The Players Corner Archive

The guys steals 48m dollars from the government, then has his wife give you a million bucks to pardon him, you do, and hurt your reputation in the process? Who'd have thought!? I'm shaking my head in disgust.

Sonic

[This message has been edited by Alfador (edited 03-31-2002).] reg

Go figure he figured a way to make the people happy and get a little something something for himself for the future.

Lord Deprav reg

Sonic reg

We let him get away with a lot because he's a charismatic speaker, and appeared to give the average American what they thought they were looking for. I was surprised that after Whitewater and his near-impeachment that he didn't learn when enough is enough.

I forgot and am short on time today. Where did the million ostensibly go?

Aerienne reg

Everyone thinks he was a horrible president. I am not saying he did everything right, but in my eyes he was decent. Afterall, he did go two terms in office. So if he was messing up that bad why did we the people vote him in for a second term?

Oh and the whole money embezzment blah blah blah...The majority of business embezzle money in some way shape or form. I know this from expierence. So he was in a business and embezzled money. Somewhere along the line you purchased an object and the owner embezzled money. Its not like its that big of a thing. People do it daily. If anything pisses me off, it was Bush's great f'en tax return. Now that if anything Alfador should make you mad. That money came straight from social security. I know you are a younger individual, so this most likely effects you unless you are a government employee. To take money that I "must pay" to the government that is promised to come back to me makes me extremely mad when they just ditch it away.

I was kidding about that Clinton getting a little something. But hey if the guy is smart enough to do it, and not get "caught" which we all know he did by the people but yet didn't get in trouble for it, then he is a much more intelligent man than I am and he conned me pretty decently. And the sad thing is....it all worked.

Lord Deprav reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerienne:
The crap Clinton pulled was an amazing study into the psyche of the average American. What and how much are we willing to put up with before we will put out foot down...

We let him get away with a lot because he's a charismatic speaker, and appeared to give the average American what they thought they were looking for. I was surprised that after Whitewater and his near-impeachment that he didn't learn when enough is enough.

I forgot and am short on time today. Where did the million ostensibly go?

Aerienne

---

Can I quote this in the future? Very tactful.

Sonic reg

As Aerienne so elloquently put it:
"We let him get away with a lot because he's a charismatic speaker, and appeared to give the average American what they thought they were looking for. I was surprised that after Whitewater and his near-impeachment that he didn't learn when enough is enough."

That's as good of an answer as there is.

<<Oh and the whole money embezzment blah blah blah...The majority of business embezzle
money in some way shape or form. I know this from expierence. So he was in a business
and embezzled money. Somewhere along the line you purchased an object and the owner embezzled money. Its not like its that big of a thing. People do it daily. If anything pisses me off, it was Bush's great f'en tax return. Now that if anything Alfador should make you mad. That money came straight from social security. I know you are a younger individual, so this most likely effects you unless you are a government employee. To take money that I "must pay" to the government that is promised to come back to me makes me extremely mad when they just ditch it away.>>

Blah blah blah? First of all, everyone DOES NOT do it. I never have, I'm willing to be Aerienne never has either. We elect a president to an office who is supposed to be a MORAL person. Not a thief, not a liar, someone who can at least abide by the goddamn laws. I'll tell you one thing, I've never perjured, I've never taken a bribe. I'll be willing to say that most people haven't either. Granted I'm not the greatest speaker the world has ever known. I call it how I see it and I don't pull any punches, it doesn't bother me to step on toes when the toes deserve to be stepped on. But that doesn't mean someone who can should just be excused from literally everything.

And about social security, I take it you don't know very much about the idea behind it. Social security was doomed from the start. It relies on an ever increasing youth base to pay for the ever increasing elder base. This in theory is ok I guess, but not in practice. Unless I end up doing something really stupid, I will be able to retire with 2 retirement plans (neither are that good, but call it safety), so no it doesn't bother me. I'd rather pull the money of social security than defense, thats for sure.

<<I was kidding about that Clinton getting a little something. But hey if the guy is smart enough to do it, and not get "caught" which we all know he did by the people but yet
didn't get in trouble for it, then he is a much more intelligent man than I am and he
conned me pretty decently. And the sad thing is....it all worked.>>

Well consider yourself conned. And it didn't work well at all. He has no reputation as far as anyone with either an unbiased legal or political mind is concerned. I wouldn't elect Clinton, or Gore for that matter, to be my local dog catcher after that 8 year charade.

Not to shoot you down, but your entire argument seems to be just a bunch of "well who cares what he did, it didn't affect me." And that is absurd. The president is supposed to be a leader, not a regular Joe Blow. If we cannot hold the most powerful person in the world to higher standards than the average idiot we are in big trouble. I demand more out of the president than I do my garbage man; I think we all should.

Sonic reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Not to shoot you down, but your entire argument seems to be just a bunch of "well who cares what he did, it didn't affect me." And that is absurd. The president is supposed to be a leader, not a regular Joe Blow. If we cannot hold the most powerful person in the world to higher standards than the average idiot we are in big trouble. I demand more out of the president than I do my garbage man; I think we all should.

Sonic

---

Well, let me know when you find a candidate who can actually *live* up to the standards that you (and everyone else should really) expect. A older person I work with made a statement that rings very true--a truly decent person of morals or ethics will *NOT* run for office in politics. Be it Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Reagan, Nixon--they all had their skeletons in the closet, and while each had their good points, they had their truly awful ones as well. Some Americans benefitted while others got screwed. That's with anything--which is why I really have no faith in politicians, period.

[This message has been edited by Weedmage Princess (edited 04-01-2002).] reg

Sonic reg

He won his first term in office due to Ross Perot. If Perot didn't play the pull out game, and had stayed with his original agenda, he should have won. The second term, Clinton was up against Dole, who, while I liked him, had some issues, the third person voice among them.

