Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on July 29, 2002, 11:41:04 AM
-
Here is her response to a speech Bill Clinton gave in November...
This is kinda like "wheres Waldo". Try to identify the lies and misquotes..
Anna Banana (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20011115.shtml)
Here is a taste Initial reports from National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration officials investigating the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 are now ruling out slavery or Indian dispossession as the cause. This is in contradistinction to the attack of Sept. 11 – according to the theory propounded by Bill Clinton in his speech to Georgetown students last week.
"Here in the United States," Clinton said, "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed."
Not content to turn a nation of wandering nomads into an agricultural cornucopia capable of feeding and sustaining nearly 300 million people, we also "once looked the other way when a significant number of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights." (Um. They didn't have the concept of "mineral rights.")
"And we are still paying a price today," the impeached former president explained.
-
Quote:
"Try to identify the lies..
Ok, i'm game. Anything outta the mouth of convicted liar, Slick Willie??
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
"Try to identify the lies..
Ok, i'm game. Anything outta the mouth of convicted liar, Slick Willie??
Cabby
Convicted? Really? When?
-
Shite... I missed that too. :D
-
What you missed perjury and the loss of his license to practice law?? I reckon you miss what you want to miss...........
Cabby
-
I love her because she does two things:
Puts the mirror in the faces of those that dislike their reflection.
Gets liberals panties in a bunch!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
-
There is a difference between prosecuted and convicted.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There is a difference between prosecuted and convicted.
That's why we call him "Slick Willy".
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There is a difference between prosecuted and convicted.
He was fined for perjury and he paid up. $90,000 if I remember correctly.
-
How come you conserves are all hot for a female impersonator?.. Don't you see that adams apple?
-
The fine was for contempt of court. Not perjury.
-
wait a minute.... liberals talking about ugly women or even manish women? This is funny on several levels.
Sorta like when they are screaming in your face all purple faced with spittle flying telling you what a violent insensitive person you are.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The fine was for contempt of court. Not perjury.
and what exactly did he do to earn it?
-
nm
double post
-
Don't remember who said it (some black mayor from the east coast I think)
"I did not break the law, I just failed to comply with it"
You libs have a gift with words
-
Coulter's article posted above is so full of misquotes and make believe that I am shocked anyone would admire the woman or her writing. For those of you with the ability to discern the facts on your own HERE (http://www.georgetown.edu/admin/publicaffairs/protocol_events/events/clinton_glf110701.htm) is the speech she is misquoting.
-
Coulter is self-consciously inflammatory. As she told the Sunday Times of London recently, "I am a polemicist. I am perfectly frank about that. I like to stir up the pot. I don't pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do." It is exactly that kind of invective which has earned her so much publicity.
She does pretend to speak the truth though!
-
Keep all your Coulter bashing in one thread at a time please.
-
Oh and Midnight, tell me if any part of this quote is untrue:
[Clinton] perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, lied to his party, his staff, his wife and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle.
How the f*ck an you defend such an outrageous amazinhunk?
Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address—one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."
-
The old "tell a lie enough times and it becomes true" scheme in action.
http://www.georgetown.edu/admin/publicaffairs/protocol_events/events/clinton_glf110701.htm
The so called "conservative" wing of the Republican party has become the very thing they condemn....and pretend to oppose.
They have become a gang of low brow thugs, liars and spin doctors whose lust and obsession for power has plunged them to new lows in their lack of moral integrity, dignity, or common decency.....for sale to the highest bidder.
Beginning with the criminal regimes of Reagan/Bush, the last two decades have consistently demonstrated "conservatives" are not concerned with the best interests of "we the people", the truth, or personal accountability.
During the last 8 years these *so called* conservatives did everything in their power to disgrace and remove a president elected twice by voters, this demonstrates the depth of the contempt they feel for our country and it's citizens.
During this period while wrapping themselves in God and the American flag in an attempt to disguise their hypocrisy, they betrayed and trampled the concepts of "Duty, Honor, and Country" during their seditious crusade.
"Conservatives".....I think not, the *correct* terminology is "Utilitarians".
Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. This fundamentally hedonistic concept is further elaborated to equate happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain.
This sounds good in theory, until you consider the real necessity of pain in the process of growth, both as individuals and as societies.
Utilitarianism fails to address fundamental processes of human development, is excessively simplistic, myopic, and seeks to place the "Greatest Happiness Principle" of the "upper class" over that of the common citizen.
The ideal of individualism and individual liberties play a large role in our society. These individual liberties include liberty of conscience, thought, opinion, and pursuits.
After 9/11he "conservatives" have decreed that individual liberties may be violated as they feel neccesary, individually or collectively, interfering with the liberty of anyone in the name of their self-preservation or pursuit of their agenda.
Eventually this means that many types of rebellious behavior against the government or status quo will be regulated and restrained. Therefore, the population is not allowed to express their desire for individual freedoms if those freedoms pose a threat to the prevailing system. In the light of such restrictions, the idea of individual liberty becomes secondary at best.
But when these problematic ideals of individual liberty are applied to economic entities. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, they are indeed restraints, and all restraint...is an evil.
The "freedom" implied is one-sided. This is due to the fact that in those instances where the liberty of the individual clashes with the liberty of the economic entity, according to the doctrine of utilitarianism, the economic entity will predominate, in that it presumably provides the greater amount of happiness to society, and is, hence, more useful.
In short, the rights of the individual are put on the back burner, individual liberty is co-opted by economic interests which assume the ideological place initially reserved for the individual in the first place.
Add to this already murky philosophy the overt elitism present throughout the conservative ditto heads like Coulter, Limbaugh, et al, and what is revealed is an attitude of contempt towards the principles of democracy,
The "conservative" attitude toward democracy is that one of the main conditions essential to good government is that it be government by a select body, not by the public mandate, that political questions not be decided by established process, either direct or indirect, or influenced by the judgement or will of a (purposely) uninformed public, but by the deliberately formed opinions of a the few.
They clearly advocate an oligarchical system wholly suited to an imperialistic ruling class, yet not terribly concerned with liberty on an individual to individual basis.
In truth the "conservative party" is a cynical elitist group which combines utopian concepts of utilitarianism and free trade.
The hidden reality is their veiled contempt for the masses and general lack of confidence in the principles of democracy, privately they operate as an oligarchy ruled by an political aristocracy, the "public party line" is scripted towards the sentimental side, expressing confidence in a population whose own drive for happiness will lead it inevitably towards that perfect society in which, if not interupted by outside interference, the greatest good will come to the greatest number.
The overriding flaw in this "conservative" vision is the most superficial reading of history shows it for what it really is. It is interesting to note that modern "conservatives", while paying lip-service to established doctrines, (such as free trade) have just the opposite opinion of the average citizen, namely that law and order and strict obedience to the edicts of society are the way to go.
The endowment of individual liberties upon economic entities has become the cornerstone of modern capitalism. In the United States this concept has been adopted and sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Bellotti ruling of 1980 granted corporations first amendment free speech rights, thus equating, in the realm of expression, the corporation with the individual.
In effect, this ruling makes it a foregone conclusion that the corporate speaker will be the loudest voice in town.
With the enhancement of corporate power by such Supreme Court rulings, the inevitable consequence is the diminishment of the liberty of the individual.
Another consequence of this is the current state of affairs brought about by a decade of relatively unrestrained free trade. "Economic freedom' is a euphemism for private enterprise unfettered by social accountability."
This same social unaccountability has left us with the Enron and WorldCom scandals, corporate domination of the media, and a vast concentration of wealth at the top of the economic food chain the likes of which this country has never seen.
Trailer park trash like Ann Coulter are the "conservative" equivelant of the Jerry Springer show, shallow entertainment for other trailer park residents....watching her beat straw man Bill up makes for good entertainment while Chimpy and his gang of thugs operate.
-
Just a quick question...
Why do you call the Reagan years "a criminal regime" and Clinton "elected twice by voters"?
Wasnt Reagan elected twice by voters too?
-
And they want you to spy on your neighbours for them, and report any suspicious activity to the Party...I mean Gastapo...I mean the government.
-
The "conservative" attitude toward democracy is that one of the main conditions essential to good government is that it be government by a select body, not by the public mandate, that political questions not be decided by established process, either direct or indirect, or influenced by the judgement or will of a (purposely) uninformed public, but by the deliberately formed opinions of a the few.
The liberal philosophy is that Daschle and Gephardt know how to spend our money better than we do, so we should give it to them.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh and Midnight, tell me if any part of this quote is untrue:
[Clinton] perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, lied to his party, his staff, his wife and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle.
How the f*ck an you defend such an outrageous amazinhunk?
Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address—one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."
First you get on Montezuma about "cut and pasting" then you place quotes in here without identifying which is yours and which isn't. Bad form Steve.
Legally Clinton did not commit perjury or Suborn Perjury. He was aquitted of those charges.
The fact that he lied to many people is without question. I would like you to name ONE conservative politician that has NEVER lied. But that is beside the point isn't it. Because we are talking about Ann Coulter's lies. Am I saying that Clinton's lies are OK because all politicians lie? Or are you saying that Ann Coulter's lies are OK because Clinton was caught lieing? It seems we have a moral conundrum here doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Just a quick question...
Why do you call the Reagan years "a criminal regime" and Clinton "elected twice by voters"?
Wasnt Reagan elected twice by voters too?
For 12 years, from 1981-1993, the United States was governed by Reagan and Bush who merged the power of the state with criminality to a degree possibly unmatched in modern American history.
The "crack" epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities was due to massive shipments of cocaine smuggled by elements of the CIA-organized Nicaraguan contra army in the early-to-mid 1980s.
