Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

[Caligastia]

Lott apologised for any misunderstanding his comments may have caused, but of course the hypocritical democrats will keep hounding him because they have nothing better to do.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Lott apologised for any misunderstanding his comments may have caused, but of course the hypocritical democrats will keep hounding him because they have nothing better to do.

Just like the Republicans hounded Clinton.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Just like the Republicans hounded Clinton.

When Lott gets it as much a Clinton does, then they can unleash the dogs of war. Not before.

[Caligastia]

Clinton deserved it. He disgraced the White House with his antics then lied about it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Clinton deserved it. He disgraced the White House with his antics then lied about it.

Reagan disgraced the White House when he circumvented the Constitution to fund C.A. anti-communist guerillas. Nixon disgraced the White House by his Watergate shenanigans.

Comparing that to getting a bj from an intern is laughable. The private sex lives of politicians, however sordid you may find it, is in an entirely different sphere than abuse of presidential power.

Clinton lied about it because it was his private business and the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place. I think anyone should have the right to keep their affairs private. But when you're the target of a coordinated witch hunt by your political foes (just what was the Whitewater prosecutor doing in a civil suit about sexual harrasment?), I suppose such privacy is no longer sacrosanct.

[DinoDoc]

Clinton lied about it because it was his private business and the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

You don't see how the question might be material to a harrassment lawsuit.

Oh how history would have been different if Clinton had settled that suit years ago. We all would have been spared much annoyance.

Sigh

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You don't see how the question might be material to a harrassment lawsuit.

No. Engaging in a mutually consentual extramarital affair isn't remotely harassment. And Jones's lawyers wouldn't have had a clue about it if Inspector Starr hadn't been feeding the infor to him for the sole purpose of embarrassing the president.

Oh how history would have been different if Clinton had settled that suit years ago. We all would have been spared much annoyance.

Sigh

I agree, and certainly don't think Clinton made the wisest move. However, I also sympathize with him because I think Jones was full of ****. I think she went along with him and then later decided she could get some money and fame out of suing the president. So in sense Clinton was right to fight the suit.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Reagan disgraced the White House when he circumvented the Constitution to fund C.A. anti-communist guerillas. Nixon disgraced the White House by his Watergate shenanigans.

So its ok because other presidents did worse things.

Comparing that to getting a bj from an intern is laughable.

It's laughable because you are trying to justify Clinton by pointing at other presidents saying "they did worse!".

The private sex lives of politicians, however sordid you may find it, is in an entirely different sphere than abuse of presidential power.

So why are you comparing? I guess because you have to bring up something really rank to make Clinton look decent.

Are you saying you don't find it sordid that he cheated on his wife in the oval office?! Or is that "not really cheating"?

Clinton lied about it because it was his private business and the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

If you had an employee that was getting bj's from their intern at work, would you consider it their "private business"?

I think anyone should have the right to keep their affairs private. But when you're the target of a coordinated witch hunt by your political foes (just what was the Whitewater prosecutor doing in a civil suit about sexual harrasment?), I suppose such privacy is no longer sacrosanct.

When you commit such an act in you place of work, you forfeit the right to privacy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So in sense Clinton was right to fight the suit.

He wasn't right in any sense to fight the suit once the SCOTUS said that it could go foward. It proved to be a horrible distraction for the country and tainted his Presidency.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Caligastia
So its ok because other presidents did worse things.

It's laughable because you are trying to justify Clinton by pointing at other presidents saying "they did worse!".

So why are you comparing? I guess because you have to bring up something really rank to make Clinton look decent.

You're not getting this--it isn't about justifying Clinton's actions or saying he's decent. YOU were the one who started the comparisons by saying what Lott did doesn't compare to Clinton. So it's fair game to make comparisons to Clinton and others.

No, what I'm saying is that his actions aren't remotely a "disgrace" to the White House. That's melodramatic hyperbole. And I never said Clinton was decent. I will hold him to the same standards I hold other presidents, and that is the standard of their performance as president, not how they lead their sex lives

Are you saying you don't find it sordid that he cheated on his wife in the oval office?! Or is that "not really cheating"?

Sordid? Yes. That wasn't the issue, though. It was whether it merited the impeachment flap and calling it a "disgrace" to the White House. The impeachment was a disgrace to Congress and the country, and the White House was sullied by the witch hunt against Clinton for a sexual affair that was no different than what has been going on in the White House since it was built.

And as can be seen by Livingston's ignominious exit from Congress, Gingrinch's sordid affairs and the others who kept their mouths shut and voted "no" because they knew Flynt had the smoking gun on them, he was also being condemned by a group of blatant hypocrits.

If you had an employee that was getting bj's from their intern at work, would you consider it their "private business"?

First, the White House is also the president's residence. Second, the president isn't my employee, nor is he Congress's employee. Oh, and they never did anything in the Oval Office.

And is there any prohibition against doing such a thing in his office?

Frankly, I don't consider it any of our business. If it was somehow impeding his job performance, then it would be a problem. But his 65% approval ratings showed that wasn't the case. If he'd been violating the constitution to further a political agenda, that would also be bad. But no, he was just getting a hummer from an intern who aggressively set out to get her man and got him. Big fat whoopdedoo.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He wasn't right in any sense to fight the suit once the SCOTUS said that it could go foward. It proved to be a horrible distraction for the country and tainted his Presidency.

