For love of country

Post Reply New Topic

Please, tell us who is defending Clinton, and why you are bringing this up. If I didn't feel a bit of familiarity with you I would say you're trying to divert the issue.. but.. wait a minute, you are diverting the issue! You cheeky monkey!

Here's my problem with your posting style, Inuyasha.

It is not enough to be factually accurate, because half of verbal communication lies not in the meaning of the words, but in the connotations and the implications that underlie them.

Let's consider that post where you wrote, "the vast majority of the media has a far-left bias," (apologies if I am not entirely accurate in this quote--I will admit to being too lazy to look up your post from earlier this week). You might be factually correct. You certainly believe that you are factually correct. But when you turn the spotlight onto one part of the media (those with a far-left bias) you implicitly turn attention away from that part of the media that does not have a far-left bias. And so you create the impression that a far-left bias is improper, but that a far-right bias is not.

Now, this might not be your meaning--but it is certainly the impression that you convey.

A second kind of example is your response on the issue of a Tea Party agent-provocateur advocating disruption of union events. Here your response takes the line of, "well the other side do it, too." Again, you may well be factually accurate--but what is the impression that you are creating? Is the practice of infiltration and disruption an acceptable practice? If it is right, then say so. If it is wrong, however, your post fails to demonstrate that it is--rather it creates the impression that wrongdoing on one side justifies the same wrongdoing by the other side.

And then, there is the broad generalization phrased as a question or put out in the conditional mood. "What's funny is that probably everyone complaining about Newt in this thread probably excused Clinton for having affairs and then lieing under oath before a Federal Grand Jury." Now there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case--and by slipping the word "probably" in you create the conditions that allow you to claim that your premise allows for exceptions. But at the end of the day, you create the impression that one group are hypocrites. But you remain silent on those who excoriated Clinton for his adulterous conduct (leaving aside the particular question of perjury) and who have not done the same to Gingrich.

A little less rhetoric and you could be an effective advocate for the right. But for now you make it too easy for your opponents to "play the man and not the ball."

I'm not diverting the issue at all, I am merely pointing out the fact that the disparity exists.

Don't try and come off all innocent here, Inuyasha. It is diversionary, and you know it.

The issue at hand is the behaviour of Mr. Gingrich, not the behaviour of hypothetical people who might bash him and defend Clinton.

Now you are engaging in "play the man, not the ball." By calling into question the integrity of the people who are bashing Newt, you are deflecting attention away from Newt and onto a separate question. Whatever the factual accuracy of what you write, it is, in fact, diversionary.

I don't believe that the issue you raise is irrelevant. But it is a relevant diversion.

He knows it's a problem, which is why he's talking about it now. He wants it to be yesterdays news one year from now.

The reason it's a bigger deal with Gingrich is the personal hypocrisy involved. Newt was always a campaigner for "family values" and moralistically preaching at other people about how they should live their lives, and he didn't live up to his own standards. He has even stated that there doesn't have to be any connection to the message he spreads and his own personal actions.

As to Clinton, yes, cheating on his wife was wrong. Yes, lying about it was wrong. But as Reverend Hale would say, "It is a natural lie to tell!" And there doesn't seem to be a decent reason why he was asked about his personal life under oath. Further, the impeachment witch-hunt led by Gingrich (while he was sleeping around himself) had nothing to do with Clinton lying, and you know it. They just needed any excuse to go after him.

Sure, it's great when a scoundrel is redeemed. Call me cynical, but I just happen to be suspicious of Gingrich's sudden conversion, when he's making a play for evangelical and value voters votes, in regard to his presidential aspirations. If anything, his politics are just as mean spirited and acidic as they had ever been. Hardly sounds Christian to me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

1. You love your country a lot.
2. There is a lot of women in your country.
.: You have to be adulterous.

That's utter nonsense. The media went into agonizing detail about President Clinton and Monica Lewinski. Hardly a peep about Newt Gingrich.



Here is some dirt on the subject:



This preceded President Clinton's similar defense in the Monica Lewinski case by many years. President Clinton only received oral sex, and, since vaginal coitus never happened, he was able truthfully to state that he "never had sexual relations with that woman."

In the 1990s, when he was spewing "family values" rhetoric and prosecuting President Clinton for his blow job, Mr. Gingrich was himself enjoying sexual relations with Calista Bisek, a Congressional aide who was 23 years younger.

Even the Bible says to "love thy neighbor"!

Its his duty to love as many of his neighbors as possible- for God and country!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Over a YEAR away from elections and everyone has thier drawers tied in knots already.

Personally, I think Gingrich's affairs and bed hopping are a show of poor character on his part. Hopefully we'll have someone better to choose from next November.

I don't think much of Clinton’s fiasco either but I guarantee you he’s not the first to get an extra-marital knob job in the white house. Who doesn’t like to have their horn polished once in a while?
He f*cked up by not being careful enough to keep it from going public so he deserves the embarrassment.

Now you’ve heard from Raptor on this whether you wanted to or not.

The impeachment wasn't over Clinton's inability to keep his pants zipped up, the impeachment was over Clinton LIEING UNDER OATH BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY. That is perjury which is a F-E-L-O-N-Y, people go to prison for doing something like that.

So in all honesty, Newt wasn't being a hypocrit, because he didn't lie under oath before a Federal Grand Jury. While I don't like the fact he committed adultery, adultery is not illegal, committing perjury is illegal.

I think Orwell is talking about the moral implications, rather than the legal ones.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Doesn't change the fact Newt wasn't being a hypocrit. Impeachment was about the perjury, not Clinton committing adultery.