Danilo Blandon Reyes, a former contra leader and drug dealer, testified during a cocaine trafficking trial in San Diego that the smuggling was given a green light by the late Enrique Bermudez, who commanded the FDN, the largest contra force and the one most closely associated with the CIA
A wealth of evidence, collected by federal drug agents and congressional investigators during the 1980s, corroborated that the Reagan-Bush administrations knew about the drug trafficking and mounted a determined cover-up to protect the contras from exposure.
Senior administration officials apparently shared Enrique Bermudez's situational ethics. After all, President Reagan had hailed the contras as the "moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers." They could not be unmasked as drug dealers.
The disgraceful filth we had in the White House not only allowed *tons* of cocaine to be imported and sold in the US... they also blew billions of dollars on fighting the "drug war" and imprisioned people for long prison terms for cocaine related offenses.
Both them and involved cabinet members should have gotten life prison sentences....and don't forget, one of the main persons implicated is now the US vice president.
I guess crime really does pay, if your a Bush or friend of one. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
First you get on Montezuma about "cut and pasting" then you place quotes in here without identifying which is yours and which isn't. Bad form Steve.
Legally Clinton did not commit perjury or Suborn Perjury. He was aquitted of those charges.
The fact that he lied to many people is without question. I would like you to name ONE conservative politician that has NEVER lied. But that is beside the point isn't it. Because we are talking about Ann Coulter's lies. Am I saying that Clinton's lies are OK because all politicians lie? Or are you saying that Ann Coulter's lies are OK because Clinton was caught lieing? It seems we have a moral conundrum here doesn't it?
Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony
April 12, 1999
Web posted at: 7:24 p.m. EDT (2324 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) -- U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.
So Clinton was not found guilty of perjury, just lying... or more correctly, his statements were "intentionally false"
-
I guess you agree with me then HM.
-
from bill
"This is not easy to do, but I'm telling you, no terrorist campaign has ever succeeded, and this one won't if you don't give it permission"
lol
did blondy point that retarded statement out...Terrorist campaigns actually have a pretty fair track record when compared to pasifist campaigns... Especialy when the liberal press can support them.
-
A. What's the difference between 700 confidential FBI files found in the Oval office and the Watergate break-ins?
B. And just for you, Weazel, after that masterpiece of garbage... what's the difference between a conservative and a liberal?
A. Nixon was about to be impeached, and for the sake of the country and his reputation resigned.
B. Conservatives wait until people are born, grown, and screwed up their lives to pronounce a death sentence. Liberals make the death sentence hereditary.
-
mT - i can't stand that skanky RW harpie hatemonger, anthrax coulter either.
but give it rest already, no need to reprint the demented squeakes' hateful spew.
she's a nobody, who can't get over the fact that she'll never get a chance to suck the big dog's enormous noodle, and it's made her insane. :(
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I guess you agree with me then HM.
The question begs to be asked...
Is Clinton guilty of lying under oath? Is that perjury?
well it all depends on what your definition of "is".... is
-
Quote:
"mT - i can't stand that skanky RW harpie hatemonger, anthrax coulter either.
but give it rest already, no need to reprint the demented squeakes' hateful spew.
she's a nobody, who can't get over the fact that she'll never get a chance to suck the big dog's enormous noodle, and it's made her insane."
This must be another sterling example of that(self-described)Liberal-Leftist attribute of "enlightened concern for Women's Issues". As Slick Willie would have said: "I feel your pain".
The above post is nearly as funny as watching members of NOW(National Organization Of Weird Women)get all wet over Bill Clinton. Or is it Janet Reno???
Whatever........
Cabby
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The fine was for contempt of court. Not perjury.
this speaks volumes about the man. Sorry excuse for a man.
-
...and to top it all off, the chief executive officer of the federal government, whose primary purpose is to make certain laws are obeyed.
-
.... please refill your meds & HURRY! :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony
April 12, 1999
Web posted at: 7:24 p.m. EDT (2324 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) -- U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.
So Clinton was not found guilty of perjury, just lying... or more correctly, his statements were "intentionally false"
anyone one of us found guilty of the same would still be in prison squealing like a pig, instead this tard is making millions speaking to payin high $$ morons :rolleyes:
only in AMerica where the average joe is dumber than dirt whose memory shorter than his banana <- give em a beer and a bong and they are "happy" :rolleyes:
-
>>enlightened concern for Women's Issues<<
i got that leftist liberal enlightened concern for womens issues.:)
got no concern for the issues re: skanky RW harpie hate-mongers, who think women are too stupid to have the right to vote, cause they vote democratic. (yes, she said that, thats how demented she is). :mad:
-
What is she always yacking about, dont all woman simply want the same thing?
:p
-
heheeh bunch of self rightous hypocrits :)
I'd like to see how many of you would admit to having an affair.
Oh, I forget. it's ok to lie if you're not under oath. Then it's all fair game.
Get over yourselves. You would have done the same darn thing.
-
hehe, I can be self-righteous, because I haven't had an affair.
You are playing semantics now. If you want to play the moral card, you are right, there is no difference between lying under oath or not under oath. If you want to talk about law, there is a world of difference. People, regular people like you or me, go to prison for what he did. Now we have unequal application of laws he is voted into office to protect- or does that fail to sink in? You'll tell me now to name any politician that isn't guilty of the same thing, and I'll ask you to provide proof of anyone you know that has. You will bring up Reagan or Bush Sr., then I will say that person should have been prosecuted, and we wind up right back where we started-Clinton is and was a criminal.
What I will never understand is how NOW dropped to their knees and gave BC a nice BJ. I guess they would rather have his support than to hold up to their principles.
And Ski, you are making the standard Clinton-apologist argument- minimalize the fact Clinton abused his power to spit in the face of the justice system by suggesting it was only about sex. Don't believe what I am saying? Try being a witness in a civil case, intentionally perjure yourself, then try to talk your way out of a sentence. "Intentionally misleading"? Hah!
-
Originally posted by fd ski
heheeh bunch of self rightous hypocrits :)
I'd like to see how many of you would admit to having an affair.
Oh, I forget. it's ok to lie if you're not under oath. Then it's all fair game.
Get over yourselves. You would have done the same darn thing.
Which gets to the one thing that bugged me about how Clinton should have handled it.
He should have had the sack to say, "None of your damned business. I'm not answering. Piss off."
-
Quote:
"He should have had the sack to say, "None of your damned business. I'm not answering. Piss off.""
And the response would/should have been:
That's the People's House, it IS our business, and you ain't fit to live in it. Now get the hell out, you low-rent piece of adolescent trailer-trash, and take that bunch of morons you call an "Administration" with you. And try not and steal anything on the way out...........
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
"He should have had the sack to say, "None of your damned business. I'm not answering. Piss off.""
And the response would/should have been:
That's the People's House, it IS our business, and you ain't fit to live in it. Now get the hell out, you low-rent piece of adolescent trailer-trash, and take that bunch of morons you call an "Administration" with you. And try not and steal anything on the way out...........
Cabby
Instead of an acquittal?
The People put him and his administration in that house... twice.
Methinks that if the laws were different and Clinton were allowed to run for a third term, there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Dubya would have beat him.
Then again... Dubya didn't beat Gore either. :P
-
"And just for you, Weazel, after that masterpiece of garbage... what's the difference between a conservative and a liberal?"
Garbage?
It may be offensive to you...but only if you believe yourself to be in the same category as the vermin it's directed at.
You consider yourself a conservative, and based on what I know of you I would agree with that definition..
"con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic. A preservative agent or principle."
The definition above may fit your attitude and lifestyle, but from my perspective I don't see the parallels with the current media darling Coulter or the "fortunate son" in the White House in comparison with my perception of who you are..
Please enlighten me on the finer points in catagorizing a person as a liberal or conservative, it seems to me the only yardstick being used to measure is a persons attitude towards Bush....and its too short for the task.
Hell....I personally feel the definition is more applicable to my character and beliefs than what I see coming out of Washington.
Go back and read it again, this time without feeling I'm attacking you personally or as an all encompassing criticism of all Republicans. then honestly tell me you don't see any truth in it.
The reality is that the only thing you have in common with the current crooks in Washington is the country you live in.
-
Originally posted by KG45
...who think women are too stupid to have the right to vote, cause they vote democratic. (yes, she said that, thats how demented she is). :mad:
Post your source please. I'd like to see the quote from Ann Coulter where she say "women are too stupid to have the right to vote because they vote democratic".
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Then again... Dubya didn't beat Gore either. :P
I'd say this quote pretty much sums up your knowledge of democracy and the rule of law...
-
Originally posted by weazel
For 12 years, from 1981-1993, the United States was governed by Reagan and Bush who merged the power of the state with criminality to a degree possibly unmatched in modern American history.
The "crack" epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities was due to massive shipments of cocaine smuggled by elements of the CIA-organized Nicaraguan contra army in the early-to-mid 1980s.
Danilo Blandon Reyes, a former contra leader and drug dealer, testified during a cocaine trafficking trial in San Diego that the smuggling was given a green light by the late Enrique Bermudez, who commanded the FDN, the largest contra force and the one most closely associated with the CIA
A wealth of evidence, collected by federal drug agents and congressional investigators during the 1980s, corroborated that the Reagan-Bush administrations knew about the drug trafficking and mounted a determined cover-up to protect the contras from exposure.
Senior administration officials apparently shared Enrique Bermudez's situational ethics. After all, President Reagan had hailed the contras as the "moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers." They could not be unmasked as drug dealers.
The disgraceful filth we had in the White House not only allowed *tons* of cocaine to be imported and sold in the US... they also blew billions of dollars on fighting the "drug war" and imprisioned people for long prison terms for cocaine related offenses.
Both them and involved cabinet members should have gotten life prison sentences....and don't forget, one of the main persons implicated is now the US vice president.
