Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

2003-08-02 Thread David Hobby 
John D. Giorgis wrote:

...
 
 Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this.
 
 In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd.   Many Democrats did argue
 that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for
 making such a claim was to attempt to mitigate the charges against Clinton,
 and as such, defend him.

John--
I think you are splitting hairs here.  I believe that 
everybody else in this exchange is interpreting defended Clinton
as said that Clinton was right to lie.  You seem to be using it
here in the broader sense of made any argument in support of
Clinton.  With this sense, you are of course right.
Congratulations, you've won an argument.  Unfortunately,
it was not WITH anybody, since we seem to be using words 
differently.  : )
---David
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

2003-08-02 Thread TomFODW 
 What democrats said that it was acceptable for Clinton to lie under
 oath?
 

I don't know what other Democrats may have said. I never said it was 
acceptable for him to lie under oath. I just didn't think it was an impeachable 
offense. 

I also think he should never have been forced to face that deposition, since 
Paula Jones's case was, in my opinion, purely politically motivated by people 
who hated Clinton no matter what he did. 

That said, he should have told the truth.



Tom Beck

www.prydonians.org
www.mercerjewishsingles.org

I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the 
last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l