Les Jones

Is he a hypocrite or what? Bwahahahah!

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Of course, it's easy to skewer Clinton on the Lewinski scandal - Right Wing Lemmings comically bring it up at every opportunity when they lack the ability for intelligent discourse. But it is impossible to refute what he argues. Good luck trying.

Perhaps a Right Winger can offer an intellegent rebuttal without bringing up Lewinski, but I have yet to see one.

Argue the merits of his statements, not his past indescretions. After all, GeeDubya has many indescretions, has asked for forgiveness, and it is blindly granted without scrutiny. Yet Right Wingers hypocritically fail to offer Clinton the same benefit.

Level the playing field, then debate the merits and see where the argument unfolds. Is this too much of a challenge to the Right Wing? It appears to be so.

Warmest Regards,

GK

"Of course, it's easy to skewer Clinton on the Lewinski scandal"

Yes, it is. That's because we have sworn testimony from Clinton and Lewinsky, along with DNA evidence analyzed by the FBI, that Clinton had sex with Lewinsky and lied about it. I'm sure your proof of Republican lies is just as ironclad, right?

"after all, GeeDubya has many indescretions, has asked for forgiveness, and it is blindly granted without scrutiny. Yet Right Wingers hypocritically fail to offer Clinton the same benefit."

If George W. stood up and lectured Ted Kennedy about his drinking, then you'd have a point. I'm not a rightwinger.

Look, I voted for Clinton twice, and I would have voted for Gore if he hadn't been such a jackass at the first debate. (And I thought Bush was a jackass, too. I gave a protest vote to Nader.) I was ready to forgive Clinton's lies until he starting thumping the Bible and acting holier than thou. Religious hypocrites are creeps whether they're Republicans or Democrats.

Les Jones, thank you, for you once again demonstrated my point. Rarely do I see someone raise their level of debate in opposition to an issue that Clinton discusses. Instead, Clinton's point of view is summarily dismissed on the basis of "well, he had sex and he lied and we have proof", which is an all too simplistic, self-serving fall-back position. Your initial rant is exactly that.

You responded as though I have disputed Clinton's actions, yet you are creating an argument where there is none. Bill Clinton morally failed, and made matters even worse by lying about it. That is stipulated once again - it is not disputed. Take 'Yes' for an answer for heaven's sake and work through to the substance of his point! Instead of continuing to argue a matter (Clinton's indescretions) in which we agree, consider that most, if not all, human beings who make it through adolescence have morally failed in some way. Anyone who chooses to live a life with Religious foundations can be considered a 'Religious hypocrite' at some point, to some degree, but they all share the ability to use their own form of Religion to better their lives where warranted. Your "thumping the Bible" comment is therefore unfair because, fundamentally, when one gets into the essence of his using Religion to help turn himself around, Clinton is ultimately no different than most in this regard.

The issue is absolutely not about offering "proof of Republican lies" (but since you offered a challenge, Robert Packwood, Oliver North, Richard Nixon, Joseph McCarthy are to be considered for starters if that was what you were looking for), which clearly is well chronicled in history. Neither political party escapes that, however, so it is useless for you to bring "proof of Republican lies" up. As I stated, Clinton's past is stipulated. To pound that point home does not forward debate, it stifles it. Had someone more virtuous made the exact same statements, could you address the issue on its merits, not simply cast it aside? We shouldn't dismiss out of hand everything Clinton says, even when he references Religion, because of the significance of his past behavior - which, by the way, he is apparently working to change (one certainly hopes).

You wrote: "If George W. stood up and lectured Ted Kennedy about his drinking, then you'd have a point." My point is I suggest we should assess what George W. says, or more specifically in your hypothetical case what he might have said to Ted Kennedy, don't just dismiss him out of hand because he is a repentant alcoholic. In fact, I would offer that because of George W.'s own past behavior, he should at least be listened to on such matters, not simply dismissed. Same as if Bill Bennett were to have lectured us on the ills of gambling to excess (you will note he conveniently left that off of his list of excesses). But if he were to now scold us about the troubles associated with gambling, do we just dismiss him? Political ideology aside, he may have something to offer as a result of fostering a discussion of his own weaknesses. Same with Norma McCorvey and abortion rights - her experiences should be considered and debated. You get the point - if we are willing to listen rather than to simply label someone as being hypocritical, the public discourse would be vastly improved. Agree or not with a particular subject matter, at least it would then be open to discussion, and far more good would likely come of it.

Lastly, I recognize and admit to having been presumptuous about you being a right-winger (clearly one of my many moral failings). It was unfair of me to have made you feel compelled to demonstrate your bona fides by offering your voting history to portray yourself as something other than a right-winger. Your initial "Bill Clinton Throws Stones" post was, however, clearly a "Right Wing Lemming" rant - nothing in that post leads one to conclude otherwise. I should have taken the approach that the post was right wing, not the poster, but my basic premise stands.

It's the message, not the messenger. Regardless of Clinton's flaws, he happens to be correct on the matter. In two posts, you have yet to refute it. Once again, good luck to anyone who tries. Especially given George W.'s self-proclaimed faith and the nature of the attacks on Kerry, that matter is a debate worthy of discussion.

Regards, GK

I don't think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are as fastidious about the truth as they should be, and I think they're a little too prone to drop the L-bomb themselves, but it's been Kerry who's been shown to be lying. About Christmas in Cambodia (which he's retracted), about commanding PCF45 on the day David Alston was wounded (which he retracted, resulting in the removal of 20 pages of documents from johnkerry.com), and about causing his own injuries on the Boston Whaler (also retracted by John Hurley according to Fox News' Major Garrett, though I'd like more thorough sourcing on that retraction).