|
01 Oct 01 - 01:37 PM (#562657) Subject: Clinton barred From: kendall According to the news, Clinton has been barred from the Supreme Court. He should be barred from ALL courts, and, the Supreme Court should be barred from the Supreme Court! |
|
01 Oct 01 - 01:45 PM (#562665) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: katlaughing I noticed calls to Clinton about this are being referred to his lawyer, last name of Kendall. So you've been hiding something from us, Kendall?**BG** Just a tiny clarification, he has been disbarred from the Supreme Court and has 40 days to contest the finding. I agree with you, though, if they can vote him out for that, someone ought to be able to ban them, too, esp. after the travesty of the election. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 01:46 PM (#562667) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Wesley S Sooo, Kendall - heard any good music lately ?? |
|
01 Oct 01 - 01:50 PM (#562672) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: McGrath of Harlow Is that like being barred from a pub? |
|
01 Oct 01 - 01:50 PM (#562673) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: UB Ed Bless his heart! What did Clinton Hammond do to get barred from the Courts? And earn such animosity from his attorney, Kendall? |
|
01 Oct 01 - 01:50 PM (#562674) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: mousethief I can understand being disbarred -- that means made inable to practice law, right? I didn't realize you could be disbarred vis-a-vis one specific court. Does this mean, then, that he will not be allowed to "lawyer" before the SC? Or do you mean the SC disbarred him from all practice of law? Inquiring minds want to know! Alex |
|
01 Oct 01 - 01:58 PM (#562681) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: CarolC He will only be forbidden from practicing law in the US Supreme Court. Nowhere else as of right now. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 02:02 PM (#562686) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Amos This is because he lied to a star chamber, isn't it? Oh, I mean... |
|
01 Oct 01 - 02:08 PM (#562690) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: kendall What else do pedants do for fun? |
|
01 Oct 01 - 02:19 PM (#562704) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: GUEST,Jenna Bush Hey Kendall, You keep calling my dad "a moron," but you're the one. As any high school student who has been to civics class knows, practicing lawyers are members of the bar. When they are stripped of their right to practice, they are DISBARRED, not barred. By the way, my dad's approval rating is now at 93%. Even Al Gore has come out in support of my dad. 93% is the highest approval rating for a president since they started collecting such data during the time of President F.D. Roosevelt. If you think my dad is "a moron," you must think that 93% of the American people are morons. Jenna |
|
01 Oct 01 - 02:23 PM (#562709) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: GUEST Nah, he thinks 99.9% are morons, all except himself. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 02:45 PM (#562729) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Troll While we are on the subject of our >I?favorite ex-president, here are some comments from the National Review. The Sorrow of Bill Clinton It's all about him. By John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru September 28, 2001 3:40 p.m. o president obsessed over his "legacy" as much as Bill Clinton did. He sometimes complained that he had no enormous national crisis to contend with, meaning that he didn't have a fair shot at attaining historic greatness. "The first thing I had to start with was, you know, we don't have a war," he told the New York Times in 1997. "We don't have a depression, we don't have a Cold War." Poor guy. He never really had a chance. Some of us worried whether he was up to handling Haiti, never mind a global crisis. It's no surprise, however, that he's in a funk now, as his successor is being lauded for his handling of a national catastrophe, praised for delivering one of the great speeches in American history, and hurtled into stratospheric levels of popularity according to the opinion polls that Clinton so treasured during his tenure. Today's New York Times describes Clinton as lamenting that such a thing didn't happen on his watch. Richard L. Berke reports, "A close friend of Mr. Clinton put it this way: 'He has said there has to be a defining moment in a presidency that really makes a great president. He didn't have one.'"
