Bill Clinton:"You're nuts"

[CGowen]

KEENE, NH --

...

During his third stop of the day, the former president posed for pictures and shook hands as he strolled down Main Street on this unseasonably warm Primary Eve day. Across the street, a few Paul supporters shouted his name.

Eventually, Clinton stopped outside a bakery, offered some remarks, and took questions. As he was answering one on Iraq, one of the Paul backers interrupted and shouted that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job, and that the U.S. didn't need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When he dropped an F-bomb, the crowd booed. Clinton, who had tried to talk over the man, gave up.

"You wanna know what I think?” Clinton said. “You guys who think 9/11 was an inside job are crazy as hell. My wife was the senator from New York when that happened. I was down at Ground Zero. I saw the victims' families. You're nuts."


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/07/556622.aspx

[SidDithers]

1. Clinton just doesn't have all the facts...

if he only spent more time at youtube, he too would be convinced of the MIHOPness of 9/11.

Sid

[frylock]

2. he saw the victim's families..

well shit, that's good enough for me. close the books; case solved.

[petgoat]

3. One Congresswoman's response: "I saw the plane at the Pentagon." That makes the OCT true? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

4. That makes the part where Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon true. n/t

[petgoat]

5. Baloney. The presence of the plane does not prove that Hani Hanjour

flew it, nor does it explain why these fiendishly clever hijackers
were so carefully stupid as to fly into a construction site, killing
100 civilian construction workers and only 25 military personnel.

The presence of the plane at the Pentagon no more proves the OCT than
does the presence of planes at the WTC.

You are very anxious to convince yourself of what you want to believe.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. or you are very anxious to misread what he wrote?

Set aside the presumption that some people are out to "prove() the OCT," and things may change for you.

[petgoat]

9. He said the Congresswoman's claim proves the part of the OCT

involving the crash of flight 77.

The OCT involving flight 77 includes the facts I mentioned,
also the fact that the Pentagon won't release the videotapes,
and the implausible claim that an unarmed 757 flew four hundred
miles off course and escaped detection by US air defenses and
flew into the most heavily-defended airspace in the world to
crash into the HQ of the greatest military power the world
has ever seen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. seriously?

You can confidently parse the phrase "the part where flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon" to refer to every claim that you take to be part of the "OCT involving flight 77"?

I say in all sincerity: I think that is strange.

[petgoat]

48. Knowing bolo, I believe that when he refers to the part of the OCT involving flight 77 crashing

he means flight 77 crashing while piloted by Muslim hijackers who
boarded at Dulles and escaped detection by US air defenses.

Forgive me if I'm wrong.

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. here's the thing

I think bolo does believe that flight 77 was piloted by Muslim hijackers who boarded at Dulles and escaped detection by US air defenses, and crashed into the Pentagon. He will correct me if I am wrong on some part of that.

That doesn't mean that bolo thinks that evidence for any part of that compound sentence stands as evidence for every part of that compound sentence. bolo ain't perfect, but he doesn't strike me as an idiot, either. And the natural reading of that sentence doesn't require otherwise, to say the least.

It seems to me that the frame of defining people as either for or against the "OCT" encourages this sort of over-reading. As I recall, at some point JackRiddler had a post called something like "What's your LIHOP Level?", and absolutely no one in that thread stated agreement with all aspects of "the official story." The divide here ought to be not so much between "OCTers" and "truthers," but between people who are willing to make intellectual distinctions and people who aren't.

[Laurier]

10. Ah, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is alive and well.

It appears that you are very anxious to convince yourself of what you wish to believe, even if you have to resort to fallacies to do so.

[Sweet Pea]

19. Excuse me...

but are you nuts? 100 civilian CONSTRUCTION workers and only 25 military??????

The Navy alone lost 33 sailors and officers and an additional 7 Navy civilian workers.

The Army lost 21 enlisted and officers and an additional 47 army civilians.

Right there you have 54 military dead and an additional 54 civilians who worked for those two services dead. Where did you get this idea that only 25 military personnel died and where in the HELL did you come up with this idea that 100 of the dead were construction workers?

http://www.classbrain.com/artfree/publish/article_62.shtml

I'm sure you'll come right back and say that is false and these people were fictional entities created by the CIA and never really existed, but that is what we've come to expect from the Troofers these days.

This whole revisionist crap has gone far enough.