The Lewinsky situation was NOT so much focused on the fact that he was unfaithful, although the world is willing to be amused, shocked and titillated if someone's going to offer it up on a silver platter. The true issue in that whole torid spectacle is that he LIED through his teeth at every turn, and kept getting caught at it.

Kennedy was a womanizer, but ya know, I don't really care. At least he tried to be descrete, and that is an issue best kept between a man and his wife. What he was doing was not directly harming the public.

Where I, the American Citizen, find fault with the situation is the fact that Clinton showed clear disrespect of the American legal system and the office of the President with his perjury. Personal moral standards, I can let slide. I don't care if he lies to his buddy about his golf score. I care if the man is lying to the the public as the president. It crushes the American public's trust in out elected officals, a trust level that was already exceedingly low. It gives you the future comparision value that, "Hey, at least he's not as bad as..." This is teaching us to expect less and less from those we should have the highest of expectations.

It is problems like this that turn good people away from politics. It is allowing the bankbooks of special interest groups to feather the nests of Congress that contribute to the problem. It is the American public turning a blind eye to bad dealings that is part of the problem. It is the lowering of expectations that will allow these problems to continue.

Aerienne reg

Sonic reg

You are not upset about the adultery but about the lying about the adultery? reg

Correct, while I'm not thrilled about the adultery that is not my gripe. As you said, I'm upset about the lying while under oath in a court of law. It shows a complete disregard for the judicial system.

Sonic reg

You said something about when you vote someone in, you wanted them to be a trusted president. Well it was your vote and there is nothing out there that says you could not help support your party. Obviously Bush didn't have as good of support for him. (Its undebateable. He lost. Accept it.)

About the embezzlement issue. No it doesn't bother me at all. I am glad your a moral person. I am the same way. But for Gods sake he took millions and yes he did get away with it. Who really gives a damn of how people look at him. For the rest of his life he will be "Mr. President". He may not ever get in to politics again. But he doesn't need too! Plus look...Hilary is! And you cannot take away his intelligence. Once again he took millions. But lets also throw in a few more thoughts. Perhaps me nor you Alfie will ever embezzle money, but if you can seriously say that no other politicians including republicans are not then perhaps you should rethink your vote. A liberal won't sound so bad then.

Also about social security, your right it was a lost cause from the get go. And I am glad to hear you have your funds. I am looking into some right now myself. But thats beside the point. Yah know why? Cause they are still raping us on social security. I don't think you can argue with me on this, and I don't think anyone under the age of 50 can either. It affects us all and who knows when that will run dry. It changes everyday.

And to close my democrative views, I will say that in a sense I don't care who is in presidency. And in a sense I do look at it like it won't affect me as much. No matter what, there will be a politician out there and he will be making bad decisions. Not alot that can be done.

Well I hope if anything you can respect my oppinions, facts, and views. I am taking myself out of this conversation. I am not bright enough to take on every republican view point on this board.

Lord Deprav
Its not ok to kill a baby, but it is ok to kill someone on death row. reg

Lord Deprav reg

Sonic reg

Probably to his little cocaine operation in Mena.

- Pudgee reg

Aerienne reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Just because I don't know, what has been Bush's moral flaws? What about Reagan's? Honestly, none really come to mind when I try to think. Sure, they've screwed up, but I never saw deviant or illegal intentions. Also I think it's kind of funny that Clinton says he wouldn't have pardoned Rich ONLY because it's hurt his image... Real people's person we have here huh?

Sonic

---

Ok, my turn. Bush? Do anything illegal? Let's see, he was caught driving drunk in New England and avoided prosecution by avoiding the state. Illegal? Not strictly. Immoral? Oh yeah. Defying the spirit of the law to save his own butt? Yep. An honest mistake? Not a chance.
Let's talk about his qualifications for holding office. He was on the board of 5 corporations. All 5 failed. He borrowed money to buy into the Rangers and was basically just their cheerleader and face. He gets credit for building the Rangers? What a crock. He had to borrow that money because he was a complete failure at business. How many of us can get someone to loan us 500+ million after driving 5 other companies into bankruptcy?
He becomes governor of Texas on name alone, because conservatives think with their wallets not their brains. He maintains many times that he will not run for President while running for a second term for governor. He lied. Flat out lied. No way out of that.
Let's talk about his choice for advisors. You know, the people who do his thinking for him. Carl Rove: In Enron's back pocket for years. He was in their employ! Karen Hughes: Gee, another Enron bought and paid for conservative. Connie Rice: She has a friggin oil tanker named after her from serving on the board of Chevron. The esteemed Vice President in hiding: oil man his entire life. Lied about his state of residency so he could be on the ticket as Vice President. And there's George Bush himself. Drove an oil company bankrupt in west Texas before trying to run for political office and losing. Can you say oil? Can you say the oil industry owns the White House? Why don't we just rename the White House to Texaco East?
Oh I know, lets talk family values. George Bush and Jeb Bush. Upstanding promoters of family values. Family values will save our children. Family values will return the country to its moral base. Family values, as practiced in the two Bush households, will get you two drunk, illegal ID users in one and a drug-abusing, illegal prescription writer in the other. So much for family values. Well, I suppose we could look at Chelsea Clinton going to Stanford and Oxford as compared to Jenna Bush. Snort. Family values sure worked there. Does it make you wonder who is better at raising a family? It should.
How about Bush saying how he understood the Israeli tanks going in to the West Bank, all the while his ambassador to the U.N. is joining in the security council resolution to condemn it. Can you say mixed signals? Just like Daddy, with his ambassador to Iraq making it clear that we had no problem with their dispute with Kuwait. Then we go to war to fix that little mistake. Now we will probably go back to fix the fix to the mistake. Like father, like son.
Here's another one for you. Do you know why we don't put more pressure on the Saudi's to crack down on terrorism in their own country? Why we don't take a stand against their teaching anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-west doctrine in their public school text books? Oil. Oops. There it is again. Gee, do you think the fact that Bush's entire cadre of advisors have their fortunes tied up in oil has anything to do with it? Where do you suppose the oil tanker named the Condoleeza Rice docks? Saudi oil terminals? Yep.
Ever play poker? Watch Bush close. He has a tell-tale. He chews on the inside of his lip when he's bluffing/lying. It's hilarious to watch. Keep an eye on him. I'm certain he'll break Reagan's record for having the most number of administration members indicted and convicted of crimes. That's right, Reagan far out-distanced Clinton for having criminals in his administration. Did I forget to mention that? That's another and much longer post. Shred some more documents, Ollie! Show Rove and Rice and Hughes how it's done. Have nice day.

reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by OldTimeGS:
Ok, my turn. Bush? Do anything illegal? Let's see, he was caught driving drunk in New England and avoided prosecution by avoiding the state. Illegal? Not strictly. Immoral? Oh yeah. Defying the spirit of the law to save his own butt? Yep. An honest mistake? Not a chance.

---

All valid points EXCEPT for the big part of he wasn't President during these things? How much of my Clinton bashing was outside his presidency? Let's try none ok?

quote:

---

Let's talk about his qualifications for holding office. He was on the board of 5 corporations. All 5 failed. He borrowed money to buy into the Rangers and was basically just their cheerleader and face. He gets credit for building the Rangers? What a crock. He had to borrow that money because he was a complete failure at business. How many of us can get someone to loan us 500+ million after driving 5 other companies into bankruptcy?

---

Honestly, who cares? So what if he got credit for rebuilding the rangers? Certainly not I, and I guarantee certainly not many others. As for bankrupting companies, most government officials on BOTH sides of the line have done this. Want to keep pushing? I'll do some research and smeer this topic with failed democratic ventures... and hell I'll even include some of the democratically lobbied failures if you want.

quote:

---

He becomes governor of Texas on name alone, because conservatives think with their wallets not their brains. He maintains many times that he will not run for President while running for a second term for governor. He lied. Flat out lied. No way out of that.

---

First of all it's pretty ignorant to say that he won on 'name alone.' If you say otherwise I'd like to see your sources. And perhaps he just changed his mind?

quote:

---

Let's talk about his choice for advisors. You know, the people who do his thinking for him. Carl Rove: In Enron's back pocket for years. He was in their employ! Karen Hughes: Gee, another Enron bought and paid for conservative. Connie Rice: She has a friggin oil tanker named after her from serving on the board of Chevron. The esteemed Vice President in hiding: oil man his entire life. Lied about his state of residency so he could be on the ticket as Vice President. And there's George Bush himself. Drove an oil company bankrupt in west Texas before trying to run for political office and losing. Can you say oil? Can you say the oil industry owns the White House? Why don't we just rename the White House to Texaco East?

---

Can you say what does it matter? I don't see any bashing of Whitman, Powell, or Rumsfeld in there. Or wait let me take a guess, he didn't appoint them, they just kind of showed up? Are you going to try to deny that Clinton wasn't sucking the dicks of some groups? I'll tell you one off the bat. The entire 'black civil rights' leadership. You think with all the things Clinton did to hurt blacks that 91% of them wouldn't have voted for them. Well they did. And futhermore, does this matter? The entire attempt at linking Bush to Enron was some lame ass liberal strive at recapturing any of the credibility they have lost. I think it's kind of funny how none of this was an issue until Enron goes belly up. Typical democratic reaction as opposed to a proaction. Spare us the unsubstantiated rhetoric. Kennedy 'supposedly' had close ties to the mob, does that mean anything without further proof? No, not really.

quote:

---

Oh I know, lets talk family values. George Bush and Jeb Bush. Upstanding promoters of family values. Family values will save our children. Family values will return the country to its moral base. Family values, as practiced in the two Bush households, will get you two drunk, illegal ID users in one and a drug-abusing, illegal prescription writer in the other. So much for family values. Well, I suppose we could look at Chelsea Clinton going to Stanford and Oxford as compared to Jenna Bush. Snort. Family values sure worked there. Does it make you wonder who is better at raising a family? It should.

---

Yea, let's DEFINITELY talk family values. You all heard that Bush/intern/cigar story right? You know the one I'm talking about right? We've got Mr. Morality himself over in Harlem... Let's just ask him. Just so you know, 25% of all alcohol in the country is consumed by MINORS. I'd venture to say that at least 95% of the population has drank underage. Most kids have a fake ID. Does that make their parents bad? I don't think so. And even so, if a kid screws up, does that make the parent immoral or valueless? You tell me.

quote:

---

How about Bush saying how he understood the Israeli tanks going in to the West Bank, all the while his ambassador to the U.N. is joining in the security council resolution to condemn it. Can you say mixed signals? Just like Daddy, with his ambassador to Iraq making it clear that we had no problem with their dispute with Kuwait. Then we go to war to fix that little mistake. Now we will probably go back to fix the fix to the mistake. Like father, like son.

---

That's all great, but that doesn't mean anything. We need to goto war again, and mark my word we will. You can thank a lot of the Clinton economical success on the Gulf War. Don't want to? Try doing a bit of research then.

quote:

---

Here's another one for you. Do you know why we don't put more pressure on the Saudi's to crack down on terrorism in their own country? Why we don't take a stand against their teaching anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-west doctrine in their public school text books? Oil. Oops. There it is again. Gee, do you think the fact that Bush's entire cadre of advisors have their fortunes tied up in oil has anything to do with it? Where do you suppose the oil tanker named the Condoleeza Rice docks? Saudi oil terminals? Yep.

