Um, dubya and dick may not be exceptionally bright, but they do know enough personally, and they both have advisors who know, that profits going DIRECTLY into their checking accounts would "appear improper." There are many ways to launder money - and I don't mean carrying it down to the creek and scrubbing it against a rock. It goes to foreign accounts, it goes into relatives' accounts, friends' accounts, dubious holding companies; it pays for big-time perks for big-time political contributors/supporters. I am still in favor of a couple of independent, 3rd-party auditors to thoroughly dissect the records of Halliburton, Carlyle, bush jr & sr, and cheney, covering the past 10 years, and then publishing a report. Every dollar would have to be accounted for, so that the phony tax shelters and money-launders could be discovered. Then hold every responsible party accountable for criminal offenses. Hell, big bucks were spent on much less during the previous administrations' tenure, first on an alleged crime (none found, so) then on a non-crime that became an impeachable crime.
Why America please read and share ur thoughts
- Thread starter that_dude
- Start date
- jonb,
Let's not even talk about Fox News, BnD. They've actually fired people for telling the truth before and then given the defense that they can control their product!
As far as CNN goes, they're not exactly liberal either. When CNN makes mistakes, they issue retractions. Fox News doesn't.
Just remember, in the Arab world, Al Jazeera's accused of having a Zionist bias.
As far as CNN goes, they're not exactly liberal either. When CNN makes mistakes, they issue retractions. Fox News doesn't.
Just remember, in the Arab world, Al Jazeera's accused of having a Zionist bias.
Very good, jonb. Right here in the DC area, my household does not have cable TV (as little TV as we watch, the $45 per month is not justifiable, just the evening news and The Simpsons) and the only news channel we get any reception on is Fox News. Although I can't say the others, when I have seen them, are much better, Fox is just sickening. Here's a few examples, I'll give the headline, then the Fox slant on the story in parentheses:
Protesters Disrupt Meetings at World Bank and IMF (How dare those bastards!
Police Arrest Protesters at Peaceful Rally near White House (Those commies should have left that public Lafayette Park BEFORE police even arrived to tell them to leave because their protest permit was only valid for 100, and there were 110 there)
Police Chief Ramsey Under Fire for Beatings of Protesters (good thing we have him here to protect and serve; no evidence, but they probably deserved it)
Major Street Closings During Meetings at IMF Include F Street Through I Street Northwest, Between 17th and 20th; Sidewalks Also Closed, ID Required To Get Through (good idea, maybe we should require ID everywhere in DC all the time, to prevent terrorist attacks.)
Excuse me, they don't have the authority to close public streets for private concerns such as WB and IMF, and I am not aware of any laws that require me to carry my identicard to walk down a public street. But with the help of our good friends at Fox, the idiot sheep/public are falling for these whittlings at their freedom.
Jonb, have you ever read "Lies, and the lying liars who tell them" by Al Franken? It is absolutely hysterical. I don't think he is overly fond of Ann Coulter. You must read it.
jonb,
I agree, let's not talk about Fox and CNN if that's how you feel about them. If you feel the former is biased and the latter fair and balanced, then it's like someone living on Mercury and someone else living on Pluto discussing what hot and cold means to them personally.
Steve
I agree, let's not talk about Fox and CNN if that's how you feel about them. If you feel the former is biased and the latter fair and balanced, then it's like someone living on Mercury and someone else living on Pluto discussing what hot and cold means to them personally.
Steve
Met Life was in the low $20's/share in early 2002 and is in the mid $40's/share today.
XM satellite radio was at about $3/share in late 2002 and nearly $34/share today.
Qualcomm was riding about $3/share in early 1999, rose to almost $90/share later that same year, crashed and went back down to about $15/share in mid 2003, and is at $33/share now.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) slipped to below $5 per share in 2002 and is now at nearly $18 per share.
***************************************
These stocks have also performed well during this decade; perhaps the President is pulling some strings in these areas also.