[Sweet Pea]

51. To Kick this Response.....

Specificity and accuracy is the heart and soul of credibility. The Troofers just lost what little they had with the "100 construction workers and 25 military" comment and no follow-up/correction/apology for gross inaccuracies.

[seemslikeadream]

7. I saw the victims' families

I don't believe you TALKED with this victims family, did ya Bill? Mr. I can not investigate Iran Contra.







IMPEACH CHENEY




They Thought They Were Free - Read by Dave Emory

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

....

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’



Michael Parenti - Terrorism, Globalism & Conspiracy

"Coincidence Theory: By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

[seemslikeadream]

8. What happens when unresolved scandals take a back seat to a domestic agenda?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. slad informationclearinghouse is a far-right hate site

don't link to it on DU

[seemslikeadream]

12. I was told by a moderator that it was ok to link to it

Thanks for reading everything I post and watching my back though, so very kind of you. Do you have a problem with the book They Thought They Were Free? Or should I burn it?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. edited, to respond to your edit

There's no point taking that tone. It was the informationclearinghouse link that I took exception to. If you have permission to post it then that's OK.

[seemslikeadream]

14. I just made a little edit

and wondering if you could address my question, thanks, I know you guys are scouring my posts for links so I try to be very careful these days, have you applied for a job here?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. It's not about you

If it all possible, DU should not send traffic to the way of sites with a hateful agenda, no matter who is posting.

[seemslikeadream]

17. Sure

whatever

[Anarcho-Socialist]

18. Your attitude is disappointing

Surely, on whichever side of the debate one falls on in this forum, can we at least all agree not to link to far-right websites?

[seemslikeadream]

21. So you have no problem with the book?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. Not the book, no

[seemslikeadream]

28. I am having a bit of trouble trying to reconcile your name with your principles here

It would seem to me you of all people would understand my attitude

[seemslikeadream]

29. I realise that most of you have but a very inadequate

http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Speeches/foyles.html


I realise that most of you have but a very inadequate, very strange and usually false conception of Anarchism. I do not blame you. You get your information from the daily press. Yet that is the very last place on earth to seek for truth in any state of form. Anarchism, to the great teachers and leaders in the spiritual aspect of life, was not a dogma, not a thing that drains the blood from the heart and makes people zealots, dictators or impossible bores. Anarchism is a releasing and liberating force because it teaches people to rely on their own possibilities, teaches them faith in liberty, and inspires men and women to strive for a state of social life where every one shall be free and secure. There is neither freedom nor security in the world today: whether one be rich or poor, whether his station high or low, no one is secure as long as there is a single slave in the world. No one is safe or secure as long as he must submit to the orders, whim or will of another who has the power to punish him, to send him to prison or to take his life, to dictate the terms of his existence, even from the cradle to the grave.

Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood,
Thou art the grisly terror of our age.
"Wreck of all order," cry the multitude,
"Art thou, and war and murder's endless rage."
O, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven
The truth that lies behind a word to find,
To them the word's right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind.
But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure,
Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! Thine secure
When each at least unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill?
I cannot tell--but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!

JOHN HENRY MACKAY.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. My name with my principles?

What are you implying?

[seemslikeadream]

34. Anarcho-Socialist

So your name means...........?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

37. a tradition of working class libertarian socialism

which started with the Chartists of the early nineteenth century. It is a philosophy of extreme direct democracy, worker cooperation in the economy, of a decentralised highly-democratic body (which replaces the nation state) until such time as the post-state becomes surplus to requirements and will whither away, when material, technological, philosophical and cultural conditions drive and complete this process.

[seemslikeadream]

39. See that's why I have a hard time understanding

where you're coming from

[greyl]

45. Would it be rude to say your name makes sense? ;) nt

[seemslikeadream]

46. Would it be rude to say I don't understand your question?

btw I have asked you several times if you are a journalist, might I get an answer?





IMPEACH CHENEY




They Thought They Were Free - Read by Dave Emory

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

....

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’



Michael Parenti - Terrorism, Globalism & Conspiracy

"Coincidence Theory: By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

[seemslikeadream]

23. The attitude comes from experience here

keep on keeping on, Anarcho-Socialist

[Anarcho-Socialist]

25. I'd hoped that you respond to my question in #18

[seemslikeadream]

26. You know I have found over the last 5 years here

folks who are really sincere and kind drop me a pm when the see something I should be made aware of, not lowering themselves to grandstanding to pump up their egos

[Anarcho-Socialist]

30. Don't make me laugh

You don't get it. Why would I possibly care about people using DU's bandwidth to link to far-right websites? Don't you understand why a progressive would be concerned with this? I am not interested in giving the far-right free publicity and help in the google rankings. I would think that is within your understanding.

ETA: I and noticed you ducked the question.

[seemslikeadream]

36. So your a progressive Anarcho-Socialist?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

38. If you doubt it, hit alert

[seemslikeadream]

40. I don't doubt it I was just asking a question

and why would I hit alert, what does that have to do with anything

[Anarcho-Socialist]

41. The answer is, yes of course I am a progressive

[seemslikeadream]

42. That was not the question

oh I see we have a misunderstanding I wasn't addressing you by name I was talking about your "anarcho-socialist" I'm not sure about how you can be both

[Anarcho-Socialist]

50. This wiki article might help you with background

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-socialism

[seemslikeadream]

27. Do you watch the other forums as well for inappropriate links?

That must be a very time consuming job or do you just keep an eye on me?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

31. When I come across them, I remind the poster

I've done that in the 9/11 Forum, GD, LBN and elsewhere.

[seemslikeadream]

33. Well you've been slippin in GD lately

[Anarcho-Socialist]

35. Elaborate on this please

[seemslikeadream]

44. but of course we are all supposed to put up with this attitude

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x190313



and I fixed the link just for you





IMPEACH CHENEY




They Thought They Were Free - Read by Dave Emory

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

....

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’



Michael Parenti - Terrorism, Globalism & Conspiracy

"Coincidence Theory: By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

[seemslikeadream]

15. From now on I use this link for the book excerpts

if that will offend you less


http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

FAIR USE

An excerpt from
They Thought They Were Free
The Germans, 1933-45
Milton Mayer




But Then It Was Too Late
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."

"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"

"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom."

"And the judge?"

"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know."

I said nothing.

"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a ‘victory orgy’ to ‘take care of’ those who thought that their ‘treasonable attitude’ had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

"Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it."

"Coincidence Theory: By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

[seemslikeadream]

22. It is so very kind of you to give me your approval

Now I know I don't have to tell you this but I would very much appreciate it if you continue to keep a close eye on my links

[Twist_U_Up]

20. "Or should I burn it?" :snicker:

:toast: :rofl: :rofl:

should we burn it...........ha ha

oh my

[JackRiddler]

55. No it's not...

Far as I've seen in examining a few pages there...

and yes, your reflexive comment is in the spirit of the censor, which on the surface at least would seem to conflict with principlies of anarcho-socialism (especially the anarcho part). "Think for yourself," I believe Emma would say.

[seemslikeadream]

57. I did find that an unusual stance

so to speak.




Too bad I let him bully me to changing the link, but I am looking into the acceptability of InformationClearingHouse here.


btw
I also find this very interesting because of the nature of the subject in the link in relation to the reasoning behind the "lookouts" on guard for those "certain" places that may or may not be denying or hating something

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[moodforaday]

70. If you think informationclearinghouse is a rightwing

hateful site, then I submit you have never read it. They post some libertarian material, and about as much by the likes of Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Greg Palast - heck, even Hugo Chavez. How that's right wing and hateful, I've no idea.

If you believe they are right wing, you really live in a flipped version of reality.

[JackRiddler]

47. The HOW DARE YOU Maneuver

"PEOPLE DIED! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE OFFICIAL STORY!!!"

This nonsense was old by October 2001.

Most every denialist has by now switched to "Bush regime too incompetent to breathe, how could they pull off a job requiring 1,000,000 co-conspirators," etc. etc.

[AZCat]

52. And there are those who switched to the...

"We'd like to see some actual evidence" claim. Oh wait, that's what we said all along.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Exactly...

but it's never forthcoming. Just supposition and speculation that is easily disproven.

[JackRiddler]

54. Notwithstanding the evidence,

for example that presented in the 2004 50-page complaint and petition at Justicefor911.org, which you are evidently ignoring... just what does your defensive non-sequitir have to do with Clinton's manner of dismissal? (The actual topic of this thread.) His response makes it clear that the last thing he'd do is say, "let's see evidence" or "let's investigate." What do you have to say to the practice of invoking (abusing) the dead as a supposed reason to believe the official story? Especially when those active among the actual relatives for the most part decry the failure of the official investigation?

[Grateful for Hope]

56. Gatekeeping at it's finest, Jack

Clinton does it well.

[seemslikeadream]

58. Iran Contra?

[Grateful for Hope]

60. Exactly. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

63. Gulf of Tonkin

Only took 45 years, I wonder how long it was before some people realized that was a lie



http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0109/p04s01-usmi.htm
In both the Tet and Gulf of Tonkin cases, "critical information was mishandled, misinterpreted, lost, or ignored," writes NSA historian Robert Hanyok in the agency history.

[Grateful for Hope]

64. I am sure that some people realized it sooner

Seems to always be the case that it just takes some longer than others to wise up.

[CGowen]

65. The people on board knew it, in 2005 the NSA cover story emerged where they

blamed midlevel officers

Vietnam Study, Casting Doubts, Remains Secret
By Scott Shane
The New York Times

Monday 31 October 2005

Washington - The National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that during the Tonkin Gulf episode, which helped precipitate the Vietnam War, N.S.A. officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence to cover up their mistakes, two people familiar with the historian's work say.

The historian's conclusion is the first serious accusation that communications intercepted by the N.S.A., the secretive eavesdropping and code-breaking agency, were falsified so that they made it look as if North Vietnam had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964, two days after a previous clash. President Lyndon B. Johnson cited the supposed attack to persuade Congress to authorize broad military action in Vietnam, but most historians have concluded in recent years that there was no second attack.

The N.S.A. historian, Robert J. Hanyok, found a pattern of translation mistakes that went uncorrected, altered intercept times and selective citation of intelligence that persuaded him that midlevel agency officers had deliberately skewed the evidence.

Mr. Hanyok concluded that they had done it not out of any political motive but to cover up earlier errors, and that top N.S.A. and defense officials and Johnson neither knew about nor condoned the deception.

....


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110105F.shtml

[Grateful for Hope]

69. You are right

Thank you for the info.

[SDuderstadt]

61. Ummm, we've already looked at...

the so-called "evidence". If it isn't already totally debunked (which doesn't seem to prevent it from being endlessly recycled), it isn't even remotely believable (for some example, some DU posters allege that all the video/film shot on 9/11 has been "altered"....need I say more?).

[JackRiddler]

62. Seeing as you ignore what I wrote...

All you show any indication of having "looked at" is the "no-planes" and other similar canards being put up by the very people (fakes) who have sabotaged the legitimate process of questioning begun by the Sept. 11 families themselves six years ago... Don't pretend to be ignorant of these distinctions, that would only reveal a lazy, smug thinker who already knows everything in advance of examination. Live long: I don't really feel a need to take note of you again. Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Ummm, Jack....

I gave an example of exactly what I cited, which was claims which aren't even remotely believable. I hope you would agree that, using simple Logic, one could reasonably conclude it would have been physically impossible for any "conspirator" to have determined every person taking pictures or shooting video on 9/11, let alone somehow have confiscated and then "altered" it. You have no earthly idea of what I have "looked at", so don't make silly claims as to how limited or extensive my research has been.

Do you believe it's possible that a committed progressive (I'll gladly match my liberal credentials against anyone here) could examine the evidence and, despite despising the Bush administration, conclude that LIHOP or MIHOP simply makes no sense? Does that, in your opinion, automatically render me a "lazy, smug thinker"? Simply because I disagree with you, does that somehow establish that I claim to know anything in "advance of examination"?

Did I ever claim that there aren't unanswered questions? Did I indicate in any way that I don't believe the Bush Administration deserves scrutiny or approbation for their lack of preparedness, their inattention to "blinking red lights" prior to the attack or their craven response to 9/11 and their subsequent assault on the Constitution?

I would, in fact, be glad to debate any aspect of 9/11 unless, of course, you've already determined you need take no "further note of me" (actually, code for "I cant really keep up in the debate"). If you have conclusive evidence of some of your claims, bring it. But, it's not my fault that, six years later, the "9/11 Truth Movement" hasn't been able to put forth a coherent alternative hypothesis and is riddled with, frankly, laughable adherents positing outlandish claims that defy sound engineering and Logic. As I believe Bolo described it (paraphrasing), that's your mess, Jack. Don't look to me to clean it up.

