I've read a few accounts claiming that Bush is drinking again. But I think that this another non-issue. If Clinton got drunk all the time, Nadir, you would still support him over Bush. What you oppose is not Bush drinking, but him having different views than yours. What if Bush proved to you beyond any doubt that he had not had any drinks in 10 years. What would that change in your view? His sobriety would not cause him to agree with you on important poits, and thus you would still opppose him.
Where I think this would be relevent is if Bush were pushing laws to make it illegal to drink. This would be comparable to the Clinton-Lewinski affair. In Clinton's case, he successfully pushed for a law that made it easier for women to take legal action against men that they claimed had sexually assaulted them merely based on their claims of assault, with no other evidence. It was through this very law that Clinton had to testify in civil court, and forced to answer questions about Monica. Conservatives opposed the law that Clinton championed, and thus were happy to "hoist" him with this "own petard." If Clinton was correct that he did not assault his accuser back in Little Rock, I am glad that he discovered that his critics were correct in opposing that law.
That's nice. Now you're quoting communist dictators http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1555 and the Enquirer. How much lower can you go?
I suppose you are right. If Bush were a functioning alcoholic and were a good manager, I wouldn't have a problem with him. The fact that he is an alcoholic only exacerbates the fact that he is the worst president ever.
I was trying to give you guys an excuse for his erratic and irrational behavior. Otherwise, you're stuck with the fact that he is insane.
4 comments:
I've read a few accounts claiming that Bush is drinking again. But I think that this another non-issue. If Clinton got drunk all the time, Nadir, you would still support him over Bush. What you oppose is not Bush drinking, but him having different views than yours. What if Bush proved to you beyond any doubt that he had not had any drinks in 10 years. What would that change in your view? His sobriety would not cause him to agree with you on important poits, and thus you would still opppose him.
Where I think this would be relevent is if Bush were pushing laws to make it illegal to drink. This would be comparable to the Clinton-Lewinski affair. In Clinton's case, he successfully pushed for a law that made it easier for women to take legal action against men that they claimed had sexually assaulted them merely based on their claims of assault, with no other evidence. It was through this very law that Clinton had to testify in civil court, and forced to answer questions about Monica. Conservatives opposed the law that Clinton championed, and thus were happy to "hoist" him with this "own petard." If Clinton was correct that he did not assault his accuser back in Little Rock, I am glad that he discovered that his critics were correct in opposing that law.
That's nice. Now you're quoting communist dictators http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1555 and the Enquirer. How much lower can you go?
I suppose you are right. If Bush were a functioning alcoholic and were a good manager, I wouldn't have a problem with him. The fact that he is an alcoholic only exacerbates the fact that he is the worst president ever.
I was trying to give you guys an excuse for his erratic and irrational behavior. Otherwise, you're stuck with the fact that he is insane.
Post a Comment