Originally Posted By jonvn Ok, that's not a strawman argument. But since you asked, that was an analogy, to indicate that I felt that what Clinton lied about was not of very high import. It was also in response to you saying he "LIED." Which he may have, but about something not important. That is to say, yes, he lied, but everyone lies about things at one time or another, to varying degrees of importance. Lying to a child about Santa Claus is really of not much importance. Lying about a personal sex act, is not much higher up the scale. However, lying about criminal activity and the reasoning behind our going to war is a bit more important.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 you just don't get the point that no one is comparing Monica to lying about troop casualties in Vietnam as Johnson and Mcnamara did. The FACT is that if one is willing to lie about Monica, they have lied about other things, maybe equally as important items as I have listed...but i am going to stop as you are fixated on Bill not so bad-- Bush- Nixon very bad - and can't get past the fact that we can prove he lied to us about Monica, therefore there is more proof that he is a liar than that Bush is a liar. Of course you don't want to hear that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "you just don't get the point that no one is comparing Monica to lying about troop casualties" Well, I guess I don't, because you brought it up and I don't know what you mean, then. "The FACT is that if one is willing to lie about Monica, they have lied about other things, maybe equally as important items as I have listed..." As I've said, they all lie about all sorts of things. Some are of more import than others. As far as what Bill got caught lying about, it's a bit less important than other things that have been found to be untruthful. "you are fixated on Bill not so bad-- Bush- Nixon very bad" If you look at the topic title, and what I've actually said, you'll note that I've included Johnson, a democrat in with this league. It has nothing to do with the political parties these people belong to. It has to do with the consequences of their behavior in office. And while I stated that what Clinton did was not helpful, it is not in the same league as these other three. It has nothing to do with political parties. If it did, I wouldn't have included Johnson. But he's just as responsible for what's happening now as the other two, as his lies were responsible for Vietnam and the terrible chaos in this country that we've been suffering from ever since. Bush is another Johnson, in that regard.
Originally Posted By jonvn We're talking about the same things in two topics, so when I said: "If you look at the topic title, and what I've actually said" I was referring to the other topic I was speaking on.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Yes, this is the thread in which jon was explaining why he consistently votes for the party of the weak willed, and then complains about the US government being weak willed.
Originally Posted By jonvn "why he consistently votes for the party of the weak willed" Another strawman, as I never said I voted consistently for any one party. When you have to resort to putting arguments in the other person's mouth in order to shout those down, I.E., a strawman, it is just a further indication as to how little justification you have for your own opinions.
Originally Posted By jonvn I vote based on the individual. I will vote for Arnold for governor, because I think the democrat is terrible.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Do you vote for more Democrat individuals or more Republican individuals?
Originally Posted By jonvn I have no idea. I vote for the individual, and not based on what parties they belong to.