[AZCat]

66. You are right, Jack.

It was a non-sequitir. I apologize if I get a little defensive occasionally. I do not agree with the logic used by Clinton. One would hope the victim's families are dealt with respectfully but I don't know what that has to do with any potential investigation (whether formal or informal).

[seemslikeadream]

67. Since Bill couldn't see his way into holding the folks responsible

for Iran Contra, I don't believe Hilly will have any inclining to hold any one accountable for any thing that has gone on for the past 7 years

[AZCat]

68. Probably not.

I'm pretty cynical about the whole process anyway.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. Is this the same Bill Clinton who said "but I didn't inhale" or ....

"I didn't have sex with that woman!"

Yes, slick willie knows how to lie and pander, and even smile at you while he does it.... I liked Clinton... I just can't stand a liar, period.


Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

73. For the record...

what Clinton actually said was, " I did not have sexual relations with...". Do you realize that , while all sexual relations are sex, that not all sex is sexual relations? It's pretty pathetic that you have to misquote Clinton in order to accuse him of lying.

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. a lie is a lie, no matter how you wish to spin it, pal

get over yourself, ok?

[SDuderstadt]

75. A literally true statement can't be a lie, pal

and it's somewhat stupid to claim otherwise.

Fact: You misquoted Clinton
Fact: Oral sex is certainly sex but it isn't sexual relations (widely regarded to be intercourse)
Fact: Even if oral sex was sexual relations, a false statement can only be a lie if the speaker knows it to be false
Fact: you need to study the difference...pal.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

77. You can laugh all you want...

but Clinton's statement was literally true, thus it cannot be a lie. I think you're the one who needs to study more. And, the fact that you have to resort to name-calling and insults makes it clear that your debating skills are limited

Simple question. Does all sex rise to the level of sexual relations? Better yet, do you understand Logic? Here's the argument you're trying to make.

a. All sexual relations are sex.
b. Clinton engaged in sex with Monica Lewinsky.
c. Therefore, Clinton engaged in sexual relations.

In Logic, this is known as Affirming the Consequent. Your argument essentially follows the form:

a. Cats are mammals
b. Dogs are mammals.
c. Therefore, dogs are cats.

As to your point that the Big Dawg is smart enough to know what sex is, you just made my point. That's why he said, "I did not have sexual RELATIONS with that woman...." which, again, was literally true. He did NOT say, "I did not have sex with that woman...", in which case, it would be true that he lied. The funniest thing in trying to reason with you is it is cleat that the person who did lie is you, by claiming Clinton said something he did not say.

[Ghost in the Machine]

82. That's even funnier because you seemingly don't have a clue about logic

You need to pull your head out of your psychology books and take a look around in the real world. No matter how hard you try to spin it, and no matter how deep in denial you are, CLINTON LIED. PERIOD.

Now take your little book and look through it for some more "facts".

Here's a couple to start with:

Fact: A person can be charged with sexual harrassment for telling a dirty joke. Where is the sexual relations? Where was ANY sex involved?

Fact: A couple can be arrested for sexual abuse and/or exploitation of a minor for having sex in front of said minor. Where was a sexual act performed on the minor?

The whole concept that you are trying to spin is wrong. Period. Monica Lewinsky performed oral sex on Clinton. That is "sexual relations", period. He did not remove his penis from his body, thereby allowing her to perform oral sex on an inanimate object. Judging by the stains on the blue dress, he also achieved sexual stimulation and gratification from the said sexual relations. Nor did he remove his hand from his body to let her use it to stimulate and gratify herself with a cigar. He was involved in the act, thereby making it sexual relations. You can still spin away all you want, but the fact is, he lied. Get. Over. It.

Now, to maybe make it simpler for you to understand, look at this scenario. Had Monica Lewinski merely pleasured herself while fantasizing about Clinton, he could say they he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. The same goes for if she performed oral sex on someone else while fantasizing about Clinton. The fact that he was present, and involved in the pleasuring, means that yes, he did in fact have sexual relations with that woman. Period.

A liar is a liar is a liar, no matter how hard you twist or deny. I guess the fact that he admitted lying eludes you, right?

"For the last seven months, Clinton has let stand his denials of any sexual liaisons with Lewinsky and allowed aides and even his wife go on television to repeat them.

During his Jan. 17 deposition in the Jones case, he said, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." Four days later, after the story of Starr's investigation broke, Clinton said, "There is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship."

