T1B

I never said that Clinton was an innocent party. But there's certainly nothing to suggest that an affair between them ever would have happened had she not exposed her thong to him first.

It's certainly no secret that Clinton's a skirt-chaser, but that doesn't mean that he's chased every skirt that has ever come into contact with him.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:It's certainly no secret that Clinton's a skirt-chaser, but that doesn't mean that he's chased every skirt that has ever come into contact with him.

Slacker.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Clinton was a scumbag who preyed upon a starry-eyed intern, . . .

By her own statements, she was the aggressor, at least initially.

Sorry, but no one with a functioning synapse who isn't also taken in by the alleged "Clinton mystique" is buying that load of horseshit.

Sorry, but no one who is familiar with her history doesn't buy the story. She already had a track record, and did something very similar with a professor at Lewis & Clark College, and leaked out info to promote her agenda. She was bound and determined to achieve notoriety through chasing married men of power. This is fact.

Dinsdale wrote:Sorry, but no one who is familiar with her history doesn't buy the story. She already had a track record, and did something very similar with a professor at Lewis & Clark College, and leaked out info to promote her agenda. She was bound and determined to achieve notoriety through chasing married men of power. This is fact.

Right. A 21-year-old intern somehow outsmarted the President of the United States, who happened to be an Oxford-educated lawyer and former state governor. She managed to use her crafty wiles to force him into committing adultery.

Christ, give it a rest. Clinton had the morals of an alley cat and fully jumped into a sexual relationship with a girl less than half his age. The fact that she had psychological issues that attracted her to much older, powerful men doesn't excuse the fact that the much older, much wiser, much more educated, more "life-experienced" Bill Clinton willingly/willfully abused his position as the "leader of the free world" to make her his private cum-dumpster and vaginal humidor. Trying to portray her as an "equal partner" in the sordid affair is laughable. The girl had issues and Clinton knew better. Clinton apologists make themselves look frigging pathetic each and every time they try to place the blame on Lewinsky for Clinton's adultery.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Clinton apologists make themselves look frigging pathetic each and every time they try to place the blame on Lewinsky for Clinton's adultery.

What is pathetic is watching yet another thread about the larceny of the Bush Administration devolve into yet another debate on the morals of Bill Clinton.

BSmack wrote: What is pathetic is watching yet another thread about the larceny of the Bush Administration devolve into yet another debate on the morals of Bill Clinton.

Werd.


And I guess I'll make note that any mention of That Woman can turn MtLR into a simpering retard.

I'm making no excuses for Clinton's behavior(although his consentual sexual escapades are none of my business, nor are they yours), and I'm certainly not a "Clinton apologist," nor did I make Bubba out to be some innocent victim of Lewinsky's master-plan...


I was merely stating facts.


Oh, and btw-dude hasn't been president for 6.5 years. We've got a new, much bigger problem to bitch about -- I guess someone missed a memo.

BSmack wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Clinton apologists make themselves look frigging pathetic each and every time they try to place the blame on Lewinsky for Clinton's adultery.

What is pathetic is watching yet another thread about the larceny of the Bush Administration devolve into yet another debate on the morals of Bill Clinton.

What is really pathetic is seeing a bunch of Clinton apologists opining about morals and legality.

Irony.

Dinsdale wrote:And I guess I'll make note that any mention of That Woman can turn MtLR into a simpering retard.

"Simpering retard?"

Why, just because I find his personal behavior repulsive and find each and every attempt that Clinton-lovers make for his actions in that situation pathetic and laughable?

Dinsdale wrote:I'm making no excuses for Clinton's behavior

Bullshit. You tried the whole "Lewinsky has a history..." defense. Clinton's alleged negative history in the sexual area exceeds hers, and once you toss in the age/life experience difference and their lopsided "power" in the job situation, there isn't a single credible way to positively spin his behavior or remove ANY blame from him.

