We have the distinguished honor of being on the committee to raise five million dollars for a monument of Bill Clinton. We originally wanted to put him on Mt. Rushmore until we discovered there was not enough room for two more faces.
We then decided to erect a statue of Bill Clinton in Washington, DC Hall of Fame. We were in a quandary as to where the statue should be placed. It was not proper to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who never told a lie, or beside Jessie Jackson, who never told the truth, since Bill Clinton could never tell the difference.
We finally decided to place it beside Christopher Columbus, the greatest Democrat of them all. He left not knowing where he was going, did not know where he was, returned not knowing where he had been, and did it all on someone else's money.
If you are one of the fortunate people who have anything left after taxes, we expect a generous contribution to this worthwhile project.
Thank you,
Bill Clinton Monument Committee
PS: The committee has raised over $1.35 so far!
This is in memory of , "The one that knew not the meaning of the word "IT" yet was the most murdering, cheating, rapenest, person to become President."
This really does not say much for our country!!!!!
[ June 13, 2001: Message edited by: Buddy ]
quote:
The one that knew not the meaning of the word "IT" yet was the most murdering, cheating, rapenest, person to become President."
Rapenest? Is that even a word? I think your grammar doesn't say much for our country.
Dear God, the lack of humour here is getting to me now. I am making appalling puns.
Anyway, "murderous"? How on Earth did Clinton become one of the most murderous presidents you're ever had?
Unless he killed them with his rap music, I suppose.
As for murdering and "rapenest" (sounds like a Bushism to me), I hope you got some cites to back that up, Buddy. We don't take kindly to unsubstantiated claims around here. Just look at the treatment Omega's been getting! 
Um, other than him having dying suddenly and forcing the presidency upon Calvin Coolidge, that's all I remember.
Damn! It's so not fair for my memory to be getting this bad at this young an age without me using drugs.
Christ, practically every damned president since... Wilson! has had one affair or another, but do we hear anything about them? Get a life, instead of continually prying into the ones of others.
quote:
As for murdering and "rapenest" (sounds like a Bushism to me), I hope you got some cites to back that up, Buddy
Well, for 'rapenist' we've got Juanita Broaddrick's public accusation, which was generally ignored but substantiated in testimony, Oval Office sexual assault victim Kathleen Willey, and various other underreported incidents.
Try: "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment." by David Schippers, the former Chicago mob-busting attorney selected by House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde to head the Clinton impeachment inquiry. You might learn something.
Arkansas Sudden Death Syndrome
- Number of persons in the Clinton orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 7
- Number known to have been murdered: 2
- Number who died in plane crashes: 11
- Number who died in automobile accidents: 3
- Number killed during Waco massacre: 4
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of medications being taken by Jim McDougal at the time he was placed in solitary confinement shortly before his death: 12
- Number of unexplained deaths: 3
- Total of above deaths: 31
And isn't retaliation for terrorist actions a long-standing American policy?
Oh, right, except when done by Clinton. The Conservatives just can't stand that.
Iraq fires on US and British fighters, and it's okay to bomb Iraq. But terrorists blow up American embassies and actually KILL people, and suddenly it's wrong to retaliate.
Seems to me CIA's at fault here. And, gee, Bush Sr. ran that place, didn't he? Maybe we should call HIM the murderer!
No, no, if I was looking to blame Clinton for the CIA's mistakes, I would have brought up the bombing of the Chinese embassy, now wouldn't I?
There WAS NO INTEL. There was NO evidence AT ALL that that asprin factory was any kind of terrorist center.
Iraq fires on US and British fighters, and it's okay to bomb Iraq. But terrorists blow up American embassies and actually KILL people, and suddenly it's wrong to retaliate.
Retaliation implies force directed at the perpetrators. We're talking about innocent people being killed for the sole reason that Clinton needed a distraction.
And, gee, Bush Sr. ran that place, didn't he?
What, thirty years ago? Hey, let's blame Ford's VP for Gore's fundraising illegalities, while we're at it.
No I don't have to feel so bad disliking the illerate* dumbass shill for the oil buisness presently living in the White House.
* Defined as "marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature."
quote:
Jeff Kardde said... Rapenest? Is that even a word? I think your grammar doesn't say much for our country.
Ahh yea, I was expecting a little more from you over here than that Jeff. Getting desperate to defend Mr. Clinton IMO if your attacking people's grammar and spelling alone..
Republican hipocracy at work. Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. give TERRORISTS weapons (what happened to no negotiating with terrorists, people?) and lie about it, but Bill Clinton gets a blowjob and lies about it, and for some reason the blowjob is made to be much worse.
