More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!

[Toad]

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.

[Toad]

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.  

[10Bears]

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

[Kieran]

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.

[Toad]

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.

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?  

[10Bears]

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.

[Tumor]

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 ... I will say no more lol

Tumor

[Hortlund]

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?

[straffo]

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

[Hortlund]

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.

[straffo]

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

[10Bears]

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.

[Sandman]

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.

[Shuckins]

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

[Kieran]

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.