interminably in the papers, it came to light that The Good Reverend Jesse Jackson was found to have fathered an illegitimate child. That was a headline for a day. Then gone.

Talk about a double standard. To me, while neither situation is good, what Jackson did was far worse.

Dingfod · 07-05-2006, 04:41 AM

Oh, the huge mammaries!

Jess Jackson didn't commit the sin of Onan, he did what God intended sperm to be for, impregnate women of child-bearing capability, not spewing them on blue dresses of young interns.

BTW, quiet bear, dredging up topics where the last reply was almost two years old is considered bad form.

Sauron · 07-05-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freemonkey

Something has troubled me (not to say that this is the only thing that has troubled me) a great deal over Bush's term, and especially over the recent months of the campaign.

Back when Clinton was being tried in the public opinion over his affair, many people could not stop talking about how if he lied about an affair, he'd lie about anything, and thus, cannot be trusted to be president.

As Bush's lies are being uncovered, I'm not hearing the same kind of talk. I'm not sure I understand why.

IMO, lies about whether or not a guy is having an extramarital affair and lies about what we are doing in Irag, among other lie, are hugely different. If it were just a media thing, I'd understand, spin, yadda, yadda. But I'm talking about people I know. Why would people think Bush's lies are lighter than Clinton's? I just don't get it, where's the perspective?

Because lying about sex is more offensive to conservatives than lying about why you started a war.

After all, sex is morally questionable in the first place, whereas war is....well, war is patriotic, no matter how it got started.

Ari · 07-05-2006, 06:39 AM

Crap the zombies are here, everyone run around real fast but do it in circles so the slow moving zombies can catch you and feast on your sweet sweet eye juices.

More to the thread point, a number of americans like to believe in "family values" (these values also include such good things as bigotry and hatred for anyone different) A war can be sold to the public as patriotism, which is a family value. Sleeping with the intern is much harder to spin. When you are a Rev you get a couple free passes because your fighting for family values thus you are allowed to break a few.

Angakuk · 07-05-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingfod

BTW, quiet bear, dredging up topics where the last reply was almost two years old is considered bad form.

Are you serious? If so, why is it bad form? I mean, if the subject remains discussion worthy, why shouldn't it get resurrected from time to time? I think quiet bear should be complimented for taking the time to dredge the archives.

Dingfod · 07-05-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingfod

BTW, quiet bear, dredging up topics where the last reply was almost two years old is considered bad form.

Are you serious? If so, why is it bad form? I mean, if the subject remains discussion worthy, why shouldn't it get resurrected from time to time? I think quiet bear should be complimented for taking the time to dredge the archives.

On a short thread like this it isn't that big of a deal, but digging up dead threads that are a chore to read from start to finish to catch up isn't very considerate of other posters time. Thread necrophilia is okay if there is something material to add, something other than just another opinion, such as an update on a story, contravening facts, etc. If a thread has been dead for almost two years it's almost always a good idea to start a new one.

Plus, you don't know it, but I just had to answer an odd question about something I posted almost two years ago in this very thread. At first, I had no idea of what they were talking about, until I had reread the whole thread.

Ari · 07-05-2006, 07:30 AM

It should also be added that in some cases people who participated in the thread may no longer be here for one reason or another and couldn't properly respond. Opinions can also change, making an old comment an interesting mark in history but nothing more.

quiet bear · 07-06-2006, 01:03 AM

Sorry. I didn't intend to cause a dust up. I was looking at the 'who's online' thing, to see what everyone was reading, and someone named 'slurpee' was reading this thread. I, too, thought it was about the consequences of being dishonest, not about Clinton. Anyway, I didn't read the date, I just clicked on the thread and read it.

I apologize.

freemonkey · 07-06-2006, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiet bear

thought it was about the consequences of being dishonest,

That would make an excellent thread.

Crumb · 07-06-2006, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qb

Sorry. I didn't intend to cause a dust up.

Oh pfft! It's fine. Don't let crusty old Dingfod bother you.

Dingfod: :ptht:

Beth · 07-06-2006, 12:57 PM

I sometimes don't look at dates and if I get lured by a topic that I see some guest looking at via the "Who's Online", then I will perhaps dredge up an old post. Anyway, I was suprised to see Godless Wonder posting in here again because I haven't seen him in a while. Now I know why.

BTW, unless it pertains to emotional stuff, I don't have any problem with old threads being drudged up.