I meant that he could defend himself in court in the suit. Wasn't referring to fighting the suit itself.

And it did taint his presidency, certainly. But it also tainted Congress for their inappropriate impeachment and laughable show trial.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by uh Clem
You think that Thurmond was running because he didn't like Truman's agricultural policies? The Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic convention specifically over the civil rights plank voted into the platform.

Your argument is as Illogical as it's unconstitutional.

You shouldn't have bothered clipping the part of my post where i said it's most likely he meant that only to post the exact same thing as "rebuttal".

Be that as it may, this "thought police" crap a number of people in this thread and in the real world have been spouting is WAY out of line.

Did he ACTUALLY say something wrong, or did YOU INFER it?

Big difference.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You're not getting this--it isn't about justifying Clinton's actions or saying he's decent. YOU were the one who started the comparisons by saying what Lott did doesn't compare to Clinton.

No I didn't. Show me where I said that.

So it's fair game to make comparisons to Clinton and others.

But you yourself said the comparison is laughable.

No, what I'm saying is that his actions aren't remotely a "disgrace" to the White House. That's melodramatic hyperbole.

When your conduct in the White House is disgraceful, you disgrace the White House. Are you saying you don't think his conduct was disgraceful?

And I never said Clinton was decent. I will hold him to the same standards I hold other presidents, and that is the standard of their performance as president, not how they lead their sex lives

Once again you are trying to seperate what he did from his public life, sorry, he did what he did at work, not in the privacy of his own home.

Sordid? Yes. That wasn't the issue, though. It was whether it merited the impeachment flap and calling it a "disgrace" to the White House. The impeachment was a disgrace to Congress and the country, and the White House was sullied by the witch hunt against Clinton for a sexual affair that was no different than what has been going on in the White House since it was built.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say the comparison is "laughable", now it's "no different". You can't have it both ways.

And as can be seen by Livingston's ignominious exit from Congress, Gingrinch's sordid affairs and the others who kept their mouths shut and voted "no" because they knew Flynt had the smoking gun on them, he was also being condemned by a group of blatant hypocrits.

Still pointing at others to make Clinton look better I see.

First, the White House is also the president's residence. Second, the president isn't my employee, nor is he Congress's employee. Oh, and they never did anything in the Oval Office.

And is there any prohibition against doing such a thing in his office?

Being president of the US is a 24/7 job, and and if you don't think he is employed by the people, where does the money for his paycheck come from? Oh, thats right, our taxes...

Frankly, I don't consider it any of our business. If it was somehow impeding his job performance, then it would be a problem. But his 65% approval ratings showed that wasn't the case. If he'd been violating the constitution to further a political agenda, that would also be bad. But no, he was just getting a hummer from an intern who aggressively set out to get her man and got him. Big fat whoopdedoo.

Oh, so now its all Monica's fault?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Caligastia
No I didn't. Show me where I said that.

Originally posted by Caligastia
Clinton deserved it. He disgraced the White House with his antics then lied about it.

Since the thread is about Lott, this is saying that what Lott did didn't deserve criticism, but Clinton did. Hence a comparison.

But you yourself said the comparison is laughable.

Riiiight...as in laughably unequal.

When your conduct in the White House is disgraceful, you disgrace the White House. Are you saying you don't think his conduct was disgraceful?

No, because it was his private sex life. "Disgraceful" is a nice word to use if you're a Victorian matron with a moral axe to grind, but when it comes to his sex life, it's meaningless.

Once again you are trying to seperate what he did from his public life, sorry, he did what he did at work, not in the privacy of his own home.

Since you later say that being president is a 24/7 job, you're saying he has no right to privacy whatsoever. That's a crock of ****. Put it simply: His conduct relating to public policy is our business. His conduct relating to sexual affairs is not our business.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say the comparison is "laughable", now it's "no different". You can't have it both ways.

No different from other sexual conduct in the past in the White House, which is also none of our business. Again, there's a difference between abuse of presidential authority in matters of public policy and matters of sexual conduct. A huge huge huge difference.

Still pointing at others to make Clinton look better I see.

No, pointing out that those who saw fit to judge his moral character were no better. That certainly is relevant to the issue. And again you were the one who said "Clinton deserved it," in an implication that he is worse than others.

Being president of the US is a 24/7 job, and and if you don't think he is employed by the people, where does the money for his paycheck come from? Oh, thats right, our taxes...

And as I said, crock of ****. Being a politician does not mean one forfeits a private life. There is NOTHING prohibiting him leading his sex life as he wants. I don't recall a constitutional provision that says the president won't boink interns or else he loses his job.

Oh, so now its all Monica's fault?

Fault? I'm not saying she's at fault, because I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY DID WAS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS. The fault of the whole scandal was, IMO, those who were going around digging up any salacious dirt they could find. I think Ken Starr is at fault.

Monica and Bill were mutually consenting partners. She wasn't a victim of sexual harassment, so her relevance to the Jones suit was NIL.

And again, how does this negate Lott's comments as being sorely inappropriate?

[MosesPresley]

I think the point has been lost in the commotion. Ken Starr started out with an investigation into Whitewater. When after $70m was spent and he couldn't even get Clinton for writing a bad check, in desperation, he went after Clinton's sex life. The questions about his sex life, since they had nothing to do with the original investigation, should never have asked in the first place. This was in the finest mudslinging tradition and the mud stuck.