Wow, that’s one powerful waitress, able to compel the police to do her bidding. :rolleyes:
One could, of course, point out that Jenna was the ONLY minor in Austin that year charged with a Blass C misdemeanor for using a fake ID to purchase alcohol. Every OTHER minor busted with a fake ID was charged with the more serious Class B version of the same crime.* That would rather contradict your assertion that Jenna was treated badly because she was Jenna, wouldn’t it?
Also, this is the second time you’ve repeated the baseless allegation that “the flaming liberal waitress” at Chuy’s somehow forced the cops to arrest those poor picked-on Bush girls.
*Source: June 8, 2001 Austin American-Statesman, which I personally read and reported on in this thread, although the link to the story is now dead.
Nobody disputes that Clinton’s philandering is reprehensible. He’s hardly the first president to break his marriage vows. FDR, JFK, and LBJ were all known to get some (or perhaps all) on the side. Certainly all the above did it in the White House, perhaps not while on the phone. If he ran today, I’d be less likely to vote for him because of the affair and for lying about it. His denials of the affair were carefully constructed to be technically true in the absolute strictest sense but deliberately omitted more complete and full answers, somewhat like Bush and his answers to questions of cocaine use.
Clinton also smoked pot, however he did not inhale, or so he says. I’m inclined not to believe him. In terms of illicit drug use as a youth, he easily ranks second worst among the last two presidents.
Let’s play a new game. I’m gonna call it, "pretend that all unsubstantiated rumors cited as fact by Tex are true, and refute them.
Nothing was denied to Paula Jones. If all the allegations she claimed are true (remember here, we’re playing the game) then the worst Clinton could be accused of is bad taste in women. You see sexual harassment occurs when the requests are repeated after you’ve asked them to stop, or they result in some type of work discrimination. Neither of these happened. She was propositioned, turned it down. She was given promotions on time, and there was no “hostile work environment” as she and Clinton did not work together. Hey, I’m as quick as the next girl to back up sexual harassment, but it’s people like Paula Jones that make it harder for all of us working women. In addition, she actually got more than an $800,000 settlement, which I can guarantee you is more than any other woman would have gotten considering the lack of validity and that her suite was thrown out of court.
I know several men who have dated, and one in fact, who married a subordinate. If your office has a no dating policy, then so be it. I don’t think the US government does. In fact, I’ll bet most companies don’t. I would be pissed if my company did.
It doesn’t seem to have effected his decisions. It’s not like he said, OH GOD MONICA! LET’S GO TO BOSNIA! Some folks are just better than others in multitasking.
If the President of the United States’ phones are bugged by foreign governments, then we have a whole lot more to worry about that a hummer in the Oval Office.
Unlike the few and far between cites that we even get from you, and which recite rumor and innuendo as fact. Thanks.
Since I’m still playing the game, I’m going to ask if you are you insinuating here that Bush girls shouldn’t have been cited? Or are you saying that they shouldn’t be held to a higher standard because they are public figures. Actually, I believe you’re saying that the Bush girls are were picked on by a Democratic operative at Chuy’s. I think this allegation is cool. I hope this means that now those girls realize that we have Operatives everywhere! insert evil laughter here. See minty’s post on the fact Jenna was treated more lightly than other teens in the same classification.
First of all, I appreciate you saying that ElvisL1ves’s statement was in poor taste. Obviously, insulting the Bush children to score points in a political debate is pretty scummy – just like the jerks who make jokes about Chelsea Clinton’s looks or parentage.
But ElvisL1ves didn’t just say that the Bush children have a taste for liquor (which alone may or may not imply a problem with alcohol). ElvisL1ves said that an alcoholic passed a taste for liquor on to his children. The only reason to mention that the Bush kids drink in the same sentence with their father’s drinking problem [cue Airplane! highlight] is to associate the children’s drinking with that problem. If the Bush kids just have the same taste for alcohol as everyone else, why would that be worth mentioning?
And isn’t it interesting that despite seeing the assumptions being drawn from his statement, ElvisL1ves hasn’t disavowed any intent to imply that the Bush kids have a problem with alcohol? Hmmm.
Please provide evidence demonstrating the “fact” that Bush used cocaine. Or, since that will likely be impossible, please show me where you “made it clear” that Bush used cocaine.
