where are the clinton slam threads?

[mojo]

i am having a hard time finding them. maybe they are now outdated or something, and therefore were deleted? i dunno.....ppl say that this bush bashing is retribution. i guess it could be retribution in advance ;)

well, at any rate, once again another bush bashing thread rears its ugly, ridiculous, illogical head. i hope that those who participate in the bashing realize that this news source is pretty questionable in that it was taken out of context. i would be curious as to what the full context was. it really doesn't matter in the end. you have made up your mind, haven't you?

[sbp]

A Clinton bashing thread was quite rare unlike the continual Bush bashing threads.
Closeminded individuals will seize upon anything to feed their agenda.

[mojo]

i thought i saw a few...but they were mostly jokes. so one would think that "retribution" would be jokes. perhaps mr happy will just say GW looks like a monkey or something ;)

[topane]

Originally posted by sbp
A Clinton bashing thread was quite rare unlike the continual Bush bashing threads.
Closeminded individuals will seize upon anything to feed their agenda. Duh. Haven't you noticed that the Democrats here either a) outnumber the Republicans or b) are more vocal? And as for closemindedness (is that a word?), it works both ways. What amazes me is that no matter what side you're on the other folks are always lying, or misinformed, or stupid, or uneducated about the issues. Besides, this isn't the Rush Limbaugh BBS. Relax. Have a drink. Just don't bait ppl by calling them closeminded; it just makes you look that way, too. And anyways, Clinton was a bastard, he just played a wicked game of politics.

Originally posted by mojorisin
i thought i saw a few...but they were mostly jokes. so one would think that "retribution" would be jokes. perhaps mr happy will just say GW looks like a monkey or something OK. Ahem. GW looks like a monkey.

[Burzhui]

why bash him?
He was a good president

[TheLoneGunman]

Clinton - smart man who acted foolish

George W - fool who seems intent on making sure we all know it

Cheney - miracle of modern science

Gore - supporter of modern science

The Bush twins = Roger Clinton + Billy Carter

[topane]

Originally posted by Burzhui
why bash him?
He was a good president The man lied under oath, lied to the country. That's reason enough to bash him, no matter what the other accomplishments of his term in office.

[mojo]

Originally posted by topane

Originally posted by sbp
A Clinton bashing thread was quite rare unlike the continual Bush bashing threads.
Closeminded individuals will seize upon anything to feed their agenda. Duh. Haven't you noticed that the Democrats here either a) outnumber the Republicans or b) are more vocal? And as for closemindedness (is that a word?), it works both ways. What amazes me is that no matter what side you're on the other folks are always lying, or misinformed, or stupid, or uneducated about the issues. Besides, this isn't the Rush Limbaugh BBS. Relax. Have a drink. Just don't bait ppl by calling them closeminded; it just makes you look that way, too. And anyways, Clinton was a bastard, he just played a wicked game of politics.

Originally posted by mojorisin
i thought i saw a few...but they were mostly jokes. so one would think that "retribution" would be jokes. perhaps mr happy will just say GW looks like a monkey or something OK. Ahem. GW looks like a monkey.

you are absolutely right. i do need to chill out. i am finding more ways to do this these days, but i guess i need to use them more effectively.

my main concern, tho, is that many impressionable people read these forums and just talk shite....and the afforementioned people that are impressionable do not always go to the news sources for the facts. then some joker presents some biased crap here, as if it is something from which you can draw a conclusion. that is very irresponsible and manipulative.

but you're right....he does look like a monkey a lil bit. lol :heh:

[mojo]

Originally posted by topane

Originally posted by Burzhui
why bash him?
He was a good president The man lied under oath, lied to the country. That's reason enough to bash him, no matter what the other accomplishments of his term in office.

....and for all we know.....GW is a good president, too! duh :disa:

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by topane
[QUOTE]The man lied under oath, lied to the country. That's reason enough to bash him, no matter what the other accomplishments of his term in office.

Although Bush has not yet been proven to have lied under oath, he has already broken several key campaign promises (some of which caused the Republicans to lose the Senate) and that qualifies for lying to the country.

The very first comments made in office (about the "destruction" of the White House by Democratic staffers) were proven wrong by the INDEPENDENT GAO and that is just the first in the string of many lies and misleading statements.

His own daughters have a clear history of lying and breaking the law and he has always held them as examples of how he teaches his values. Obviously, his values are different than mine.

[mojo]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman

Originally posted by topane
[QUOTE]The man lied under oath, lied to the country. That's reason enough to bash him, no matter what the other accomplishments of his term in office.

Although Bush has not yet been proven to have lied under oath, he has already broken several key campaign promises (some of which caused the Republicans to lose the Senate) and that qualifies for lying to the country.

The very first comments made in office (about the "destruction" of the White House by Democratic staffers) were proven wrong by the INDEPENDENT GAO and that is just the first in the string of many lies and misleading statements.

