patrick.net

Philistine says

Dan8267 says

6. Funding for arts and culture

Please say more on this one. I'm curious. Art and history don't matter?, or we should trust the individual to want to pay for and steward our cultural legacy despite the small scope of their own daily lives?

As a matter of principle, I do not believe that government should exert any control or influence on matters of culture including subsidies and tax-exempt status because once the government has that power, it in effect has the power to decide what art is legitimate and what art is not.

For example, New York’s highest court ruled that Strip clubs aren’t entitled to the same sales-tax exemptions granted to ballet theaters, which is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Why should the state be allowed to decide that ballet is worthy of tax exemption but pole dancing isn't?

Pornography is, by definition, art. Limiting our discussion to human beings, art is human expression and pornography is human expression of sexuality. Ergo, pornography is a functional subset of art and should be treated no differently in the eyes of the law. Once can also make the case that most art expresses sexuality in some form or another. For example, Michelangelo's David or Death of Lucretia. Why should government officials get to force their arbitrary opinions of what is lewd and what is not onto the rest of us? Has that ever worked out well before?

Worst still, allowing government to make such a decision leads to corruption. In the NY strip club case cited above, the judges lied about the reason they decided to rule against the club. They said

“If ice shows presenting pairs ice dancing performances, with intricately choreographed dance moves precisely arranged to musical compositions, were not viewed by the Legislature as ‘dance’ entitled a tax exemption, surely it was not irrational for the Tax Tribunal to conclude that a club presenting performances by women gyrating on a pole to music, however artistic or athletic their practiced moves are, was also not a qualifying performance entitled to exempt status.”

As if it were due to some technicality that pole dancing was not art like ballet. In fact, the entire reason the judges who voted against the claim did so was because they didn't want tax exemption going to something they personally believed to be seedy. Their decision was based entirely on their own prejudices, not any objective criteria, but they did not have the honesty to say so, although a few of the dissenters did.

“Like the majority and the Tribunal, I find this particular form of dance unedifying — indeed, I am stuffy enough to find it distasteful. Perhaps for similar reasons, I do not read Hustler magazine; I would rather read the New Yorker. I would be appalled, however, if the State were to exact from Hustler a tax that the New Yorker did not have to pay, on the ground that what appears in Hustler is insufficiently ‘cultural and artistic.’”

One could also argue that the judges were looking out for their public images rather than serving justice.

And it's not just strip clubs that reveal this darker side of government interference with culture. Why should opera get tax advantages but Heavy Metal not? Why should Shakespeare be bestowed the title of art but Spiderman not? It simply is not the right or responsibility of government to decide for us what is legitimate art and what is not, just like it is not the government's right or responsibility to decide which religions are legitimate and which are not.

Why do Christian churches get tax exemptions but Wiccans and Satanists do not? Why are priests and bishops not taxed but tarot card readers are? They both are frauds. And why should my tax dollars go to a church that discriminates against women by forbidding them to be priests or discriminates against homosexuals by forbidding them to be married? I find that offensive.

The bottom line is that all government money, whether through subsidies or tax shelters, comes with strings attached. And ultimately those strings undermine the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The 14th Amendment is the most important part of the Constitution. It is even more important than the First Amendment. The 14th Amendment says we all have the same rights and that none of us have privileges in the eyes of the law. This is the most fundamental principle of our society, the very idea that separates us from everyone else. Yet, we have never lived up to this idea, and one example of that is government funding and tax exemptions for certain arts but not others.

Now as a practical matter, government funding of arts is a drop in the bucket of the budget. As such, I would most certainly slash warfare spending by 90% before addressing art spending. When getting your financial house in order, you start with the big ticket items.

Dan8267 says

...who was dying of cancer.

Actually that is a bit of a misnomer.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

Still what he actually IS guilty of is still a dickish move, especially from Mr Family Values.

Dan8267 says

Philistine says

Dan8267 says

6. Funding for arts and culture

Please say more on this one. I'm curious. Art and history don't matter?, or we should trust the individual to want to pay for and steward our cultural legacy despite the small scope of their own daily lives?

As a matter of principle, I do not believe that government should exert any control or influence on matters of culture including subsidies and tax-exempt status because once the government has that power, it in effect has the power to decide what art is legitimate and what art is not.