Oh, please. It is plain and fucking simply hipocracy. Don't even try and say "it's not about the blowjob, it's that he lied under oath!" because that is an outright LIE.
For some fucking reason, Republicans find sex to be a more horrible crime than giving terrorists weapons. Hey, you Republicans wanna be stuck up pricks, fine, it just makes you look really funky when you think giving TERRORISTS weapons is O.K. but getting a B.J. is...
"...HORRIBLE AND WE MUST DRAG HIM THROUGH THE STREETS AND SKIN HIM ALIVE AND CHOP OFF HIS PENIS THE FUCKING DEMOCRAT WHO KICKED US OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE HE WENT ON MTV AND THE KIDS LIKED HIM AND THEY VOTED FOR HIM AND THEY'RE A BUNCH OF STUPID HIPPIE SCUM WHO SMOKE MARIJUANA AND THINK VIETNAM WAS A REALLY BAD IDEA AND THEY DON'T THINK ITS THEIR COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG AND THEY'RE A BUNCH OF UNDEREDUCATED MORON KIDS WHO SHOULD'VE VOTED GEORGE BUSH BACK INTO OFFICE BECAUSE HE KICKED SADDAM'S ASS AND LEFT HIM IN POWER SO HE COULD GET HIS APPROVAL RATINGS BACK UP IN HIS SECOND ELECTION BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND BLAME BILLY FOR BOMBING IRAQ WHENEVER HE DOES BECAUSE HE ISNT A NICE GUY AND WE HATE HIS GODDAMN FUCKING ASS BECAUSE WERE REPUBLICANS AND ALTHOUGH (MOST OF US) ARE FUNDEMENTALISTS WE DON'T MIND BREAKING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WHENEVER *WE* WANT, BUT WE'LL ATTACKING BILLY WHENEVER HE DOES EVEN THOUGH HE'S AN ATHIEST GOD HATING LIBERAL WHO PRETENDS TO BE A BAPTIST AND BLACK BECAUSE WE KNOW HE DOESNT REALLY LIKE JAZZ HES JUST PANDERING TO THOSE SHIFTLESS BLACKS WHO VOTE DEMOCRAT BECAUSE THEYRE TOO STUPID TO VOTE ANYTHING ELSE AND FOR ALL THOSE REASONS AND MORE WE'RE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!"
--Republican "Power" Speech
[ June 17, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Kardde ]
You have no evidence of this. All you have are your desires that it be true, so you can have something to throw back at us when we point out that YOU elected the scummiest scumbag to ever run this country.
Bill Clinton gets a blowjob and lies about it, and for some reason the blowjob is made to be much worse.
Jeff, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you're a total moron. IT IS NOT ABOUT SEX. The fact that he got a blowjob is irrelevant. We care that he BROKE the FRIKIN' LAW. Don't you?
Don't even try and say "it's not about the blowjob, it's that he lied under oath!" because that is an outright LIE.
Oops. Too late.
And this is yet another of your manifold psychological instabilities: you apparently think that you are the absolute arbiter of truth and falsehood in the universe.
For some fucking reason, Republicans find sex to be a more horrible crime than giving terrorists weapons.
A) Not sex. Perjury.
B) For some reason, Democrats apparently don't care about crime except when commited by Republicans. And I would point out that Ollie North DID go to prison for some years for his crimes. Has any legal punishment been inflicted on Bill Clinton for his? And under any circumstances, could Clinton's punishment have been nearly as bad as North's?
Watch yourself, Jeff. All-consuming hatred leads to blindness. Your anger will be your undoing.
Let's take a look at Bill Clinton's charge. He received oral gratification from a White House intern. In deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit, he says that he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Well, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law or legal precedent explaining what constitutes sexual relations. In my mind, oral sex is a form of sexual intimacy. In the minds of several of my friends (and apparently President Clinton), oral sex is not "sexual relations." Of course, should any of these events happened? No. Republicans were so eager to dig up anything on Clinton, that individuals such as Richard Scaife and organizations such as Rutherford Institute and media outlets such as American Spector paid people for even the slightest rumor. That's how we got Whitewater and Paula Jones and the unbelievable transmutation that connected A to B. That's how we also got unfounded allegations like Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddick and the alleged 13 year-old love child he had with a prostitue. Essentially, we the people of the United States had to endure a witch-hunt at a cost of $80 million that yeilded nothing on Bill Clinton and an approx 500 page porno novel written by "Hard-On" Kenny Starr.