I guess crime really does pay, if your a Bush or friend of one. :rolleyes:
So if I have understood you correct here, the "crack epidemic" was the fault of the contras, who were funded by the CIA, who were under orders from Reagan...so therefore Reagan is responsible for the crack epidemic?
How about the stupid bastards paying for the illegal crack and then consuming it to get high? Are they to blame at all?
Also, if the contras were drug dealers "on the side", so what? Take a look at the US track record...it aint exactly spotless. Why worry about "freedom fighters" who are selling drugs to finance their war when you have so many cases of much worse behavior by US supported actors.
Supporting Saddam Hussein and the Afghan "mujahedin", supporting dictators (for example South Vietnam and Iraq) and killing democracies (Chile), wagin unlawful wars (Kosovo) committing crimes against international law (Clinton's cruise missiles to Sudan), etc etc etc...do you have any idea how long this list can be made? Why are you focusing on 81-93? Why stop at 93 when you have oh so many crimes committed by a sitting US president in the 94-00 period too?
The USA has always been pretty good at "merging the power of the state with criminality", and whether you like it or not, mr Clinton set a new record in that area.
If you claim to have proof that the US government were actively helping the drug delaers, then by all means, go ahead and post your sources. If you have nothing more than statements like "a wealth of evidence" proves this or that, then let it go, because no one will take you seriously.
-
more......
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'd say this quote pretty much sums up your knowledge of democracy and the rule of law...
There is absolutely nothing democratic about the electoral college.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There is absolutely nothing democratic about the electoral college.
another gem... what did you do in school anyway?
-
Ok, from the cambridge dictionary:
democracy
noun
the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves
The government has promised to uphold the principles of democracy.
The early 1990s saw the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe.
A democracy is a country in which power is held by elected representatives.
Few of the Western democracies still have a royal family.
FIGURATIVE This company is a democracy - all the employees are equal, and share in making decisions.
democratic
adjective
We must accept the results of a democratic election (=an election in which all people can vote).
Do you think Australia is a more democratic country (=there is greater social equality there) than Britain?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
another gem... what did you do in school anyway?
YAWN.
-
hehe, yeah I suspected that actually...
-
Gore won the popular vote; Bush the electoral vote. The court battle over Florida's electoral votes divided the nation as no other issue has in recent years. Even Richard Nixon had enough class to bow out of the fight after the controversial election of 1960 rather than drag the country through an acrimonious legal challenge of the election results. And he had sufficient cause to challenge the results.
But I digress.
Gore may have won the popular vote in 2000, but I doubt if he could do it today.
On the subject of Bill Clinton let me offer the following thoughts.
Arkansas is a small state, so native Arkansans, such as myself, have had numerous occassions to hear him speak or to socialize with him. He and I share a number of friends, although I have never spoken to him personally.
His party has controlled the state legislature without interruption since 1874, the year that Reconstruction ended in Arkansas. That is the longest uninterrupted control of a state legislature by a single political party in the history of the United States. That has led to a number of abuses of political power over the years. Decades ago, Arkansas politics was about as corrupt as that of any state in the nation. Things have improved somewhat since that time, but certain attitudes and practices linger. Contempt for the rival party, the use of surrogates when questionable methods are used to accomplish a goal, accepting illegal campaign contributions, using government agencies to investigate political opponents, or covering up for fellow party members who have been caught in some questionable act.
The year that Clinton threw his hat into the ring to run for president, I was overseas studying in Egypt. On the return flight home, a young couple asked a companion and myself about Clinton. What was he like...that sort of thing. My companion, a lady who was a staunch Clinton supporter, said that she thought he would make it to the White House. I replied that I wasn't sure about his chances because there was a possibility that scandals would keep him from winning the Democratic nomination...and that even if elected scandals might sink his administration.
The bad habits he developed while governor of Arkansas nearly destroyed his administration.
Clinton was the friend of the son of a lady who is one of closest friends. Just prior to his first presidential election she tried to persuade me to vote for him. She felt that he had a lot to offer the nation. I listened politely, and later wrote Clinton a letter, detailing some of the things that I thought he ought to try to accomplish as President. I wished him well
But I did NOT vote for him.
Late in his second administration, after the latest scandal had hit the papers, she and I had another conversation about him. She admitted that she could no longer defend some of the things that he was doing. This lady was a close personal friend of his and had worked in his office when he was governor. She had supported him for many years and loved him dearly. But she would not blindly defend him.
The partisanship he exhibited during his first two years in office was the real Bill Clinton. His belief in his own "rightness" or the "rightness of his cause" leads him to treat the opposition with contempt. He might have been able to get away with that type of thing in Arkansas, but it was another matter altogether to engage in that behavior on a national stage.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Ok, from the cambridge dictionary:
democracy
noun
the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves
The government has promised to uphold the principles of democracy.
The early 1990s saw the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe.
A democracy is a country in which power is held by elected representatives.
Few of the Western democracies still have a royal family.
FIGURATIVE This company is a democracy - all the employees are equal, and share in making decisions.
democratic
adjective
We must accept the results of a democratic election (=an election in which all people can vote).
Do you think Australia is a more democratic country (=there is greater social equality there) than Britain?
Your point?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There is absolutely nothing democratic about the electoral college.
Naturally... since Gore lost because of it MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college as a tool for preventing the larger states from running roughshod over the smaller states during the presidential election. This is similar to the protections given to "minorities" in the Constitution. In that regard, the electoral college serves a legitimate purpose.
Nixon had the good grace to bow out in the election of 1960 to spare the country the pain of a divisive election scandal. A similar act of self-sacrifice did not take place in the election of 2000. Democrats, having lost in the courts, fairly or unfairly, have been vowing vengeance ever since.
The matter should have been laid to rest for the good of the country. No wonder George Washington warned the country about the dangers of "the spirit of party."
Regards, Shuckins
-
Hort-
not the one i'm looking for, ain't found it yet, but it shows the level of this wenches dementia.
"I think should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
-- Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001
More here:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020205Coulter.html
-
I like it :D
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I like it :D
Lucky we don't elect people by greatest land mass covered! Then we'd get a President from Texas! oops!
Tumor, if you were to highlight the major centers of population in blue and the rest in red your map would look very similar. Remember who got the most votes now?
-
...let's not forget how the networks were calling the election as over an hour before the polls closed, sending tens of thousands of voters home. The election was a statistical tie, with Bush winning on the tie-breaker (electoral college).
-
Why is the southern tip of Florida still white on your pic? Still undecided?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Why is the southern tip of Florida still white on your pic? Still undecided?
My favourite were all the people claiming to have voted for the wrong guy. They wanted a re-vote or something. My thoughts when I heard that were somewhere along the lines of:
If you are too dumb to follow a big black thick arrow from the name of your candidate to a small hole and push out a piece of paper, you probably should not vote at all.
and
"I punched the wrong candidate because I got confused over the fact that there were candidates on the left and the right side of the ballot." Are we supposed to just take your word for it?
ANYWAY midnight, please dont say that you actually feel that the election was stolen. I honestly thought you were smarter than that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
ANYWAY midnight, please dont say that you actually feel that the election was stolen. I honestly thought you were smarter than that.
The election was stolen. I guess you were wrong. I though you were smarter than that.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The election was stolen. I guess you were wrong. I though you were smarter than that.
:rolleyes:
Nah, thats just me always trying to see the best in all people
In what way was it stolen then? Or rather HOW? (hint: if something went according to the law, it would be wrong to call that "stolen", something that implies unlawful actions)
-
It would seem that a discussion of the election of 2000 cannot start without you defining the parameters of the debate.
Based on the above, I would have to prove that something was illegal to claim that it was "stolen". Do I have that right sir?
Are you saying that nothing can be legally stolen? Or must we define a second term for those things that are legal yet unfair or unjustifiable?
And BTW, whether I believe it was stolen or not, my last post was just a little tweak at the condecension of your last sentence (honestly thought you were smarter). You have a very bad habit of calling people stupid, uneducated, poorly read etc. That isn't a necesary component of a good debate.
-
Why, you are correct Sir, nothing can be "legally stolen" so we would have to come up with a new word for it.
So we are looking for a word describing a situation where something is legal but yet unfair or unjustifiable...hmm..."life"? ;)
And to be honest midnight, I *have* stopped calling you names. At least I think so... but you know me, I always argue 100% or not at all.
From your post I get the impression that you feel that Bush won the Florida electors unfair or in an unjustifiable way? Or are you talking about the fact that Gore got more than 50% of the total votes cast in the US? (although he was not the first presidential candidate to lose the election despite having over 50%...right?)
-
OK, here is my take on the 2000 election.
1. Bush might have won, Gore might have won. We will never really know because....
2. The recount process was stymied by the Republican faithful in Florida.
I feel Catherine Harris took actions that were much too partisan for a national election.
And then there is the Supreme Courts decision regarding the disposition of the ballots in question:
The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing their remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision means that the Supreme Court, not the electorate, has determined the outcome of the presidential election.[/b] In a scathing dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens writes, “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”[/b]
Four out of nine Justices agreed with Stevens. At the very least this shows how gray this decision was and that there will always be some doubt about the election of 2000.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The election was stolen.
MT,
Wrong.
It was fumbled by a guy who could not even carry his own state, riding on the crest of an unprecedented economic expansion.
It should have never been close.
Bush didn't steal it......Gore flat out lost it.
Any further debate after that is just making excuses for the candidate's and the party's complete incompetance to bring it over the goal line.
Cobra
-
Steve wrote:
Clinton] perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, lied to his party, his staff, his wife and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle
In the end it was about blowjobs... What kind of gentleman snitches out another gentlemen about his mistress? Americans look at snitches as lowest of the low.
the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address
I say we boycott the Supreme Court.. these are the folks that said Bush’s constitutional rights would be violated if he were to not be made president. This is the court that said a sitting president can be sued by a private party. That’s a Bill of Attainder BTW.. you can’t make a law against one person. You can bet your 401K Bush and Cheney ain’t sitting down to answer any questions under oath. I guarantee their gonna reverse that law.
