Really?
Since it’s NewsMax and not the “mainstreammedia™” I’m citing, it can’t be wrong, right?
That would make what your claim that he was disbarred a … what’s the word I’m looking for?
Unless it’s just a question of what the definition of [del]is[/del] disbarred is?
CMC fnord!
Google, the official Starving Artist Achilles’ heel!
Okay, I tried a little verbal shorthand. Surely you’ll grant that I’m at least knowledgeable enough to know that not only was he disbarred in Arkansas (which I’ve commented on enough times, you should be aware of it) but that the Supreme Court itself can’t disbar anyone, its not being a bar in the first place being primary among the reasons.
I never meant to say that the Supreme Court itself disbarred him and I think you probably know that, choosing instead to seize upon my (admittedly clumsy but I took it for granted that everyone would know what I meant) verbal shorthand to try to score a minor victory and make it look like I don’t know what I’m talking about, when it wouldn’t make a hair’s breadth of difference even if I was.
Can you say “petty”?
Yeah, I thought that you could.
Just curious, SA, are you also angry at Dubya’s dissembling over his cocaine use?
It’s not entirely implausible for me. For the first couple of years I smoked cigarettes, I didn’t inhale. Had I tried pot in the period before I started inhaling tobacco smoke, I probably wouldn’t have inhaled it either. To my loss.
Secondarily, Clinton is, at least currently, a cigar smoker. Cigar smokers do not, in general, inhale.
While I’ll readily admit that I have no personal knowledge of the former President’s history of breathing in combustible substances back in the 1960s, my knowledge suggests that his story is not necessarily a lie.
Nope.
You guys don’t seem to understand. Clinton (and his wife too, for that matter) lies like he breathes: constantly and without effort.
I don’t know of any other politician, Republican or Democrat, who’s even in same ballpark with him.
He’s also a money-grubbing, backroom sleazebag, selling pardons and taking as much advantage as possible of government allowances for ex-presidents, sticking it to the American taxpayer for more in retirement office expenses than, IIRC, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 combined. Total donations to his presidential library have been enormous compared to other presidents and he refuses to release information as to who has donated and how much they donated.
He’s the precise embodiment of the old-school politico, wheeling and deeling and committing all sorts of underhanded financial and political chicanery in what used to be smoke-filled back rooms. He’s the exact kind of politician that other politicians and the electorate have traditionally said they want to sweep out of office.
Again, the entire reason to smoke pot is to get high by inhaling it. And given the circles he moved in he had to know that. Taking a joint from someone and not inhaling it would be like being handed a glass of booze and pouring it in a planter.
And “I tried it but didn’t like it”? What the hell is that? Did Mr. Rhodes Scholar think that marijuana smoke had a pleasant taste? How the hell would he know he didn’t like it if he didn’t inhale otherwise.
The whole claim is bullshit on a number of levels.
Can you say “I can’t be bothered to click on and read links”?
It appears David Kendall, Bill Clinton, and the SCotUS would disagree.
But surely you know more about this then they do. :rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
Hey, I’m a busy guy. I’m currently ranting and raving in a half dozen threads. Still, I see nothing there to indicate that the Supreme Court itself does the disbarment. Your link says he was suspended. If the court can and does disbar attorneys I’ll recant my claim, but it’ll be the first I’ve heard of it. But the fact remains, as shown by this very argument, that I never believed Clinton was disbarred from the Supreme Court.
SA - I will assume by your non-response to my previous question that you are not so much incensed by presidential malfeasance as you are just still very very angry at President Clinton.
Whatever… you, like anyone else, are entitled to your opinion.
OMG, Michael Jackson died!
Sorry. Post 205 was in answer to you. I should have made that clear.
And it’s not that I’m still “just very, very angry” at Clinton, which makes it sound like I’m obsessed with him; I just continue to be very, very disgusted by him virtually every time I’m exposed to him. As I said upthread, there are occasionally times when I find myself forming a grudging respect for some piece of diplomatic or charitable work, but then always comes along and reminds me that he seems constitutionally incapable of telling the truth, and that he seems motivated more by ego and a desire to be thought of as a hotshot than by genuine charitable impulse.