More than 6,000 people die to terrorism, and Bill Clinton still thinks it's all about him. troll
|
|
01 Oct 01 - 02:46 PM (#562730) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: LoopySanchez As is my duty, I must remind the room once again that the Supreme Court did nothing that could be called a "travesty" in the 2000 election. If voting 7-2 that Al Gore's THREE attempts to recount the votes were unconstitutional is considered a travesty by those who post such complaints, then I need a new dictionary. If voting 5-4 that Al Gore had wasted his time on THREE UNCONSTITUTIONAL attempts to recount the votes and would not be allowed any extra time to formulate a fourth way to recount them in his favor is considered a travesty by those who post such complaints, then I'm beginning to think I'm not the one who needs a new dictionary. As for Clinton being disbarred, all I can say is it's about damn time. Most lawyers would have suffered the same fate a long time ago. I hope Clarence Thomas cast the deciding vote, just to annoy Clinton's legion of limousine liberals a little more. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 02:49 PM (#562732) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Troll Actually, Clinton HAD his "defining moment". It came (no pun intended) when he dropped trou for Monica. He defined his presidency right there. The Priapic Presidency. troll |
|
01 Oct 01 - 03:09 PM (#562747) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: LoopySanchez Troll, you know that once the initial shock of the tragedy subsided, Clinton had to be thinking "Damn, I thought I'd weakened the military and the CIA enough so that something like this would happen while I was still in office... Heck, I even cleared U.S. companies to sell secure communications devices to Syria when I cut funding to the point that the CIA couldn't afford them. Shoot, I could have probably even gotten Congress to go along with repealing the amendment limiting me to two terms, and be in office right now, eating pizza and getting hummers from the help. Oh well, I guess I better get back to taking care of that giant hole eating away the side of my nose... Bambi, can you pass the mirror and a crisp twenty? And you guys thought Dubya did a lot of blow! Ha ha ha... (thumbs up, pout out lower lip)"* *This is called parody... Take it seriously only to the point at which you remain unoffended, and we'll all be ok. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 03:17 PM (#562752) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Lonesome EJ Dear Jenna, Many of us who did not vote for your Dad now count ourselves in support of him. This doesn't mean we suddenly agree with him on his policies agenda. It only means that, still aware of his limitations and our disagreements, we put our trust in him to do the right things for the country in this time of extreme crisis. I approve of the cautious and thorough way in which he and the government are approaching the pursuit and apprehension of this crew of villains, and am glad he's not catering to the more extreme elements of his party and of the American people who are calling for immediate overwhelming retaliation. This doesn't mean I support oilwells in the Alaskan National Wilderness Area, or Starwars. That's the great thing about free speech, eh Jenna? I heard a man on Denver Talk Radio say "its interesting that suddenly the American People have swung over to the view that Conservatives have held all along about the sanctity of our flag and our country". Well guess what? This land is your land AND my land, and as a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party I have as much right to wave the banner as any Mississippi Member of the Young Republicans Club. Its just that I reserve those kind of activities for when the chips are down, and I dislike wrapping myself in Old Glory as a simple method of sanctifying my particular point of view. And as for Bill Clinton...I would hope that my fellow conservative flag-wavers would have put themselves four-square in support of him in the same situation. Now be on your way, Darlin, but put that fake ID on the kitchen table before you leave, and if you're unaware of the dangers alcohol represents, ask your old man. His opinion carries a lot of weight on that topic as well. Lonesome Liberal Supporter of Our President EJ |
|
01 Oct 01 - 03:34 PM (#562760) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: SINSULL Thank you, LEJ. Well put. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 03:41 PM (#562765) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: katlaughing Excellent, LeeJ, thanks! Also, according to the article I read, HERE, Clinton has already been disbarred from some lower courts, so it's not just the SC. kat |
|
01 Oct 01 - 03:43 PM (#562766) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Jack the Sailor Clinton is "barred" from arguing before the US Supreme Court. According to the article I read, he is being denied a largely ceremonial privledge because of his five year suspension from the bar in Arkansas. Loopy: The only thing that put more egg on Uncle Sam's face than the Florida Ballot debacle was the childish arguements over it. Both sides had a case but in the end the fault lay in the inept Democratic voting commission in several counties and the Biased Republican Attorney General in Florida. Score one for the biased Attorney General. Neutral unelected, election officials may be a good idea. The question is whether IT is a big deal that the Supreme Court has disbarred Clinton. I don't think much about IT. But I belive Mr. Clinton would say that It depends on hoew you define "IT". |
|
01 Oct 01 - 03:53 PM (#562775) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: mousethief I've heard Monica Lewinsky quoted as saying, "Yes, IT is a big deal! Very big!" Alex |
|
01 Oct 01 - 03:56 PM (#562777) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: DougR Clinton earned the right to argue cases before the Supreme Court by being elected Attorney General of Arkansas. All attorney generals of states are afforded that honor upon their election. Jack the Sailor is right. The Supreme Court was following the lead of the Arkansas Bar who, in a plea agreement I believe, suspended Clinton's law license for five years. I heard that on NPR so I'm sure none of you Liberals will question the source. :>) DougR |
|
01 Oct 01 - 04:02 PM (#562781) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: mousethief NPR? That haven of fascism? A bunch of luddites and arch-conservative ne'er-do-wells. Sheesh. Alex |
|
01 Oct 01 - 04:38 PM (#562809) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: McGrath of Harlow I seem to remember that at the time of the Falklands War Margaret Thatcher had opinion poll results which were absurdly high.