---

Do you want to take a guess why the middle east even has a say in anything at all? Perhaps because they have the oil. You act as if it's just some luxury. And no kidding we don't condemn Saudi Arabia, they help us. Do you take shots at someone's doing you a favor? I didn't think so.

quote:

---

Ever play poker? Watch Bush close. He has a tell-tale. He chews on the inside of his lip when he's bluffing/lying. It's hilarious to watch. Keep an eye on him. I'm certain he'll break Reagan's record for having the most number of administration members indicted and convicted of crimes. That's right, Reagan far out-distanced Clinton for having criminals in his administration. Did I forget to mention that? That's another and much longer post. Shred some more documents, Ollie! Show Rove and Rice and Hughes how it's done. Have nice day.

---

Oh, god forbid you mention THE POKER FACE!! And by the way, I'll take that bet and even give you odds.

Sonic reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Correct, while I'm not thrilled about the adultery that is not my gripe. As you said, I'm upset about the lying while under oath in a court of law. It shows a complete disregard for the judicial system.
Sonic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
The president is supposed to be a leader, not a regular Joe Blow. If we cannot hold the most powerful person in the world to higher standards than the average idiot we are in big trouble. I demand more out of the president than I do my garbage man; I think we all should.
Sonic

---

So Bush showing complete disregard for the judicial system by avoiding sentencing for his DUI is different? Both broke the law. Both ignored and abused the judicial system. Are you saying what Bush did before he was president doesn't matter? What side were you on when a special prosecutor was hired to dig into Clinton's past. Before you answer, think about how that answer is going to affect your credibility. I mean that. Think about your opinion of Whitewater and Kenneth Starr and all of the rest. It's sheer hypocrisy to take the moral high ground on one and not the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Honestly, who cares? So what if he got credit for rebuilding the rangers? Certainly not I, and I guarantee certainly not many others. As for bankrupting companies, most government officials on BOTH sides of the line have done this. Want to keep pushing? I'll do some research and smeer this topic with failed democratic ventures... and hell I'll even include some of the democratically lobbied failures if you want.
Sonic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
First of all it's pretty ignorant to say that he won on 'name alone.' If you say otherwise I'd like to see your sources. And perhaps he just changed his mind?
Sonic

---

I live in Texas. I've been here since he was a bankrupt oilman in Midland/Odessa in the 70's. I VOTED then. Before you call someone ignorant, you should look in the mirror. Now that the return insult is out of the way, how is Bush's entire record prior to becoming governor not relevant to his qualifications to be gorvernor? Those were his qualifications. And he won, simply because of his name. I was here for the entire circus. Convervatives ignored the facts and voted for someone simply because of his party affiliation and his name. How ignorant is that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Can you say what does it matter? I don't see any bashing of Whitman, Powell, or Rumsfeld in there. Or wait let me take a guess, he didn't appoint them, they just kind of showed up?
Sonic

---

Ok, let's do Whitman first. She's utterly ignored by the more conservative members of the Bush administration. They've left her out to dry for not being a sycophant of the energy industry. Go re-read the news, seen her name lately? Since she made the conservative anti-environment cranks in Bush's cabinet mad? Nope. She's a pariah in her own party now. And nothing she proposes will ever be approved of by people like Karen Hughes and Carl Rove.

Powell. Seen the news lately? He's calling for Israel to back down a bit, be more conciliatory. What are the rest of Bush's advisors, like Rumsfeld and Rice saying? They are siding with Israel. Just this evening I saw a report about Powell being the lone voice for moderation on the part of Israel in the Bush administration.

Rumsfeld. He's spending a lot of energy trying to correct Bush #1's mistakes. Mistakes he helped to create.

Next.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
The entire attempt at linking Bush to Enron was some lame ass liberal strive at recapturing any of the credibility they have lost. I think it's kind of funny how none of this was an issue until Enron goes belly up. Typical democratic reaction as opposed to a proaction. Spare us the unsubstantiated rhetoric. Kennedy 'supposedly' had close ties to the mob, does that mean anything without further proof? No, not really.
Sonic

---

This was an issue before Enron went belly up. Enron is just a symptom of the bigger pronblem. The energy industry owns Bush's closest advisors. People in Texas were screaming about Bush's ties to oil the entire time he was Governor. I know I was. And I was proclaiming it loudly while he was running for president as well. Again, ignorant conservatives refused to acknowledge truth when voting. This isn't unsubstantiated rhetoric. Fact: Carl Rove was a paid lobbyist for Enron. Look it up, before you make arguments about it. Fact: Karen Hughes was a paid lobbyist for Enron. Fact: Condoleeza Rice was on the board of Chevron and has an oil tanker named after her. Fact: Dick Cheney spent every year he wasn't holding political office working for the oil industry. These people are all of his closest advisors. Every one of them has made their entire non-political incomes from the energy industry. Do you suppose they are going to make one decision which adversely affects that industry? Not a chance. None of this is unsubstantiated rumor. Look it all up. It's all public record. And it should make you squirm. Well it should make anyone who isn't a hypocrite squirm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Yea, let's DEFINITELY talk family values. You all heard that Bush/intern/cigar story right? You know the one I'm talking about right? We've got Mr. Morality himself over in Harlem... Let's just ask him. Just so you know, 25% of all alcohol in the country is consumed by MINORS. I'd venture to say that at least 95% of the population has drank underage. Most kids have a fake ID. Does that make their parents bad? I don't think so. And even so, if a kid screws up, does that make the parent immoral or valueless? You tell me.
Sonic

