• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Clinton Legacy

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The way Clinton will be remembered?

Clinton Legacy:
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

><><><><><><><

More links to 'chew on'........

Clinton Missile/Tchnology Treason: China Gate/Reno Held in Contempt for refusing to release documents regarding the case, refuses to Call for Independent council:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/18/175114.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/20/china.money/
http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/980521-prc2.htm

Clinton gave the chinese military the technology for it to finally reach the U.S. with its Nuclear missiles in exchange for campaign contributions tracked directly back to the Chinese military!

Clinton Impeachment:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/evidenceanalyzed.html

Clinton Dis-barred:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/usd.htm

Clinton Crime/Sentence:
http://helios.insnet.com/~tjl1886/p42.htm

Sandy Berger Steals/Shreds Classified Doce to Protect Clinton 'Legacy'
http://christian-patriot.blogspot.com/2004/07/sandy-berger-steals-classified.html

Al Qaeda/Bin Laden on the Rise, Un-Opposed:
Bin Laden Declares holy WAR on U.Shttp://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...06/12/015.html

1990: The Saudi government allows U.S. troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which leads to the Persian Gulf War. Bin Laden is outraged by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, considered the cradle of Islam, and begins to write treatises against the Saudi regime
February 1993: A bomb at the World Trade Center kills six and wounds hundreds. Six Muslim radicals, who U.S. officials suspect have links to bin Laden, are eventually convicted for the bombing.
October, 1993: 18 U.S. servicemen who are part of a humanitarian mission to Somalia are killed in an ambush in Mogadishu. Bin Laden later says that some of the Arab Afghans were involved in the killings and calls Americans "paper tigers" because they withdrew from Somalia shortly after the soldiers' deaths.
1995: A truck bombing at a military base in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, kills five Americans and two Indians.
1996: Bin Laden declares a jihad, or holy war, against U.S. forces. Nineteen U.S. soldiers die in a bombing of the Khobar military complex in Saudi Arabia. The United States indicts bin Laden on charges of training the people involved in the 1993 attack that killed 18 U.S. servicemen in Somalia.
1998: Bin Laden declares that Muslims should kill Americans, civilians included, wherever they can find them. On August 7, a pair of truck bombs explodes outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people.
2000: Algerian Ahmed Ressam pleads guilty in connection with a failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium celebrations. He claims he was trained in urban warfare and explosives at an Afghanistan camp run by bin Laden.
October -- U.S.S. Cole bombed: 17 Americans dead, 39 Injured.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/peop.../timeline.html

><><><><><><
In other posts, I have been asked repeatedly to provide links to my (as well as the opinion of many others) that WJC will go downa as one of the most corrupt Presidents in U.S. history. So, here are the the top reasons for my belief with only a very few of the many links available to support each one.

In the past the response from liberals and GOP/Bush-Hater/Flamers has been to attempt to discredit any and all negative remarks about Clinton, most commonly by simply saying what I have posted is not true because THEY SAY SO.

If you're going to respond and you're going to attack me or discredit the post, please provide more than just your opinion, name-calling,....I produced the links/facts, please do the same. And just because you say any source is 'just a Conservative/GOP Rag' doesn't make it so.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
The way Clinton will be remembered?

Clinton Legacy:
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Personally, I think he'll be remembered for the almost miraculous feat of stopping the hemmoraging of deficit spending from the two previous administrations (an amazing accomplishment tragically squandered by his successor), 8 years of peace and unprecedented economic prosperty, 22 million jobs created, his deft handling of the Kosovo situation (not one American life lost), soaring equity markets, declining interest rates, low inflation, a compentently managed government that was actually reduced in size, and an America respected by her friends areound the world.

Also, a president who was an eloquent statesman, who could talk without a prepared speech an actually sound informed an intellegent, and who didn't feel he had to obsessively control the media because he was terrified of being asked the wrong question.

