 sj |
||
|
||
BS: William Jefferson Clinton
|
|
|
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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: William Jefferson Clinton From: mousethief Date: 08 Feb 03 - 06:55 PM In a heartbeat. Alex |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: katlaughing Date: 08 Feb 03 - 09:20 PM YES!! |
|
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: Ebbie Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM Absolutely. |
|
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: 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: 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 - 10:33 PM LOL!!! Good one Peg! |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Don Firth Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:24 AM That answer your question, GUEST? Don Firth |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 |