---

Now who is making up "facts" to support a dubious proposition? Conservatives go on and on about family values. I just think it's hilarious that after questioning the Clinton family values for 8 years, it turns out the child of Clinton, whom you name "Mr. Morality", turned out to be the more moral. Is it due to repression? Just from the evidence of the champions of family values, the Bush's, it seems they're all talk and no results. Are we expected to raise our children like they did theirs? I hope not. We've seen the results. As for most kids having a fake ID and not blaming the parents. This is just another example of conservatives not wanting to take responsibility for their kids. It's the teachers' fault. It's the liberals' fault. It's their peers' fault. No it isn't. Just like when kids shoot up schools, listen to offensive lyrics in songs, smoke, drink and generally misbehave. It's the parents' fault. Just more rank hypocrisy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
That's all great, but that doesn't mean anything. We need to goto war again, and mark my word we will. You can thank a lot of the Clinton economical success on the Gulf War. Don't want to? Try doing a bit of research then.
Sonic

---

We can thank Reagan and Bush for utterly ignoring the concerns of the Palestinians for 12 years. We can thank the current Bush administrations policy of disengagement from the Middle East for the last year. We can thank Daddy and people like Rumsfeld and Powell for screwing it up the first time. We can thank a foreign policy which has ignored Arabs for more than 30 years, since 1967 at least. Did you know that the United States was once seen as a friend to the Arabs? Now we're just seen as another colonial power like all of the rest. Try actually understanding history. And yes, Clinton bears responsibility for some of this, as his administration also virtually ignored the Arabs. And so now we find out that "the West" is being used as a great boogie man by Arab governments to direct their people's attention away from the problems of those Arab governments. But we let it go on. Why? Because as long as this country remains captive to oil, oil companies and oil producing countries, we're going to smile and bend over for those oil producing governments. Oh, and drilling in the ANWR won't make a bit of difference. That has nothing to do with independence from oil, and everything to do with making more money for the oil companies and their Bush cronies. Want independence from foreign oil? Then we need to become independent from oil - all oil. And that will never happen while oil companies are buying politicians from both sides and in virtual control of an entire administration.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Do you want to take a guess why the middle east even has a say in anything at all? Perhaps because they have the oil. You act as if it's just some luxury. And no kidding we don't condemn Saudi Arabia, they help us. Do you take shots at someone's doing you a favor? I didn't think so.
Sonic

---

And there's the problem. Why do you suppose most of the hijackers on Sept. 11th were Saudi? Because the Saudi government actually uses the United States as a scapegoat to point to in order to keep it's dissenter occupied. Which is better for them? Mullahs teaching that the West is evil, or Mullah's teaching that the Saudi government is corrupt. Guess which one the Saudis suppress and which one they've allowed to go on unhindered for years. And the same thing goes on in a lot of other Arab countries. Makes a fertile field from which to get terrorists. Will the U.S. ever push this point with the Saudi's? Not a chance. Not while we're dependent on oil, theirs or ours. So we let our "friends" the Saudi royal family suppress their own people and use the United States as a convenient enemy to point their pissed off populace toward. And before you make some ridiculous statement, go find yourself a textbook from a Saudi public High School. Here's a recently qouted example (and remember, this is in an officially sanctioned goverment text book, in a country where everything is controlled by the government), "Jews and Christians are not to be trusted. They are the enemies of Islam." Yeah, they're our friends.

Really. It doesn't hurt to actually become informed about issues before making judgements about them. Instead of taking everything that you're told by conservative talk radio at face value, make an effort to learn the real facts. The truth might surprise you. And, yes, you're no more likely to get the truth from what you call the "liberal media" either. Learn to think for yourself. Stop letting others do it for you.

[This message has been edited by OldTimeGS (edited 04-02-2002).] reg

quote:

---

o Bush showing complete disregard for the judicial system by avoiding sentencing for his DUI is different? Both broke the law. Both ignored and abused the judicial system. Are you saying what Bush did before he was president doesn't matter? What side were you on when a special prosecutor was hired to dig into Clinton's past. Before you answer, think about how that answer is going to affect your credibility. I mean that. Think about your opinion of Whitewater and Kenneth Starr and all of the rest. It's sheer hypocrisy to take the moral high ground on one and not the other.

---

I never dismissed what Bush did as being ok. I think it was wrong too, HOWEVER, and this is a big however, like I said before, I hold the President to a higher standard than I do the average douchebag. When Bush did that, he was just some regular joe, Clinton on the other hand was President when he was perjurying and taking outright bribes. And honestly I was on Clinton's side before everything hit the fan. My distaste for Clinton really kinda started with the lewinsky ordeal and snowballed from there. I don't hate all democrats nor do I like all repubicans. I have a ton of respect for Georgia Senator Zell Miller, democrat. I think Ted Kennedy has been doing a pretty decent job as well, with education and everything.

quote:

---

Now who is making up "facts" to support a dubious proposition? Conservatives go on and on about family values. I just think it's hilarious that after questioning the Clinton family values for 8 years, it turns out the child of Clinton, whom you name "Mr. Morality", turned out to be the more moral. Is it due to repression?

---

You've yet to establish HOW Clinton is more moral than Bush. Please enlighten me.

By the time we are done, this posts are going to end up being like 10 pages long each. Since this topics is about Clinton's morality, I'd rather not start debating about oil in it. I don't think we're out of moral issues to talk about yet.

Sonic reg

Anyone from the state of NJ is _well_ aware of her many huge errors and her recent loss of prominence in the Republican party.

I was amused that those so willing to trumpet "family values" seem to try to ignore the points brought up repeatedly about the children of President Bush.

I would think one would want to clean their own house before looking to criticize others, but thats me.
reg

Sonic reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Well I'm from NJ. And I'll tell you what, if you are bashing Whitman, I'm willing to bet a lot of money that you don't remember when Florio was in office.

Sonic

---

You were the one who brought up Whitman, not me. As i didnt try to use Florio as an example of a "good" Governor I fail to see why you think I should defend him.