Those are the things that come off the top of my mind.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
Personally, I think he'll be remembered for:

.... the almost miraculous feat of stopping the hemmoraging of deficit spending from the two previous administrations (an amazing accomplishment tragically squandered by his successor), soaring equity markets, declining interest rates, low inflation, a compentently managed government that was actually reduced in size...economic prosperty, 22 million jobs created,

The ONLY thing Clinton did to affect the economy was to go after Bill Gates and Microsoft, triggering the fall of the tech Stocks. He rode the economy presented to him, otherwise. ANY economic expert in the world will tell you that the EFFECTS any action taken to AFFECT the market/economy is delayd, will not be seen until 5-6 years down the road. The fact is that the economy started to decline at the end of his Presidency, although the Dems and media were doing their best to ignore it so they could blame Bush for the decline his very 1st day in office!


IriemonN said:
...8 years of peace ,
I guess you can claim 'Peace' if you ignore the fact that someone has declared WAR on you and do your best the next 8 yeasrs to do anything to defend and protect America! Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1990, then he started preying on Americans around the world. Hundreds and hundreds of AMERICANS lost their lives in the Kobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings, AFTER Able Danger Warned Clinton about BinLaden and Al Qaeda! Clinton's cowardice and inability to act cost hundreds of American lives, allowed Al Qaeda to become emboldened, and led to the execution of the acts on 9/11. If he had done ANYTHING after the previous attacks, 9/11 may have not even happened.

Also, even though technically 'peaceful', Clinton's treason of the United States by selling the Chinese military banned missile technology for campaign contributions gave the Chinese the ability to finally reach the United Staes with their Nuclear Missiles - the ability to FRY millions of Americans - his own country - with NUKES for a 'handful of silver'!

Iriemon said:
his deft handling of the Kosovo situation (not one American life lost)
So, let me get this straight, the Democrats have been screaming that Bush had no reaon to send American troops into another country because the threat of WMD (which we are finding out to be true more and more, especially since the release of newly translated Hussein tapes and documents form Iraq). Let's even forget the WMD for a minute - the Dems said we had no right to go into Iraq to protect a people from being raped, tortured, gassed, and murdered by their own leader, that Iraq was no threat to the U.S.,and we had no right to be there. In the next breath you tell me that it was not only OK for CLINTON TO DO IT - to go into a sovereign nation who was no threat to us in order to stop genocide, but that he will be remembered fondly for it?! :shock: What hypocritical BS!


Iriemon said:
and an America respected by her friends around the world.
:shock: WHAT are you SMOKING?! Were you in any other country during the Clinton Administration? I traveled around extensively during that time, and I had to endure the riddicule and harrassment, the jokes at this country's expoense, because of that piece of garbage! He made this country a laughing stock around the world! I still have newspaper clippings from London and Tokyo, how they ade fun of 'Slick Willey', his adyultery, his perjury....RESPECTED around the world? You are so wrong it ain't even funny!

Iriemon said:
Also, a president who was an eloquent statesman, who could talk without a prepared speech an actually sound informed an intellegent, and who didn't feel he had to obsessively control the media because he was terrified of being asked the wrong question.

I'll give it to 'Willey', he was probably the BEST BULL$H!T ARTIST I have ever heard - thois COUNTRY has ever heard, which explains why he was so popular! And yeah, he could do an Impromptu speech and SOUND intelligent! He was smart, cunning, and devious! And you are absolutely right, he did not have to sweat the media....because the media is/was controlled by the Libs!

Why do you think America never heard the straight scoop about how Clinton sold out this country to the Chinese military? Something that big, you would think it would be all over the front page of every newspaper and on every evening news...but it wasn't. If you dig on the internet now, though, you can get all the details! How about his illegal FBI files - how much did we hear about THAT from the media! No, slick Willey had the Democratic Party's version of Al Jazeera working for him! Just like today - de-classified documents have just been released proving Bush was right about WMD. There are documents and even tapes of Hussein himself talking about sending them to Syria just before we went in. You would think a news like THAT would be BIG and would be everywhere wouldn't you? Fub=nny how the major media aren't even touching it....because they don't want that news, that Bush was right, to get out! N, Willey never had to worry about the media because they were all run by Libs!

