BS: William Jefferson Clinton

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:50 PM

And does the name Susan McDougal (sp?) mean anything to you?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Motown
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 11:17 AM

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 03:20 PM

Bingo, Bobert!!

Don Firth

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: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 03:50 PM

Com-pudder, McGrath...

Sorry.

Bobert

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 15 Feb 03 - 04:24 PM

Bill Bradley.
or Hillary.

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: 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