As far as Clinton’s performance in office goes, I was certainly much less insensed by his performance than I was by, say, Jimmy Carter, but that may have been different had the Republican revolution of '94, which swept Republicans into control of both houses of Congress, not happened. As it is, there are four areas where that stand out as things that especially irked me about Clinton’s presidency. The first was his attempt to install his wife as co-president; the second was their attempt at UHC, which I don’t feel is the proper role of government and which government would largely be incapable of handling properly; the third was his propensity for putting people into important positions based first and foremost on their race or sex rather than their ability to do the job; the third was how long it took for him to finally take action with regard to Kosovo and the genocide taking place there; and forth and most importantly, letting bin Laden off the hook when he could have taken him out because his advisors felt it would be politically disadvantageous to do so. I recall watching some poor, sobbing woman whose husband had been killed on 9/11 turning to Clinton for comfort and resting her head on his chest, and the whole time he’s comforting her I’m thinking that here this poor woman is, turning for comfort to the very person who is in fair part responsible for her husband’s death in the first place. I was infuriated.
But as it is now, I rarely think of Clinton unless he’s in the news for some reason or someone here brings him up.
When!?
SA - I’m snarked at Clinton about not killing bin Laden because that alone potentially could have staved off 9-11.
I could and can see Hillary and Bill’s public attitude viv-a-vis co-presidancy and always assumed that Bill was lying to Hillary and had no intention to share anything in the way of real power. As for putting undeserving people into positions of power . . . every president since LBJ can be justly accused of that… (I was born in 1962, so I don’t remember earlier presidential appointments).
I don’t think Clinton was a great president. I hate that he didn’t veto NAFTA and force pro-USA- middle-class changes to the bill.
He did balance the yearly budget. I am much more angry at Dubya for not following suit. I am also much more angry at Dubya for thinking he had to carry on his daddy’s war.
I am far more incensed at President Obama for trying to sell the American public into slavery to insurance companies with his absolutely moronic health-care bill. And all because Obama’s ego can’t admit that he is wrong about what his bill will actually accomplish.
There is much in your post to agree with. We obviously both agree that Clinton should have taken out bin Laden. I’d agree also that Clinton likely never intended to share power equally with his wife, but seeing as how she wasn’t elected in the first place, any signifant role in governance on her part would have been too much for me. Clinton certainly relegated her to a behind-the-scenes role quickly enough once it became apparent that her health care plan was a disaster and the electorate was becoming incensed by her.
Clinton did balance the budget, but if you happened to see Newt Gingrich’s speech to the CPAC convention you saw that he gave much of the credit for that both to the fact that Republicans had gained control of Congress and to himself for 35 days of hard-nosed day-to-day negotiation with Clinton in the White House. Still, I was never that unhappy with Clinton’s handling of the economy. He certainly did better than I expected.
I know we’ll disagree on this but I don’t think GWB was motivated by the urge to finish daddy’s war. Given that I was pretty much simpatico with his stated concerns regarding Hussein from the very beginning, I find it very easy to believe that he was motivated by the same things that I was feeling, which was that Hussein very likely had WMD or was a shoe-in to develop them eventually if he hadn’t already; that there was a very real threat of a potential synergistic relationship with Al Qaeda; that he was a threat to the stability of the entire region and to Israel in particular; and that he was a cruel and murderous dictator responsible for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen and that they deserved to be freed from him; and I shared GWB’s hope that, freed from the tyranny of Hussein, Iraq would embrace democracy - a hope that has been more difficult to acheive than I originally thought.
As far as Obama is concerned, he’s really been sort of a non-entity to me as president. I’m very unhappy with the way the stimulus was handled (assuming it was a good idea in the first place) and his efforts to enact UHC, but he personally hasn’t had all that much to do with either; he’s just sort of let Congress with run with everything and I find that I’m much more unhappy with Congress than I am with him. And I’ve approved of his stances so far such as extending certain provisions of the Patriot Act, continuing the effort in Iraq and boosting efforts in Afghanistan. But mostly he hasn’t drawn as much ire from me as I would have expected because he hasn’t done much other than to give Congress a false sense of mandate merely by virtue of his election.
