(November 16, 2014 at 6:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: In case your slow with the metaphors:
Clinton's lie about a blow job = speck of sawdust
Bush's lie tricking us into Iraq = plank of wood

Hope this helps.

I know it won't.

It doesn't matter to Heywood, because Bush wasn't under oath a Democrat.

(November 16, 2014 at 7:00 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Heywood Wrote: I would think that in a work place sexual harassment lawsuit, Clinton's work place sexual escapades would be the courts business. While you could be forgiven for you ignorance....As a lawyer...Clinton would know this and would not be forgiven(although he might get a pass because he is the POTUS).

Were I his lawyer, I would've argued that the suit was motivated by the bias of Jones's backers and was a political grandstand. I would ask that the line of questioning be struck, as the pertinence to Jones's case wasn't shown.

You're right that I'm not a lawyer. But so what? I've got a pretty good political sense ... and given the inherently political nature of this case -- a fact that you've already acknowledged -- a good lawyer would have advised WJC to keep his trap shut and let the judge ponder jailing a sitting President for contempt.

Personally, I was just happy that we finally had a president who was young enough, and relaxed enough, to enjoy a good blow job, after twelve years of superannuated would-be prudes who would nowadays constitute a Viagra market unto themselves, given their hypocrisy.

When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Anita Hill claimed sexual harassment against him. Were her claims politically motivated? Probably.....but that doesn't mean she wasn't harassed. Just because a case is politically motivated does not mean the case does not exist or has no merit.

The left lined up lockstepp against Thomas and condemned him for his behavior. A few years later the left lined up lockstepp in support of Clinton and excused his behavior. Who are the real hypocrites?

---

(November 16, 2014 at 7:03 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: It doesn't matter to Heywood, because Bush wasn't under oath a Democrat.

It doesn't matter to me because Bush's crimes are Bush's crimes....and Clinton's crimes are Clinton's crimes. Only a stupid idiot would think that Bush's crimes are a valid excuse for Clinton's crimes.....but the left is full of idiots.

When I start excusing Bush by citing stuff Clinton or Obama had done...then maybe you got valid criticism against me. But I doubt that's going to happen because I try to look at the world objectively instead of partisan colored lenses.

(November 16, 2014 at 7:03 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: It doesn't matter to Heywood, because Bush wasn't under oath a Democrat.

Exactly. There's no explaining anything to him. He's so badly brainwashed even Jesus couldn't explain to him how he's a hypocrite.

Did Heywood really just write "the left is full of idiots" then wrote "I try too see the world objectively instead of though partisan colored lenses"?

maybe he didnt write it? Maybe that part of the paragraph was written by the voices in his head?

(November 16, 2014 at 8:20 pm)simplemoss Wrote: Did Heywood really just write "the left is full of idiots" then wrote "I try too see the world objectively instead of though partisan colored lenses"?

maybe he didnt write it? Maybe that part of the paragraph was written by the voices in his head?

Did simplemoss again write something of non-substance? He did!.....Why am I not surprised.

(November 16, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Anita Hill claimed sexual harassment against him. Were her claims politically motivated? Probably.....but that doesn't mean she wasn't harassed. Just because a case is politically motivated does not mean the case does not exist or has no merit.

The left lined up lockstepp against Thomas and condemned him for his behavior. A few years later the left lined up lockstepp in support of Clinton and excused his behavior. Who are the real hypocrites?

You're missing my point. I'm not casting aspersions about the left's refusal to condemn Clinton, or your refusal to condemn Dubya, for dishonesty and potentially criminal behavior.

My point was a political one, and not about justice at all.

---

(November 16, 2014 at 8:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 8:20 pm)simplemoss Wrote: Did Heywood really just write "the left is full of idiots" then wrote "I try too see the world objectively instead of though partisan colored lenses"?

maybe he didnt write it? Maybe that part of the paragraph was written by the voices in his head?

Did simplemoss again write something of non-substance? He did!.....Why am I not surprised.

It was a pretty good point. You'd do well to answer it, rather than pretend it didn't land.

Because trust me, it did.

Explain the contradiction between claiming non-partisanship at the same time you excoriate only one party.

Or, alternatively, lose the point in the mind of the reading audience.

