Where's the indictment against Bill Clinton?

what you described of Clinton isn't like drugging and raping women

that's the only thing i am arguing

if you still see your examples as similar, then so be it and i will go about my exciting afternoon of laundry and dishes etc and listening to music
 
BedellBrave said:
I don't know. We need to think of something really clever and with a nice ring to it.

Listen, I'm a fallen sinner who falls so far short of the glory of God. I've got plenty of logs to pull out of my own eye. But why so many decent (I'll assume such) guys around here defend the Clintons, turn a blind-eye, give then the least bit of cover or excuse, over what is clearly abusive, sexist, serial, behavior, is beyond me. I get pulling for your team and all, but after awhile, you just need to back up and look at what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the Clintons are the closest thing Dems have to an "icon" to root for, much like the Kennedys were before Teddy came along and took that "ill fated drive off the bridge" one evening. For a comparison look at how Repubs do with Reagan. You see/hear them building Ramses II sized statues to the guy while praising him for stuff he didn't even do or praising him while ignoring him for the stuff he really did do. We all need our heroes I suppose but I tend to side with Pappy Boyington on that issue.
 
goldfly said:
what you described of Clinton isn't like drugging and raping women

that's the only thing i am arguing

if you still see your examples as similar, then so be it and i will go about my exciting afternoon of laundry and dishes etc and listening to music
Click to expand...

He's been accused of sexual assault/rape multiple times. He may not have used a drug to get what he wanted, course there are many others tools a Horn-dog can use to work his "magic."
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Personally I think the Clintons are the closest thing Dems have to an "icon" to root for, much like the Kennedys were before Teddy came along and took that "ill fated drive off the bridge" one evening. For a comparison look at how Repubs do with Reagan. You see/hear them building Ramses II sized statues to the guy while praising him for stuff he didn't even do or praising him while ignoring him for the stuff he really did do. We all need our heroes I suppose but I tend to side with Pappy Boyington on that issue.
Click to expand...

I think you are on to something there OHawk.
 
BedellBrave said:
He's been accused of sexual assault/rape multiple times. He may not have used a drug to get what he wanted, course there are many others tools a Horn-dog can use to work his "magic."
Click to expand...

I remember the good old days when Governor Clinton would meet a young hottie and then "offer them a position on the Governor's staff" so to speak.
 
I'm not really sure what you're looking for here, BB. I told you my rationale for being skeptical about accusations against the Clintons 20 years ago. If you choose to discount that, fine. But that was, in my mind, a reasonable rationale. 20 years later, given time and a different perspective, I might have a different opinion about Bill Clinton.

I'm just not sure what you're looking for from me. I've cast a total of one ballot for a Clinton in my life. That was for Bill, in 1996. Given the same opportunity, I'd cast the same vote. The party as a whole, and myself as individual, made a different choice in 2008.

Given the choice between Hillary or Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio, I will pull the lever for a Clinton again. Looking at the nationwide state of the Republican Party, I'm not sure how you could criticize me for making that decision. Bill Clinton is a phenomenally skilled politician, and, quite possibly, a predatory dirtbag. If you want me to say that he's Cosby, or that I shouldn't vote for his wife, given the opposition, you're going to have to go back to work.

So I guess that what you're saying is that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston and Denny Hastert don't matter...that the folks who were lighting the bonfire for the Clintons get a pass. That I can be clear-eyed about the Clintons and still vote for them, considering the alternatives, just isn't a possibility?
 
Personally, I partake in no great hero-worship of William Jefferson Clinton.

Having said that, my second note—and we're probably not on the same page here, [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is that I don't give a **** about the consensual philandering in which Clinton may or may not have engaged; that's between himself, his gods, and his significant other, and if she's still with him, that's her right according to her world-view. (For the record: I do think that the "may haves" probably outweigh the "may not haves" for old Bill.)