Let's take a look at Ronald Reagan. Republicans desperately wanted control of White House back from Jimmy Carter. So, they struck a deal with the Iranian terrorists holding 44 American hostages. This can be corroborated by the evidence supporting a negotiation in Paris in October 1980 between George H. W. Bush and leaders of the Islamic Jihad. The Iranians would release the hostages in exchange for two planeloads of Stinger missles. Bush claims this didn't happen and has proof. His proof are logs that say he away giving a speech (a speech which actually occurred several days after when the log indicated). Officials of Iran at that time, including a Sadir Afar now living in France, are offering to give the US proof that this meeting did take place. The last time it was offered was during the Clinton Impeachment Fiasco.
After Reagan won the presidency, the Iranians got their missles and Americans got their hostages. And numerous laws were broken, more than in the case of Clinton's penis. The Senate began hearing with Lawrence Walsh as the Independent Counsel. Reagan testified numerous times that he "cannot recall" any of the alleged activities. Either he was lying or he was so ineffective a leader that he did not notice his aides involved in illegal activities or that he was so unrespected that his subordinates thought nothing more of potentially tarnishing his presidency. All three options are unappealing.
You cannot claim that Iran-Contra did not happen because it did. The Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah got their hands on sophisticated US Stinger missles. High ranking members of the government were implicated in the deal and cover-up. Among them was Casper Weinberger. Walsh was close to indicting Weinberger on numerous charges in the summer of 1992. In October 1992, Weinberger held a press conference where he said that he would not go to jail to protect the more guilty individuals. Shortly afterwards, Clinton won the '92 election and Bush pardonned six officials involved in Iran-Contra on Christmas Eve '92. One of the six was Weinberger. With this, the Democrats (in a foolish maneuver) closed down the Iran-Contra hearings and ended Walsh's investigation.
In short, Republicans like First of Two and Omega can slam Bill Clinton all they want. They resort to rumors and half-truths and elevate them actual facts and proof of wrong-doing. At the same time, they ignore evidence of actual wrong-doing and devastation to the US national security on the part of Reagan, Bush the Smarter, Weinberger, and others. The Republicans frequently enjoy casting stones when they themselves are not without sin.
Read what you're responding to. You'd look like less of an idiot. I challenge you to find me one person here that thinks that oral sex is, or even should be, a crime. Now you tell me: is it a crime to LIE about oral sex while under oath before a federal grand jury? Because that's exactly what Bill Clinton did.
As for Iran-Contra, again, read, or you look like an idiot. I never said that Iran-Contra didn't happen. I said that Ollie North went to prison for his crimes, for crying out loud! It HAPPENED! Obviously! But Reagan and Bush were NOT involved, as Jeff claimed they were.
Well, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law or legal precedent explaining what constitutes sexual relations.
Remember, he was sworn to tell the WHOLE truth.
He purposefully withheld information relevant to the question, in a consious attempt to deceive the jury. This is perjury.
Essentially, we the people of the United States had to endure a witch-hunt
Witch-hunts are when you try to obtain convictions, the truth be damned. This man COMMITED A CRIME.
at a cost of $80 million
Hang on, since when is it our money? Bill said it wasn't.
that yeilded nothing on Bill Clinton
Aside from the fact that he commited perjury.
Republicans desperately wanted control of White House back from Jimmy Carter. So, they struck a deal with the Iranian terrorists holding 44 American hostages.
Um... no? There was no chance that Carter was going to win that election. The Iranians had already decided to let the hostages go, and simply waited 'til Reagan was sworn in as a slap at Carter.
This can be corroborated by the evidence supporting a negotiation in Paris in October 1980 between George H. W. Bush and leaders of the Islamic Jihad. The Iranians would release the hostages in exchange for two planeloads of Stinger missles.
This is a logical leap that defies all reason. Why shouldn't Bush have negotiated with the hostage-takers? Former director of the CIA, soon to be VP. Remember, these people REALLY didn't like Carter, so someone not attached to that administration would be preferable. What does that have to do with a possible missile deal?
You cannot claim that Iran-Contra did not happen because it did.
You can't claim that I said it didn't, because I didn't.
Either he was lying or he was so ineffective a leader that he did not notice his aides involved in illegal activities
Or perhaps he was so EFFECTIVE a leader that he trusted his people to do their jobs, without his micromanaging everything. Ever think of that?
After Reagan won the presidency, the Iranians got their missles and Americans got their hostages. And numerous laws were broken
As I understand it, the law broken was the fact that the aid given to the Contras was covert, something that had been made illegal. I don't think the missiles had anything to do with North's conviction, though I could be wrong.