Dont flail about looking for someone else to target, defend your own arguments.

reg

Sonic reg

I've always tried to "do the right thing." I've always gone out of my way to do good deeds, and try to make the world a better place. I've got a Master's degree in teaching, and taught in some of the worst areas in Washington. My brother is a Doctor of Chiropractic, who also tries to do the right thing, help people, etc. My other brother is in jail, and has been on the road to hell since junior high, when he started smoking weed, which lead to him being a drug addict. NOTHING my parents have done has worked to help him, and trust me, they did a LOT. So are my parents immoral and bad because one of us didn't turn out right?

Oh, and yes. I did drink underage. And the only reason I didn't have a fake ID is because I couldn't find someone who looked enough like me to make the attempt. Am I horrible and immoral? Or can that be excused as typical hijinks of someone growing up in a society that makes alcohol the forbidden fruit?

Aerienne reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerienne:
Family values and how children turn out, is an interesting issue. Nature versus Nurture. How much of the way Chelsea turned out is a reaction to the horror and embarrassment she must have felt watching her father go through what he did? How much of it is a reaction to Hillary being a decent Mom? And how much of it is due to dear old Dad? And yes, I think Hillary was a good mom from what I saw on the news.

I've always tried to "do the right thing." I've always gone out of my way to do good deeds, and try to make the world a better place. I've got a Master's degree in teaching, and taught in some of the worst areas in Washington. My brother is a Doctor of Chiropractic, who also tries to do the right thing, help people, etc. My other brother is in jail, and has been on the road to hell since junior high, when he started smoking weed, which lead to him being a drug addict. NOTHING my parents have done has worked to help him, and trust me, they did a LOT. So are my parents immoral and bad because one of us didn't turn out right?

Oh, and yes. I did drink underage. And the only reason I didn't have a fake ID is because I couldn't find someone who looked enough like me to make the attempt. Am I horrible and immoral? Or can that be excused as typical hijinks of someone growing up in a society that makes alcohol the forbidden fruit?

Aerienne

---

I think your post is an excelent example why using planks like "family values" and such are without merit in political campaigns.

It IS difficult to point fingers without nearly everyone finding fault with themselves.

That was the point of my response to you Alfador, that you seem quick to point out the moral failings of one person or group without realizing that in the end all it does is call attention to failings in their opponents as well.

Its like MAD, someting all would be _much_ better off to avoid.

Let ones political career rest on their political accomplishments and those acomplishments alone. reg

Hard liquor I got into exactly for the reason you said - it was the forbidden fruit. Risk, adrenaline rush, the thought of being the "bad girl" once in awhile. Of course getting drunk just made me stupid, and thank god I never got into a car crash as a result of drinking. Lord knows I had plenty of opportunity.

Now, I drink a glass of wine every few weeks with dinner, or an hour before bed just because having a glass of wine in the evening just feels elegant. Note that's ONE glass of wine. Not a bottle

I save the multi-glass episodes for special occasions like weddings, and our first night in our new house, that kind of thing.

But you will never see me falling-down drunk again. I wasn't an alcoholic, I never felt an "urge" to drink. I just did it to be "kewl" and *never* missed it when it wasn't available. But I guess I just grew up and realized that getting drunk ain't all that.

R
reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
You've yet to establish HOW Clinton is more moral than Bush. Please enlighten me.

By the time we are done, this posts are going to end up being like 10 pages long each. Since this topics is about Clinton's morality, I'd rather not start debating about oil in it. I don't think we're out of moral issues to talk about yet.

Sonic

---

I no where claimed that Clinton was more moral than Bush. Clinton is as bad or worse in some areas like credibility and honesty, despite being a better president other areas like foreign and domestic policy. However, Bush (both of them in office actually) claims that his "family values" are more moral than Clinton's, by default "a better parent". And so I pointed out that the results don't fit the claim. In science, when the results don't fit the hypothesis, you don't ignore the results - you change the hypothesis. Do you remember all of the flack that Hilary Clinton took for writing "It Takes a Village" from the "family values" proponents, including by the way Bush? Here's a news flash. the "family values" debate isn't about family values at all. It's about finding ways to impose a religious state, wherein if you aren't a right-wing Christian you're a criminal. Freedom of speech for most of those brainwashed morons means freedom of their speech, not freedom of everyone's speech. So here's my new hypothesis to replace the "famly values" political position of the Bush's: "Family Values" is a buzzword meant to denegrate the morality of the opposition while attracting right-wing Christians to the cause. It has nothing to do with raising children, as can be seen by the differences in the children of the two opposed "leaders". There, now the hypothesis fits the facts.
However in this day and age when it's considered unpatriotic (and so much for free speech) to disparage our president, such things get swept under the carpet in the hopes that they'll go away. Just remember in a couple of years to ask yourself one question "Am I better off than I was 4 years ago?". Have a nice day.

[This message has been edited by OldTimeGS (edited 04-03-2002).] reg

quote:

---

That was the point of my response to you Alfador, that you seem quick to point out the moral failings of one person or group without realizing that in the end all it does is call attention to failings in their opponents as well.

---

All I initially said was that I didn't like the fact that Clinton, who occupied the office of the President at the time, lied under oath and accepted bribes. I never said anything about family values unless it was in response.

quote:

---

I no where claimed that Clinton was moral than Bush. Clinton is as bad or worse in some areas like credibility and honesty, despite being a better president other areas like foreign and domestic policy.

---

I disagree. I think bending over and taking it from everyone is not good foreign policy. Don't forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden and turned him down. Great job there.

quote:

---

Bush (both of them in office actually) however claims that his "family values" are more moral than Clinton's. And so I pointed out that the results don't fit the claim. In science, when the results don't fit the hypothesis, you don't ignore the results - you change the hypothesis.

