Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
WB - you're missing what I'm after here. I'm not trying to start a discussion on anything other than whether or not bringing up history is relevant to discussions of the present day.
We disagree on the subject I used as an example, and I am certain will never agree. My point is simply that the mere mention of the name of Clinton is typically met with opposition because he is not the President at present. However, what he did or didn't do in a lot of areas is very relevant to what we deal with now. As it is with Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc.
I agree with ISM that a lot of the Clinton stuff is juvenile. That doesn't mean that there are not real and valid points of criticism related to present circumstances.
|
I get what you're saying, Scaeagles, but history didn't begin with Clinton either, now did it? It's not necessarily over-sensitivity that precludes mentioning Clinton, it's over-use. As in Godwinism. I read through some of those examples I dredged up and I realise why I react the way I do when it's brought up yet again. It's usually just a tired attempt to deflect criticism, and it only succeeds in derailing a topic. Like now.