(November 16, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Anita Hill claimed sexual harassment against him. Were her claims politically motivated? Probably.....but that doesn't mean she wasn't harassed. Just because a case is politically motivated does not mean the case does not exist or has no merit.

The left lined up lockstepp against Thomas and condemned him for his behavior. A few years later the left lined up lockstepp in support of Clinton and excused his behavior. Who are the real hypocrites?

You're missing my point. I'm not casting aspersions about the left's refusal to condemn Clinton, or your refusal to condemn Dubya, for dishonesty and potentially criminal behavior.

My point was a political one, and not about justice at all.

---

(November 16, 2014 at 8:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: Did simplemoss again write something of non-substance? He did!.....Why am I not surprised.

It was a pretty good point. You'd do well to answer it, rather than pretend it didn't land.

Because trust me, it did.

Explain the contradiction between claiming non-partisanship at the same time you excoriate only one party.

Or, alternatively, lose the point in the mind of the reading audience.

So when I said Bush basically lied to get us into war with Iraq I was excoriating the democrats?

I'm critical of both parties.

(November 16, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: The left lined up lockstepp against Thomas and condemned him for his behavior. A few years later the left lined up lockstepp in support of Clinton and excused his behavior. Who are the real hypocrites?

You, it would seem.

Thank you for bringing up Thomas and Hill's charges of sexual harassment. Once again, the GOP outrage machine flips back and forth shamelessly. They had no problem with sexual harassment when it was their boy. It was only when it was a Democrat charged with sexual harassment that suddenly people like you started using words like, how did you put it, "womanizing scumbag"?

The left was hardly lock step behind Anita Hill. I seem to remember Democrats were actually divided on the issue of Thomas' nomination. But let that go. Supreme Court nominees are held to a higher standard of behavior during their nomination.

Do you know why?

Think really hard. Really put those two or three functioning brain cells to work and see if you can come up with the answer on your own.





Give up? Here's the answer:



Additionally, do you remember what I told you about the charge of perjury and how it should have been handled by a responsible Congress? Think really hard. Stand on your head if you have to in order to get a little blood flowing through all the concrete around your skull.

Heywood the Straw Man Slayer Wrote:Only a stupid idiot would think that Bush's crimes are a valid excuse for Clinton's crimes

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has said this. Do you know what we have said?

C'mon you can do it. Try to remember what you've only been told several times now.







So, how many right answers did you get without looking?

(November 16, 2014 at 10:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: So when I said Bush basically lied to get us into war with Iraq I was excoriating the democrats?

No. But what you were doing, actively, was minimizing the consequences of one lie (thousands of deaths) vs maximizing another, lesser lie (in a state-level civil lawsuit with no deaths attached).

Don't think that wasn't noticed; it was.

(November 16, 2014 at 10:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm critical of both parties.

... but not on an equal basis.

Haywood, you have a deep seeded and subconscious bias I think you are completely unaware of.

This isn't just about you. The overwhelming reaction to Obama's first election by his opposition has been nothing like anything in or political history. I have never seen or heard of either side ever, making statements like the GOP did even before he took office after his first election that the were going to make it their job to make him a one term president.

The mudslinging in our political history is par for the course and has existed since the ink was dry on the Constitution. But the level of fear mongering and paranoia upon his first election this nation has never seen aimed at one president. It is as if our entire country mentally is still stuck in the 60s and Jim Crow.

All that despite the dept being cut, job growth going up. Despite that he took out Bin Laden. Despite that he took less vacation time than Bush. Despite he has made the fewest executive orders than either party ever. Despite that there were more attacks on overseas outposts under prior presidents.

There is a deep seeded fear of change in humans, that is evolutionary that most humans are unaware of. Our country is still mentally stuck in the past in spite of all the progress for minorities including women, gays and Latinos. There is still a unfounded fear of whites, and Christians in America, realize it our not, of the truth that in the future they will become the new minority. Obama's presidency has nothing to do with his policies being right or wrong, and everything to do with our species xenophobia.

Our species seeks patterns, when we gain the top spot because we think those patterns work, we do not want to lose control of that advantage. The more we realize what is really going on, the more we can reduce paranoia of the "outsider".

But to argue your objectivity is absurd considering his treatment he did not deserve one bit but got even before he walked into the Oval Office or took the Oath. No other President in our history has been treated like that. And I have seen lots of mudslinging.