Perhaps. Then again that would be the way art and culture have ALWAYS existed. Take a look at art from the middle ages. Mostly religious themes and family portraits. At least when government funds art there is another voice in addition to those of religion and the super wealthy.

And the poor crazy people - lets not forget Van Gogh.

Dan8267 says

Newt tried to get Clinton impeached for getting a blow job in the Oval Office from an intern while he was cheating on his wife, who was dying of cancer.

If you were really an "independent," you would not be simply repeating the argument from the left, that Newt tried to get Clinton impeached for doing something similar to what he was doing.

You would, and could, still hate Newt for many reasons, including the moral hypocrisy you he has shown. But you would not bring the Clinton matter into this. You would recognize it as a false analogy from the Democrats to defend Clinton by misrepresenting what the impeachment was about.

Hint: Read the articles of impeachment. Clinton was not impeached because he cheated on his wife, got a blow job in the oval office, etc. He was impeached for the same reasons that his law license was suspended in Arkansas, he resigned his Supreme Court bar, and incurred other penalties.

The entire Clinton impeachment was a setup from the start. The Republicans tried to trap Clinton into defaming himself or lying under oath, but Clinton outsmarted them. He did neither.

The dumb ass Republicans should have asked the question "did you get a blow job from this fat bitch?", but they didn't have the balls to be straight. Instead, they asked "did you have sexual relations with this broad" and sexual relations is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Clinton told the truth under oath. He answered the question they asked, not the question they meant to ask.

And they should not have been allowed to ask the question in the first place as it was irrelevant to the proceedings and was prejudicial against the defendant. In other words, all the Republicans were cock-sucking scumbags who put their political lust before their country's best interests.

Had we tarred and feathered all those Republicans then and there, 9/11 would never have happened, the Second Great Depression would have never happened, several unwinnable wars would have never happened, and both our economy and our national security would be better off without having to sacrifice any liberty.

If there were a just god, he would have sent down a meteor to crush the Republicans on that day.

Many enlisted people tend to come from red states. Interestingly, very few of the senators and congressman from the republican party have kids in the military. The norm for the 'chicken-hawks' is SEOSEC.....someone else or someone else's children.

Dan8267 says

The entire Clinton impeachment was a setup from the start. The Republicans tried to trap Clinton into defaming himself or lying under oath, but Clinton outsmarted them. He did neither.

Yes, of course... It was the Republicans fault that Clinton did what he did (apparently excusable by the left - and you - despite support for women, etc.). Tin foil hats off...

... It doesn't matter. Even if everything you wrote were true, he STILL wasn't impeached for doing the same thing as Gingrich, getting a blow job, etc. Read the articles of impeachment - they say exactly why he was being impeached. None of that is in there!

As far as him not lying under oath, etc. Apparently only you (and I assume other die hard Clinton fans who will defend him on this despite any actual facts) believe that. Certainly the courts did NOT believe that. Hence the substantial penalties he incurred, both professionally (license/bar) and financially.

I take it you believe Clinton was not really a womanizer?

Dan8267 says

And they should not have been allowed to ask the question in the first place as it was irrelevant to the proceedings and was prejudicial against the defendant.

So in the case of a proceeding about sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc., the accused should never be asked questions about other harassment or assault? Nothing should be asked that might indicate that the accused acts within any particular behavioral pattern?

Portman is a weak man who cannot stand on principles. He shouldn't be in the party.

P N Dr Lo R says

"Trust the individual"! What a concept!

I mean this vis-a-vis art and history only. The typical individual couldn't care less about our cultural legacy because they are busy making ends meet and putting their kids through school. The wealthy do not philanthropize or patronize the arts nearly as much they did in the past (and that had it's own issues, too). So who is going to do it? The government is not an ideal choice, but it *is* an entity capable of pooling our resources (taxes, infrastructure) to do the things we as individuals do not have time or inclination to care about.

Either that, or we say only pop culture (what's "Now") matters as art and anything else is old, boring, has no use in today's world, and teaches us nothing about ourselves that we can't afford to forget.

Dan8267 says

Ergo, pornography is a functional subset of art and should be treated no differently in the eyes of the law.

