Guest JMA Report post Posted June 5, 2003 And please don't deny that Clinton committed perjury. He did, plain and simple. Maybe. But why make such a big deal about Bill getting a BJ? He basically HAD to adress the question. He could choose "no," and lie. Or, he could choose "yes," and have his career ruined by the religious wing of the right. He was screwed either way (no pun intended). Sigh. It's sad that this will be his legacy. If only he had avoided this... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 5, 2003 no, but they used the front of the bogus paula jones trial to go fishing into his personal life. it was a partisan impeachment based not on his policies or fitness to do the job, nor his corruption. it was based on a fishing expedition by the gingrich right to place clinton, the antithesis of the gingrich movement, out of power because the repugs couldnt do it by an election. if you consider what he did as "high crimes and misdemeanors" (based on their evidence, not other evidence such as hillary and bill's funneling thai money, which was impeachable but not under debate), you're delusional and wearing rose colored glasses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Riots bloodlust Report post Posted June 5, 2003 It seems to me that this goes to show what a detriment the Clintons have become on the Democratic party, when any discussion about the party seems to regress to the subject of Bill's transgresions. Rightly or wrongly, he's become the only face that people seem to be able to put on the party. When looking toward the future, and all that comes up is a face from the past, that's a bad sign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 5, 2003 well, we keep reelecting bushes... personally, i'm growing to dislike clinton. he continually pandered to big business and was disgraceful in his embrace of argentina's economic destruction vis a vis the imf and world bank. he did a great job economically, though. overall, he could've been a better president if he had pushed through any of his good ideas (such as health care). however, he'll just be known as a good, if not remarkable, president because of the gingrich revolution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MrRant Report post Posted June 5, 2003 What health care was he pushing? The Canadian system? I honestly don't remember but if it was, given how many deaths there have been in Canada due to SARS.... I don't think so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 5, 2003 naw, it was more a combination of social security expansion and ensuring employers must offer it, iirc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted June 5, 2003 I was under the impression that the reason conservative Republicans hated Clinton was because he was moving the Democratic party to the center (thus, gaining more votes from moderates). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 5, 2003 yeah, that and the fact that he's the epitome of 60's culture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MD2020 Report post Posted June 5, 2003 The irony here is that you are defending Bush, whose cumulative grade average was a 77. Yet you call me dumb? I don't want my President to have a C average in college. Especially when he went to Yale, where you should be smart to get in there in the first place. Oh wait, his Daddy got him in. You know, back in the day--before grade inflation--a C average at Yale actually meant something. So Yale might have let a legacy slip into the school? Horrors. I'm sure that is the first time this has ever happened in the entire history of higher education. And I'm sure that Gore's father, an influential senator (George H.W. Bush, by the way, was on his way to losing an election for US House when George W. got into Yale--he wasn't the household name he would become) had absolutely no impact on Al getting in to school. Especially when you consider that, at one point, Al Gore had worse marks than George ever got in his career. MD2020 =not really a huge Bush supporter, but getting tired of the " OMG Bush is dummm1!1!1" crap. Don't even get me started on the "Bush = Hitler" stuff either. =also stealing Mike's gimmick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis Report post Posted June 5, 2003 And please don't deny that Clinton committed perjury. He did, plain and simple. Maybe. But why make such a big deal about Bill getting a BJ? He basically HAD to adress the question. He could choose "no," and lie. Or, he could choose "yes," and have his career ruined by the religious wing of the right. He was screwed either way (no pun intended). Sigh. It's sad that this will be his legacy. If only he had avoided this... I don't care that he got a bj. In fact, I don't know why his standards were/are so low. He could have had any woman he wanted. I care that he lied under oath to a federal grand jury. if you consider what he did as "high crimes and misdemeanors" (based on their evidence, not other evidence such as hillary and bill's funneling thai money, which was impeachable but not under debate) This works against you. If Repubs were fishing, why not use clearer-cut shit like that or all Bill's doings w/ the Chinese? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted June 5, 2003 Back on track. In 2004, when I go to vote. All I simply have to ask myself is, is America in better shape overall, then it was in 2000. Almost halfway through 2003 I'd have to answer NO. A lot can change in a year though. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 5, 2003 This works against you. If Repubs were fishing, why not use clearer-cut shit like that or all Bill's doings w/ the Chinese? for the record, it doesn't work against me. i threw it out there because it's the truth, and i despise the clintons' pandering to big business, ala bush. they didn't pursue this because the repugs made a deal with dems when they sought to indict the koch brothers and triad, who were vicious and deplorable polluters (not to mention huge contributers to the repug coffers). in exchange for letting the brothers koch go, clinton's indonesia contacts went bye bye. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted June 5, 2003 Dumb Bush. A guy quoting "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" calls the President dumb. Irony, thy name is Mole. -=Mike Have you even watched the show before? Buffy is one of the greatest shows on television, with great writing, great acting and great storytelling. The irony here is that you are defending Bush, whose cumulative grade average was a 77. Yet you call me dumb? I don't want my President to have a C average in college. Especially when he went to Yale, where you should be smart to get in there in the first place. Oh wait, his Daddy got him in. Okay, -=Mike. Yes, I have seen that show and your description only further shows how much the term "great" has been bastardized over the years. Keep insulting Bush's intellect. He's a Harvard Business grad who happens to be President. You're an anonymous kid on a message board. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 5, 2003 and he still has problems processing the english language. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted June 7, 2003 and he still has problems processing the english language. I didn't want to bring up Mole's problems in that area. Trying to be nice. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted June 7, 2003 and he still has problems processing the english language. "English" is capitalized. Conjunctions cannot begin a sentence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted June 7, 2003 Conjunctions cannot begin a sentence. False. There is nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with "And" or "But." Way back in the day, when Fowler (no relation) and friends had a stranglehold on the language, it was frowned upon, and many of us were probably taught in school that it's "wrong." There is, however, nothing at all wrong with it. And I think Tyler's lack of capitalization is due to arm surgery. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 7, 2003 and he still has problems processing the english language. I didn't want to bring up Mole's problems in that area. Trying to be nice. -=Mike actually, that was a pretty good comeback Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted June 7, 2003 Conjunctions cannot begin a sentence. False. There is nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with "And" or "But." Way back in the day, when Fowler (no relation) and friends had a stranglehold on the language, it was frowned upon, and many of us were probably taught in school that it's "wrong." There is, however, nothing at all wrong with it. And I think Tyler's lack of capitalization is due to arm surgery. Count as me as mistaught. They always made me change "But" to "However" at the beginning of a sentence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 7, 2003 ...as did most teachers. however, the statement in itself was, in fact, a continuation of mike's comment and also falls under the lax rules of conversational english. tom was right, though; i'm not using capital letters because my elbow surgery makes typing take forever anyway, even sans capitalization. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted June 11, 2003 Whoever said that Bush has a high ranking, this is a poll from AOL. How credible is Bush? 46% Not at all 69,423 39% Very 58,992 15% Somewhat 22,644 Total votes: 151,059 hmm... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney Report post Posted June 11, 2003 Online polls are worthless due to preselection. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 11, 2003 Of course, polling in itself is fairly useless, internet or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted June 11, 2003 Whoever said that Bush has a high ranking, this is a poll from AOL. How credible is Bush? 46% Not at all 69,423 39% Very 58,992 15% Somewhat 22,644 Total votes: 151,059 hmm... In a poll of chimps, Kerry wins the 2004 run by a huge margin. Shockingly, this is MORE relevant than the poll you mention. -=Mike --- remember, you can't spell intellect without "AOL" --- oh, wait, you can. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DARRYLXWF Report post Posted June 12, 2003 Whoever said that Bush has a high ranking, this is a poll from AOL. How credible is Bush? 46% Not at all 69,423 39% Very 58,992 15% Somewhat 22,644 Total votes: 151,059 hmm... Does the 151, 059 votes in that poll represent all of America? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted June 12, 2003 The only thing more irrelevant than an online poll is an online petition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ripper Report post Posted June 12, 2003 I don't know, online boycott's are up there too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted June 12, 2003 Do the 1,000-ish polled for presidential approval ratings represent the whole of America, Darryl? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted June 12, 2003 As for who the Dems will make candidate, I say Gephardt will probably win the nomination. He has Iowa locked up, he has the unions, and is verryyyyyyyy close to locking up the Black vote. As for who will actually win the presidency, I dunno. There's a lot of mudslinging and shooting one's self in the foot that hasn't been done Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted June 12, 2003 Whoever said that Bush has a high ranking, this is a poll from AOL. How credible is Bush? 46% Not at all 69,423 39% Very 58,992 15% Somewhat 22,644 Total votes: 151,059 hmm... Oh fuck- Bush is so screwed now. I can see it now- GORGE W. BUSH IS ST000PID IM GOING TO VOTE NOT AT ALL ROFLAMO! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
