BS: William Jefferson Clinton

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:52 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: 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 - 11:05 PM

So, Dougie, don't play coy. How about "privatization'?

Bobert

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Beccy
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:05 AM

Just two words suffice to describe my sentiments on William Jefferson Clinton...

Good Riddance.