I would classify pornography and stripping as "popular culture" genres, which are activities that have no issue finding funding. The irony of popular culture is that it doesn't often transcend into the realm of cultural legacy. Who wants to watch a porno made in the '80s? Or, rather, what value does it have that a newly made porno doesn't have? If there is a reason to look at pornography from 100 years ago, it is not usually for sexual titillation, and it is not the average individual that is interested.

For every Rolling Stones, there is a Tony Orlando and Dawn, a Difranco Family, a Milli Vanilli, etc.

Dan8267 says

Why should Shakespeare be bestowed the title of art but Spiderman not?

While I find Shakespeare challenging to my attention span, half the expressions in the English language we take for granted are derived from what his characters have spoken. For whatever reason, his plays are 500 years old yet still resonate with us as humans, even if we don't realize it's his words or ideas in our heads. Perhaps in 500 years Spiderman will still resonate with humanity, or perhaps it will turn out Spiderman was just pop culture entertainment "of the times".

Paralithodes says

Yes, of course... It was the Republicans fault that Clinton did what he did (apparently excusable by the left - and you - despite support for women, etc.). Tin foil hats off...

Bill Clinton getting a blow job from a fat chick in the Oval Office does not in any way harm women or Clinton's stellar record -- in comparison of all the presidents twenty years around him.

And if you think that's bad, I hate to break it to you what all presidents do in Lincoln's bedroom.

Paralithodes says

take it you believe Clinton was not really a womanizer?

Of course I believe that Clinton was a womanizer. I just don't believe that being a womanizer is a bad thing. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of yours or the governments business. It's only the business of those two consenting adults and his wife.

I'm reminded of WWII. Eisenhower has a womanizer and had affairs. Churchill was a womanizer and had affairs. Charles de Gaulle was a womanizer and had affairs -- well, he was French, so it's a requirement of the president. However, Adolph Hitler was completely monogamous and loyal to Eva Braun. Who would you make out to be the good guy in this scenario?

I don't blame Newt for being a womanizer. I blame Newt for being a hypocrite who tried to ruin a president and a country for personal political gain by creating a sex scandal when he himself was the truly scandalous one.

Paralithodes says

So in the case of a proceeding about sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc., the accused should never be asked questions about other harassment or assault?

Monica Lewinsky was not the victim of sexual harassment. When Lewinsky was 15 years-old, she asked herself, "How can I become rich and famous?". Her answer was, "I know, I'll blow the president of the United States and write a book about it.". Clinton, not Lewinsky, was the victim.

It is inappropriate to ask a rape victim about her sexual history and to imply that if a rape victim wasn't a virgin, she wasn't really a victim. By the same token, it is inappropriate to ask someone accused of sexual harassment about consensual sexual relationships and to imply that if he had any extra-marital sexual relationships he must be a sexual harasser.

Furthermore, the line of questioning was not intended to expose a past of sexual harassment, but rather to entrap the president for political gain, and that is by far a greater crime as it endangers national security. Had our government devoted these resources to preventing Osama bin Laden from rising to power instead of pursuing a made up sex scandal, all those who died on 9/11 would still be alive. Don't expect me to have any respect for the politicking Republicans who distracted our nation at a critical junction.

Philistine says

I would classify pornography and stripping as "popular culture" genres, which are activities that have no issue finding funding.

Ah, but what makes your classification superior to other people's? At least my classification of pornography as a functional subset of art is indisputably true coming from the very definitions of the terms.

Furthermore, why should "unpopular" culture be privileged by the government and "popular", i.e. democratically approved, culture not? In fact, there are far more "unpopular" cultures that do not receive funding than those that do. When was the last time the government rewarded tax-exempted status to a role-playing games club?

Philistine says

Who wants to watch a porno made in the '80s?

I would image quite a few.

Philistine says

Or, rather, what value does it have that a newly made porno doesn't have?

Women had pubic hair back then? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that there are millions of people in the world that have very strong opinions on why 80s pornos are more valuable and culturally significant than recent pornos.

Philistine says

If there is a reason to look at pornography from 100 years ago, it is not usually for sexual titillation, and it is not the average individual that is interested.

You are assuming that sexual titillation is not one of the functions of art. Empirically it has always been. Even the most ancient art is erotic. The oldest known piece of art, now called the Venus of Willendorf, was created with the very purpose of sexual titillation.

