LouFerignoDemon
CLEAN YOUR SHEETS!!!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 15,833
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
All you've really described him with are some facts, allegations, and unproven situations. And then you went on to describe him as a horrific, evil person.
While I do review my statement about common pay-offs for Presidential Pardons, I augment my statement to be "not universal, but common enough through donation adds in comparison" and I say that, because really, only Rich was the one who made a large donation, and was subsequently pardoned. The case can easily be made to his wanting to show his good faith, and the fact he had to drop any and all legal defenses if he was nailed with another case relating to his scandal upon returning to the US. While probably not true, it's not cut and dry. However, most other "pay-offs" were to Hillary's family, who then lobbied for them. While never a good thing, politics is a difficult field, rife with opportunity and promise, corruption and greed. There has probably only been one president where people felt he did right by every means of his time, and that would probably be your first president, George Washington.
To the next part. Your statement still doesn't support any evidence he may be a rapist, nor has any proof ever arisen he has attacked them personally. They have made allegations that the IRS have audited them, people breaking into their home and wrecking it, physical threats against them, but no evidence whatsoever to support any of that. And in one case, the witness had a story which worked against the alleged victim.
The hate is obvious, and as long as hate drives your words, I have no real interest in continuing this. The fact you're willing to grill me on facts, while going for any and every straw to grasp at against Clinton, fact, hearsay, is entirely unfair as a debating point. Allegations of selling information to China was unsupported. Allegations of not taking any action against any form of terrorism was hardly supported, as the military accidentally blew up a pharmaceutical plant while in retaliation against al-Qaeda, while undergoing stringent hunting of Bin Laden the entire time, including orders to kill him. Not launching a full scale war on an uncentralized enemy isn't exactly being weak on Foreign Policy. Willingness to accept anybody's words that Clinton raped a woman in a Nancy Grace manner definitely doesn't help your offense against Clinton. Heck, Clinton didn't even personally accept money from Rich. The case could be made Clinton felt Rich's donation of a lot of money (and accepting to drop all defenses against cases made against him upon returning to America) was an attempt by Rich to atone and grow into a better human being, which is something repeated in Clinton's actions.
No president has ever proven to be a perfect person, nor have they ever proven to be without a scandal or two. They're people. I take it back, I'm fairly sure George Washington was highly regarded by pretty much all Americans and parties involved in America's construction in his time. I really don't find use in pointing out one or two issues they might or might not have had, and then railing them to the wall just because I dislike the person personally. I don't do it with my coworkers, bosses, friends, associates, people of the Hype, or anybody. It's a highly personally reducing task, and one not worth any merit whatsoever.
In truth, the fact of the matter is, what do you value him more on? Him as a president, or him as a man? Because that's what most people rate him on. I doubt you're going to go out ANYWHERE in your country, ask some random stranger and say, "You think Bill Clinton was a good man and president?" and they'll tell you, "I'd have cheated on the cold-fished b**** myself. Him being a president totally overrides him as a person." It doesn't happen, and nobody would say it (Well, most people wouldn't.) Most people would respond, "I think what he did to Hillary was monstrous, and was terrible, but he was an okay president who did the job pretty well."
In the end, who am I? A person who doesn't judge by blind hatred of another human being when I'm looking at them to do their job. Much like arguing against a person who judges by blind hatred, it's a gigantic waste of my time. I sure hope to God people don't look at you in your workplace and say, "Well, he's been known to rant here and there, he must suck at his job." If this is happened, I apologize, they're terrible coworkers.
If you want to hate Bill Clinton for whatever reason, such as him cheating on his wife, then hate the man. You want to hate him because he makes controversial pardons? Hate the fact he apparently has some form of corruption towards a single person. But really, that's it. Unless you want to hate him for bombing a pharmaceutical plant intel believes Bin Laden was at just hours prior to the bombing with several of his key personnel, and then claim he sucks when dealing with foreign threats. That one is acceptable, too, I guess. Don't want to respect him as a man? Fine. Plenty of reason to not respect him as a man. Don't want to respect him as a president? If possibly selling off a pardon is the worst thing he's done, he really hasn't done much in comparison to other acts in his office: Such as making trade with China better, bolstering world support of America, attempting to deal with threats to America without stepping on other people's toes, and trying what appears to be his best to help everybody in America in the most efficient way possible. In all truth, as a president, he didn't really do all that bad. Granted, the trade with China, and the helping of people turned out sour, but that's really not his fault, as they were unforeseen events which could not have been predicted by anybody at the time.
While I'm definitely not Clinton's champion, I'm not willing to push his work aside because of some infidelities, which have NOTHING to do with his work performance. I definitely wouldn't say my boss is a terrible boss because he might have cheated on his wife. It is clear though this is how you would like to judge his entire presidency. He's both a man and president, and should be (like anybody else in this world) be treated both as a worker and human individually, because ALL people carry themselves differently as a person and a professional.
As it stands, all points you and I can, have, and will make have been stated. We will both judge Clinton in our own ways, and obviously will not agree how a person should be judged, be it independently, or as a whole. I simply ask you cease on the subject, as our feelings are both known on it. Also, in future arguments/debates/discussions with me, refrain from personal assault. It is not a credit to your ability. And I would greatly appreciate it.