A. What's the difference between 700 confidential FBI files found in the Oval office and the Watergate break-ins?
Whats the difference between 700 confidential FBI files and 7,000,000 confidential FBI files found in the office of homeland security?
So if I have understood you correct here, the "crack epidemic" was the fault of the contras, who were funded by the CIA, who were under orders from Reagan...so therefore Reagan is responsible for the crack epidemic?
Yes, you understood Weazel correct. The contras didn’t want to deadhead back without a load, the CIA/DEA looked the other way when the planes landed. This did two things, pay for more arms for the contras and stir up a drug war in mostly African American neighborhoods, one put the gangbangers in prison for life, two, put the dealers... along with their girlfriends in prison for 15 to 20.
How about the stupid bastards paying for the illegal crack and then consuming it to get high? Are they to blame at all?
Yes they are but this is one weird bellybutton drug, the high is you gotta get another hit RIGHT AWAY!.. never satisfied. I thought at the time there was something weird going on. What kind of nonsense instant addiction drug is this?
so therefore Reagan is responsible for the crack epidemic?
Yes, that is correct, since it’s been proven that Reagan was NOT an airhead, he would've known about this operation.
wagin unlawful wars (Kosovo)
Steve, I know this is off topic but I’ve been meaning to ask you for awhile now if you were for or against Operation Allied Force. I’m assuming you were against.. That means you are for a National Socialist? (real deal National Socialism they even said it on Yugoslavia web page.)
But getting back to Miss Colter, why do serious political talk shows even have her on? And this question for members of the REAL Grand Old Party: Do you think miss Colter makes the tent bigger?
on edit: opps didn't read page two... boy howdy I got comments for page two
did sombody say election 2000?
It was fair and square ... If you take away the tens of thousands of regerestered voters turned away at the polls.. If you take away the thousands of military vote postmarked AFTER the election.
-
Both parties suck. hell, both swallow and seem to enjoy it as far as I can tell.
:)
-
In the end it was about blowjobs...
To those who would have the rest of us forget what it was REALLY about, this line is perhaps useful. It is, after all, simple misdirection.
It wasn't about blowjobs. Not at all.
For those Americans that still retain a sense of what "character" and "integrity" mean and the important role they play in an honest person's life, the blowjobs were not the issue. They were merely symptoms or indicators.
What was it about? It was about a man that would look directly into the camera while addressing the entire nation over public media and deliberately lie to save his own political "skin".
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
That's what it was about.
Some instantly understand that. It's intuitive in many, if not most.
There are others that will never understand that. Their failure to understand speaks volumes about themselves.
-
10Bears
The Clinton debacle was not about a blowjob. It was about other things. Ultimately it was about character, morals, honor. It was about what kind of man the US president really was. The most powerful man on earth were lying, behaving like a complete amazinhunk. He brought more shame and disgrace to that office than anyone ever thought possible. In the end it was simply embarrasing because no one was taking him seriously. And the weirdest part about it is that he didnt care, he just wanted to cling on to his power. He was a sad pathetic creature. A man without honor, a man without morals.
If you think that the reason the Supreme court ruled the way they did was because of Bush's constitutional rights, I think you have missed alot of the legal reasoning behind that ruling. In fact, I dont think you are serious when you say that.
And to say that a sitting president can be sued is not to make law against one person. If they had said that Bill Clinton could be sued while in office, THAT would have been making a law against one person. There is a huge difference between the two, even though they have the same effect.
I'm not going to go into the crack-debate with you, simply because I think it is too absurd to try to place blame anywhere else but on the individuals buying the stuff to get high. No one forced them to become a drug addict.
Kosovo was an illegal war. The worst part about it was the timing. Take a look at a timeline of the Lewinsky debacle and the Kosovo war. It is very easy to get very cynical about the how's and why's about that war.
Simply put, no nation has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. There is no exception to that rule. Kosovo was a part of Serbia, an independent nation. There was a guerilla movement in Kosovo trying to create an independent Kosovo.
The US tried to broker a peace deal between the guerillas and the Serbian government, but the Serbians did not want to sign the deal because they felt it was illegal and wrong. They had every right to refuse to sign. The US put up an ultimatum "sign or we will bomb you into submission". The Serbs still refused to sign, and the US began bombing Serbia.
No matter how you twist or turn, what the US did in Kosovo was against international law. It was an illegal war. Here you can find the reason why the US will not accept the jurisdiction of the International court of Justice in the Hauge...because if they did, Clinton could very well be tried and convicted there, together with a whole bunch of US military personnel...bad PR I guess, as well as a bad precedent.
As for the last part I dont understand. What do you mean am I for a "National Socialist"?
-
Oh, BTW 10Bears...
Can you explain the connection.... or lack thereof... between Bill admitting an affair with Lewinsky on Monday and 75 U.S. cruise missiles striking targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan on Thursday?
This, of course, AFTER the twin embassy bombings on August 7 which were linked by that administration to Osama bin Laden. Of course, Bin Laden was not a target as administration officials insisted the attack was not aimed at him.
I'm sure you can shed some light on this as you've so... brilliantly... shown a light on the present administration.
What was that phrase you used in the other thread? "Wag the dog" was it?
Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I like it :D
This is why it's a bad thing:
The following shows you how much your vote is worth in presidential elections compared to the national average. Because of the Electoral College, voters in certain states have more say in which candidates should be elected. Find your state from the list below to see how much your vote is worth.
(How to use the table - If the vote value for your state is 1.70, then your vote is worth 1.70 times that of the national average.)
State Vote Value
Alabama 1.05
Alaska 2.67
Arizona 0.83
Arkansas 1.17
California 0.85
Colorado 0.97
Connecticut 1.21
Delaware 1.98
DC 2.55
Florida 0.79
Georgia 0.84
Hawaii 1.70
Idaho 1.68
Illinois 0.93
Indiana 1.04
Iowa 1.24
Kansas 1.18
Kentucky 1.02
Louisiana 1.08
Maine 1.60
Maryland 0.99
Massachusetts 0.96
Michigan 0.95
Minnesota 1.07
Mississippi 1.31
Missoiri 1.03
Montana 1.73
Nebraska 1.54
Nevada 1.05
New Hampshire 1.68
New Jersey 0.92
New Mexico 1.48
New York 0.90
North Carolina 0.89
North Dakota 2.42
Ohio 0.96
Oklahoma 1.22
Oregon 1.06
Pennsylvania 0.96
Rhode Island 1.94
South Carolina 1.04
South Dakota 2.11
Tennessee 1.00
Texas 0.83
Utah 1.28
Vermont 2.53
Virginia 0.95
Washington 0.98
West Virginia 1.38
Wisconsin 1.07
Wyoming 3.20
-
Hey fellas, you ever need to get a hold of 10Bears don’t bother to email, just trash President Clinton in the O’Club I’ll be on here to defend the Big Dawg lickity split!
Toad your from the south right?.. lets talk about the character and integrity of these 10th grade Heathers who can’t seem to mind their own business. What happens down south when a gentleman blabs and snitches out the other gentlemen's mistress?.. Is the character and integrity questioned of the guy who wants to keep his mistress tucked away?.. Or is it the blabbermouth who needs to get whacked over the head with a walking cane?.
The Paula Jones lawsuit had little merit. Have you actually read the transcript?. It took them 38 minutes to ask the first question about Paula Jones. And even then it was only four or five questions. The rest was all Monica. Even a Nairobi tribesmen could see Paula Jones was used as a vehicle to “get” president Clinton on Monica... (they knew about her for months that’s BS about them just finding out) Even your gal Ann Colter admits they knew about her for months.
And if you think powerful world leaders don’t keep a mistress around all through history, you better crack open a book.
No sir I judge the character and integrity of President Clinton on what he did as president. A lasting peace in northern Ireland. Simi peace in middle east, Korea almost reconciled due to a large part by President Clinton. His economic stimulus package of 1993 which cut taxes for lower end workers but raised taxes to the highest 1% of earners, with the promise of a balanced budget and paying down the national debt. A balanced budget means lower interest rates which would offset the higher tax. Also, with lower intrest rates, people are able to get a loan for a startup business. That sir, floats everybody's boat... 5,000 new schools build. 100,000 more cops on the street. and plenty more. THAT Toad is real character and real integrity.
Steve, Kosovo deserves it’s own thread. But I better warn you, while y’all were fishing around in the presidents trousers, I was watching Yugoslavia like a hawk.. I read stratfor every day and other news sources from 1991. I bought every book written on the subject so... you better bring your A game. No opinion pieces.... they all have to be FACT articles.
Can’t do it today.. just got a call up for a large show. (Thank God, at least 250 billable hours)
This economy was starting to make me sweat.
edit to answer Toad real quick then I got to run
Because it had been planned a month in advance?... look it up
If the cruise missiles took 6 hours to reach target, is it possable the nme was tipped off?
Why is it important for Iraq to be attacked in Sept or Oct at the latest?
And... before you get too mad at me, I think your the smartest conservetive on this board :)..
Good day sir
-
10Bears,
I found the following statements in your post to be somewhat confusing:
1. A lasting peace in northern Ireland? Well, maybe.
2. A semi-peace in the Middle East? Did Hamas and the Israelis kiss and make up? Did Sharon invite Arafat to eat dinner in his home? Are Palestinian and Israeli civilians able to walk their streets in peace and safety? Have I missed something here? Define semi-peace.