Again, not everyone buys into the premise that sex is bad, sex is dirty, sex has no place in culture. And why should the government be able to force that empirically unpopular sentiment onto the entire population?

Philistine says

While I find Shakespeare challenging to my attention span... perhaps it will turn out Spiderman was just pop culture entertainment "of the times".

And I would completely agree with that opinion. However, who are you and I to force our opinion onto others, which is essentially what we would be doing by forcing a person to pay taxes to support one rather than the other.

Finally, I simply do not trust a government that is willing to torture and assassinate to exercise control over culture in a benevolent way. Government should be culture agnostic. One can even argue that subsidies for the arts is racist as Western, European, white art will always get far more subsidies than African or Asian art. The government should not even be in the position to make such discriminations in the first place.

You are assuming that sexual titillation is not one of the functions of art. Empirically it has always been. Even the most ancient art is erotic. The oldest known piece of art, now called the Venus of Willendorf, was created with the very purpose of sexual titillation.

Wow! Baby got back! I especially like the bag over the head.

You sure that's sculpture isn't an ancient public service message against gluttony?

Dan8267 says

KarlRoveIsScum says

Oh, Dan, You obviously prefer Tea Party politics than polite conversation.

Karl, please argue with the douche-bag Meccos over whether I'm a commie leftist or a right wing Tea Partier. It is logically impossible to be both! I will gladly debate the winner and demonstrate why he is wrong, but first you two have to duke it out.

Meccos says

You constantly only point out the right because your views are consistent with the left. If you were a true independent, im sure you would find things on the left to bash as well...but you dont.

The left calls me the right. The right calls me the left. In reality, I'm perpendicular to the batshit crazy left-right line.

Throwdown between Meccos and KarlRoveIsScum.

New Renter says

Wow! Baby got back! I especially like the bag over the head.

You sure that's sculpture isn't an ancient public service message against gluttony?

The idea of putting a bag over a woman's head before having sex with her is ancient, too. Perhaps that's why bags were originally invented. Maybe they predate beer.

As for gluttony, the sculptor could be a chubby chaser. There certainly would have been an evolutionary advantage during a time when food was scarce.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Wow! Baby got back! I especially like the bag over the head.

You sure that's sculpture isn't an ancient public service message against gluttony?

The idea of putting a bag over a woman's head before having sex with her is ancient, too. Perhaps that's why bags were originally invented. Maybe they predate beer.

As for gluttony, the sculptor could be a chubby chaser. There certainly would have been an evolutionary advantage during a time when food was scarce.

Could be? I think its pretty clear he (or she) chased the chubbies. Given the lack of pubic hair the artist if alive today may also have been a fan of honey booboo and/or arrested as a pedophile.

KarlRoveIsScum says

A) you are very far right of being an independent thinker, by your own admission you are no Republican or Dem.

1. Limit this discussion to one threads, not two. We're already discussing your false accusations on http://patrick.net/?p=1222838

2. Being neither a republican or a democrat does not make me Libertarian.

KarlRoveIsScum says

b) You display many liberation views in your 6800 posts

I'm a liberal, so I believe in equality under the law and that adults should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not infringing upon other people's rights. There's an overlap on social issues between Libertarian and Liberals, but my economic philosophy are utterly incompatible with Libertarians. I'm more of a Georgist.

Not that there's anything horrific about Libertarians. The right is not Libertarian by any means. Libertarians abhor torture and the military industrial complex. Do you disagree with those objections?

KarlRoveIsScum says

They are lunatics on the fringe, you are not.

So you want me to ask you questions or cut and paste your answers from your own posts?

here you go:

Please tell us in your own words how affirmative action has helped blacks in America deal with racism and post slavery ?

Stop cross-posting like a newb. Go to the other thread.

KarlRoveIsScum says

No these are liberation, racist and bigoted views.

How the fuck are any of those positions racist or bigoted. Making such a claim without explaining it just makes you look like a nut job. I'm really trying to get you to save face, but you are making it damn difficult.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Dan:

"Please tell us in your own words how affirmative action has helped blacks in America deal with racism and post slavery"

http://patrick.net/?p=1222838&c=943596#comment-943596

New Renter says

Given the lack of pubic hair the artist if alive today may also have been a fan of honey booboo and/or arrested as a pedophile.

