Back here, recent arrival and poster child for "Please put brain in gear before engaging mouth" ex-lib whinges on about how the left seems to get a free pass on sexual peccadilloes:
Yes, your double standard is obvious. When it's someone on the left who has relations with someone who is of legal age, we on the right can't touch him or her with a 10-foot pole.
To which commenter Jose delivers a savage towel snap to the nads:
Well Clinton did get impeached for having a blow job.
Jose: 1. Poster child: 0.
OK, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME ... goombah just won't let this go, with his rebuttal that "Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, the blowjob was merely the topic about which he lied."
There are so many responses to this counter-attack, but let me limit myself to the following observation: It's possible that Republicans minimize the chances of being caught lying under oath only because they simply refuse to be sworn in.
There's this (all subsequent emphasis added):
"It is not clear when or where Mr. Cheney was interviewed," the Times continued, "but he was not questioned under oath ...
And then there's this:
Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.
And this:
VIDEO: Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath
And even when they do end up being sworn in, it's certainly not because they volunteered for it:
Until the middle of last week, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was engaged in a conflict with the 9/11 Investigation Commission over whether or not she would take an oath to tell the truth prior to voluntarily answering their questions.
So (and I say this with the utmost respect, goombah), why don't you put a fucking sock in it? I'm really, really, really tired of hearing people prattle on tediously about how Clinton lied under oath about a goddamned blowjob, when you have numerous members of the Bush administration who are such pathological liars about things that really matter that they'll do anything they can not to even be sworn in.
Now, piss off and give the keyboard back to Mommy. I run a blog, not a fucking day care.
18 comments:
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, the blowjob was merely the topic about which he lied.
goombah,
I see, neither global warming nor the betrayal of wounded US veterans are of importance to you.
Your think is to try to be a bug in CC's ass?
Well, to each their own.
But I notice that you're confounded to come up with an adequate response to psa's demolition of your stupidity in the last post.
For my part, your continued strategy of denial (whether by continuing to post brief, groundless, assertions, or your total silence) will indicate to me that you are aware you've had your sorry ass handed to you on a platter, and that you are gradually realizing that you are intellectually bankrupt.
I wish you growth, both for your own, and for the planet's sake.
Who asked the questions, goombah? Who got all in a lather over it?And what concern was it to anyone in the first place?? And you want to talk about lying?
Let's see if your moral understanding can see the difference between lying about a blow job and lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sure, Cheney might not have been in front of a grand jury when he said 'We know he has them and we know where they are', but a lie is still a lie. And that's but one example of the past 4 years of the US administration lying and misleading about SH and Iraq.
But again, me thinks you're alittle too thick headed to get even that bit.
Tell you what--since you did make the valid point of Clinton being impeached for his lie about the BJ, let's get Georgie and Dickie and Rummie and Condie in front of a grand jury and ask them some questions, shall we? And let us then see whether there'll be some truths told, or will there be some 'impeachable' lying offensesstrewn out by these people.
I don't know if you were part of the party that held Clinton accountable for lying about a BJ, but how about holding some other people accountable for lying about an illegal and immoral war that lead to the deaths of thousands.
hey - at least it was a sex scandal involving an intern, not a page! and a woman, not a teenaged boy!
but remember when it used to be democrat/sex (with dames) scandals vs republican/money/cia murder/presidential dirty tricks/vice presidential tax scandals. and now it's the same except with republican/sex (with teenaged boys added on? oh - and presidents lying americans all the way to war and vice presidents shooting old men in their faces?
I think I've found an appropriate comparison that the BT's, goombah, and ex-lib can actually understand--the differences between the two situations are reduced to a factor of 1--
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/1/10518/67785
Obama says the troops lives are wasted and gets called to the carpet by many, many people--vs--McCain says the troops lives are wasted and... hmmmm... nothing is really said at all.
Let's see how long it takes for the BT's, goombah, and ex-lib to figure out the difference between those two examples.
".. I'm really, really, really tired of hearing people prattle on tediously about how Clinton lied under oath about a goddamned blowjob.."
