BS: thoughts on Clinton

Subject: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Peg
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:26 PM

A friend forwarded this to me. It certainly puts an interesting spin on things.

(written by Bella Grossman)

Bombing the World Trade Center is a big story.

You know what's not a big story? Clinton's sex life.

The GOP and the whore media spent nine years rooting around in Clinton's zipper for the big story.

The GOP constantly called it "a constitutional crisis." The GOP made that non-story the focus of everything for nine years. The GOP told us it was "crucial" that Paula Jones got her day in court.

Henry Hyde said "the flag was falling" over Monica's lips. The GOP had their hero, Louis Freeh, chasing Clinton's sex life with more agents than investigated TWA Flight 800 and the Oklahoma City massacre COMBINED.

Think about that sentence for a minute.

The GOP swarmed the state of Arkansas trying to find some woman who would give them some juicy details about what was behind Clinton's zipper.

They chased Liz Gracen to Japan, using your tax dollars and several trained agents who could've been looking into bin Laden's activities, instead. Meanwhile, terrorists were burrowing into our society, trying to fit in.

Maybe if Louis Freeh had spent more time doing his goddamn job pursuing terrorists instead of concentrating so much on Clinton's zipper, they might have found something. How many tens of millions did the FBI spend investigating Clinton? And what if all that time and all that money had been spent searching for terrorists instead? How much time did Intelligence Committee Chairman Shelby spend attacking Clinton instead of terrorists? Shelby was looking into Clinton's zipper instead of doing his damn job. And what if the Media had spent the last 2 years reporting on terrorism instead of sex?

When Clinton attacked Bin Laden, he got nothing but vicious criticism from the GOP. (And, of course, the weenie Democrats stood silent while they did it.) They called it Wagging the Dog. They could have said "Hit him again, harder," but that would have taken attention away from their investigation of the size and shape of the Presidential member.

Remember how many years Rush and Liddy and Hannity and O'Reilly spent wondering which way the Presidential member tilted? That was very, very, very important to the Republican Party.

While bin Laden was recruiting and training his army of pilots, the GOP and the FBI was busy profiling Clinton's cock.

The GOP has been screaming "The idiot bombed an aspirin factory" when he went after bin Laden. While being hunted by the press and the hateful GOP, Bill Clinton was doing his job. Clinton was the only one doing his job the last few years. Any time Clinton took action in America's interests, the GOP and the whore press screamed that "Clinton was trying to distract us" from THEIR nine-year zipper hunt, when he was just doing his job. So I want you to remember...

While Orrin Hatch, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich and the crooked Supreme Court were telling us it was very, very, very, very important to get every tiny detail about Monica and Bill, and it was so important they spent perhaps a hundred million dollars investigating that matter...

...all the while, bin Laden was busy renting flight simulators and making plane reservations.

Look at the price WE have paid for the GO

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Chicken Charlie
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:32 PM

There was an article in Atlantic Monthly before WTC which explained why we had no agents on the ground in Afghanistan: the CIA doesn't like assignments where the danger of diarrhea is significant. If you can't handle a particular job from a computer terminal in Arlington, that job is not likely to get done. Field work? Too strenuous.

CC

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:59 PM

Up until recently all you heard about bush was jokes about how he looked and how he spoke. May it is better to get behind a president and support him, until the next election. The important issue is not how he is doing but what he is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Troll
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 04:07 PM

Ho Hum. Another explaination of how it wasn't Clintons fault. It was all the GOP or the Democrats who wouldn't back him or something. Never him. Never that HE might have been wrong.
Nope! It was all THEM

Oh well, enough historical apologia for one day.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 04:24 PM

Just around the time that the the Millenium celebration terrorist attacks were thwarted, a Senior Government official (sorry, I didn't note his name at the time) stated that if the American people had any idea of the number and scope of terrorist plots that had been stopped within hours of their planned commencement, they would would be afraid to go about their normal lives.

