On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:49:22 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <vahhr1dlb8e2hob87egdg7cf2v0lear8i7@4ax.com>,
<"atheist@home"> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:05:25 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <1135926412.260815.96030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

atheist@home wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:31:34 -0800, Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net>
wrote:

atheist@home wrote:

You simply shrug off the claim that your man did it because he *is*
your man and that does nothing but distract from the problem which
is
that so many of them do take liberties with the law and the
Constitution.

You lie, I don't "shrug off" anything. William Jefferson Clinton was
the
most investigated President ever and the RRRwingnut whack jobs
"proved"
beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the cleanest one ever.

Lol!
That's priceless right on the heels of the statement that you "don't
"shrug off anything."
I guess in degree it is greater than simply shrugging it off.
"The cleanest one ever?"

I laughed so hard at that one. Cleanest one ever? Not even close....
Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter's pinky fingers were cleaner than all of
Clinton.
If you go back in Clinton's political history, you will find he has
more scandal's than any president living today.

What you find out is he was successful so Republicans hated him.

Which is the same thing word for word that many Republicans say about
the left hating Reagan.

How was he successful?

He shut down Moammar Gaddafi which was important, reduced nuclear
arms,

helped to stimulate the economy and rebuilt the military that
Carter nearly diismantled which cost a fortune.

Like most presidents he's overrated by some and underrated by others.
Sometimes we make global judgements about a president rather than
breaking things down into what they were good at and what they failed
in and that gives us a false picture.
Partisan politics certainly doesn't help.
Politics is always distasteful but it's become brutal and vicious in
the past few years in America.
For instance, Clinton did a good thing when he intervened in the
Balkans but did nothing to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.
White people were being murdered in the Balkans of course and black
people were being killed in Rwanda.
That's what made the difference.

Had the Rwandians been white he would have become involved.
Pretty cruel isn't it?
What I just said is absolute bullsh*t of course.
You know it, I know it and anybody with a shred of common decency
wouldn't make the accusation.

If however it had been a Republican president in the same situation I
suspect the claim would not only have been made by those on the
radical left but would have spread like wildfire as the truth because
the left has been so sucessful at convincing their supporters that
Republicans are racist by nature.

And both those on the left and those on the right have been good at
convincing their supporters that their side is the bearer of the
absolute truth, that the opposition never has a good idea and is in
fact just plain evil.

That sort of thing serves the party well but doesn't serve the people.

He lowered taxes by borrowing money that had to be paid off later by the
children.

Yes but saddling future taxpayers with debt isn't unique to Reagan or
Republicans.

Both sides ridicule the other for doing it and both sides are equally
guilty.
And the money doesn't have to be borrowed it just has to be spent from
year to year increasing the following years debt.
They all do use the hell out of Social Security funds and of course
that *is* borrowing and has to be paid back.
There was a surplus in Social Security during the Clinton
adminstration which is one reason he could claim a "surplus" but few
of them, Democrat or Republican could hardly wait to get their hands
on it.
One neat little trick they use to lower the estimate on what the
government owes is to not count the money they borrow from government
funds saying that the government can't really owe itsef.
They're a tricky bunch but it works well for them.

Reagan was a nice, charismatic, president. No doubt. But he was a poor
President, and one that we
were lucky to survive.

I'm afraid he sort of lived in a dream world but he wasn't nearly as
incompetant as some claim.

He once said that he and Gorbachev had a long private and personal
conversation with nobody present but the two of them which must have
been really interesting given the fact that Gorbachev doesn't speak
english and Reagan didn't speak Russian.

Unfortunately, after Democrats came in and
straightened out the deficit created by Reagan, the Republicans
borrowed like crazy again so they could claim they were "tax cutters."
The Republican party is a party of borrow and spend conservatives who
are willing to sell out the children tomorrow so the rich can have tax
breaks today.

I wasn't rich under Reagan and got a hell of a tax break, was finally
able to buy a decent house and every dollar I had was worth far more
than it was under the Democrat Carter.

Republicans blame Carter for everything that happened in the economy
during his administration and Democrats blame Reagan for what followed
his.
It's partisan politics and quite a few myths are involved.
A number of economists will talk about how well Reagan did and explain
why they believe it and another group of economists will do just the
opposite.
We can pick and choose which we like best of course and can count on
getting a lot of help from "the party" in making our decision.

Granted, the impeachment was not in our best interest as a country.

Blame Republicans.

Blame the man who committed the crime of perjury.

Except he never committed perjury.

What should they have done?

Stop the witch hunt?

There was some of that I think.
But that's only a part of it.

Just shrug it off and say "Well hell, he's the President; he can
violate the law and the oath of office if he likes?"

Like they do with Bush? Clinton never committed perjury. People who
say he did are kidding themselves. Further, he was found Not Guilty.

Bush has nothing to do with what Clinton did.
What is the definition of perjury?
And Clinton was let off the hook.

Where would that end?

Bush violating the United States Constitution.