Thirdly, and where I guess we arrive at the nut-meat of the matter, as far as I'm concerned: the allegations of sexual assault, and—in one case—of legally-defined rape, are alarming, and—if true—despicable. But I feel that you're drawing a false equivalency between two disparate sets of circumstances, and doing so merely in order to score a cheap, beneath-you, and ultimately unnecessary point (which is, essentially, "the 'other side' is full of hypocrites!"). The details in these kinds of cases do matter, and while—as [MENTION=4]Julio3000[/MENTION] noted—there's a gravely-high possibility that, around women over whom he wields some power (and, given his stature, that is most women), Bill Clinton is a "predatory dirtbag", at the same time, that's very different from the now-almost-forty-some-odd-cases, with eerily matching narratives, describing Bill Cosby drugging and raping women. Still, I'll cede the (obvious) point that, in a white-male-dominated culture of misogyny-forgiveness, it's nonetheless unfortunate that either man is likely to see appropriate censure, nor any of their respective victims likely to find some measure of solace.

And, lastly, speaking to that core issue—the accurate, though altogether unnecessary, illumination of the hypocrisies of the Other—I'll just say that we all have our sacred cows, and we're all reticent to bring them to slaughter; we are, all of us, too-often guilty of excusing away behavior we'd otherwise find anathema; and we're each too-frequently apostate to our own moral compasses. But, in the case of the two Bills, I think we have one man whose sins are dirty and deceitful (Clinton), and one man whose sins are despicable and utterly dehumanizing (Cosby); in my personal catechism, the former is venial (pending substantiation of that handful of more grave accusations), while the latter is straight-up mortal.
 
jpx7 said:
Personally, I partake in no great hero-worship of William Jefferson Clinton.

Having said that, my second note—and we're probably not on the same page here, [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is that I don't give a **** about the consensual philandering in which Clinton may or may not have engaged; that's between himself, his gods, and his significant other, and if she's still with him, that's her right according to her world-view. (For the record: I do think that the "may haves" probably outweigh the "may not haves" for old Bill.)

Thirdly, and where I guess we arrive at the nut-meat of the matter, as far as I'm concerned: the allegations of sexual assault, and—in one case—of legally-defined rape, are alarming, and—if true—despicable. But I feel that you're drawing a false equivalency between two disparate sets of circumstances, and doing so merely in order to score a cheap, beneath-you, and ultimately unnecessary point (which is, essentially, "the 'other side' is full of hypocrites!"). The details in these kinds of cases do matter, and while—as [MENTION=4]Julio3000[/MENTION] noted—there's a gravely-high possibility that, around women over whom he wields some power (and, given his stature, that is most women), Bill Clinton is a "predatory dirtbag", at the same time, that's very different from the now-almost-forty-some-odd-cases, with eerily matching narratives, describing Bill Cosby drugging and raping women. Still, I'll cede the (obvious) point that, in a white-male-dominated culture of misogyny-forgiveness, it's nonetheless unfortunate that either man is likely to see appropriate censure, nor any of their respective victims likely to find some measure of solace.

And, lastly, speaking to that core issue—the accurate, though altogether unnecessary, illumination of the hypocrisies of the Other—I'll just say that we all have our sacred cows, and we're all reticent to bring them to slaughter; we are, all of us, too-often guilty of excusing away behavior we'd otherwise find anathema; and we're each too-frequently apostate to our own moral compasses. But, in the case of the two Bills, I think we have one man whose sins are dirty and deceitful (Clinton), and one man whose sins are despicable and utterly dehumanizing (Cosby); in my personal catechism, the former is venial (pending substantiation of that handful of more grave accusations), while the latter is straight-up mortal.
Click to expand...

Where's the post-of-the-week nomination button?
 
jpx7 said:
Personally, I partake in no great hero-worship of William Jefferson Clinton.

Having said that, my second note—and we're probably not on the same page here, [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is that I don't give a **** about the consensual philandering in which Clinton may or may not have engaged; that's between himself, his gods, and his significant other, and if she's still with him, that's her right according to her world-view. (For the record: I do think that the "may haves" probably outweigh the "may not haves" for old Bill.)

Thirdly, and where I guess we arrive at the nut-meat of the matter, as far as I'm concerned: the allegations of sexual assault, and—in one case—of legally-defined rape, are alarming, and—if true—despicable. But I feel that you're drawing a false equivalency between two disparate sets of circumstances, and doing so merely in order to score a cheap, beneath-you, and ultimately unnecessary point (which is, essentially, "the 'other side' is full of hypocrites!"). The details in these kinds of cases do matter, and while—as [MENTION=4]Julio3000[/MENTION] noted—there's a gravely-high possibility that, around women over whom he wields some power (and, given his stature, that is most women), Bill Clinton is a "predatory dirtbag", at the same time, that's very different from the now-almost-forty-some-odd-cases, with eerily matching narratives, describing Bill Cosby drugging and raping women. Still, I'll cede the (obvious) point that, in a white-male-dominated culture of misogyny-forgiveness, it's nonetheless unfortunate that either man is likely to see appropriate censure, nor any of their respective victims likely to find some measure of solace.

