Could we have a little golden rule session for Reagan and Clinton fans?

Great Debates
41

Really? Caught at what, besides lying about a blowjob? Hmm?

Accusations, nothing more, in spite of millions of dollars spent, bribes made, and thousands of man hours devoted.

“Alleged” indeed! Is that the standard now? Cuz if the bar is that low, then the question of whether Bush is the closest thing to pond scum that has ever lived in the White house has been answered.

“All” what lying? “I didn’t have sex with her”? Wow. How did the Republic survive?

Obstruction of witch hunt, perhaps. Obstruction of justice? I don’t think so. First there would have to have been criminal activity that we have some meaningful evidence of where “justice” was required. Suspicions aren’t evidence of anything more than some people’s need to destroy. Then you’d need to show how his actions prevented that justice from taking place. Unless you have some specific example that is anything more than “Well, they tried to take him down, but he managed to dodge them!”, I’m afraid that is simply something you need to wipe off your chin.

Witnesses to what crime? Blowjobs aren’t crimes.

More mess that needs wiping.

And what crime was that again?

And what crime was that again?

And what crime was that again?

And what proof do you have of that again?

Which ones were those?

Well, yeah, there you have me. SECRET MEETINGS??? Oh my god, and the didn’t remove him from office? Wasn’t he supposed to televise his every move? (And Bush having secret energy meetings with leaders of energy companies who stand to profit from his policies is cool, of course.)

Huh? What lie? And what happened as a result?

What docs? What lies? Subpeopnaed for what purpose? More probes into the activities of his penis? Pardon me while I go back to sleep.

Meanwhile, based on your man’s lies, lies that he is telling every day, people are dying right now.

Your perception of what is good and what is evil is stupefying.

42

I note that as usual, when specifics come into play, Shodan goes “poof”!

43

No, when it becomes clear that a poster is completely blind to reality, and determined to persist in the most ludicrous form of deliberate ignorance, Shodan goes “who gives a shit”.

Rubbbing your nose in the feces of the Clinton administration is going to do no good. You’re going to shut your eyes and say, “Nope, smells like roses”. There are certain concepts that are simply beyond you as they were beyond Clinton, concepts like “truth” or “moral consistency”. And since I derive no amusement from the exercise of ridiculing your foolish posts, and you derive no benefit, there is really nothing more to add to this thread than mocking laughter.

Your posts to this thread are worth nothing more than that. Get used to it, or post something better. If you can.

Regards,
Shodan

44

So your answer to the OP/title question would be “No”, I take it?

Please discontinue the use of that word “Regards” when you plainly have none, okay?

45

No, my answer to the OP/title question is contained in my first post to the thread. Read it, if you like. Let us know if you are having trouble with the big words.

(Thinks for half a second)

Nah.

Regards,
Shodan

46

Hang on to the “regards,” Shodan. Class and maturity aren’t appreciated by everyone, but they’re good nonetheless.

47

Not when accompanied by lines like these:
"Let us know if you are having trouble with the big words. "
“a poster is completely blind to reality, and determined to persist in the most ludicrous form of deliberate ignorance”
"And since I derive no amusement from the exercise of ridiculing your foolish posts, and you derive no benefit, there is really nothing more to add to this thread than mocking laughter. "
Not to mention yet another mantra-like repetition the same tired old list of “-gate” allegations against Clinton that turned out to be baseless, a fact which he knows in his heart of hearts, but insists on repeating anyway to avoid admitting he got gulled by his fellow haters. Nope, dismissing the “foolishness” of anyone who dares to explore the facts is much easier.

Sure, that’s chock-full of “regards”, and “class and maturity” too - not. Of course, SA, you must think Shodan is just telling the truth? Read the OP again yourself for a reminder of what this thread is about.

48

Not quite! Managing to slither off and avoid indictment does not equate to “baseless.”

In the wise and prescient words of Eric Cartman: “Yeah…pretty much!”

Point well taken. Remember though, my original (and if not for your reply or one like it, would have been my only) post was merely to suggest **Shodan **keep the “Regards.”

Regards,
SA

:smiley:

49

Umm…SA… Are you having a special Opposites Day all your own? Because, in fact, ** NOT ** being indicted for ** non-existent ** crimes, actually does function as excellent support for considering the charges “baseless”, especially given the mind-boggling effort and expense applied to finding something to indict him for. What other standard could you possibly apply?

Or are you of the opinion that anyone making any accusation against anybody any time is telling the truth, until they are proven to be lying? May I introduce you to The Constitution of The United States?

When some people accuse others of sticking their fingers in the ears, I can only assume that they have been gazing into their mirrors.

50

How do you feel about the O.J. acquittal, Stoid? Mind-boggling effort and expense was applied there as well, and though most people are convinced beyond a doubt he was guilty, no conviction resulted.

You have absolutely no way of knowing first-hand whether these crimes were “non-existent” or not, and neither do I. The simple matter of fact however, is that no indictment or no conviction does not equal a non-existent crime.

