Reply to thread

Yes, I thought he did a decent job.  But as I stated, that is my opinion.  I am perfectly willing to wait until history passes it's judgement as, unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to presume to know everything.  Would I "like" for history to give him a thumbs up? It doesn't matter to me one way or the other as long as it's an honest accounting and we are far to close to the original events to be able to give an honest accounting.  I voted for Carter too and he ended up being one of the worst President's ever (though that might be surpassed by Bush).  Reality is that sometimes you vote for a good one, sometimes a bad one, sometimes it just seems that way and you have to stand back and wait for history to make it's judgement.  I don't think you are old enough (or mature enough) to understand that.





No it wouldn't because I don't have an image to defend I'm perfectly happy to let history make it's call and accept it.  I also try not to base my opinions on conspiracy theories, poorly constructed logic or emotional hearsay - there are just too many red flags.  I also value common sense and common sense says that 3 seperate investigations including one led by and funded by a hostile GoP controlled Congress failed to come up with the conclusion you so badly want.  Now who's image is really in danger here?




No.  You are biased against both of the major parties.  That doesn't make you unbiased.




Your posts say otherwise since you completely avoid the other money trail.





Google it yourself. You will find that GoP special interest's groups paid for all of their expenses - legal and otherwise. There is no mystery there.




Once again you are not being logical. 


First: Clinton was proven in a court of law to lie once - he committed perjury.  This is undeniable and inarguable.  That is the only instance where you can say that with certainty as he was under oath.


Secondly - despite what those other people said, no convictions resulted from it.  Therefore they were either wrong, mistaken, or lying.  And keep in mind how easy it is to claim things like sexual harrassment - there is an enormous grey area that includes consent.


Those two things are the only things you can be 100% certain of in relation to lying.


The other illogical fallacy is this:  just because one person is known to lie doesn't mean that the other person is telling the truth.




You started a debate and continued it for 20 pages.  You just can't stand it when someone contradicts you can you?  That makes me a Clinton apologist?  No, I simply despise poorly constructed irrational conspiracy theories and I despise witchhunts.  I did the same for Bush and 9/11.  I despise him, but he certainly didn't deliberately engineer 9/11.


To bad you can't be intellectually honest and have to resort to name calling and other childish behavior.


Back
Top