---

Again, you are wrong. Family values are simply that, VALUES. Does Bush cheat on his wife? If he did and Clinton didn't, I'd buy your agrument. As Aerienne said before, children are seperate and pretty much independent entities with regards to many things. Their actions are not necessarily the direct result of a family's given values. You are kidding yourself if you don't believe this. Also, the FACT I stated about 25% of alcohol is consumed by minors is not just some arbitrary number I made up. And the 95% of people have at least tried drinking while underage is yet another fact.

quote:

---

However in this day and age when it's considered unpatriotic (and so much for free speech) to disparage our president, such things get swept under the carpet in the hopes that they'll go away.

---

Your free speech comment is pretty stupid. You are still FREE to say whatever you want, I'm sure you know that. The voice of dissent is an important thing I think though. There's a reason why the Supreme Court always records the dissenting opinion.

Sonic reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
All I initially said was that I didn't like the fact that Clinton, who occupied the office of the President at the time, lied under oath and accepted bribes. I never said anything about family values unless it was in response.
Sonic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Blah blah blah? First of all, everyone DOES NOT do it. I never have, I'm willing to be Aerienne never has either. We elect a president to an office who is supposed to be a MORAL person. Not a thief, not a liar, someone who can at least abide by the goddamn laws. I'll tell you one thing, I've never perjured, I've never taken a bribe. I'll be willing to say that most people haven't either. Granted I'm not the greatest speaker the world has ever known. I call it how I see it and I don't pull any punches, it doesn't bother me to step on toes when the toes deserve to be stepped on. But that doesn't mean someone who can should just be excused from literally everything.
Sonic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
I disagree. I think bending over and taking it from everyone is not good foreign policy. Don't forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden and turned him down. Great job there.
Sonic

---

Incorrect. Please use facts and not half-truths. After the bombing of the USS Cole, when it became apparent that bin Laden was ultimately responsible, Clinton's national security meetings discussed ways in which they could go after bin Laden. Intelligence was received which indicated that where they thought bin Laden was hiding was being stocked with women and children while bin Laden had fled. It turned out that they hadn't been "offered" bin Laden. They were instead being set up to massacre innocent women and children. After that, bin Laden's location was never firmly established. And it hasn't been since, even with our troops in control of the effing country. Whose foreign policy failure again? Really, you need to qui listening to Rush Limbaugh. Getting your facts from him is like getting your facts from Clinton. Neither one is giving you the truth, but you accept one's blatant lies at face value. How stupid is that? And yes, when you make stupid statements from here on out, I'm going to call you on them. I refrained from insulting you personally initially, you haven't returned the favor (see below as another example of your baseless insults) - so it's open season on morons now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Again, you are wrong. Family values are simply that, VALUES. Does Bush cheat on his wife? If he did and Clinton didn't, I'd buy your agrument. As Aerienne said before, children are seperate and pretty much independent entities with regards to many things. Their actions are not necessarily the direct result of a family's given values. You are kidding yourself if you don't believe this. Also, the FACT I stated about 25% of alcohol is consumed by minors is not just some arbitrary number I made up. And the 95% of people have at least tried drinking while underage is yet another fact.
Sonic

---

If you're going to say I'm wrong, then back it up with facts. Interesting that the numbers you made up become "facts" a day later. Here's your original statement, in case you've forgotten:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Yea, let's DEFINITELY talk family values. You all heard that Bush/intern/cigar story right? You know the one I'm talking about right? We've got Mr. Morality himself over in Harlem... Let's just ask him. Just so you know, 25% of all alcohol in the country is consumed by MINORS. I'd venture to say that at least 95% of the population has drank underage. Most kids have a fake ID. Does that make their parents bad? I don't think so. And even so, if a kid screws up, does that make the parent immoral or valueless? You tell me.
Sonic

---

"I'd venture to say..." is not a statement of fact. It's an opinion. Calling it a fact later to support a dubious hypothesis is absurd. Here are some real facts for you:

"Similarly, drinking among young people in general continues to decline. For example, the proportion of youths aged 12 through 17 who consumed any alcohol within the previous month has dropped from 50% in 1979 down to 19% in 1998, according to the federal government's National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. That's down from one of every two youths to fewer than one of every five."

"The proportion of both junior and senior high school students who have consumed any alcohol during the year has dropped again for the third year in a row, according to the PRIDE Survey, a nation-wide study of 138,079 students, which is designated by federal law as an official measure of substance use by teen-agers in the U.S."

"Within a period of 17 years, there has been a 13% decrease in the proportion of American high school seniors who have ever consumed alcohol and a 24% decrease in the proportion who have ever "binged.""

These real facts can be found at http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/Youth/Youth.html

Now, your "facts" need some substantiation since you've proven yourself to be incorrect on more than one occasion. Let's see your sources, please. Or quit making them up, one or the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Your free speech comment is pretty stupid. You are still FREE to say whatever you want, I'm sure you know that. The voice of dissent is an important thing I think though. There's a reason why the Supreme Court always records the dissenting opinion.
Sonic

---

Again with the insults and again with the inappropriate and incorrect statements. Yes, I am free to say as I wish, but I will be threatened and attacked if I do so. Facts: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated on one occasion when someone criticized Bush openly that Americans "had better watch what they say, watch what they do." This from Bush's spokesman?

Do you need proof that conservatives are attempting to stifle free speech? Ok, here we go. Try to pay attention.

""We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush," he (L. Brent Bozell III, a founder of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group) wrote in a recent fundraising letter." This group admits to smear campaigns against any reporting that it deems "unpatriotic" or "anti-Bush". The source is the Columbia Journalism Review, an independent (non-political) media monitor. They can be found at www.cjr.org

I'll leave you with a quote from the one of the founders of this country. Just for patriotic balance, really.

