It was during a 1998 discussion on the show – the subject was Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky – that O’Donnell said that lies and exaggeration are always acts of “disrespect.”
Asked whether it would be OK to lie if you were hiding Jews in your home and Nazis came to the door, O’Donnell dodged.
“If I were in that situation . . . God would provide a way to do the right thing,” she said.
As Maher mocked her and the audience hooted, O’Donnell insisted: “I believe that! You never have to have this deception.”
Wow, she sounds just like David K: “The ends never justify the means!”
David K.
So in response to an example of O’Donnell not understanding the value of nuance, you give an example of yourself not understanding the value of nuance. Good job.
David K.
To be more clear there is a difference between your claim “the ends NEVER justify the means” and my actual view that “the ends justify the means” is not a sufficient argument.
Brendan Loy
Unless you’ve morphed into AMLTrojan, I think you may have left out the word “RARELY” or something similar. 🙂
gahrie
We will know far more about O’Donnell’s past then we ever knew about Obama’s.
RT @politico: Christine #ODonnell‘s past is becomming issue No. 1. http://politi.co/c3n2OG
From the article:
Wow, she sounds just like David K: “The ends never justify the means!”
So in response to an example of O’Donnell not understanding the value of nuance, you give an example of yourself not understanding the value of nuance. Good job.
To be more clear there is a difference between your claim “the ends NEVER justify the means” and my actual view that “the ends justify the means” is not a sufficient argument.
Unless you’ve morphed into AMLTrojan, I think you may have left out the word “RARELY” or something similar. 🙂
We will know far more about O’Donnell’s past then we ever knew about Obama’s.