Or it may just be that pubic hair is really hard to chisel with stone age tools.

Dan8267 says

Bill Clinton getting a blow job from a fat chick in the Oval Office does not in any way harm women or Clinton's stellar record -- in comparison of all the presidents twenty years around him.

I simply find it odd that Democrats in general say that they are for respect and equality of women, then support, and as you are doing, excuse, behavior such as Clinton's. Excuse it to the point of obfuscating the difference between the behavior in question and committing perjury and obstruction of justice by lying under oath (your attribution of this just being a GOP witch hunt is irrelevant personal opinion).

Dan8267 says

I blame Newt for being a hypocrite who tried to ruin a president and a country for personal political gain by creating a sex scandal when he himself was the truly scandalous one.

Again, all it takes is reading the actual articles of impeachment to see that Gingrich was not a hypocrite in this case. I do NOT argue that he was not a hypocrite vis-à-vis Clinton and morals. I simply argue that the impeachment was not about Clinton's immoral behavior - it was about his illegal behavior during a court proceeding.

Of course Dan8267 says

Monica Lewinsky was not the victim of sexual harassment.

Monica Lewinsky was not the subject of the case for which Clinton was being questioned. It was the Paula Jones case. Monica Lewinsky was not being asked under oath about her previous behavior - Bill Clinton was being asked about his behavior. Dan8267 says

By the same token, it is inappropriate to ask someone accused of sexual harassment about consensual sexual relationships and to imply that if he had any extra-marital sexual relationships he must be a sexual harasser.

I'm not so sure that it is inappropriate - I'm not a lawyer, and apparently neither are you. In any case, your if/then is simplistic. Either you are unfamiliar with the basics of the case, or you are intentionally throwing out red herrings.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, the line of questioning was not intended to expose a past of sexual harassment, but rather to entrap the president for political gain...

Simply your opinion, because like most who blindly supported Clinton, you admit that Clinton was a womanizer, but ALL of those women, like Paula Jones, who were covered while he was president, were entrapment bait by Republicans. Clinton was a womanizer, except for all of them - in those cases, he was the victim and they were the victimizers, right? That seems to be your argument.

Meanwhile, why not just read the articles of impeachment? You can still call Gingrich a hypocrite all day long with complete validity and relative objectivity. But he is NOT a hypocrite for impeaching Clinton, even if he was personally a hypocrite on the same issues of morality and infidelity.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Dan, it's not a throwdown

A) you are very far right of being an independent thinker, by your own admission you are no Republican or Dem.

b) You display many liberation views in your 6800 posts

That's called being a Tea Partier

and C) RT NEWS IS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

I bet you would vote for Ron Paul! Wouldn't you?

I've only had a couple of exchanges with Dan and they were as acerbic as many others he's been involved with. But what is your point here? Your line of questioning shows more about you than it does about Dan. It should be clear to anyone who has participated or lurked in these threads that on some issues, Dan has expressed views that fall firmly on the left, and some views that fall firmly on the right, and sometimes the details within some of his views would fall either way.

Someone who would make it an issue of how far Dan is one side or the other obviously is pretty extreme on their side. You must be very, very far to the left to a) think that Dan is far to the right of independent and moreover b) to make it an issue in a thread.

Why don't you be happy that he appears to hate Republicans much more than he may dislike Democrats (and it's not so clear he does dislike them, though the former is very clear). Or do you expect everyone to follow a certain script?

FortWayne says

Portman is a weak man who cannot stand on principles. He shouldn't be in the party.

Oh no. He's in the right party alright. I think that's in the platform.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Real Republicans would jail all women of child bearing age and feed them slaughtered homosexuals.

...and let the "real men" shoot each other until there's only one left, who will then mate with all the jailed women and produce a new Master Race.

Meanwhile, real Democrats(tm) would require all men and kids to consume Homefool's pills, while requiring daily mammograms for all womyn over age 9.

Obviously, Kang and Kodos have different platforms, so enjoy your Choice(tm) American voters of earth!

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Given the lack of pubic hair the artist if alive today may also have been a fan of honey booboo and/or arrested as a pedophile.

Or it may just be that pubic hair is really hard to chisel with stone age tools.

