- Thread starter
- #21
10. We have learned that you cannot look a Democrat in the eye and know whether he is lying or not….’cause nobody does it better than Democrats/Leftists. They believe it is their birthright, and that their voters are too stupid to ever catch on.
"Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life," by Sissela Bok
Bill Clinton
"The debate about the moral issues of lying and truthfulness came to a head in 1998 as the charges and countercharges surrounding the Clinton White House were televised the world over in breathless detail. For many viewers, president Clinton's August 17 speech, in which he admitted having "misled" family, colleagues, and the public, ignite what psychologists call ' a flashbulb memory'- an image etched in people’s minds long after others fade. Split screens showed the President acknowledging in August what he had denied in his earlier, finger-pointing speech on January 26, each time addressing the public with what appeared utter sincerity. Together, the two conflicting statements brought a human face and a human voice to the cent of the debate about what constitutes lying and when, if ever, it might be justifiable.
Is lying more excusable in the context of prurient and humiliating probing of intimate affairs? What are the arguments for and against lying to family members, lying to protect colleagues and clients, lying to presumed liars and lying to enemies?
Lower on morality than Nixon:
"....some argued that there could be no moral problems whatsoever about lies protecting privacy and, especially, sexual life, least of all in the face of the ferocity of the Starr investigation.
But when pressed, few maintained that claims to privacy automatically justify not only silence but falsehood; much less that officials who have taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion" should go so far as to present intentionally misleading testimony in court."
Bok, Op. Cit.
"Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life," by Sissela Bok
Bill Clinton
"The debate about the moral issues of lying and truthfulness came to a head in 1998 as the charges and countercharges surrounding the Clinton White House were televised the world over in breathless detail. For many viewers, president Clinton's August 17 speech, in which he admitted having "misled" family, colleagues, and the public, ignite what psychologists call ' a flashbulb memory'- an image etched in people’s minds long after others fade. Split screens showed the President acknowledging in August what he had denied in his earlier, finger-pointing speech on January 26, each time addressing the public with what appeared utter sincerity. Together, the two conflicting statements brought a human face and a human voice to the cent of the debate about what constitutes lying and when, if ever, it might be justifiable.
Is lying more excusable in the context of prurient and humiliating probing of intimate affairs? What are the arguments for and against lying to family members, lying to protect colleagues and clients, lying to presumed liars and lying to enemies?
Lower on morality than Nixon:
"....some argued that there could be no moral problems whatsoever about lies protecting privacy and, especially, sexual life, least of all in the face of the ferocity of the Starr investigation.
But when pressed, few maintained that claims to privacy automatically justify not only silence but falsehood; much less that officials who have taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion" should go so far as to present intentionally misleading testimony in court."
Bok, Op. Cit.
