[lit-ideas] Re: '08 Democrats
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:38:10 -0800
I'm sure Eric didn't mean that because that would be dumb. We have already
demonstrated to everyone who can read, present company excepted of course,
that Bush presented nothing more than that conventional wisdom shared by
everyone else including a prominent female Democrat running for office at
the present time. Also, it would be dumb to accept the one-sided negative
reports of certain Leftist publications as presenting an accurate view of
how well the Nation-Building is going. Eric, not being dumb, wouldn't have
meant either of those things.
He probably referred to the lies Clinton made under oath to - heck I can't
remember who he was under oath to - in the days when he swore "I never had
sex with that woman." And then other lies about other women - unless you
assume that those other women were lying about him. Heck, he would have
kept insisting that he never had sex with that woman Monica had there not
been overwhelming evidence that he did - unlike with the other women who
said he engaged in untoward actions toward them where it would have been he
said/she said had he been put under oath again.
But then, who knows. Maybe voicing conventional wisdom that turns out to be
false is a lie, but lying under oath to congress (or whomever) is merely a
"mistake" ("mistake" defined as "getting caught") since there is no longer
anything that is true or false, right or wrong, and logic is a thing of the
past.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 2:07 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: '08 Democrats
When you say liar like Clinton, you mean, like, he lied to get us into a
war? Then he lied that the war was going well? Is that what you mean?
-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Yost` <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Feb 24, 2007 4:26 PM
>To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: '08 Democrats
>
>Stan writes: (Said like a true Republican!)
>
>It was written like an independent, Stan. I mean, what do we have in
>recent memory? Liars like Clinton and absolute ninnies like Carter.
>Clinton took away more personal freedom and privacy in his War on Drugs
>Bill in 1993 than were taken by the Patriot Act. Carter -- who George
>McGovern called the worst president of his lifetime -- much to the
>discomfort of the other DEMS -- created problems we're still dealing with.
>
>The GOP social agenda and their fundamentalist Christian allies are
>repulsive to me. "Social conservatism" to me mean Harold Bloom, not
>idiots talking about the Rapture. So give me an alternative. C'mon,
>field an inspiring leader instead of calling me a Republican.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
