What was so bad about Bill Clinton again?

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:28 pm

Look, if it's a softball question, then you should have put down an answer. If you don't have an answer, then don't be a smart-ass.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:41 pm

I got one from horrendously biased Bush Lies

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)

As a reward, I would like a copy of Sid Mier's Civilization III: Complete Edition. I'm still playing the Vanilla Civ III my wife got me in China. It's fun and all but I'm sick of playing as "Emporer Li Shi Min" of the Chinese. I want my Chairman Mao damn it.

Edit #3: I should mention that I do not think Bush is a liar. I do however think that he seems to find whatever info he can to prove his point, then he hammers it home. So it's not lying per se... just really irresponsible statement saying with crap sources. I wrote better papers my freshman year in college and I went to state school.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:46 pm

You wound me Lee. When have I ever been a smart-ass?

The cost of the prescription drug entitlement. Support for the Federal Marriage Amendment as anything other than a campaign ploy to energize Christian fundamentalist voters. An administration that would crack down on illegal immigration. Ten million registered voters in Afghanistan.

A vice presidential nominee who would get us excited.

I'm sure others more inclined to do so than I will be happy to have at your softball. Don't worry. Triggercut and Enough are .400 hitters.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:05 pm

OK, then. If Bush's lies, then, are so obvious, take a critical look at Clinton. It's not difficult to compare and contrast the two.

THAT is why I'm not nostalgic for Clinton.

And SuperHiro, all I have to offer you is a photocopy of My Ass. It's been called "An Ass of Epic Proportions" by Time Magazine, so it's got that going for it.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:09 pm

A person who presided over one of the best economic times of this nation to a person who declared war against a megalomaniac with no power to fuel his ambitions.

hm.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:11 pm

The key word is "presided." That's all he did.

Look, which policies of Clinton gave us such a great economy? What did he do? He was the BENEFICIARY of the good economy. If GWB would be under the same economy, I highly doubt any one of you would give a rat's ass about him.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:15 pm

Eel Snave wrote:The key word is "presided." That's all he did.

Hoover only presided over the Depression. Yet, he's still largely panned because of it.

I don't believe that Clinton only presided over the good times. It was going to happen, regardless, but I think that he made it better and last longer. That's just my gut feeling. But, how different is that from feeling safer because Saddam is out of power while Osama is still out there? Issues dont' matter. It's all about the blowjobs.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:18 pm

And I'm going to use an analogy that I've whipped out somewhat frequently about Iraq.

Excuse me while I whip this thing out.

*Ahem

Let us consider World War II. Adolf Hitler rises to power. What if the United States had said, "Damn, this guy is no good. Let's get rid of him ASAP." They catch him at the beginning of his purges and before he can whip up his war machine.

Can you imagine the outcry?

"He didn't do anything!" "He was defenseless!" "You're attacking someone who didn't have the power to do anything against you!"

But what would it have averted? Millions of lives lost, countless dollars of expense and much needless destruction. Now, of course, hindsight is 20/20, but wouldn't we have loved to avoid WW2? The dropping of the first A-Bomb, not to mention all those crappy movies from the early 40's?

Look. Hussein was a bad guy. End of story. If he would have had the power to kick our ass, he would have done it. So why wait until he has the power to kick our ass? What do police officers do when someone is acting like they have a gun? Do they say, "Ah, he doesn't have one. Let's wait until he can get it out before we do anything." Of course not! They pounce on him right away! And if he doesn't have a gun, do they go, "Oh, sorry dude." They say, "Don't act like you have a gun, then!" and they lock him up.

Sorry. I've taken this off topic. It just really cheeses me off when people say that stuff.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:24 pm

I don't know. Saddam invaded Kuwait and was defeated. Hitler rolled into Poland and kept on going. Saddam was beaten before he even began. After Poland, Britain did what it could to stop Hitler and it ended up becoming a 7 year war.

My point: Saddam Hussein was no Adolph Hitler. Saddam was beaten already. China, as big as it is, with as many people as it has couldn't beat the USA's ass right now. You somehow think Saddam could?

You also have to consider, would the USA still be a Superpower if not for WWII? How much does that matter to you as an American?

The world changed after WWII. Some for the worse and some for the better.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:03 pm

Dirt wrote:Like his coke habit and whether he's lying to the American people when he (or his people) denies it.

Put him under oath in a civil suit and we'll find out.

I don't consider reporters rumor-mongering to rise quite to the level of perjury in a court of law.

That, and the coke matter is still a he said/no response. It's not even a he said/she said yet, let alone a documented case of lying under oath in a court of law.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:13 pm

Eel Snave wrote: If he would have had the power to kick our ass, he would have done it. So why wait until he has the power to kick our ass?