So recant, and next time do your homework before blathering on about that which you are ignorant.
Your whole argument here is pure speculation, and, what’s the word? Bullshit. And on more than just one level. Are you serious? How can anyone know the level of sophistication of whomever he passed a joint with? Given the circles he moved in? Who exactly was he hanging out with in Oxbridge?
Moving on to knowledge of taste without actually inhaling - have you ever smoked a cigar SA? If so, did you fully inhale or did you merely puff? Were you able to discern a taste without fully inhaling?
He hasn’t shown me yet the Supreme Court can disbar somebody. Certainly they could most likely have someone disbarred, but I’ll need to see some proof before I accept that the Supreme Court engages in disbarments itself.
Hell, yes, I’ve smoked cigars. And I smoked cigarettes for twenty-one years and I probably toked up on at least a half dozen occasions. Virtually everyone I knew from the age of eighteen to twenty-four and everyone they knew smoked weed like it was the main purpose in life, and most of them were either in college or had been at some point in the past. It would have been virtually impossible for anyone who was in college in the late sixties or early seventies and who dressed like this and moved in the circles they obviously moved in to be ignorant of the mechanics of smoking a joint or the fact that one doesn’t smoke it like a cigar, expecting the payoff to be that it might taste good even if you don’t inhale. Clinton says he tried it and didn’t like it. So how does he know? He didn’t try marijuana if he didn’t inhale, because inhaling it is the whole point of smoking it and where the benefit is to be derived.
Next you’ll be telling me he probably didn’t know what a roach clip was. :rolleyes:
Give me a friggin’ break!
(And besides, anyone with a taste for cigars should easily be able to handle a mouthful of smoke from a doobie.)
O, fer crissake…is Bill OR Hillary Clinton any different in substance than Blanche Lincoln or Rahm Emanuel or Harry Reid or John McCain or Mitch McConnell …or any other person in Congress for the last thirty or forty years working for Big Business?
Praise them. Support them. Argue for them. Try to differentiate them.
One And All: they have gotten into Office by Big Business, and support these affluent constituents.
You and I…we are the poor losers who go to the voting booth and think we are voting for the rhetoric we hear in advertisements paid for by Corporations.
It matters not, at this point, which one of the two “Major Parties” gets into office.
This one things is for sure: There is something “Magical” about getting into office and finding the power and influence enough to take away one’s senses (as Ulysses found when approaching the Sirens) that - APPARENTLY - causes one to do nothing more than make certain that one STAYS “in Office” FOR EV VER…
But now, sadly, the ‘Voting Booth’ does little more than grant membership in the plutocracy/oligarchy to those who would otherwise not have access to that Body - though, when voted in, have no other goal than to walk that fine line into getting re-elected while satisfying the goals of both Business and the Military.
Bill Clinton’s foiables? Phssst.
Republican foiables? Phsst.
NAFTA. GATT. The end of Glass-Stegal. Fixing “Welfare.”
Etcetera.
Throw the effin’ bums out.
Do the Dopers REALLY believe there is all that much difference between the two Parties?
(All sniping aside.)
It doesn’t work that way around here. You made the assertion; you are being called on it; you should prove your assertion.
Here, I’ll give you some assistance. Start by learning about what the “bar” actually means, and then look at the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court, including the power to control its own court. Once you have the basics down, then look at the Clinton matter.
Or seeing as you are just too intellectually lazy to figure out what you are talking about, just wiki “disbarment”, press control-f, type Clinton, and press enter. But I expect that even that is well beyond your limited capapability.
While you are at it, consider how your intellectual laziness in such a simple thing reflects on your credibility, for talking out of your ass over a simple, unarguable fact, and not being arsed enough to look into it when called on it, shows your lack of credibility. Starving Artist: blithering idiot.
Oh, please. Clinton got disbarred and he can’t practice before the Supreme Court, just like I said, and you want to try to make that argument rise or fall on the basis of some arcane bit of legalese that has nothing with the actual substance of my post?
I couldn’t care less about the issue of whether or not the Supreme Court disbars people, and the answer either way has no effect on my credibility.
You’re grasping at straws, dear. I take that as a win.