Are you a constitutional lawyer or do you have to depend on people in
the know for the opinion that he did violate the Constitution?
There are others who say he is within the law.
See the problem here?
Once again you can pick whichever side you like best.

<snip>

While it is true that his private life is just that..private. There
comes a time when we must hold our leaders accountable for their
actions.

What "action" was that? Consensual sex with an adult? Osprey opposes
freedom.

Committing perjury.

Wrong.

Look, I know that for a lie under oath to be considered perjury the
lie has to be deliberate.

The problem is when Clinton said he didn't recall certain things that
happened on numerous occcasions it takes a very naive person to
believe he was telling the truth.

Lawyers and politicians play the technicalities day in and day out.
Clinton was caught, he knew he was caught and he didn't cop a plea for
grand and noble purposes.

Would it be ok for a conservative to do it?

If a Conservative did what Clinton did, and they have, in spades, I
would say it wasn't wrong for them, either. Why do you suppose I don't
complain about Newt Gingrich, for example?

I don't know why you don't complain about Gingrich.
He's a damned dishonest, unethical bully.

I don't have any use for him despite that public display of a nice and
decent personality.
He's bogus as a three dollar bill.
My problem is that too many are too willing to excuse their guy no
matter what he does.
It isn't healthy for us to do that.
Those pricks on both sides have very few noble standards because we
don't demand it.
We are far bigger fools than they are.
They always know what they are doing when it comes to politics while
we very often only think we do.

<snip>

But to say Clinton was the cleanest President ever, well that's just
plain out ludicrous and ignorant.

Clinton was the cleanest in the last thirty or so years, with the
possible exception of Carter.

Not the cleanest ever?

Who knows in the past? The record is far from perfect.

Heh.
I'm no longer surprised at anything I learn about any of them.

Your claim is debatable as well.

Agreed.

<snip>

Committed perjury.

No he didn't.

I'm sorry but he did.
A lie under oath is perjury.

But you are correct I believe.
He lied to a grand jury.

No he didn't.

He did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury
092498.htm

<And had his law license

suspended for five years by a judge who was one of his former law
students as a result>

Judge don't suspend law licenses.

The judge accepts the plea agreement.
And:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/oct01/2001-10-02-clinton-court.htm

They only make recommendations.

lied to the American people, used the

Whitehouse for fund raisers, committed adultry with a girl young
enough to be his daughter *in the people's house*

From a guy who is a twice reprimanded guard.

Who are you talking about?

Osprey - not you.

Damn.
I'm already confused most of the time.
I didn't need that ;-)

<snip>

Tell it to Bush as he violates the law. Tell it to the Republicans who
nominated a twice convicted criminal for President and then actually
voted for him.

Bush is a former cocaine user and drunk who is a twice convicted
criminal. Osprey voted for him (twice). Now he says, "Clean it up!"

That is just beyond the pale.
What cocaine use?

Bush's.

The claim though denied by people who know Bush is convenient for
those on he left who need something, anything to believe isn't it?

LOL! Bush has all but admitted it.

All but admitted to using cocaine?

Bush is a twice convicted drunk
driver. He was convicted of theft.

I'm not aware of the theft claim.

What was he supposed to have stolen?

And come on.
The left raised almighty hell about Clinton's being exposed for
evading the draft during Vietnam.
"No fair" they screamed.
"That was a long time ago."
And it was a stupid, childish and unfair thing for the right to be
ranting on and on about.
But that sort of trash is a double edged sword.
If one side does it the other is going to do it as well.
The bastards make the rules then whine like a bunch of babies when it
turns on them.

He was known to use cocaine but
refuses to discuss it.

Known by whom to have used cocaine?

And his refusing to discuss it makes him guilty?

He has talked around the issue in the past
making it clear he has used cocaine.

How does that make it clear?

The gossip writer Kitty Kelly wrote another damned book and even some
of the people she claimed said certain things deny they said them.
That's a fairly routine thing for Kelly.
She makes good money doing it.

And finally, his daddy pulled
strings to keep him from going to Viet Nam, which means someone else
went in his place. Bush did what Bush does. He advocated a war (Viet
Nam) but refused to actually fight himself. He prefers others die
while he remains safe. He is a big talker but a coward and a disgrace
to his country.

I'm not aware of any statement Bush made at the time advocating the
war.

And somebody else went in Clinton's place as well so that argument is
also a double edged sword.

And really, how do you *know* that Bush is a coward?
I don't see that at all.

He's a marked man yet despite the fact that he knows if someone with a
rifle wants to take him out he can, he still appears in public and has
done so since 911.

He's had to face some difficult choices and heavy criticism from those
on the right as well as the left but he stands his ground.

Those are not the acts of a coward.

Would it be fair to call Clinton a coward for evading the draft?

It would be an easy thing to do but there's no evidence I'm aware of
that shows he did it because he was a coward.

Was Gore a coward for only serving six months behind the lines as a
photographer?

It's policy that should be challanged or defended not some silliness
about something that happened thirty or forty years ago that no longer
has any real meaning.
All that personal trash is nothing but a distraction from real issues.
And politicians love it.