When that failed to quell a political storm, Clinton went on television again to deny it more forcefully in a Jan. 26 statement that has become a coda for this saga. "Listen to me," he said defiantly that day. "I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Butttttt.....

"Seven months after he wagged his finger and sternly told a national audience that he did not have sex with "that woman," the president said during another live television address that he had not been candid because he wanted to protect himself and his family from embarrassment.

"I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate," Clinton said from the historic Map Room at the White House, where he had testified to a federal grand jury for more than four hours earlier in the day. "In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible."

"I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression," he added, although he did not say directly that he had had sex with Lewinsky. "I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clinton081898.htm

Now.... keep spinning and denying all you want to, but it only makes you look foolish. He had sexual relations with the woman and he lied about it. Hey, I don't blame him kind of... if I was cheating on MY wife and someone asked me about it, the first thing I would do is deny it, as would you or 99% of the male population. It was a personal matter and was not our business, nor anyone elses for that matter. The only person whose business it was was Bill Clinton's, Hillary Clinton's and Monica Lewinsky's. Period. But the fact remains.... he knowingly lied. He has ADMITTED to "knowingly deceiving" the investigators, his wife and the American public.

Case closed. Have a nice evening....

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

83. You do understand that Logic is not covered in psychology books, right?

As I said before, the phrase "sexual relations" has a specific meaning. You can't seem to grasp that. Your grasp of Logic is worse.

"Here's a couple to start with:

Fact: A person can be charged with sexual harrassment for telling a dirty joke. Where is the sexual relations? Where was ANY sex involved?

Fact: A couple can be arrested for sexual abuse and/or exploitation of a minor for having sex in front of said minor. Where was a sexual act performed on the minor?"

Help me understand wtf the above (from your post) has to do with what we're talking about. Try to follow here. You misqouted what Clinton actually said to try to claim he lied. You also can't seem to comprehend the difference between sex and sexual relations. No one is claiming that Clinton's statement was not misleading, but merely misleading statements, by definition, are not lies. Maybe this will help:

1. In order for a statement to be a lie, the statement must be presented as a statement of fact (as opposed to an opinion). Opinions, by definition, cannot be a lie, although it is possible for someone to lie about what their opinion is, but their actual opinion cannot be a lie, since it is not intended to be a statement of fact to begin with.

2. The statement of fact must also be false. However, speakers can easily make a false statement without lying such as when they are mistaken about something.

3. The speaker must know it to be false and intentionally make the statement anyhow.


Is any of this registering? Do you have a problem with precision? See below:


Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun sexual relation has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse

You're arguing like a Republican here.

[Ghost in the Machine]

84. You really are lost in spinville, aren't you?

What part of "Clinton admitted to "misleading" investigators, his wife and the public" don't you understand??

He intentionally lied, he knew he lied and he lied about lying. Here, read it again so that you fully understand it:

"I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate," Clinton said from the historic Map Room at the White House, where he had testified to a federal grand jury for more than four hours earlier in the day. "In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible."

"I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression," he added, although he did not say directly that he had had sex with Lewinsky. "I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, you need a new dictionary or something:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sexual relations
–noun
1. sexual intercourse; coitus.
2. any sexual activity between individuals. {emphasis mine}


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This sexual relations
pl.n.
1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals. {emphasis mine}


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual%20relations

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently YOU are the one who doesn't realize the difference between sex and sexual relations. It's also obvious that you don't know what a lie is.

"1. In order for a statement to be a lie, the statement must be presented as a statement of fact (as opposed to an opinion)."

Yes, and Clinton stated, as a FACT, that he "did NOT have sexual relations with that woman". He didn't state it as an opinion, he stated it as FACT. He LIED. PERIOD. The definition provided above is circa 1945 -1950, so it's not something that was defined or put on the books recently or after he made his statement of fact. Even in the remote possiblity that it was his opinion that he hadn't had sexual relations, it was still wrong and he still lied.

Ignorance of the law and facts does not excuse you. If it did, everyone caught stealing could say it was their opinion that they were just "borrowing" the object they stole, and planned to return it later, or that, in their opinion, they were taking a 'free trial' and would return to pay for the item if they liked it, or return it if they didn't.

Lies are lies and spin is spin, no matter how you lie about it or spin it.

Again... case closed.

edited: to fix HTML tag

[SDuderstadt]

85. You seem to have a problem with nuance...

How do you know which definition Clinton was referring to?