They resort to rumors and half-truths and elevate them actual facts and proof of wrong-doing.
He commited perjury. Do you deny this?
At the same time, they ignore evidence of actual wrong-doing and devastation to the US national security on the part of Reagan, Bush the Smarter, Weinberger, and others.
If there's evidence of Reagan or Bush breaking laws, you certainly haven't presented it.
quote:
From Omega:
I challenge you to find me one person here that thinks that oral sex is, or even should be, a crime.
And tell me, how many states still have sodomy laws? Most of those laws consider any act other than a penis going into a vagina to be sodomy. Texas has such a law that is used against homosexuals.
quote:
From Omega:
Now you tell me: is it a crime to LIE about oral sex while under oath before a federal grand jury? Because that's exactly what Bill Clinton did.
And if you reread my post, I acknowledged that he committed a crime by lying while giving a deposition. Reread my post, Omega.
quote:
From Omega:
I never said that Iran-Contra didn't happen. I said that Ollie North went to prison for his crimes, for crying out loud! It HAPPENED! Obviously! But Reagan and Bush were NOT involved, as Jeff claimed they were.
And, once again, reread my post. Did I say "Omega is denying Iran-Contra happened!" No, I did not. I said people like you. That means people of the same devotion as you have claimed that everything about Iran-Contra was a hoax.
quote:
From Omega:
Remember, he was sworn to tell the WHOLE truth. He purposefully withheld information relevant to the question, in a consious attempt to deceive the jury. This is perjury.
Once again, I acknowledged Clinton did this. Reread, Omega.
quote:
From Omega:
Witch-hunts are when you try to obtain convictions, the truth be damned. This man COMMITED A CRIME.
Let's see, the Whitewater investigation looked at many different situations. First was the Whitewater Land Deal. Clinton and his wife were cleared of that. Then came the firing in the Travel Office. Once again, cleared of wrong-doing. The suicide of Vince Foster. Had to have three inquiries into this, but the allegations of a murder were disproven. The FBI files arriving at the White House. Cleared of wrong-doing. The Republicans hunted for something to bust Clinton on and, after many dead-ends, they succeeded with Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones. The government paid for Starr's "investigations." It certainly wasn't his own personal fortune. Germany did not support this endeavor. The money came from the country's own coffers and, guess what, the citizens of the US keep those coffers full.
quote:
From Omega:
There was no chance that Carter was going to win that election. The Iranians had already decided to let the hostages go, and simply waited 'til Reagan was sworn in as a slap at Carter.
Gee, why would terrorists do this? They could have held the hostages longer and used them as a bargaining chip with the incoming administration. But no, the hostages were returned as soon as Reagan took office.
quote:
From Omega:
This is a logical leap that defies all reason. Why shouldn't Bush have negotiated with the hostage-takers? Former director of the CIA, soon to be VP. Remember, these people REALLY didn't like Carter, so someone not attached to that administration would be preferable. What does that have to do with a possible missile deal?
Why shouldn't Bush have negotiated with terrorists? How about the fact that this was in October and Bush was not even the VP-elect. He was one of many Vice-Presidential candidates. Bush's doing any negotiations would be a conflict of interest. On top of that, he wasn't sent by the Carter Administration or by Congress. What possible jurisdiction could he have? Nothing other than to promise something in return for returning the hostages if Reagan assumes power. That's the logical leap you could not see.
quote:
From Omega:
Or perhaps he was so EFFECTIVE a leader that he trusted his people to do their jobs, without his micromanaging everything. Ever think of that?
Yes, I did think about this. And if he was an effective leader, his subordinates should have had more respect for their leader than to try anything that would harm their leader.
quote:
From Omega:
As I understand it, the law broken was the fact that the aid given to the Contras was covert, something that had been made illegal. I don't think the missiles had anything to do with North's conviction, though I could be wrong.
Oliver North was head responsible for a lot of what happened in the Iran-Contra Affair. That is what he got busted on.
quote:
From Omega:
He commited perjury. Do you deny this?
Reread, Omega. I denied nothing.
quote:
From Omega:
If there's evidence of Reagan or Bush breaking laws, you certainly haven't presented it.
And was that my intent? No, it was to back what Jeff Kardde had posted earlier. I'm not trying to be this all-knowing person. I posted what I know in an effort to support Jeff, and I also posted in response to the rape of the presidency that Republicans think that Clinton is guilty of.
quote:
From Omega:
Reread my post. You'd look like less of an idiot.
Take your own advice, Omega.
quote:
But Reagan and Bush were NOT involved
Which is just plain not true.