3. North Korea almost reconciled to the United States? Is that like being almost friends? Have they stopped trying to develop ICBM's? Are they now willing to allow free trade with their country? Will their government now accept food, medicine and other aid from the U.S. for their starving population? There was a time when they wouldn't you know. Has all of that changed? Would being almost reconciled be similar to saying that the leaders of the Chinese Army were almost Democrats because they funnelled money to Clinton's reelection campaign through his vice-President? (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) :D
How can you claim these as accomplishments when the problems still remain, and in some cases have worsened?
Clinton had some accomplishments. All Presidents do. His were marred by his scandals, which were many in number.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Shuckins, how do you do that colored-type thingie? That's pretty cool :)
-
Much like a middle ground between the house and senate, eh Sandman? Towns of 10,000 have no desire to be under national policies designed from the perspective of cities of 1,000,000. That's why rural areas are red, and their senators will never support getting rid of the electoral college.
-
Can tell you at least one thing Slick Willy didn't do during the 12 or so years he was governor of Arkansas. He never visited Little Rock AFB little more than 20 miles from the state Capitol, not once.
Even if he wasn't the biggest scum bucket to ever be elected to any political office I'd dislike him for that reason alone.
-
Whats the difference between 700 confidential FBI files and 7,000,000 confidential FBI files found in the office of homeland security?
The former happened and responsibility was denied by the then-president. (How'd those get there?) There was no moral or legal purpose for them to be there.
The latter was proposed in the full light of day, along with discussion on the topic, along with a pretty good reasoning for doing so.
How's that? I maintain I am correct in my original ascertation, Richard Nixon was brought down for less than those 700 files.
-
1. A lasting peace in northern Ireland? Well, maybe.
And an independent parliament for Scotland, I credit Mel Gipson for that.
2. A semi-peace in the Middle East? Did Hamas and the Israelis kiss and make up?
8 years of rocks and rubber bullets compared to... compared to what shuckins?
3. North Korea almost reconciled to the United States
North and South Korea coming real close to reconciliation Communism wouldn’t have ended in the north but maybe just maybe with a little engagement... there might be a third way or some other solution so N .Korea could re-enter the world. Clinton was ^ that close.
leaders of the Chinese Army were almost Democrats because they funnelled money to Clinton's reelection campaign through his vice-President? (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
Shuckins, would you like me to pour you a nice hot cup of coffee? No you don’t need no sugar or creme... drink it black.
Haly Barbor the man convicted of accepting Chinese money was..... HEAD OF THE RNC
Good Lord have mercy! what a crying shame these fine good lookin’ collage boys get their news from newsmax or Rush.

-
Elfenwolf,
To highlight a word with color look above the page on which you are typing your post. Right beside font is a bar labeled color. Click on the down arrow beside it. Pick a color and click on it. A side panel will pop up with a line for you to type the highlighted word on. When finished, click OK and it will place it in the text.
Regards, Shuckins :)
-
10Bears,
Do you mean it wasn't Al Gore who visited a Buddhist temple to make a speech and walked away with a paper sack containing hundreds of thousands of dollars? Was it not Al Gore who used White House telephones to solicit campaign funds in direct violation of federal law? Did he not state that it may have been illegal but there was "no controlling legal authority" to enforce it, thereby implying that the whole matter was somehow trivial?
Heavens to Betsy! How many scandals would this administration have had to be involved in before you would find fault with it? Party loyalty is a fine thing, but isn't that carrying it to the extreme?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Like this? Or maybe more like this?(singing) I'll have a Blue Christmas without you...how cool! Now I can send coded messages!
Hortlund has announced that he is opposed to gay marriages! How kewl! Now I can insult color blind people!!
Edit to thank Shuckins:)
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Much like a middle ground between the house and senate, eh Sandman? Towns of 10,000 have no desire to be under national policies designed from the perspective of cities of 1,000,000. That's why rural areas are red, and their senators will never support getting rid of the electoral college.
Agreed. There is no way the Electoral College will go away. That would require a Constitutional Amendment and the smaller states wouldn't support it.
There are other options... the District Method, the Proportional Method and the Humphrey Compromise to name a few.
Whatever... there's got to be a better way. It's not right. It's not fair and it's certainly not equal with the current system. A vote in Wyoming carries four times the weight of a vote in California.
-
Coming from a city of 13,500, and being a regular voter, I don't want my voice overwhelmed by a few large urban areas intent on voting themselves endowments.
-
Sandman,
What other way can you suggest to protect the smaller states (most of which are rural) from being run over roughshod by the larger states. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as it does Senators and House members. The number of House members each state has is determined by its population. Since the membership of the House has been frozen at 435 members, each state is given a number of House members based on the proportion of the national population that resides within the state's borders. Yet, I never hear anyone complaining about THAT system of representation.
I prefer to think that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and created the Electoral College they had thought long and hard about the problems of representation and how to have a popular election and yet preserve the rights of the smaller states.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Hey, I think anyone that's willing to live in Montana or the Dakotas DESERVES two or three votes for my one.
-
Sandman,
Your chart is interesting and entertaining. Arkansas' voting value is listed as being 1.17 while poor California's voting value is listed as being only 0.85. Bless their little pea-pickin' hearts!
Such comparisons are meaningless in light of the statistics that really count, such as these:
Arkansas' electoral votes - 6
California's electoral votes - 54
Now who do you really think carries the biggest clout on election day? The only way the small states can influence the outcome of the popular presidential vote is during an extremely close election. If the Electoral College did not exist, presidential candidates would concentrate most of their campaign efforts and money in the 12 largest states, ignoring the constituencies of the smaller states. They could ignore them without fear of political retribution.
I state again that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created the Electoral College. What other protection do the small states have against urban hegemony?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Shuckins, I'm thinking these same guys moaning about the "unfairness" of the Electoral College would and could easily switch sides and defend it if things had been the other way 'round. Had Bush won the popular vote and Gore won the Florida recount... they'd be right in there arguing about how the Founding Father's knew exactly what they were doing when they set up the E.C..
You know they would, I know they would and they know they would. :)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
The former happened and responsibility was denied by the then-president. (How'd those get there?) There was no moral or legal purpose for them to be there.
The latter was proposed in the full light of day, along with discussion on the topic, along with a pretty good reasoning for doing so.
How's that? I maintain I am correct in my original ascertation, Richard Nixon was brought down for less than those 700 files.
Gee, Kieran... no answer to your comparison. I'm puzzled. :)
-
Shuckins
First let me say having traveled all through the south, Arkansas is the prettiest of the southern states. I remember seeing vast tracts of forest. Louisiana comes close with her rolling hills I like that. Mississippi was interesting too. Seemed more green there, more green than the other states. I like those trees that just kind of hang over. slow, lazy.. what are those trees called? Trying to remember the name of the motel I stayed at about 30 miles south of Little Rock.. The Courtland. Clean, modern, professionally run, not too expensive. I remember sitting on the balcony and looking at an old old farmhouse about a hundred yards away. What a contrast between old and new. The next morning I heading off for breakfast in Little Rock at a local dinner. I like to hit the local eateries with lots of cars in front. You know it’s good. Everybody treated me like gold I got the true southern hospitality.
Do you mean it wasn't Al Gore who visited a Buddhist temple to make a speech and walked away with a paper sack containing hundreds of thousands of dollars? Was it not Al Gore who used White House telephones to solicit campaign funds in direct violation of federal law? Did he not state that it may have been illegal but there was "no controlling legal authority" to enforce it, thereby implying that the whole matter was somehow trivial?
My understanding is Al Gore had a dozen fundraising stops and the Buddhist temple in Los Angeles was only one of many. Once the DNC found out the funds were from a foreign source, they gave the money back.
How unfortunate that the head of the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE Halle Bourbor caught accepting funds from the Chinese,..... WAS [SIZE=8]CONVICTED!!!!!!![/SIZE]
Heavens to Betsy! How many scandals would this administration have had to be involved in before you would find fault with it? Party loyalty is a fine thing, but isn't that carrying it to the extreme?
Accusations are a dime a dozen my friend. You have to show some CONVICTIONS for malfeasants while conducting official business in office. Can you list the number of convictions for official business in the Clinton administration? If not why not? They had over 700 FBI agents looking everywhere including the president’s underwear cabinet. One might conclude with all that scrutiny, that the Clinton administration was actually one of the cleanest.
But I found your earlier comments about Shefeild Nelson interesting. Gene Lyons goes into great detail about this fellow in his book “The Hunting of a President” Seems this is where the GREAT HATE all started. Clinton as state attorney general back in the ’70s was going after the corruption of the old boy network. He must of put a stop to some of the cash cows that had been going on since time immortal. Whoa! you don’t wanna do that with the ole’ boys!. Oh boy they were ready to shoot him on the spot.
What I find fascinating is why would Republicans HATE not just dislike but full on HATE the best REPUBLICAN president since Teddy Roosevelt.
Party loyalty is a fine thing, but isn't that carrying it to the extreme?
You know, I wish you Toad, Steve, Eagler, Udie, my squadran commander, my policeman friend Apache and all the rest would take a long hard look at who’s really pulling the strings of the New World Order. I wish you guys would really read up on these international corporations.
But 10Bears whats wrong with corporations and businessmen?
Corporations don’t need voters.
On Edit: Effenwolf been out tipping cows again
-
My understanding is Al Gore had a dozen fundraising stops and the Buddhist temple in Los Angeles was only one of many. Once the DNC found out the funds were from a foreign source, they gave the money back. How unfortunate that the head of the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE Halle Bourbor caught accepting funds from the Chinese,..... WAS CONVICTED!!!!!!!
You realize of course you are making the conservative argument very clearly, right? Did you forget Al Gore made that speech on live television? He in effect said, "Yeah, I did it, what are you gonna do about it?" A republican is caugt taking money illegally and he is convicted. A pair of high-profile democrats are caught taking money either from illegal sources or in an illegal fashion, "no big deal".
