Point taken, I can do better: Juanita Broaderick’s allegation doesn’t prove Bill Clinton raped her, but since she immediately told a friend about the attack, and she was treated for injuries consistent with a strong-arm rape, it’s most likely had Clinton not been a major political figure, he would have been arrested and charged.

It’s not often you get bad logic and bad construction in the same sentence.

And if all you wingnuts can do is pull out tired accusations against a guy who has been out of office for six years, you’re utterly through. Pastor Ted confessed to buying drugs and getting a massage from a gay escort, and if you think he’s not capable of lying about what happened, you learned nothing from Monicagate. Face it – one of the chief peddlers of the Bush hate agenda is a hypocrite.

Now watch your beloved Republican party get destroyed at the polls this Tuesday. This kerfuffle won’t be the only reason, but it sure helps!

That’s not proof of the truth of Broaderick’s allegation, but proof of a reasonable possibility of truth such that unbiased observers could reasonably consider the possibility Bill Clinton raped her.

That being said, it is perhaps revealing that Clinton has already admitted to inappropriate misconduct (he won’t say exactly what he did…yet) with a young female intern. He had lied repeatedly about the scandal over several months and eventually was forced by the the prospect of DNA evidence to admit his guilt, and that only after he went on TV, wagged his finger and lied like a dog to the nation.

If I’m told a dog barked in the oval office, I don’t need independent verification before I’ll accept it as true or probably true. Why? It coheres with what we already know about Bill Clinton. Mutatis mutandis, Juanita Broaderick’s story is likely true.

If I’m told a dog barked last night, I don’t need to get independent verification before I’ll accept it as true or probably true. Why? It coheres with my pre-existing set of of beliefs. Mutatis mutandis, this story is likely true.

jpe, we’re everywhere. We live our lives, work, go to school, and we go to church. We will talk to you about God, when you want to, otherwise, we just try to live a life that glorifies Him. We are failures. We know it. We are tempted to do things that are wrong, and we do them. But He still loves us and forgives us.

I believe that I am saved, not by my own works, but by Christ, through his compassion (what we call, “grace”.) I also believe that God has called me to live a life of high standards. That includes the big, and the little. (No, I won’t kill anybody, but I also won’t keep that extra quarter that the cashier gave me, either.)

I have found that those who are most vocal about the “self-righteousness” and “hypocrisy” of Christians are usually the ones who have not spent much time with us, or who are actually convicted about their lifestyles by being around us (How many felt a twinge when I wrote about “the quarter” in the last paragraph?) I have known folks who will say something in front of me, like, “Oh, those Christians are so hypocritical” and immediately turn to me and say, “But not you, of course.” Do you see the irony in that? It is a form of stereotyping that goes deeper than intellect, emotion, or even subconscience: It goes to the heart of what human beings are, and what we were designed to be.

Yes, we are all hypocrites, Christians and non-Christians alike. We give ourselves credit for our intentions, but we hold others to the standards of what their actions are.

And I won’t be divorcing my wife, or become a Unitarian. I may write a memoir, but it will speak of the grace that God has shown me.

—BubbaB

Right?

According to the Wall Street Journal in 6/21/2005:

Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.