So, whats wrong with Clinton?

[Wicked Pilot]

The point is, with all the shit we knew about, what else was that fucker hiding?

Not that I'm a Clinton fan or anything, but that has got to be the biggest Arguement from Ignorance I've seen in a long time.

[Darth Wong]

Still not getting this. Okay, let me put it this way. Did it ever occur to you to wonder if, while Clinton was lying to the entire fucking country about getting a BJ on our dime, that he might've been secretly breathing a sigh of relief that nobody asked whether he'd been selling our security to a foreign nation, or chopping up little kids in the West Wing?

No. If there was anything else to find, the most expensive witch hunt in American history would have found it. Or have you forgotten about the size and scope of the Clinton impeachment team?

The point is, with all the shit we knew about, what else was that fucker hiding?

Unless the most expensive witch hunt in American history was fucking blind, I figure they probably found anything and everything worth discussing, and then some.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

The point is, with all the shit we knew about, what else was that fucker hiding?

Not that I'm a Clinton fan or anything, but that has got to be the biggest Arguement from Ignorance I've seen in a long time.

Maybe so -- but even that demonstrates what was wrong with this guy. The guy made a lot of people feel that way, and that is definitely not what you want in the leader of your country.

[Superman]

Not only that, D. Wong, but this guy you are talking to is employing the old slippery slope fallacy. He was cheating, so me must have been LYING too! He was cheating to us at the same time!

Remember, each claim has to be evaluated. There was no evidence to back up the notion that he was selling the American people out.

[Superman]

Raoul, another slippery slope. Try evaluating him without this witch hunt bullshit. Stick to the facts.

Ok, yes, he got a blow job. Now, how about backing up the claims about selling us out?

[Durandal]

Still not getting this. Okay, let me put it this way. Did it ever occur to you to wonder if, while Clinton was lying to the entire fucking country about getting a BJ on our dime, that he might've been secretly breathing a sigh of relief that nobody asked whether he'd been selling our security to a foreign nation, or chopping up little kids in the West Wing? The point is, with all the shit we knew about, what else was that fucker hiding?

Slippery slope and argument from ignorance. Jesus Christ, will you just shut the fuck up before you make yourself look even dumber than you already have? You sound like a fucking arch-conservative newsletter. "What else was Clinton hiding??? We don't know, but we can sure do a whole lot of speculating about it!" Grow a fucking brain. Clinton was more than a little dishonest, but there are lots of dishonest people who aren't killers.

Oh, no. He lied to the whole country about getting a blowjob from an ugly, fat broad. Guess what, pal? The country didn't want to know, so who gives a fuck as to whether he told us the truth or not? The only reason that question was asked was to get him to lie under oath so they could bring out the semen-stained dress and hang him for perjury. That's all. You want to talk about dishonesty and wasting our dime, then whine about the independent council and Republican party.

[Superman]

Durandal, you have a gift with words.

[Perinquus]

(sigh) a condom/sex-ed argument, eh? I'll say 4 things here:

1. Teaching kids about something does not necessarily encourage its use. Do you believe that teaching kids about gun safety will encourage them to go out and shoot people?

The purpose of gun safety courses is to teach kids how to not to shoot people. But it does encourage them to participate in shooting sports. How do you teach kids how to have sex "safely" without at least tacitly encouraging them to participate in that activity?

[*]Yes, Perinquus, there are no objective standards for art or literature. So what? How does that change the fact that you have not established any material harm from hanging condoms off a Christmas tree? Appeals to popular opinion are worth precisely dick.

It's still lewd, crass, vulgar, in poor taste. You may dismiss that as subjective and irrelevant. I, on the other hand, think that it is desirable to maintain certain standards of, for lack of a better word, decency. I admit, it is an entirely subjective evaluation on my part, but I do not consider it a good thing when our chief executive engages in behavior that is downright vulgar, and even offensive by the moral standards of society as a whole.

[*]If the only people in the country who encourage sex education are "liberals" as you put it, then liberals are completely justified in saying that conservatives are fucked in the head.