"No controlling legal authority" is a gaffe that will live in infamy, right along with "I did not have sex with that women, Ms. Lewinsky." I was pretty much ok with Al up to that point, but you know, I just can't stand it when a publicly elected official gets on national television and tells us all to kiss his ass. Both of these guys had a special penchant for doing so.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Toad your from the south right?..
Nope. An Air Force Brat. Lived in 5 different states before I graduated from college, 3 of those on the East Coast of the US. Only one of those South of the Mason-Dixon and left that one before age two.
lets talk about the character and integrity of these 10th grade Heathers who can’t seem to mind their own business.
Sure. Let's talk about them all you like.... AFTER we hear your public position on the man actually in question here. This is nothing more than another bit of legerdemain; the old "the hand is quicker than the eye". Yet another bit of misdirection. It's not about blowjobs, it's about character and integrity. It's not about the character and integrity of the accusers , but rather about the character and integrity of a man who can lie so coolly and calmly while staring into a camera and addressing the nation he leads.
What character, what integrity does a man occupying the office of President of the United States have when he clearly can't enunciate the common definition of "is" when questioned under oath?
What character, what integrity does a man occupying the office of President of the United States have when he coolly looks into the nation's news cameras and deliberately lies to the entire electorate?
Now, you want to know what I think of people who merely gossip? Not much. But FAR, FAR MORE than someone that performs the above activities. Gossip doesn't even begin to compare to the lack of character and integrity displayed in the above instances.
Beyond that, even in the "Old South" I'd guess political enemies in both parties have waged the wars of innuendo, gossip and actual telling of true "secrets" to bring their opponents down. In fact, I bet it happens in every state in the Union. Do you disagree? Still, there is no, there CAN BE no comparison to a man holding the Oval Office deliberately lying to the nation and parsing the word "is" under oath. :rolleyes:
No sir I judge the character and integrity of President Clinton on what he did as president.
So do I. It seems we've reached vastly different conclusions, however. :)
"His economic stimulus package of 1993"
Pardon, monsieur? Forgive me for thinking the 1994 elections had more to do with the rising tide that lifted all boats. As you recall, Democrats lost the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Was that because Democrats were doing such a good job of listening to the people? Ya think? People were doing so well under that stimulus package that the nation suddenly voted in the Republicans?
Beyond that, CONGRESS truly shapes the nation's economic policies. The President proposes but Congress disposes.
Because it had been planned a month in advance?... look it up
I have and I did again. According to Clinton's own administration, the strikes were in retaliation for the twin attacks on US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.
The President gives the go ahead at 6 a.m. and America strikes back on Thursday, Aug. 20.
Planned a month in advance? So they planned this before the Embassies were attacked?
Everything I've read says planning for "Operation Infinite Reach" began AFTER the attacks....
Let's look at the timeline:
August 6, 1998: Monica Lewinsky appears before the grand jury to begin her testimony.
August 7, 1998: Attack on US Embassies in Africa
August 17, 1998: President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
August 20, 1998: Cruise Missiles Away!
And all sources I've read say Infinite Reach was planned after the attacks... Aug. 7, when Lewinsky testified and was completed, obviously, prior to Aug. 20th. Maybe even by August 17th? Ya think? :)
I think your the smartest conservetive on this board
[/b]
Is that damning with faint praise or just a sort of backhanded compliment? ;)
-
Sure. Let's talk about them all you like.... AFTER we hear your public position on the man actually in question here. This is nothing more than another bit of legerdemain; the old "the hand is quicker than the eye". Yet another bit of misdirection. It's not about blowjobs, it's about character and integrity. It's not about the character and integrity of the accusers , but rather about the character and integrity of a man who can lie so coolly and calmly while staring into a camera and addressing the nation he leads.
Ah geese Toad your going into a circler argument again like you did on Sunday. Like I said above, there’s alot more involved with character and integrity than shielding a mistress. You ever consider the honor, character and integrity of his wife and daughter?.. That there might be other reasons for keeping this quiet?. And like I said above, some dweeb comes up to you and starts asking after your mistress-- What do you do?... you crack his skull open with your cane that’s what. And again Toad.. sheesh.. like I said above, these knucklehead dweebs bring in the dumbest lawsuit in history, should’ve been thrown out the first day--- All the questions ok ok all but 5 questions were about Monica. What is Clinton to do?... Being a lawyer, and a hell of alot smarter than this mufflon... danced like Fred Astair around those silly questions. What IS is... heheheh good one Dawg.. well it ain’t yesterday... is it tomorrow?
What character, what integrity does a man occupying the office of President of the United States have when he coolly looks into the nation's news cameras and deliberately lies to the entire electorate?
I’m in a way of knowin’ the president coolly looked into the nation’s news cameras and deliberately lies to the entire electorate that the Chinese embassy bombing was an accident. Why are you not equally pissed off about that lie?... Well for one thing I know you know that embassy was chock full of tracking equipment. They feed it to the Serb gunners who in turn shot down an F117A. What do you want to do have an open confrontation with the Chinese? Lets play Toad is President of the United States.
Pardon, monsieur? Forgive me for thinking the 1994 elections had more to do with the rising tide that lifted all boats. As you recall, Democrats lost the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Was that because Democrats were doing such a good job of listening to the people? Ya think? People were doing so well under that stimulus package that the nation suddenly voted in the Republicans?
Beyond that, CONGRESS truly shapes the nation's economic policies. The President proposes but Congress disposes.
Yes that is correct and Clinton warned/told them it would be a tough row to hoe. The stimulus package wouldn’t kick in until after the ’94 elections. Enough time for the corporate/republican slime machine to kick into full gear. You know, not a single Republican voted for the stimulus package not a single one.... Al Gore had to make the tie breaking vote. Both Paul Rubin and Alan Greenspan credit Clinton’s stimulus package for the grand economy we enjoyed through the rest of his term. Say, isn’t the 1994/95 congress the one that brought us “Contract with America”? the one that all the corporate accounting deregulation?... just asking.
I have and I did again. According to Clinton's own administration, the strikes were in retaliation for the twin attacks on US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7
Good gravy Toad did I say a month?.. my bad.. 3 weeks something like that the point was these guys weren't just sitting around they were planning a response all that time. Monica who? they could care less about miss Lweinsky or the slime machine.. they had an Arab to kill or at least try.
I think your the smartest conservetive on this board
Is that damning with faint praise or just a sort of backhanded compliment
heheh I guess you never know with me :).. Someday, somehow, I might get ya to concede a point.. art or music... Politics? your as stubborn as a mule (no offense)
Weazel? Sandman?.. Midnight? take yer time jumping in here boys.. I only got 12 rednecks on my 6.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Well for one thing I know you know that embassy was chock full of tracking equipment. They feed it to the Serb gunners who in turn shot down an F117A.
I can confirm that you have no idea what your talking about :D... I will say no more lol
Tumor
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Ah geese Toad your going into a circler argument again like you did on Sunday. Like I said above, there’s alot more involved with character and integrity than shielding a mistress. You ever consider the honor, character and integrity of his wife and daughter?.. That there might be other reasons for keeping this quiet?. And like I said above, some dweeb comes up to you and starts asking after your mistress-- What do you do?... you crack his skull open with your cane that’s what. And again Toad.. sheesh.. like I said above, these knucklehead dweebs bring in the dumbest lawsuit in history, should’ve been thrown out the first day--- All the questions ok ok all but 5 questions were about Monica. What is Clinton to do?... Being a lawyer, and a hell of alot smarter than this mufflon... danced like Fred Astair around those silly questions. What IS is... heheheh good one Dawg.. well it ain’t yesterday... is it tomorrow?
[/b]
So, if I have understood you correct here, you are of the opinion that the honorable thing to do when caught cheating is to lie. This to protect "the honor, character and integrity of his wife and daughter?
Personally I think it would be more honorable to stay faithful to said wife and daughter. But that's just me and my old values I guess. But you would rather have him kill anyone who found out? Is that how to interpret "crack the skull open of the dweeb who asks questions"?
I must admit I find it rather peculiar how you describe the low point in your nations history of the presidential office. "Clinton was smart and danced like Fred Astair around those silly questions"…or in other words, he lied. Would you be as forgiving if GWB ever was caught lying to the public? Somehow I doubt that.
I’m in a way of knowin’ the president coolly looked into the nation’s news cameras and deliberately lies to the entire electorate that the Chinese embassy bombing was an accident. Why are you not equally pissed off about that lie?... Well for one thing I know you know that embassy was chock full of tracking equipment. They feed it to the Serb gunners who in turn shot down an F117A. What do you want to do have an open confrontation with the Chinese? Lets play Toad is President of the United States.
[/b]
This just keeps getting better. So ok, the story so far, the US has started and illegal war against Serbia, this because Serbia did not accept a peace deal the US wanted to broker between Serbia and separatist rebels in Kosovo. Apparently the Chinese embassy in Serbia was helping the Serbian army in their (perfectly legal I might add) attempts to defend their own country. Solution: Drop a bomb on the Chinese embassy. Another act of war, another violation of international law.
Monica who? they could care less about miss Lweinsky or the slime machine.. they had an Arab to kill or at least try.
[/b]
Yeah, they sure showed that. And that was one he** of a try.
President: -"Send in the cruise missiles."
Soldier: -" Sir, we missed, the greatest terrorist of all times is still alive."
President -"Well, at least we tried"
If Clinton would have had the balls to go after OBL like Bush is doing right now, what do you think 9-11/01 would have looked like?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I state again that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created the Electoral College. What other protection do the small states have against urban hegemony?
But do the founding fathers think the less representative will become the more representative after sometime ?
If I take your example the less people they are in rural states the more they will have weight for the election ?