The attention paid to Clinton's penis was business as usual - partisan politics. Unfortunately, Clinton himself caused the additional waste with his lies about his relationship with "that woman". To imply that all other government activities stopped is ludicrous. To suggest that this particular attack or a similar one would have been avoided had Clinton's sex life been ignored is at best naive.
Mary, Liberal Democrat

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:04 PM

Well Peg I agree on at least one thing. It sure does put a different "spin" on the Clinton situation.

Clinton is history.

Why don't we all agree that he was a GREAT president, better maybe than any preceding president, and probably better than any president to come. Let's also agree that he was the darling of the women voters and that organization that presents itself as the spokesperson for all women, and finally, let us all agree that he has a fine eye for a good cigar. Then maybe you liberals will let the poor man rest and enjoy his retirement. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:19 PM

If I had to blame it on something, it would be Richard Nixon's paranoia and the journalists that uncovered it. Don't get me wrong, I was glad they did, but two things subsequently happened and neither was of any benefit. Because we saw way the FBI and CIA could be abused and how they had been operating, we went overboard (the "American Way") and decided to disembowel both organizations. At the same time we began to put a premium on the "Investigative Journalist." Everything and everybody became fair game, to the smallest minutiae. I didn't care that Billy Carter took a leak in front of Air Force One and I didn't give a shit if the Ford kids did drugs. I didn't really care if Reagan couldn't remeber jackshit so he kept a box of clippings anymore than I gave a damn about a guy gettin' his hat blown.

Now I know this wasn't all Nixon, but it was then that these two things came together in a way that has kept us from having a better Intel community as well as getting the best people in office. We have axed presidential candidates off at the knees for things that would never have mattered 50 years ago. Fifty years ago......Could you even imagine Eisenhower taking a piss? He was the President fer chrissakes and we may all not have loved him, but we gave him a private life that was private as we had done for many years before with other presidents.

Any elected official's politics have always been fair game and even some of their mannerisms and speech patterns have been the fodder of many a comedian, but when we start taking that crap seriously as we have in the past 30 years, we will get what we deserve. We are completely pathetic in this sense. A person's ability has nothing to do with it anymore.

Spaw.....Yeah, I'm pissed

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:24 PM

Good one DougR

And lets agree that the Republicans who wasted so much time and money pursuing him were not serfserving and partisan. Peg makes good points, so do you. There is obviously plenty of blame and shame for all.

Doug,

You have implied in a recent thread that you put being an American above being a human being. I gather also that you may put your political affiliation above your affiliation to your country. Is that so?

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Troll
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:27 PM

You an' me 'Spaw. You an' me.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:36 PM

I see you point Catspaw49. It is a very good one. But a little less partisanship may make the difference. I remember the GOP and the press claiming that Clinton's actions against Iraq and bin Laden were to take the nation's mind off his personal problems. Imagine what a starving Iraqi or one of his neighbours would have thought upon seeing this on BBC World or CNN. These were America's so called leaders saying that Clinton's sex life was more important than their lives. The Zealotry of the GOP and Clinton's evasions BOTH made America lose faith in the eyes of the world.

The one bit of good I see coming from recent events, is that the government of the US is paying much mre attention to how the world perceives it. This can only be a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:38 PM

No, Jack the Sailor, that was not what I meant at all. What I said was that I considered my citizenship to be American. I do not consider that I have "world" citizenship. I don't know anyone who has. If they do, I'd like to see some proof. Maybe a "world" tax receipt, a "world" social security number, a "world" driver's license, a "world" hunting or fishing license, anything!

I live in Arizona, therefore, I am a citizen of this state. I pay taxes in this state. I live in the U.S., therefore I am a citizen of this country. I pay taxes in the U.S., I served in the U.S. Army, I paid into and participate in the Social Security fund, I vote in the U.S. Is that clear to you? If not, I don't know how I can make it more so.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:46 PM

I saws the movie ' THE CONTENDER' last night. It was captivating with superb performaces.