I certainly would not be opposed to the kind of sex ed that warns kids of the risks inherent in having sex (STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc), and the potential consequences that they may have to live with. It should be possible to do this, and at the same time strongly discourage them from experimenting before they are mature enough to deal with the result if they turn out to have planned poorly. The mechanics of reproduction they'll learn about in biology. It certainly doesn't take very long to explain how the various means of contraception work. By all means, give them the facts; but give them the appropriate warnings and caveats as well. I'm not in favor of trying to keep people ignorant. But I'm highly suspicious of the kind of sex ed that encourages kids to "make an informed decision" about whether or not to have sex. These are teenagers we're talking about here - the same group that is famous for getting themselves eyeball deep in debt when they get their hands on their first credit card, for example. This is not exactly a group known for the ability to look down the road and envision the consequences of their actions.

[*]Claiming that Bush has superior character because he never lied about a blowjob and "merely" engaged in Enron-style insider trading/influence peddling/Bin Laden family quid pro quo in the past is simply laughable. Comparing the characters of Bush and Clinton is like comparing shit and manure.[/list]

This kind of ignores the fact that Clinton's perjury (a felony, regardless of what the question was) is hardly the only example of Clinton's wrongdoing.

[Montcalm]

1:He started war to bring peoples attention somewhere else
2:He lied about having an affair
3:He was dumb enough to cheat on his wife with ugly looking bitches

[Superman]

When you say he started a war to divert attention, that is pure speculation. Why is it so hard for debaters to stick with the facts?

If you say he sold us out (a claim that is MUCH bigger than getting a blowjob or even lying about it) you had better be able to back it up. If you can't, I am going to chalk you up as another ignorant redneck conservative type. If you CAN back it up, then hell, I will change my stance!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Not only that, D. Wong, but this guy you are talking to is employing the old slippery slope fallacy. He was cheating, so me must have been LYING too! He was cheating to us at the same time!

Remember, each claim has to be evaluated. There was no evidence to back up the notion that he was selling the American people out.

Actually, Superman, I never said I had any evidence that he sold the country out; that's merely speculation based on his attitude toward this country as evidenced by things he has said. But, he was caught cheating. He was also caught lying. Here are some quotes to back my position.

"I want to say one thing to the American people, I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people." -- Bill Clinton (01/26/98)

Of course, his bad aim put that to rest eventually, didn't it?

A few more from the Man himself.

"I've said I've never broken the drug laws of my country, and that is the absolute truth."
--Bill Clinton, New Orleans Times Picayune, 4/24/92

Q.- "If you had it to do over again, would you inhale?"
A.- "Sure, if I could... I tried before!"

--Bill Clinton, MTV "Choose or Lose" Special, 6/16/92

"African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do."
--Bill Clinton on Black Entertainment Television, November 2, 1994

"You can't say you love your country and hate your government."
-- Bill Clinton, 1995 (After the OKC bombing)

"A lot of wonderful people love their country and hate the military."
- - Bill Clinton, 1969 (Letter to the National Guard)

And the one that just really makes it all nice and sparkling clear why I, at least, hate the puppyfucker:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans . . . ."

--William J. Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993

Some great insights:

"We've believed for a long time that if you have sex, you can get AIDS.
Bill Clinton discovered that if you have aides, you can get sex."

"We've all been watching in astonishment these past few weeks as the Clintons merrily parade their greed and corruption past us like a garish Mardi Gras float powered by the drivetrain of Bill Clinton's gargantuan sense of entitlement. Hillary steers, while Bill sits on the top tossing pardons out to the crowd like a drunken Bacchus with a perpetual h**d-on for a scepter.... You almost have to admire the sheer audacity of granting pardons to two tax-scamming billionaire fugitives named Rich and Green. If the symbolism were any more obvious, Andrew Lloyd Weber would be writing music for it." -- Dennis Miller

[Superman]

Dude, I AGREED with you that he lied about getting a blowjob. Whom are you trying to convince?

[Darth Wong]

The purpose of gun safety courses is to teach kids how to not to shoot people. But it does encourage them to participate in shooting sports. How do you teach kids how to have sex "safely" without at least tacitly encouraging them to participate in that activity?

The same way I showed my son how to operate a steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal even though he won't be driving for 10 years. You explain it to them, and tell them that this is how they should do it when it's time. This doesn't mean I'm encouraging him to start driving my car tomorrow.

What is your problem? You seem to have a schizophrenic mix of atheism and the most bizarre leaps in logic of the religious right. Information does not hurt anyone. Teaching a kid how sex works, how conception works, and what a condom is will not hurt him, nor will it encourage him to have sex, since knowledge of condoms is not the driving force behind sex!