His own daughters have a clear history of lying and breaking the law and he has always held them as examples of how he teaches his values. Obviously, his values are different than mine.



gee...you have me convinced!

your first two comments go for anyone ever elected. your third goes for anyone who is a parent. values taught does not always equal values displayed.

and by the way, everyones' values are different than mine. that is why i hate you all :P

[topane]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Although Bush has not yet been proven to have lied under oath, he has already broken several key campaign promises (some of which caused the Republicans to lose the Senate) and that qualifies for lying to the country. Can't remember where I saw this: "Campaign promises (n): if swallowed, induce vomiting"
You can't tell me that Dem. candidates don't break their campaign promises, also. Besides, he didn't go before a judge, in a freaking deposition, swear to tell the truth, then say "well I didn't know blowjobs were sex"

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
His own daughters have a clear history of lying and breaking the law His daughters are college students. College students drink. College students get in trouble. College students bust lose. There are probably hundreds of kids a day from all walks of life who do the same stuff. Doesn't make him a bad parent. Just makes his kids a little more like everyone else.

[jase71]

Originally posted by topane
Besides, he didn't go before a judge, in a freaking deposition, swear to tell the truth, then say "well I didn't know blowjobs were sex"

No, essentially he said "I didn't know talking to a person was considered a conversation."

Bush apparently lied under oath in his Texas Funeralgate scandal. He said under oath that he hadn't had a conversation with a particular person, and then later admitted he had talked to them. He supposedly made some silly claims about what constitutes a conversation, although I can't find the link for the "wasn't a conversation" waffle anymore. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Some details here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/09/bush/

Not really that big a deal. But he lied under oath.
And arguing about what constitutes a conversation seems every bit as silly as arguing about what constitutes sex.

Seems to me that both Clinton and Bush have some serious flaws. And neither ought to be claiming any moral highground. Neither has any right to it.




[Edited by jase71 on 06-19-2001 at 12:47 PM]

[topane]

Originally posted by jase71
<SNIP> And arguing about what constitutes a conversation seems every bit as silly as arguing about what constitutes sex.

Seems to me that both Clinton and Bush have some serious flaws. And neither ought to be claiming any moral highground. Neither has any right to it.An excellent point. Well said!

[pennypinch]

Whilte it's often a good read, anyone notice how Democrat-leaning Salon is? I mean, I don't think you'll ever find anything that'll say anything too too nasty about a Democrat in there, but they're burning the candles at both ends to dig up something dirty on anyone with an R before their name.

[pennypinch]

"Larged than allowed 56kb GIF temporarily removed, don't freak out and have your friends post we kicked you out of the forums. -Your friendly neighborhood GAM"

You guys are funny.

And I thought that picture was 53K. No? I could be mistaken.

[jase71]

Originally posted by pennypinch
Whilte it's often a good read, anyone notice how Democrat-leaning Salon is? I mean, I don't think you'll ever find anything that'll say anything too too nasty about a Democrat in there, but they're burning the candles at both ends to dig up something dirty on anyone with an R before their name.

Yeah, Salon has a pretty heavy tilt to it.

But so do most sites out there. I read a variety of sites on both sides of the aisle. Often times you'll find the most interesting information on the "wrong" sites.

Of course, good info isn't worth the electrons that display it if you can't confirm it from other sources.

To their credit, Salon puts up some well written articles that are usually backed up. I wish they were a little more objective, however. I wouldn't expect a conservative to change their mind based on something on Salon.com, because of it's leanings. Just like I hope a conservative wouldn't expect me to believe something in the American Spectator without some serious skepticism.

[mojo]

it wasn't that clinton was saying a blowjob isn't sex...he said it isn't "sexual relations," or relations of a sexual nature.

[jase71]

Originally posted by mojorisin
it wasn't that clinton was saying a blowjob isn't sex...he said it isn't "sexual relations," or relations of a sexual nature.

Semantics. Clinton was trying to dodge the issue by playing word games to weasel around what he did and said. To avoid the lie.

Just like Bush was trying to play word games with what exactly constitutes a "conversation", to avoid the lie. Or about whether he's done cocaine or not. ("I can pass the background check." rather than "NO.")

It's like being declared innocent of a crime based on a technicality. You may have done it, but if you can play it just right, you might get off...

In a lot of ways, I see Bush as a Republican version of Clinton. More style than substance. His vices are different, and a little less recent than Clinton's. But his character and willingness to dodge are remarkably familiar.

[fakesurfers]

Originally posted by pennypinch
Whilte it's often a good read, anyone notice how Democrat-leaning Salon is? I mean, I don't think you'll ever find anything that'll say anything too too nasty about a Democrat in there, but they're burning the candles at both ends to dig up something dirty on anyone with an R before their name.

you might like this article then

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/04/24/torricelli/index.html