T1B

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:he is one of those self-appointed "I'm smarter than you" folks who believes himself above us mere mortals.

Projection. I don't know if Clinton types were beating you up in high school, but the chip on your shoulder is all in your head.



... and on your shoulder.

A bit of projection on your own part there - I was actually one of those on the right-hand side of the academic bell curve in high school. Lots of scholarship money, awards, etc. One of the things I couldn't stomach in some of my fellow National Honor Society, accelerated-math-and-science, A-track crowd was the utter and complete arrogance they had with regards to their fellow students. They liked to insulate themselves from those they considered "beneath" them, tried to impart their particular snippets of wisdom via the school newspaper (which they controlled), and made a point of making themselves the beknighted "voice of the students" to administrators. These same kids considered my having non-Honors kids as friends as "slumming."

A lot of these self-important pricks went on to become the insufferable boors we had to listen to at college parties and in the bars. The whole "if people like US were allowed to run the world" idealism was mixed with an almost sneering contempt for the great unwashed who didn't share their (usually leftist) worldviews, familial financial advantages, or education. I saw a ton of that arrogance and hypocrisy in several of my hippy-dippy poli sci major fraternity brothers - otherwise fine folks who couldn't help but look down on those who had a different outlook on life & politics. The phrase 'I don't see how you can think that way' was big in their arguments. It never occurred to them that equally intelligent, well-meaning, and educated folks could be .....[gasp] not liberal.

From what I've heard and read about Clinton and his college buds, he fit right into that stereotype.

Granted, the current administration has the same arrogance, but from a right-wing religious POV, but all I was pointing out is why some folks, my self included, have never bought into the myth of "Wonderful Bill Clinton."

edit: I almost forgot the Clinton-worshippers I dealt with as professors when I was getting my MSEd...these arrogant fuckers actually haughtily would tell us as students that the reason some of us didn't believe we were being "oppressed" was because we had been so brainwashed by the "white heterosexist patriarchal hegemony." In other words, our professors basically told the students that were too stupid to understand that they were oppressed. Typical.

And as for this . . .

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I refuse to believe that a man who mocked the wedding oath he took before friends, family, and God could be taken seriously on any other oath, including that to defend the Constitution.

C'mon, Mike, I know you're smarter than that. One speaks to a man's private life, the other to his public life. Many people are very good at compartmentalizing their lives so that one area does not affect the other.

Btw, you've said on these boards on more than one occasion that Jefferson is your hero. Would you apply the same standard to him? Because he most certainly would fail it, allegedly anyway.

The GED apparently strikes again. There certainly have been rumors that he was. http://www.monticello.org/plantation/he ... ontro.html

Terry in Crapchester wrote:C'mon, Mike, I know you're smarter than that. One speaks to a man's private life, the other to his public life. Many people are very good at compartmentalizing their lives so that one area does not affect the other.

Clinton went on TV and told the people he served that he "did not have sex with that woman."

He lied to the American people. Point blank.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The GED apparently strikes again. There certainly have been rumors that he was. http://www.monticello.org/plantation/he ... ontro.html

mvscal is correct.

In addition, as someone who is well-versed in molecular biology and has read the article that purported to find a Hemings-Jefferson blood tie, I can tell you that the paper did nothing of the sort. All the molecular evidence showed was that someone in Jefferson's male lineage mixed their DNA with Hemings. Even the researchers who allegedly "proved" the Jefferson-Hemings link backpeddled their media claims of a slam-dunk with a brief "it's all circumstantial" letter to Science a few weeks later when other biologists blasted their conclusion-jumping.

Jefferson was flawed, granted, but every single person who whips out the Hemings canard shows me that they bought the iconoclastic media hype and did no reading of the science itself...

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:C'mon, Mike, I know you're smarter than that. One speaks to a man's private life, the other to his public life. Many people are very good at compartmentalizing their lives so that one area does not affect the other.

Clinton went on TV and told the people he served that he "did not have sex with that woman."

He lied to the American people. Point blank.

Yes, he did. But most recent Presidents have done the same thing.

Johnson lied to the American people about Vietnam.

Nixon lied to the American people about Vietnam and Watergate.

Reagan and Bush I lied to the American people about Iran-Contra.