Iriemon said:
Those are the things that come off the top of my mind.

That's all the BS and :spin: you could think of, huh! Well, while you're thinking, click onthis and read the facts again!

Clinton Legacy:
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
The ONLY thing Clinton did to affect the economy was to go after Bill Gates and Microsoft, triggering the fall of the tech Stocks. He rode the economy presented to him, otherwise. ANY economic expert in the world will tell you that the EFFECTS any action taken to AFFECT the market/economy is delayd, will not be seen until 5-6 years down the road. The fact is that the economy started to decline at the end of his Presidency, although the Dems and media were doing their best to ignore it so they could blame Bush for the decline his very 1st day in office!

Therefore, Clinton/Dems increasing the tax rate to 39% had no effect on the economy; Bush cutting the rate had no effect on the economy except through us into massive deficits. I basically agree with you.

Also, therefore, the recession in '91 was the fault of Reagan's policies. Again I think you are probably right.

I guess you can claim 'Peace' if you ignore the fact that someone has declared WAR on you and do your best the next 8 yeasrs to do anything to defend and protect America! Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1990, then he started preying on Americans around the world. Hundreds and hundreds of AMERICANS lost their lives in the Kobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings, AFTER Able Danger Warned Clinton about BinLaden and Al Qaeda! Clinton's cowardice and inability to act cost hundreds of American lives, allowed Al Qaeda to become emboldened, and led to the execution of the acts on 9/11. If he had done ANYTHING after the previous attacks, 9/11 may have not even happened.

I hate wasting time arguing about speculation. We could just as easily speculate that if Bush had paid attention to the specific warnings of terrorist attacks by bin Laden with airplanes a month before 9/11, instead of taking a month's vacation, we might have averted 9/11 also.

I think your statement that "hundreds and hundreds" of Americans lost their lives due to terrorist attacks during the Clinton admin is false.

According to this site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...usvictims.html

American dead from terrorist attack in Reagan years: 340

American dead from terrorist attacks during Clinton years: 65

American dead from terrorist attacks during the Bush II years: 5000+ and counting. (This assumes US service personnel in Iraq have been killed by terrorists. Source: the president.)


So, let me get this straight, the Democrats have been screaming that Bush had no reaon to send American troops into another country because the threat of WMD (which we are finding out to be true more and more, especially since the release of newly translated Hussein tapes and documents form Iraq). Let's even forget the WMD for a minute - the Dems said we had no right to go into Iraq to protect a people from being raped, tortured, gassed, and murdered by their own leader, that Iraq was no threat to the U.S.,and we had no right to be there. In the next breath you tell me that it was not only OK for CLINTON TO DO IT - to go into a sovereign nation who was no threat to us in order to stop genocide, but that he will be remembered fondly for it?! :shock: What hypocritical BS!

If Clinton had purposely misled the American people, cherry picked and misrepresented intellegence, and put US troops on the ground in an ill thought out action, I'd criticize him for that too.

:shock: WHAT are you SMOKING?! Were you in any other country during the Clinton Administration? I traveled around extensively during that time, and I had to endure the riddicule and harrassment, the jokes at this country's expoense, because of that piece of garbage! He made this country a laughing stock around the world! I still have newspaper clippings from London and Tokyo, how they ade fun of 'Slick Willey', his adyultery, his perjury....RESPECTED around the world? You are so wrong it ain't even funny!


We must have visited different places. :shrug: Most the foreign folks I talked to on the subject thought what was funny was prudish Republicans making an extramarital affair the top priority of national business for two years.

Travelled much in the last couple years?

I'll give it to 'Willey', he was probably the BEST BULL$H!T ARTIST I have ever heard - thois COUNTRY has ever heard, which explains why he was so popular! And yeah, he could do an Impromptu speech and SOUND intelligent! He was smart, cunning, and devious! And you are absolutely right, he did not have to sweat the media....because the media is/was controlled by the Libs!

He was great to listen to, wasn't he? I cringe ever time I hear our current president try say anything that isn't preprogrammed.