Do you know what encourages people to have sex? MILLIONS OF YEARS OF FUCKING INSTINCT, that's what! Teaching them how to do it safely will not add or detract from the basic drive to have sex.

[*]Yes, Perinquus, there are no objective standards for art or literature. So what? How does that change the fact that you have not established any material harm from hanging condoms off a Christmas tree? Appeals to popular opinion are worth precisely dick.

It's still lewd, crass, vulgar, in poor taste. You may dismiss that as subjective and irrelevant. I, on the other hand, think that it is desirable to maintain certain standards of, for lack of a better word, decency. I admit, it is an entirely subjective evaluation on my part, but I do not consider it a good thing when our chief executive engages in behavior that is downright vulgar, and even offensive by the moral standards of society as a whole.

I think that George Bush's constant references to God watching over America are ridiculously offensive, and far more vulgar and crass than anything as trivial as a condom in public view. Perhaps you can call that subjective too, except that I can actually produce an explanation of why that's wrong, while the best you can do is say that you don't like it. Telling 20 million Americans that they don't count and reinforcing the worldwide image of Americans as a bunch of religious fundie morons is much more harmful than letting kids see (egads!) a condom.

[*]If the only people in the country who encourage sex education are "liberals" as you put it, then liberals are completely justified in saying that conservatives are fucked in the head.

I certainly would not be opposed to the kind of sex ed that warns kids of the risks inherent in having sex (STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc), and the potential consequences that they may have to live with. It should be possible to do this, and at the same time strongly discourage them from experimenting before they are mature enough to deal with the result if they turn out to have planned poorly.

Then why did you say earlier that any attempt to teach safe sex will inevitably encourage them to have sex at a young age? How does letting a kid see a condom make him run out and lose his virginity at age 8? Please explain; I'd love to know how this works.

The mechanics of reproduction they'll learn about in biology.

No, they won't. Biology teaches it on a microscopic cellular level. Most biology teachers don't delve much into the mechanics of the insemination process, thus allowing weird myths like "you won't get pregnant if you stand up and walk around afterwards" stick around.

It certainly doesn't take very long to explain how the various means of contraception work. By all means, give them the facts; but give them the appropriate warnings and caveats as well. I'm not in favor of trying to keep people ignorant. But I'm highly suspicious of the kind of sex ed that encourages kids to "make an informed decision" about whether or not to have sex. These are teenagers we're talking about here - the same group that is famous for getting themselves eyeball deep in debt when they get their hands on their first credit card, for example. This is not exactly a group known for the ability to look down the road and envision the consequences of their actions.

I agree. But how does any of this support your assertion that letting a kid see a condom in public somehow encourages him to have sex?

[*]Claiming that Bush has superior character because he never lied about a blowjob and "merely" engaged in Enron-style insider trading/influence peddling/Bin Laden family quid pro quo in the past is simply laughable. Comparing the characters of Bush and Clinton is like comparing shit and manure.[/list]

This kind of ignores the fact that Clinton's perjury (a felony, regardless of what the question was) is hardly the only example of Clinton's wrongdoing.

Did I ever say it was? How many fucking times do I have say that PardonGate really pissed me off before you stop lumping me in with the goddamned stereotype of the "left-wing liberal" that you so obviously carry around in your head?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

When you say he started a war to divert attention, that is pure speculation. Why is it so hard for debaters to stick with the facts?

If you say he sold us out (a claim that is MUCH bigger than getting a blowjob or even lying about it) you had better be able to back it up. If you can't, I am going to chalk you up as another ignorant redneck conservative type. If you CAN back it up, then hell, I will change my stance!

When we say he started a war to divert attention, that is an extrapolation of his known proclivity for lying combined with the understood effects of stress and the almost universal human desire not to lose one's position. We also factor in his executive power. He had motive, means and opportunity. The crime can't be proven, but the circumstantial evidence is there, and some people choose to run with it.

[Superman]

I see you just ignore D. Wong's reply...

Bullshit and cicumstantial often fall into the same category. It's not PROVEN! You admitted it! Innocent until PROVEN guilty, for Christ's sake!

The burdon of proof lies on the person making the claim. You cannot prove it, therefore, I say it's bullshit.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

*sigh* I'm not saying Clinto is guilty based on circumstancial evidence, Superman. I'm saying he is suspect. Untrustworthy, even by the threadbare standards of trust we apply to politicians. That is why people disliked him, and that basically is what was wrong with Clinton.

