 sj |
||
|
||
BS: William Jefferson Clinton
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:56 PM Thanks, Bobert, but no thanks. I dont' want to live in D. C. again. Too cold back there. Dougr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:47 PM DougR fir VP. That would make fir a pretty good insurance policy against assanation and I reckon Clinton would be ablt to beat Dougie on the golf course without having to cheat... Awww, jus' funnin'. Been some purdy interesting reading there Claymore and Peg. But you can't win, Peg, in this one. Claymore is like a pit bull when it comes to Clinton and Monika. Can't figure it out myself. Maybe ha had the hots for Monika himself? I don't know... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:24 PM Bill Bradley. or Hillary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sandy Creek Date: 15 Feb 03 - 01:21 PM OK! We ALL agree that if Willie could run...we would re-elect him. Now...who would you choose for Vice President? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 14 Feb 03 - 06:07 PM Peg, you keep setting up straw men only to impressively knock them down. --huh? Your saying this doesn't make it so, much as you'd like it to be. I DON'T know about the Clintons private life. I don't CARE about the Clintons private life. --then why do you keep bringing it up? I am only responding to YOUR statements... But when the Presidents private life has him slinging missles at a baby food factory, while he's getting a blow job from a deluded 24 year old, so that he can throw off the press, and then is defended by passionate people such as yourself, the man needs to go. --first of all, he went. He's not President anymore. Secondly, I personally don't buy into the idea that Clinton (or his cabinet) was creating some sort of diversion for the press...or at least, not anymore than Dumb Ole Dubya is by declaring war on Iraq to draw attention away from the fact that our economy, thanks to him, is in the toilet, or to blind us to his efforts to turn us into a rabid, tyrannical police state... Past presidents have had sexual liaisons in the White House and no one gave a shit. Clinton's affairs did not affect national security. Bush Sr.'s sale of arms to the Contras, now...that seems illegal and treasonous to me. See, if you're going to just keep trotting out these tired, inane examples of how evil ole Bill is for having a sex life, I am just going to have to keep reminding you of the murdurous, corrupt regimes of the Bush boys... And if anyone thinks that that is the behavior condoned by the Nation at large, and that that Clinton didn't know that, is (IMO) sadly mistaken. --your grammar is a bit shaky in this sentence but I suppose I'll overlook it. What I don't "condone" is the attempted impeachment of a President for acts which had absolutely no connection to national security. It was a witch hunt, pure and simple. And yes, I know what a witch hunt is. Since Nixon, the Presidents private life is pretty much fair game to the press, and any man since Gary Hart is a dangerous fool not to know that. -well is it since Nixon, or since Hart? Make up your mind. If the Dems can have a judge in Maine illegally open a sealed court file to expose a drunken driving ticket 27 years after it happened, to tarnish Bushes candidacy, what in the hell do you think happened before. --drunk driving kills people. I have three friends who now have artificial legs because of drunk drivers. Blowjobs are sources of pure pleasure, last time I checked. What's yer point? Clinton had the Gennifer Flowers affair thrown at him and barely made the primary. And he turns around to Monica? On what planet was he living? --Earth. What's the big deal? Look at Kennedy fer crissake...NO ONE CARES. No one who understands what the president's actual purpose is, anyway. This was just mudslinging gone insane. To show the level of personal recklessness that he did, in the derision of those who voted for him, makes me thankful to whatever higher power gave us someone who has made some mistakes in the past, and is determined not to repeat them. --this statement would be laughable if it were not so pathetically hypocritical. So Bush should be forgiven for drunk driving and being a cocaine addict, but Clinton is Satan because he had extramarital affairs? Your moral scales are out of balance. Clinton may well be able to run again, but if you looked at where he was asked to campaign, (nowhere but the Black vote, literally) you'd realize that the Democratic Party just wants him to go away, (like his sidekick, Gore). --well, I have seen hints of your racism before, but this is a pretty blatant example (I am not surprised by it, however). And like it or not, after many years in the wilderness, IT'S OUR TURN. --LOL! Well, best of luck to you. Last time I checked, YOUR boys were trying to blow the fucking world to kingdom come. Don't that just make you feel all warm and glowing inside? Oh, no, wait...that's radiation sickness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 14 Feb 03 - 05:28 PM Peg, you keep setting up straw men only to impressively knock them down. I DON'T know about the Clintons private life. I don't CARE about the Clintons private life. But when the Presidents private life has him slinging missles at a baby food factory, while he's getting a blow job from a deluded 24 year old, so that he can throw off the press, and then is defended by passionate people such as yourself, the man needs to go. And if anyone thinks that that is the behavior condoned by the Nation at large, and that that Clinton didn't know that, is (IMO) sadly mistaken. Since Nixon, the Presidents private life is pretty much fair game to the press, and any man since Gary Hart is a dangerous fool not to know that. If the Dems can have a judge in Maine illegally open a sealed court file to expose a drunken driving ticket 27 years after it happened, to tarnish Bushes candidacy, what in the hell do you think happened before. Clinton had the Gennifer Flowers affair thrown at him and barely made the primary. And he turns around to Monica? On what planet was he living? To show the level of personal recklessness that he did, in the derision of those who voted for him, makes me thankful to whatever higher power gave us someone who has made some mistakes in the past, and is determined not to repeat them. Clinton may well be able to run again, but if you looked at where he was asked to campaign, (nowhere but the Black vote, literally) you'd realize that the Democratic Party just wants him to go away, (like his sidekick, Gore). And like it or not, after many years in the wilderness, IT'S OUR TURN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 14 Feb 03 - 05:05 PM What it all boils down to is that the fascination that some people have with the sexual activities of the rich, the famous, and the powerful is just plain sick. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Deda Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:49 PM I think it is inaccurate that Clinton can legally run again. I think that the law since FDR is that no one can be president more than twice -- not just more than twice in a row. I think he's out of office for life. I also think that's our loss but enough has been said on that. It is also pretty clear that the only people who would put themselves through what it takes to become POTUS (= President of the US) in this day and age are VERY FLAWED FOLKS to put it mildly. No one with a shred of humility or with any depth of wisdom would go through that mill. Anybody who would get to the level of EGO and corruption, the level of power-hunger and financial wheeling and dealing, that it takes to actually run isn't going to be any saint. So our choices are necessarily going to be very limited. It's a corrupt and a corrupting system. "Power corrupts; absolutely power corrupts absolutely.' The POTUS doesn't actually have absolute power but many of them seem to have delusions on that score. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:02 PM Claymore: how on earth do YOU know anything about the Clintons' private married life? Your comments about both these admirable people are most offensive...their marriage should not be a topic of the tabloids. That's the whole problem. People seem to think that anyone involved in politics should be fawned over and/or victimized in the press like any other movie star or celebrity athlete. This is stupid. They have work to do and their marriage is their business, not ours. If they didn't have to spend so much time defending inappropriate accusations from mean-spirited parasites, maybe they'd be able to do what they get paid (and elected) to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: TIA Date: 14 Feb 03 - 01:00 PM One reason there are no indictments so far is that the repo's control the entire government! Not defending the last administration, but c'mon...those indictments were naked, shameless political gotcha. You bet your ass it would be happening now if the demo's had the votes in congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 14 Feb 03 - 12:27 PM Sorry Peg, the comment was to make my point that despite putting his wife on the firing line to defend him, and then hiding behind her skirts, he never had the guts to try and make it up to her. And any President knows that the press is on them a hell of a lot more than "Booty of the Week". It was Clinton's failure to understand that that cost him his legacy. It was the Democrats failure to understand that that cost them the elections. But you can bet the farm that any potential candidate for President who has a wiff of scandle with those "private issues", will never see the nomination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 14 Feb 03 - 11:40 AM whaddya mean, has anyone "seen him with Hillary"??? Who are they, Ben Affleck and J-Lo? They're not exactly paparazzi fodder and have their private lives. Whether they continue with their marriage is, again, no one's business. That sort of question indicates the same mindset that thought it was appropriate to ferret out a president's personal sexual activities in the first place...definitely weakens any argument you're making about any violation of law or policy... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Rick Fielding Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:49 AM Jeez, are you guys (didn't check to see how many women were in this discussion) still at this? I'll say one thing for 'crooked willie' (Paula's description, not mine)....I saw him on Larry King a few nights ago, and he has an intellect, appears to be able to master simple concepts, can converse for ten minutes without referring to 'jesus', 'smokin' them outta their holes', gassin' h's own people', etc. Do you know what makes me SO angry about this man? If he'd only been 10% less revolting in his personal life, that pathetic Al Gore might have won his OWN state, and we wouldn't have this illiterate in power. Jeez! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:41 AM And it should also point out that Janet Reno refused to allow several other indictments of people connected to the Clinton Administration (including offenses that Clinton was clearly guilty of). Example, it is a federal felony to know of on offense of Federal law and to fail to report it. It is called Misprison of a Felony. Like when Clinton had Monica come down to his office to sign a false response to the grand jury that he and Monica had never had sex, recieved gifts or special assistance in seeking other employment (there were also conspriracy charges dropped). And remember that it was the Democrats who wanted the Special Prosecutor extended, and riduculed the Republicans when they attempted to say the process was out of control. (And while it is often said that Republicans are too smart and too rich by half, it can also be said Democrats are dumber than stumps when it comes to seeing both sides of an issue i.e., Pavlov was a Republican, Pavlovs dogs were Democrats). Starr also wanted to indict Sidney Blumenthal and several others in the Administration. The question comes to mind, that if Reno prevented some indictments and not others, she obviously had the power to stop them all. In fact, several members of her Department resigned in protest when she refused certain indictments. It is obviously proper tho say that Janet Reno, and the Select Panel of Judges allowed Starr to obtain those indictments he did. And by the way toadfrog, you are confusing the term "cabinet-level" with the term "Cabinet Secretary". Cabinet-level officers are those covered under Executive Priveledge, and cannot be called to disclose their conversations with the President in the decision-making process. And more importantly, by attempting to obfiscate the details of what happened, it becomes an even clearer distinction that Bush has had NO INDICTMENTS against any member of his Administration to this point. As the base details of what mega-companies were allowed to get away with during the Clinton Boom years becomes public, and the cowardice he showed in the face of National and personal crisises he faced, is reviewed for history, the Clinton legacy will descend into the venal ignominy he so richly deserves. By the way, has anyone seen him with Hillary since she won office? past year? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 14 Feb 03 - 01:37 AM You're right, toad, she didn't. But as Attorney General she could have! There must be some reason she didn't, right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 14 Feb 03 - 01:02 AM Sorry, Claymore, you are mistaken. It was Starr , not "Janet Reno," who got Cisneros indicted. It was also Starr who indicted Espy, and spent four years and $17 million of taxpayer's money trying to convict him. He was found innocent. William Hubbel did not have "cabinet rank" Starr had him indicted, and the indictment was thrown out of court. Starr was a very persistent guy, a political operative hired to dig up dirt. For the fourty-odd million he spent, he probably could have got Mother Theresa indicted. And it's just a silly fiction to say "Janet Reno" did all that stuff. She no more controlled Starr than anybody controlled J. Edgar Hoover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Frankham Date: 13 Feb 03 - 06:44 PM Joe, it seems to me that no one really cares about the "rank and file" these days. Even the apparachiks of the leading unions seem intent on selling the workers out by offering "sweetheart" deals. Maybe the UPS strike was an exception. One promising note, small unions are beginning to crop up under the radar such as the dockworkers in Charleston, SC. It seems to me though that you don't have to like politicians. You vote for the issues they represent. Clinton was abusive with his power as has been every sucessful president the US has ever had. Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court. Wilson was a racist. Lincoln may have provoked the Civil war to bring the schism to a head. Truman and the bomb. Ike executed the Rosenburgs on very circumstancial evidence. TR ran a "bully pulpit". I go with Neustadt on this one. "Presidential Power". Ike seemed to like his golf game better. Who knows what influence Kennedy had on the "Bay of Pigs"? Nixon...well the beat goes on. There is no "angel" in that office. So, I vote not ad-hominem or contra-hominem but on the issues. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 13 Feb 03 - 06:17 PM toadfrog, once more I may have the wrong name. I was thinking of the Presidential advisor (Cabinet rank) who was a partner with Hillary in the Rose Law firm and was indicted, convicted, and served several years for fraud related to the law firm, and was later caught on a tape, talking about the 100 thousand dollars that the Clinton people had funneled to his wife, for keeping silent. I did point out that Ron Brown was not convicted only because he flew into a mountain. But all of those individuals were indicted by DOJ and Janet Reno and not some hot dog prosecutor in Broken Pelvis, Montana. And Sandy, if you think any of those working on the Special Prosecutor office were jealous, you never saw Monica in day-light. I wouldn't have f--ked her with YOUR dick... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sandy Creek Date: 13 Feb 03 - 10:24 AM Does anyone in radioland have any idea of the amount of US taxpayer dollars spent by Kenneth Starr and his band of merrymen on the persecution and witchhunt of one of the truly great and productive presidents that the US ever had? Wonder what Kenny-Boy (by the way, where is HE now...) would have done if he would have a chance to smell that famous cigar or maybe if he would have had a puff or two off of it or maybe roll around on (or wear) that infamous stained blue dress? Me thinks that most Americans are truly jealous and envious of those who are bold enough to step outside the carefully drawn circles of societal norms. Wonder if Trent Lott is still looking very stern and voicing his God-like good-ol'-boy opinions. And, by the way, where is HE now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 13 Feb 03 - 12:01 AM O.k. Claymore, there are sites on line that talk about Juanita. I could not find any of them that looked like a news site, so have no way of judging. Those are the same kind of web-sites that believe Hillary had Mr. Hubbel murdered. Som people were willing to believe any lie if it related to Clinton, and the wilder and crazier it was, the better. I'm not going to believe stuff that does not come from a a reliable source, like a newspaper. Basically hate mongering and no facts. Hubbel was not a cabinet member and was not indicted, contrary to your assetions, he was a lawyer and committed suicide. One cabinet member was convicted. That was Cisneros. A jury found that Cisneros actually understated the amount he annually gave to his ex-girlfriend. God, what an awful criminal Cisneros was! What a brilliant hatchet-man Kenneth Starr was, to get a conviction for that! But any old prosecutor can get an indictment for just about anything; they control testimony before grand jury, and no witness or accused is even permitted a lawyer, opening statement or closing argument. Astounding the man did not indict everyone in the place. And yes, I recall Susan McDougal. She refused to give the testimony Starr demanded, so he put her in jail, for 22 months, I think, but it might be less. Courageous woman, I'd say. McGrath, just say this. Do you really believe that all that soap-opera is more important than the difference between peace and war? Does it mean nothing, for example, that Clinton did everything in his power to bring peace to Ireland? Or to Israel? All that is meaningless, because he had an affair which an intern, which is what seems to be what really disturbs you? Is that what it means to be truly on the "left"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:35 PM Danged, McGrath! I don't know what I'm going to do with you. You gonna make me learn the Queen's English, or what? Pudder= com-pudder= computer! Danger rang! Fir a purdy smart Brit you got a little Doug in ya'! Jus funnin'. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:29 PM Kevin, I would not vote for Clinton over a large number of possible candidates I can think of, but believe me, if he were the only alternative to what we have now, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:12 PM Com-pudder? Still no wiser, Bobert. Maybe it's as well. While I find it a bit strange and depressing there are people who might actually prefer to vote Clinton over every other American there is, that's nothing compared to the evident fact that there are people who are actually planning to vote for Bush when they didn't last time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:00 PM Thanks Kim, you are right. I am not as adept as some on search engines but when I typed "Rape" and "President Clinton" it popped right up. What a commentary on his legacy. And Sandy Creek, Clinton delayed every confrontation he was ever forced into, was criminally late in Bosnia, blew up a baby food factory over the Cole incident, debased the American military and tried to avoid the Jones lawsuit by saying he was the Commander in Chief and on active duty to gain relief under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, and lied to his draft board and his reserve unit. In short, in his whole life, he has never given any indication other than he was a lying, baby-faced wuss of a coward, who hid behind his mother's (and later his wife's) skirts when the piper came calling. As Margret Carlson of Time magazine wrote, "Courage is never a word you will ever associate with President Clinton". This man took polls to see where he should vacation, lied to his wife then sent her out to protect him, whose words to Gennifer Flowers, caught on tape, were "If we both lie, they can't find out the truth". And as I sadly note those who would still vote for him I sense that these people "Just don't get it". I really think that given a chance to think about the man himself, very few would really vote for him. And to those he has debased to the point where they really would vote for him, they are like monkeys with a note in their mouths and no-one to deliver it to... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 12 Feb 03 - 03:50 PM Com-pudder, McGrath... Sorry. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Feb 03 - 03:31 PM What's a pudder? Like most people I enormously enjoyed ths whole thing. I just don't think for people on what counts as "left" in America it's not sensible wise to waste energy defending a politcal corpse, and in so doing to make it much harder to put the boot in the next time something like this happens and the ball's in the other court, so to speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 03:20 PM Bingo, Bobert!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 12 Feb 03 - 02:57 PM Well, I promised not to say anything more nice about Clinton and I'm going to hold up to that promise but, folks, let's get *real* here about the Clinton/Lewinski thing. Look around the world today. Look at the mess that the Bush administartion has created with their isolationist/unilateralistc foriegn policy that has the world on the bring of several wars, not to count the wars that his policies allready have on the front burners. He has the Bill of Rights in the shreader machine and is mainpulating information and the media that is unprecedented on the history of the country. He has screwed the economy up so bad that the next generation of the American working class will be paying for his mistakes. He gets up and outright *lies* to the American people about how he is going to do this and that as far a social progrmas and then won't write the checks. That is *lieing*, folks. Pure and simple. He is using the powers of the federal government to stiffle protest. He is using the federal government to arrest people without charges and detain them indefinately without leagal counsel. And these are just starters... So Bill Clinton got a little on the side? Hmmmmmm? How dastardly. How figgin' scarey. Why weren't people running and screaming in the streets like in the old horror movies when the big bug knocks over the Washinton Monuement? Give me a break here. If you folks had any idea just how petty and pitiful you sound making this big thing over an *affair* you probably would throw your pudders out the wndow... Beam me up... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sam L Date: 12 Feb 03 - 02:37 PM McGrath, I suppose you didn't mention granting favors, but it's not the point. The idea that a boss as a general rule expects sexual favors is a little, well, it's not unheard of, it's an abuse of power that happens and should be reasonably guarded against, but it's not normal either. Bosses might also expect you to paint their house, mow their lawn, grant any sort of favors at all. You seem to have no interest in the question, except when it is clearly egregious, so there's no point going on about all the ways that it might not be. It's not reasonable to expect normal people to always give up pursuing normal relationships, even if power is involved, just because some people are freaks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 02:06 PM Victim? Of course, Doug. You're right as always. Mea culpa! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 12 Feb 03 - 01:53 PM Excellent example of liberalism, Don. Attack the victim. Nobody made Bill unzip his pants. I think Kevin is right. Bill Clinton was guilty of abuse of power. He was the adult in the situation and, in my opinion, brought everything that happened to him on himself. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Lepus Rex Date: 12 Feb 03 - 01:45 PM "Towel-headed," eh? Only 5 posts, and I hate you already. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM Kevin, in general, I pretty much agree, but on the specific matter of Bill Clinton, in the tapes Linda Tripp made of her telephone conversations with Monica, it became pretty obvious that the real predator here (apart from Tripp herself) was Monica. She regarded "the Big Guy" as a trophy. If it hadn't been Bill, it would have been some Senator or cabinet member. Like I said above, she was a power-junkie and she was on the make. Bill wasn't requiring this of her, he had just shifted into "idiot-mode" when she came on to him. A firm "No, thank you," and a subsequent cool demeanor toward her would have save him a lot of grief, and Monica would have moved on to someone else. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sandy Creek Date: 12 Feb 03 - 01:40 PM I feel that Bill Clinton would have already "jumped ugly" (as Don Ismus puts it) on SoDamned Insane, whipped his towel-headed ass, have the troops back home, stabilized the economy, brought gasoline prices back to acceptable levels, lessened the "fear factor" that we all live under AND have a 90% approval rate...AND do all this in less time than half the threats and warnings give to Iraq by the current adminstration. Bill's affairs prove that he has the balls and nerve to take care of business. Provisions should adopted and passed by the Congress (now that Bill's arch enemy Trent Lott's big mouth has been closed) allowing this gutsy president to run AND win again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Feb 03 - 12:58 PM I never mentioned granting favours did I? More the other way round, where a subordinate feels obliged to fall in with the bosses requirements. Whether either thing happpens, the situation implies the possibility, and that essentially is why strict limits have to apply. Those kind of personal relationships are not compatable with a working relationship in a hierarchical organisation. That's one of the things wrong with havig hierarchical organisations. And you can't get more hierarchical than the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Motown Date: 12 Feb 03 - 11:17 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sam L Date: 12 Feb 03 - 11:05 AM McGrath, I question how categorical your position is. Are you exaggerating it for emphasis, about Clinton? Or would you really want to make it a crime for any man or woman to ever have any relationship with any subordinate in a workplace? Is it just sex? What about another extraneous relationship, say, co-authors of a book? Partners in a separate business venture--could the uneven power in the one business affect things in any different kind of relationship? Could it be exploited, perhaps? Sure, could be. Should a film's producer not have a sexual relationship with themselves if they also appear as an actor, because they may grant themselves favors? Sorry, but just how intrusive do you mean this? Can people be expected to be able to ever sort it out without invasive help? If they ever fail, miserably, or do something stupid, I suppose your rule must be right, always. Otherwise I think one should be very careful how intrusive their value judgements are about other people and their personal relationships. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Kim C Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:25 AM I think the woman who accused Clinton of rape when he was Governor, is Juanita Broderick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:03 AM Rights to do stupid things, and responsibilities which go with positions of authority which place a limit on those rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sam L Date: 12 Feb 03 - 09:57 AM McGrath, there's a music supply company here in Louisville that is almost entirely family and in laws, and some senior employees probably must have slept with some junior employees or some of the other employees would never have been born, and married to other employees. They can't all have equal resposibilities and shares, I think. Come on. Sometimes a generally bad idea is not so bad, and anyway people are endowed with some certain rights to do some really stupid things, and I hold that to be self-evident. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:22 PM Danged, wilco48, like I've said several times, I ain't got no love for Bill Clinton. But to equate the democratic party to Nazi's ? Hmmmmm? Do you like Republicans? 'Cause to many of us, there ain't too much difference between the two and I don't consider Republicans Nazi's. Ain't too wild about Bush, who does seem to be repeating a lot of the steps that were taken in Germany in the 30's but I wouldn't even call him a Nazi! Greedy, yeah. Hipocrit, well sure. Thief, yep. Liar, oh yeah. But Nazi? Nah! But I am still real curious about someone who is so filled with hate that he/she would call deocrats, nazi's, how they feel about rebubs. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:20 PM Not a question of granting favours or not. Its a question of abuse of power, and what should be reasonably expected of any employer towards junior employees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:50 PM And does the name Susan McDougal (sp?) mean anything to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:47 PM And toadfrog I would appreciate the list of Cabinet level officers idicted under Reagan and the names of those pardoned by Bush the Elder to "save his ass". I think you'll find they were acquited on appeal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:35 PM 1. It's possible that I mispelled the womans name but she spoke on 60 Minutes about four months after the Lewinsky matter came to light and was on the cover of Time magazine. What was most notable was that Clinton never personally denied it, but refered the press to his attorney David Kendal, who then issued the statement that his client was not guilty of the offense. I still wonder why. 2. You might recall that when the interim Speaker of the House was found to have had an affair (the one after Newt - his name escapes me, cause he only lasted a couple of weeks) the Republicans demanded and got his resignation. 3.Indicted :Cisneros, Ron Brown (died in plane crash - son convicted in same case), Mike Espy, (HUD Sec'ty later acquited by an all black jury in the Tysons food case) and Wade/Wayne Hubble (sp?) 4. And excuse me, but Justice Thomas was never charged at any time by anyone with making sexual advances of any sort against any one. Anita Hill stated that Thomas had several conversations that made her "uncomfortable". One was over a porno star, "Long Dong Silver" (sp?) and that one day he commented on a "Pubic hair found on a can of Coke". There were several other conversations, but none that equated with anything that Clinton did or was alleged to have done. Remember that those allegations were contained in an FBI report that Ms. Hill did not want made public and were leaked to the papers by the Dems in a last minute attempt to sidetrack his nomination. As the press pointed out, Teddy Kennedy, who was sitting on the committee, had done much worse... 5. Ain't Facts a Bitch... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Feb 03 - 02:28 PM Claymore, I think I'm going to have to take a person's "convictions" into account, especially in matters of rape. McGrath, In the United States, the President has authority and everyone is in a junior position. He is in a position where he can grant anyone on Earth special favours in return for sex. It's whether he does or not that matters. And no one, not even the most partisan Republican is claiming that he did. I can understand your dislike of extramarital sex. The rest of your arguements are... flawed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:03 PM You denied saying it, I pointed out that you did. Simple, Peg. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: CarolC Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:47 AM And CarolC and JtS, you both have a warm spot in my heart... Aaaccckkkk!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: TIA Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:11 AM Sounds like hate and rage coming from wilco48. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Beccy Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:05 AM Just two words suffice to describe my sentiments on William Jefferson Clinton... Good Riddance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Kim C Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:02 AM I said in another thread, I thought Clinton had great promise as a President, which was why I voted for him the first time. He did not live up to my expectations. None of them do, really, which is why I vote independent nowadays. But let's be fair to the President, whoever he/she may be. The President is NOT in charge of the country. He/she can't just go do anything he/she wants, without getting past the House and Senate, without getting past the Cabinet, without getting past the People. Granted, sometimes they do manage to slide on by. But most of the time, it isn't the President pulling the strings, it's the people behind him/her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: wilco Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:19 AM Bill Clinton was/is a disgrace. If he was the best that the democrats had to offer, God help all of us. Of course, we need to remember that the democratic party of the US is the party of the US Holocaust, sponsoring the murder of 40 million precious little babies. What do you expect from these people? They are completely without integrity, honor, compassion, and sensistivity. The new NAZI party in the US, the democratic party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:18 AM Not a question of minors, but of people in positions of authority and people in very much junior positions. (And you can't have a much more extreme example of that than a President and an intern.) The ground rule is that they need to negotiate things, and the personal relationship can't be allowed to progress very far before a change in the working relationship is required. It's not unlike the situation where a doctor and a patient are attracted to each other. It has to go on hold until the patient is no longer a patient of that doctor. Conservatives have stricter rules about these things? Not in England under Thatcher, that's for sure! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sam L Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:05 AM McGrath, I think you are wrong there, in several ways that have already been mentioned. I doubt most conservatives would turn about and argue against their values in the case of a chucklehead they elected--maybe some of the shallower ones, but no. There's some opportunism in damaging or preserving your political agenda, but it only goes as far as it goes with people. I think in the case of Clinton, it mattered quite a bit to Gore. And I as a liberal on social issues would rather see a president I disagree with defeated on the initiatives I disagree with. If some his supporters abandon him for sexual matters, that's according to their values, okay, but I'd rather they changed their minds on principles that matter to me, in the long run. I know of a couple of good marriages that began in work situations with issues of age and supervision. It's dangerous, ill-advised, problematic, and nothing like the Clinton escapade, but I still can't go with your rule of never do it, it's always wrong. There's a certain degree of freedom involved, especially since it's hard to meet a lot of people away from work. My wife began our 20 some year relationship as a statutory rapist. She denies it, but I think her argument (that it depends on who's on top) would not hold up in a court of law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 10 Feb 03 - 09:39 PM Oh foo, McGrath. If a "head teacher" is dealing with minors, I agree. Theoretically, there is even a rule in colleges that such conduct by a professor is "moral turpitude." And that seems to me also a good rule, although frequently honored in the breach. Professors who violate it are normally told to "seek help." But when you talk about an adult, I fail to see where it makes a bit of difference whether the adult is "half your age." "Half your age" is quaint. Goethe, at age 80, had a mistress a quarter his age. It has nothing to do with any principle; psychologically it may bother people, but then any sexual practice is going to bother somebody if they find out. People are sensitive that way. That's one reason for an even better rule; private conduct is private. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 03 - 08:14 PM You don't screw someone half your age who is working for you in a very junior role. Simple enough. And anyone who does so, whether he's a head teacher, or an office manager, or an editor, or a president, deserves to get booted out on his ear. Just because the guys a presentable enough politucian who can make a good speech, and his politics are preferable to the guys opposite in many ways, that doesn't alter matters. Except it does - and when there's a similar scandal from the other party, you can bet that pretty well everyone on both sides will stand on their heads and argue the other way round. It's all very similar to what was to be observed over the Presidential vote. Partisanship, not principle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 10 Feb 03 - 07:29 PM Well, GUEST Claymore, I 1. Never heard that one about Ms. Bradshaw's testimony, no, and just did a quick search on line, and there is nothing there about it. So, I think either you have the name wrong, or made the story up. But of course, I have been wrong before; I can be persuaded. Just point me to a web site that describes it. Stuff like that always gets on the web. 2. Use of office to gain sexual favors is bad. To me, "use of office" means the promise of promotion or other favors in return, or punishment for refusal. I don't believe Clinton did that. Never heard about that. But I could name people who have. 3. I am aware of only two of Clinton's cabinet members who were indicted, but perhaps you could enlighten me about the others. What were their names, and what were their offices? The rap against Cisneros was so grossly unjust I wouldn't give it any weight. Now Ronald Reagan, he had lots of Cabinet members indicted, but I'm sure you wouldn't hold that against him. 4. About selling pardons (or giving them to the people he did), you got a point. Although that was not really in a class with the pardons Mr. Bush, the elder, gave out to save his own ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 10 Feb 03 - 07:14 PM Thread Creep Alert! CarolC, I just saw a bumper sticker you might love for several reasons, "Having France in the Coalition is Like Going Hunting with an Accordian". Cheers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 10 Feb 03 - 07:04 PM But toadfrog, when you said Clinton never forced himself on anyone, you must have been asleep the night that Juanita Bradshaw testified he raped her. And the use of office to gain sexual favors is considered rape in several jurisdictions (though not as yet, Federal). And by this time in his administration, he had four cabinet level officers under indictment, from Reno and Co. How many more pardons do you want sold? None of those were "trivial". And CarolC and JtS, you both have a warm spot in my heart... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 10 Feb 03 - 07:02 PM well said, Don Firth. My sentiments exactly. DougR give it UP already! Why do you keep harping on a point that no one is interested in??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sam L Date: 10 Feb 03 - 07:01 PM I think it was Shaw who said virtues and vices don't come in matched sets. Clinton's sex stuff was lugubrious, and a huge waste of everyone's time. Martin Luther King makes him look like a pathetic dork of a womanizer. What got me was after the first term, and so much in the public record, everyone pretending interest in his personal life was looking for clues to his Character. It was there out in the open. He had some points, some failings. You can't compare him poorly with someone who is just not qualified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 10 Feb 03 - 06:51 PM Ah, McGrath, you sound like you live in a past that never was! Maybe in 1910, poor Monica would be "ruined" by the horrible scandal-if she didn't build a career on it. Just think of poor Lola Montez! It was just too abundantly clear that Monica was doing just exactly what she went to Washington to do. Hundreds of young ladies go to Washington every year, hoping to grab their share of celebrity by rubbing elbows (or whatever) with the prominent. That is one of the perks of being prominent. Wouldn't mind being prominent myself. Movie stars and celebrities went way out of their way to screw John Kennedy. Clinton was just a bit more egalitarian. I'll bet things of that kind even happen in Britain, but with the draconian defamation and official secrets laws you guys got, it never gets in the press. I thought Clinton was arrogant and undisciplined. But then, all of the few big-shots I have met have been equally arrogant and undisciplined. It is regrettable. But "dishonourable"? It was dishonorable of Clinton to pardon Mr. Rich, I guess. There is so much dishonorable stuff going on right now, that really affects people's lives, the Monica matter looks extremely trivial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 03 - 05:40 PM "...he showed extremely poor judgment in choosing a partner who couldn't keep her big gob shut" - but surely that would have defeated the whole point of the exercise? Is dishonourable still seen as a term that carries any weight? I think that is probably the most appropriate way of putting it. But I somehow doubt if it's a label that would worry the man too much. If this kind of scandal just made people start looking at politicians and recognising they very often aren't that impressive characters, that's be fine. The trouble is it sees to work the other way, and people excuse it - largely for political reasons - and the excuse carries over into the real world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 03 - 05:12 PM Doubt he'd be able to detect the end of one and the beginning of the next one. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Sam Date: 10 Feb 03 - 05:11 PM Yeas I would vote for Bill...and blow jobs are wonderful...maybe Dubya would loosen up a bit if he had one or two or three or... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Kim C Date: 10 Feb 03 - 04:39 PM I voted for him the first time, but not the second. And say, wasn't he the one who bombed the aspirin factory? On the one hand, it's true his affairs are private and no one's business. On the other hand, he showed extremely poor judgment in choosing a partner who couldn't keep her big gob shut. She could have been a huge security risk. Has anyone ever considered that, or have we forgotten the old saying about loose lips? Not to mention the fact that he carried on the affair when he should have been working. You and I and all of us here in the US pay for that office, and the person working in it should be accountable to all of us for the time spent there. And yes, if he had just fessed up to it to begin with, and not wasted our time and money, that would have been so much the better. Bill Cosby admitted to having an affair, and it doesn't seem to have hurt him any. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Lepus Rex Date: 10 Feb 03 - 04:05 PM Well, I'm not terribly fond of the man or many of his policies, but the Republicans hate him SO much, I probably'd vote for him again, if I could. Just to make Doug cry. >:) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 10 Feb 03 - 03:42 PM Kevin, the thing with Monica was that when it came to sex, she was a power junkie. Who seduced who here? Not an unknown phenomenon, and something than men in powerful positions have to be careful about. The power junky invariably brags to her friends. Only Linda Tripp wasn't much of a friend. Unbeknownst to Monica, she taped their phone conversations and used the tapes to made a deal with the devil. Otherwise, their little dalliance would have passed unnoticed by the rest of the world. Bill made a stupid mistake, Monica got bragging rights, and Linda ought to have her fat ass kicked from Hell to breakfast. Any reflection on Bill's abilities as President? Not that I can see. Several Presidents were notorious womanizers, but up until Bill Clinton, people just looked the other way. I still say that it should have been strictly between Bill, Monica, and Hilary. It was a family affair and nobody else's business. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sam L Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:55 PM Taking advantage? sounds kind of antiquated and paternal to me. When are people supposed to be grown-ups now, mid 40's? If a young adult guy blew him would anyone put it that way? I'm not defending Clinton, but I'm not Monica's dad either. Can't a grown woman's mistakes just be her own, without her being "taken advantage of" as a handy naive orifice? |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: THE BLUE VELVET DRESS From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:34 PM No coercion, but as U said, taking advantage. Exploitation. What a creep. And pretty ridiculous at that. You do know how to pick 'em. Anyway here's a song I wrote about it at the time: In a dark little room in the White House Slick Willy they say could be found, Having many the hours's quiet enjoyment, Which in time was the talk of the town. For a bad misfortune came over him, He was torn limb from limb by the Press, On account of his friendly persuasion, And the stain on that Blue Velvet Dress. Her eyes they shone like diamonds, You could see she was flushed with success, But it's clear that nobody told her, There's a stain on your Blue Velvet Dress. At times they might phone up the White House And they'd say "Do you feel quite OK?" For they could hear him getting exhausted with Intern-al affairs of the day. He took a cigar from his pocket, And he placed it right there in her hand, And the very next moment it was plain that there was A stain on its Blue Velvet Band. Her eyes they shone like diamonds, You could see she was flushed with success, But it's clear that nobody told her, There's a stain on your Blue Velvet Dress. Before the judge and the Senate At length he was forced to appear And they all of them knew that there wasn't a doubt, For the truth was abundantly clear. So they voted to find him Not Guilty, And that was the end, more or less, Of the scandal that covered the White House, Like that stain on that Blue Velvet Dress. Her eyes they shone like diamonds, You could see she was flushed with success, But it's clear that nobody told her, There's a stain on your Blue Velvet Dress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:51 PM From: McGrath of Harlow - PM Date: 10 Feb 03 - 07:17 AM I think when an enormously powerful employer takes advantage with a girl half his age who is working for him, that is an "abuse of power". Why do people line up over this according to politics? I'd guarantee that if it was Bush who was found out doing this kind of stuff most of the same people would line up on the opposite sides of the argument. McGrath, It was very bad judgement and a despicable thing to do to his wife. but there was no coersion, no quid pro quo. She was half his age but she was also a consenting adult. A consenting adult who apparantly admitted to going into the Whitehouse "with kneepads on". If Bush were caught doing the same, there probably would be a different outcry. There'd be may more calls of hypocrite, (justifiable based upon Bush's speeches and the stance of his party) There would less criticsm of the act itself. To give credit where it is due though, if Bush was is caught doing something that immoral, its not likely the Republicans would want him as a candidate for reelection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:38 PM Peg: your post dated 09 Feb-12:18 PM, third paragraph: ("though I do think that Ken Starr and THOSE WHO HIRED HIM owe the Clintons an apology). Emphasis mine. So who hires the Special Prosecutors Peg? Who was Attorney General at the time? Toad: I'm not going to do your homework for you. Everyone who reads a newspaper should know that the Special Prosecutors work for the Attorney General. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 10 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM GUEST, yes, he could run again. But can you imagine the campaign that would be mounted against him? A real slime-wallow! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST Date: 10 Feb 03 - 12:20 PM I still say the right wing could not handle the idea of so-called a baby-boomer, pot-smoking, draft- dodging intelligent man with an intelligent wife could make things better than the previous 12 years. And to make matters worse-he got re-elected!! Things were better in this country during his term. Now we're on the brink of impending horror. Better off? I don't think so. Can he really run again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: CarolC Date: 10 Feb 03 - 12:00 PM The point McGrath, is that what he and Monica were doing in the oval office should never have been a subject of inquiry. It wouldn't have been, except that the US Supreme Court decided that the Paula Jones lawsuit could be heard during the President's term of office, rather than waiting until his term ended. They said that letting it be heard during Clinton's term of office wouldn't have any negative effect on his ability to do his job. But we know that it most certainly did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sam L Date: 10 Feb 03 - 11:58 AM I think Howard Dean sounds pretty good, so far. But I was torn between Clinton and Dole--neither ideal for me, but Dole is a responsible conservative in some ways, and I suppose I felt his pain. I like the crabby bastard. The first I ever heard of Clinton sounded like a capable political opportunist. People thought he could win. I get frustrated by dems who lecture me that compromises like some of his are just part of politics--no, not always. I'm still not bothered by the bj stuff--I just don't care. Wouldn't yell about Bush, and rather not know--there are better things to yell about. But I suppose I wouldn't mind if it hurt him politically, because anything that slows him down is all right by me. A grown woman is a grown woman, whether she's younger, or a man is president, I'm not her friggin nanny. If she wants me to help protect her from a blow job she may someday regret, she can blow me, too. It didn't sound much like the workplace harrassment questions and issues in the Thomas case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 03 - 11:36 AM Maybe if Bush got caught at it, that might tend to put some of them off the whole idea... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 10 Feb 03 - 11:10 AM irishwings: um, I think teens were probably claiming blowjobs were "okay" well before Mr. Clinton's predilections were made public. I'm not in favor of irresponsible sex among young teenagers, but if they're going to do it, oral sex is a safer bet against teen pregnancy than intercourse. The Christian Right won't allow sex education or condom distribution in schools; I hardly think that suddenly makes these kids think "well then! let's not have any sex!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 03 - 07:17 AM I think when an enormously powerful employer takes advantage with a girl half his age who is working for him, that is an "abuse of power". Why do people line up over this according to politics? I'd guarantee that if it was Bush who was found out doing this kind of stuff most of the same people would line up on the opposite sides of the argument. Mind you, it doesn't bear thinking about, does it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: gnu Date: 10 Feb 03 - 06:54 AM Saw him on Larry King last night. How can you not like and admire the guy ? I am a Canuck and we have the ability to re-elect for as many terms as we want. I know you Yanks have this idea that allowing only two terms ensures against empire building, but I still think the people should decide. Anyway, I thing we ought to HIRE him for Prime Minister. Heck, everything else in Canada is being privatized. Why not give him a five year contract ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:31 PM Yeah! Lets do what's good for America! End "double taxation" on the rich! Even the Republican Congress won't swallow that baloney! :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,irishwings Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:16 PM all you clinton lovers have absolutely no regard for why this country was founded. Bill Clinton and his sorry wife are all about the "me generation". They don't care for anything except themselves. Check out our teanagers and ask them about sexuality - BJs are ok because Bill did it. When are you going to learn that it's not about what is good about America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:06 PM DougR: I never said anything about Janet Reno; thats a bee you put up your own bonnet, I'm afraid. All I said was, Ken Starr owes the Clintons an apology for treating them so horribly. And I still think that. And I still think investigating Clinton's sex life had fuck-all to do with his job as president of the United States and everything to do with the desire of the Republicans to humiliate Hillary. As usual, you twist people's words so you can sound like you have a point of some sort to make. You don't, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:05 PM So, Dougie, don't play coy. How about "privatization'? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:36 PM Not correct, Peg, Toad? Do your homework. Starr and every Special Prosecutor before him was appointed by the three judge panel operating under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General! Neither Starr, or any other Special Prosecutor could have conducted an investigation into any one being investigated without the express approval of the Attorney General. That includes Clinton's sex life outside marriage. Prove me wrong. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:52 PM Yo Joe, Welcome to Bill Clinton/George Bush's America. Privatization! Waht does that mean? Well, simple, it's like the goons who beat up the labor unionist in the 30's. It's real simple. Rather than hire someone and provide basic benefits, like hospitaliztion and retirement, contract out to a bunch of folks who are not going to provide much of either. Hmmmmm? Who wins? Boss Hog? Who looses?.... Congratulations, Catter, you have just completed Bobert's "Privatization 101" and if you'd like your certificate, don't call me, go to work for the government sub-contractor... Bobert P.s. Sorry, Joe, but you are just part of the bigger pictur. Now we learn that 92% of NASA is "privatized". Hmmmmmm # 873. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:28 PM I see no reason why Clinton's sexual activities should have been revealed to the public. Yes, it appears that he lied under oath about this relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but why were they asking those questions in the first place? I'm glad my life hasn't been put under such scrutiny. I think everybody has a right to privacy, even the President of the United States. However, I have an extreme dislike for Clinton, and for Al Gore. Both seem to be strong believers in the predominant political philosophy of the day, political opportunism. I thought Democrats were supposed to be friendly toward labor, but those sons-of-bitches privatized my government job. That didn't save the taxpayers any money or improve the service my coworkers and I provided, and it made it much more difficult for me to do good work. It made some political hay for Clinton and Gore, and that's all they cared about. But I voted for Gore, because I sure as hell didn't want Bush to be President. It seems my vote didn't matter. Bush stole the election, and now he's taking our country into a war I don't want. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:26 PM J the S,ttr, et al: Well, okay, I will concede that *some* of the economic gains of the 90's can be attributed to Hipspanic labor and, yes, dangit, most of these folks are now taxpayers. (Heck, I should know that since I have to Salvodorian employees.) So is that enought to get your votes? (Hey, Bobert! You ain't running fir nothing, dangit! You don't have to give an inch!...) Nevermind, I'll stick with what I just said but.... (there goes you two votes, Bobert! You idiot...) ... I still have some concerns for labor in general. It seems when Boss Hog can get cheaper labor, he'll do. Hispanics today. Asian's tomorrow. Bottom line, American labor gets the shaft. I read this week that America's labor force is producing 4.7% more per man hour but when I look at his share of the pie that it is shrinking with higher health insurance costs. Hmmmmm? Who's benefiting form this increased productivity? (There you go, Bobert! Ya' had 'em wheere you wanted and then you go and say the stupid stuff! Geeze! Are we going to have to continue to have this talk about you doing fine and then just, for no reason, screw up? Geeze...) Well, hi folks. I'm Bobert. Don't vote fir me because I'm n ot running for anything, Well that's not true. My dog went after a car tonight and I ran her down and gave her a stern lecture.... Bobert, uncandidate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: CarolC Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:26 PM P.S. I have never formed an opinion about the Clarence Thomas case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: CarolC Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:24 PM In response to John Hardly: If it is a suit brought by a civilian on a personal matter, such as the case against Clinton by Paula Jones (the context in which Clinton was put in a position of having to respond to questions about his sexual behavior), no matter who was president, I would want the case to wait until the end of the president's term before it was heard. Otherwise it robs the voters of their democratically elected president. Contrary to what the Supreme Court said about that. Matters such as Watergate and Iran-contra directly effect the voters, and therefore warrant immediate investigation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 09 Feb 03 - 08:50 PM Oh gee, Mr. Hardly, I do so love being lectured about what I "really" think. The distinction we "liberals" draw between Justice Thomas's alleged conduct and Mr. Clinton's is that Thomas was accused of forcing his attentions on a woman who was his subordinate and depended on him, on many occasions over time, and making life miserable for her. Not even Paula whatsername that sued Clinton ever even claimed that Clinton did anything of the kind. In fact, as a lawyer who has litigated at least one sex harassment case, I find it difficult to see where Paula could claim to have been injured, or had a legitimate cause of action for any of the things she said Clinton did. Only the President of the United States could not, for practical reasons, have appeared at a trial and could be blackmailed, and his enemies were willing to spend a whole lot of money on the case, regardless of its merit. In other words, what Thomas was charged with was not sex. It was abuse of power. Liberals are not troubled by sex; and it is coming to look like "conservatives" do not mind abuse if power. I take it that you, Mr. Hardly, think it is o.k. to abuse power. Otherwise I would have to think you are not into arguing honestly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 03 - 07:46 PM The great thing is, any time they announce that a President is addressing people "from the oval Office" you just know that there are millions of people who are getting the giggles. "Oval Office" - it's become one of those expressions with a built-in double meaning that means anyone is taking a risk if they try to use them in a serious sentence. Like "back passage". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 09 Feb 03 - 06:23 PM thank you toadfrog; my thoughts exactly. DougR does sometimes tend to "answer" questions by offering information that is irrelevant, impertinent and sometimes, as in this case, incorrect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: John Hardly Date: 09 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM thanks PeterT, I don't feel so alone. ...and, Call me skeptical but, if the opinions expressed around the time of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings are any indicator, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that there isn't a single one of you who would NOT care about the president's "hobbies" if Bush was the one being serviced in the oval office -- being blown by an intern while simultaneously talking on the phone, committing our troops to battle (at the time, Kosovo). Your current outrage with Bush would be apoplexy. Like catspaw, I think if he had merely come clean early on, his behavior would have been morally repugnant to those like me who don't see the Oval Office as the place where hobbies are pursued, and who don't think marital infidelity is a minor disgression..... ...but I would have, at that point agreed that it was not an impeachable offense. That's not what happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: TIA Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:47 PM "I've yet to hear a responsible, rational answer from any liberal anywhere regarding one simple question: what if you're all wrong ...about Iraq, terrorism, or, hell, you fill in the blank. What if you're wrong? What then?" Hell, ask me any responsible, rational question and I'll give you a responsible, rational answer. Now, what exactly is the question? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:35 PM Yes, Doug R. That's right. Everyone knows that Attorney Starr was "hired" by a three-judge panel, which was in turn selected, in a somewhat irregular and questionable way, by the Chief Justice. So what was your point? And where did you learn that Janet Reno "approved" everything Attorney Starr did? I have searched on line to references to such an approval, and found nothing. When did these approvals occur? Do you know? Were they written or verbal? Why is it we have never heard of said approvals? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 09 Feb 03 - 03:47 PM Well Peg, everyone knows who hired Ken Starr, right? Do you suppose former Attorney General Janet Reno has apologized to Clinton yet? At any time she could have fired Ken Starr, or closed down the investigation. Starr and his crew did nothing that wasn't approved by Reno. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 09 Feb 03 - 03:36 PM Do it Bobert! Democratic presidential hopeful Bobert conceeded to keep the US dollar more or less regional in a statement made to JtS on Sunday. Political analysts believe that this may be the turning point in Bobert's Presidential campain, because it shows that Bobert is willing to listen and respond to well researched critisism, while at the same time, keeping his opponent in the "warm fuzzy" zone reguardless of political doctrine... Though Bobert is not available for comment at this time, we are awaiting his further statements eagerly... *BG* ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Feb 03 - 02:19 PM " The costs of these immigrants is also a heavy cost on the American taxpayers for providing the various services that any group of people need. And keep in mind that many Hispanics are still being paid cash and are not paying taxes, yet we *are* providing schools for their kids and other serices. Meanwhile, like it was pointed out by Frank above, the American worker has been hurt by having to go head to head with folks who think $10.00 an hour is like hitting the lottery. " Those imigration costs have nothing to do with NAFTA, I came here on a NAFTA work visa, The INS was paid up to $255.00 per completed form and believe me I've paid A LOT of taxes! My other point is that it is inevitable that $10.00/per hour foreign labour will surplant some US labour at 18/hr with $400/month benefits. But it is way better for the US if that job goes to Mexico rather than East Asia. If you will concede those two points I would vote for you over Clinton or Bush. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:35 PM Well, J the S, you won't have to concern yourself with voting for me or not since I ain't running. And the jury is still out on NAFTA. What I mean by this is that as the Hispanic immigrants become more Americanized they too will want to live better. The costs of these immigrants is also a heavy cost on the American taxpayers for providing the various services that any group of people need. And keep in mind that many Hispanics are still being paid cash and are not paying taxes, yet we *are* providing schools for their kids and other serices. Meanwhile, like it was pointed out by Frank above, the American worker has been hurt by having to go head to head with folks who think $10.00 an hour is like hitting the lottery. And, Frank, I have allready given Clinton as much credit as I think he deserves for the 90's economy. Alan Greenspan took Clinton aside real early in Clinton's administration and preached fiscal conservatism to him and Clinton bought it. He gets credit for being smart enough not to mess up an economy that was getting ready for a favorable growth pattern. But by the end of Clinton's presidency the pendulum was clearly starting back the other way. Now, it would have been intersting to see what Clinton would have done if the swing had occured two years earlier but I would agree with anyone who thinks that Clinton would not have messed it up as badly as Bush has! Now, that's it! I'm not saying another danged good thing about him and you all can't make me! So there! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:30 PM