Why do you think America never heard the straight scoop about how Clinton sold out this country to the Chinese military? Something that big, you would think it would be all over the front page of every newspaper and on every evening news...but it wasn't. If you dig on the internet now, though, you can get all the details! How about his illegal FBI files - how much did we hear about THAT from the media! No, slick Willey had the Democratic Party's version of Al Jazeera working for him! Just like today - de-classified documents have just been released proving Bush was right about WMD. There are documents and even tapes of Hussein himself talking about sending them to Syria just before we went in. You would think a news like THAT would be BIG and would be everywhere wouldn't you? Fub=nny how the major media aren't even touching it....because they don't want that news, that Bush was right, to get out! N, Willey never had to worry about the media because they were all run by Libs!

That's all the BS and :spin: you could think of, huh! Well, while you're thinking, click onthis and read the facts again!

Clinton Legacy:
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Heh heh, world looks kind of angry with those red shades, doesn't it?
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WHAT are you SMOKING?! Were you in any other country during the Clinton Administration? I traveled around extensively during that time, and I had to endure the riddicule and harrassment, the jokes at this country's expoense, because of that piece of garbage! He made this country a laughing stock around the world! I still have newspaper clippings from London and Tokyo, how they ade fun of 'Slick Willey', his adyultery, his perjury....RESPECTED around the world? You are so wrong it ain't even funny!
to be perfectly honest the british always ridicule american presidents. With clinton it was over sleeping with someone, with Bush it is over he inability to say anything coherent and nearly all of his policies. We think the whole thing with clinton was a little silly (we are not as puritanical as US), but the things we are laugh at bush over are much more serious.
Just a little snippet from a newspaper article before the 2004 US election

Downing Street advisers are bemused by the extent to which the Prime Minister misjudges the public mood about America. "Tony doesn't understand how much the British people hate Bush," said one. "He thinks it's anti-Americanism but it's much more specific than that."

For cultural as well as political reasons, the British public cannot stand the gun-toting Texan, Mr Bush. The Prime Minister would find it much easier to persuade British voters of the virtues of the transatlantic alliance if a more consensual leader were in power.
Link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=british+opinion+of+bush&meta=
This is from a usually pro-bush newspaper, the right leaning Telegraph

What about some more opinion from a usually pro-bush british newspaper:
"I've no hang-ups about removing Saddam. I've no hang-ups about joining the United States in military action," one impeccably loyal and Atlanticist Labour MP commented to me recently. "It's following that cowboy which I find so hard to stomach."

He speaks not just for many Labour MPs and activists, but also for much of Britain. You'd expect the Left, especially those strands of the Left whose thinking is still framed by the Vietnam War, to be repelled by the idea of saddling up for a posse led by this very Right-wing American President. What is striking is how George W Bush arouses so much anxiety and antagonism across centrist and conservative Middle Britain. A former Conservative Cabinet minister regards Bush as "like a child running around with a grenade with the pin pulled out".

Charles Kennedy has not adopted his anti-Dubya position just because he thinks it's right; he also knows that it is popular with many of the Tories he wants to woo over to the Liberal Democrats.

Across British public opinion, George Bush is seen as the global village idiot. This is a one-dimensional caricature of the man - albeit a caricature that he has rather encouraged. The point is that the cartoon cowboy image is now pretty indelibly stuck.

The broad British view of George Bush is that he is Ronald Reagan without the brains. One of the Prime Minister's own advisers on foreign policy privately describes the American President as "cretinous".
Cretinous, Reagan without the brains, global village idiot, cartoon cowboy..Bush as such a wonderull reputation over here!

Now Clinton is a different matter
Lets go back to the right-wing telegraph:
Alastair Campbell described Bill Clinton yesterday as "the greatest political communicator" he had ever seen. If Tony Blair had to choose an American president with whom to have dinner tonight he would opt, without question, for the Arkansas smoothie. With their high-powered loyal wives, their Third Way views and their easy daytime TV sofa manner, the two men were, as Mr Clinton writes in his memoirs, "like old friends from the start".