Dinsdale wrote:(although his consentual sexual escapades are none of my business, nor are they yours)

I may be in the minority, but I have a serious problem taking a man's oath of office seriously when he can't even handle the "I do" vow. We're not talking about something he did prior to taking office or after he left....he violated his marital oath while a sitting president. Shit, he did it in his office. Not illegal, but it sure as hell makes me think that he's not capable of keeping solemn vows. He was an employee of the citizens of the Republic at the time and committed adultery in the "office" while "on the clock." I'm not saying he should have been impeached and removed from office, but it sure as hell is the business of his employers if he's having adulterous sex with the hired help under him.

Look, I don't obsess on Clinton. I just don't get the undeserved adulation heaped upon him by some folks. In my opinion he's neither one of the best nor the worst presidents. The Lewinsky incident should never have been blown up to the ridiculous extent that the GOP did, but neither should it be waved away as a morally inconsequential act in which she was an at least equal partner. You and Bri think it's ridiculous and knee-jerk that the right-wingers go to the "Lewinsky" card....the problem is: the Clinton-lovers are equally as ridiculous and knee-jerk in insisting on defending him. If it truly didn't matter to you, you'd ignore it. You're as bad as "they" are.

Clinton deserves neither the ridiculously over-the-top venom from conservatives, nor the starry-eyed, behavior-excusing hero-worship from some folks on the left.

By the way - it was a lefty (LTS) who FIRST dropped the BJ reference that got this thing off-track.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I just don't get the undeserved adulation heaped upon him by some folks. In my opinion he's neither one of the best nor the worst presidents.

I think he would have gone down as a very good one, if not for that whole selling us down the river with the NAFTA and WTO bullshit, which was a horrible turning point for this country.


Then again, I'm something of an isolationist, so the whole "free trade, as long as you're a corporate power monger" rubs me the wrong way. The death blow to small business in this country...way to republican it up, Bubba. He set the table for removing wealth from most Americans, and W is finishing his work off for him quite nicely.

And my opinion of the infamous hummer remains the same -- I prefer that the Leader of the Free World, the Man With His Finger On the Button, is getting all the hummers his heart and loins desire. I hope the same holds true for Chimp.

Dunno about anyone else, but I'm able to make much more rational decisions after I've recently recieved a nice slobjob.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I may be in the minority, but I have a serious problem taking a man's oath of office seriously when he can't even handle the "I do" vow. We're not talking about something he did prior to taking office or after he left....he violated his marital oath while a sitting president. Shit, he did it in his office. Not illegal, but it sure as hell makes me think that he's not capable of keeping solemn vows. He was an employee of the citizens of the Republic at the time and committed adultery in the "office" while "on the clock." I'm not saying he should have been impeached and removed from office, but it sure as hell is the business of his employers if he's having adulterous sex with the hired help under him.

Far be it for me to come to the defense of the most corrupt public official since Caligula but...

I agree about taking the marriage vows seriously. It's a sign of what kind of man you are, whether you have a modicum of charater or not. On the other hand, if I woke up one morning and realized I was wed to the Hillabeast, I might be trying to nail every clueless skank in Arkansas too.

Then again, he's still a serial sexual harasser and a rapist. Can't blame Hillary for that shit.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I may be in the minority, but I have a serious problem taking a man's oath of office seriously when he can't even handle the "I do" vow. We're not talking about something he did prior to taking office or after he left....he violated his marital oath while a sitting president.

I have a problem with that. The problem is that there are any of a number of Presidents who had the same problem, yet that issue is never raised as to any of them.

Hell, for that matter, Clinton wasn't the worst offender among Presidents, not by a longshot. JFK's extracurricular shenanigans make Clinton's look strictly minor league by comparison. JFK was carrying on, while President, with both Marilyn Monroe and Judith Exner. That's the rough equivalent of Clinton bumping uglies with both Pamela Anderson and John Gotti's girlfriend, and that wasn't happening.

Getting back to the point, the big problem I have is the undertones of the assault by the right on Clinton at the time were quite clearly, "This has never happened before." Anyone with knowledge of even an iota of American history knows that is pure, unvarnished bullshit. You're not one of the right-wingers out to get him, Mike, but at least on this point, you've unwittingly bought in to at least part of what they were spinning.