You may recognize the character Gary Oldman played as troll incarnate.*G*

I must agree Nixon did permanent serious harm to the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:52 PM

I'm tempted to drag out one of my favorite dead horses and beat it some more. Politics is a matter of methodology. When you establish the method, the individuals who run it have very little latitude in their actions. Perhaps this is why we keep focusing in on peronalities rather than deeds. I have never gotten that point across before and I won't try again. If any of you have any interest in the thought, go read the writings of Jacques Ellul and we'll talk.

DOUG.......Talk about dead horses bro? I guess our definitions of "citizen" may differ somewhat. Paying taxes? Well, I'll go with "having an investment in.".....and I have some investment in this world just by the virtue of being alive on this planet. So do you. Do you put your country first or your state....or your town or the block you live on? Do you have these things in some kind of order? Whoever it was that talked about jingoism not needing to be isolationist and uncaring had a point.......But how can you live on the planet and not consider yourself a citizen of said planet?

Spas

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:54 PM

and yes, I could do with a little time at some "spas," or at least a few hours in a jacuzzi.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:55 PM

umm....cognitive dissonance, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:58 PM

I'm not surprised you liked it so much Donuel. I thought the movie was good too. It would have been much better, in my view, if it had not made the Gary Oldman character (and the political philosophy he represented in the movie) look little better than Osma Bin Laden.

I read in the newspaper,after I had seen the movie several months ago, that Oldman was upset because the original script did not demonize his character and the Republicans as much as the shooting script did.

In the article, Steven Spielberg was credited with making the changes.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 06:02 PM

Was there ever a better example of hubris than America in the past two decades?. Those who came to prominence in that time should be known to history as the "Humpty Dumpty Generation". Blithely they declared a "New World Order" as if this crop of "leaders" had the vision and statemanship to fashion a world immune to the errors of the past. Who the hell did these paragons think they were!?! Talk about "historical altzheimers". . .Didn't any of them realize that we live in the biggest glass house on the block?

I'm tired of playing the blame game with the shortsighted. Actions have consequences. Nixon's paranoia did him in. Clinton's libido did the same. Both had the possibility for greatness and could never rise above their shortcomings. Ford, Reagan and Bush I? Caretakers, puppets, materialists, feeders of the financial/industrial machine. So much of what is happening now has grown from the culture of superficiality and vacuousness that characterized the glory years of the New Republican Majority.

Who did I forget? Oh yeah - Jimmy Carter. A lovely man; a not so great leader.

Maybe now that we have been wrenched back into the world community we'll stop basking in the glory provided by our great wealth and start to act like the world leader that we've always maintained that we were. And, perhaps, the unfolding crisis will once again give rise to real statesmanship. We can only hope..

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 06:09 PM

Doug,

This is the second time I've seen you do this over this very idea.

Someone said that they would like to see a commercial where people from around the world would say "I am a human being" YOU answered THAT by in effect saying what you have said above. You acted like you dissagreed with her statement are you now saying it was just thread creep? Does the phrase Non Sequitur mean anything to you?

Greg

Yes. I think you have hit the nail on the head. cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 06:11 PM

Rather great expectations Bart, with G.W.Bush as president, don't you think? After all, the man can't talk right. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 06:22 PM

Bart

Maybe now they'll let Bush do his job. Great tasks have made great presidents in the past. Imagine if we were to spend the next years focusing on the Decisions Bush and his people make? wouldn't that be grand?

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:32 PM

Jack and Doug, et al.

Looking back, I find much to support the idea that Mr. Bush could rise to meet the tide and times. History shows us Harry Truman, who was no great shakes intellectually, but who did OK, and Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter who might be considered underachievers during their time in the big white house. There seems to be little connection between intellect and political leadership.

My real point here (and in other threads lately) is that we, and by extension our leaders, have been living as if these times didn't matter. It's like we've been on vacation from the world. Maybe now that 9/11 has brought home the realization that our world does not end at our borders, we will begin to act as responsible members of the world community.