The truth can be tedious. The fact you cannot refute it is a bitch, too.
And thwap, all of ape's lovely prose didn't deal with my post, only ape's projections. Read what I actually said, not what you think I said. Try it, it shouldn't be that hard to do.
Hey, I'll take a crack. I read your post. If I understand correctly, it goes like this:
1. CC writes on the squalid treatment of wounded soldiers.
2. BTs write on the fact that Al Gore appears to use electricity.
3. CC writes that it's hypocritical to claim to "support the troops" while ignoring their treatment.
4. Goombah points out that CC didn't post about #2. Since this is the same thing as the BTs not posting about #1, CC is guilty of the same behaviour that he complains about in #3.
Did I get it right? You know, if you find people aren't understanding what you wrote, sometimes it's because it's poorly written or off-topic. Or stupid.
For one thing, I don't recall any post here where CC decried the use of electricity. Therefore, I don't see why it's hypocritical of him to ignore the accusation that Al Gore uses electricity. So you can take your "pot-kettle metaphor" thing and stuff it.
For another thing, if you're going to smugly sit there and reply again and again that people "didn't deal with my post" and should "read what I actually said", you really should be careful to do the same yourself. CC's contention is quite clear to me: story #1 is much more important than story #2. Responding by insinuating that BTs believe the reverse does nothing to address that contention. It doesn't even tell us where you stand. Which story do you believe is most important?
Come on Goombah,
Lets put George, Dick, Rummy and Rice under oath and lets see what they fear the most, lying or being caught in a lie.
I also suggest it would completely responible to hook them up to lie detector that activates an electic chair if they lie. I bet all kinds of truth would come out.
And thwap, all of ape's lovely prose didn't deal with my post, only ape's projections. Read what I actually said, not what you think I said. Try it, it shouldn't be that hard to do.
By goombah, at 2:26 PM
Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Understand what I mean? It shouldn't be that hard to do.
Truth is always a bitch, which is why you always skirt it.
Anyone can be fucking cryptic, goombah.
Wingnuts, on the other hand, rely on it.
Come on now, Adam, I've read smarter stuff here by you before. I offered no comment on the subject matter of either the BTs or CC, I am calling CC hypocritical because he is doing on his site exactly what he castigates the others for doing, i.e. both comment only on subjects of their own choosing. While it is natural to make your own decisions about what you will comment upon, getting on your high-horse over the other guy not commenting on your topic of the day is asinine.
CC's post was not about the veterans' hospital conditions nor the Gore home, it was a lame attempt to heap scorn on the Blogging Tories over their choice of subject material. Look at the title of his post and tell me I'm wrong.
"Truth is always a bitch, which is why you always skirt it."
Mikey, you are obviously a deep-thinker and I'm sure your contributions will be highly valued here. Perhaps a few more mental push-ups before typing though, eh?
Well goombah,
You pursued neither embarrassed silence or a brief, groundless assertion, so i suppose i owe you some feedback.
You did not pursue either of those options, instead you pursued some sort of mind-bogglingly incoherent train of thought that I'm sure you think is both fascinating and deep.
You are right, goombah. The BT's and CC both comment on subjects of their choosing.
As I informed you at the very beginning, CC's site is (to a great degree) about EXPOSING THE STUPIDITY OF THE FAR-RIGHT.
As I informed you at the very beginning, this is NOT a fight global-warming site, nor is it an Al Gore fansite.
Therefore, CC's relative silence on the inconsequential subject of Al Gore's consumption of electricity from renewable sources to power/heat both his home and the businesses of him and his wife, is entirely understandable.
Do you understand this?
Do you?
However, CC's mentioning of the incredible hypocrisy of the BT's silence on the disgusting betrayal of the troops whom they claim to love so much, and whom they claim that we on the left hate so much, is entirely in keeping with the subject matter of his site.
Did you understand that?
Did you?
I confess that I think that you must be either 1. stupid or 2.evil.