Clinton lied to the American people about his sex life.

Bush II lied to the American people about Iraqi WMD and a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

For my money, Clinton's lie was, far and away, the least serious of these lies.

And btw, Clinton's lie first surfaced in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit. How relevant is a question about a consensual extramarital affair to a sexual harassment lawsuit?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:C'mon, Mike, I know you're smarter than that. One speaks to a man's private life, the other to his public life. Many people are very good at compartmentalizing their lives so that one area does not affect the other.

Clinton went on TV and told the people he served that he "did not have sex with that woman."

He lied to the American people. Point blank.

Yes, he did. But most recent Presidents have done the same thing.

Johnson lied to the American people about Vietnam.

Nixon lied to the American people about Vietnam and Watergate.

Reagan and Bush I lied to the American people about Iran-Contra.

Clinton lied to the American people about his sex life.

Bush II lied to the American people about Iraqi WMD and a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

For my money, Clinton's lie was, far and away, the least serious of these lies.

Nice try dirtbag.


Clinton lied about the most important thing. That is, he lied about doing his fucking job.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:From what I've heard and read about Clinton and his college buds, he fit right into that stereotype.

Interesting.

Since [ZYSDALE] I have regular dealings with one of Bubba's old college buds,[/ZYSDALE], I might have to ask him next time I see him.

Knowing this guy, your statements wouldn't suprise me much, if true.

But, what I do know of these guys -- they stayed awfully busy nailing chicks. I'm guessing Bubba still does, and I KNOW his buddy still does.

Tom In VA wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Clinton went on TV and told the people he served that he "did not have sex with that woman."

He lied to the American people. Point blank.

Yes, he did. But most recent Presidents have done the same thing.

Johnson lied to the American people about Vietnam.

Nixon lied to the American people about Vietnam and Watergate.

Reagan and Bush I lied to the American people about Iran-Contra.

Clinton lied to the American people about his sex life.

Bush II lied to the American people about Iraqi WMD and a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

For my money, Clinton's lie was, far and away, the least serious of these lies.

Nice try dirtbag.


Clinton lied about the most important thing. That is, he lied about doing his fucking job.

How'd he lie about doing his job? In fact, the other lies I catalogued were far more important to the President's job than Clinton's lie was.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:C'mon, Mike, I know you're smarter than that. One speaks to a man's private life, the other to his public life. Many people are very good at compartmentalizing their lives so that one area does not affect the other.

Clinton went on TV and told the people he served that he "did not have sex with that woman."

He lied to the American people. Point blank.

Yes, he did. But most recent Presidents have done the same thing.

Johnson lied to the American people about Vietnam.

Nixon lied to the American people about Vietnam and Watergate.

Reagan and Bush I lied to the American people about Iran-Contra.

Clinton lied to the American people about his sex life.

Bush II lied to the American people about Iraqi WMD and a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

For my money, Clinton's lie was, far and away, the least serious of these lies.

And btw, Clinton's lie first surfaced in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit. How relevant is a question about a consensual extramarital affair to a sexual harassment lawsuit?

My argument was -and still is- that Clinton does not deserve the devotion heaped on him by some folks. He did nothing legendarily positive in his tenure to remotely offset the fact that he was caught committing adultery while in office and lied about it. You can laugh it off if you like, but the fact remains that as sitting president, the man was stupid and selfish enough to prey upon a starry-eyed girl, spunk on her, get caught, and then lie about it.

BTW, nice company you placed Clinton in.

OTOH, I don't believe Clinton deserves the blind venom that others have toward him.

The man was not one of our greatest presidents, nor was he one of our worst. As an individual, his contributions to our nation were negligible (as compared to men who contibuted much prior to or after presidency but didn't do much AS president...).

Terry in Crapchester wrote: How'd he lie about doing his job? In fact, the other lies I catalogued were far more important to the President's job than Clinton's lie was.

So Clinton was telling the truth about Saddam's WMD but Bush was lying ?


Okay, sure Terry, I'm not flexible enough to get my head THAT far up my ass to see things the way you do on this one.

Tom In VA wrote:Clinton lied about the most important thing. That is, he lied about doing his fucking job.

Clarification, please. "Doing his job," as it relates to a Presidency, is very broad (again, pardon the pun). Are you trying to say he was lazy and didn't perform any aspect of what the job requires? Or are you implying that he shirked his most important responsibilities while focusing his energy on secondary matters? Where is the evidence that he lied about any of this? Or is this simply a case of, "Well, his job is to be honest in all matters with the American people, and he lied about having sex with 'that woman,' ergo, he lied about doing his job"?

Smackie Chan wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Clinton lied about the most important thing. That is, he lied about doing his fucking job.

Clarification, please. "Doing his job," as it relates to a Presidency, is very broad (again, pardon the pun). Are you trying to say he was lazy and didn't perform any aspect of what the job requires? Or are you implying that he shirked his most important responsibilities while focusing his energy on secondary matters? Where is the evidence that he lied about any of this? Or is this simply a case of, "Well, his job is to be honest in all matters with the American people, and he lied about having sex with 'that woman,' ergo, he lied about doing his job"?

Aside from the fact his subordinates would have been summarily removed had they in fact, been caught getting hummers from one of their "interns" I really don't give a shit.

If we examine the events leading up to 9-11, Clinton and his Administration were derelict. Not the only administration to be derelict, but ... more derelict than Bush.

If we examine the intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration, the same intelligence that prompted Sen. Kerry to suggest ultimatums and perhaps invasion of Iraq were in order, @98-99 .... Had Clinton been on top of HIS administration ... i.e. doing HIS job ... perhaps that intel would have been confirmed or not then. But something happened to Clinton and the DNC reps in congress between 1998-2003. Suddenly, all the WMD disappeared in their eyes and invading Iraq wasn't necessary.

In 1998-1999 it was.

Either way, Clinton, was ....

1. Distracted .... by the "trappings" of office.
2. Distracted .... by a Republican "coup" ... but the ROPE, was provided by Clinton himself ... i.e. LYING.
3. Lying about Saddam in 1998-1999 or lying about Saddam in 2003.

Nevertheless, his lies were far more egregious than about sex.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:My argument was -and still is- that Clinton does not deserve the devotion heaped on him by some folks.

I agree with that in part -- I don't think Clinton is deserving of a great deal of devotion. Where I disagree with you is that I don't really see anyone heaping it on him. The Right utterly despises him -- all you need to do to see that is look around this board. And many on the Left (of whom Clinton never really was one anyway) consider him a sellout. Many of his most significant legislative accomplishments -- deregulation, welfare reform and deficit reduction -- were hardly hallmarks of the Left's agenda. And many on the Left are disappointed in that Clinton failed to be the sort of visionary they had hoped for.

A comparison with W could be instructive in this regard. Clinton, of course, will get much higher approval ratings than W gets at this point in his Presidency. But in terms of the level of support he gets from those who approve of him, it pales in comparison to what W gets. Most people who approve of W's job performance would walk through fire for him. Clinton, on the other hand, generally gets somewhat begrudging approval from those who approve of him.

He did nothing legendarily positive in his tenure . . .

Agreed.

. . . to remotely offset the fact that he was caught committing adultery while in office and lied about it.

This is where we disagree. Like I said, he certainly wasn't the first President to commit adultery. And he was certainly a minor-leaguer in this regard compared to JFK.

You can laugh it off if you like, but the fact remains that as sitting president, the man was stupid and selfish enough to prey upon a starry-eyed girl, spunk on her, get caught, and then lie about it.

Now you've mischaracterized things just a bit, though. By her own account, Monica Lewinsky was the aggressor, at least initially. And she was a woman, legally anyway, albeit one with a significant age difference from him.

BTW, nice company you placed Clinton in.

Oh, I'm of the opinion that my lifetime has produced one of the most significant, if not the most significant, consecutive periods of unimpressive U.S. Presidents in history. But that being said, who else can I compare him to? That's his peer group, in terms of the office held and the relative time frame in which he held it.

OTOH, I don't believe Clinton deserves the blind venom that others have toward him.

The man was not one of our greatest presidents, nor was he one of our worst. As an individual, his contributions to our nation were negligible (as compared to men who contibuted much prior to or after presidency but didn't do much AS president...).

Agreed. And you make a good point at the end -- there have been many Presidents who probably have made greater contributions after leaving the Presidency than they did while in office. JQ Adams, Taft and Carter (the last outside the public sphere) come quickly to mind in that regard.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:Bubba actually is smarter than just about everyone who's ever posted here

Yeah, but a terrible liar.

Not everyone would agree ...

Bob Kerrey [D-Neb.] wrote:Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good.

If "lying" = "not doing one's job," then all Presidents have failed. Face it, lying is what gets them elected, and it's part and parcel of doing the job once they're in office. We may not like that it's true, but sadly, there's ample evidence to indicate that it is. The issue then becomes how many lies one tells, and how detrimental to the country they are when taken in their totality. And this is subjective, based on one's system of values, party affiliation, and views on what constitutes doing a good job. So weigh the evidence yourselves ...

Bubba's Lies

Chimpy's Lies

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Bush II lied to the American people about Iraqi WMD and a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

The intelligence agencies of the USA told Bush about the WMD's. So did Russia's intels and others. Bush reponded to that info with the action in Iraq. I don't get how that equates to lying.....

Terry and all the Bill Clinton Fan Club

Clinton is a fucking idiot.............

Terry, if you had worked your whole life to be a Justice on the Supreme Court and got caught beating off to Internet Porn in your chambers....

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

If Smackie acheives the position of Secretary of State in the next Clinton Administration and gets caught smoking a blunt with Al Gore......

HE WOULD BE A FUCKING IDIOT.

If BSmack became the DNC Mouthpiece inside the Beltway and was caught high on Sleep medication bumping an 18 Crack Addicted Hooker....

HE WOULD BE A FUCKING IDIOT.

ect. ect.

This guy fucking HANDED the Presidency to the GOP, I have no doubt AlGore would have won the election without any question and crying about results if Bill wasn't such a fucking idiot.
When he was getting a hummer he couldn't have given 2 fucks about being a "Democratic Party guy" "POTUS", "Commander In Chief" or whatever label of responsibility was hung on him.
This is no different than anyone who is a fucking idiot when it comes to positions of authority, you would figure "Mr Rhodes Scholar" had enough cranial capacity to figure that out. Much like the CEO who gets canned for playing Poker on some Interweb Casino Site, Life Fucking sucks when you're A STUPID FUCKING IDIOT.
Like I said before
Comparing Bush's 6+ yrs of Idiocy to Clinton's 8 is great Entertainment.
Carry on making this douchebag look like a modern day hero.

Monica "The Humidor" Lewinski?

There's real genius behind tradeing your credibility as POTUS, your marraige and leadership in your political party you've spent your life attaining for a Cum Soaked Cuban.
Rhodes Scholar.....bwaaaaaaaaaaa

Y2K wrote:Terry and all the Bill Clinton Fan Club

Jeez, reading comprehension much?

I think I wrote earlier . . .

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I agree with that in part -- I don't think Clinton is deserving of a great deal of devotion.

And at another point in the same post, . . .

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:He did nothing legendarily positive in his tenure . . .

Agreed.

And at yet another point, . . .

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Oh, I'm of the opinion that my lifetime has produced one of the most significant, if not the most significant, consecutive periods of unimpressive U.S. Presidents in history.

Now, unless I'm 5 years old or less (I'm not) or I died sometime before January 20, 1993 and then was resurrected sometime after January 20, 2001 (someone call Ripley's!), Clinton would be in that category, now wouldn't he?

Swing and a miss, Jack. Or in your case, at least 3 of them.

Y2K wrote:If Smackie acheives the position of Secretary of State in the next Clinton Administration

You're already conceding the election to Hilary?!? I guess it's true what they say about you. You're not drunk ...

But Sec'y of State wouldn't be a bad gig. I may submit my résumé, just in case.

and gets caught smoking a blunt with Al Gore

Highly unlikely, since he, too, prolly wouldn't inhale. But I could use him to scratch a match on, given his wooden persona.

Smackie Chan wrote: Highly unlikely, since he, too, prolly wouldn't inhale. But I could use him to scratch a match on, given his wooden persona.

I knew Smackie would enjoy that post.
Rack It!


L8