Lying to the masses is a time honored tradition among politicians of all stripes. What Clinton did is not nearly on the same scale. He committed perjury and in doing so subverted the entire basis of our system of justice. He took an oath before the court, just as he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and purposefully, willfully, violated that oath. If that isn't enough to get you convicted and tossed out of office in disgrace, then certainly nothing less should disqualify any other politican from office for being less than truthful in the absence of such an oath. Why "progressives" perpetually wish to gloss over this salient fact continues to befuddle me. The penalty that Clinton should have been forced to pay for attempting to subvert the judicial system should have been far greater than that which he paid.
PrintSmith wrote: Lying to the masses is a time honored tradition among politicians of all stripes. What Clinton did is not nearly on the same scale. He committed perjury and in doing so subverted the entire basis of our system of justice. He took an oath before the court, just as he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and purposefully, willfully, violated that oath. If that isn't enough to get you convicted and tossed out of office in disgrace, then certainly nothing less should disqualify any other politican from office for being less than truthful in the absence of such an oath. Why "progressives" perpetually wish to gloss over this salient fact continues to befuddle me. The penalty that Clinton should have been forced to pay for attempting to subvert the judicial system should have been far greater than that which he paid.
In your opinion...... The whole Clinton investigation was a witch hunt....that didn't have the desired outcome.....now the GOP has decided to do the same to Hillary, I suspect they won't have any better luck bringing her down.
archer wrote: This election says more about the people of South Carolina than it does about Mark Sanford. As the conservatives have been so apt at pointing out to we liberals, it wasn't what Clinton did so much as the fact that he lied about it. Now really.....just how truthful was Mark Sanford when he lied to his wife and lied to his own staff, and lied to the people of SC before getting caught and finally coming clean. Looks like the republicans love their liars as much as democrats do......but I will remember this thread the next time a conservative here whines about lying Democrats......or Democrats getting caught in a scandal, or make a big deal about a liberal state re-electing someone who has been involved in a domestic scandal.
Or this election says something about Dem voters? Make them show photo ID? They don't go to the polls. Or American voters are willing to forgive? With the right writer Sanford's life could come off as a great love story.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
PrintSmith wrote: Lying to the masses is a time honored tradition among politicians of all stripes. What Clinton did is not nearly on the same scale. He committed perjury and in doing so subverted the entire basis of our system of justice. He took an oath before the court, just as he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and purposefully, willfully, violated that oath. If that isn't enough to get you convicted and tossed out of office in disgrace, then certainly nothing less should disqualify any other politican from office for being less than truthful in the absence of such an oath. Why "progressives" perpetually wish to gloss over this salient fact continues to befuddle me. The penalty that Clinton should have been forced to pay for attempting to subvert the judicial system should have been far greater than that which he paid.
In your opinion...... The whole Clinton investigation was a witch hunt....that didn't have the desired outcome.....now the GOP has decided to do the same to Hillary, I suspect they won't have any better luck bringing her down.
Has nothing to do with my opinion and everything to do with established fact. The fact of the matter is that Clinton was being sued for sexual harrassment and was required by a court of law to give a deposition in the case while he was president after the decision to suspend the lawsuit until his term expired was overturned by the 8th Circuit . He swore an oath to tell the truth, which by his own, later, admission he violated. His license to practice law was suspended by the Arkansas Supreme Court for his willful disregard to abide by that oath. This is all a matter of fact, not opinion. I will grant you, however, that it is my opinion that the penalty he should have paid for deceiving the court should have been more severe than it was.
FredHayek wrote: Guess LJ shouldn't have trusted that Rasmussen poll that showed Colbert so far ahead. Weiner/Sanford 2016!!!!
I didn't trust any of the polls, and I would have been astounded if Colbert-Busch had won...
It says more about the low-intelligence voters of S.C. than anything. Not unexpected...
An unbiased source I read says it didn't help that Colbert-Busch was a very poor candidate refusing debates, and the DNC tried to keep her quiet since she wasn't a very intelligent speaker.
She was very gracious in her concession remarks.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Guess LJ shouldn't have trusted that Rasmussen poll that showed Colbert so far ahead. Weiner/Sanford 2016!!!!
I didn't trust any of the polls, and I would have been astounded if Colbert-Busch had won...
It says more about the low-intelligence voters of S.C. than anything. Not unexpected...
LadyJazzer wrote: And then we have the REAL "winners" in seats that should have been slam-dunks for the GOTP:
Colbert-Bush has 9-10 point lead over Sanford for the congressional district.
Bachmann may be under indictment by election time for federal campaign violations, but is already behind in the polls...
...and the list continues...
And I hope they keep consulting the polls by Rasmussen, FauxNews, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and George Will, etc..... The polls will tell them exactly what they want to hear--all the way up to the point where the races are called for the actual winners.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
[quote="PrintSmith"]Lying to the masses is a time honored tradition among politicians of all stripes. What Clinton did is not nearly on the same scale. He committed perjury and in doing so subverted the entire basis of our system of justice. He took an oath before the court, just as he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and purposefully, willfully, violated that oath. If that isn't enough to get you convicted and tossed out of office in disgrace, then certainly nothing less should disqualify any other politican from office for being less than truthful in the absence of such an oath. Why "progressives" perpetually wish to gloss over this salient fact continues to befuddle me. The penalty that Clinton should have been forced to pay for attempting to subvert the judicial system should have been far greater than that which he paid.[/quote]
The government has that SAME time honored tradition....which leads to the question......If the above fact is a given, WHY all the outrage and name calling? The WHOLE of our governmental structure should be recalled...JMO
