Clintons Women

[j2k4]

Hillary will not be President.

It will not happen.

Vid-

I believe I've mentioned impeachment in precisely one thread. I couldn't care less about it at this point, and don't believe I've harped on the subject.

Let me put it another way:

Clinton/bimbos is much more on your mind than Clinton/impeachment is on mine.

Juanita Broaddrick would be a mite offended at your characterization of "hearsay".

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2004 - 13:58
I believe I've mentioned impeachment in precisely one thread. I couldn't care less about it at this point, and don't believe I've harped on the subject.

I accept this J2 and appologise if you took the brunt of the rant. it has been mentioned quite a lot on other threads by the few hard core Bush supporters and i finally had to make a point about it.

[j2k4]

No problem, vid.

I do have a problem with Clinton's apologists, but rarely do I run into anyone who outright rejects his past as mere hearsay.

Do you feel the same way about Michael Jackson?

They both paid off; I see no discernable difference.

Mind, this is not to harp; I just find it incredible that anyone would/could blow off all that is well-known, and not even denied, in any substantive sense.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2004 - 21:54
would/could blow off

J2 far be it from I to critique your writing but given the subject of discussion I think that you could have phrased that better

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+28 June 2004 - 22:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 28 June 2004 - 22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 June 2004 - 21:54
would/could blow off

J2 far be it from I to critique your writing but given the subject of discussion I think that you could have phrased that better [/b][/quote]
Hank-

Did you mean "...far be it from me...?

I think my phraseology was, after due consideration, appropriate.

It may not be appreciated, though.

Actually, the fact vid and I are so contentious about the Clinton "legacy" is, in itself, not unhumorous.

Good night, good sirs.

[vidcc]

With celebrity the case become complex because there enters the element of "gain". I am not saying that a famous person is always blameless but they do become targets and settlements are often taken to make things "go away"....." i will bear scars for life but a few million will help me sleep better"
In the jackson case in particular i take into account what i would do.

I am a father and if anyone sexually abused any of my children i would want them to go to prison (because i am not allowed to burn off their genitals with a blowlamp) i would not "settle" the case for money....even millions.

One astonishing example of a celebrity target was the woman that tried to claim boy George was the father of her child.

I tend to get suspicious of cases that happened "years ago" but nothing was done at the time with celebrities, especially when money comes into it.

I don&#39;t reject the past as hearsay because i think it is impossible it happened but the story doesn&#39;t offer hard evedence and in a court that&#39;s needed. i pointed to the "sources close to the victim" part....this is hearsay.... they are not witnesses.
If you pointed to a link that listed convictions i would have sat up.
I posted a similar story about the woman that filed a suit against Bush...not because i believe the events of the story, but to show that anyone even your beloved Bush can fall victim.

I do have a problem with Clinton&#39;s apologists, but rarely do I run into anyone who outright rejects his past as mere hearsay.

would you by this theory classify yourself as a Bush appologist?

I make no appologise for Clinton, i don&#39;t approve of adultery, but then i don&#39;t judge either. Should we ever debate his policys i will gladly agree on any failings. I may think he was possibly the finest president of the 20th century but i have never said he was perfect. He certainly did more good than harm.
I am not anti Bush because he is a republican, had a different candidate been offered i may well vote for that repbulican candidate. I am anti Bush jnr because i do genuinely feel he is the most dangerous president on the world playing field that we have ever had and domestically he does little to help the majority of Americans.

I just find it incredible that anyone would/could blow off all that is well-known, and not even denied, in any substantive sense.

Had he denied it would you believe him? sometimes the best way to draw less attention is to practice restraint. If he had pushed the point no doubt the phrase "he doth protest too much" would arise.
Please don&#39;t take this as "shrugging off" but in any criminal case the onus is to prove guilt...innocent until proven guilty so he didn&#39;t have to prove his innocence. rumours can become more well known than facts. Sometimes rumours become so well known they are taken as fact.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2004 - 19:54


I do have a problem with Clinton&#39;s apologists, but rarely do I run into anyone who outright rejects his past as mere hearsay.

Do you feel the same way about Michael Jackson?

Does this apply to Bush Jr. also?

Certainly there are episodes in his past ( and arguably, present) that cast shadows on his moral character, yet you are staunchly silent regarding them.

Clinton got a hummer and then lied about it.
Applying the same level of outrage and attempt at punishment to the US&#39;s male population in general would result in the inprisonment of millions.
Ironically j2, this would lead to your worst nightmare.

Hilary probably would be elected President, as the only legal voters left would be women.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@28 June 2004 - 23:20
would you by this theory classify yourself as a Bush appologist?