I imagine that if they'd counted all the votes and Gore had been elected, he'd have the same kind of support in the opinion polls as Bush - including I suspect, that of Doug.
People seem to do that in times of national crisis. Politicians who are even more unsavoury than Thatcher seem to benefit by that. (And by that I don't mean Bush Jr - I think when it comes to being unsavoury Mrs Thatcher beats him hands down.) |
|
01 Oct 01 - 05:09 PM (#562835) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: M.Ted I am not sure how anyone could make any judgement about how well the crisis has been "handled", because it is far from being over--Bush made a good speech, and both he and Ashcroft have gone to pains to emphasize that talk is not a sufficient response--The reasons behind the bombings have not yet been discovered, and no one ever can be sure what tomorrow may bring--There are still a lot of people who would have preferred that GWB had been able to take command in the way that Rudy Giuliani did-- |
|
01 Oct 01 - 05:18 PM (#562845) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: McGrath of Harlow Bush made a good speech For the domestic audience it seems to have been seen as good.
But at a time like this, the domestic audience isn't really the most important one. It's important to realise there are pillocks like Berlusconi, the Italian Prim Minister, listening as well. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 05:19 PM (#562846) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Bert ...Politicians who are even more unsavoury than Thatcher ... Do any really exist? |
|
01 Oct 01 - 06:41 PM (#562898) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: McGrath of Harlow Well, I suppose I was thinking Hitler, Mussolini, Milosevic... |
|
01 Oct 01 - 08:59 PM (#562984) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: robomatic I thought only Shakespeare was 'Bard' |
|
01 Oct 01 - 09:11 PM (#562988) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: kendall Well Jenna dear, I wondered if you would re appear after you sobered up. Listen sweetie,, the news headline was "Clinton BARRED from the Supreme Court, period. It did not say DISbarred. Your understanding of the English language is understandable, you came by it rightly. Now, run along this sand box is way too deep for you. |
|
01 Oct 01 - 11:16 PM (#563078) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Peg NPR is arch-conservative? Since when? Anyone who actualy listens to it knows it is very liberal.
|
|
02 Oct 01 - 12:10 AM (#563115) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Jack the Sailor Peg, I believe Mr. Mouse had tongue in cheek. I haven't found NPR to be all that biased either way. Not like the CBC, which is a shade or two left of NDP. But then I don't have much of stake in U.S. politics. |
|
02 Oct 01 - 12:11 AM (#563116) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Troll With Mousethief you never really know, but I think he was trying to be funny. troll |
|
02 Oct 01 - 08:19 AM (#563318) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: kendall I got it. |
|
02 Oct 01 - 09:26 AM (#563362) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: LoopySanchez The Democrats don't have to worry about waiting too much longer to bashing Bush: Since this nation has the collective attention span of a candle moth, I figure that in a few months it will be socially acceptable for Dems to use their camera time to question whether Bush is focusing exclusively on the war on terrorism at the expense of domestic policy. This could especially be the case if Bin Laden is captured and the hunt turns to lesser-known terrorists. ("Yawn", will say the public, "Isn't there any pro wrestling on?"). At that point, the full partisan bickering can commence, and if the stock market isn't back up to at least 10,000, look for the media to start showing a poll every day as Bush's approval ratings do an imitation of his father's in '92. |
|
02 Oct 01 - 10:00 AM (#563373) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Jack the Sailor Wouldn't it be great if he tried to do what is best for the country and said F*** the approval ratings. Mr. Bush has made a new cabinet post for internal security. He and Congress are giving billions of tax dollars to the Military and CIA. But they are also creating an economic stimulus package. What happens in the economy is Orders of magnitude more important than fighting bin Laden. Anything that the terrorist can do will pale in comparison to a world wide depression. Partisan bickering? Yes that is bad. We've had way too many Bush Jokes, way too many Hillary Jokes. The goverment has a lot of work to do. It is time we start paying attention to whta they are doing rather than how they look while doing it. |
|
