A question for the conservatives...or whoever

[ripdog]

Why do you hate Bill Clinton so much? I was talking with my dad the other day and he went on this anti-Clinton tirade, but he never gives any facts. All I hear is the name calling that seems so typical of the ultra-conservatives. I'd like to limit the discussion to the pre-Lewinsky days--obviously that was a huge mistake. More specifically, lying about it was the mistake--I never cared that he did it, but I was hugely dissappointed that he lied about it. My stepfather asked my wife and I what we thought of the Clinton scandal prior to the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" lie and we both immediately replied that we didn't care. It wasn't our business and I still don't see how him cheating on his wife is relevant to the presidency of the USA. It makes him a slimeball, yes, but so is GW, so it's a wash IMO. Clinton was hated long before the Lewinsky thing brought him down. Why?

[whiskeytown]

personally, I'm pissed cause he got more tail then me....LOL

RB

[HDPM]

Before Lewinsky Clinto was a lying, draft dodging, rapist who represented everything bad with amoral baby boomers. He didn't have any real convictions and would consistently sell out his friends. There was a belief he was pretty corrupt. His draft dodging and flight to foreign soil to protest the war was bad. He used the Arkansas State Police to help him rape women, not just pick them up. After Lewinsky he was a lying, draft dodging, perjuring, disbarred, impeached rapist.

Clinton always was a POS. It was just more of a TV spectacle after Lewinsky.

[Utah]

How the left cant see that he is a POS is simply beyond logic. The same thing can be said about his slimeball wife. Heck, the same thing can probably be said about the whole corrupt democratic party.

While I an not a republican by a long shot, I like them a heck of a lot better because at least they seem to stand for something and at least the notion of decency seems to matter to them. Example,look at what happened to Trent Lott when he made that racist comment - his party turned on him immediately as his thoughts and behaviors were unacceptable. You simply never seem Democrats act that way.

By the way, the problem is not that Clinton got laid that is the issue. Democrats seems to like to turn to the sex aspect to shield them from the truth. He didn't just commit a "big mistake" as you put it. He committed a felony. He lied to the american people. He abused his power to have sex with a young girl. He attempted to destroy that girl in the press until the evidence was too great. He committed an act that he knew could throw the country into turmoil. Why that doesn't matter to you or democrats is insane. As Mugatu said in Zoolander, "Does anyone not get it. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills".

[Cyrus]

HDPM: "Before Lewinsky Clinton was a lying, draft dodging, rapist who represented everything bad with amoral baby boomers. He didn't have any real convictions and would consistently sell out his friends. There was a belief he was pretty corrupt. His draft dodging and flight to foreign soil to protest the war was bad. He used the Arkansas State Police to help him rape women, not just pick them up. After Lewinsky he was a lying, draft dodging, perjuring, disbarred, impeached rapist."

I for one thank HDPM for his honesty and straight talk. Yes, it's the sex that's behind the conservatives' antipathy towards Slick. Yes, he is actually a draft-dodging, hedonist, lazy no-good, flag-burning, pot-smoking punk who, for heaven's sakes, made it to the Presidency! Talk about worst nightmares coming true.

It's the goddamn 60s bums' triumph!

(Of course, it's all in the minds of the conservatives. Bill Clinton was nothing like the iconoclast rebel or the runaway liberal they had him for. Christopher Hitchens' book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859842844/qid=1056657067/sr=12-1/103-0088231-9927877?v=glance&s=books) pretty much nails it.)

[Cyrus]

"[Clinton] didn't just commit a "big mistake" as you put it. He committed a felony. He lied to the American people. He abused his power to have sex with a young girl. He committed an act that he knew could throw the country into turmoil."

I'm sorry but the above are simply wild conjectures piled upon irrelevancies piled upon legal falsehoods.

"Lying"? OK, we will start with the legal falsehoods! One should read Victor Bugliosi's brilliant expose (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/flex-sign-in/ref=cm_rate_rev_pagepos2/103-0088231-9927877#rated-review) of how the Supreme Court finangled the 2000 election and handed it over to Dubya. In the same book, Bugliosi, arguably one of the best DAs ever, demonstrates why Starr's actions were illegal and downright unethical, and why ol' Bill acted within his good ol' American rights.

"Abused his power"? "Sex with a young girl"?? "Felony" ??!? Last time I checked they were both consenting adults. And this is not the first nor the last time that a "young girl" will swoon under the aphrodisiac spell of power, now is it? As long as they are both consenting adults, the only question is, Does the sex affect either partner's performance in the job they have been entrusted with? That's the only question. The rest is the same kind of PC thinking that the Left is correctly villified for.