Shit, he did it in his office. Not illegal, but it sure as hell makes me think that he's not capable of keeping solemn vows. He was an employee of the citizens of the Republic at the time and committed adultery in the "office" while "on the clock." I'm not saying he should have been impeached and removed from office, but it sure as hell is the business of his employers if he's having adulterous sex with the hired help under him.

Depending on the jurisdiction, adultery can be a crime. It sure as hell is where we live, although as a practical matter, it's rarely if ever prosecuted as a crime.

Having said that, it still falls short of the standard necessary for impeachment. As I read the Constitution's provisions on impeachment, criminal conduct is required for impeachment. However, not just any crime will do. The crime must fall into one of three categories: treason, bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors." It's obviously neither treason nor bribery, and where adultery is criminalized, it is usually a low level misdemeanor, not the type of offense meant by the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language of the Constitution.

Clinton deserves neither the ridiculously over-the-top venom from conservatives, nor the starry-eyed, behavior-excusing hero-worship from some folks on the left.

Agreed that Clinton deserves neither ridiculously over-the-top venom nor hero-worship. That having been said, there are plenty of folks on the left who don't exactly worship Clinton. In fact, many on the left consider him something of a sellout, a disappointment, or both. Let's take a look at some of Clinton's accomplishments as President, shall we?

- NAFTA
- Welfare reform
- Deregulation
- Balanced budget

Not exactly the typical agenda of those on the left, now is it? Throw in the fact that Clinton's appetite for self-destruction cost him significant ability to influence the agenda as opposed to the Republican majority in Congress, and it's not too hard to see why many on the left aren't exactly starry-eyed about Clinton.

Except there's that pesky matter that he didn't commit perjury. Therefore, the "impeachment" was a coup attempt...which is the part of it I have the biggest problem with.

Starr and Co. should be in jail for treason.

mvscal wrote:
He was never tried for perjury, dumbfuck.

Although he did admit to intentionally making false statements in a legal proceeding with the intention to mislead the court (which fits exactly into the definition of perjury, btw) and was disbarred for it.

In other words, he copped a plea rather than go to trial

Am I missing something, or did mvscal just KHOA yet again.

mvscal wrote:Perjury and obstruction of justice were the crimes he was impeached for, you stupid, lying fuck.

mvscal, on his very next post wrote:He was never tried for perjury, dumbfuck.

He was tried for perjury, in the Senate. And acquitted, btw.

mvscal wrote:

Starr and Co. should be in jail for treason.

His investigation resulted in 14 felony convictions including a sitting Governor and an asst. AG and he should be in jail for treason?

I won't go so far as to say Starr should be in jail for treason, but he definitely should have been brought up on disciplinary charges.

A prosecutor (which as IC, is essentially what Starr was) should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Yet Starr continued to represent Brown & Williamson, not to mention colluded with a civil adversary of Clinton.

Except for that pesky matter of his relations with That Woman were completely immaterial to the Paula Jones case...there is that.


Not that I'm defending his actions...just pointing out facts that history seems to want to ignore.

Just so no one gets the wrong impression -- I think every politico in DC should be hung by their gentalia on national television, with both sides represented equally..."equally" as in all of them. I just don't need to lie to make my point.

mvscal wrote:Then there is also the fact that hairsplitting legal technicalities just don't cut it when one is talking about the President of United States.

Again, I'm not defending anyone lying on the stand...


But there's also that pesky bit about the president being essentially immune from prosecution for acts committed while president. All Bubba had to say was "it involved sensitive government issues" and that's the end of it...right or wrong.

Same reason W can't be prosecuted for the crimes he's currently committing(but...Cheney can...you're welcome in advance for the woodrow, Marty).

TLR--
fun trying to reason with the Clintonites ??
I quit years ago.
ABH !!!

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Getting back to the point, the big problem I have is the undertones of the assault by the right on Clinton at the time were quite clearly, "This has never happened before." Anyone with knowledge of even an iota of American history knows that is pure, unvarnished bullshit. You're not one of the right-wingers out to get him, Mike, but at least on this point, you've unwittingly bought in to at least part of what they were spinning.