What facts could rationally justify your hatred of Bush? He’s done many things that could engender disagreement, but hating Bush because he’s a Republican, or because he withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty, or because he wants to cut taxes, or because he wants regime change in Iraq, is about as rational as hating everyone who went to Ohio State because you went to Michigan. The fact that someone has a different opinion or vision for the country is not a rational reason to hate him. I thought that was one of the points of your arguments in this thread, but maybe I’m giving you too much credit.
You’re a long, long way from proving that the Republicans’ values are worse than Clintons. And anyway, “Republicans have done bad stuff, too” is no way to show that Clinton deserves better treatment.
Please explain what makes my “moral outrage” plainly partisan. I think that children shouldn’t be the targets of political attacks. I’m disgusted by those who think that rule applies only to children within their party. I sincerely hope that sentiment is not partisan. Would it surprise you to learn that I’m not a Republican? In fact, I’m neither Democrat nor Republican, which is one of the reasons selective moral outrage based on party affiliation bothers me so much.
It’s apparently moved from your eye into your brain. But feel free to make more baseless assumptions about me so you can keep rolling out the witty rejoinders. Those are always fun.
No, to me that was never an issue. I thought it was an idiotic thing to say, but looking back it is typical Clinton. Partial denial. I could care less what a politician did way back when. Well, to a point. Something totally immoral like stealing old ladies life savings or something would be different, but something like partying in your 20s has no bearing on your older years. But “i didn’t inhale” has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard.
I don’t have time this morning to go find the section, but you probably recall that Monica stated that he got off on talking on the phone while she blew him. One time he was on the phone to a congressman (records later suggested but did not prove which one) talking about troop deployments and/or other military actions related to the Bosnia campaign.
As I recall, the assertion is not baseless. I remember numerous published accounts at the time detailing what the cops wanted to do, and the waitress insisting that the full measure of the law be applied. I don’t keep links like that for ages like you do, but I remember what I read at the time. Austin American Statesman would hardly be considered an unbiased source in any case.
Oh, and in case anyone believes that T’s nonsense about the American-Statesman, it’s Austin’s regular daily, not some left-wing rag. It even endorsed George II for president in 2000. Where Tex gets off discounting the fact that Jenna was the only minor charged with a Class B instead of a Class C, well, that’s for the gentle reader to judge.
Here’s what the police reports said about the waitress:
No “insisting” that charges be filed. Hell, I’d want them to get in big trouble too. First because they’re bloody idiots for thinking they can order tequila shots at Chuy’s without anyone recognizing them as the president’s underage daughters, and second because that could easily get Chuy’s in big trouble if anyone reports it to the TABC.
And what the fuck do you think a ticket is, anyway? That’s filing a charge, T. Not that the Bush girls got taken to jail anyway–the cops LET THEM GO, then met them a couple hours later at their lawyer’s office to sign the tickets. This is all from the police reports, you understand.
But my very favorite part is where the girls try to use the Secret Service to pull rank on the Austin cops so they can leave the restaurant. Way to go, girls! Show 'em who’s boss.
AQA, please reread this thread from the beginning and you will find your questions answered. Note, btw, that the subject is not “my hatred of Bush”, rational or not, but the assertion that you and Texican are making that Clinton is extraordinarily immoral. Hell, the facts show that he is more moral than the people you defend as paragons of family values, and of ethical administration.
Mentioning the Bush daughters’ taste for alcohol is part of showing the true level of Dubya’s family values. With his own background in alcoholism and cocaine use (proven by his own refusal to deny it, in short, since you still don’t seem to get it), he could have passed the lessons he learned on to them. If he had, in fact, learned a lesson from it other than that the rules of personal responsibility don’t really apply to Bushes. The criminal conviction (the first President with one) that he hid instead of facing and discussing is another. But he never did face it, did he?
Excellent. A thread discussing whether or not Clinton cheated on his wife (no brainer, but lets throw 'em a bone, no?), has morphed into pointing out the Earth-rending fact that GASP! underage college kids like to drink. Even if their dad happens to be CinC.
I suppose it takes a certain amount of skill at redirection to ‘defend’ Clinton, but this is ridiculous.
Morphing like that is bound to happen when Clinton-bashers show up to spread every damn fool baseless rumor they half-remember from four-year-old issues of the Limbaugh Letter.
Brutus, if you look closely you will see that this thread was clicking along on schedule until Texican hijacked it with assertions on the parentage of Chelsea Clinton. It only took 10 posts before a Clinton hater managed to turn this thread.
To paraphrase you: I suppose it takes a certain amount of skill at redirection to despise Clinton, but this is ridiculous.