"Throw the country in turmoil"?? Gimme a break. It's the goddamn GOP that tried to do that! And the judge who, incredibly, was ready to allow a civil trial to take place against a President while he was in full active duty! What utter, treacherous, devious crap. A U.S. soldier, while on active duty, cannot be dragged into court, according to the law.

I guess the United States President's job is less important to America than a soldier's.

--Cyrus

[HDPM]

No, the sex isn't it for me. I don't care he cheated on Hillary (anybody dumb enough to marry her can't be faulted for infidelity) I only care when he raped people. He flat committed rape as Governor of Arkansas. And it looks like he committed a sexual assault in the White House. (Not on Lewinsky) His perjury in the Paula Jones case was a bad deal. That case wasn't about sex, it was about sexual harrassment and he lied under oath about it. That's bad.

I also don't understand why liberals defended him the way they did. A small example was the gays in the military issue. He promised a lot in the campaign and some gays in the military were dumb enough to rely on Clinton being a stand up guy. He sold them out with the don't ask/don't tell policy. There's one example of selling out friends. When I say he was amoral, I am speaking more about his character in political dealings, not sexual ones. Now perhaps his lack of any conviction is reflected in his sexual behavior, but it affected substantive things in his presidency. He did not advance a liberal agenda, rather he did what was politically expedient every time.

Let us also not forget the video of the Ron Brown funeral. That 30 second video captures the essence of Clinton.

[HDPM]

P.S. I posted before checking out the link re: Hitchens. I think I am saying some of the same stuff as Hitchens or at least would agree with a lot of it.

[HDPM]

Here's a link to a story from today. Story isn't going away. Let's just say better men have been convicted for rape on less evidence. web page (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33270)

[Utah]

What does the 2000 election have to do with it? Of course, nothing. However, I do agree that the supreme court was way off base - even the Wall Street Journal admitted as much. However, while we are on the subject, why do liberals seem to ignore the travesty with the Florida Supreme Court that led to this mess?

Ken Starr's actions in no why gives Willie a free pass on his actions. The "deflection" strategy doen't hold water. One can argue about Ken Starr, but that is not what we are talking about here is it? You don't believe he lied to the Grand Jury? Come on.

If Willie was acting within his rights, why didn't he simply say, " I banged the little tart. She loved it as well. I was in my rights and I did nothing wrong so leave me alone." Of course, because he knew his actions were completely wrong and unethical. And, he knew the American people would think so as well. Don't confuse laws and rights with ethics.

Finally, lets review your "throw the country in turmoil" rebuttal. You think that the story would not have been a big issue if the GOP hadn't pushed it? You can't really believe that, can you. So, without the GOP, it would have been buried on page 20 of the local paper? He was smart enough to know that there was a risk the story could get out when he committed the act. And he had to know that it would be tramatic if it did get out. It makes no difference how the actual story did get out as far as Bill is concerned (of course, you can again hammer the GOP and you might be right to do so - I am no GOP fan. Again though, this does not give Bill a free pass). It also had the potential to compromise the presidency. What if an enemy, senator, opportunist somehow got proof? He could easily have been blackmailed - "veto this law or else" kind of scenario. The fact that he would take this risk is incredulous.

I agree that the president should not be compelled to trial while actively serving. Maybe it was devious crap - I can't rebutt that. However, and again, how does that give Willie a free pass on his actions.

On the most simple level, don't you think that 50 year old men that sleep with 18 years are slimeballs? And don't you agree that men like that don't belong leading a nation? pure and simple - I want more from my leaders.

[Jimbo]

Hi Utah I agree with all your points except the below:

"On the most simple level, don't you think that 50 year old men that sleep with 18 years are slimeballs?" Well, no I don't think that at all, very puritanical on your part. "And don't you agree that men like that don't belong leading a nation? pure and simple - I want more from my leaders." This I agree with only because I am not running for political office! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Pot-A]

I'm sorry but the above are simply wild conjectures piled upon irrelevancies piled upon legal falsehoods.

Not conjecture or legal falsehood at all. He was found by a judge to have lied under oath. Period. That's a felony. You or I would have gone to jail.

That's the real problem here. Bill Clinton established the dubious legal precedent of the president, by virtue of his office, being above prosecution for felonies committed while in office (as long as they aren't "high crimes or treason"). That's a real slippery slope.

[andyfox]

"at least the notion of decency seems to matter to them [Republicans]. Example,look at what happened to Trent Lott when he made that racist comment - his party turned on him immediately as his thoughts and behaviors were unacceptable.

Surely you jest. Lott made roughly the same comments before he became majority leader. His party turned on him only because the remarks became publicized in the media. He was not turned on "immeidately." It was a political decision to demote Lott, not a moral decision.