The Slippery Slope and Appeal to Ignorance issues... well, Appeal to Ignorance is defined thus:

There is no evidence against P, therefore P. Or vice versa. I don't think I've engaged in that, because I haven't stated a conclusion that I haven't shown at least quotes to support. I am not trying to prove anything based on lack of evidence against it, I'm simply saying that the evidence available throws this individual's credibility as a leader out the window. The Slippery Slope I will admit with the "chopping up kids" thing and apologize for.

EDIT: *sigh* Okay, I see where you got the ATI thing from. When I defended the idea that Clinton started the war to divert attention from himself, I should make it clear that I personally am not convinced either way on that subject, nor do I care. I am simply explaining why people might harbor that particular conspiracy theory. I am not among them.

[Durandal]

*sigh* I'm not saying Clinto is guilty based on circumstancial evidence, Superman. I'm saying he is suspect. Untrustworthy, even by the threadbare standards of trust we apply to politicians. That is why people disliked him, and that basically is what was wrong with Clinton.

Of course he's untrustworthy. He's a politician.

The Slippery Slope and Appeal to Ignorance issues... well, Appeal to Ignorance is defined thus:

There is no evidence against P, therefore P. Or vice versa. I don't think I've engaged in that, because I haven't stated a conclusion that I haven't shown at least quotes to support. I am not trying to prove anything based on lack of evidence against it, I'm simply saying that the evidence available throws this individual's credibility as a leader out the window. The Slippery Slope I will admit with the "chopping up kids" thing and apologize for.

It's a good thing I said you were arguing from ignorance, rather than appealing to it, then. Arguing from ignorance is saying, "What else don't we know?" and the like. This is popular amongst conspiracy theorists. Lying about your sex life isn't exactly damning evidence against your credibility, especially when you're talking to someone who has no business asking and is forcing you to give an answer one way or the other.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Still not getting this. Okay, let me put it this way. Did it ever occur to you to wonder if, while Clinton was lying to the entire fucking country about getting a BJ on our dime, that he might've been secretly breathing a sigh of relief that nobody asked whether he'd been selling our security to a foreign nation, or chopping up little kids in the West Wing? The point is, with all the shit we knew about, what else was that fucker hiding?

Slippery slope and argument from ignorance. Jesus Christ, will you just shut the fuck up before you make yourself look even dumber than you already have? You sound like a fucking arch-conservative newsletter. "What else was Clinton hiding??? We don't know, but we can sure do a whole lot of speculating about it!" Grow a fucking brain. Clinton was more than a little dishonest, but there are lots of dishonest people who aren't killers.

As long as we're flinging fallacy classifications back and forth at each other, that last bit was a tautology. Yes, there sure are a lot of dishonest people that aren't killers. Here's another tautology: I don't trust pathological liars, and I don't like the idea of this country being run by one.

Oh, no. He lied to the whole country about getting a blowjob from an ugly, fat broad. Guess what, pal? The country didn't want to know, so who gives a fuck as to whether he told us the truth or not? The only reason that question was asked was to get him to lie under oath so they could bring out the semen-stained dress and hang him for perjury. That's all. You want to talk about dishonesty and wasting our dime, then whine about the independent council and Republican party.

And that last one there was a Red Herring. If Clinton hadn't done stupid shit to be investigated for, the Independent Counsel and Republican Party would never have spent a penny investigating the stupid shit Clinton did. It's still on Clinton's head, because he was the one that did stupid shit that prompted the investigation that we had to pay for.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I'll check Mike's definition of Argument From Ignorance vs. Appeal To Ignorance in a second, Durandal, but from what I'm getting off Googling, they appear to be identical concepts.

[Durandal]

As long as we're flinging fallacy classifications back and forth at each other, that last bit was a tautology. Yes, there sure are a lot of dishonest people that aren't killers. Here's another tautology: I don't trust pathological liars, and I don't like the idea of this country being run by one.

All polticians are dishonest, nitwit. Do you expect someone to get to the highest office in the nation by telling the truth? How naive are you? The average American voter couldn't handle honesty if it was introduced into the political system. I'm not saying I approve of what he did, but he's certainly no worse than any other president we've had in terms of his honesty.