""People who give up freedom for security neither have nor deserve either." -Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by OldTimeGS (edited 04-03-2002).] reg

http://www.webactive.com/webactive/cspin/cspinarch.html

http://www.bushnews.com/

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.htm

And I highly recommend this site for free-thinkers:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Have a nice day. And remember fascism begins at home. reg

quote:

---

Actually you used the word "moral" first - in caps, by the way, apparently for emphasis. Which is when I got involved.

---

Correct, but morals and family values are not the same thing.

quote:

---

Incorrect. Please use facts and not half-truths. After the bombing of the USS Cole, when it became apparent that bin Laden was ultimately responsible, Clinton's national security meetings discussed ways in which they could go after bin Laden. Intelligence was received which indicated that where they thought bin Laden was hiding was being stocked with women and children while bin Laden had fled. It turned out that they hadn't been "offered" bin Laden. They were instead being set up to massacre innocent women and children. After that, bin Laden's location was never firmly established. And it hasn't been since, even with our troops in control of the effing country. Whose foreign policy failure again?

---

Well, since you are so intent on getting facts right, allow me to help you along. You are right about Clinton not being offered Bin Laden after the bombing of the Cole. He was offered Bin Laden 2 years before the Cole.

"The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries." - http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/terrorists/IHT_sudan.html

Now perhaps we may differ here and is why we are butting heads... I don't care about giving a suspected terrorist a fair trial or due process. I will gladly attack anyone who I THINK poses a real, significant threat. Call me proactive or rash, but if Clinton was like me, I'd still be able to look out my window and see 2 particular sky scrapers.

For the record, I've never even heard Limbaugh.

quote:

---

If you're going to say I'm wrong, then back it up with facts. Interesting that the numbers you made up become "facts" a day later.

---

Actually they were from the 2002 Gallup Poll. I can't get a copy of it since I don't want to pay the 95 bucks to get access to the polls. I'm sure one or two other people out there will admit to having heard about it though.

Also, why do you have such a hard time staying on topic? Like 90% of your was attempting to disprove my facts, however I'm certain if you subscribe the Gallup Polls, you'll see I'm right.

Onto more important things though:

quote:

---

I no where claimed that Clinton was more moral than Bush. Clinton is as bad or worse in some areas like credibility and honesty

---

quote:

---

Really, you need to qui listening to Rush Limbaugh. Getting your facts from
him is like getting your facts from Clinton. Neither one is giving you the truth

---

My SOLE intention for starting this thread was to point out Clinton's amoral nature with a new fact. Apparently Clinton's bigger supporter on the boards has acknowledged this. Mission accomplished.

Sonic

reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
My SOLE intention for starting this thread was to point out Clinton's amoral nature with a new fact. Apparently Clinton's bigger supporter on the boards has acknowledged this. Mission accomplished.

Sonic

---

You wanted to point out Clinton's amoral nature, but you refuse to even consider that Bush might be amoral as well, in a different way. That makes you a cheerleader for Bush. I, on the other hand, don't like Bush or Clinton, and I've said so numerous times in these posts. I got into the discussion to point out that the current president is just as guilty as the last. And as for being the board's biggest Clinton supporter, well. No. But you can dream on.
As for facts. You have no support for your facts, you've been proven wrong with real facts and your only answer is that your "facts" are where you can't get to them. Typical of those who spout off about what they've heard but have never really stopped to try and understand why they believe something. This is like so many conspiracy theories. They are easy to postulate and impossible to disprove. Why? Because the conspiracy conspired to cover it up! Tautology is not logic. Support your facts with proof or quit standing by the statements when they are questioned.
In the meanwhile, I'll continue to monitor your posts for stupidity and comment on them as I see fit. If you wish to avoid this, I'd recommend using facts to support your opinions, and avoid insults and innuendo and obfuscation to cover up your ignorance. Have a nice day. reg

Sonic

[This message has been edited by Alfador (edited 04-03-2002).] reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Well, since you are so intent on getting facts right, allow me to help you along. You are right about Clinton not being offered Bin Laden after the bombing of the Cole. He was offered Bin Laden 2 years before the Cole.

"The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries." - http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/terrorists/IHT_sudan.html

---

Same article, next two paragraphs:

"The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture."
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/terrorists/IHT_sudan.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
Now perhaps we may differ here and is why we are butting heads... I don't care about giving a suspected terrorist a fair trial or due process. I will gladly attack anyone who I THINK poses a real, significant threat. Call me proactive or rash, but if Clinton was like me, I'd still be able to look out my window and see 2 particular sky scrapers.

---

Same article a little bit further down:

""In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."

Three officials in the Clinton administration said they hoped - one described it as "a fantasy" - that the Saudi monarch, King Fahd, would order Mr. bin Laden's swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh."
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/terrorists/IHT_sudan.html

How that was fun. Find something else to qoute out of context or misquote altogether or not even bother to read all of the way through. This could become addicting. Have a nice day.

reg

Sonic reg

quote:

---

This could become addicting.

---

I bet you know all about addiction.

Sonic reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfador:
I bet you know all about addiction.

Sonic

---

And so you've proven yourself to be a liar, a fraud and a congenital moron. Unable to back up your blatant falsehoods, you've degenerated to insults. You may now extend thumb and forefinger at a 90 degree angle and place it in front of your forehead. Thanks for playing. reg

quote:

---

And so you've proven yourself to be a liar, a fraud and a congenital moron. Unable to back up your blatant falsehoods, you've degenerated to insults. You may now extend thumb and forefinger at a 90 degree angle and place it in front of your forehead. Thanks for playing.

---

What does that stand for... liberal?

Sonic reg

But of course everyone knows men are liberal, so you're right Alfiebaby!
reg

Sonic reg

You know - the one that referred to those adorable dimples in your knees?

::swoons::

reg

Sonic reg