Nope. I never claimed nor do I believe that "this has never happened before." Just a case of you incorrectly assuming what I think.

JFK was a pig, but he was from a significantly different era with regards to sexual relationships. JFK was an unabashed spoiled scion of a filthy-rich family, a WWII vet, living in an era before women's lib. It doesn't excuse his adultery, but his attitude toward women was hardly unique for his era. The guy hung out with the Rat Pack, none of whom was known as models of monogamy or believers in the equality of women. Clinton, OTOH, claimed to be from the "peace, love, and tie-dyes" crowd and one of those "enlightened" folks who embraced the equality of sexes and races. HIS using a girl less than half his age as a humidor and semen-target is particularly reprehensible because of the hypocrisy.

Clinton was a flat-out hypocrite. Reading the weak attempts of his defenders to explain away his adultery and hypocrisy is as funny as reading the slobbering, apoplectic fits that right-wingers spew at the mention of his or his wife's name.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Great frigging legacy. I've had Clinton-lovers argue that he "had" to say that...'cuz what would I say in his position?!?! My answer: I never would have cheated on my wife. Period. End of discussion.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:JFK was a pig, but he was from a significantly different era with regards to sexual relationships. JFK was an unabashed spoiled scion of a filthy-rich family, a WWII vet, living in an era before women's lib. It doesn't excuse his adultery, but his attitude toward women was hardly unique for his era. The guy hung out with the Rat Pack, none of whom was known as models of monogamy or believers in the equality of women. Clinton, OTOH, claimed to be from the "peace, love, and tie-dyes" crowd and one of those "enlightened" folks who embraced the equality of sexes and races.

Ahhh, but now you've cherry-picked the differences with regards to sexual relationships. JFK lived in an era where "till death do us part" still meant something, and much of the country still had a very Victorian mindset toward sex in general. And while JFK's attitude toward women was hardly unique for the crowd he ran with, his attitude toward marital vows most certainly was unique for its era, at least by the standards of most of society. Clinton, by contrast, came of age in an era where it became almost as easy to end marriages as it was to enter into them, and based on his age, undoubtedly was influenced, at least to some extent, by the "free love" movement of the late 60's.

HIS using a girl less than half his age as a humidor and semen-target is particularly reprehensible because of the hypocrisy.

Clinton was a flat-out hypocrite. Reading the weak attempts of his defenders to explain away his adultery and hypocrisy is as funny as reading the slobbering, apoplectic fits that right-wingers spew at the mention of his or his wife's name.

Like I said earlier, no one on here is defending Clinton's actions or trying to portray him as an innocent, at least not that I've read. And for that matter, I don't even have a problem with you holding Clinton to a higher standard than Monica Lewinsky based on differences between them with respect to age, power and marital status.

But I part company with you when it comes to your characterization of the incident. To imply that Bill Clinton somehow defiled Monica Lewinsky's innocence against her will, or even that Monica Lewinsky was anything less than a fully willing partner in this incident flies in the face of reality. Monica Lewinsky has said as much herself. Hell, she even bragged about her conquest to someone she considered a friend, without which Ken Starr might never have caught wind of it.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:JFK lived in an era where "till death do us part" still meant something, and much of the country still had a very Victorian mindset toward sex in general. And while JFK's attitude toward women was hardly unique for the crowd he ran with, his attitude toward marital vows most certainly was unique for its era, at least by the standards of most of society.

Not by the standards of HIS society. Let's see......his dad Joe had mistresses, his brothers Teddy and Bobby had mistresses, Eisenhower had a mistress during WW II, FDR had a mistress...

Criminy, Truman was pretty much the only guy who took his marriage vows seriously.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Clinton, by contrast, came of age in an era where it became almost as easy to end marriages as it was to enter into them, and based on his age, undoubtedly was influenced, at least to some extent, by the "free love" movement of the late 60's.