Funny, I was thinking something along those lines as to why Venus was unlikely to have been modeled from an adult. It would have taken a brave woman to shave with a stone axe, especially one big enough to have had to do it sight unseen.

Unless she had help of course.

Given the aparent skill of the artist I don't think the tools would have been the limiting factor.

Paralithodes says

I simply find it odd that Democrats in general say that they are for respect and equality of women, then support, and as you are doing, excuse, behavior such as Clinton's

It's really quite simple. I can't speak for Democrats, but I can for people with common sense who believe in equality under law, you know, liberals. Equality under law means that every person has the same rights, no person has any privileges, and people are treated the same by the law and the courts. It means women have the right to vote, own property, serve in the military, and enter into any contract that men can.

Equality under law has nothing to do with long-term or short-term mating strategies of men and women. Equality under law has nothing to do with cultural preferences, social standing, "respect", or sexual promiscuity of individuals. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with the law and are no business of the government.

Paralithodes says

committing perjury and obstruction of justice by lying under oath

"Committing perjury" and "obstruction of justice by lying under oath" would be the same thing.

And neither applies to Clinton. There was no obstruction of justice. There was no harm done. And Clinton did not lie, plain and simple. As I said, Clinton answered the question actually asked, not the question Republicans should have asked. I.e., the Republicans fucked up.

And think about it this way... The worst thing Republican voters can complain about Clinton to this day is him getting a blow job and not telling the whole world. The worst things that we liberals complain about Bush and Obama are

- torture
- indefinite detention without habeas corpus
- kidnapping the middle of the night
- assassination of innocent people including American citizens on soil and children
- illegal wiretapping
- rape scanners at airports
- the Second Great Depression
- the fall of our credit rating
- a $16 trillion bailout of the banks that caused the collapse of our economy

How do you compare those things to Clinton not volunteering information about his private sex life to the whole world? That's a pretty thin stretch for calling Clinton a criminal, especially given the crimes against humanity committed by both of his successors. Hell, the warrantless wiretapping alone is a far greater offense than what you are accusing Clinton of, and those crimes actually happened.

And since I'm more than willing to say that Obama has committed crimes against humanity, that hardly makes me someone covering up for the Democrats.

Paralithodes says

Gingrich was not a hypocrite in this case.

Hypocrisy has to do with intentions not technicalities.

Paralithodes says

Monica Lewinsky was not the subject of the case for which Clinton was being questioned. It was the Paula Jones case.

Which is exactly why it was an inappropriate question. Consensual sexual relationships have no barring on a sexual harassment case any more than on a rape case. And that goes for both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator.

Paralithodes says

Dan8267 says

By the same token, it is inappropriate to ask someone accused of sexual harassment about consensual sexual relationships and to imply that if he had any extra-marital sexual relationships he must be a sexual harasser.

I'm not so sure that it is inappropriate - I'm not a lawyer, and apparently neither are you. In any case, your if/then is simplistic. Either you are unfamiliar with the basics of the case, or you are intentionally throwing out red herrings.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that the defense cannot make the case that a woman is a slut who has slept around in a rape trial. It is common sense that the defendant's consensual sexual relationships are also off limits in such a trial.

And yes, every single citizen should have a basic understanding of the law and right and wrong. After all, you might serve on a jury.

As for me intentionally throwing out red herrings, that's a pretty lame argument and not one anyone who have read my previous posts would believe.

Paralithodes says

Simply your opinion, because like most who blindly supported Clinton

The fact that you assert that I blindly support Clinton indicates that like most Americans today you fall into the trap of thinking that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say must be your polar opposite. During the Clinton administration I had no strong opinions of his administration. I thought he was an average, typical politician, nothing to write home about. Of course, the next two administrations have been so monstrously fucked up that they make Clinton look like an Olympian god.

Besides, how can I be a blind Clinton supporter when that ass KarlRoveIsScum has revealed that I'm actually a racist Tea Party member. You see, left-wing nut jobs think I'm a right winger and right-wing nut jobs think I'm a left winger. Don't fall into that trap as well.

Paralithodes says

Clinton was a womanizer, except for all of them - in those cases, he was the victim and they were the victimizers, right? That seems to be your argument.