The british people see Clinton as a generally nice man, especially for his work since the presidency. Bush on the otherhand is that chimp in the white house...
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
Therefore, Clinton/Dems increasing the tax rate to 39% had no effect on the economy; Bush cutting the rate had no effect on the economy except through us into massive deficits. I basically agree with you.

Actually Clintons tax increase slowed down what should have been a robust recovery, the recession of 91 which should have been mild was deepened by the Democrat tax increase Bush1 signed onto and the massive deficits are directly attributed to 9/11, the dot.com bust during Clintons administration which he helped along with his anti-business policies, and the war of terrorism. Plus the Republicans have be lame at cutting spending although I have no reason to believe the Democrats would have done better and mostly likely worse.

Also, therefore, the recession in '91 was the fault of Reagan's policies. Again I think you are probably right.

It was a normal business cycle hurt by the Democrat tax increase.



I hate wasting time arguing about speculation. We could just as easily speculate that if Bush had paid attention to the specific warnings of terrorist attacks by bin Laden with airplanes a month before 9/11, instead of taking a month's vacation, we might have averted 9/11 also.

Since there was no specific warning and since the plan was already hatched and underway before he was even sworn in your attempt to pass blame onto him is absurd.




If Clinton had purposely misled the American people, cherry picked and misrepresented intellegence, and put US troops on the ground in an ill thought out action, I'd criticize him for that too.

Since Bush did none of the above what are your criticizing him for.



We must have visited different places. :shrug: Most the foreign folks I talked to on the subject thought what was funny was prudish Republicans making an extramarital affair the top priority of national business for two years.

While his getting subordinate employees in the White House to perform sexual acts on him in the Oval Office and his acosting women and assualting them in that office was bad enough ans warranted his removal from office, what got him in trouble was his lying before a Federal Court and a Federal Grand Jury in law suit over his sexual attack on a subordinate employee while he was Governor of Arkansas. Foriegn folks can laugh all they want, it only shows thier ignorance of the matter.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We think the whole thing with clinton was a little silly (we are not as puritanical as US),

The "whole thing with clinton" was not about puritanism, but rather that he lied to a grand jury. Is lying to a grand jury considered a silly little matter in the UK?
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphamale said:
The "whole thing with clinton" was not about puritanism, but rather that he lied to a grand jury. Is lying to a grand jury considered a silly little matter in the UK?

What, exactly, was Clinton's lie to the grand jury?

In his grand jury testimony, Clinton did his best to avoid sexual specifics by reading a generalized statement that, although he and the former intern had "inappropriate intimate contact," they did not have "sexual relations" as he understood that term to be used by the Jones lawyers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainone122098.htm

Was that it?
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The "whole thing with clinton" was not about puritanism, but rather that he lied to a grand jury. Is lying to a grand jury considered a silly little matter in the UK?
Well it was blown up into a putritanical debate. Why did he have to answer questions about the matter in the first place?

Whatever way you look at it, we are talking about people's perception of US presidents. The perception of clinton was so much better than of Bush.
Clinton: nice guy, maybe a bit slimey
Bush: Twat!
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Willoughby said:
Well it was blown up into a putritanical debate. Why did he have to answer questions about the matter in the first place?

Because Judge Wright ordered him to. He was being sued by a former employee for sexual harassment. And by law, bouyed by the Molinari amendment which Clinton signed with much fanfare, and employer being sued for sexually harassing a subordinate employee MUST answer any questions concerning ANY sexual relationship with any other employees.

Whatever way you look at it, we are talking about people's perception of US presidents. The perception of clinton was so much better than of Bush.

Well with the misrepresentations by the Democrats and supported by the media it's not surprising.

Clinton: nice guy, maybe a bit slimey

Nice? He sexually attacks subordinate workers. His set his mistress up for a stint in a federal penitentary. He treated his wife like scumb. And you say he is nice?


Bush: Twat!

And that is suppose to mean and based on what?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
What, exactly, was Clinton's lie to the grand jury?