It look strange to me :(
Not that I think the should be regarded as "second zone" citizen but this system seems to have found it's limit ...
The founding fathers were not facing the same population distribution at this time I bet that the repartition betwen rural and city state was more equal ...
So currently the more people there is the less representative they are ... somethings look fishy ...
In France the electoral college as deasapear in the 50's for presidential election and "deputé" (dunno the US equivalent) but not for the "sénateur".
The strange effect is that you can have a left wing president* and left wing "assemblée nationale"* but a right wing senate ...
* with a majority of left voter
The "sénat" is now non-representatif :(
-
You are forgetting that the different states have different numbers of electorates. That was a vote may "weight" more in a small state, but that is balanced by the fact that the smaller state has fewer votes in the electorate.
I think I'm right, but otoh I have been wrong before.
-
oups ....
You're right Steve ,btw I still find this kind of system a bit "funky" it don't work this way in France.
But I still don't undertsand why in one state the ratio should be 1 representatif for 50 000 and 1 for 200 000 in another (Exemple invented) it's bizarre :)
-
Alright Steve,
Let me try and find another descriptive illustration for you. The reason I asked Toad if he was from the south is because they don’t seem to have a problem understanding this.
Ok I got it.. A toothless Hamas Palestinian raghead lowlife comes up to you and demands to know Steve Hortland’s personal business...Do you
A. Be as forthright as possible with this fine upstanding middle east gentleman?
B. Dislocate this motherdiddlyers jaw plate.
Now c’mon Steve, I know your a good guy, I fly in your missions in the arena. You even said I can drive just as fast as I wanna when I come over to visit you in Sweden. There must be some point where we both agree on something... We can expand the discussion from there. You would certainly agree, I would hope, you chose answer B.
I must admit I find it rather peculiar how you describe the low point in your nations history of the presidential office. "Clinton was smart and danced like Fred Astair around those silly questions"…or in other words, he lied. Would you be as forgiving if GWB ever was caught lying to the public? Somehow I doubt that.
Ok wait a minute... How is it possible I might know more about the law than an actual judge here.. what a strange strange world this is. Steve before we go any farther, you need to download the actual Paula Jones transcript. I haven’t seen it in awhile but it’s still on the net somewhere. Now read it over and tell me which words, sentence or paragraph is legally perjurers. That’s your challenge. But I got to tell ya, they don’t call him Slick for nothing. Wait!, there’s more. Lets also assume for the sake of argument, that your attorney David Kendal has asked these lowlife partisan buffoons THREE times their definition of sex. All three times their answer was penetration. okay... just relax... don’t you know how to set up a perjury trap if you ever had to?. Lets move on.
This just keeps getting better. So ok, the story so far, the US has started and illegal war against Serbia, this because Serbia did not accept a peace deal the US wanted to broker between Serbia and separatist rebels in Kosovo. Apparently the Chinese embassy in Serbia was helping the Serbian army in their (perfectly legal I might add) attempts to defend their own country. Solution: Drop a bomb on the Chinese embassy. Another act of war, another violation of international law.
Hold on lets not get ahead of ourselfs here. Lets have a weekend when your not in court. I’ll have you using a colostomy bag I’ll rip up your argument so bad. The whys where’s and what nots can wait. Lets assume your President Hortland and have already committed yourself and NATO to the attack of Belgrade. Now, a little birdie has told you the friken Chinese have advanced tracking equipment up in their embassy and are feeding this stuff to the Serbs. Your military generals tell you this needs to be taken out otherwise your going to loose more planes. Again, for the sake of argument you decide to take your generals advise and blast the joint. Now do you A. Tell the Chinese “yeah, we blasted your embassy what you nasty little chicoms gonna do about it.
or B. Tell the Chinese, opps... my bad must of been a mistake down in the office of mapping stragenery. so sorry.
Keep in mind your fighting a war here and want to keep things as expedient as possible.
The point i’m trying to make is which lie is worse. A personal matter with a mistress or a situation where some people actually got killed? You guys seem much more upset with the matter of Monica than you were with the embassy. Although I suspect some of you understand a military situation where Clinton, or any president would maybe fudge the facts a little.
Yeah, they sure showed that. And that was one he** of a try.
President: -"Send in the cruise missiles."
Soldier: -" Sir, we missed, the greatest terrorist of all times is still alive."
President -"Well, at least we tried"
um... did we get him yet?.. C’mon we Americans don’t like all this long drawn out stuff.. Lets speed this up eh.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Sandman,
Your chart is interesting and entertaining. Arkansas' voting value is listed as being 1.17 while poor California's voting value is listed as being only 0.85. Bless their little pea-pickin' hearts!
Such comparisons are meaningless in light of the statistics that really count, such as these:
Arkansas' electoral votes - 6
California's electoral votes - 54
Now who do you really think carries the biggest clout on election day? The only way the small states can influence the outcome of the popular presidential vote is during an extremely close election. If the Electoral College did not exist, presidential candidates would concentrate most of their campaign efforts and money in the 12 largest states, ignoring the constituencies of the smaller states. They could ignore them without fear of political retribution.
I state again that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created the Electoral College. What other protection do the small states have against urban hegemony?
Regards, Shuckins
Like I said... the Electoral College won't go away ever.
I don't like the winner take all provisions. This is the flaw that allows the weight of one vote in one state to differ from a vote in another. In the 2000 election, Bush won 42% of the votes in California while Gore won 53%. Gore got all 54 electoral votes and Bush's 4.5 million votes were effectively eliminated from the process. And some people wonder why voter turnout is so small for presidential elections.
Pick any of the alternatives... District Method, Proportional Method (which vary greatly), Humphrey Compromise, or the current method. Bush would have won in all but a direct poll or some proportional methods. That's fine. An effective presidency begins with a clear mandate from the public. Something that Bush didn't get with the current system.
It's not about finding some way, anyway to get a Democrat in the White House. I don't care about that. It offends me that a vote in Arkansas (or anywhere else) is worth more than mine here in California.
-
Sandman,
The proportional method would be fairer. Yet it might deprive the smaller states of an effective voice in the college by dividing their votes. I still think the Founding Fathers got it right the first time.
By the way, there was an article about how badly the nation was divided during the last election. Can't remember which news magazine it was in now. It is no secret that more than 90 percent of the African-American vote went to Gore (Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket!). According to that report, that was the factor that allowed Gore to win the popular vote.
However, if the Afro-American vote was left out of the equation, Bush would have carried nearly every state.
Scarey isn't it.
As a nation, we need to find some way to heal our divisions. If we don't, the population of the U.S. will become increasingly Balkanized.
Regards, Shuckins
-
The electoral college issue is a non-issue, as it really only becomes an issue in situations such as the last election, which amounted to a tie. Neither side was going to be satisfied if the other won, yet someone had to.
Now we suddenly say the system is broken and must be fixed... ignoring the folks in Florida that aren't intelligent enough to vote, or are unfortunately (due to state decision) voting on sub-par equipment. In addition, the media was declaring Gore the winner an hour before the polls closed (a major no-no, and good cause to yell liberal bias). To make matters worse, after the first recount the dems yelled for a selective recount they felt would give them the win rather than a full-state recount that would have told them the truth. The repubs blocked these efforts out of self-preservation, rather than go for a full-state recount that would have told them the truth.
The problem isn't the electoral college, friends.
On to Clinton... if you are right 10bears, because lawyers couldn't pin Clinton down, and since the judge didn't say so, Clinton is not a liar. Hmmm... I keep seeing him wag that finger at me on that cold January morning. I saw him proved to have committed acts that would result in the firing of most of us, or at the very least resulted in sexual harrassment suits. I saw the man elected by our country bite his lip and skirt by the law, giving "intentionally false" (parsed out, that means he lied) testimony to an inquiry, thereby denying the rights of a citizen of this country, a citizen by the way whose rights he was sworn to protect. "Frivolous lawsuit" you say, and I agree, but since you want to play the legal game, chew on this- she still had the right to bring the suit, it was lawfully placed, and there is no denying Clinton intentionally hindered that investigation. He lied, and he suborned perjury as well (via telephone conversations with Lewinsky).
I don't need a judge to tell me if that's perjury or not- I heard and read the transcript myself. I don't need to be told he lied about Lewinsky. I heard his testimony, watched him twist and turn like the snake he is. You would have to be a frothing at the mouth idiot to suggest he wasn't lying.
Your suggestion he did it to protect his wife and child? C'mon, the guy has the Paula Jones case ok'd to proceed, then what does this man of the family do? Why, he kicks up a brand new affair with a 21-year-old intern... because he loves his wife and child so much. You don't think THAT reflects on his character or judgement?
And what about the string of mistresses, including the one who came forward after it was all over (You might want to put some ice on that)? Was it really (and I still laugh at Hillary on this one) a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? What does it take to prove to a Clinton apologist he does continuously put himself in compromising situations, then attempt to lie his way out of them. It is so foolish, and so unnecessary, yet he does it over and over. Fortunately now it doesn't matter.
Sure, there are other issues and questions. Explain Marc Rich? Travelgate? The FBI files? Hillary's brother? But the sex scandal did at least force him to stand up and directly state a position- which of course was immediately proven to be "intentionally false".
Clinton isn't a "regular guy". He is a hedonist with a big appetite for trouble. He needs to be center stage, and he doesn't appear to care how he gets there.
-
You make it sound as if hedonism were a bad thing. :)
-
One good thing about Clinton's administration was that it helped relieve the country of its boredom!:D
Shuckins
-
i dont know about that, its alot more exciting with a unelected facist coke head with a iq of 70 in the oval office.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
i dont know about that, its alot more exciting with a unelected facist coke head with a iq of 70 in the oval office.
How did you get into the Oval office? I thought the tourist tours were closed because of the terrorist threat?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
i dont know about that, its alot more exciting with a unelected facist coke head with a iq of 70 in the oval office.