As several members of the re-butt-lican elite on these boards are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fond of pointing out when it serves their world dominating purposes or anti-Clinton hard-ons, the President of the United States is responsible for what happens during his term. Heck, to get their anti-Clinton rocks off, the right has practically blamed Clinton for everything from the seasonal rains in Bangladesh to mosquitoe bites in Costa Rica.
President "I Don't Remember" Reagan IS responsible for the arm shipments as if (and I don't really doubt that his wrinkled had was involved) sign the order himself.
AND he is responsible for creating and fostering a climate in the White House where such illegal, cowardly and subversive actions are even thought of let alone done.
AND he is responsible (if he did not sign the order with his wrinkled hand...and I would not be suprised if he had done so) for alowing an environment in the White House that such illegal, cowardly and subversive actions CAN go on without his knowledge and consent.
Beware, my re-butt-lican friends, that when one wants to cast such a wide anti-Clinton net, what else might fall in. Caution is in order lest we visit the sins of all presidents in an effort to try and demonize one to sanctify the other.
Then again nuance has never been a strong point of the far right.
[ June 18, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Most of the people on this board are guys, and probably everyone arguing about this is (I'm not going to check). So, how would you guys feel if your wife was president, and you found out she'd been surruptitiously having interns hide under the desk w/ their hands up her skirt, fingering her, while she's working? Would you just say "Oh, that's okay. It's not a crime."?
Clinton's activities in the Oral Office don't make him a criminal. But they still make him a jerk.
quote:
Clinton's activities in the Oral Office don't make him a criminal. But they still make him a jerk.
Agreed.
quote:
DEA -- oh, please.
Such a well thought out and witty response..
Bye JeffK, I enjoyed our conversation.. 
China.
Nuclear.
Ballistic.
Missile.
Technology.
Charlie Trinh.
quote:
April 4 New York Times story by Jeff Gerth and Raymond Bonner:"A federal grand jury is investigating whether two American companies illegally gave China space expertise that significantly advanced Beijing�s ballistic missile program, according to administration officials. But the officials said the criminal inquiry was dealt a serious blow two months ago when President Clinton quietly approved the export to China of similar technology by one of the companies under investigation."
Gerth and Bonner explained that Clinton had allowed the Loral Corporation to have China launch one of its satellites. Loral Chairman Bernard Schwartz, the Times observed, "was the largest personal contributor to the Democratic National Committee last year."
quote:
But the officials said the criminal inquiry was dealt a serious blow two months ago
Two months before April 4th was Feb. 4th. If this article is to be believed, either First of Two misled people about the date, or one must wonder what power an ex-President has to authorize such actions. Or, it was really George W. Bush.
[ June 19, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Kardde ]
You're right. I copied the report without including the date. My bad. It was 1998.
Which doesn't change the fact that it happened.
1. U.S. Company sells China technology which the Pentagon later calls a 'breach of security.' Technology which involves the construction and launch of ballistic missiles.
2. Company comes under investigation for illegalities.
3. Investigation aborted (not the same as acquittal) when point is made moot by Clinton signing over same technology.
4. Company Clinton signed tech over to just happens to be biggest Democratic donor, also reputed to be involved in Chinese Triad crime syndicate / front for Chinese military.
5. Naturally, Clinton doesn't come under investigation for this breach of security.
"If the President does it, it isn't illegal." -- Nixon
While I think Clinton was a better president than the monkey looking crotch goblin on many counts, I have to agree that the whole blow-job things was just plain damn stupid on his part.
I mean, think about it. The man was the President of the United States. Executive IN CHIEF of all the armed forces. If he says "nuke", we nuke. What does this have to do with blow jobs in the oval office? Well, think about it. The man can't be trusted to stay loyal to his own damn family, let alone his country. On top of that he lied, more than once. Is this someone I want in charge of my life? "I don't want to bomb you! Oh, wait, I take it back, I do want to bomb you.". Or "Well, I hit the button but it was the army itself who actually bombed you!". He clearly likes to dodge responsibility for his actions. A man like that has no business in the oval office.
I mean, come on. Havn't you ever had someone who was really close to you, a well trusted friend, Lie to you about something really big? After that, you start wondering if everything else that person ever said was a lie...... same goes with this.
*grin* and if it was my wife behind the desk getting fingered by her intern, I'd say the same thing. 
The best desciption I have ever heard.
"While I think Clinton was a better president than the monkey looking crotch goblin on many counts..."
Wait... Who's the "monkey-looking crotch goblin", if not Clinton? Bush? The other Bush?