Here's a couple of questions for you:

You do understand that a statement can be misleading without being a lie or even false, right?

Can you point to where Clinton's admission that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky says anything about lying?

Could one have an inaapropriate relationship with someone without having sexual relations?

Did you know that Lewinsky, in a statement to Linda Tripp, confirmed that Clinton believed that oral sex did not amount to sexual relations?

Did you know that Lewinsky also stated that they did not have sexual relations in her deposition in the Jones case? Was she lying?

Do you honestly think that the statement "I did not have sexual relations with..." and "I did not have sex with..." are the same statement?

Do you deny that you misquoted Clinton? Was your misquote a lie? Do you hold Clinton to a higher standard than yourself?

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. You seem to have a problem with the truth..

"Clinton's turnaround came after Lewinsky struck a deal with Starr and testified under a grant of full immunity that she did have an 18-month sexual affair with Clinton, including numerous encounters at the White House. She also gave Starr a dress she said was stained with the president's semen, a dress turned over to the FBI laboratory for analysis."

Do you honestly believe that during an 18 month affair that they NEVER engaged in sexual intercourse, and that there was only one incident of oral sex and one incident with a cigar??? If so, you're more delusional than I thought.

BTW, no, I didn't lie or intentionally misquote Clinton by leaving the word "relations" out, I was quoting from memory, which didn't serve me correctly. However, it's the same goddamned thing except to someone who has nothing better to do except spin and try to make lies the truth.

Your agenda is showing... now, spin that...

[SDuderstadt]

87. No, YOU seem to have a problem with the truth

Even now, you can't answer questions honestly.

"Do you honestly believe that during an 18 month affair that they NEVER engaged in sexual intercourse, and that there was only one incident of oral sex and one incident with a cigar??? If so, you're more delusional than I thought."

Obviously, you don't know, do you? The problem for you is that BOTH of them denied having sexual intercourse and, in fact, Lewinsky's previous statements to Tripp bear that out. Your question is mere supposition, not proof of Clinton having lied about the matter. What is your problem with precision? You know the law relies on precision, right? Why can't you answer a simple question? Is the statement, "I did not have sexual relations with..." the same as "I did not have sex with..."? Hint: no, it's materially different. You're so intent on calling Clinton a liar, you're being disingenuous yourself. The facts remain as before:

You misquoted Clinton and have yet to apologize for it.

A literally true statement, by definition, cannot be a lie, no matter how you try to spin it yourself.

If you had bothered to properly research the matter you'd have discovered that, not only did Lewinsky confirm Clinton's definition of sexual relationship, she also denied that they had had sexual relations. Unfortunately for you, oral sex does not rise to the level of sexual relations. If you deny that, please tell us what constitutes sexual relations. If all sex constitutes sexual relations, does fondling constitute sexual relations? If a woman manually stimulates a man to ejaculation, is that sexual relations? Your inability to grasp nuance is astounding and troubling. But, if I recall correctly, you've also made preposterous claims about 9/11. Frankly, given your lack of critical thinking skills, I'm not surprised.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. "Sexual relations" also had a highly specific legal meaning in the Paula Jones lawsuit

Nothing Clinton and Lewinsky have admitted to would be described by that term in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

I do think Clinton lied and misled the nation, but he did not commit perjury. That's what the impeachment was about.

[Ghost in the Machine]

89. Who's talking about perjury and impeachment??

I posted a definition in a reply above that refutes SDuderstat's assertation that "sexual relation" has only one definition. Scroll up and read it... this guy has been in spin mode so long it's making me dizzy... but I don't fall for the spin.

My original point had nothing to do with perjury or impeachment... just the fact that Clinton lied, and did so with a straight face and a smile.

That's the only point I was making... he lied before, so he'll lie again. There's no reason to trust him or to take him at his word. Trust has been broken, that ship has sailed. Anything and everything he says should be scrutinized and taken with a grain of salt, just like any other liar. The same thing goes for bush and his cabal. Once a liar, always a liar in my book.

Do you believe Clinton and Lewinsky only had oral sex and cigar sex for 18 months?

How's your website coming along?

PEACE!