02 Oct 01 - 12:11 PM (#563450) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: M.Ted McGrath--we rate GWBush a bit differently that other politicians--all we hope for is that he does ramble off into inanity at a critical moment-- Some of you chum-buckets seem completely incapable of breaking out of the partisan sniping routine--Which is what got us into this mess in the first place--A history of international and domestic terrorist attacks were not enough to keep and hold the attention of our Congress and our Press(at least the broadcast media) who chose instead to think about sexual escapades and book deals-- (sorry if anyone is offended by the term,"chum-bucket", it was the replacement that came up when I ran the spell checker--my original word having been "contributors")
|
|
02 Oct 01 - 12:54 PM (#563476) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Jack the Sailor Are you calling the partisan snipers shark bait? Coool!! |
|
02 Oct 01 - 01:43 PM (#563527) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: M.Ted I know that I am mixing metaphors, but, dammit, we're talking about America! |
|
02 Oct 01 - 04:11 PM (#563638) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: GUEST,Havana Joe I heard that Clinton is also BARRED from the chain of El Supremo cigar shops. On other notes: Bush is doing a fine job. Trying to suggest otherwise makes you look like a fool. Bush won the election. If you don't agree, then the alternative is to admit that Gore lost the election because his supporters were far more inept at punching ballots than they allege Bush is at speaking. Jenna, will you go out with me? I have a bottle of Old Charter Whiskey with your name on it. |
|
02 Oct 01 - 05:27 PM (#563688) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: M.Ted Personally, I'd rather hear your Bin Laden jokes, if any--the election was last year, Clinton and Gore are out of the picture and we have a whole new kettle of fresh fish--Even those Jenna drinking jokes are tired and old--
|
|
03 Oct 01 - 11:00 AM (#564211) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Morticia Cut it any way you want, more people voted for Gore than for Bush. |
|
03 Oct 01 - 12:42 PM (#564273) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: GUEST,PattyG (Troll shared.....) More than 6,000 people die to terrorism, and Bill Clinton still thinks it's all about him. And there you have it folks. ////Geesh - it staggers the imagination, doesn't it? Can you say, "Narcissist?" The only thing worse than one narcissist with power is *two* narcissists who will do anything to protect their power base. Can you say, "Bill and Hillary?" Also - sorry folks, but with regard to the Jenna Bush bashing - she's just another kid trying to grow up. Remember *your* youth or that of your children? Glass houses usually need lots of Windex - I know mine did. There have been stories about Chelsea and the Gore kids too, but the mainstream media wouldn't *touch* those. Bottom line is that they're just kids - leave 'em alone!
|
|
03 Oct 01 - 02:04 PM (#564320) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: GUEST,Literate Morticia, Cut it any way you want but Bush is president and a sizable number of Democrats can't read a voting ballot. Sorry..... |
|
03 Oct 01 - 04:42 PM (#564440) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Jack the Sailor Can't get away from that partisan bickering..... |
|
03 Oct 01 - 04:52 PM (#564445) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: GUEST,Literate It ain't partisan bickering Jack, its documented fact. |
|
03 Oct 01 - 05:30 PM (#564468) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Jane2001 I was talking to some Swedes a few weeks ago, and they were amazed at the obsession of the English and Americans with who their politicians were currently shagging. Their view was that you're *supposed* to lie about sex. Personally I think that a president who can eat a pizza, talk on the phone to the Russian president, smoke a cigar and indulge in oral sex all at the same time must be specially gifted. |
|
04 Oct 01 - 02:32 PM (#565072) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: Morticia That was not Morticia, it was I, Kendall on her computer.If you look back, you will see that "She" fired the first insult. I'd still like to know who "She" is. |
|
04 Oct 01 - 03:39 PM (#565108) Subject: RE: Clinton barred From: M.Ted I am just stunned--what does it take to get you to wake up and look around? Obvious as it has been for years that we were sitting ducks, all anyone wanted to talk about was stock options, signing bonuses, and who was shtupping who--Now, in addition to the big crater in NYC and the smaller one at the Pentagon, the stocks have all gone belly up, no one is hiring, any more--If you reallly want to support the current president(and the republic for which he stands), at least step into the present-- |