The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 6, Thread 4.

1. Seed Question: - How absolute is your position? How ambivalent? What about people you disagree wit
Tue, Dec 8, 1998 - 9:52 PM/EST
peaux2

I am excited by this question.... fact is that I started out feeling a bit annoyed and rushed to support my president... then I learned more details about the "scandal" (I don't know what else to call it) and felt differently.... I don't like to be in the middle of anyone's domestic affairs and this was no different for me. At that point I felt as if, being a liberal who usually votes Dem, the Repub Right were out to "get me" and were going to use anything, no matter how private or trivial, to accomplish the ruin of the president. The very idea offends my patriotic sensibilities... but the more I learned about the events of Lewinsky, the more ambivialent I became....

I believe that the truth is more holy than anything else and knowing that other people do not always agree with that view is something I accept, but I don't condone it. No matter how much I like anyone, I refuse to aid, abet or otherwise condone dishonesty. That doesn't mean I think anyone who lies should be automatically punished....certainly not to be judged by little old me!

I can't get behind Clinton lying, even if it was done in the interest of protecting someone's feelings or reputation, but neither can I approve of Mr. Starr's pursuit of ALL the facts in a distasteful arena. I expected bad news by Mr. Starr, not unending smut. I feel cheated by the lack of details on the original issues he was hired to investigate. I cannot understand the stupidity displayed by the Repubs who trumpeted their "we got 'em now!" until EVERYONE was embarrassed. (Subtlety is effective, crowing and taunting is immature) to the dismay of my liberal-er friends I cannot help but point out that the Repubs were right,whether we like it or not, about Clinton.

My opinion of Clinton has changed drastically.

My opinion of the two-party system has not. (they are both embarrassing and out-of-touch with REAL people)

My opinion of politics has been affirmed.

My opinion of the judicial process has been lowered.

My esteem of the American people has suffered the most.

2. No ambivelence here-
Tue, Dec 8, 1998 - 10:15 PM/EST
Rikstafer2

peaux, thanks for your thoughts by a hopefully formal liberal. I detest Clinton and the black mark he has put on the office of the Presidency. Starr did what he did in order to document just how big a lier that Clinton is; Not to be a *dirty old man* I must say that I disagree with your statement that the Rebublicians trumpeted the future demise of Clinton. On the contrary, most hate the fact that they are brought to the task of having to exercise thier Constitional duty. This is a sad period in the history of the United States, despite the relative good health of the economy. I am astounded at the level of support for Clinton, and respect you for seeing him as he is-

6. Honesty
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 7:51 AM/EST
Max2

To quote Billy Joel.."Honesty...is such a lonely word, but mostly what I need from you"

Peaux, I respect you for taking the hard path and accepting that OUR president is a scumbag. I see you (and by now at least some of his defenders) are realizing that the only way to get Clinton to tell the truth is to make sure you have EVERY SINGLE DETAIL imaginable out there for EVERYONE to see, that way when he does lie, and he has not stopped yet, he looks like a fool. Rikstafer is right, Starr had to produce the details to let the public know what Clinton lied about and to put Clinton in a corner. Yet Clinton still debates foolishly on issues such as defining the word "Alone" and "Is". Those who are supporting him are only doing so out of Party Loyalty.

I have posted many questions to his supposed defenders, trying to understand what it is he has done for them that they must keep him in office. Of course the responses came and were without substance, and we in the group dispersed each response with truth. I still don't understand why anyone would want him in to continue in office. I could produce a laundry list of reasons to boot his butt out, but I will not do that unless I really need to make a point.

I again would ask those Clinton supporters, for the point of trying to understand your position, to please let the Group know why YOU want Clinton to remain as President. That is, if any supporters remain out there...hehehehehe

A brief aside on impeachable crimes...I would argue that as the CEO of our country, he did and continues to do this; deny a citizen HER right to the justice system. If undermining the backbone of our country; our right to due process, is the kind of man you want to represent our nation, then we should just get it over with and burn the Constitution to ashes. Clinton holds the Judicial Process and all of us in contempt I say we return the favor.
MAX2

7. why?he's not a prick like bush, a sneak like reagan, a dud like dole and a joke like what's his name
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 9:08 AM/EST
andi2

i've always wondered what people want from their leaders. we should have learned by now from past experience, beginning with moses the irascible and david the fornicator to kennedy the adulterer and reagan the sneak, that politicians have all indulged their little pecadillos. they are not supposed to be paragons of virtue, that's what we may reasonably expect from sunday school teachers only. (a few years ago we might have included men of the cloth, but now we know better.)

all politicians have handled truth with extreme care, generally keeping it to themselves and if you're insistent enough, you can always find some lie somewhere. the time will come, when the democrats will have a majority in congress and, god forbid, a republican will be in the white house. they may well remember the precedent set by porno starr and start harassing the prez. and don't delude yourselves, that most venerable and upright example of republican virtues will ensnare himself in a web of lies just the way our billy the kid did.

personally i prefer somebody who lies about what he did with an aide than somebody who lies about what he did in chile, panama or nicaragua.