I never said Clinton wasn't a womanizer. I stated that the attempt to impeach him had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics, and that should not be tolerated in the courts. The courts are playthings for politicians. If someone tried the same thing to Bush or Obama, they'd be thrown in Gitmo without trial and would not survive interrogation. Get your priorities in order.

Paralithodes says

KarlRoveIsScum says

Yeah, you take on this left-wing nutjob. I still hold the belief that either the number of right-wing nutjobs is greater than the number of left-wing nutjobs or the right-wing ones are more vocal, but KarlRoveIsScum certainly is a fine example of a left-wing nutjob. And I'll gladly oppose them when I find them.

Dan8267 says

And neither applies to Clinton. There was no obstruction of justice. There was no harm done. And Clinton did not lie, plain and simple.

Plain and simple? Then why was his law license temporarily suspended? Why did he resign his bar to the Supreme Court in lieu of risk of having it revoked? Why the financial penalties on him for obstruction of justice, etc.?

Also plain and simple ... the actual words in the articles of impeachment.

Despite considering myself conservative, I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich, especially after seeing him use some of the same rhetorical tricks that President Obama uses during the debates. I agree Gingrich is a moral hypocrite in general. If as you say above, that Clinton was impeached not for justice but only for politics is true (I don't necessarily dispute that), then you undermine your argument that the impeachment was an example of moral hypocrisy. However, Clinton lied under oath. Motive on the other side or appropriateness of the questions do not change, explain away, or excuse that Clinton lied under oath. The facts (the actual text of the articles of impeachment, the findings and penalties after the case), beyond your interpretations of them, show that Gingrich didn't impeach Clinton for 'doing the same thing he did,' unless you can show that Gingrich lied under oath in a case somewhere. And even that would not excuse someone else from lying under oath.

Paralithodes says

Plain and simple? Then why was his law license temporarily suspended? Why did he resign his bar to the Supreme Court in lieu of risk of having it revoked? Why the financial penalties on him for obstruction of justice, etc.?

Politics, plain and simple.

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."? I can point to over a million victims, including children, of George Bush saying "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.".

To have a stick up your ass about Clinton not offering himself up as a sacrifice to the Republicans says more about you than Clinton. It says you always hated Clinton and never wanted him to be president because he works for the other team.

Given the vast amounts of pure evil implemented by the Bush administration, what exactly have you said condemning that administration?

Here's how you tell the difference between someone making a genuine argument against politicians and someone who ridicules only one side for political gain... The guy making the genuine argument will say bad things about both parties, most often when they do the same thing. I meet that criteria, you don't.

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

I agree... I have been against the wars in the middle east from the very beginning. However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished? Does one wrong make another wrong ok? This often seems to be your argument...

Meccos says

However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished?

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. If any court has ruled he did so, you'd be able to provide the ruling.

Vicente says

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.

do you really believe Billy Bob didnt have sexual relationship with Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Gennifer Flowers. He denied it of course.. late admitted he actual did have sexual relationship.

Vicente says

Meccos says

However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished?

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. If any court has ruled he did so, you'd be able to provide the ruling.

Vicente, would you argue that OJ did not commit murder? If he had, one would be able to provide a ruling showing that he did? Do you understand the difference between "committed" and "convicted?" Did you ever read the articles of impeachment? And why was Clinton's law license suspended/why did he resign his bar from the Supreme Court.

Dan8267 says

To have a stick up your ass about Clinton not offering himself up as a sacrifice to the Republicans says more about you than Clinton. It says you always hated Clinton and never wanted him to be president because he works for the other team.

Given the vast amounts of pure evil implemented by the Bush administration, what exactly have you said condemning that administration?

This is silly, and given your logical approach to fallacies commited by KarlRoveIsScum, beneath you. Whether one condemns or not anything with Bush neither explains, nor excuses, anything with Clinton. Clinton is not excused for ethical lapses BECAUSE of things that Bush did, etc. I voted for Clinton, twice. I don't expect you to believe that, but your claim that I hated him is just as unprovable. You seem to have missed the wider point that I am not even really condemning Clinton that much. I don't even dispute with you that Gingrich's actions may have been due to "politics." There should be zero doubt in the mind of anyone with a shred of objectivity about Clinton that good or bad, generally able to overlook due to other qualities or not, Clinton did not tell the truth under oath - AND paid professional and financial penalties for them. But that does not mean they did not happen (for Vicente: and just because he wasn't convicted by a jury doesn't mean they didn't happen, either - it is very odd of you, or ideological perhaps, to take such a technical approach for one aspect, while ignoring all of the other technicalities - certainly doesn't sound like someone who was once a "staunch" republican).

