BF2S Forums Lying and Politics

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The first by a long shot. Lying under oath is breaking the law.

So I was right. Its lying to God. Thats worse than breaking a law (for those who believe in God anyways).

the thing about clinton is that he lied under oath about something BS that the country could really care less about in the first place.  he went through all this elaborate crap to cover up something insignificant.  why not just come out and say 'i had an affair on my wife'?  this is not an impeachable offense - it's just an indication of poor moral judgement that frankly the rest of the world probably could sympathize with given the state of his wife.

so, if he would have just admitted it and moved on, there wouldn't have been much to make out of it.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

.Sup wrote:

So I was right. Its lying to God. Thats worse than breaking a law (for those who believe in God anyways).

Yep. At best making a mockery of your country's judicial system, at worst lying to your creator.

For fuck sake are you being sarcastic about the God bit?

I suppose it is worse to lie to your country/God than it is to lie to 300 million actual people eh
?
This is where the whole patriotic thing is ridiculous. Like, if it's ok to lie to the people, then just what are you defending when you're being so patriotic? The people make the country, if you don't even like the people, then why would you care about shit like laws? It's just.......stupid.

I find it silly that people are saying it's worse to lie to a bunch of laws and "god" than it is to lie to actual people. Huh, what a fucking society we live in.

First of all, don't be so demeaning to religious people just because you're atheist. To someone who is religious, lying to God is a very big deal.

I don't think anyone could be elected in the U.S. being openly atheist, not even a liberal. Even if he doesn't believe in God himself, by portraying someone who does to the nation he makes himself a hypocrite when he goes and pulls this lying under oath bullshit. Honestly, I care about as much about what he did in his private time as I do what new hot fashion Lindsay Lohan is wearing today, but then when Clinton went and started blatantly breaking U.S. law, yeah, I have a problem with that. A man is only as good as his word. If he couldn't keep his word to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of the entire nation, nay, the entire world, when he knew all eyes were on him, then his moral character is under serious question in my mind. How can you trust someone with the fate of the nation when you know no one is looking if you can't trust them when everyone is looking?

It it magnitudes worse to break the law than to pull the wool over 300 million sets of eyes. Those 300 million people were so gullible Bush could have said Bin Laden was on Mars, and we would have poured as much money into NASA as we have into the War on Terror. Taking advantage of the populous to do what he believed is best for the country (if it truly was for personal gain, I think there are much more efficient ways to make a profit), be the motives oil, preemptive strike, peace in the ME, whatever, is acceptable because the blame is still squarely on the people for blindly following him wherever he chose to go. That's just how the real world works, if you are weak for any reason, mentally, physically, socially, you will be taken advantage of, no matter what the excuse for weakness. Now that the populace looks back on what they see as a terrible mistake, well by golly they wouldn't want to blame themselves, that would just be crazy. Bush is nothing more than a sad, aging scapegoat. The people painting him as the devil are painting on a mirror.

Clinton was taking advantage of the faith our legal system places on reasonable individuals to tell the truth when it really counts. He was not benefiting anyone by lying except himself. He didn't lie to 300 million people, he lied to the United States of America, because there is a difference. A group of people is just a group of people, but a group of people united under one flag, under one government, under one set of laws is far more powerful than their constituent parts. When people live in a country, voluntarily or not they say that we're all going to follow these rules and punish everyone who doesn't, because we're on the same side here. We want to give everyone an opportunity to make a better life for themselves than they would ever have by themselves. Laws are the glue that holds our society, any society together, and willfully and knowingly undermining the law in my book is no better than treason.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yep. At best making a mockery of your country's judicial system, at worst lying to your creator.

For fuck sake are you being sarcastic about the God bit?

I suppose it is worse to lie to your country/God than it is to lie to 300 million actual people eh
?
This is where the whole patriotic thing is ridiculous. Like, if it's ok to lie to the people, then just what are you defending when you're being so patriotic? The people make the country, if you don't even like the people, then why would you care about shit like laws? It's just.......stupid.

I find it silly that people are saying it's worse to lie to a bunch of laws and "god" than it is to lie to actual people. Huh, what a fucking society we live in.

First of all, don't be so demeaning to religious people just because you're atheist. To someone who is religious, lying to God is a very big deal.

I don't think anyone could be elected in the U.S. being openly atheist, not even a liberal. Even if he doesn't believe in God himself, by portraying someone who does to the nation he makes himself a hypocrite when he goes and pulls this lying under oath bullshit. Honestly, I care about as much about what he did in his private time as I do what new hot fashion Lindsay Lohan is wearing today, but then when Clinton went and started blatantly breaking U.S. law, yeah, I have a problem with that. A man is only as good as his word. If he couldn't keep his word to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of the entire nation, nay, the entire world, when he knew all eyes were on him, then his moral character is under serious question in my mind. How can you trust someone with the fate of the nation when you know no one is looking if you can't trust them when everyone is looking?