Doug, I have great respect for you, but I consider the idea that we can and should act without respect to world citizenship as the root cause of the lack of respect (and outright hatred) for America that is evident in the rest of the world today.

I gotta go. I have work to do.
have a pleasant night, all.
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:16 AM

Bart: I think we are really talking semantics here. Nothing I have written is intended to convey that I do not believe we should work with the rest of the world, or that we should not be concerned about the problems of the world ...ours and theirs. It is the question of citizenship that I have a problem with. There is no such thing as world citizenship. At least I know of none, but I would be delighted to see someone's world citizenship credentials, and be proven wrong.

DougR

Subject: Thoughts on Clinton???
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 01:35 AM

Leave my sex life and my zipper out of this o.k....

,-)

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 03:06 AM

Regarding Gary Oldman; he was also the director. There must have been a director producer argument. I did not know Speilberg was the producer.

Regarding Clinton ; there are people who believe everything Rush Limbaugh said of the man including mass murder of "witnesses" .

I wonder if Bush will ever rate a "fictional" depiction of his life on a par with 'Primary Colors'. If they do I vote for Gary Oldman to play him.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: BlueJay
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 03:21 AM

DougR- You are indeed talking semantics. But semantically speaking, most of what you've written in this thread implies,(to me at least), that the only world opinion that really matters is that of the United States. This is a naivety shared by most Americans, myself included prior to September 11. I thinks we'd better learn to expand our thinking.

I think you are backpedalling by insisting on a "World Identification Card" to prove you are a citizen of "the world". That's absurd. Everyone knows there is no such thing. I think that statement is just a distraction from the type of thinking is responsible for the intense nationalism that pervades the world today, and is in some respects, the root cause of terrorism.

I am an American who is just as patriotic to my country as you or anyone else. But I am also learning that I am a member of the world community, and I'm beginning to realize that the two "citizenships" are neither contradictory nor incompatible.

Also, I am not an advocate for some sort of "One World Government". But I believe that until our leaders in Washington, (and the other national capitals as well), start "thinking outside the box", no solution is possible. Much of the world is living in conditions unchanged since Biblical times, threshing grain by hand, no electricity etc. You surely know this. Except now they have AK-47's. And box cutters.

Blind nationalism in support of our addiction to Ford Explorers will only perpetuate this mess. I am indeed a citizen of Colorado, The United States, and The World. To deny the World part is irresponsible, IMO.

Thanks, and go and get a good steak dinner while you can. BlueJay

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 04:04 AM

well put, Blue Jay. I'll pass on the steak, though:-)

Mitakuye Oyasin (we are all related)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 05:00 AM

As the one who originally posted the concept from which DougR has created the idea of "world citizenship", I think it would be appropriate for me to point out that those words originated with DougR, and not with me.

I said that I would like to see a television advertisement that showed people from countries all over the world saying, "I am a human being". Any references about "world citizenship", and whatever bureaucracy that would involve, came from our esteemed DougR.

I did say this... "I don't think it would be practical for us to have world citizenship yet, but I do think we can start changing our focus from identifying with just our own country, to also focusing on our common humanity." And I agree with me.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Peg
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:22 AM

Bruce Davison is the obvious choice to play Clinton in the movie...with that blonde actress (sorry cannot think of her name right now) on Once and Again as Hillary...

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 11:04 AM

How about an Aaron Spelling series?

The Love Wing

Fantasy Whitehouse?

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:05 PM

We tend to forget that the concept of the "nation-state" is relatively new in the larger scope of things. As humanity has grown in numbers, we have "progressed" away from our nomadic tendencies. This has led to all sorts of stuff that was possibly not envisioned, both good and bad. Some of the good things would include identification with place, a sense of attachment to our surroundings, generational stability. Some of the bad would be exhaustion of natural resources, sedentary life styles, the concept of "ownership" (rather than stewardship) of the land, parochialism, nation-states, and the list goes on.