Has anyone considered that oil stocks could be performing well for reasons besides the mere existence of GWB on planet Earth? Oil is a commodity and at last check the Indians and Chinese were looking to lay their hands on as much of it as possible, stretching an already thin margin between excess available supply and current quantity demanded even thinner.
Also, since it has been made virtually impossible in this country to build new refineries to process crude oil, we're getting by with virtually the same refinery capacity we had in the mid 1980's and trying to cover today's greater demand (add in specially blended fuels for pollution/smog control and that extends lack of refiner capacity even further).
And OPEC, despite stating on a semi-regular basis their committment to raise production to meet world demand, currently doesn't have a great deal of extra pumping capacity to bring online at a moment's notice. If they did, with prices being where they are, it would make business sense to bring it online and begin pumping. The oil markets know the Saudis and the other arabs lack spare capacity/supply, thus prices don't change when OPEC makes a stmt.
And, when it's a seller's market, consumers take it up the behind. Add to this the threat of terrorism against oil pumping facilities in places like Saudi Arabia and you have a lot of the components of today's price issue. No, I don't love it any more than you people do. But, I'd wager that oil prices would likely stay high for a while, even if Bush built himself a space ship and set out for Mars tomorrow, with Cheney in tow.
XM satellite radio was at about $3/share in late 2002 and nearly $34/share today.
Qualcomm was riding about $3/share in early 1999, rose to almost $90/share later that same year, crashed and went back down to about $15/share in mid 2003, and is at $33/share now.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) slipped to below $5 per share in 2002 and is now at nearly $18 per share.
***************************************
These stocks have also performed well during this decade; perhaps the President is pulling some strings in these areas also.
Has anyone considered that oil stocks could be performing well for reasons besides the mere existence of GWB on planet Earth? Oil is a commodity and at last check the Indians and Chinese were looking to lay their hands on as much of it as possible, stretching an already thin margin between excess available supply and current quantity demanded even thinner.
Also, since it has been made virtually impossible in this country to build new refineries to process crude oil, we're getting by with virtually the same refinery capacity we had in the mid 1980's and trying to cover today's greater demand (add in specially blended fuels for pollution/smog control and that extends lack of refiner capacity even further).
And OPEC, despite stating on a semi-regular basis their committment to raise production to meet world demand, currently doesn't have a great deal of extra pumping capacity to bring online at a moment's notice. If they did, with prices being where they are, it would make business sense to bring it online and begin pumping. The oil markets know the Saudis and the other arabs lack spare capacity/supply, thus prices don't change when OPEC makes a stmt.
And, when it's a seller's market, consumers take it up the behind. Add to this the threat of terrorism against oil pumping facilities in places like Saudi Arabia and you have a lot of the components of today's price issue. No, I don't love it any more than you people do. But, I'd wager that oil prices would likely stay high for a while, even if Bush built himself a space ship and set out for Mars tomorrow, with Cheney in tow.
MZ and Jay- first i would like to say thank you for responding very respectfully. i find that all too often people begin to shout and then everyone sounds the same. Now let me say that do people really believe that this is simply a war so that people can make more money? the president is only worth about 15 million dollars. i believe cheney is worth a substantial amount more. how much, im not sure. but to believe that this is soley a war is just wrong. look at an article from National review online by a man named Andrew Mcarthy. It was from yesterdays post. it lists connections of Iraq to Al-queda.
what it really boils down to for me is that this is a war of insurance against islamic terrorism. sometimes you make decisions based on what could happen if you didnt. any type of insurance protects from potential problems.
also, when it comes to cheney and halliburton, halliburton has been contracting war reconstruction efforts for decades. they didnt just burst onto the scene with this administration. who else could have done what they have? there is no spontaneous reconstruction.
Simply put, there really is no hard evidence to connect any of the "theories" out there. when people criticize the president most of the time people end up sounding like conservatives sounded when they squealed about Clinton. neither side makes much traction in their arguments. at the same time, im sure that both are guilty of many things, but to believe that this is just a money making scheme would liken bush to a mad scientist or some other evil villan. i just dont see it.
what it really boils down to for me is that this is a war of insurance against islamic terrorism. sometimes you make decisions based on what could happen if you didnt. any type of insurance protects from potential problems.
also, when it comes to cheney and halliburton, halliburton has been contracting war reconstruction efforts for decades. they didnt just burst onto the scene with this administration. who else could have done what they have? there is no spontaneous reconstruction.
Simply put, there really is no hard evidence to connect any of the "theories" out there. when people criticize the president most of the time people end up sounding like conservatives sounded when they squealed about Clinton. neither side makes much traction in their arguments. at the same time, im sure that both are guilty of many things, but to believe that this is just a money making scheme would liken bush to a mad scientist or some other evil villan. i just dont see it.
also, when it comes to oil prices, you need to understand that comes from supply and demand. simple as that. china is now using more oil than ever before and competing for the same oil that we need. therefore price goes up for us. there is no new oil reserve popping up in the next year like the beverly hilbillies. unfortunately you have to adjust. necessity is the mother of invention. do you really believe that our oil problems started here? your moms and dads were probably worried about gas prices when it reached 25 cents a gallon. its all a circle. i mean shit, look at the price of wood. is that the administrations fault too? the price of homes is astronomical but no one is complaining about that because they are making money off of it when they resell their homes. my suggestion, if you think this is a war for oil, look on the bright side and buy oil stocks.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Jiggler, that is fairly close to how I DO see bush. I don't see him as a caring concerned president out to do good for his countrymen. I honestly don't believe many other men would have had us entangled in this war for this long other than him. I believe, based on the documents that have been being released slowly, that he had this intention before we ever went in. Sure, there was some rationale to going to the home of the terrorists who bombed us and showing them that if they fuck with us we'll fuck back harder, but once that point was made it became a pathetic, pointless situation and one simply must look harder for the rationale behind it. None of the potential answers look good.
He could have been out to get Saddam because he wanted to succeed where "his daddy" had failed.
He could have wanted to continue the war because it was the first time people actually started to like him, before that he was hiding from the Whitehouse.
At some point, I find it impossible to believe he didn't have a serious sit-down with his father and discuss what course of action to take in the future, most people discuss things with their parents, but especially presidents whose fathers have had experience as president! bush sr. certainly has the mental capacity to have orchestrated every offense we've discussed, and the access and connections to make it happen.
Martha Stewart went to jail for exactly the type of crime we're discussing. Frankly I was surprised that she didn't fight it harder, but in a way I kind of respected her for sucking it up and doing her time like a big girl. These two cronies get no such respect for their dodging and shuffling act. You see, no one's suggesting the bush and cheney AREN'T profitting from the war via no-bid contracts, even you loyal repubs have to admit that, it's just that you don't care. No conflict of interest? My hairy fucking ass.
Most grounded people who live in the work-a-day world find these ideas too far-fetched to be realistic, I am completely aware of that. Look at who is complaining!
If you haven't had close and personal life experience with the truly psychotic, you would have no way of accepting mentally what they were capable of doing. If you have, your mind would do anything it could to disallow for the possibility that one was in control of our government. That's how every despot rises to power, people will never accept that greed is the driving force, even when it is fairly clearly exhibited.
Most people can't and won't believe that evil motivations really exist in the world we live in. We are still (naively) aghast when we get fired for no good reason, when we discover we've been lied to even on a small scale, we're upset when our boss shows favoritism to his friends at work. It's not supposed to be that way! It's very hard to accept that it often is. Take that up the ladder and I see no reason that people will believe it of this administration, not while republicans control all branches of government. We have no checks and balaces here, and this is not how our government was historically set up to work. No balance, one side having total control. That's a dictatorship. Yeah, you can claim that the news isn't slanted or the press, but not many people will do much more than laugh at you there. People who read more are less likely to suffer from the cognitive dissonance of the masses. People who have studied history are only too aware of the warning signs.
Which brings me to our policies back home. Why on earth would we want to cut funding for education? Well, it keeps people stupid so they are no longer able to ask questions. It further delineanates the classes. Why drain social security? Only the moderate to lower income people rely on it anyway, the wealthy have enough, so fuck'em! Why are we getting so much legislation intorduced to keep the conservatives (modern conservatives, I add) happy? Because they hold the purse strings! If the leftists had the money we'd be having fag parades on Pennsylvania Ave on a daily basis.
You HAVE to be able to back up and look at the whole scene as it is unfolding. Just like with the Bible if you get too close and isolate a few sentences, you miss the meaning (which most people do!. If you don't look at how the events taking place interrelate, you'll never understand what is happening. I think people who aren't angry are just staying too close. Look at how many families never pick up on the fact that their children LIVING IN THEIR OWN HOME are gay, are having trouble in school with bullies, use drugs, are sexually active.........it is SO COMPLETELY EASY to ingore what you don't want to see! If you can go to the comfort of the tv and the pres in his very professional looking suit, onstage with the symbols of american ideology behind him says "Everything's okay, We're doing this all for you to build a stronger america!"
people believe it because they desperately WANT to. To do otherwise would require an enormous shift in thinking that most remain unwilling to make throughout their entire lifetimes. The turbo-christians will keep saying "not my kid" while the authenic ones will look for ways to help the boy. This is the difference in our societal groupings even as we speak. Dealing with problems is hard, most people will never do it.
He could have been out to get Saddam because he wanted to succeed where "his daddy" had failed.
He could have wanted to continue the war because it was the first time people actually started to like him, before that he was hiding from the Whitehouse.
At some point, I find it impossible to believe he didn't have a serious sit-down with his father and discuss what course of action to take in the future, most people discuss things with their parents, but especially presidents whose fathers have had experience as president! bush sr. certainly has the mental capacity to have orchestrated every offense we've discussed, and the access and connections to make it happen.
Martha Stewart went to jail for exactly the type of crime we're discussing. Frankly I was surprised that she didn't fight it harder, but in a way I kind of respected her for sucking it up and doing her time like a big girl. These two cronies get no such respect for their dodging and shuffling act. You see, no one's suggesting the bush and cheney AREN'T profitting from the war via no-bid contracts, even you loyal repubs have to admit that, it's just that you don't care. No conflict of interest? My hairy fucking ass.
Most grounded people who live in the work-a-day world find these ideas too far-fetched to be realistic, I am completely aware of that. Look at who is complaining!
If you haven't had close and personal life experience with the truly psychotic, you would have no way of accepting mentally what they were capable of doing. If you have, your mind would do anything it could to disallow for the possibility that one was in control of our government. That's how every despot rises to power, people will never accept that greed is the driving force, even when it is fairly clearly exhibited.
Most people can't and won't believe that evil motivations really exist in the world we live in. We are still (naively) aghast when we get fired for no good reason, when we discover we've been lied to even on a small scale, we're upset when our boss shows favoritism to his friends at work. It's not supposed to be that way! It's very hard to accept that it often is. Take that up the ladder and I see no reason that people will believe it of this administration, not while republicans control all branches of government. We have no checks and balaces here, and this is not how our government was historically set up to work. No balance, one side having total control. That's a dictatorship. Yeah, you can claim that the news isn't slanted or the press, but not many people will do much more than laugh at you there. People who read more are less likely to suffer from the cognitive dissonance of the masses. People who have studied history are only too aware of the warning signs.
Which brings me to our policies back home. Why on earth would we want to cut funding for education? Well, it keeps people stupid so they are no longer able to ask questions. It further delineanates the classes. Why drain social security? Only the moderate to lower income people rely on it anyway, the wealthy have enough, so fuck'em! Why are we getting so much legislation intorduced to keep the conservatives (modern conservatives, I add) happy? Because they hold the purse strings! If the leftists had the money we'd be having fag parades on Pennsylvania Ave on a daily basis.
You HAVE to be able to back up and look at the whole scene as it is unfolding. Just like with the Bible if you get too close and isolate a few sentences, you miss the meaning (which most people do!
. If you don't look at how the events taking place interrelate, you'll never understand what is happening. I think people who aren't angry are just staying too close. Look at how many families never pick up on the fact that their children LIVING IN THEIR OWN HOME are gay, are having trouble in school with bullies, use drugs, are sexually active.........it is SO COMPLETELY EASY to ingore what you don't want to see! If you can go to the comfort of the tv and the pres in his very professional looking suit, onstage with the symbols of american ideology behind him says "Everything's okay, We're doing this all for you to build a stronger america!"people believe it because they desperately WANT to. To do otherwise would require an enormous shift in thinking that most remain unwilling to make throughout their entire lifetimes. The turbo-christians will keep saying "not my kid" while the authenic ones will look for ways to help the boy. This is the difference in our societal groupings even as we speak. Dealing with problems is hard, most people will never do it.
MZ- there is no cutting the funding of education. im sure that you are aware of ted kennedy and the president writing the education bill together. look at where that got him. kennedy has never since spoken a decent word about him. and when i say there is no cutting of education funding, i mean it is called base line budgeting. the dirty little secret is that most all funding increases by percentages every year. when people start screaming about how their funding got cut it means that instead of growing by five percent they are only going to get three. its just a fact, but everyone that depends on tax revenue for funding cries about it. thats how they survive, by their lobbyists.
i will continue later. baby crying
i will continue later. baby crying
M Z- .... and when you talk about draining social security, lets face it. it was a democrat who started it. all we have done is use a policy that FDR instituted. the president has proposed a policy that would allow you to participate or to not participate. if you want to talk about keeping people stupid, know that your party was trying to privatize social security in the ninties. but they probably wont tell you that now that it is not politically convenient for them. they have become the party of obstruction instead of instruction. tell me one single thing a democrat has suggessted on anything within the past year! other that charlie rangle proposing instituting a draft.
truth be known i wouldnt care which party i voted for as long as it was the right candidate. but i cant see myself voting for a party with no ideas.
i know you think of bush as a mad scientist, but if you believe that do you really think there are none on the left? wouldnt there have to be a crackpot zealot from the left wing conspiracy?
i just think a lot more optomistically about people as humans, even if i disagree with them politically. and i do think that liberalism is a mental quagmyre. it does nothing to uplift, just break down. we have a very different viewpoint on how to get to the same place. most people just want to be happy and leave a good future to their family. im sure you feel the same way.
but please dont take what i am saying personally. i am very much enjoying this debate. i find you a worthy opponent.
truth be known i wouldnt care which party i voted for as long as it was the right candidate. but i cant see myself voting for a party with no ideas.
i know you think of bush as a mad scientist, but if you believe that do you really think there are none on the left? wouldnt there have to be a crackpot zealot from the left wing conspiracy?
i just think a lot more optomistically about people as humans, even if i disagree with them politically. and i do think that liberalism is a mental quagmyre. it does nothing to uplift, just break down. we have a very different viewpoint on how to get to the same place. most people just want to be happy and leave a good future to their family. im sure you feel the same way.
but please dont take what i am saying personally. i am very much enjoying this debate. i find you a worthy opponent.
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Dude..
That is offensive! Bush could not handle freshman physics at a large national university. He seems to prefer decisions based upon political policy rather than fact/data/analysis.
As to the mad part...well for centuries, people who talk to God or hear voices in their head have been considered well.....crazy. So maybe you got that part right.
For many who are critical of this administration, it is in part because of a lack of common decency or a respect for national values. He has sought a base of support from the insecure, the fearful, the emotional.....he has wrapped a pig's ear in hypocrisy and patriotism and presented it as a desireable policy.
What could I be talking about? Think Iraq and a lack of connection between al Queda and Saddam or perhaps, Abu Gharib or maybe, Gitmo. In the last two cases, there seems to be ample evidence that we broke international standards of law and decency. Does torture of the imprisioned make any American safer? I fear that we have become the enemy.
jay
Jana..
I am heart broken! I have to read it on the board that you have your own party. Please FedEx membership materials. It is time we had some national sanity.
jig..
Tell us more. As you know ideas are floated, considered, and abandoned as unworkable....or undesireable. If you believe in polls reflecting the viewpoints of the American people, then a super majority supports leaving SS alone.....no private accounts. On the otherhand, if you listen only to the voices in your head, then maybe it is time to up the meds.
jay
Uh, jiggler, perhaps your should re-read my post. Better yet, I will spell out exactly what I was talking about in that post.
There were allegations of wrongdoing against Bill and Hillary Clinton, regarding their involvement in the Whitewater land development. Ken Starr was appointed as WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, tasked with investigating WHITEWATER (This was my reference to alleged crime.) With me so far? Whether or not the Clintons were involved with any wrongdoing in those real estate deals, NO PROSECUTABLE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. Now, what you will have to explain to me at this point is Monica Lewinsky's involvement in Whitewater, and when Ken Starr's appointment as Whitewater Independent Counsel was terminated, and when he was appointed BILL CLINTON'S SEX LIFE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.
When Ken Starr, as Bill Clinton's Sex Life Independent Counsel, asked questions about sexual activities occurring in the White House, (that was the non-crime to which I referred) Bill (stupidly) said "I didn't do it," rather than "none ya damn business." (this is the "became an impeachable offense" to which I referred.)
On the other hand, gw bush has lied under oath TWICE, but no one seems to think a thing about it. In his oath of office, both times, he has sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution of the United States, but he continues to encourage, support and sign into "law" documents which CASTRATE the first 14 amendments to the US Constitution. Should willfully lying during two oaths of office not also be impeachable offenses?
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Okay okay, Jiggler, please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said there were no crackpots on the left, far from it! However, the crackpot on the right now occupies the Whitehouse, which is what makes him a problem. Frankly, I'd be relieved if the "voices in his head" were coming from God or any supreme being, but it seems evident that they're coming from within his vapid, greedy, stupid self. For any concerned, I am trying to be offensive. As in any other time and place in history where a madman has been at the helm, those who see through the charade wish to distance themselves from the offender as strongly as possible, that's where I stand.
The Democrats are certainly not "my party", in truth I'm far more anarchist than that. In our current climate, the nutjobs on the left that identify themselves as Democrats running for the office of the pres have been less dangerous than the nutjobs on the right. They tend to have higher intelligence levels, and I'm not using the governmental definintion of "intelligence" here.
Okay, as for social security, you're damned straight it was started by a dem! As for Clinton's idea for privatisation, Where did he say he would drain the whole fund first them make us start from scratch? Now, I'm getting irate. You purposely miss the point of everything I try to say here, that's not fair fighting, it's too fucking laborious. My bitch is that the fund has been drained for a war the people don't benefit from, MY future was farted away, money I helped contribute, without so much as a "by your leave". I don't give a fuck if it gets privatised or not I WANT MY MONEY BACK! For the record, I'm plenty capable to take care of my own future, but the system that has been in place since I joiined the work force has required me to contribute to that fund, and it was hijacked. THAT'S my complaint, please don't play bait and switch with me.
Oh, and Clinton was NOT impeached, he was just put through the grinder. He lied under oath, yeah ABOUT A BLOW JOB! Horrible, castrate the man! You people are retarded. Seriously. Where he put his dick doesn't interest me in the least. If he tried to save face with his wife, I can understand that. I wouldn't have done it myself because I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks, but I was not in his position. If there was ever a special prosecuter appointed to investigate my bedroom habits, they'd be busy, that's all I'm saying. That has NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that a leader was grilled for months on national television about the vivid details of his sex life. I'm sure you're aware that he's not the first president to have an affair, if you are not aware of that, please read every history book ever written.
If you or anyone else want to follow this moron blindly into whatever he plunges our nation into, I can't stop you, but you have no excuse to come crying "I didn't think he'd go THAT far" when he crosses the boundary of what YOU find unnacceptable, he has already crossed too many of mine.
The Democrats are certainly not "my party", in truth I'm far more anarchist than that. In our current climate, the nutjobs on the left that identify themselves as Democrats running for the office of the pres have been less dangerous than the nutjobs on the right. They tend to have higher intelligence levels, and I'm not using the governmental definintion of "intelligence" here.
Okay, as for social security, you're damned straight it was started by a dem! As for Clinton's idea for privatisation, Where did he say he would drain the whole fund first them make us start from scratch? Now, I'm getting irate. You purposely miss the point of everything I try to say here, that's not fair fighting, it's too fucking laborious. My bitch is that the fund has been drained for a war the people don't benefit from, MY future was farted away, money I helped contribute, without so much as a "by your leave". I don't give a fuck if it gets privatised or not I WANT MY MONEY BACK! For the record, I'm plenty capable to take care of my own future, but the system that has been in place since I joiined the work force has required me to contribute to that fund, and it was hijacked. THAT'S my complaint, please don't play bait and switch with me.
Oh, and Clinton was NOT impeached, he was just put through the grinder. He lied under oath, yeah ABOUT A BLOW JOB! Horrible, castrate the man! You people are retarded. Seriously. Where he put his dick doesn't interest me in the least. If he tried to save face with his wife, I can understand that. I wouldn't have done it myself because I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks, but I was not in his position. If there was ever a special prosecuter appointed to investigate my bedroom habits, they'd be busy, that's all I'm saying. That has NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that a leader was grilled for months on national television about the vivid details of his sex life. I'm sure you're aware that he's not the first president to have an affair, if you are not aware of that, please read every history book ever written.
If you or anyone else want to follow this moron blindly into whatever he plunges our nation into, I can't stop you, but you have no excuse to come crying "I didn't think he'd go THAT far" when he crosses the boundary of what YOU find unnacceptable, he has already crossed too many of mine.
Alright, Madame, now I am confused. I do admit that I did not stay glued to the TV during that entire scandal, but I was under the impression that Mr. Clinton WAS impeached, but there was insufficient evidence against him to remove him from office.
I am still just absolutely furious with Susan McDougal for not suing Ken Starr, the US Senate, and anyone else involved in her (illegal) incarceration. Refusing to testify is not contempt. Even if it is, perhaps she should have used the Ronald Reagan/Oliver North approach to not testifying - just take the witness stand, and repeat over and over, "Sir, I do not remember."
I am still just absolutely furious with Susan McDougal for not suing Ken Starr, the US Senate, and anyone else involved in her (illegal) incarceration. Refusing to testify is not contempt. Even if it is, perhaps she should have used the Ronald Reagan/Oliver North approach to not testifying - just take the witness stand, and repeat over and over, "Sir, I do not remember."
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Ah, perhaps it is I who am confused. I stopped watching the trial long before it was over, I was making an assumption that if he had been impeached he would have been removed from office. I thought they were one and the same, so my apologies.
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Susan McDougal was illegally held a political prisoner for refusing to lie and testify the story that she was given to tell. She tesified all right. But it was not what Star wanted to hear. She was incarerated for not telling information that Star wanted on Clinton. She was incarerated for refusing to implicate Bill Clinton.
Susan was not asked to tell the truth. She was ask to repeat a story that the prosecution wanted told and made up. The only way they would release her is if she was telling to give the testimony that Star wanted.
Political freedom in America died a slow death in a prison in California. It was a trajedy that few Americans really have grasped. In truth, it may be in the end more disastrous to our long term freedom that 9/11. At least we did respond to that even though we have way over done it.
Susan was not asked to tell the truth. She was ask to repeat a story that the prosecution wanted told and made up. The only way they would release her is if she was telling to give the testimony that Star wanted.
Political freedom in America died a slow death in a prison in California. It was a trajedy that few Americans really have grasped. In truth, it may be in the end more disastrous to our long term freedom that 9/11. At least we did respond to that even though we have way over done it.
Similar threads