1. You honestly do think that exposing the hypocrisy of the right-wing on a site that exposes the stupidity and hypocrisy of the right wing is somehow a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and that what you've discovered is somehow meaningful
or
2. You are merely trying to distract us from reflecting upon the revolting hypocrisy that CC presented for us by getting us into this pointless digression. (In which case you failed, regardless.)
Either way, stupid or evil, you are, once again, unworthy of any more of my time.
Wow, are you guys ever talking past one another.
Goombah, I don't know if you've read this blog, but "heaping scorn on the Blogging Tories" is the subject matter most of the time. The whole point of this blog is ripping into the posts and material and ideas (or lack thereof) of conservatives. It makes fun of them (when he's being polite) for the stuff they choose to blog about. It's not hypocritical for CC to do that, because that's what he does. This site does not claim to be a summary of important news stories. Lots of blogs do that. Like, for instance, a lot of the Blogging Tories.
CC's topic of the day is the dumbassitude of the blogosphere. Like every other day. He's making fun of others, often very well and deservedly. CC uses the attitudes of others to make his own points and jokes. If you don't like his sense of humour, well that's fine. Don't read it. I don't suspect CC (or PSA) are about to change their tones because one commenter doens't like it.
Claiming to support the troops and ripping people based on their lack of support for those troops, as these sites often do, and then not mentioning news about not supporting the troops properly, because of purely political reasons...that's hypocritical. If they usually never mentioned the troops, it's not.
Now, if evolutionary theory was suddenly disproven, and CC choose to ignore that, then he's being hypocritical.
Get out of my head thwap! Although it was the obvious point to make at this time, I suppose.
Mikey, you are obviously a deep-thinker and I'm sure your contributions will be highly valued here. Perhaps a few more mental push-ups before typing though, eh?
By goombah, at 9:43 PM
Why? I am already demonstratably far smarter than you.
Your (attempt at) sarcasm is highly appreciated, and so is your continued skirting of actual factually based opinion.
It illustrates my point: you are another inept, and cerebrally compromised, whinger.
Show some logic, faggot.
mikmik,
while i imagine your choice of the term faggot is intended to rile goombah into a state of knee jerkery and over compensation, i'd prefer if you chose a different avenue. as a pejorative, it echoes the right wing portrayal of orientation other than cardboard as a negative.
now if you were to call goombah a repetitive, dishonest, comprehensionally impaired, fuckwit that would be both accurate and acceptable. you could also call goombah an ideologically blinkered, microcephalic liar, again, fair, balanced and accurate.
cheers,
psa
oh, and goombah, you lying piece of crap, you might consider advancing your own reading skills before impugning the intelligence of the readers and commenters of canadian cynic. you're a one trick pony and it ain't much of a trick. so, once more for the record, get thee to a buffoonery, asshat.
mikmik,
while i imagine your choice of the term faggot is intended to rile goombah into a state of knee jerkery and over compensation, i'd prefer if you chose a different avenue. as a pejorative, it echoes the right wing portrayal of orientation other than cardboard as a negative.
now if you were to call goombah a repetitive, dishonest, comprehensionally impaired, fuckwit that would be both accurate and acceptable. you could also call goombah an ideologically blinkered, microcephalic liar, again, fair, balanced and accurate.
cheers,
psa
oh, and goombah, you lying piece of crap, you might consider advancing your own reading skills before impugning the intelligence of the readers and commenters of canadian cynic. you're a one trick pony and it ain't much of a trick. so, once more for the record, get thee to a buffoonery, asshat.
By pretty shaved ape, at 11:47 PM
I apologize. I knew better at the time when I used that term; used in a negative way to stereotype human beings. I deeply apologize for slandering (using a term that I knew my recipient would find offensive) someone with such a pathetic and tired term regarding an inconsequencial personal matter.
It was insensitive, and perfunctory.
I realize that you and I share the same evaluation of said goombah, and you have expressed my thoughts and feelings in a precise manner yourself.
Fuck intolerance, goombah. Let us feel some love, if you only weren't such an emotional child.
Post a Comment