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

90. No one is claiming that it only has one meaning

You can't seem to understand that your claim depends on a definition that you have no idea that he was using, which is why your claim is so laughable. Do you know what Clinton's state of mind was when he made that statement? Of course you don't, which is why you look so foolish. It makes ZERO difference how many different definitions there are, instead, it depends upon what definition Clinton relied upon. If you don't know, you have no business calling him a liar in that regard (you'll notice that I never ever claimed Clinton never lied; I'm just taking exception to your claim in this instance, which, let's remember, started with you misquoting him, which I also took exception to). If you're going to call him a liar, at least do it on the basis of facts, not supposition.

Which is what makes your question, "Do you believe Clinton and Lewinsky only had oral sex and cigar sex for 18 months?" so silly, as it is clear that you have, at best, a casual relationship with the truth. Do you have ANY evidence at all that they had anything other than oral or "cigar" sex? It's funny how you rely upon Lewinsky's later interactions with the OIC to claim Clinton lied, but selectively ignore her when she disproves your claim (she stated numerous times that she and Clinton did NOT have intercourse). Of course, you won't care about that when your only aim is to trash Clinton. You should be ashamed. I'm willing to bet you aren't.

[Ghost in the Machine]

91. You're just flat out fucking lying now.... you've gotten lost in your own spin

The ONLY one here with a "casual relationship with the truth" is YOU, if you even have a relationship with it at all. I fear that you have no idea what truth is, period. You just proven that and proven yourself to be nothing more than a flat out liar:

No one is claiming that it only has one meaning
Posted by SDuderstadt

From your own words, in reply #83:

"Is any of this registering? Do you have a problem with precision? See below:


Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun sexual relation has one meaning: {emphasis mine}

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mods, if he alerts on this, please refer to the quote I posted and look at reply #83. Calling him a liar at this point IS NOT name calling, it's a flat out statement of fact. SDuderstat has spun so much today he can't even remember his own bullshit. This reply needs to be left up so everyone can see the flat out lies that SDuderstat engages in.

I love exposing liars and bullshit artists... I'm done with you, spinboy, you have absolutely zero credibility left. None whatsoever. Congratulations! Now be gone with you, as I don't suffer fools lightly.

[Bolo Boffin]

92. You need to read Lithos' Please Read This again. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

93. That's what WordNet says, not me....Duh

Your first clue was that it was within the beginning and the end of THEIR freaking entry, which you could have easily confirmed, had you bothered to research it. Are you now claiming someone can lie merely by quoting a source?

I repeat again; it makes no difference how many meanings it has because YOU have NO idea which one Clinton was relying upon. You can continue to thrash around and look even sillier, but I think you owe me an apology for jumping to stupid conclusions, don't you? All you've shown in this extended exchange is the inability to follow a thread, debate the facts accordingly, thus having to resort to name-calling out of desperation. No wonder hardly anyone takes the 9/11 "truthers" seriously.

[JackRiddler]

78. A literally true statement can still be disingenuous...

And Clinton's famous statement on Lewinsky was disingenuous. Not that it was in itself worthy of a perjury case, let alone impeachment. Not that it was something he should have been asked by an official investigation in the first place, since his consenting sexual relations with other adults are nobody's business. It's also true that he was asked only because an effort was on to stage an effective coup d'etat, by whatever means.

His statement may even have been literally true, if we accept your definition of "relations." And yet still: the statement was very much a lie, at the very least a lie by omission, as he was clearly trying to make it seem like nothing happened between him and Lewinsky, when something in fact did. He set himself up, like a fool. Only someone taking a legalistic stance to the nth-degree in defense of Clinton's mendacity can think otherwise. A truthful and brave man would have simply refused to play the game Starr attempted to force upon him and said: None of your business, you hounds. Or nothing.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Of course, the threshold for perjury is higher than a mere lie...

It has a specific meaning in the law. See Bronston v US.

[JackRiddler]

80. Thanks for effectively agreeing with me.

A "mere lie" is also a lie. And as I wrote, "Not that it was in itself worthy of a perjury case..." Nevertheless, Clinton lied, and he should not have. Most likely he lied to accommodate the puritanical rigidity of his society as he understood it. And it was that lie that opened the door to impeachment, even if the case was weak. (In the end, as per the Constitution, impeachable is whatever the Congress decides.)

[SDuderstadt]

81. Ummm, Jack....

I AM effectively agreeing with you, but I am also pointing out that, however obliquely, that Clinton's statement, "I did not have sexual relations..." was not made under oath, one of the essential elements of perjury.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

94. More and more family members of 9-11 victims are ...

...coming out on the side of Truth -- are they nuts too?