It it magnitudes worse to break the law than to pull the wool over 300 million sets of eyes. Those 300 million people were so gullible Bush could have said Bin Laden was on Mars, and we would have poured as much money into NASA as we have into the War on Terror. Taking advantage of the populous to do what he believed is best for the country (if it truly was for personal gain, I think there are much more efficient ways to make a profit), be the motives oil, preemptive strike, peace in the ME, whatever, is acceptable because the blame is still squarely on the people for blindly following him wherever he chose to go. That's just how the real world works, if you are weak for any reason, mentally, physically, socially, you will be taken advantage of, no matter what the excuse for weakness. Now that the populace looks back on what they see as a terrible mistake, well by golly they wouldn't want to blame themselves, that would just be crazy. Bush is nothing more than a sad, aging scapegoat. The people painting him as the devil are painting on a mirror.

Clinton was taking advantage of the faith our legal system places on reasonable individuals to tell the truth when it really counts. He was not benefiting anyone by lying except himself. He didn't lie to 300 million people, he lied to the United States of America, because there is a difference. A group of people is just a group of people, but a group of people united under one flag, under one government, under one set of laws is far more powerful than their constituent parts. When people live in a country, voluntarily or not they say that we're all going to follow these rules and punish everyone who doesn't, because we're on the same side here. We want to give everyone an opportunity to make a better life for themselves than they would ever have by themselves. Laws are the glue that holds our society, any society together, and willfully and knowingly undermining the law in my book is no better than treason.

How many people died as a direct consequence of Clinton's lie?

Legally, the first option.

Morally, the second option.

Politically, the first option seems to have been worse to a political career than the latter, but personally the second disturbs me more.

Better question:

What's worse, making a retaliation thread because you started to lose a debate, or going back into aforementioned debate but this time packing a FlameThrower?

The great enigma of DST.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

First of all, don't be so demeaning to religious people just because you're atheist. To someone who is religious, lying to God is a very big deal.

I don't think anyone could be elected in the U.S. being openly atheist, not even a liberal. Even if he doesn't believe in God himself, by portraying someone who does to the nation he makes himself a hypocrite when he goes and pulls this lying under oath bullshit. Honestly, I care about as much about what he did in his private time as I do what new hot fashion Lindsay Lohan is wearing today, but then when Clinton went and started blatantly breaking U.S. law, yeah, I have a problem with that. A man is only as good as his word. If he couldn't keep his word to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of the entire nation, nay, the entire world, when he knew all eyes were on him, then his moral character is under serious question in my mind. How can you trust someone with the fate of the nation when you know no one is looking if you can't trust them when everyone is looking?

It it magnitudes worse to break the law than to pull the wool over 300 million sets of eyes. Those 300 million people were so gullible Bush could have said Bin Laden was on Mars, and we would have poured as much money into NASA as we have into the War on Terror. Taking advantage of the populous to do what he believed is best for the country (if it truly was for personal gain, I think there are much more efficient ways to make a profit), be the motives oil, preemptive strike, peace in the ME, whatever, is acceptable because the blame is still squarely on the people for blindly following him wherever he chose to go. That's just how the real world works, if you are weak for any reason, mentally, physically, socially, you will be taken advantage of, no matter what the excuse for weakness. Now that the populace looks back on what they see as a terrible mistake, well by golly they wouldn't want to blame themselves, that would just be crazy. Bush is nothing more than a sad, aging scapegoat. The people painting him as the devil are painting on a mirror.

Clinton was taking advantage of the faith our legal system places on reasonable individuals to tell the truth when it really counts. He was not benefiting anyone by lying except himself. He didn't lie to 300 million people, he lied to the United States of America, because there is a difference. A group of people is just a group of people, but a group of people united under one flag, under one government, under one set of laws is far more powerful than their constituent parts. When people live in a country, voluntarily or not they say that we're all going to follow these rules and punish everyone who doesn't, because we're on the same side here. We want to give everyone an opportunity to make a better life for themselves than they would ever have by themselves. Laws are the glue that holds our society, any society together, and willfully and knowingly undermining the law in my book is no better than treason.

How many people died as a direct consequence of Clinton's lie?

how many people died in 9/11? _{oh no he di'int}

Seriously, completely different circumstances. In the background of one, there was a personal affair. In the background of the second, there was an attack on American soil and a political quagmire in the ME. Just because the originally gravity of the second situation caused poor results does not mean the decision itself was at fault.

As a direct consequence of his lie.  He hadn't his dick sucked 24/7.

sergeriver wrote:

As a direct consequence of his lie.  He hadn't his dick sucked 24/7.

What?

Are you saying Bush lied to the American people.  Because he didn't.  He just acted based on evidence that was not concrete and turned out to be wrong.  And if you don't believe that Iraq ever had WMD's... then you're just trying to paint our President as a liar.

sergeriver wrote:

SpIk3y wrote:

Are you saying Bush lied to the American people.  Because he didn't.  He just acted based on evidence that was not concrete and turned out to be wrong.  And if you don't believe that Iraq ever had WMD's... then you're just trying to paint our President as a liar.

I know they had WMD's.   And, yes I think Bush lied.  Richard Clarke thinks so too.  Why would he lie?

To sell books?

Both: political dishonesty should be a crime punishable by life in prison, imo, no matter the exact nature of the dishonesty.