What's my point? We have divided ourselves into all of these little units, to which we are expected to show allegiance, and when my unit cannot resolve its differences with your unit we may need to kill each other - even though you and I have more in common than we have to disagree over. And why do we do this? To control resources. To claim as exclusively ours what, by right, belongs to no one.

None of the "sacred concepts" upon which our nationalistic-capitalistic-materialistic world has been built are absolutely essential and inevitable concepts. They are all human constructs, created so that we can control the world in which we live.

Is anyone willing to stand face to face with a just god(dess) and admit that they killed another person - or caused someone else to do their killing for them - because of blind adherence to these artificial constructions? How about when the stakes are eternal damnation? After all, the commandment was Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty clear to me. As the Onion put it: Four single-syllable words; what's to misunderstand?

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:21 PM

Sigh. Carol, you probably are correct that I coined the term "world citizenship." As I recall, my remark stemmed from your statement that you considered yourself a "citizen of the world." If I am incorrect, then I apologize.

I think I have made my position clear. I see nothing wrong with nationalism and it doesn't matter which country it applies to.

I am opposed to a "world government" and if one comes along, I hope it is long after I am gone.

I am not an ogre; I love people; I want nothing but good things for other people; I love children and pets, and I think I'll have chicken instead of steak, Bluejay. My doctor says it's better for me. After all, I must take as good care of myself as possible so that I do not die before my time. I do no want my good liberal friends on the Mudcat to be deprived of the pleasure of nitpicking everything I post. **BG**

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:40 PM

Bartholomew: After all, the commandment was Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty clear to me.

It's not as clear as it seems to you. When you go to the Bible gateway and enter your phrase you will be surprised that in most translations you do not find it at all, even not in the modernised version 'you shall not kill'. Nearly all modern translations are much closer to the original by translating 'You shall not murder'.

That's a difference.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Larry124
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:52 PM

"...lets agree that the Republicans who wasted so much time and money pursuing him were not serfserving and partisan...".

Bull!

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 02:15 PM

You are indeed incorrect, DougR. I never made the statement that I consider myself a "citizen of the world".

Here's my original post...

There's a currently running television advertisement (I think it's a public service ad), that shows all kinds of people of all kinds of races and cultures, etc, in the US saying, "I am an American".

I'd like to see a television ad showing citizens of countries all over the world saying, "I am a human being".

And this was your response...

CarolC, I sorely wish the world had citizenship cards to distribute to folks like thee, who seem to be much more interested in world citizenship than of any specific country. Not picking a fight, I really mean it though.

As far as I know, though, they are not available.

Apology accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 02:19 PM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 06:39 PM

Interesting difference, Wolfgang.

Sorry about the bolding. I wanted to emphasize the word "just".

Sorry that I'm in such a contentious mood, too. It all seems so arbitrary to me. Why we fight to the death for "stuff". Why we need to preserve our control over what's ours, when we have so much and so many have so little. Why we make people's lives miserable about words in a book that was "dictated" by somebody's imaginary friend. How we can be so educated and still completely miss the point.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It really is just as simple as that. Except when others don't. . .

I need some rest.
g'night, all.
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 01:35 AM

Peg, you've got an interesting theory there. I'll bet the priorities for government investigation have undergone a radical change, as have the guidelines for what effectiveness is in a President. We have been living in a JennyJonesNationalEnquirerLoveCruiseClintonsBlowjob world for far too long, and if nothing else comes out of this, it will at the very least be a reality check for EVERYONE. The pursuit of Clinton was political witch-hunting at its worst, and if it was an ugly chapter in American History, as much blame should be attached to the witch-hunters as to the philandering Pres.

I'm not sure if there's a direct relationship between the witch-hunt and our intelligence failure, but I'm pretty sure even Bush would agree that the time, expense, and political capitol expended on the Strategic Defense Initiative would have been far better used in developing deterrence to Terrorism. What was it someone said? "Each army begins the new War by fighting the old one."