Using your friend Thrawn's favorite debunker...
The truth about the Bush I.Q. rating (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm)
-
I though it was the Oral orifice ?
Did I mis-translate ?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
i dont know about that, its alot more exciting with a unelected facist coke head with a iq of 70 in the oval office.
Originally posted by SNOPES
Status: False.
NEEENEER!!
-
Been off the board, went to the con.
Hortlund pretty much provided the rebuttal points that I would have raised.
Ah geese Toad your going into a circler argument again like you did on Sunday. Like I said above, there’s alot more involved with character and integrity than shielding a mistress.
You're the one dancing around.
Yes, there's a lot more to it, like NOT HAVING A MISTRESS. You know.. that "marriage vow thing.
Did CLINTON "ever consider the honor, character and integrity of his wife and daughter?" Nope. In fact, like most every other "crisis of character" in his life, he failed that one too.
But I'm sure that little promise thing isn't a problem in your view either. ;)
In my view, he had two legitimate choices; I could have respected either one.
He could have told the truth. Unthinkable in his (and apparently your) view.
He could have simply refused to answer. All he had to do is say "My personal life is none of your business". Taking the 5th, as it were.
Cracking people over the head with a cane because they find out that you are cheating on your wife... that's a solution?
How about.... not cheating on your wife?
Oh, yeah.. on more thing.
He was the President. She was an government intern.
If say a military general had a consensual affair with a subordinate in his chain of command.. what would happen to the general? Remember the Air Force General Bill wouldn't nominate to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because the general freely admitted to an affair almost 15 years before, while he and his wife were separated?
****
In your Chinese embassy you stipulate that the Embassy was aiding the effort to shoot down American aircraft and kill American service men performing missions he ordered.
You equate lying to save the lives military personnel with lying about having an affair with an intern to save a political career.
You see no difference?
****
Say, isn’t the 1994/95 congress the one that brought us “Contract with America”? the one that all the corporate accounting deregulation?... just asking.
Why yes.. I think it is. Are you saying that US corporations never "cooked the books" until accounting deregulation.. or are you saying they never got caught until then?
****
could care less about miss Lweinsky or the slime machine.. they had an Arab to kill or at least try.
So absolutely no "wag the dog" here? It just happened to be the fastest the Clinton administration ever took action though.. how conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient. :)
****
-
Let me ask you "Gore really won" guys this question.
If the situation was exactly reversed... exactly, all the same things happened on the same timeline.. and Gore "won" the election... would you still be whining that "Bush actually won the election!" ?
Would 10Bears and Towd be arguing that Gore stole the election?
Please do answer.
Because I'm sure my view would be the same had the situation be exactly reversed. Just curious to see if YOUR position would be the same.. IE, popular vote determines. (Which of course it does not. Never has.)
Candidates have been elected even though they received fewer popular votes than their opponents. Both Rutherford B. Hayes, in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison, in 1888, were elected in this manner. John Quincy Adams also received fewer popular votes than his opponent. On several occasions the popular vote pluralities of the electoral college victors have been razor thin or even questionable. One instance was the election of John F. Kennedy over Richard M. Nixon in 1960. IIRC, Eisenhower prevailed upon Nixon not to challenge the discrepancies in voting in order to preserve the peoples "faith in the system". It wasn't because he felt the wasn't sufficient grounds.
-
I have seen some compelling evidence over the years to suggest that old "Joe" Kennedy might have bought the election in Chicago with mob help. He supposedly sent sent a couple of million dollars through Sam Giancano to "fix" the results in Chicago.
Nixon and Eisenhower had suspicions that this had happened, but chose not drag the country through a vicious partisan battle and acrimonious investigation. That may have been the classiest thing that Nixon ever did. It may also explain his paranoia and subsequent actions in later years. This is not to excuse his actions...just explain them.
Now compare Nixon and Eisenhower's actions with those taken during the 2000 election.
Come to think of it, you really can't compare the two. Can you?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Toad #1-
Agreed. The whole "vow" thing seems to have sailed right over the heads of many, right along with the lack of judgement in starting a new affair with a subordinate in the midst of civil litigation over unwanted sexual advances- to which he planned to plead innocent. What a defense lawyer's nightmare.
Toad #2-
I felt cheated for 8 years under Clinton, so I probably would have felt cheated under Gore. In the end, I would have done like I did under Clinton- realized he was elected and I had to deal with it.
-
If Gore "won" under the same circumstances as Bush?
I honestly would probably stay quietly ashamed about it. I realize this is hypocritical, but I am trying to be honest.
-
Well, MT, that's my point.
In the exact same circumstances I'd feel the same way I do now if Gore was President. It wasn't a pretty election, I grant you. However, it's done and it's done as well as the stumblebums that run the Government could do it. You and I probably couldn't do any better and probably not as well. So.. if Gore was my President, you wouldn't hear me continually bemoaning the "stolen election".
But I realize that there are people quite a bit unlike myself. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let me ask you "Gore really won" guys this question.
If the situation was exactly reversed... exactly, all the same things happened on the same timeline.. and Gore "won" the election... would you still be whining that "Bush actually won the election!" ?
If the situation was reversed, would right wing loonies have called for an armed insurrection?
-
I don't know; I'm not a right wing loonie. :)
The far right wing guys don't think of themselves as Republicans either, as far as I know. They seem to hate government in general.
Any of you "gore guys" gonna answer besides MT? :D
-
OTOH Toad,
If you were to read my earlier post in this thread on "my take on the election", I think you'll see that I'm not one to bemoan the results indefinitely either.
What happened was a disgrace to both sides of the aisle.
-
Not to quibble MT, but it's not really a question of bemoaning the results indefinitely.
What I'm getting at is IF the shoe was on the other foot... the circumstances were EXACTLY the same except the principles, Bush and Gore, had their roles reveresed... would you be bemoaning the fact that "Bush got cheated"?
I'm thinking you wouldn't.. and a lot of others in this thread as well.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Not to quibble MT, but it's not really a question of bemoaning the results indefinitely.
What I'm getting at is IF the shoe was on the other foot... the circumstances were EXACTLY the same except the principles, Bush and Gore, had their roles reveresed... would you be bemoaning the fact that "Bush got cheated"?
I'm thinking you wouldn't.. and a lot of others in this thread as well.
Yes, in that respect you are probably right.
-
Any of you "gore guys" gonna answer besides MT?
Heheh
About 4 pages worth... but I'm glad these machines have a delete key. Too controversial.
Enjoy the con Mr Toad, have a beer for me :)
(one of the green bottles eh)
-
only got 4 pages so much roadkill dont know where to start.
gore would be president today if he had not distanced himself from clinton. dont yall just hate that . makes your realise how fringe you rich old men are.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
gore would be president today if he had not distanced himself from clinton. dont yall just hate that
Now, did you think before you said that, or did you just quote the media?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
only got 4 pages so much roadkill dont know where to start.
gore would be president today if he had not distanced himself from clinton. dont yall just hate that .
Hehe...no, but I bet YOU do!
But you are right about one thing Towd.....Gore flat out fumbled and lost a sure thing election...nobody stole it from him.
Cobra
-
Rich? Nope. Old? Yup.
It's pretty simple; I worked hard for what I have, and I don't need the government taking it away from me to give to someone that won't work for theirs. I'm all for helping those that can't help themselves, but I am totally against helping those that simply won't.
You've been clear in the past you think there are too many people that have too much money, and that you would be for having the government take it away to give to others. Tell me, is that how government stays out of the private citizens' lives? Is that not by definition socialism?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Rich? Nope. Old? Yup.
It's pretty simple; I worked hard for what I have, and I don't need the government taking it away from me to give to someone that won't work for theirs. I'm all for helping those that can't help themselves, but I am totally against helping those that simply won't.
Yes indeed, it is very simple. You've expressed it better than I would Kieran.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let me ask you "Gore really won" guys this question.
If the situation was exactly reversed... exactly, all the same things happened on the same timeline.. and Gore "won" the election... would you still be whining that "Bush actually won the election!" ?
Would 10Bears and Towd be arguing that Gore stole the election?
Please do answer.
Because I'm sure my view would be the same had the situation be exactly reversed. Just curious to see if YOUR position would be the same.. IE, popular vote determines. (Which of course it does not. Never has.)
Candidates have been elected even though they received fewer popular votes than their opponents. Both Rutherford B. Hayes, in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison, in 1888, were elected in this manner. John Quincy Adams also received fewer popular votes than his opponent. On several occasions the popular vote pluralities of the electoral college victors have been razor thin or even questionable. One instance was the election of John F. Kennedy over Richard M. Nixon in 1960. IIRC, Eisenhower prevailed upon Nixon not to challenge the discrepancies in voting in order to preserve the peoples "faith in the system". It wasn't because he felt the wasn't sufficient grounds.
Actually I was a Gore supporter as I thought he was the lesser of two evils (Sad that I had to make my selection that way). At least Gore wasn't a cocaine user in his past, he served in Vietnam, seems to have the higher IQ, seems to be a straight arrow.
Although the election was finally settled on a very rare Supreme Court intervention, I have accepted the fact that some IDIOTS in Florida could not comprehend how to vote properly for their choice. We deserve what we get. Had the results been different and Gore winning, I'd bet we'd see a fair share of Bush supporters claiming of an election stolen. All about biased thinking and arguements on all sides.
Actually the 1960 election of Illinois voting results being in question would not have made a difference had they been overturned. Even had Nixon won that state, he still would have lost that election. Had those electoral college votes been enough to give Nixon the presidency, you can bet Nixon and most (if not all) Republicans would be DEMANDING a recount. As would any candidate from any party given those same circumstances.
Regards,
wSNPR