And that last one there was a Red Herring. If Clinton hadn't done stupid shit to be investigated for, the Independent Counsel and Republican Party would never have spent a penny investigating the stupid shit Clinton did. It's still on Clinton's head, because he was the one that did stupid shit that prompted the investigation that we had to pay for.

A blow job in the White House is not a fucking impeachable offense, you fucking retard. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON AS TO WHY THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED IN THE FIRST PLACE, so the blame for the entire fiasco falls squarely on the Republican prosecutors. The entire Lewinsky scandal was a gigantic red herring in the case of whether or not Clinton flashed Paula Jones.

[Frank_Scenario]

I never had a problem with Clinton. He's been demonized as a rapist (patently untrue), he's been accused of fathering a "love child" (also false), and so on. However, it was rarely reported that Bob Dornan threatened his life in a speech to Congress (mentioned in Downsize This), and the Ann Coulter did the same (in High Crimes and Misdemeanors), along with numerous other pundits. He's been given unfair treatment, and regrettably his all-too-real failings made these sort of venomous attacks seem legitimate. There are good reasons to be opposed to Clinton's policy decisions. I don't support all of them. However, the vast majority of the rhetoric deployed against Clinton is based on his personal character which is not necessarily relevant to his ability to be a good President.

Hell, we saw economic prosperity, a reduction in the gap between the rich and the poor, relative peace, and in general had a good eight years while Clinton was in office.

Moreover, his office was marred by less corruption that most; under Reagan and Bush I, there were 72 federal officers indicted regarding various scandals (HUD housing, etc); under Bush II, there have been 5 thus far (all of whom have been convicted and then given a presidential pardon). Under Clinton, a whopping zero.

What bugs me is the fact that the so-called liberal media (to steal a phrase from Eric Alterman) completely ignores the far more siginificant problems with the Bush administration and with the man himself. He's consistently demonstrated dishonesty, incompetence, and continues to do so-and no one calls him on it. That's a subject for another thread, though.

[Durandal]

I'll check Mike's definition of Argument From Ignorance vs. Appeal To Ignorance in a second, Durandal, but from what I'm getting off Googling, they appear to be identical concepts.

Yes, they are the same. I slightly mislabeled your idiocy. My apologies.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

As long as we're flinging fallacy classifications back and forth at each other, that last bit was a tautology. Yes, there sure are a lot of dishonest people that aren't killers. Here's another tautology: I don't trust pathological liars, and I don't like the idea of this country being run by one.

All polticians are dishonest, nitwit. Do you expect someone to get to the highest office in the nation by telling the truth? How naive are you? The average American voter couldn't handle honesty if it was introduced into the political system. I'm not saying I approve of what he did, but he's certainly no worse than any other president we've had in terms of his honesty.

And that last one there was a Red Herring. If Clinton hadn't done stupid shit to be investigated for, the Independent Counsel and Republican Party would never have spent a penny investigating the stupid shit Clinton did. It's still on Clinton's head, because he was the one that did stupid shit that prompted the investigation that we had to pay for.

A blow job in the White House is not a fucking impeachable offense, you fucking retard. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON AS TO WHY THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED IN THE FIRST PLACE, so the blame for the entire fiasco falls squarely on the Republican prosecutors. The entire Lewinsky scandal was a gigantic red herring in the case of whether or not Clinton flashed Paula Jones.

Again, yes, I acknowledge that all politicians are liars. And I acknowledge that politicians get up to some stupid shit, maybe even while in office. But your average politician does not behave like Gene Simmons. Some decorum, at least, should be expected of these guys, especially when they're in the Biggest Chair in the fucking White House. It wouldn't have been anybody's business if he'd done it anywhere other than in the White House.

In a manner of speaking, I still believe that the Government is, as Lincoln said, By the People, Of the People and For the People (however that goes) and as such William Jefferson Clinton was my fucking employee for eight long dismal years. Do you think your boss would appreciate it if he found you getting head in his office? If you can understand that sentiment, you come a little closer to understanding why people are pissed about Clinton getting blown in the building we paid him to live and work in.