The party that you think is more decent is the party of Richard Nixon and Ann Coulter and Jesse Helms.

The term major political party is incompatible with any sense of decency.

[andyfox]

"don't you think that 50 year old men that sleep with 18 years are slimeballs?"

Never was that staple of poker analysis "it depends" more relevant.

Look what's become of our country. I mean, John Kennedy had sex with Marilyn Monroe in a suite at the Waldorf Astoria, and was brotherly enough to share her with Robert, and Bill Clinton had to go into the hallway to sort of have it with Monica Lewinsky.

[HDPM]

You can have Jesse and Trent and Dick, but I have a soft spot for Ann. web page (http://www.anncoulter.org/images/webimages/gun.jpg) I know I linked it before, but it bears repeating. Yeah An can be insufferable, but she likes guns and has much nicer hair than Trent or Jesse. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[HDPM]

JFK did spies tho.

Then again he never did Hillary.

Altho Hillary complained publically that Bill only did her once a year.

But Hillary 1x/year X xyrs/marriage /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

Then again JFK and RFK had to share with vile old Joe. /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

Rosalyn Carter now looking better.

Feh.

[andyfox]

"A small example was the gays in the military issue. He promised a lot in the campaign"

This is true. Sam Nunn said he didn't want it and Clinton backed down. It wasn't very smart of Clinton to put so much stock into this at the beginning, but maybe he thought it would be a high profile, yet not very important issue, that he could win on.

Having said this, it is amazing that people are so hard on Clinton because he is a scumball (which I believe he is). Reagan was a complete ignoramus and as much of a kneejerk liar as Clinton, and about much more important things (Iran/Contra and Nicaragua to name just two; also see Reagan's amateurishly inept performance in front of the grand jury investigating his granting of a waiver to MCA while he was president of the Screen Actor's Guild, printed in its laughable entirety in Dan Moldea's Dark Victory.)

The day Richard Nixon died, I was at Dodger Stadium and the public address announcer asked everyone to stand for a minute of reverential silence in his memory. Everyone stood up in memory of the great man (well, almost everyone). And remember the shameful speeches at the funeral, most especially by Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson are still thought of as great Americans by most people, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

[Zeno]

"On the most simple level, don't you think that 50 year old men that sleep with 18 years [sic] are slimeballs?"

I'm almost 50 and would love to have consensual sex with an eighteen-year-old woman. I would be on her in a minute, and in another minute, be done. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

So what!

America’s puritanical view of sex is amusing but on a serious note it costs the country a lot of unnecessary pain, confusion, and political trouble.


-Zeno

[Zeno]

"And remember the shameful speeches at the funeral.."

That was one of the most sickening displays of farce and duplicity in the political history of the United States. And we have had plenty.



“If the right people had been in charge of Nixon’s funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.”

-Hunter S. Thompson, from an article titled “He was a Crook” published in Rolling Stone, June 16, 1994.


I agree with every word.

-Zeno

PS I also voted for him.

[adios]

"Having said this, it is amazing that people are so hard on Clinton because he is a scumball (which I believe he is)."

There's scumball behavior and there's criminal behavior. The accusations IF TRUE against Clinton about lying to the grand jury, rape, and sexual harassment seem to pale against simply being an "ignoramus" or some such. With that said I agree with the point I believe you're trying to make. Look at the list of Presidents we've had starting with Kennedy:

JFK - Hardly a saint, not even sure about all his trangresions.

LBJ - A disgrace IMO, probably should have been in prison.

Nixon - Should have done time in prison most definitely.

Ford - I've got some major issues with this guy.

Carter - You can say what you will about "peanut" in my mind he's a kind and decent man. There's no comparison between him and the previous 4. How did he ever get to be predident?

Reagan - I don't put him on the same level as the first four scumbags but obviously you do. But certainly not the most honest and forthright person.

GWB I - I don't see much to quibble with here, could be wrong though.

Clinton - Already discussed. At the very least a scumball.

Dubya - I know we totally disagree on him. Many Democrats sure think he's a royal scumball.

[Cyrus]

"Not conjecture or legal falsehood at all. He was found by a judge to have lied under oath. Period. That's a felony. You or I would have gone to jail."

Pot-A, the point (and it's truly a very important point) is that the question was never supposed to have been asked! And if you think this is legal semantics, consider this:

You are are asked to testify for a possible connection of yours into a crime. You refuse to give evidence on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Incredibly, the judge (grand jury, whatever) perists and orders you to answer.

You oblige but you lie, because otherwise you could incriminate yourself. Are you guilty of perjury?

--Cyrus

PS : Kindly please check out the Bugliosi book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156025355X/qid=1056720150/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-6858982-9225633), I recommended. The man is far to the Right of me, btw.

[Utah]

"You oblige but you lie, because otherwise you could incriminate yourself. Are you guilty of perjury?"

Yes. Of course. Without a doubt.

Is your argument that the rule of doesn't matter to an individual if they don't like the way the law is being applied to them? "Since I don't agree with the judge I don't have to follow his ruling". This logic violates the entire basis of our legal system.

Even if your argument holds water, the correct course of action would be to say to the judge, "Your ruling does not follow proper law and I refuse to testify. Send me to jail if you will, but I am exercising my constitutional right not to speak"

[Cyrus]

I have nothing to argue with Hitchens' text on Clinton. As a matter of fact, I have been recommending the book to people (mostly of the Left) who have been blindly excusing the sleazebag for any action he'd ever take.

I don't know the details of the alleged rape cases. From what I heard, it looks like no physical force was ever involved, just strong psychological pressure, allegedly. These cases are very hard to pin down, and I don't mean legally. But I would not put it past the sleazebag, no sir.

Understand that my point was abt the reasons the cons and neocons hate the guts of Slick. Rape or no rape, he embodied the "60s bums" in their minds. Draft-dodging, pot-smoking, etc. Hence, the knee-jerk hate.

Which is what this thread is all about originally...

[Cyrus]

Greetings, Utah.

I'll have you know first of all that I too detest Bill Clinton, though not for your stated reasons.

"What does the 2000 election have to do with it?"

The Bugliosi book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156025355X/qid=1056720150/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-6858982-9225633) containing the crucial legal situation about "Clinton lying" is a book that happens to be focused on how the 2000 Election was stolen. Buy it to read about sleazebag Ken Starr and consider the 2000 thing a bonus.

"I do agree that the Supreme Court was way off base - even the Wall Street Journal admitted as much."

Brilliant -- but I would humbly, yet strongly, recommend that you get the Bugliosi book all the same.

"Why do liberals seem to ignore the travesty with the Florida Supreme Court that led to this mess?"

No mess, at all. Yet another colossal misrepresentation of facts and law. The media tried to pin "political motivation" to the Fla SC but did not address the legal aspects of their decision at all. (Like I said, get the book!)

"You don't believe he lied to the Grand Jury? Come on."

Clinton lied to the Grand Jury -- as I would lie to the Grand Jury and as you would (have the right to) lie to the Grand Jury. Reason? I have one number for you, on this : #5.

"If Willie was acting within his rights, why didn't he simply say ? Of course, because he knew his actions were completely wrong and unethical. And, he knew the American people would think so as well. Don't confuse laws and rights with ethics."

Umm, I think you do! I wrote that Clinton's actions were "not illegal". Check on this?? Alright.
Now, abt the "immoral" part...
France's President it came out had an illegitimate child, while in office, and the French media tried to make a scandal out of it. The French people switched channels and the story died.

The point? Americans are prudes. Hence, the need to hide, pretend, lie, e.g. JFK, abt one's personal matters.

"What if an enemy, senator, opportunist somehow got proof?"

Where Bill inserts his dick should be none of your business. If you and scores of other Americans truly believed this, then Bill would tell that blackmailer to take a hike. Since you're mostly prudes, it follows that Bill would, yes, suffer an embarassment or perhaps political turmoil.
But "the country in turmoil"??! Never happen.

"Don't you think that 50-year old men that sleep with 18-year olds are slimeballs?"

You should NEVER have asked this in a forum full of horny poker players over 50. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Seriously, no, I find nothing "sleazy" in it. Why should I??
Tell me at which string ofv exactly am I considered bald? At what age difference am I a dirty old man?

[i]"I want more from my leaders."

Damn right! And Bill Clinton has let you down. In more ways than one. None of them having anything to do with <font color="red">sex</font color> .

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Cyrus]

Hmm. I also used to think LBJ was the worst kind of scumbag, what with Vietnam and all that. And when one digs deeper into Southern politics, one comes out holding one's nose. Doesn't help.

Still, the legislation and the overall social course that neo-cons are now busy trying to dismantle is the work of mainly that slimeball politician, that bully of Congress, the back-handing, back-room, shady-dealing guy, Lyndon B. Johnson. He was both a dirty SOB and a pragmatist. He was of racist background, yet not only did he acknowledge that the injustice must end, he brought together incredibly a coalition of Congress votes that pushed through important legislation to that effect. Same thing with Great Society.

Hold your judgement on LBJ for another coupla decades. 'S early yet.

--Cyrus