You are kidding

In his grand jury testimony, Clinton did his best to avoid sexual specifics by reading a generalized statement that, although he and the former intern had "inappropriate intimate contact," they did not have "sexual relations" as he understood that term to be used by the Jones lawyers.

Which in itself was lie, he submitted Lewinsky's affidavit as truthful when he knew it was not, that alone was perjury and obstruction of justice. Judge Wright's order that he give truthful testimony to ANY sexual contact was perfectly clear and his excuse was summarily rejected by her in her contempt of court ruling.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
You are kidding

Which in itself was lie, he submitted Lewinsky's affidavit as truthful when he knew it was not, that alone was perjury and obstruction of justice. Judge Wright's order that he give truthful testimony to ANY sexual contact was perfectly clear and his excuse was summarily rejected by her in her contempt of court ruling.

I am not. I was never quite as obsessed about it as you Puritans.

So his big lie about his extramarital affair was that he said "they did not have "sexual relations" as he understood that term to be used by the Jones lawyers."

Whoop de doo.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
I am not. I was never quite as obsessed about it as you Puritans.

So let's see, you ask a question, someone answers it and in response you tag that person as "obsessed". That's quite amazing. Perhaps I am just not as obessed with defending him as you seem to be. But in actullity it seems more that you know you've already lost you position and now must engage in such hyperbole to try and dismiss my rebuttle. Quite transparent.

So his big lie about his extramarital affair was that he said "they did not have "sexual relations" as he understood that term to be used by the Jones lawyers."

No, as the Judge directly instructed him and later held in contempt over summarliy dismissing his absurd claim that he "misunderstood". Presenting a premise that while Lewinsky was engaged in a sexual relationship with him, he was not with her. While at the same time submitting a false affidavit to the court. An act which put Ms. Lewinsky in jeopardy of going to federal prison. Nice guy isn't he.

Whoop de doo.

So bosses creating a hostile workplace is just "Whoop de doo"? The President knowingly and repeatedly committing perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal civil rights trial is just "Whoop de doo"?


From Judge Wrights ruling
"The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process."

"Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term "sexual relations.""

" In sum, the record leaves no doubt that the President violated this court's discovery orders regarding disclosure of information deemed by this court to be relevant to plaintiff's lawsuit. The court therefore adjudges the President to be in civil contempt of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)."

So if you believe employers who are being sued for civil rights violations are free to waltz into a federal court and repeatedly lie and obstruct justice then you and I have a fundimental disagreement.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nice? He sexually attacks subordinate workers. His set his mistress up for a stint in a federal penitentary. He treated his wife like scumb. And you say he is nice?

And that is suppose to mean and based on what?

i was just saying what the perception of these people are in britain. These are not opinions based entirely on fact but they are what my experience of peoples opinions are.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
So let's see, you ask a question, someone answers it and in response you tag that person as "obsessed". That's quite amazing. Perhaps I am just not as obessed with defending him as you seem to be. But in actullity it seems more that you know you've already lost you position and now must engage in such hyperbole to try and dismiss my rebuttle. Quite transparent.

I'm an amazing guy.

No, as the Judge directly instructed him and later held in contempt over summarliy dismissing his absurd claim that he "misunderstood". Presenting a premise that while Lewinsky was engaged in a sexual relationship with him, he was not with her. While at the same time submitting a false affidavit to the court. An act which put Ms. Lewinsky in jeopardy of going to federal prison. Nice guy isn't he.

Poor Ms. Lewinsky. I think he was a nice guy. His wife forgave. Whatever, he was a hell of a good president.

So bosses creating a hostile workplace is just "Whoop de doo"? The President knowingly and repeatedly committing perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal civil rights trial is just "Whoop de doo"?

Did I say that?

From Judge Wrights ruling
"The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process."

"Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term "sexual relations.""

" In sum, the record leaves no doubt that the President violated this court's discovery orders regarding disclosure of information deemed by this court to be relevant to plaintiff's lawsuit. The court therefore adjudges the President to be in civil contempt of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)."

So if you believe employers who are being sued for civil rights violations are free to waltz into a federal court and repeatedly lie and obstruct justice then you and I have a fundimental disagreement.