And, lastly, speaking to that core issue—the accurate, though altogether unnecessary, illumination of the hypocrisies of the Other—I'll just say that we all have our sacred cows, and we're all reticent to bring them to slaughter; we are, all of us, too-often guilty of excusing away behavior we'd otherwise find anathema; and we're each too-frequently apostate to our own moral compasses. But, in the case of the two Bills, I think we have one man whose sins are dirty and deceitful (Clinton), and one man whose sins are despicable and utterly dehumanizing (Cosby); in my personal catechism, the former is venial (pending substantiation of that handful of more grave accusations), while the latter is straight-up mortal.
Click to expand...

^^^ That's what I'm looking for without any need to give extended caveats. They aren't necessary, imho. He has been and likely still is (by the fact of his flying with Epstein) a predatory, adulterous, sexist pig. The allegations, the known abuse of his power, the pay-off, the repeated stories of victims being threatened, seem worthy to have his sins bumped up in the moral calculus from mere venial category, imho. The Clintons are a Arkansas, money-grubbing, power-couple with few scruples. I only have growing disdain for them.

Though of course I don't agree with him, support for President Obama, on the other hand makes sense and I commend it.

Put policy agreement/disagreement aside, if I had the opportunity to pull the lever for a Clinton, for a Hastert, for a Gingrich, etc., knowing what we know, I will not do it. That's me. If I were a D I'd pull it for Sanders. And not vote if it's Clinton.

I'm to this point with the Rs as well. My field is narrowing.

I realize there are no morally perfect candidates, but I'm done with considering supporting known deviants and their enablers who then hypocritically preach against sexism, or what have you.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm not really sure what you're looking for here, BB. I told you my rationale for being skeptical about accusations against the Clintons 20 years ago. If you choose to discount that, fine. But that was, in my mind, a reasonable rationale. 20 years later, given time and a different perspective, I might have a different opinion about Bill Clinton.

I'm just not sure what you're looking for from me. I've cast a total of one ballot for a Clinton in my life. That was for Bill, in 1996. Given the same opportunity, I'd cast the same vote. The party as a whole, and myself as individual, made a different choice in 2008.

Given the choice between Hillary or Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio, I will pull the lever for a Clinton again. Looking at the nationwide state of the Republican Party, I'm not sure how you could criticize me for making that decision. Bill Clinton is a phenomenally skilled politician, and, quite possibly, a predatory dirtbag. If you want me to say that he's Cosby, or that I shouldn't vote for his wife, given the opposition, you're going to have to go back to work.

So I guess that what you're saying is that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston and Denny Hastert don't matter...that the folks who were lighting the bonfire for the Clintons get a pass. That I can be clear-eyed about the Clintons and still vote for them, considering the alternatives, just isn't a possibility?
Click to expand...

Who said they should be given a pass?? Why would you give Clinton a pass because of them? Why give any of them a pass? Why this false either/or?
 
BedellBrave said:
Who said they should be given a pass?? Why would you give Clinton a pass because of them? Why give any of them a pass? Why this false either/or?
Click to expand...

Why would I give Clinton a pass because of them? I said that the context mattered. If the same people who were telling me that WJC was a serial rapist were also peddling rumors that Hillary offed Vince Foster or that Blll sold cocaine out of the Governor's mansion, I'd say that some skepticism was in order. So, yeah, there's a place I'm willing to go with Clinton, and it pretty much ends where the legal documents stop . . . precisely because of the same context.
 
Julio3000 said:
Why would I give Clinton a pass because of them? I said that the context mattered. If the same people who were telling me that WJC was a serial rapist were also peddling rumors that Hillary offed Vince Foster or that Blll sold cocaine out of the Governor's mansion, I'd say that some skepticism was in order. So, yeah, there's a place I'm willing to go with Clinton, and it pretty much ends where the legal documents stop . . . precisely because of the same context.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would either, much less defend him as you said you did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top