It’s clear to me that this is a process of the Left systematically dehumanizing their opponents and whipping up hatred. It’s as plain as day.

the scary one is the slate article…

Lessons of the Crisis
The debt-ceiling debacle revealed that politics is broken in every possible way and there’s no point in explaining complicated matters to the American people.

No point in explaining complicated matters to the American people… so what happens then?

The antediluvian Republicans…
They believe that the 2009 stimulus bill, which has prevented an even worse economy over the past two years, is actually responsible for the current weakness.

-=O=-

are simply intellectual primitives who reject modern economics on the same basis that they reject Darwin and climate science

now THIS is a gem:
The conservative position that all spending is evil obliterates any distinction between investment and consumption, between the long-term and the short-term.

and after 40 years of left liberal progressive ideas and schools and such… this is where we are…

The United States suffers with an increasingly third-world level of infrastructure, a third-tier education system, and enormous gaps in the preparedness of its workforce. The debate has now ended: Money to upgrade those faltering systems will not be forthcoming.

by the way, the United States isn’t going to take on any other major problems either–immigration, tax reform, or climate change, for example.

and WHY will all this happen?

It isn’t going to do so for the same reason it has failed at sensible economic management: because the Tea Party has a veto.

you really cant put that into one word can you?

It was that some of them clearly desired default as a kind of ultimate weapon against social spending. The precedent has been set for using America’s credit rating as blackmail.

blackmailer…. nice term…

and like nitsche never did, he declares compromise dead…

is that the same as elmer fudd saying this mean war wabbit?

Since his hand never came into contact with her breast, but only his genitals with her mouth, there was presumably no sexual touching per definition

That is a ridiculous definition, that oral sex doesn’t count as “sexual relations” somehow.

This sort of thing is why so many people despise lawyers.

The court used a definition that defined “sexual relations” by the part of the body of the person touched by him. Also, it defined it as being to gratify that other person. Although perhaps Monica got a charge from the interaction, the primary purpose was to gratify Bill, not Monica.

And yes, it’s a rather weird and restrictive definition. But it was the one the court adopted for the purposes of his answering the question.

People who allege perjury usually are not aware of these details. The details may seem absurd, but legally, that’s what was operating at the time he was under oath.

DNW:

Incorrect.

This was the definition used:

“Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”

By that definition, Clinton most definitely did NOT have sexual relations with “that woman.”

I’m not sure what was incorrect: my stating that a dictionary definition was different from the one apparently used, or that the definition actually used must have assumed touching meant by hand.

Since the definition you present states “contact” and then defines the context, I guess you meant “incorrect” because touching was not defined by what Bill used to to make contact, but rather by the area of Monica he targeted with whatever appendage he used to make it.

Since his hand never came into contact with her breast, but only his genitals with her mouth, there was presumably no sexual touching per definition

Yeah … that makes sense.

As for the reason Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas, it was not for perjury, and no court even alleged he had committed any crime. As part of the settlement of Paula Jones’ suit, Clinton was found by the judge to be in (civil) contempt of court for his misleading and evasive testimony. Why didn’t the court say “perjury?” Almost certainly because perjury was not committed. Clinton actually was not disbarred permanently, either; he was suspended and unable to practice for five years in Arkansas and then would become eligible, although as far as I know he has never petitioned to do so. His suspension from practicing before the Supreme Court followed automatically from the Arkansas action, and there was absolutely no judgment on the merits by SCOTUS either involving perjury or contempt of court.

More here.

Incorrect.

This was the definition used:

“Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”

By that definition, Clinton most definitely did NOT have sexual relations with “that woman.”

I used to have arguments like that all the time. A colleague was fond of seeking out some excuse for discrediting me, so that he could use his favorite line: “With that in mind, Daniel, why should I listen to anything you have to say?”

The problem was that, once his excuse is shown to be false, he has no argument left. (This was usually when he changed the subject. I don’t think he liked having his favorite debating technique backfire on him so thoroughly.)

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline