Why America please read and share ur thoughts

[Onslow]

The Clinton lie helped to solidly divide an already fracturing country and was far from harmless. He disgraced a woman, he cost billions of dollars in investigations and hearings. The simple fact that he went on television and wagged his finger and denied what happened is much more than a minor infraction. I ask you DrRock to stop for a moment and think about this happening to you. Let's just for arguements sake say that you had a hot torrid sexual relationship with someone and then the person you were with denied it left and right and accused you of being a liar. How would you like that? How about a female family member who was placed in the awkward position which Lewinsky was placed in as Clinton continued to lie? How about being the spouse of the liar and having to deal with the fact that your partner was a disgrace? How about being the child of the liar? Clearly there was NOTHING harmless about his lie.

As for Junior, I would say you cannot and will not in all your efforts find anything which he intentionally lied about. He was clearly under the impression according to the documents given to him, that there were indeed weapons in Iraq and if you look at some of what is there, then it is easy to see that even if they did not yet have them they were obviously on the way to getting them. The storage containers were there, don't try to deny that fact.

So what do we have? Clinton an intentional liar and Bush a liar only because later facts reveal him to have been in error. An error does not a lie make. I'll stick with Junior. Maybe it has some twisted connection to that dreadful time I spent residing in Arkansas. Clinton was governor and even then he was known as Slick Willy just for the way he would extricate himself from so many situations. Clinton is the one who if he was shown on video stabbing someone a hundred times or committing any crime, he would wag his finger and tell you "I didn't do it" and get away with it. Yes, most definitely I'll stay with Junior as the man I'd most trust.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Onslow@Jun 26 2005, 11:57 AM
The Clinton lie helped to solidly divide an already fracturing country and was far from harmless. He disgraced a woman, he cost billions of dollars in investigations and hearings.

again ... it's way too easy to draw comparisons on those points, and the comparisons tend to favor clinton. let's face it, it ain't his fault that there are too many people in power who consider a blowjob to be "disgraceful."

The simple fact that he went on television and wagged his finger and denied what happened is much more than a minor infraction.

true, but what else is new? you think you're gonna find any politician, much less any president, who HASN'T made a career outta lying through their teeth? that's the business. again, motives and consequences.

Let's just for arguements sake say that you had a hot torrid sexual relationship with someone and then the person you were with denied it left and right and accused you of being a liar. How would you like that?

I'd think that was pretty funny. but then, I wouldn't be trying to sue them for large amounts of money

As for Junior, I would say you cannot and will not in all your efforts find anything which he intentionally lied about.

oh, okay. since I can't be bothered getting into "the technicality of truth", I'll stop calling him a liar and just keep calling him a mass-murdering bible-bashing capitalist, since he's proved that all on his own.

The storage containers were there, don't try to deny that fact.

still wondering where exactly US interests come into the whole "iraq has chemical weapons" scenario ... but that's a whole other argument.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Onslow
and of course THE BIG LIE. Remember folks it was not about the sex act it was about the LIE. THAT is what caused the rancor towards Clinton by so many people.

If by "so many people" you mean "almost no one besides pundits", or "lots of people pretended to care just cause they didn't like Clinton," then you're correct. The media making something an issue and it actually being an issue are two different things.

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by Onslow@Jun 26 2005, 11:57 AM
As for Junior, I would say you cannot and will not in all your efforts find anything which he intentionally lied about. He was clearly under the impression according to the documents given to him, that there were indeed weapons in Iraq and if you look at some of what is there, then it is easy to see that even if they did not yet have them they were obviously on the way to getting them. The storage containers were there, don't try to deny that fact.

So what do we have? Clinton an intentional liar and Bush a liar only because later facts reveal him to have been in error. An error does not a lie make.

[post=324145]Quoted post[/post]​

Storage containers? WTF? Really...be a little more specific. I have storage containers; I call them boxes. }(

I know that technical issues are not the White House's forte; science and engineering require some heavy lifting. Moreover, technical reality may interfere with a desired policy. Like many Americans, I believe that the White House wanted only "facts and analyses" which supported their desire for a justified war. In this age of the consultant, one inside joke is "Tell me what you want to do and I will confirm that this is the most appropriate course of action for only $1,000,000...nah, better make it two."

I watched the Powell presentation to the U.N. on case for the existence of WMDs in Iraq with friends. To college students at major technical universities, it was ludicrous...technically without merit.

The two mobile labs for chemical and biological weapons production? Give me a break, the air filtration and contaminant removal systems to handle the nasty things hypothesized would have required probably two of the big trailers to house the treatment systems.

The nuclear weapons program? Well, show me the nuclear signatures of the facility flyovers. As you remember, we had been doing flyovers for a decade and would have noted suspicious activities and would have sent aerial nuclear detection equipment to investigate. From nuclear "signatures" one can deduce what is occurring.

Oh yea, the centrifuge tubes? Well, in hours after the Powell presentation, technical people began to say "I may not know what the aluminum tubes are but it is unlikely that they are centrifuge tubes." Why? Well, the size and weight of the tubes would mean a humongous centrifuge....not very efficient or likely. Within a week or so, technical people said "I think those are likely for use in a rocket propulsion system."

What was the background of the CIA analyst that provided the "technical" fiction to support White House policy? Well, he was a civil engineer by training....excellent qualifications for waste water treatment plant analysis but nuclear science and engineering or bioengineering? Anyway, because he was the senior analyst [thanks to influence from without], he was able to ignore the credible criticism of a finding of WMDs.

BTW to Machivelli, being dumb or wrong is much worse than being dishonest. So if you are not a bible thumper, are you Machivellian?

jay

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Onslow@Jun 26 2005, 06:57 AM
The Clinton lie helped to solidly divide an already fracturing country and was far from harmless. He disgraced a woman, he cost billions of dollars in investigations and hearings.

Freddies comments: Clinton did not cost billions of dollars in investigatoins. It was the Republicans who spent the billions of dollars trying to catch Bill Clinton doing something wrong. Clinton has the best record of any President in recent history concerning people in places of leadership not getting into trouble. Not one Clinton ofical was found guilty of any wrong doing despite billions spent by Republicans trying to find someone guilty.






The simple fact that he went on television and wagged his finger and denied what happened is much more than a minor infraction.

Freddie's comments:

It was totally improper to be asking such questions in the first place. Clinton should have said, "It is none of your damn business." And he should have stuck by that and let the Congress put him in jail for refusal to discuss personal sex issues if they were of so mind. Let the world know how democracy functions here.




I ask you DrRock to stop for a moment and think about this happening to you. Let's just for arguements sake say that you had a hot torrid sexual relationship with someone and then the person you were with denied it left and right and accused you of being a liar. How would you like that? How about a female family member who was placed in the awkward position which Lewinsky was placed in as Clinton continued to lie? How about being the spouse of the liar and having to deal with the fact that your partner was a disgrace? How about being the child of the liar? Clearly there was NOTHING harmless about his lie.


FREDDIE'S COMMENTS:

Correct. Nothing harmless here. Devastation to a daugher and a wife. Serious, very serious. But is it a matter of public government. NO. It was unconstitutional for the Congress to be trying to get copies of Bill Clinton's dick for public viewing and a statement of his personal blow jobs. That was Hillary's business.







As for Junior, I would say you cannot and will not in all your efforts find anything which he intentionally lied about. He was clearly under the impression according to the documents given to him, that there were indeed weapons in Iraq and if you look at some of what is there, then it is easy to see that even if they did not yet have them they were obviously on the way to getting them. The storage containers were there, don't try to deny that fact.


FREDDIE'S COMMENTS: The evidence is coming out that both Junior and Dick knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Junior lied to the American public about this as a pretense for going to war. He lied and knew he lied and he lied about governmental affairs which is an impeachable offense.







So what do we have? Clinton an intentional liar and Bush a liar only because later facts reveal him to have been in error. An error does not a lie make. I'll stick with Junior. Maybe it has some twisted connection to that dreadful time I spent residing in Arkansas. Clinton was governor and even then he was known as Slick Willy just for the way he would extricate himself from so many situations. Clinton is the one who if he was shown on video stabbing someone a hundred times or committing any crime, he would wag his finger and tell you "I didn't do it" and get away with it. Yes, most definitely I'll stay with Junior as the man I'd most trust.

Freddie's Comments:

Clinton has come clean on more than one occassion. How many times must he tell the truth before you will accept the fact that Clinton can tell the truth at least part of the time.

[post=324145]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes, the Repubicans are beginning to unwind. Opinion polls are dropping. Only those who are senior citizens remember the hate filled capital city during the last Republican occupation in the early 1950's Now that the Republicans have gained complete control, a first since the early 1959's, we see that they have not changed one damn bit. After all the pain and suffering the American public will endure in the next three years, it may be another 50 years before another group of people vote in a total Republican government.

Democrats want properity and freedom for all. Republicans want prosperity and freedom for just Republicans. That pretty much sums up the difference between the two politcal parties.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

If a Democrat is elected President, his chances of getting anything positive done are just as slim.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Jun 26 2005, 04:19 PM
If a Democrat is elected President, his chances of getting anything positive done are just as slim.

[post=324220]Quoted post[/post]​

Especialy with a Republican Congress!

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Onslow@Jun 26 2005, 03:57 AM
The Clinton lie helped to solidly divide an already fracturing country and was far from harmless. He disgraced a woman, he cost billions of dollars in investigations and hearings. The simple fact that he went on television and wagged his finger and denied what happened is much more than a minor infraction. I ask you DrRock to stop for a moment and think about this happening to you. Let's just for arguements sake say that you had a hot torrid sexual relationship with someone and then the person you were with denied it left and right and accused you of being a liar. How would you like that? How about a female family member who was placed in the awkward position which Lewinsky was placed in as Clinton continued to lie? How about being the spouse of the liar and having to deal with the fact that your partner was a disgrace? How about being the child of the liar? Clearly there was NOTHING harmless about his lie.

Onslow, hun, this entire paragraph can be explained by the simple fact that none of that would've happened if Congress hadn't investigated it. Yes, you heard me. No more investigating blowjobs.

As for Junior, I would say you cannot and will not in all your efforts find anything which he intentionally lied about.

Actually, we can. Quite a bit. Some examples:

Creationism. Should I even bother to point out that creationists use things like the Yeti and the Loch Ness monster as evidence in favor of their beliefs? Yet Bush puts their litterature (misspelling intentional) in our national parks.
Global warming. Massive edits on Bush's part. So if 999 climate experts say it's occurring and 1 says it isn't, Bush says there's controversy.
Hydrogen fuel cells. Yeah, I have one of those. I also have a perpetual motion-powered car which can reach speeds faster than light. Laws of the universe, my man.
Firing Paul O'Neill for saying Bush's tax plan didn't add up. Any basic knowledge of math will tell you O'Neill was right. Oh, and big businesses don't do anything for tax purposes.
A "Clean Air Act" which loosens standards on air pollution. How Orwellian.
"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman." Oh, where to begin with this lie? Hell, even the Bible has polygamy, so he can't be that much of an idiot.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The connections to Bush are more incestuous than a Mormon family reunion.
Claiming the Duelfer report proved that Iraq had WMDs. It says the exact opposite.
Claiming that the 9/11 Commission Report proved that Iraq had connections to Al Qaida. Once again, it says they exact opposite.
Claiming he'd always wanted a 9/11 Commission. Transcripts say otherwise.
Claiming Saddam Hussein acquired uranium from Africa. Found in a bad web novel from a Tom Clancy wannabe.

He was clearly under the impression according to the documents given to him, that there were indeed weapons in Iraq and if you look at some of what is there, then it is easy to see that even if they did not yet have them they were obviously on the way to getting them. The storage containers were there, don't try to deny that fact.

Yes, the storage containers were there. They stored hydrogen for artillery balloons.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by jonb@Jun 27 2005, 02:26 AM
Yes, the storage containers were there. They stored hydrogen for artillery balloons.

[post=324251]Quoted post[/post]​

... and the very fact that the iraqi military still NEEDED artillery balloons gives a pretty substantial indication as to how "threatening" they could be.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by that_dude@Jun 22 2005, 12:36 AM
So I guess gays are last on the civil rights to do list huh?!!
So what do all of the gays straights republicans democrats independents ect.think of gay rights?

[post=322959]Quoted post[/post]​

What do I think of gay rights? Well, just simply state it as rights, for one thing. For another thing, pick the appropriate US Constitutional Amendment from among the first 14, and that pretty well sums it up. I want the same (no more, no less) rights and protections afforded to every US citizen under our Constitution.

I think the help our president needs right now is impeachment. He lied in his oath of office. He has lied about nearly everything he has said or done in office. He forces officials in various government agencies to lie when they do annual reports to congress, and he forces IG offices to lie when they submit investigation summaries. One of his favorites is the EPA; they do so many environmental studies; when they finish a study, the current administration requires that it be submitted to the president for editorial review before presentation to congress and publication in the publicly-available journals. If dubya thinks the report paints a grim picture about the state of our environment, he directs the EPA to re-write the report more favorably (in other words, lie about the results, because it is not what he wants.)

 

[DC_DEEP]

DrDilznick, DrRock, jonb - in your sub-thread going on here, don't forget to mention that Ken Starr was installed as WHITEWATER SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR, not MONICA'S CIGAR SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR. Ken Starr was tasked with investigating the Clintons' involvement with the Whitewater land deal, and any crime/impropriety associated. He dug as deep as he could, and he found nothing. I don't know who or how or why Ken Starr began investigating Bill Clinton's sex life, but apparently it was because he couldn't find anything he was tasked to find. Clinton's big mistake was his failure, in the beginning of the sex part of the investigation, to say "That line of questioning is not within your purview as Whitewater Investigator. None of your damned business."

Ken Starr should be in jail right now for overstepping the bounds of his appointment.

 

[DC_DEEP]

And back to the whole Halliburton thing... Madame Z, your research and subsequent posting is quite accurate, but the one main flaw is the posting is incomplete. To paint the proper picture, you should add that dick cheney's former company received this contract, no-bid. This is a violation of federal law. Shock-and-awe my ass. The entry to war was presented to the American public as something that would resemble the Grenada conflict - step in, show a little power, and the bad guys will just roll over and give up. I have a sneaking suspicion that the administration KNEW that would not be the case, knew that Halliburton would be over there over-charging, for many years to come, and providing hefty kick-backs we haven't even foreseen to those who helped. Halliburton has repeatedly abused its already-illegal position by overcharging the American government for goods and services, and fabricating phantom goods and services provided, not to mention the shoddy bookkeeping for other money-holes over there. More than once, they have claimed double what they have provided. This is all being reported, then hushed & swept under the rug. I want to see an independent, impartial, and thorough audit of Halliburton's accounting records - along with a thorough audit of dubya and dick. Let's find out where those kick-backs and under-the-table millions are really going.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by KinkGuy
In some way, somehow, Bill Clinton is responsible for absolutely everything bad and in error, everywhere on the planet. All of it.

Yeah, but let's not make the man a saint either (not addressed to you specifically, but the partisans here have a tendency to deify the man when he's undeserving of the treatment.) One thing that's often "forgotten" is how Clinton bombed a major pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and destroyed half of the country's pharmaceutical supplies. The damage caused was immeasurable, probably leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, mostly children, and destabilizing peace efforts in the area. If Clinton deserved to be impeached, it was for that.

Links:
http://www.media-criticism.com/Clinton_Sudan_1999.html
http://www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this...98sudanrpt.html

I think we can agree that his actions on August 20, 1998 were shameful, ultimately heinous and had little to do with terrorists.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Freddie53+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick
If a Democrat is elected President, his chances of getting anything positive done are just as slim.

Especialy with a Republican Congress&#33;
[/b][/quote]
Doesn&#39;t really matter. The only kind of Democrat that could win at this point is one that you would hate...some Southern Christian who hates gays.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+Jun 27 2005, 07:49 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Jun 27 2005, 07:49 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Freddie53@
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick

If a Democrat is elected President, his chances of getting anything positive done are just as slim.

Especialy with a Republican Congress&#33;

Doesn&#39;t really matter. The only kind of Democrat that could win at this point is one that you would hate...some Southern Christian who hates gays.

[post=324325]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
He wouldn&#39;t have to HATE gays, just be in favor of the marriage amendment while campaigning. Then he can do like Bush and "forget" all about it until the next election. Oh Bush spouts off from time to time, but notice the Congress doesn&#39;t have an amendment ready for him to sign.

But you are correct that a Democrat that publically announces he is not a Christian doesn&#39;t have a snow ball&#39;s chance in hell of wining the Presidency.

 

[Onslow]

I have already said it but it clearly needs repeating: If you look at the Republican Party they are making a genuine effort to move into a more open way of thinking. Earlier I posted a link to the Log Cabin Republicans and if any of you actually took the time to look at their site you would see that the Republicans have become more moderate. There are states (such as Connecticut, with a Republican Governor-Jodi Rell) and communities-(including New York City with a Republican Mayor- Michael Bloomberg) which have Republican officials in top positions and they are making efforts to get the gay rights agenda on the front burner and to have legislation passed which will include all people. Show me where the Democrats have ever made an effort to reach out to another group with out making attacks. You can search for a hundred years and you won&#39;t find one incident of it happening because the Dumocrats only know how to whine and bellyache. The Republicans on the other hand show what they want and then make the efforts to achieve reaching the defined target.
In addition to this, as I stated before, there are ways to get legislation changed to where it is on an equal playing field for all. Sitting around in this forum, bashing George Bush is not going to get it to happen and in fact won&#39;t even get the latch off of the starting gate. Stop whining about what you don&#39;t like and start to take some actions to make the changes you claim to be so enamored of.

Keep in mind this will undoubtedly be a slow process; however if all people want to do is moan and groan and cry their little wah wah tears over how Al Gore and then John Kerry didn&#39;t win their election bids, then you might as well adjust yourself to several more decades of your own self inflicted pain.

Think of how long it took for women to be given the right to vote and how women are still held back in almost all walks of life. Think of how many years it took for civil rights legislation to be passed and how it is still not always enforced. The only way to get what is wanted is by contacted your Senators your Congressional Representative, your Mayor, your Town Council Leaders, your individual state Governor. Connect with local churches and other groups. Perhaps your local Veterans groups or Fire Department is interested in lending support. Find out if there are any anti-bias organizations in your community or on a state level. If not maybe you can be part of putting one together from the ground up--you&#39;ll need lawyers who are on your side so get friendly with some lawyers as well. They will be a blessing when it comes to figuring how to navigate through several legal loopholes. Remember, get through that loophole once and you will have set a precedent which will immediately strengthen your cause. Organize&#33; Put together a basic grass roots effort in which you have something outlined as far as your goals and what you wish to accomplish and how you plan to achieve it. Does it include marches, parades, petitions, store boycots, product line boycots, event boycots? Start today and remember it was done in the past with far less technology. Today we have the benefit of internet access so web-sites can be created for everyone who wants to see what ideas have been drawn up. Cellular phones make contacting people and staying in touch with news organizations and other persons involved in your cause much easier. The media is in some ways more accesible, provided of course that an idea is presented in a realistic, sound, logical manner without a bunch of hatred being woven into it. The people who hear your desires for more freedoms are watching and listening carefully to see what approach is being made. If the idea is presented from a well mannered person or group of people then it stands a heck of a lot better chance of being generously and warmly received than if it is presented by a bunch of cat calling hecklers who make 4 year old tantrum throwers seem mature in comparison.

 

[jiggler]

over time i have come to realize that very little about politicians make them appear to be honest. you can take much of what they have done and twist toward your own bias. leadership is the absence of concensus. whether or not you agree with the Bush administration, most of what they have accomplished has not been directed by the wind. i am a supporter of the administration, but not on every issue. for instance i dont agree with our illegal immigration policies, nor the amount of spending. however, peace cannot be attained by an absence of threat.
one of the principle reasons we were attacked was because the taliban believed we would not retaliate. i think they have changed their minds

 

[jiggler]

what has been accomplished in the middle east has been amazing. i think that intellectually you have to be that honest with yourself. this type of progress with lebanon and afghanistan has never been thought to have been possible. i sincerely hope that people realize that through all the clutter and partisan demands for resignations, lives of many are being protected by the sacrifice of a few brave soldiers. not only are they protecting our freedom to speak like this on the internet, but they are giving many women across the globe the right to vote for the very first time.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, I&#39;ll be glad to see it if women are also allowed to be educated, that was supposed to be a benefit, but I&#39;m not too impressed by allowing women to vote in rigged elections.
It comes down to our personal value systems, if you actually believe the bush administration gives a rat fuck about freedom of the oppressed Iraqi people, then we have no further reason to debate.

BnD, if you are able to gloss over Halliburton and the Carlyle Group&#39;s profits and IGNORE the facts that they are profiting bush and cheney personally, then you are too out of touch with reality for me to care much about your other opinions, although I am sure you have some valid points. This is where the rubber meets the road for me, my government is being led by two elitist profiteers with a good spin crew and I am disgusted to the core of my soul by it. If you are not, I wish you well but don&#39;t care to waste either of our valuable time on it.

Oh, and as for the "prosecution" of BC&#39;s bj, after congress failed to find illegal activities in the Whitewater scandal (which they probably manufactered to begin with), this was the best they could do to justify their being there in the first place, exactly like this war.
Was he a saint? Hell no&#33; He is a real human being, but the good he did for our country far outweighed the bad and the repubs hated him for it. Spread the wealth? Not on their fucking watch&#33; Oh yeah, congress started the whole investigation, spent the taxpayer&#39;s money without asking us how we felt, the repub media went balls-out nuts covering it every second of every day until they finally did a few surveys and found that less than 20% of the public gave a crap at all about it. As soon as their sales started plummeting, it went away. There was never any need for it to have happened, I daresay he would have had more time to work of some of the initiatives he was trying to enact had he not been forced to spend his second term in court being publicly humiliated. That did not serve the needs of the people, but of course there are still you few out there who just can&#39;t understand simple logic. Lying about a blowjob=little tiny sin, lying about reasons for a war while hiding the facts of self interest in huge profits via no bid contracts to YOUR OWN COMPANIES=gigantic sin. Anyone too stupid to understand this is off my xmas list.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Jun 27 2005, 12:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Jun 27 2005, 12:47 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Jun 27 2005, 02:26 AM
Yes, the storage containers were there. They stored hydrogen for artillery balloons.

[post=324251]Quoted post[/post]​

... and the very fact that the iraqi military still NEEDED artillery balloons gives a pretty substantial indication as to how "threatening" they could be.

[post=324306]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
But don&#39;t you know? Balloons and that new thing, the gatling gun, you don&#39;t even have to aim with that. I personally don&#39;t see the point; the horse will always be a staple of warfare.

Seriously, though, chemical weapons aren&#39;t even that threatening against a civilian population. Basic hygiene practices and fresh air can negate any effect. They&#39;re more deployed as area denial weapons because combat doesn&#39;t always leave one capable of said basic hygiene practices.

Of course, socialized medicine would completely negate any threat from chemical or biological weapons. But that would cut into the profits of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which, as the Republicans are happy to remind us, is comparable to the Holocaust. (Or the "H&#39;caust" as their buddy Rupert Murdoch put it in the NY Post.)