Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Reagan Lied, Bush Lied, Clinton Lied

Subject: Re: [OM] Reagan Lied, Bush Lied, Clinton Lied
From: george <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:21:34 -0800

Joseph wrote:
> 
> ================
> If you want to compare Clinton to Reagan, how about this: Reagan had so
> much respect for the Oval Office that he never ever even took off his
> suit jacket while in that room.
> ================
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but people can lie through their teeth while
> wearing a suit.

What the hell are you talking about? You either totally missed my point,
or are just childishly trying to obscure the issue.  Perhaps you're in
denial about the line you deleted from the above quote?

> 
> I'm not going to defend Clinton in any way,

You already have. Are you in denial about that too?

> but it is

Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. - WJ Clinton

> thoroughly
> hypocritical to criticize Clinton for lying about his sexual life

He's been lying about much more than his pathetic weenie of a sex life.
Attempted forced oral copulation? Forcible rape? Cigar games with a
silver-spoon mental midget? The lusty Hillary? This is a sex life?

> without condemning Reagan for lying through his teeth repeatedly
> about matters of grave national interest to the American people.

Hypocritical? You better get out a dictionary. I only mentioned one
liar. My Reagan comment had nothing to so with whether he lied or not. 
A hypocrite is someone who would defend a behaviour, lying for instance,
in one circumstance but forgive it in another, when it is to his
perceived benefit to do so. Like you did in your original message,
repeateed here:

>>At least with President Clinton, he always knows when he's lying 
>>to you, something the previous two presidents could not even claim.

And, you know, this really doesn't make much sense, does it? Can a
person really be lying if they don't know they're lying?  Are you saying
Reagan and Bush were too stupid to know a lie from the truth? If so, can
you try at least arguing from the level of a high-schooler?

And as for Reagan "lying thru his teeth on matters of grave national
interest" - I don't know what the hell you're talking about.  Illegal
campaign funds from a foriegn gov't perhaps? Oh, sorry that was Clinton.
Accepting money from agents of a gov't sworn to our demise? Oooh sounds
pretty grave - oops, Clinton again.  Feeding propoganda to the world
about "tens of thousands of mass graves in Kosovo" so as to have an
excuse to bomb one of our best historical allies into the Stove Age,
himself creating thousands of graves - of INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Reagan?
Nope. Clinton again.  (BTW, the UN has reportedly found fewer than 2000
victims of this terrible HOLOCAUST which Clinton wanted to save the
ethnic-Albanians from. BTW, if they're Albanians, why are they squatting
in Serbia?

I could go on, but it's late and you're a lost cause anyway.  As will
soon be the case for this once glorious nation. 

george


> 
> J.
>

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz