Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
How is that possible? Rape is okay with the passage of time? You are okay with the President of the US being of a character where as a 30 plus yo he could rape and violently beat a woman and baldfacedly lie about it?
I ask you as I asked Gatti (who has yet to answer), if it was your mother or wife or daughter would you be so nonchalant?
|
(a) You misunderstand, Mr. Penske.
(b) It did not change my view of Clinton much because by the time I read the Broderick interview I had long since concluded that he was a deeply flawed and in many ways probably a lousy human being. I did not vote for him in 1996, because I had long since decided that he would do or say anything to be elected.
(c) That said, there are a limited number of choices each cycle as to who can possibly be the President of the United States. You have a choice -- who do I want to govern our country from this bunch. Whether they are shitty human beings is only part of the equation. There is also the whole party that comes with them, policy issues, etc.
(d) I am very pleased that Bill Clinton was President from 1992-2000 as opposed to any of his GOP opponents or even any of the GOP primary contenders. I would have voted for him over Bush in 2000 had he been running.
(e) Let's not get into rape hypotheticals involving my family members. Of the four candidates you have listed, two of them have been violently raped.
(f) If you can truly summon such tremendous personal outrage over such 25 year old (alleged) crimes involving people you do not know [and which (as alleged), while very bad, were not near the extremes]) you are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life.
(g) If you are not truly so outraged, then your displays here are all the more tasteless, and even less excusable.
S_A_M