I make no appologise for Clinton, i don&#39;t approve of adultery, but then i don&#39;t judge either.

These two things prompt me to respond, vid.

As a Conservative, I must say Bush has been remiss on several fronts, but that is beside the point.

The anti-Bush sentiment on this board is so all-encompassing and virulent there has never (allow me please to repeat myself: NEVER) been an inch of slack granted him.

You graciously (you think) offer to debate "Clinton" on the merits, hinting that you&#39;ll let the "negative" chips fall where they may, as long as your opponent will grant whatever positives may exist.

No such willingness or quarter is even hinted at when Bush is the subject.

Having no "elbow-room" to argue Bush&#39;s positives (Because, hey: there are none, right?), I guess you might conclude I am an apologist, because to be as negative as the rest of you wouldn&#39;t make for much of a thread, would it?

None of you seem willing to believe there are two competing choirs in this church, even though one is admittedly much bigger than the other, so I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for passing on the pleasure of preaching to yours.


As to the other point:

To contend that "...I don&#39;t judge..." is totally preposterous, so I suggest you or anybody else who wants to bleed in the presence of this "shark" never, ever utter such foolishness again, or I&#39;ll be forced to take you to task over it.

[vidcc]

J2 first point raised.

it just hapeenes that the threads raised on this board have been subjects where yes i do feel Bush has been less than successful. Yes i don&#39;t sing his praises often but then I do genuinely feel he is doing a bad job. That said i have never tried to make a case about Bush lies, i gave him the benefit of the doubt that he acted with the intelligence he had at the time and i believe in one thread i actually took my hat off to him for not trying to pass the buck. It doesn&#39;t happen often but it has happened where i took his side and to suggest that i would never concede his successes is a bit strong.

I am not offering debate on Clintons term i just said should we ever debate i would concede failures, but then we both have different ideas as to what is good and bad.
I do agree that the Anti Bush side is overwhelming but that should tell you just what is thought about him. It doesn&#39;t make any side more rightious because there is a majority just make the opinion louder. i did make a post about judging peoples political beliefs being unjust because they may be doing well out of a leader that you hate. Even when i dissagree the strongset i still respect the other point of view.

2nd point.

"i don&#39;t judge" perhaps that was the wrong phrase, probably "i don&#39;t care" would be closer....i don&#39;t care what any public figure gets upto in his personal life, as long as he/she does his/her job. personal lives are of no concern to me, i have a belief in live and let live...Freedom...hold on...isn&#39;t that the "american way"?

[j2k4]

To your last, with proper disrespect to the media which won&#39;t allow us to judge anything on it&#39;s own merits, or accept (as you say) that some things are, in some minds, off-limits-

Here is how I view his sexual....proclivities:

This wasn&#39;t as simple as getting "laid on the side".

He did it in the Oval Office.

For the "thrill" of it, which, I&#39;m sure, was a perk for young, dumb Monica, too.

While he was on the phone with a foreign leader, according to reports.

Apparently, therefore, nothing, no one, no place is sacrosanct to him; he defiled the institutional and physical offices of the President of the United States.

Never mind the dumb twit who copped his joint and her stained dress.

If this means nothing to you, then, never mind what page we&#39;re supposed to be on,
we&#39;ll never agree, and what we have is indeed an insoluble difference of opinion.

To say, absent the stain, he would have gotten away with it is to miss the point entirely, as it is to say the impeachment issue was a sidelight.

He was also a perjurer (that means he lied, vid), and that was the causative factor in the legal proceedings; the thing he chose to lie about was a mere adjunct to the lie-that is to say, if you lie to a Grand Jury, and are found out and charged thereby, the circumstances which caused you to lie recede into irrelevancy.

As to his "serial" activities while he was Governor in Arkansas, what is there to say, except that, as the Chief Executive in the state, he was more than willing to use his power to threaten the State Police and any other agency in his purview if they didn&#39;t act as his enablers; he was apparently equally as adept at using rewards as he was threats in his endeavors.

There were many in the Gennifer Flowers mold, who would fuck for money, jobs, or just the kick of "doing" the Governor of Arkansas, but, for me, the Juanita Broaddrick story is quite enough; she did object, but who to complain to?

They were all in Clinton&#39;s back pocket.

The guy is a real piece of work; a real Arkansas good ole&#39; boy.

He sold his soul to Don Tyson (of Tyson Foods fame), and before long, the rivers in Arkansas ran white with chicken feathers, because if you were FOB (a Friend Of Bill) you, too, had the run of the state.

This is your man, vid.

The greatest President, I think you said?