This opening is from Hendrik Hertzberg in this week's The New Yorker (Feb. 10, 2003) in the "Talk of the Town" Comment (Blixkrieg) section. You'll find the full text here. Clinton wasn't perfect. And in many issues where he had a fine understanding of the issues, he wasn't able to convey that understanding to the large number of corporate-sponsored senators and congresspeople. Some of the compromises were pretty stinky. Our problem in the U.S. is that whoever comes up with the best slogan is likely to win. Says a lot about the inability of U.S. voters to think about the issues. In a kind of mangled parody of Dorothy Parker's wit, I would suggest that you can Turn the Hoard to Voters, but you can't make them Think. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:18 PM Why TtR, whatever do you mean? I was just indulging in the "vote for Clinton" fantasy like everyone else. I just added a fantasy of my own. Powell's command of the language is as good as Clinton's and As sec state, he has been a voice for moderation, he's had the politcal sense not to come up fighting when his legs were cut from under him. He had the courage to speak directly against Bush's policy on affirmative action, but the good manners to do it politely. He's not a cowboy like bush and he cares much more about foreign policy than Clinton. I don't know where you discomfort lies or where the "flaws" are but here is some further "analysis". I'll assume you are not arguing that jobs have been exported en mass, to asia, to Mexico, to Canada? Compare Exports to Imports, by country. Increase prosperity in Canada and Mexico means a good portion of the money finds its way back to the US. Much of the US trade deficit with Canada is energy and raw materials. Virtually all of the trade deficits with asian countries are from finished consumer goods. when the Free trade agreement with Canada was signed a lot of Canadian manufacturing jobs were moved to the US south, some US plants went north, International companies on both sides of the border became more efficient and internationally competitive. Many of the US manufacturing jobs which left the US went to Mexican border towns like Juarez. Mexican workers in those towns sometimes shop in the US. How many people from Taipei spend discretionary income here? This is from The CIA factbook, you can see which countries are good customers and which are truely "hurting American Labor" Exports - partners: Canada 22.4%, Mexico 13.9%, Japan 7.9%, UK 5.6%, Germany 4.1%, France, Netherlands (2001) Imports: Definition Field Listing $1.148 trillion (f.o.b., 2001 est.) Imports - commodities: Definition Field Listing crude oil and refined petroleum products, machinery, automobiles, consumer goods, industrial raw materials, food and beverages Imports - partners: Definition Field Listing Canada 19%, Mexico 11.5%, Japan 11.1%, China 8.9%, Germany 5.2%, UK, Taiwan (2001) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Frankham Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:34 PM Bobert, Clinton did too help the economy in the 90's. For all of his negative aspects, he did know about business and how to run a country as a CEO. It hasn't taken W very long to wreck the good work Clinton did for the environment and the economy. No question, though, that NAFTA has hurt American workers. Just ask the "rank and file" in every American union what they think. Also ask them what they think of their Union "leaders" who have compromised their position with Nike, et. al. Under Reagan and Bush Sr. we saw the rise of homelessness in this country. And how are we faring today? Kendall, speaking of lies, the pardon of Willie Horton was analagous to what Reagan did as governor of California years earlier. It was exactly the same thing, a pardon and a subsequent crime. It was covered up. As long as we have the spin doctors controlling Washington such as Karl Rowe and Lee Atwater, yes, and Dick Morris, too, we can expect more of the same kind of disinformation from the White House. The real "clear and present danger" is a trigger-happy White House. Frank Hamlton Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:34 PM "But the world grew increasingly more dangerous on 9-11." Depends what you mean. The likelihood of terrorists hi-jacking airplanes and using them as missiles was, I imagine, significantly reduced, since the people running the airports it rather more safety conscious So in that way it actually got a bit safer than it had been. The likelihood of the US government making war on people who had nothing to do with that kind of terrorism got a lot worse, so in that way the world has grown more dangerous. Clinton? Did he ever apologise to the people he let down? Or the innoicent people in that factory in Sudan which wasn't maiong biological weapons when he blew up to try to take the media attention of his private parts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peter T. Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:26 PM No, like the current president, he was a ridiculous child. One longs for an adult. Not that there have been any for a long, long time. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: CarolC Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:25 PM But to be fair to Clinton, he did work tirelessly on trying to bring a resolution to the Isreali/Palestinain situation. In the end, he managed to do more harm than good for that situation. And he did it knowingly, too. And for that reason, I don't know if I would vote for him again. Maybe not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:22 PM JtS... Colin Powell for president? *BG* I'm not comfortable with your analysis of NAFTA JtS... it has some serious flaws... ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:18 PM well said, Don Firth. Bobert, agreed about the welfare stuff. Not so sure about NAFTA. I am an ADULT and tend to think like one. I am neither shallow nor an apologist (though I do think that Ken Starr and those who hired him owe the Clintons an apology). I maintain, Clinton's sex life (and his wrongheaded but perfectly understandable lies about it) should never have been a matter for impeachment. Iran-Contra, on the other hand... Good god, you Republican weenies have short and selective memories... Lying about matters of national security that involve civil unrest, narcotics smuggling, torture training, and sanctioned campaigns of murder of civilians and resistance fighters...now THAT oughta be impeachable. Too bad Bush Sr. and his idiot son (both oil millionaires, one of them an ex-cokehead) have way more secret government agencies watching their backs than that upstart kid who worked his way up from rural poverty to receive the highest honors of education or government service anyone could hope to receive... Amazing what happens when a woman of consequence ends up in the White House by way of marriage...the Republicans were so deteremined to destroy her they used the oldest, nay, most medieval, methodology in the book. Defaming by way of cuckoldry. How pathetic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Nerd Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:03 PM Hey, Bill, love the fearmongering, baby! How's this? What if Russia is secretly plotting against us? What if the terrorists are REALLY being harbored in Germany? What if my next door neighbor undermines the government with seditious acts? I know...let's pass more repressive legislation at home and engage in pointless wars overseas on the basis of "what ifs!" Otherwise we might lose our freedom and prosperity and... oh, wait a minute... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,Celtic "Lost My Cookie" Soul Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:14 AM Woops...looks like I need to reset my cookie... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:01 AM Not if you paid me money... He is merely the other side of a *very* bad penny. He's no better than Bush...just a different flavour of bad. Celtic "I voted for Nader" Soul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:36 AM I guess if y'all can let Clinton run again, you can give me a vote. I'd vote for Clinton over Bush, but I'd vote for Colin Powell over either. I would not vote for Bobert, because he doesn't understand NAFTA and what it has meant to his prosperity. NAFTA has not "hurt American Labor" Nike, GM and hundreds of others let that cow aout of the barn a long time ago. NAFTA has simply given cheaper labour in Canada and Mexico preference over cheaper labour in Japan and China. That makes a lot of sense because Canadians spend their tourist dollars in Florida rather than Thailand, because Mexicans buy far mare US goods and services than China does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: harvey andrews Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:21 AM "You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" Over here we think President Bartlett is doing s pretty good job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,van lingle Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:49 AM Yes, definitely. Especially since the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" is now proposing massive tax cuts and predicting massive budget deficits at the same time. Sound familiar? Unfortunately, even if it were possible for Clinton to assume maximum leadership once again, I think we'd have a hard time wooing him away from the Rolling Stones now that he's gotten a taste of the backstage action at one of their concerts. (*G*)vl |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Rapparee Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:46 AM A minister's wife and I were talking about the Clinton sexual mess, and I said, "Do you know of any married man who would come out and say 'Yeah, I been messin' around on you?' until forced to?" She replied, "Dick said the same thing." Her husband, Dick, has had much experience counseling police and firefighters as well as overcoming his own drinking problems. He's one of the good ones.... I'd vote for Clinton again, yes, but like Bobert, I'd want to see who else was running. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Dani Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:20 AM It's interesting that you conservatives dwell on Clinton's lies, yet you never mention Raygun lying on tv about Iran-Contre AND arms for hostages. Now, I ask you, which is really more important? Kendall on Dani's computer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Ebbie Date: 09 Feb 03 - 03:30 AM In regard to Bush's tax plan giving money back to the well off, Clinton is quoted as saying in wonderment: "In times like this, states usually get a little extra help from Washington, but instead they're going to give the money to me. I get the money." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Feb 03 - 02:58 AM If Clinton had owned up to it immediately and said, "Okay folks.....I fucked up. I dunno' if Hilary can forgive me but that's between us. Now let's stop all the moneywasting investigations and get on with being Amerca," even AFTER "lying to Congress," he could have gone merrily on his way and the American people would probably have agreed to whatever he wanted. Probably 95% of the American males would have done the same thing.......lied to whomever asked. Had Clinton still been president on 9/11 the country would have rallied behind him as well and I can't think that we'd be anywhere near the mess we're in now, politically or economically. Hell, right now I'd vote for Warren Harding....in the state he's in now. Matter of fact, I'd vote for Ronnie Ray-gun in the state he's in now!!! Shit, where's Zaphod Beeblebrox??? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 09 Feb 03 - 02:57 AM Is it childish to rate a consentual sexual fling on a much higher level than the entire US economy? Is it childish to wage war on a whim? Is it childish to carry a vendetta to the brink of worldwide cataclysm? Is it childish to expect verification? Is it childish to believe that the US has a moral obligation to increase world prosperity and peace, with abundant reguard for human rights? Is it childish to wish the US was a team player in world diplomacy? Is it childish to see right through George W. Bush? Is it childish to feel great shame? ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:23 AM Clinton fell into the trap of those who would have done just about anything in an attempt to destroy him. This was only one in a whole string of accusations. Remember Whitewater? His detractors couldn't make it work, so they honed in on his sex life. He acted unwisely in the first place, but that was nobody's business but his, Monica's and Hilary's. What he did wrong was to acceded to the demands to answer questions about his sex life, and then lied about it. What he should have done was refuse to answer and tell those who asked the questions that his sex life was off-limits for discussion and it was none of their damned prurient business. Power is an aphodisiac and the temptations can be great. Right or wrong, a fair number of U. S. Presidents and other people in positions of power--including other world leaders--have yielded to this temptation. It has damned little to do with their ability to do their job, and the fact that certain people chose to judge the man on the basis of something irrelevant gives me a pretty good clue as to their motivations for doing so. So Clinton lied under oath. The questions never should have been asked in the first place and he should have said so. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: DougR Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:06 AM Perhaps, Bill, but they are having so much fun! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,williamedwardjamieson@yahoo.com Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:33 AM I come for the music, stay for the politics. I get my take of mudcat/liberal opinion, and just shake my head in wonder. If you think Clinton's troubles were about a blowjob, Peg's offer notwithstanding, you liberals seem to forget that Clinton, the POTUS, lied under oath in a federal court. Any of you liberals and staunch defenders of the Constitution have any trouble with that whatsoever? Or can you only defend the document, wrap yourself around it, when you think a conservative has attacked it? Or is just another "none of my business" or "it's just a blowjob" answer out of you shallow thinkers and apologists? Jesus, you people need to start thinking like adults. I've yet to hear a responsible, rational answer from any liberal anywhere regarding one simple question: what if you're all wrong ...about Iraq, terrorism, or, hell, you fill in the blank. What if you're wrong? What then? Before 9-11, you people used to be quite illogical, but relatively harmless. But the world grew increasingly more dangerous on 9-11. Since then, you're still illogical, but you're not so harmless anymore. That's more frightening than 4 more years of either Clinton. Bill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bill D Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:32 AM alas, Bobert, most of those 'green' folk are not administrators....Clinton handled it all quite well except for his zipper... (and, technically, he CAN run again next time) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:24 AM That answer your question, GUEST? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: toadfrog Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:19 AM Hey, you betcha! Show me how! He had his problems, but he sure seems to beat anybody else in sight. Especially since the Republicans have some good people, but would never, never, run any of them, because they are so afraid those people might do something right! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: fox4zero Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:08 AM Yes of course....it's a no brainer! At least he could get it up. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 03 - 11:45 PM Well, Peg, you're correct in that Clinton does get some credit for not messin' with Pro-choice but as for the rest of the stuff? Hey, I don't care if he lied about getting laid (or whatever it was ) in the Oval Office. But he should have just come clean. Yeah, I would agree that the entire thing was no ones' business but his and his family and "that woman". My problem with Clinton is that he caved in on NAFTA which has hurt American Labor. I wasn't too happy with his "Welfare Reform" bill either because it placed too much emphais on work and not enough on training and child care. It was a cruel peice of legislation which has forced a lot of poor women into working for lousy wages at dead end jobs with very little support from the government. As for the economy, I will give him credit for listening to Alan Greenspan and not screwing up like Bush has done. The recession was headed out way toward the end of Clinton's administration and he could not have headed it off. He would, however, to his credit,rode it out, rather than do what the current idiot has done. But Clinton should not gloat to much by the prosperity of the 90's because it was circumstance more than policy. But to be fair to Clinton, he did work tirelessly on trying to bring a resolution to the Isreali/Palestinain situation. Something that the current guy has not had any interst in. But, all in all. I don't want Clinton back. I might entertain Howard Dean, who is a Dem. But no one else is out there that intersts me other than Green Party folk... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Frankham Date: 08 Feb 03 - 11:33 PM I'd vote for him in a New York Minute. Our country wasn't broke then. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:58 PM Clinton upheld women's reproductive rights, every step of the way from the first week of his administration. His budgets did not include a penny to beef up the war arsenal: it was big enough. He decommissioned nuclear warheads past their prime instead of replacing them. He brought the federal deficit way down. The economy boomed and prospered under his tutelage. He approved many excellent social programs. He wasn't perfect but let's get our facts straight and see what good he did do... as for "lying to the American people" that's just sad rhetoric. What did he lie about? his sex life? No one's business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:44 PM Hey, like I asked: Who else is running. The original question was not between Clinton and Bush but would you vote for him. Against whom. This is a fair question. Clinton, while having a congenial personality and being a half way decent sax player, wasn't all that great. He didn't screw up the economy bt he also shouldn't be given as much credit for ti as folks are piling on him. He capitualated to the Republicans on just about every issue. He pardoned a bunch of loosers. He lied to the American people. Is he better that the jerk in there now? A rock would be better than than Bush but as evil as Bush is, I'd like to see someone who would do more for the working class than entertain them with smiles and jokes like Clinton did. Clinto could have been a good president. He had his opportunities to take on Boss Hog put he didn't. Hey, we'd all love to have the 90's back again. No Bush in office. No Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfield plotting the new American Empire. No kids getting ready to go off and kill or be killed. But like I asked: What are the other choices before I vote.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Deda Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:38 PM Absolutely. I miss him a lot. I'd vote for him for any public office, anytime. Somebody quipped that he'd trust Bush with his daughter, but he'd trust Clinton with his job. Hear, hear. Jobs, the economy generally, international relations, domestic policies, you name it. I'd still like to see Ken Starr get disbarred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,wdyat24 Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:36 PM NO! Will has been had. I'ld rather vote for someone who can get us out of Dubya's BIG mess. wdyat24 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Art Thieme Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:35 PM Even if you are trolling in order to make additions to your personal enemies list, I must answer with a resounding "YES". Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Tweed Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:33 PM LOL!!! Good one Peg! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Peg Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM Hell, yes. I'd blow him, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Tweed Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM Clinton? Absolutely. I'd vote for either one of them! I just hope we're still able to vote for somebody by that time. Tweed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: mack/misophist Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:23 PM I'd vote for Jack the Ripper against bush. Any bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Ebbie Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM Absolutely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 03 - 09:52 PM Who else is running? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: katlaughing Date: 08 Feb 03 - 09:20 PM YES!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Don Firth Date: 08 Feb 03 - 09:15 PM I don't care the guy's hobbies are, as a president he was not half bad. Especially considering what's in the White House now. I'd vote for Clinton early and often. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 08 Feb 03 - 08:44 PM Hey, GUEST! Show some respect for a great man. OK? The consenual sex of presidents is noones buisness but their lovers... and voyeurs, I guess... Clinton is just about the best we have to offer, but he could be so easily turned to gossip, and was, by the very people who have brought us Bush. No, he isn't perfect, and yes, if it is between him and Bush, I'd vote for him. Now, if it's between Clinton and Bobert, don't quit yer day job Bill...ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 08 Feb 03 - 08:24 PM The next election will be bigger than Maggie's final bow or is it blow .... lol Repubs RIP perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST Date: 08 Feb 03 - 08:02 PM GW Bush is just into other kinds of "blowjobs" - ones that kill people. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Guy Wolff Date: 08 Feb 03 - 07:59 PM Yes I would.But I wouldnt vote for our guest. I dont like hid idea of a middle name . I get the point but find this unapropriate and unamaginative as well . With best wishes , Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 03 - 07:28 PM Goddamn right. You think Bush is immune to blowjobs? Well...actually...he may be, but not for lack of trying, and it isn't relevant. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: Sorcha Date: 08 Feb 03 - 07:11 PM Yes. His sexual escapades are none of my business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: mousethief Date: 08 Feb 03 - 06:55 PM In a heartbeat. Alex |
|
Subject: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: GUEST Date: 08 Feb 03 - 06:31 PM If Bill "Blow Job" Clinton could run for president again...would you vote for him? Sam |