Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Bill Clinton is yesterday's news. His relevancy to the world ended on 9/11. -=Mike when 9/11 happened, i imagined Clinton sitting somewhere saying: *whew* "Thank god it wasn't on my watch." Ummm... lets look at the exact opposite of what you just imagined... Bill Clinton sitting around thinking... "damn! I wish 3000 people would've died on my watch! Thats what every president dreams of!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 23, 2004 I'm actually quite surprised that many of you didnt realize that Clintons statement about "demons" was simply a figure of speech detailing something he's had problems with in the past... Christ people, is this the first time any of you have ever heard something like "my old demons are coming back to haunt me?" Demons = problems... not green devils that bypassed security, entered the oval office and took the place of Clintons advisors Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Bill Clinton is yesterday's news. His relevancy to the world ended on 9/11. -=Mike when 9/11 happened, i imagined Clinton sitting somewhere saying: *whew* "Thank god it wasn't on my watch." Ummm... lets look at the exact opposite of what you just imagined... Bill Clinton sitting around thinking... "damn! I wish 3000 people would've died on my watch! Thats what every president dreams of!" He's bitched that he didn't have a big crisis to rise to. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 You know, I'd rather be known as a President that just lounged about without having to rise up to some challenge that might mean the end of your country, let alone the world... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states Not since Ashcroft restricted Sarcasm's air space and where it was permitted to travel... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states Not since Ashcroft restricted Sarcasm's air space and where it was permitted to travel... I'm just hoping he doesn't think Clinton's bitching was sarcasm. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 I dunno. I'm not really paying attention to the thread. I just liked my one-liner... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states I honestly didn't know it was sarcasm... two days ago I heard some moron on local talk radio blasting Clinton about saying this and said it was another example of Clinton blaming his problems on other things... which made me laugh at just how ridiculous the person sounded Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states Not since Ashcroft restricted Sarcasm's air space and where it was permitted to travel... I'm just hoping he doesn't think Clinton's bitching was sarcasm. -=Mike Was it just plain bitching, or was it simply him stating that he wished he had a challenge to test him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states Not since Ashcroft restricted Sarcasm's air space and where it was permitted to travel... I'm just hoping he doesn't think Clinton's bitching was sarcasm. -=Mike Was it just plain bitching, or was it simply him stating that he wished he had a challenge to test him? There's a difference? You know --- he COULD have decided that terrorism was serious business. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states Not since Ashcroft restricted Sarcasm's air space and where it was permitted to travel... I'm just hoping he doesn't think Clinton's bitching was sarcasm. -=Mike Was it just plain bitching, or was it simply him stating that he wished he had a challenge to test him? There's a difference? You know --- he COULD have decided that terrorism was serious business. -=Mike Ditto for Bush pre 9/11, but we've argued this before And yes there is technically a difference... is there such a thing as thoughtful hindsight to you when it comes to members of the opposite party? George HW Bush stated in interviews after he left office that he would've done a few things differently... but to say that by stating this he was doing nothing but "bitching" is a little ridiculous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Good god, I see sarcasm doesnt really fly well in the states Not since Ashcroft restricted Sarcasm's air space and where it was permitted to travel... I'm just hoping he doesn't think Clinton's bitching was sarcasm. -=Mike Was it just plain bitching, or was it simply him stating that he wished he had a challenge to test him? There's a difference? You know --- he COULD have decided that terrorism was serious business. -=Mike Ditto for Bush pre 9/11, but we've argued this before And yes there is technically a difference... is there such a thing as thoughtful hindsight to you when it comes to members of the opposite party? George HW Bush stated in interviews after he left office that he would've done a few things differently... but to say that by stating this he was doing nothing but "bitching" is a little ridiculous But I can't name a President who was upset that nothing incredibly bad happened during his term. It just SOUNDS bitchy. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 24, 2004 We've all understood that by "Demons", Clinton is using a figure of speech and doesn't mean ACTUAL demons, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 24, 2004 I thought Ken Starr just shaved his horns every morning and Newt put his pitchfork in the linen closet... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SideFXs Report post Posted June 24, 2004 It was exactly because Bill did nothing concerning Al Qaeda, cut the military budget, hogtied the CIA and FBI, and fostered a sloppy INS, that President Bush had a major crisis to deal with, called 9/11. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SideFXs Report post Posted June 24, 2004 And if I hear, one more time, that Clinton balanced the budget, I am going to barf! It was American ingenuity that sparked the computer revolution, fueled by the Republican Congress tax cuts, in the 1994, that provided the economic boom. This is what generated massive Federal Government tax revenues, in the late 1990's and that provided a SURPLUS to balanced the budget. NOT BILL AND HILLARY. It was hard working Americans! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 24, 2004 You're such a partisan, Rob. We going to hook up with Swift Terror and his new pad when I visit Ohio next week?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdwardKnoxII 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5295636/?GT1=3584 Lewinsky feels betrayed by Clinton Former intern disappointed by portrayal of relationship in book LONDON - Monica Lewinsky says she feels betrayed by Bill Clinton’s failure to acknowledge how he destroyed her life in his newly released memoirs. In an interview with British broadcaster ITV to be shown on Friday, the former White House intern best known for her affair with the 42nd U.S. president says she was disappointed at how their relationship is addressed. “I really didn’t expect him to talk in detail about the relationship,” she said, according to a partial transcript of the interview provided by ITV. “But what I was hoping, and did expect was for him to acknowledge and correct the inaccurate and false statements that he, his staff and the (Democratic National Committee) made about me when they were trying to protect the presidency,” she said. In response to Clinton’s recent remark to U.S. news show “60 Minutes” that he had the affair “for the worst possible reason — because I could,” Lewinsky said she “was really upset” when she first heard it. “I have spent the past several years working so hard to just move on, and to try and build a life for myself,” said Lewinsky, 30, who has been a spokeswoman for diet company Jenny Craig and host of the reality TV show “Mr. Personality.” Lewinsky, who told her own account of the affair in the 1999 book “Monica’s Story,” said she reluctantly spoke out about Clinton’s tome “My Life” because he tried to rewrite history. “He says he was proud of the way that he defended the presidency, at my expense,” she said. “In the process he destroyed me, and that was the way he was going to have to do that, to get through impeachment,” Lewinsky added. “I was a young girl and to hear him saying some of the things he was saying today — it’s a shame.” Lewinsky insists during the ITV interview that she had a relationship with Clinton even though he never uses the word in the book, instead opting for “inappropriate encounter” on page 773 of the 957-page autobiography. “This is something that I never wanted to talk about publicly and I know he wished had never become public. But this was a mutual relationship, from the way it started all the way through,” Lewinsky said. Her affair with Clinton while he was in office and his subsequent denials of it led to his impeachment in December 1998 after a lengthy and expensive investigation by independent counsel Ken Starr. Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2004 “I have spent the past several years working so hard to just move on, and to try and build a life for myself,” said Lewinsky, 30, who has been a spokeswoman for diet company Jenny Craig and host of the reality TV show “Mr. Personality.” this was funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2004 While the economy as a whole was propped up by the internet explosion and communcations in general, isn't the government's own bookeeping leading to a surplus as he left office commendable, since the entire government had to actually shut down for a few days in 1994(5) thanks to being so far in the red? Maybe if that were the reason for the government shutdown, it might be. Would you like to continue to pick nits and have me point out that the majority of the economic boom under Clinton happened after the Republican Party assumed a majority in both houses of Congress? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2004 I'm still amazed at the fact Clinton was being tried to be kicked out of office by getting a blowjob by somebody other than his wife. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 25, 2004 I'm still amazed at the fact Clinton was being tried to be kicked out of office by getting a blowjob by somebody other than his wife. But that isn't the case. He lied under oath (you know, perjury) and tried to get others to lie under oath (obstruction of justice). These FELONIES were to be ignored because "It was all about sex"? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 25, 2004 BTW, weren't the Dems ALL IN FAVOR OF booting Bob Packwood out of the Senate for doing EVEN LESS than Clinton did? I guess harassment is a one-way street. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2004 But that isn't the case. He lied under oath (you know, perjury) and tried to get others to lie under oath (obstruction of justice). That's true. He shouldn't have lied under oath or in front of the nation at least. Water Gate, that's a whole different story. He should have just come clean about the affair if he was just going to say he did it anyways later. Clinton: In fact, I did have a sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky. She gave me head. It was good head too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2004 And if I hear, one more time, that Clinton balanced the budget, I am going to barf! It was American ingenuity that sparked the computer revolution, fueled by the Republican Congress tax cuts, in the 1994, that provided the economic boom. Clinton did balance the budget, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Reality check: Republicans didn't take control of Congress until January of 1995, and most of their bills were vetoed by Clinton. Tax policy had no effect on the 1990's economy, one way or the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2004 BTW, weren't the Dems ALL IN FAVOR OF booting Bob Packwood out of the Senate for doing EVEN LESS than Clinton did? You're ignorant of the facts. Packwood is known to have forced himself on many women, Clinton was accused by one person of sexually propositioning her (which she admits he never tried to use his position as governor or to phsically force her to do anything). BIG difference. The Paula Jones lawyers used her case to bring the Lewinski matter into the case's deposition for NO REASON. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2004 Would you like to continue to pick nits and have me point out that the majority of the economic boom under Clinton happened after the Republican Party assumed a majority in both houses of Congress? Since Clinton vetoed most of their bills, they should only get credit for jack shit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 26, 2004 And if I hear, one more time, that Clinton balanced the budget, I am going to barf! It was American ingenuity that sparked the computer revolution, fueled by the Republican Congress tax cuts, in the 1994, that provided the economic boom. Clinton did balance the budget, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Reality check: Republicans didn't take control of Congress until January of 1995, and most of their bills were vetoed by Clinton. Tax policy had no effect on the 1990's economy, one way or the other. Reality check: The budget Clinton proposed BEFORE the budget became balanced had $200M deficits for years and years. Everybody involved has said that the budget was balanced in spite of everything. NOBODY saw it coming before it occurred. You're ignorant of the facts. Packwood is known to have forced himself on many women, Clinton was accused by one person of sexually propositioning her (which she admits he never tried to use his position as governor or to phsically force her to do anything). BIG difference. Kathleen Willey. Juanitta Broaddrick. Paula Jones. Hell, at least Packwood had the decency to not completely BURY them whenever anything came out --- something Clinton did with glee. The Paula Jones lawyers used her case to bring the Lewinski matter into the case's deposition for NO REASON. No, when you're doing a sexual harassment suit, you have to show a history of behavior. This showed a history of behavior. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 27, 2004 And if I hear, one more time, that Clinton balanced the budget, I am going to barf! It was American ingenuity that sparked the computer revolution, fueled by the Republican Congress tax cuts, in the 1994, that provided the economic boom. Clinton did balance the budget, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Reality check: Republicans didn't take control of Congress until January of 1995, and most of their bills were vetoed by Clinton. Tax policy had no effect on the 1990's economy, one way or the other. Reality check: The budget Clinton proposed BEFORE the budget became balanced had $200M deficits for years and years. Everybody involved has said that the budget was balanced in spite of everything. NOBODY saw it coming before it occurred. WRONG WRONG WRONG. You've managed to confuse actual proposed budgets with OMB projections. Congratulations. The president only proposes budgets one year at a time, and those OMB projections (including the deficits) were educated guesses that proved to be wrong. I'll admit though, although the majority of Republican proposals were vetoes by the president, they did put the necessary pressure on him to make additional cuts in the federal budget. The Republicans also proposed (in the "Contract With America") tax cuts and military spending increases that would've made balancing the budget impossible, and attempted to pass them into law. If Clinton hadn't vetoed them, the budget might not have ever been balanced. Packwood is known to have forced himself on many women, Clinton was accused by one person of sexually propositioning her (which she admits he never tried to use his position as governor or to phsically force her to do anything). BIG difference. Kathleen Willey. Juanitta Broaddrick. Paula Jones. Hell, at least Packwood had the decency to not completely BURY them whenever anything came out --- something Clinton did with glee. I guess anytime someone makes an accusation against Clinton, that automatically makes it true? (I forgot about the other two accusers, although my understanding was that their allegations were later proven to be unfounded.) Didn't Packwood confess? That would also make a difference in how believable his accusers are. I hope you weren't trying to imply that the treatment of Packwood (censure by the Senate and forced resignation) was a politically motivated attack by the Democrats, since he usually voted with them (Packwood was a liberal). The Paula Jones lawyers used her case to bring the Lewinski matter into the case's deposition for NO REASON. No, when you're doing a sexual harassment suit, you have to show a history of behavior. This showed a history of behavior. History of what behavior? Lewinski NEVER accused Clinton of sexually harrassing her. THEREFORE this has nothing to do with the case. The lawyers should've dropped the Lewinski questions once she told them this. Why didn't they? Because they were more interested in attacking Clinton than getting to the truth. If I hired lawyers to sue someone for harrassing me, but they spend 99% of the time during the deposition of that person asking about an affair that both parties denied, I'd fire those fucking lawyers, because that doesn't serve my interests. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