The same era that demanded that women be treated as full equal partners in relationships and in society. How does Bill's committing adultery with an intern jibe with the concept of women's lib, treating his wife as a full partner, let alone being a good male role model for his freaking daughter? It's impossible to square his behavior with the "enlightened" view of women he was supposed to hold as a child of the 60's.

He was not unique in being a Presidential cheater. But he supposedly promised to be something different than his predecessors, the first "baby boomer" President, the first to have "come of age" in the 60's. The truth was "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I just don't get the adoration - hell almost, VENERATION - heaped on him.

Not to throw a new twist on the subject(OK, that's a bald-faced lie, but seemed like a good intro)...


While I'll begrudgingly grant your points about honoring vows, even though that vow is between him and his wife, and it's probable that his wife knew of his dallyings...


Since when, exactly, was it the president's, or any other member of the government's job to serve as role models for your children?

Sorry, but that job falls on you, and you alone.

But it's quite indicative of the problems in this country...people seem obsessed with passing-the-buck. They want to regulate the bahavior of every person in this country...except that of themself and their own children.


Freaking ponderous.

The spin people are willing to use to absolve themselves of personal responsibility is amazing. I can't think of a better example than the propaganda spewed forth in the term "defense of marriage."

Huh?

If your marriage needs "defense" from Bill and Ted next door...guess what? Your marriage fucking sucked. And if you focused on YOUR backyard instead of theirs, all these morality issues that "conservatives" and "liberals" spend their time and our Citizen's tax resources to champion would take care of themselves.

It's fucking atrocious to me that so much as one taxpayer dollar has been spent even debating how to control the bahavior of your neighbors doing the consenting-adults thing behind their 4 walls...just atrocious.

Don't like what they're doing? Don't hang out with them. That's your choice, just as what they do with their peepee is theirs. And if you believe that anything that Bill and Ted do in their home will harm your kids...way to be a shitty fucking parent. I guess if you're that much of a miserable failure at it, your only hope is to blame others for your failure.

Fuck it, this thread has already been hijacked a couple of different ways ...

Dins, no worries, we'll just try to enact legislation making it more difficult to get divorced. And we'll call it a "covenant marriage" act.

See, we're going to try to find a way to FORCE people to stay married, even if there is domestic abuse. After all, if you've signed on to our idea of a sacred "covenant marriage," what's a little smacking around by your spouse? It's called tough love. Deal with it and stay married, bitches. You need to be subservient to your husbands, anyway. Haven't you read the Bible?

Sin,

Far too many righteous whack jobs trying to get this ridiculous legal marriage "option" passed into law in Texas and Oklahoma.




RACK that last post, btw. It never ceases to amaze me the number of self-righteous hypocrites willing to have their particular morality shoved down the throats of everyone else, especially when a good majority of them are no doubt turned on by seeing two hot chicks get it on.

'sup this entire fucking board.

Dinsdale wrote:Since when, exactly, was it the president's, or any other member of the government's job to serve as role models for your children?

Sorry, but that job falls on you, and you alone.

Ummm......at no point did I claim that Clinton in specific or the President in general was supposed to be a role model for MY kids. I specifically mentioned that he was a poor role model for HIS daughter.

But, I suppose that actually paying attention to or accurately representing what I said wouldn't have justified your tangent.

To quote you: "Freaking ponderous."

I specifically mentioned that he was a poor role model for HIS daughter.
A big "Amen Brother Lab Rat" from SW FL !
Someday people may learn what Chelsea really thinks about her father's escapades.

Wolfman wrote:I specifically mentioned that he was a poor role model for HIS daughter.
A big "Amen Brother Lab Rat" from SW FL !
Someday people may learn what Chelsea really thinks about her father's escapades.

That...

Oral sex doesn't count.
That young chicks should chase after guys twice thier age.

And from mom, that if hubby is screwing every thing in sight, just stand by your man.


Sounds good to me.

Diogenes wrote:And from mom, that if hubby is screwing every thing in sight, just stand by your man.

I thought she learned that from Tammy Wynette.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Criminy, Truman was pretty much the only guy who took his marriage vows seriously.

Can’t hardly blame him. She was a hottie:

Hi, I'm your UNELECTED president, remember? And I--and I alone, along with Dick and the "neocons"...you know, when I was first (un)elected I asked my dad--seriously--"what's a neocon"..and he shot back "what, or who?"...and I said "what?'...and he said, "Israel"..true story...anyway I, the Deciderator, am BUTTFUCKING this nation in an unprecedented fashion. If you dimwit turd fondlers aren't too busy to notice, I am the most criminal president in history by a country mile...not that I'm really from the country, I'm just a moron...really.

Now get the fuck back on the subject. MY criminality, and all its attendant effects...of course it's still unfolding, and you can't even keep up with it...what with Rupert and our good Christian friends keeping you distracted with new fears and threats. Say, how do like my good pal, Melanie Morgan? Is she a lunatic's lunatic, or what? Dick loves her.

How's my numbers? Better than Olmert's..ha ha....(why am I laughing?)

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Hi, I'm your UNELECTED president, remember?

JFK's dead. Leave him out of this.

Gerald Ford too.

Wolfman wrote:I specifically mentioned that he was a poor role model for HIS daughter.
A big "Amen Brother Lab Rat" from SW FL !
Someday people may learn what Chelsea really thinks about her father's escapades.

She'll think "when Barak motions me over to the Humidor, run for the hills"

PSUFAN wrote:

Wolfman wrote:I specifically mentioned that he was a poor role model for HIS daughter.
A big "Amen Brother Lab Rat" from SW FL !
Someday people may learn what Chelsea really thinks about her father's escapades.

She'll think "when Barak motions me over to the Humidor, run for the hills"

Sadly you have no idea how funny that really is. Let's just say you probably caused Big Owe err "wolfman" some flashbacks.

For the love of humanity Skelly!
Shut it down!?!*@!@!

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=554178

This may be the Crime (among the thousands) that actually lances the proverbial boil.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:http://mathaba.net/news/?x=554178

This may be the Crime (among the thousands) that actually lances the proverbial boil.

I kept following the "Mathaba" links and found one to a steaming pile of horseshit called "The Green Book."

Let's just say that "Mathaba" isn't exactly on my list of objective, trustworthy sources of news and policy advice.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:This may be the Crime (among the thousands) that actually lances the proverbial boil.

By that you mean makes your head explode?

The Unelected Chimp's harboring and shielding of Posada, a flat-out terrorist, is surely the most open, puss-oozing example of the vile cabal's body, as it were. Don't care? Don't believe it? Go ahead and look it up. You'll find all manner of standard news services reporting the facts. As to the virtual disappearing of the story amid the "news" of paint-ball practicing Muslims in New Jersey bent on attacking a U.S. military base (!!!, i.e, total bullshit), well that's pretty standard these days. Rupert likes Posada.

Meanwhile, another day another sordid scandal, this time concerning the Christo/fascist takeover of the U.S. Justice Department. Or what, one hundred and fifty graduates of Pat Robertson's "Academy" installed into the Justice Department doesn't alarm you? Why?

And as for their agenda,
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs. ... /705120704
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/200 ... onica.html

Wake the fuck up!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The Unelected...

A) This is as far as I got.
B) You're still a fucking idiot.

Have a nice day, loser.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Or what, one hundred and fifty graduates of Pat Robertson's "Academy" installed into the Justice Department doesn't alarm you? Why?

Two reasons, and this pretty much is applicable toward anything you've ever posted:

1. You're a fucking nutjob.
2. You have no proof, outside of other psycho losers' blogs and Web sites, posting their "theories." I have proof the that the Sun revolves around the Earth and the sky is really green and the Pope is really Hindu, too. No really, let me link you up to someone who has a Web site that swears its true.

Pretty simple, when it comes to you, dipshit.

No, R-fan, you're simply offering a cheap smear of my observations. If you look it up--on ANY news service you can find--you'll find that indeed, the Monica Goodlings are numerous and proliferating like a virus.

As for other subjects I raise, you are unable to actually refute any of them. What, you don't think Israel is a vile apartheid state? Bet you can't prove it. Bet I can.

Etc.