The Clinton wars

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: jjones
Personally, I couldn't care less about whether or not Clinton was getting his knob slobbed by some intern or taking it from behind from the chief of staff. It's all just politics and as bright as he was, he acted like a stupid politician: self-centered, self-indulgent, and ultimately, self-destructive. The thing that kills me the most about his presidency for 8 years: he had the easiest presidency, considering he rode an economic bubble almost throughout his term, of any president in the 20th century and he basically did nothing with it except please his egotistic self.

Thank you pretty much sum up what it is all about: politics. Dont like the guy's attitude, how good he was... lets make his life a living hell for 8 years. No dirt? No problem. Blow any nuance way out of proportion in attempt to discredit him.

 

[Ornery]

"If you actually READ into the Paula Jones case, you can tell several times she changed her story and exagerated made even more exagerated claims each time. When her lawyers told her she was getting to greedy and to settle the case, she fired her lawyers and hired new ones because she wanted more money. The Judge eventually threw out the case.

This and the whitewater case had Ken Starr completely frustrated, (yes he was doing independent investigation waaaaay before Monica) if he cant dig any dirt on him... what makes you think you can?"

Tough fvcking sh|t! He has to face the music just like every other poor slob that gets slapped with a sexual harrasment suit. He and his party paved the way for these women to pull this crap. That he got trapped in his own web just breaks my heart. He brought it all on himself. Who do you believe, him or Paula? Again, it's his own fault if you have any doubts. Poor, poor Bill...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I don't think he was a BAD president. He had some policies that kept things where they should be. Sadly I am glad I didn't have kids when he was in office. I wouldn't want to have to try and explain to a 6-year-old what a bj is because they heard on tv that our president was in trouble for getting one. I grew up during the Reagan years and it was nice to be able to think of the president as your grandpa or neighbor when you are a kid, not a skirt-chaser who's arguing what the word "is" is. That stuff is just irresponsible, not in my opinion impeachable. Perjury yes, chasing interns, no. He could have been far greater if he had exercised a little restraint in his personal life. I had some serious issues with how he left office as well, Mark Rich, White House vandalism.

Was Clinton the only one getting BJ's? Was he the one who brought up the subject and spent millions of $s to keep the subject in the public eye?

I'm trying to resist doing this but, I can't.

Clinton did lie under oath about his sexual proclivities with one Monica Lewinski. You can talk about private life all day long but it comes down to the issue that Bill Clinton, a man with a law degree, law license, and President of the United States, lied under oath.

To me, he'll always be remembered for saying:
"Well, that depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is."

Lied about a BJ, big whoop. He should have never been asked such a stupid question under Oath in the first place.

Hey, remember when Cheney absolutely refused to hand over tapes of his meetings with Energy executives even when the court ordered it? That's a impeachable offense, lying about sex is not.

According to who? You?

Perjury is perjury in my book.

 

[IGBT]

Vince Foster...

 

[LunarRay]

In law... or in deposition the "tightness" of the question followed by a responsive answer but, one that is both truthful and artfully delivered can create wiggle room in subsequent events... What the definition of "is" "is" is one such case... so is the definition of "sex" as it applies to the Clinton v Jones case... and Monica specifically. In politics, as you all know, this can be used to lambast the respondent (Clinton) because we know what he was trying to avoid... and he did arguably in MHO but, not in the court of public opinion...

He had an idiot for a client... in that he tried to outsmart really really smart folks and he got close but, alas no cigar.

 

[Red Dawn]

Who do you believe, him or Paula?

Only a die hard Ratpublican with a Hard On would believe that trailer trash trout!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Vince Foster...

Of the Rose law firm.... Counsel to the President... how does he figure in this... Hillary???

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Who do you believe, him or Paula?

Only a die hard Ratpublican with a Hard On would believe that trailer trash trout!

She and Jessica Hahn should do a side by each pictorial in Field and Stream... along side the Euphrates and call the caption... WMD dredged from the bottom up..

 

[Ornery]

I'd have doubted Paula myself. I'd have poo-pooed the severity of her claim above all. But like I said, many others have been dragged down this path because of these moronic harassment laws. If Monica said she'd had an affair with the president, I wouldn't have believed her either. Now that the dust has settled, I find it VERY easy to believe Jones story. I still don't see how she would have been harmed in any way, but that' not the point, given these damn laws that Bill's party authored and championed. Tough break Bill!

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
actually adultery is a crime in quite a few states...

Pretty pathetic isn't it? There has to be a law affirming marriage fidelity. It takes away the sanctity of marriage to me.

 

[Ornery]

"It takes away the sanctity of marriage to me."

Perhaps that's all the more reason to have a little stiffer penalty involved. Breaking that contract is a little more severe than defaulting on a loan or something, no?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Yes, but why should marriage involve the gov't?

I think the only reason the gov't should have anything to do with marriage is for tax purposes not morals.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Damn double posts

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I'd have doubted Paula myself. I'd have poo-pooed the severity of her claim above all. But like I said, many others have been dragged down this path because of these moronic harassment laws. If Monica said she'd had an affair with the president, I wouldn't have believed her either. Now that the dust has settled, I find it VERY easy to believe Jones story. I still don't see how she would have been harmed in any way, but that' not the point, given these damn laws that Bill's party authored and championed. Tough break Bill!

Being a bit Ornery...

I think the laws in the workplace and elsewhere are appropriate and have been since cave man days.. Unless as in the military boys shouldn't be in the trenches with girls... which brings up the real issue... Should women be allowed to work or should they stay home and raise the family like they do in Iraq (for the most part). Wouldn't need the law but for the need of the woman to work because the economy demands it... NOT.
How about Woman only jobs... ???

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: ELP
Yes, but why should marriage involve the gov't?

I think the only reason the gov't should have anything to do with marriage is for tax purposes not morals.

Hell, I don't even think it should be involved for tax purposes!

In this case, "the govt." is no more "involved" than it would be for breaking any contract, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Ornery]

"...the laws in the workplace and elsewhere are appropriate..."

No way! They are WAY overboard. Hell, Paula Jones case is a perfect example! So he whipped his wienie out, so what? They weren't at work. Well, come to think about it, I wouldn't be too happy about somebody doing that to my daughter, but still, how does that constitute harassment? Besides, people get hauled in to court for harassment, having done a LOT less than that! It's ridiculous!