Damn straight it does. And to even consider the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms! What the heck is the matter with you? Next thing you know you'll be supporting that dated, flagrantly biased icon of propaganda - the national anthem. A less violent, more considerate of others' feelings, user-friendly tune is needed. "We are the World" anybody?
Here we go - if you can't disparage the true qualifications of an individual, assassinate their character - I love the "morally upstanding" tactics of these people! Oh yeah - right - I suppose Hillary should have behaved like the "morally upstanding right wingers" - pretend not to know your friends and supporters when they're in trouble - as exemplified by Bush suddenly disavowing his longstanding and lucrative personal friendship with Ken Lay the minute the Enron Sh#%^t hit the fan. These are the same people who's moral instincts led them to appoint a man convicted of multiple felony counts of lying to congress to lead the top secret Total Information Awareness project in the pentagon - an initiative to basically spy on every an woman and child, citizens of this country. Former Admiral Poindexter of Iran-Contra infamy. That's moral fiber for you! All this right wing, holier-than-thou false morality is absurd and repulsive - but it sheds some light on the true nature of these folks and the veracity of their beliefs.
The character of an individual running for President isn't important? Since when did character not become a factor any more? Was it Nixon that we blame for character not being important any more? Or Ford for pardoning him? Or when we found out the truth of the "heroic" Kennedy and his cheating ways? Your argument is in the Don Bright vein of "Hey, at least I am not as corrupt as the other guys in the business." Hillary is duplicitous, dishonest, and stood by an immoral man who lied to the people of the country to save his own ass. Now, those who will retort, "Ya....but the Republicans did blah, blah, blah." Since when did two wrongs make a right? Because of Republican corruption, we are supposed to ignore Democratic corruption? Because of weakness in the Republican's sense of what is right, we can justify someone else's wrongs? Is that what we, as a society have evolved to? The battle of the lesser of two evils? You don't want a leader who is not a bagman/bagwoman for special interest groups, that speaks their word, and stands by their word, that doesn't shrink from responsibility, that lives by the golden rule, that can be trusted, respected, admired, and is someone to be proud of? We, as a people have to stop settling for less than great leadership, for if we do, our followership will lead us to ruin.
Yeah, and it would really swell if the dow hit 10,000 again too! Sorry your pie-in-the-sky pining doesn't cut it - you were the one who instigated the attack and when you get called on it your reaction is to wax poetic and spout lofty ideals. Get real.
Gosh, what a sin to have ideals of morality for political leaders. What people don't get, and the Democrats who support Clinton are the biggest offenders, is that a full generation of children grow up learning that lying is OK, especially if it is about sex. That you don't see that as a major problem is the problem. Morality begins at home, and it is damn hard to teach kids to do the right thing when the leader of the country doesn't do right by the country. What Clinton did, by lying and trying to cover up, will have an impact on this country as severe, if not worse than what Nixon did generations from now. Hillary, by supporting and enabling that type of behavior, just shows that she is lacking in the necessary character to provide real leadership. I know of no self-respecting woman who stays with a man who cheats on her.
Tough issues to really pin down with definitive answers. Here, we agree about Hillary Clinton. A shameful situation in which she is both victim and collaborator. Some would argue that a spouse should stand by their husband or wife (even a legal right in our justice system....one is exempt from testifying against one's spouse). So this is indeed an issue of many conflicts. But as far as Clinton's lying about sex having a greater impact than Nixon's Watergate coverup, this is a whole different thing. While the impact is probably more apparent right now, I believe it is about different subject matter. Did Clinton lie? Yes. Did Nixon lie? Yes. The difference is that Clinton's lies were simple and obvious and understood by even little children. Now, for example, it is a fact that adolescents do not consider oral sex as "real sex". An act of physical intimacy that prior to Clinton's convoluted excuses, would have been appalling to listen to. (As it was at the time). But being the parent of 3 teenagers (they were at the time), I know that now, kids believe this to be true. When I was a teenager, it was a lot easier to get laid than it was to get a BJ. Now, one guy has changed all that (apparently....maybe it has to do to some degree with beliefs about HIV...I just really don't know the "why's" just the results). But the seriousness of Nixon's transgressions, seem to me to be far more blatant in reality. One guy lied about sex, which, shamefully, almost everyone does at one time or another. He just got caught in a big one in a very public way. Nixon, on the other hand, lied about the attempted hijacking of an election. An election he needed not cheat to win. So this, to me, was a lie of immense proportions. He truly covered up a scheme to rob the American people of a fair election. Right now, obviously Clinton's lie is closer to the surface of our collective consciousness. More recent, more understandable, and part of our culture in a way. But what Nixon covered up (if not actually participating in, which we may never really know), was a crime. Clinton's act was not a crime. The lies were. Nixon's participation in Watergate, in any capacity was a real crime against America. One man was mentally ill in his sexual predilections, and the other was mentally ill in his inability to come to terms with who and what he was. He NEEDED to retain his power enough to commit acts punishable with prison terms. Both lied, and that in itself was grounds for criminal convictions. But the subject matter they lied about was so radically different. Really, other than Hillary and I am sure Chelsea, who was hurt by Clinton's behavior (excluding the lies)? And did Hillary even care? No way we can really know. Private lives and marriages are not our business. But Nixon's crimes were against us all. And had the potential to destroy our right to a fair and lawful way of electing our leaders. To me, there is no comparison. And I am certain that a hundred years from now, Clinton's fiasco will be looked back on as just another sex scandal. (So very European). Nixon's fiasco will always be studied as a breakdown in our process of government. It will always be about a man who put himself and his lust for power above the law. Peace, Rs8.5
You don't understand the impact it has on children and society. You minimize the impact it has on shaping the morality of our society. Look at self reported polls, and you find 50% cheat on their taxes. Is that OK? No, but it is rationalized as OK because everyone else does it. Same is true once we accept lying. Somehow, you are able to rationalize that what Clinton did was not "that bad." This is reflective of the decay of our society, that the leader would lie to the people to save his butt, and you respond that it is not "that bad." It may not show up in the history books in the same way, but children saw Nixon lie, get caught, and resign. They saw Clinton lie, get caught....AND GET AWAY WITH IT!!!! Very big difference for people in their formative years to see the President in that light. What message is it sending??? 100 years from we look back, and if it is viewed as just another sex scandal, we have indeed sunk to the depths of moral decay so clearly indicative of the state of Europe.
Optional...two questions. 1. Where did I say that? 2. Why quote my entire post? Peace, and good trading, Rs7
You did not say that directly. However, it is my experience that when people use the following type of argument: Well yes, he did such and such, but _____________________. Whenever there is a but _________ after an admission of guilt, the second half, or the ___________ is an attempt to minimize the value of the first part of the idea. Follow the "but" and you find the real intentions of a person. The "but" is a minimizer, and another way of saying "not that bad." Even the any attempt to minimize what Clinton did is wrong in my opinion. He did the crime, but did no time is the bottom line, and it stinks, and it sets a terrible example that is very difficult to recover from. Say you catch your kid or your wife lying, and they just shrug and say, "If Clinton did it and didn't get punished, why should I?"