8. Like Minded Group
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 9:57 AM/EST
Oldfogey2

C'mon andi2, we all lie. I am not really getting balder, just taller.

So far I agree with everybody. Peaux2 said a lot for me.

9. Question Bypassed
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 10:03 AM/EST
Oldfogey2

Sorry I didn't address the questions at hand in my previous posting. I am stubbornly ambivalent. And you would be wrong if you thought I disagreed with anyone. Actually, I think our main purpose in life is problem solving. If there were no problems, we would not be here. Consequently, I look at problems as things to do rather than as impediments to profligation.

10. Like I said...
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 11:34 AM/EST
Max2

Andi2 makes my point for me.
No one can give legitimate reasons for keeping Clinton in office. Andi2 resorts to calling everyone names instead of trying to debate the essence of my question : What does Clinton do or belive that makes you want to keep him in office. What political, ideological, fiscal or social issues does he champion that you should want him to remain President.

Calling Republicans names is not an answer, Andi2.

BTW, IMO I don't think you give Reagan credit for, lets say Ending Communism, lowering taxes for EVERYONE, re-building the military after the pitiful Democratic Admin of "smilin' " Jimmy Carter allowed it to dwindle, deregulation of the Airlines, not to mention making everyone feel proud to be an American again. Oh and BTW, he only promised three things when he took office: Lowering Taxes, Re-building the Military and ending Communism. So don't bash Reagan, try talking about (K)linton and his "Gay's in the Military fiasco...

The Democrates HAD a majority in Congress for 40 years..and look where it got us...The Republicans came in and all of a sudden, in a few short years between them and Alan Greenspan, the economy has skyrocketed...(No thanks to (K)linton).

But, back to the seed question, instead of bashing past presidents, using vulgarity and spewing the Democratic party line, try coming up with something original to say that backs up your Liberal philosophy and loyalty to (K)linton, please.
Thank You,
MAX2

11. please don't call me andi2. if there were ANOTHER andi i'd understand, but there isn't
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 12:57 PM/EST
andi2

i didn't call them names. i gave them epithets. huge difference. and just to make matters even: i've called clinton more names than anybody else around here. strangely enough, you don't seem to notice them. pity really, i put my heart into them.

now let's see: reagan. you don't like me calling him a sneak. what would you call a person who has private little chats with senator mccarthy informing on his collegues, with a chairmen of the actors' guild or whatever it was called, who doesn't stand up for his unjustly accused co-actors. (unlike that conservative gary grant, who helped them and never snitched - you can be a conservative and a decent person, most are, reagan wasn't).

but that was a long time ago. just as i don't attribute the economic high america is enjoying now to willy the wiz, it isn't reagan's or bush's doing either. calling economy a science is giving astrology a bad name. any president who enjoys a booming economy is mostly lucky. (though there are safe ways of ruining an economy, viz hoover, great britain's gold standard and pinochet's monetarist policies).

reagan didn't end communism either. he was lucky to go on record calling the soviet union names (even if evil empire was a bit strong i don't think it was far off the mark). the soviet union collapsed, because it was an underdevelopped country trying to be a world power.

cutting taxes, he did some of that, much less than he would have people believe, but still. unfortunately the national debt continued growing at an even faster rate. he shouldn't have cut them. he should have used them to pay back the nation's debt, if anything. as it was, the main effect of his policy was that tens of thousands of hospitalized mental patients were sent home, and as they didn't have a home and were mostly incapable of looking after themselves, they were added to the growing number of the homeless.

whether you really need more military power in an atmosphere of detente, is a question at least open to debate. and as to pride: are you proud of having been born with a right and a left foot?

andi

p.s.
just to set matters straight: i'm neither a liberal nor a democrat.

12. Character Counts
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 1:06 PM/EST
Rikstafer2

Andi-Please keep in mind the evil that is the essence of Clinton. He lied to his Staff, the Judiciary, the Country, his wife and even to himself. How can we trust him to conduct the important affairs(no pun intended) of the United States?ø Remember the secret sales of satellite technology to the Chinese? And the money that followed? I know-Not totally proven yet, however do you really think-Given the past record of Clinton's character-for it to be beyond him? Food for thought- Lunch is over!

26. It is very sad
Fri, Dec 11, 1998 - 7:57 PM/EST
WinstonSmit2

I find what is happening very sad. People who
think this is justified because Clinton got
a plurality or because he lied, or cheated on
his wife just don't get it. We are basically
addressing our rights here. Give up your protections to get someone you don't like or
disagree with and you won't get them back.

Moralists and partisan politicos are the same as clinton, probably worse.

winstonSMith