Okay, now I'm sure this is a fallacy of some kind, but I'm gonna fucking ask it and I want a straight answer:

Do you believe that Clinton did not do anything at all to deserve official inquiry or investigation? Do you think that the Republicans somehow invented the shit they were investigating him for? I don't know how else to approach this.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I never had a problem with Clinton. He's been demonized as a rapist (patently untrue), he's been accused of fathering a "love child" (also false), and so on. However, it was rarely reported that Bob Dornan threatened his life in a speech to Congress (mentioned in Downsize This), and the Ann Coulter did the same (in High Crimes and Misdemeanors), along with numerous other pundits. He's been given unfair treatment, and regrettably his all-too-real failings made these sort of venomous attacks seem legitimate. There are good reasons to be opposed to Clinton's policy decisions. I don't support all of them. However, the vast majority of the rhetoric deployed against Clinton is based on his personal character which is not necessarily relevant to his ability to be a good President.

I'm just collecting hell tonight, but... saying that a leader's character is irrelevant is mind-bogglingly stupid. Would you say that Hitler's character was irrelevant to whether or not he should have been elected? Character matters.

Hell, we saw economic prosperity, a reduction in the gap between the rich and the poor, relative peace, and in general had a good eight years while Clinton was in office.

Moreover, his office was marred by less corruption that most; under Reagan and Bush I, there were 72 federal officers indicted regarding various scandals (HUD housing, etc); under Bush II, there have been 5 thus far (all of whom have been convicted and then given a presidential pardon). Under Clinton, a whopping zero.

Check your facts, buddy. From http://prorev.com/legacy.htm:

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

What bugs me is the fact that the so-called liberal media (to steal a phrase from Eric Alterman) completely ignores the far more siginificant problems with the Bush administration and with the man himself. He's consistently demonstrated dishonesty, incompetence, and continues to do so-and no one calls him on it. That's a subject for another thread, though.

I hope you have some quotes, citations or some other form of evidence you can point to for those "unreported facts". (Question: Are you close enough with George W. to know things about him the Press didn't report? And if not, wouldn't that indicate that the Press did report them?) God, I must be in a bad mood.

[Durandal]

Again, yes, I acknowledge that all politicians are liars. And I acknowledge that politicians get up to some stupid shit, maybe even while in office. But your average politician does not behave like Gene Simmons. Some decorum, at least, should be expected of these guys, especially when they're in the Biggest Chair in the fucking White House. It wouldn't have been anybody's business if he'd done it anywhere other than in the White House.

What the fuck do you care where it was done? That has absolutely no bearing on the deed itself. The only meaningful distinction of location is public vs. private. Unless Clinton had Monica blowing him in the middle of a session of Congress, no one should be asking about what he was doing.

In a manner of speaking, I still believe that the Government is, as Lincoln said, By the People, Of the People and For the People (however that goes) and as such William Jefferson Clinton was my fucking employee for eight long dismal years. Do you think your boss would appreciate it if he found you getting head in his office? If you can understand that sentiment, you come a little closer to understanding why people are pissed about Clinton getting blown in the building we paid him to live and work in.

What? You don't think any other president has ever had sex in the oval office? Look at Kennedy, genius. It's his goddamn house, fuckwit. I seriously doubt it would have made one damn bit of difference had he gotten a blowjob in his bedroom as opposed to the office.

Okay, now I'm sure this is a fallacy of some kind, but I'm gonna fucking ask it and I want a straight answer:

Do you believe that Clinton did not do anything at all to deserve official inquiry or investigation? Do you think that the Republicans somehow invented the shit they were investigating him for? I don't know how else to approach this.

No one cares whether some whackjob claims that he flashed him in his office. They were the only two in there, so Jones' claim was illegitimate because she had zero evidence to support it. For some stupid reason, they asked him about Lewinsky, who was completely unrelated to the question at hand, which was, "Did you flash Paula Jones?" How does whether or not he got head from Monica going to help answer that question? The fact that the Republicans pinned their hopes of impeachment on an obviously disturbed intern who kept a dress that'd been stained with Slick Willy, Jr's love juice doesn't exactly incline me to believe that their other accusations had any kind of legitimacy, especially given that they didn't provide a shred of evidence for any of the more vicious ones (murder, for example).

I don't give a flying fuck about the president's sexual conduct unless it involves something illegal or explicitly immoral like fucking 6 year-old Taiwanese boys. Unless that's the case with Clinton, don't fucking bother me with it. I don't care. I care what he's doing with foreign policy, the econony and things that actually matter.

EDIT: Oh yeah, it was a red herring fallacy. We're discussing whether or not lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense, not about anything else Clinton has allegedly done.