My only real contention is your claim that Gingrich impeached Clinton for doing the same thing he did (e.g., cheating on his wife, having an affair, etc.). It is a false analogy. The articles of impeachment themselves show that. Perhaps you should read them. You can attack Gingrich for so much real, unexagerated, un-false analogies, that using this one is unnecessary.

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

I also do not agree with Portman. His choice just shows lack of conviction.

Dan8267 says

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

Agreed. You can't just take arbitrary questions unrelated to the presidents job and put the president under oath for it like"Mr. president, tell us, how many shits did you take this morning?" and then impeach him for giving the wrong answer. I am no expert, maybe there is a law that you cannot get blown by a govt employee in the white house and that is somehow grounds for impeachment, but personally I could care less about him getting a little personal stress-relief. Now if you excuse me, I have to take a brief hike in the Appalachian mountains.

FortWayne says

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

I also do not agree with Portman. His choice just shows lack of conviction.

I agree that we have far more important issues and I don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, the government has always had the right to favor certain lifestyles over others, even though I don't agree with it. So I think the only fair solution is for government to get out of marriage completely and not favor any lifestyle and let it be a purely spiritual/religious affair backed by a church of your choice. For anything related to rights/financial status in their state couples should separately go on the record for a civil union, but there should be no federal implications.

Meccos says

I agree... I have been against the wars in the middle east from the very beginning. However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished? Does one wrong make another wrong ok? This often seems to be your argument...

Two wrongs don't make a right. However, Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. It is not perjury to answer the question asked without volunteering more information.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/williamjclinton/

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.

Bill Clinton was asked an irrelevant question for the sole purpose of creating a political scandal to end his career and help republicans in the next election. That question should have been thrown out and would have if not for the pure political bullshit that the monkey trial impeachment was.

Nevertheless, Clinton correctly and truthfully answered the actual question asked. What he did not do was answer the question the Republicans meant to ask. He was under no obligation to do so, and the Fifth Amendment gives all persons, including the president, the right not to testify against himself. And even if Bill Clinton had shouted, "I got a blow job from that fatie Lewinsky!", it would have been completely irrelevant to the trial or to his job performance as president.

Only hypocritical republicans wanted Clinton's blow job proclaimed on the stand so they could trump up a sex scandal. And yes, those republicans were hypocrites because they all had their own sex scandals and they all proclaimed that in an age of terrorism, the president should not be questioned because national security is on the line. Image if we hadn't wasted time and resources on this monkey trial and instead spent that time and those resources on capturing Osama bid Laden before 9/11 happened.

Image, not only the thousands of American lives saved, but also the million of Iraqi lives saved, and the decline of terrorism in the world. But no, republicans always put their own political careers ahead of national interests. And that is exactly what makes them hypocrites.

Paralithodes says

Clinton is not excused for ethical lapses BECAUSE of things that Bush did, etc.

Whether or not Clinton behaved unethically or immorally is an entirely different question. The argument that Meccos made was that Bill Clinton committed perjury and should have been jailed for it.

I have no doubt that Clinton had many sexual escapades while married. I don't give a rat's ass. I don't even care that Newt had many sexual escapades while married except for the hypocrisy of attacking Clinton for the same thing and passing "family values" legislation.

But you know what, it says a lot when the only thing people can say bad about the Clinton administration years later is he got a blow job in the Oval Office and didn't tell everyone.

I wish we had a president and senators who were so good that the only thing we could complain about was their sex lives. The economy was great. There were no wars, no torture, no war on terror. Hell, I'd give the blow jobs to go back to those days.

Dan8267 says

I don't even care that Newt had many sexual escapades while married except for the hypocrisy of attacking Clinton for the same thing and passing "family values" legislation.

Well, we're at an impasse... My major disagreement was your argument above - that Gingrich impeached Clinton for the "same thing." I still disagree but in the scheme of things it's not that important I guess, as I do not disagree that Gingrich was a hypocrite in general. Have a nice day.