No -- I think there were other matters of far more pressing concern than spending a year by the Republicans politically driven voyeristic impeachment campaign because the guy tried to wriggle out of getting caught in an affair.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Willoughby said:
Why did he have to answer questions about the matter in the first place?

Whatever way you look at it, we are talking about people's perception of US presidents.
Cretinous, Reagan without the brains, global village idiot, cartoon cowboy..
The perception of clinton was so much better than of Bush.
Clinton: nice guy, maybe a bit slimey
Bush: Twat!

I guess you are bringing Bush up to Reagan's level.
Your information is pretty much pointing who is who. If you don't like Bush he must be good for America. I just did not know he was SO good
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess you are bringing Bush up to Reagan's level.
Your information is pretty much pointing who is who. If you don't like Bush he must be good for America. I just did not know he was SO good
It is not my particular view..i was just arguing that Bush is probably less respected on the world stage than Clinton
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Willoughby said:
It is not my particular view..i was just arguing that Bush is probably less respected on the world stage than Clinton

F__k the world stage.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
F__k the world stage.
cool thats fine with me...i was just responding to another members post. Is there anything worng at the moment? You seem a bit worked up tonight
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Willoughby said:
cool thats fine with me...i was just responding to another members post. Is there anything worng at the moment? You seem a bit worked up tonight

No, I'm fine! I just wanted correct what appeared to be your misperception of most americans degree of concern about the "world stage".
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphamale said:
No, I'm fine! I just wanted correct what appeared to be your misperception of most americans degree of concern about the "world stage".

For the record, some of us Yanks do care about being a good international citizen and we don't all shall the FU atittude of this poster and the current administration.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, I'm fine! I just wanted correct what appeared to be your misperception of most americans degree of concern about the "world stage".
so there is the answer to why lots of people around the world think that americans are self-focused
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
So let's see, you ask a question, someone answers it and in response you tag that person as "obsessed". That's quite amazing. Perhaps I am just not as obessed with defending him as you seem to be. But in actullity it seems more that you know you've already lost you position and now must engage in such hyperbole to try and dismiss my rebuttle. Quite transparent.


Iriemon said:
I'm an amazing guy.

Not evidenced by your post



Poor Ms. Lewinsky. I think he was a nice guy. His wife forgave. Whatever, he was a hell of a good president.

So she because of his actions and his urging her to submit a false affidavit and his entering it into court knowing ir perjured her putting her in jeapordy of facing up to 10 years in a federal prison all you can say is "poor Ms. Lewinsky"? You don't think that reflects on Clinton at all, that's what "nice guys" do to women? And you have no idea if his wife ever forgave him, that's a totally made up statement on your part. And if we now adopt your standard as long a presidents are "good presidents' they are free to abuse women and break the law?

That's a heck of a hill to stand and defend.


My Quote:
So bosses creating a hostile workplace is just "Whoop de doo"? The President knowingly and repeatedly committing perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal civil rights trial is just "Whoop de doo"?

Did I say that?

That's what I pointed out and that was your response, care to withdraw it now?


No -- I think there were other matters of far more pressing concern ...............

Well that's an empty claim and it's suppose to mitigate everything I have posted? Spare me. What if he had gone out and robbed a bank, surely there would be more pressing matters. How about raped someone, again there could surely be more pressing matter such as defending the country.


than spending a year by the Republicans politically driven voyeristic impeachment campaign because the guy tried to wriggle out of getting caught in an affair.

It had to do with the law and every citizens right to a fair trial. Again if you believe Clinton should have been able to "wriggle" out of a federal law suit then we may as well get rid of all sexual harassment laws. And it was far more than just trying to wriggle out of an affair. I almost went through a divorce many years ago, didn't and my lovely wife celebrate 23 years this year, it didn't go very far but I did talk with an attorney and depositions were ordered. He told me flat out that if I had had ANY affairs I would be asked about them and if I lied and did not tell the truth I face criminal charges of perjury. Now why is it you think Clinton is above the law and it was OK for him to lie?
 
Top Bottom