Whatever Bush did in the library pales into comparsion to how Clinton "ruined" the Oval Office.
Why does everything go back to the Clenis? Can't people just move on?
Oh puke! Firstly, the comment was directed to Tara. As long as I´ve known here we have joked about things like this! Crap, we still maked jokes about JFK and Nixon and they don´t seem old to us.Secondly, it is kind of ironic that a simple speach from the presidential library causes someone's opinion of the room to drop, when the Oval Office, a symbol of the presidency, was desecrated in ways that do not need to be elaborated. You might have a point though, Jessica. Clinton bashing is getting about as old and tiresome as, say, Bush bashing.
But Clinton isn't the current President. Bush is, and has been for the last 6 years. And it's fine if you want to bash Clinton's policies, but move on. Why are people so obsessed about his sex life? And I think if we knew of every sex act that occurred in a room in the White House, every room would be desecrated, IMO. But since YOU don't care for my opinion, I'll stop commenting here, since this is your blog and all.
Jessica, I´m not trying to push you off of the blog. Far be it from me to do that since its not even mine!Nobody is obsessed with Clinton's sex life! The fact that he´s an adulter is moot to the whole issue. Heck, everyone makes fun of Bush because he´s not articulate. Likewise, people make fun of Clinton´s short comings. It just so happen to be his very promiscuous sexual lifestyle ranks as the highest. The humor ends and the obsession begins with people like me at the fact that Clinton lied under oath about his relationship and coerced others to do the same, a crime by the way, for which YOU would be thrown in the slammer.Jeesh! I should have just said something to the effect that "It was probably the first time Bush stepped foot in the Whitehouse library in 6 years living there." Since there is some moral high ground in making fun of current presidents over past ones.
Here's the problem I have. 1. You took the opportunity to bring up Clinton getting oral sex in the Oval Office, not Clinton lying under oath. Big difference. You didn't even bring up the lying under oath until I called you on your cheap shot. 2. It is totally relevent and necessary to criticize a sitting President's policies. 3. It is totally relevent and necessary to criticize a former President's policies. Lastly, I totally support criticizing a President's decisions, but it is none of your business, nor is it any of my business, if my President chooses to engage in an adulterous affair and committ adultery in the Oval Office. I would much rather have a President who engages in adultery, than one who engages in an immoral war that has killed thousands of innocent people and is continuing to kill thousands. And I never claimed any moral high ground. What I claimed was that everything, for Republicans, always goes back to the Clenis, which you demonstrated. If you want to bring up his integrity by mentioning that he lied under oath, fine, but the obsession with getting a blow job in the Oval Office, get over it! And I am dying to know how you know so much about every single President's sex life! I mean to claim that Clinton was the worst offender certainly takes balls, or some serious evidence, or both! Do share the sources!
I’ll answer paragraph by paragraph…This is so funny, because you calling out my supposed “cheap shot” was in answer to me calling out Tara’s “cheap shot” on Bush on the original post by using a similar, non-policy oriented example, exactly as she had. I never said it is irrelevant or unnecessary to criticize a sitting president’s policies. You made it appear that Clinton is old news and therefore beyond criticism while Bush should be our only national piñata that we beat to a pulp. If you remember correctly Tara’s comment had nothing to do with policy, but rather with her low opinion of Bush and how his presence in the library lowered her opinion of the room. My comment likewise was not policy-oriented and reflects my own low opinion Clinton and how his sexual actions in the Oval office will always make me look at the office in a different way. As you can see both were in jest and there was no reason to get your patties all in a bunch. I totally agree that current and past presidents are not beyond criticism. Criticism, however, is quite different from character assignation engaged in by the left against our current president. You may disagree with his policies, and I accept that because it is your right. But trashing the person is not policy criticism.I would disagree that it is “none of our business” what a president does in his private life. There is a reason why they call it “public” office. Americans should know the backgrounds and actions of their presidents and what they do before and during their presidency so we can elect men and women that reflect our own values. I’m not saying we have to police them to see if they misbehave morally, but rather that if things come to light, as they did with Clinton, we don’t need a bunch of apologist saying that we shouldn’t meddle in his personal life and its “just” sex when his life as president as a public official is an open book. If you want to bring up Iraq, we can talk about that too. Do you honestly think if we pulled every troop out tomorrow that the violence would stop? If we started this “immoral” war don’t we have a moral obligation to end it peacefully, with a democratic Iraq without sectarian violence? That’s what the objective should be. So pulling out is the best thing the left can offer? I would really be disappointed in my country if this is the best hope we can offer the world. Help topple a dictator, whether under shady pretenses or not, but then leave when the road becomes difficult. Innocent people won’t stop dying if we leave. I simply didn’t claim that Clinton was the worst offender. I don’t know where you got that. I did say his worst character flaw was his sexual shenanigans, and thus, why all jokes about him center around it. That’s why we made fun of Reagan’s age and Bush 43’s inability to speak, etc. No one is obsessed with Clinton being sexually active. The reason why my side can’t forget him is because he perjured himself, not because of the sex. So sorry, but I have no sources into the sex lives of our presidents and your eager request for them makes me wonder if perhaps you have a much deeper interest in the subject.
Post a Comment