He DID have the power to kick our ass. You are forgetting about his oil, and his designs on the oil of his neighbors. We took him out to ensure the continued flow of cheap oil.

OK, so it didn't work out that way. But we won't leave until that objective is sewed up.

is_dead · Post by **is_dead** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:15 pm

oh by the way Clinton NEVER LIED. The jury found his description of blowjob "not sexual relations" as "legally accurate". Republicans have gotten away with a hell of a lot more "legally correct" improprieties. So there.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:10 am

is_dead wrote:oh by the way Clinton NEVER LIED. The jury found his description of blowjob "not sexual relations" as "legally accurate". Republicans have gotten away with a hell of a lot more "legally correct" improprieties. So there.

Sadly, the judge did not. And the issue of his perjury and obstruction of justice and witness tampering was an issue separate from the sexual harassment suit. Why would the jury in the Paula Jones case (which the jury never ruled on, no? I thought they ended up settling out of court) deal with the perjury charge, when he was never formally charged with perjury?

Would that have been something that this jury would decide anyway? Mr.Fed?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:12 am

Ironrod wrote:OK, so it didn't work out that way. But we won't leave until that objective is sewed up.

I did hear today that the expectation is for oil to fall below $40 a barrel by the end of next year. I'll believe it when I see it, but that's the expectation.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:44 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
is_dead wrote:oh by the way Clinton NEVER LIED. The jury found his description of blowjob "not sexual relations" as "legally accurate". Republicans have gotten away with a hell of a lot more "legally correct" improprieties. So there.
Sadly, the judge did not. And the issue of his perjury and obstruction of justice and witness tampering was an issue separate from the sexual harassment suit. Why would the jury in the Paula Jones case (which the jury never ruled on, no? I thought they ended up settling out of court) deal with the perjury charge, when he was never formally charged with perjury?

Would that have been something that this jury would decide anyway? Mr.Fed?

First, "I feel your pain" was a lie. There are many others.

Second, Jones v. Clinton didn't make it before a jury. It was dismissed for being factually and legally insufficient as a matter of law. ("Summary judgment.") Lest anyone say that was a vindication of Clinton, it was legally but it wasn't morally. Clinton was sued under various federal employment statutes which have precise deadlines and precise pleading requirements. Jones' case under those statutes was dismissed on what Dirty Harry would call a technicality.

Jones also sued for the Arkansas tort of "outrage." This is intentional infliction of emotional distress. The judge ruled that under Arkansas law even if Clinton pulled out his penis and asked her to kiss it (which Jones alleged) that did not rise to the level of an outrage. Intentional infliction of emotional distress in most states requires something worse, so that we don't become a nation of crybabies who sue over hurt feelings. (We have, but that's another story.) An example of "outrage" would be calling parents of a soldier serving in Iraq to tell them that their child had been killed, or mailing white shaving powder to an enemy during an anthrax scare.

Third, the jury is_dead means was the investigating grand jury in the Whitewater probe. That jury was not asked to indict Clinton.

Fourth, yes, the presiding federal judge found Clinton had likely committed prejury before her, and referred Clinton to the Arkansas Bar, who suspended Clinton's law license for obstructing justice (and perjury though they didn't use the term). Mild punishment? Yes, for the most powerful and connected lawyer on earth, much less Arkansas. A lesser lawyer would have been disbarred.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:20 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: I did hear today that the expectation is for oil to fall below $40 a barrel by the end of next year. I'll believe it when I see it, but that's the expectation.

I had wrongly predicted $35 by election day. I think a speculative bubble got out of control when supplies unexpectedly constricted. I still think that $35-40 will become the new stable range over the near term. However, I am more attuned than I was to noxiousdog's point of view -- the market is tighter than I thought, and we're going to see fairly frequent spikes when something perturbs supply. (edit) Remember, I'm an expert.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:34 pm

And what of China coming on line and her need for petrol?

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:42 pm

LordMortis wrote:And what of China coming on line and her need for petrol?

Attack!

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:42 pm

I have already dismissed China. They recently raised interest rates to slow their economic expansion, and they are pushing ahead aggressively with alternative energy projects. Their petroleum age will be remarkably short. (edit) Remember, I'm an expert.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:51 pm

At this point my fear for China would not be the lack of alternate energy, so much as their need for all things petrol based. Plastics, etc...

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm

Lack of women will be a much bigger problem than lack of petroleum. Prostitution is going to be a huge issue.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:05 pm

Dirt wrote:Prostitution is going to be a huge issue.

With that, Dirt moved to China.

The End.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Eel Snave wrote:
Dirt wrote:Prostitution is going to be a huge issue.
With that, Dirt moved to China.

The End.

I don't get it.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:08 pm

Here is the district court's sj order in Jones v. Clinton, if you want it from the horse's mouth.