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Peg
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 02:18 AM

Huh???

None of this is "my" theory. As I stated in the beginning of the post, someone forwarded this to me. I did not write it, nor did I solicit it. I merely posted it here for people to make of it what they will.

Peg

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Morticia
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 04:43 AM

Kendall here, for a short time, Peg, the fact is, they are ALL whores. Even the democrats. Self serving, lying, no good bastards.None are worthy of my trust. The democrats are whores, the republicans are call girls. (They cost more)

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 10:47 AM

I worry about how it looked to the third world when senior members of the US GOVERNMENT (Republicans) were going on the airwaves and saying that Clinton was bombing Iraq to take attention away from his sex life. It doesn't make us look very compassionate or mature.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Peg
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 11:24 AM

Jack: that was some piss-poor timing; but since the investigation of Mr. Clintons; sex life was dragged out over so many months, it is highly unlikely he coud have gotten through it without having some involvement in some major foreign policy or other crisis...so anything he did was subject to this wag the dog criticism...

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 11:27 AM

I just hope that people know better the next time.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 02:53 PM

Well, Jack, if they don't I'm confident you'll tell 'em! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 01 - 04:19 PM

How about you tell them DougR? Maybe they'll listen to you.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: kendall
Date: 12 Oct 01 - 01:05 PM

Doug, I believe you to be a good man. After all, I was also a good man when I was a republican!

However, your statement on nationalism caught my eye. I believe that drum beating and flag waving is what gets us into one mess after another.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Oct 01 - 01:20 PM

Doug Doug Doug Doug........

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: GUEST,Captain America
Date: 12 Oct 01 - 02:34 PM

Let's call this situation a draw. The investigators were often overzealous, but it would not have been necessary if Clinton would have told the truth and concentrated on his job instead of adulterous relationships. No playing games with cigars in the oval office, no Kenneth Starr, et al. Its as simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 12 Oct 01 - 03:30 PM

Jack Jack Jack. Carol Carol Carol.

I already said earlier that Clinton was a great president!

Kendall, you're a fine one to talk! Romancing Llamas in Britain while all of us over here at the Mudcat were solving the problems of the world!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 12 Oct 01 - 03:46 PM

Clinton could have handled this mess better. Why? He would not turn down the invitation to go to the UN convention on racism. He would have sent someone to articulate the American point of view.

He would not have had to rely on the statesmanship of Colin Powell to appear credible to the rest of Europe and would have found a way to communicate to the Muslim leaders of the world.

Bush could not understand why some of the Muslim population hate us so much. Clinton would have understood.

There is a piece in the New York Times magazine last Sunday that says it unequivocally. We are in a religious war. Bush doesn't get it. This is why the Muslim community hasn't spoke out forcefully enough against bin Laden. There is a quiet consensus there that America had it coming. Also, an antipathy to Israel which goes beyond the Islamic extremists.

What happened to us on the 11th was horrible, unforgiveable and dangerous to everything that we as Americans believe in.

We need someone in the White House who is really up to the job. Instead of sending double messages such as getting the American people to fly and at the same time authorizing the military to shoot the planes down, we need measured responses and not hysteria provoking cowboy talk. "Les smoke 'im out!"

Clinton, despite his pecadillos (which BTW were not as bad as John Kennedy's) would have handled this crisis in a more mature and intelligent way.

My opinion of course.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 12:25 AM

By God, Frank, I think you've got it! How could so many people be so wrong? Son of a gun.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: kendall
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:41 AM

It's easy Doug, happend many times before.

