|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 80 of 404:
| 
Dec 29 20:14 UTC 2005 |
re resp:78: Hang on, I didn't mean to demonize President Clinton. I
gave that comment only as part of an example, it was not any kind of
accusation. I want to believe he had good intentions, great
capabilities, and that he would not have misused his power with regard
to his personal indiscretions.
It is hard to believe Clinton wouldn't have done *some* things in
violation of the nation's interests because of his scandal, because he
publicly did so. How far would he have gone if it would help him? All
you can say for certain is that he most definitely *was* capable of
protecting himself even at the expense of the nation.
My point was that some people are demonizing Bush who defended Clinton,
and some demonized Clinton who are defending Bush. I think these
people are only interested in having their own side look good and the
other side look bad. I think what you say about the merits or problems
of the situation doesn't mean much if you're only trying to promote the
side you vote for.
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:19 UTC 2005 |
I think the levels of crime are different. Clinton's crime involved lying
about banging an intern. GW's crime involves wiretapping thousands of
citizens. In a civilian courtroom, guess who is going to be looked at as the
one who has more victims?
|
richard
|
|
response 82 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:27 UTC 2005 |
tod said:
"I think the levels of crime are different. Clinton's crime involved
lying about banging an intern"
he didn't lie about that because he didn't "bang" any intern. He got a
blow job. I hope you aren't iike one of those dense lawyers back
during when that was going on who were trying to insist its the same
thing.
jep said:
"My point was that some people are demonizing Bush who defended
Clinton, and some demonized Clinton who are defending Bush."
go back and read some agoras from back then. I did not defend Clinton
for the Lewinsky mess. As I recall, I was pretty critical of him in
fact, not about getting the blow job, but for lying about it later.
I just think its absurd to compare the two things. One is a far
greater transgression than the other.
|
tod
|
|
response 83 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:37 UTC 2005 |
he didn't lie about that because he didn't "bang" any intern. He got a
blow job. I hope you aren't iike one of those dense lawyers back
during when that was going on who were trying to insist its the same
thing.
Just because he used a cigar doesn't make it less sleazy, richard. Let's not
get into the analysis of what was reported. I say bang and you say bj? Fine.
|
richard
|
|
response 84 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:40 UTC 2005 |
hey plenty of famous world leaders in history have kept concubines,
whole groups of women, to service them. Being a world leader is a
tough, intense job ya know, even the best leaders need a little release
of tension now and again. :)
|
twenex
|
|
response 85 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:43 UTC 2005 |
IT'S A HARD JOB!
|
tod
|
|
response 86 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:45 UTC 2005 |
Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, too. You think everybody with a stressful job
should have a few slaves around?
|
richard
|
|
response 87 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:51 UTC 2005 |
re #86 bad analogy, we're talking about people who are paid, not
slaves. Monica Lewinsky was on the payroll.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 88 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:52 UTC 2005 |
Sure, as long as he's not using the power of the executive branch to tap them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 89 of 404:
|
Dec 29 21:05 UTC 2005 |
So it's OK to bang slaves?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 90 of 404:
|
Dec 29 21:09 UTC 2005 |
Re #89, are you asking me?
|
twenex
|
|
response 91 of 404:
|
Dec 29 21:13 UTC 2005 |
No, that was a joke.
|
gull
|
|
response 92 of 404:
|
Dec 29 23:04 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:78: So basically, you assume that Clinton would have done
anything to protect his personal life, but give Bush the benefit of the
doubt by suggesting he might have good reasons for doing what he's
done. Your partisanship is showing.
Actually, the partisanship and hypocrisy in this whole issue is kind of
disgusting. Clinton was subjected to a long, multi-million-dollar
fishing expedition by a political party that was desperate to destroy
him. No allegation was too minor for them. They investigated a 20
year old failed land deal. They probed his private life. They
listened to 140 hours of testimony about his Christmas card list. They
conducted a Congressional investigation of his pet cat's fan club.
They picked that administration apart, top to bottom, and at the end of
it all they could come up with was that he'd gotten a blow job.
Now the same party is showing a marked lack of interest in
investigating serious allegations of wrongdoing by Bush. The same
people who castigated Clinton for getting a blow job are making excuses
for our current President. I kind of expected more from the party that
claims to represent morality and transparent government.
|
dpfitzen
|
|
response 93 of 404:
|
Dec 29 23:46 UTC 2005 |
I wonder if it was a matter of living in a glass house that people didn't hold
Clinton responsible for anything other than breaking the law when he lied to
authorities. Whatever the same people that got the facts as Pres. Bush want
now to say he lied. Our problem is not getting the facts and remembering them
correctly and in order. The Chicago Tribune started a series on judging the
case for war(editorials). It is very good reading you might also find
worthwile.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 94 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:36 UTC 2005 |
Re #93, um, we weren't talking about WMDs or Iraq. You've done a good
job of reiterating the standard Fox News talking points, I guess, but
they aren't really applicable to this subject.
|
tod
|
|
response 95 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:39 UTC 2005 |
re #93
Dude, your record skipped
We're talking about wiretaps
|
nharmon
|
|
response 96 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:46 UTC 2005 |
As a conservative, I share a lot of you people's disgust in the lack of
prying on the congress's part in regards to Bush's actions. I think that
a GOP-majority congress impeaching a sitting republican president would
show a hell of a lot of integrity and would do well to restore the
world's opinion of the United States.
|
twenex
|
|
response 97 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:55 UTC 2005 |
Re: #92. Disgusting, but hardly unexpected. Remember the sort we're dealing
with here.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 98 of 404:
|
Dec 30 01:36 UTC 2005 |
resp:93 - I think where the disconnect comes in is the argument over
whether it was anyone's business in the first place. Many feel that it
was not, and don't get over to the business of lawbreaking.
|
dpfitzen
|
|
response 99 of 404:
|
Dec 30 02:55 UTC 2005 |
R94 Yes the topic of discussion started out much different than it ended up
however starting about 80 or so you will read my reply applied to the current
discussion . Who lied and why. Which made me think of the article in the
Chicago Tribune which I thought some would find interesting. You are right
it was also discussed on Fox tonight. It is odd how the discussions change
the further they go isn't it?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 100 of 404:
|
Dec 30 04:11 UTC 2005 |
Not really. This item started about impeaching Bush. Naturally, the Clinton
impeachment entered the discussion. What was "unnatural" was your trying to
confuse the issue by using Fox/GOP talking points about Iraq in a discussion
where that was not the focus. Good luck distracting your neighbors from the
real issue, though.
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 404:
|
Dec 30 05:10 UTC 2005 |
Peach and Bush are a hot topic this week. *pause for canned laughter*
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 102 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:01 UTC 2005 |
*hands tod a can opener*
|
tod
|
|
response 103 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:27 UTC 2005 |
Mine's dented!
|
tsty
|
|
response 104 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:34 UTC 2005 |
.. tha;s why you were given a new one ....
|