While I do review my statement about common pay-offs for Presidential Pardons, I augment my statement to be "not universal, but common enough through donation adds in comparison" and I say that, because really, only Rich was the one who made a large donation, and was subsequently pardoned. The case can easily be made to his wanting to show his good faith, and the fact he had to drop any and all legal defenses if he was nailed with another case relating to his scandal upon returning to the US. While probably not true, it's not cut and dry. However, most other "pay-offs" were to Hillary's family, who then lobbied for them. While never a good thing, politics is a difficult field, rife with opportunity and promise, corruption and greed. There has probably only been one president where people felt he did right by every means of his time, and that would probably be your first president, George Washington.
To the next part. Your statement still doesn't support any evidence he may be a rapist, nor has any proof ever arisen he has attacked them personally. They have made allegations that the IRS have audited them, people breaking into their home and wrecking it, physical threats against them, but no evidence whatsoever to support any of that. And in one case, the witness had a story which worked against the alleged victim.
The hate is obvious, and as long as hate drives your words, I have no real interest in continuing this. The fact you're willing to grill me on facts, while going for any and every straw to grasp at against Clinton, fact, hearsay, is entirely unfair as a debating point. Allegations of selling information to China was unsupported. Allegations of not taking any action against any form of terrorism was hardly supported, as the military accidentally blew up a pharmaceutical plant while in retaliation against al-Qaeda, while undergoing stringent hunting of Bin Laden the entire time, including orders to kill him. Not launching a full scale war on an uncentralized enemy isn't exactly being weak on Foreign Policy. Willingness to accept anybody's words that Clinton raped a woman in a Nancy Grace manner definitely doesn't help your offense against Clinton. Heck, Clinton didn't even personally accept money from Rich. The case could be made Clinton felt Rich's donation of a lot of money (and accepting to drop all defenses against cases made against him upon returning to America) was an attempt by Rich to atone and grow into a better human being, which is something repeated in Clinton's actions.
No president has ever proven to be a perfect person, nor have they ever proven to be without a scandal or two. They're people. I take it back, I'm fairly sure George Washington was highly regarded by pretty much all Americans and parties involved in America's construction in his time. I really don't find use in pointing out one or two issues they might or might not have had, and then railing them to the wall just because I dislike the person personally. I don't do it with my coworkers, bosses, friends, associates, people of the Hype, or anybody. It's a highly personally reducing task, and one not worth any merit whatsoever.
In truth, the fact of the matter is, what do you value him more on? Him as a president, or him as a man? Because that's what most people rate him on. I doubt you're going to go out ANYWHERE in your country, ask some random stranger and say, "You think Bill Clinton was a good man and president?" and they'll tell you, "I'd have cheated on the cold-fished b**** myself. Him being a president totally overrides him as a person." It doesn't happen, and nobody would say it (Well, most people wouldn't.) Most people would respond, "I think what he did to Hillary was monstrous, and was terrible, but he was an okay president who did the job pretty well."
In the end, who am I? A person who doesn't judge by blind hatred of another human being when I'm looking at them to do their job. Much like arguing against a person who judges by blind hatred, it's a gigantic waste of my time. I sure hope to God people don't look at you in your workplace and say, "Well, he's been known to rant here and there, he must suck at his job." If this is happened, I apologize, they're terrible coworkers.
If you want to hate Bill Clinton for whatever reason, such as him cheating on his wife, then hate the man. You want to hate him because he makes controversial pardons? Hate the fact he apparently has some form of corruption towards a single person. But really, that's it. Unless you want to hate him for bombing a pharmaceutical plant intel believes Bin Laden was at just hours prior to the bombing with several of his key personnel, and then claim he sucks when dealing with foreign threats. That one is acceptable, too, I guess. Don't want to respect him as a man? Fine. Plenty of reason to not respect him as a man. Don't want to respect him as a president? If possibly selling off a pardon is the worst thing he's done, he really hasn't done much in comparison to other acts in his office: Such as making trade with China better, bolstering world support of America, attempting to deal with threats to America without stepping on other people's toes, and trying what appears to be his best to help everybody in America in the most efficient way possible. In all truth, as a president, he didn't really do all that bad. Granted, the trade with China, and the helping of people turned out sour, but that's really not his fault, as they were unforeseen events which could not have been predicted by anybody at the time.
While I'm definitely not Clinton's champion, I'm not willing to push his work aside because of some infidelities, which have NOTHING to do with his work performance. I definitely wouldn't say my boss is a terrible boss because he might have cheated on his wife. It is clear though this is how you would like to judge his entire presidency. He's both a man and president, and should be (like anybody else in this world) be treated both as a worker and human individually, because ALL people carry themselves differently as a person and a professional.
As it stands, all points you and I can, have, and will make have been stated. We will both judge Clinton in our own ways, and obviously will not agree how a person should be judged, be it independently, or as a whole. I simply ask you cease on the subject, as our feelings are both known on it. Also, in future arguments/debates/discussions with me, refrain from personal assault. It is not a credit to your ability. And I would greatly appreciate it.
