posted
The reason Clinton is a bigger presidential embarassment than Richard Nixon is because Clinton has the benefit of history. In other words, he should have known better. He could examine Nixon's illegal actions and then decide, rightly, not to emulate them. Guess what? He chose to commit crimes anyway. And yes, perjury and the subornation of perjury are crimes for all of you Clinton apologists out there.
Oh, and along this vein, whose wife helped investigate Watergate? Uh, let's see... What was her name? Hillary something? Yeah, he should have known better. That makes him dumber than Nixon, and that's saying something.
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
I dunno, I just think he's telling it like it is. Go Shik! Go Shik! You da man.
*ahem*
Actually, I agree that sex with others while marriage is wrong. Clinton should have said no. He did a bad thing. But does lying about that mean he lies about everything? I dunno. I haven't actually met him.
However, if you're not married, oral sex is a whole lot of fun. And, as Frank might have been trying to point out, it's one of the few sexual acts where the woman is completly in control. One quick bite, and millions of men grap their crotches and go "oooh".
------------------ "Why do you want to spend time with a deer? They're so stupid, they get hypnotized by headlights!" - Guido Anchovy
posted
Well, just wait in a couple of years when Clinton dies. Does anyone remember before Nixon died, jokes about him were STILL being made, of course once he died, everyone remembered his good parts. I try not to make any, but that's because i share a classroom with his granddaughter. Same thing with Clinton, i'm sure. Clinton/Lewinsky jokes will probably be quite common for the next couple of decades, but once he dies, they'll remember the good stuff he did. And Clinton DID do some good stuff during his presidential terms, though i'm sure most people would care not to believe it.
------------------ "Homer, you're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly, if a strange man offers you a ride, I say take it"-Abe S.
posted
"What good things did he do that the Republicans didn't shove down his throat?"
Better yet, what good things did he do that he didn't copy or steal from the Republicans? Let's make a list, shall we? I'll get us started.
1. Defense cuts and closures. The Republicans under former President Bush had a rational base closure and defense cutback plan. Willie appropriated it, claimed it was a "peace dividend," and then expanded it to such a degree that the USA is incapable of fighting another Desert Storm. Record numbers of servicemen and women are on food stamps under Slick Willie, but then this isn't unexpected given his loathing for the military. Yep, that Army Ranger you saw on the bus might be on welfare. Many Marines who live near me in SoCal work extra jobs in the civilian sector just to survive, pumping gas and waiting tables. Also, except for the Marine Corps the services are not meeting their recruitment targets due to low pay, extended overseas deployments (ask the 10th Mountain Division how many months they've been home in the last five years), etc. Gee, thanks Bill.
Alright, who would like to add to the list?
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
Ah, I see, you're bringing up the bad stuff, or the stuff you didn't agree with. Well, every president, and I mean EVERY president has done both good and bad things in office. Heck, I bet even Grant managed to accomplish something, well, okay, maybe not Grant. Just because you don't like some of his measures, well that's fine. To say that he did nothing good or that when he did do something good, it was because the Republicans forced him to, is a little silly. i mean, if the Republican controlled congress was able to dictate what the president does, well, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the three EQUAL parts of the United States Government? I'm sure Clinton has his reasons for the bills he passed or did not pass. Its not like the guy WANTS to ruin the government. He IS human, and expecting him or anyone else in the gov. to be perfect is a far-fetched dream. Again, i bring up Nixon. sure everyone liked to bring up watergate, but boom, couple of years later its all, "well he went to CHina...". AND I BET YOU, that before hand, it was all the democrats, who said Nixon did nothing. Eh, what's the point, it'll all be over in a couple of billion of years.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"
------------------ "Homer, you're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly, if a strange man offers you a ride, I say take it"-Abe S.
posted
Nixon also screwed the economy by imposing wage controls. That's what lead to the recession that Reagan got us out of with a tax cut. Keep in mind, I'm not defending Nixon. I just think Clinton's worse.
"Well, every president, and I mean EVERY president has done both good and bad things in office."
Even William Harrison?
Then there's welfare reform. Der schlikmeister vetoed it twice before he signed it, and he only signed it because someone finally clued him in that he wouldn't be re-elected if he didn't. And now he champions it as one of his greatest achievements.
*epiphany*
Wait! There is one law that Clinton signed voluntarily that I like! Public Law 105-124, signed Dec. 1 1997. I collect those things.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
posted
Omega: I didn't say anything about dating, I just wouldn't MARRY someone like that. Besides, anyone can be completely sorry AFTER the fact. But Shadow got me thinking: if a guy told me he's had sex before, at least he's telling the truth. 'Course, if I were to break my rule, it'd have to be an exceedingly exceptional person.
Shik: No one can force any ideals on you unless you let them. We're merely stating our positions on the subject, as you did. My reason is simple: I have sensitive emotions, and I can't take it if the person I'm to spend my life with has had intimate relations with somebody else. You can call it "saving yourself for marriage" or whatever, I call it self-preservation. I don't claim to speak for everybody else.
------------------ "Poetic souls delight in prose insane." --Lord Byron
[This message has been edited by Tora Ziyal (edited August 19, 2000).]
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
"Shik: No one can force any ideals on you unless you let them. We're merely stating our positions on the subject, as you did. My reason is simple: I have sensitive emotions, and I can't take it if the person I'm to spend my life with has had intimate relations with somebody else. You can call it "saving yourself for marriage" or whatever, I call it self-preservation. I don't claim to speak for everybody else."
I reach...
No, really...whatever your reasons/rationales are, I don't much care. Whatever gets your nuts in an uproar, right? That's also why I phrased as a question instead of ripping new assholes. I've been oddly civil on this board...very strange.
On a related topic, I used t'have sensitive emotions, too. Then I started usin' a little Ben-Gay, a little Icy Hot at night... :::snaps fingers::: Cleared it right up.
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
posted
"I can't take it if the person I'm to spend my life with has had intimate relations with somebody else."
The sad truth is that, as Shik has shown us, for a lot of people it's not very intimate at all. It's just something they do for the physical gratification.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "I really want a flying pogo-stick." - Antag
posted
It's really a side effect of our nature. Good old evolution made sex pleasurable, which of course meant more mating which = higher populations, which is really the point now isn't it( That's the meaning of life in my opinion). However, making procreation pleasurable simply made it more likely for humans to do it. If i remember my enlightenment thinkers test for Euro History, they're was a philosopher who determined that all humans want to avoid pain and find pleasure. It was the philosopher's natural law. Luckily, nature kept its end of the bargain and gave us lots of STD's to keep the pop in check. Of course, medicine screwed that up, but this is neither the time nor the place for that discussion...
------------------ "Homer, you're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly, if a strange man offers you a ride, I say take it"-Abe S.
posted
For some people, its better to be physically gratified in a superficial manner, then have them...say... find a prostitute. This is just a case of the lesser of two evils.
------------------ Efficiency is a highly developed form of laziness. - anon (...and boy am I efficient...) A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbour�s throat without having his neighbour notice it. � Trygve Lie
Printer-friendly view of this topic