Captain America, Reagan lied, but, he got away with it. You have to admire the republicans on one score, they kept their word on Clinton. They set out to get him from day one, and they did. Only cost us 50 million or so. what a deal.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:22 AM

Yeah, Kendall. I don't have a problem with being disappointed in his actions/responses. I was and I know the guy. But I get tired of these Republicans claiming to be the protectors of the moral imperative, and it turns out that they are completely hypocritical. Does anyone not know that Reagan cheated on his first wife and had affairs. One was with Nancy. Newt Gingrich, founder of the Contract on America? Has there ever been a more hypocritical man. Should I go on? There are dozens of these examples. The point is this. Let us get back to arguing about the right way to get to where we are heading. Let us quit arguing about whether the destination is the same. What one is speaks louder than what one says they are. Bill Clinton sought to promote peace around the world more than most of his contemporaries. He is the first President who had an interest in the North of Ireland beyond just being a sycophant to Great Britains policy. He sought to increase the dialogue in the Middle East. And before anyone says he had ulterior motives with regard to his legacy, his interest was consistent throughout his EIGHT year Presidency.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: DougR
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:25 PM

Well, Mick, I agree with you one point at least. Clinton wa consistent.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: GUEST,AKRick
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 04:43 PM

My opinion (for what it's worth) of Clinton and the democrats ... hmmm? ... at least the Republicans will stab you in the front.

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 05:17 PM

Doug - I like your attitude. You're the nicest, most reasonable Republican I know, and you have a pretty good sense of humor too. Your discussions with Carol about "world citizenship" have been intriguing. Accusing Carol of having said something is a perilous venture, as you have discovered, because Carol (a great friend of mine) has a better memory for what she has said at any given time than your average 50 people put together on this forum. Clinton will run on the Republican ticket before I develop as good a memory for what I may have said on the last 800 or so postings....

In all likelihood I have contradicted myself more than once, at least if taken out of context. What the hell, Dylan has contradicted himself too! Even Spaw has!

Anyway, you're right that there are no credentials at present for world citizenship. No papers, that is. There should be, but there aren't. That's because in the world at present there is a great state of disunity and anarchy between nations and groups of people.

Were there the same state of disunity in the USA, for example, there would probably be several shooting wars raging in various parts of the country at this very moment...state against state, county against county, even town against town. And there'd be very little that could be done about it, since there would be no overall authority or system of law governing the situation.

In such a circumstance the strong tend to dominate the weak with armed forces and police forces, and the weak tend to strike back with guerrilla warfare and acts of crime and terrorism (like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, for example...or bandits in various parts of the world).

That's the problem in the world. Disunity and inequality.

Now in 1775 the American revolutionaries set about trying to first correct an unfair British taxation system, and then expanded that notion to building a new society, based on greater self-rule and equality (for the "in" group, at least...Indians and Blacks were not included). They succeeded in their revolution. Subsequently, they expanded the borders of that society to include greater numbers of people, and they made further efforts in establishing equality for all the people WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS.

When I wish for a world society, I am simply suggesting that the same progressive forces which formed nations out of much smaller groups of people, and established peaceful societies with human rights in those nations....that those forces should now reach for a greater vision, which is a world society with equal rights and protections for all people.

Notice that in most science fiction stories we envision other planets as having such a society. That's because it is the eventual logical development of an intelligent race on any planet.

Prior to its development you have a state of anarchy, and rule by raw power, which is precisely what we have now in the international scene.

To want to cling to that reality is understandable, because it's the one we're familiar with, but surely we are capable of better?

Why should anyone wish to arrest the process of history at say, the Dark Ages, or the Renaissance, or the Holy Roman Empire, or the present age...and just stay there?

A united world society is the next logical stage to human progress.

- LH

p.s. Clinton? Gotta love the guy. I miss Bill. He knew how to show people the "big stick" when they got out of hand! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 06:03 PM

Doug, I really grieve at the thought that so many people were imbued with a hypocritical morality. It's OK to cheat unless you happen to be president. I think that what really bugs people is that he was seemingly unrepentant unlike Jimmy Swaggart who made a display of his.

I believe that Clinton will probably not be much remembered for his peccadillos but more for the fact that during his watch, we had peace and prosperity.

Now we have war and recession.

OK in all fairness, the war is not all Bush's doing.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: thoughts on Clinton
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 06:50 PM

(LH... LOL!)