51

Well, if you want to play it that way, I’m pretty sure most Americans believe the following:

• Bill Clinton got a blowjob
• Bill Clinton lied about having received a blowjob
• Bill Clinton didn’t do anything illicit w/regards to Whitewater
• The Clinton administration allowed a special prosecutor to be appointed
• When special prosecutor #1 found nothing they let a second one be appointed
• Ken Starr went with whatever he could find and after looking everywhere, under
every chair and in every old Arkansas file cabinet, what he found was a blow job
and a lie about same. If he’d found any trace of evidence regarding any other
alleged Clintonian misbehavior, we’d have heard about it, over and over again.

What they think about that ranges from “he lied under oath and he had sex outside of marriage, that’s sleazy and unPresidential” to “who in hell gives a fuck, yeah it was misbehavior but what Ken Starr and the Republicans put him through was punishment enough, leave the guy alone already”.

As is not the case with O. J. Simpson, I think most Americans do not think Bill Clinton got away with something and slithered away into the night.

52

AHunter3, he did a hell of a lot more than get a blowjob in the Oval Office (as contrasted, I might add, with Ronald Reagan who held such high regard for the Oval Office that he would never take off his jacket or tie while in it). He lied continually about other affairs. He had henchmen assigned to handle the continuous “bimbo eruptions” that his past was bedeviling him with…usually by trying to discredit the women involved and make them look dishonest or crazy. By their own admission, he used Arkansas state troopers to procure women for him; he is on tape advising Jennifer Flowers to deny their affair, saying if she did no one could prove otherwise. There was the issue of the travel office; Hillary’s lottery-scale profits in the stock market; questionable billings from her law firm; files that disappeared, later to surface in the White House itself; Vince Foster’s odd death; Susan MacDougal’s going to prison rather than testify as to what she knew; pardoning an FBI top 10 fugitive on his last night in office; coming on televison and shaking his finger, saying “I did not have sexyul (his pronunciation) relations with that woman,” and then when busted beyond doubt claims that he didn’t have sex with her, she had sex with him; and his dancing on the head of a pin when testifying, saying such things as “it depends on what the word is, is.”

This is clearly a man who is inclined to do whatever he wants, as long as he believes no one can prove he did it. And he’s had a long and public record of lying out his ass. My belief is if you can’t believe everything someone says, you can’t necessarily believe anything they say. This is why I wouldn’t read his book, anything in it could just as easily be fiction as truth.

53

Y’know, Starving Artist, that mentioning “Bill Clinton’s Secret Hit Squad That Was Really Responsible for Vince Foster’s ‘Suicide’” is #1 on the list of signs that you’ve been following conservative talk radio a bit too much.

I’d offer to buy you a ticket to go see The Hunting of the President, but I suspect you wouldn’t be capable of sitting through the first reel, much less the entire film.

54

In the words of Professor Higgins: “Damn, damn, damn!” As I said in the other thread, having visited your homepage I can see you are ordinarily an intelligent man, but this is friggin’ nonsense!

In the first place, I don’t listen to conservative radio! In the second place, my accusation that Clinton was responsible for Foster’s death is all in your own mind…such as it is. :dubious:

My point was that Clinton and his White House were so frought with mysterious comings and goings and dodges, that everything he did became suspicious. When you’re a known liar and given to doing whatever you think you can get away with, everything you do carries with it the taint of your own dishonesty.

As an aside, why didn’t you (as is typical in these forums) address the more salient points I brought up?

55

You must have misplaced them. There weren’t any in the posts you’ve actually made.

The OJ Analogy is hysterical, by the way. OJ: two dead bodies, OJ’s blood at the scene, weapons, shoes, witnesses, motive, etc. The case was proved.

Clinton: “mysterious comings and goings”

:rolleyes:

56

What Stoid said. All those “mysterious comings and goings” were ultimately proven to be nothing more than muckraking rumors cooked up by Richard Melon-Scafie and the other right-wing hatchetmen who were out to get the Clintons. A long list of random rumors does not a scandal make.

57

Apart from the fact that that my allusion to O.J. was not an analogy but an example, you substantiate my point without even realizing it.

It’s precisely the fact that so much evidence existed yet no conviction was obtained that puts the lie to the notion Clinton was innocent of wrongdoing because no prosecution took place. Lies, deceit, shuffling of evidence and having friends willing to go to jail rather than testify can result in a guilty man not being indicted, particularly when you add in the fact the man also happens to be the president of the U.S., which makes him even more difficult to prosecute than a celebrity.

58

I misplaced them, eh? Well, let’s see…nope, you’re wrong! Here they are. To wit:

a) “He lied continually about other affairs. He had henchmen assigned to handle the continuous ‘bimbo eruptions’ that his past was bedeviling him with…usually by trying to discredit the women involved and make them look dishonest or crazy.”

b) “By their own admission, he used Arkansas state troopers to procure women for him.”

c) “He is on tape advising Jennifer Flowers to deny their affair, saying if she did, no one could prove otherwise.”

d) “There was the issue of the travel office.”

e) “Hillary’s lottery-scale profits in the stock market; questionable billings from her law firm”

f) “files that disappeared, later to surface in the White House itself”

g) “Vince Foster’s odd death”

h) “Susan MacDougal’s going to prison rather than testify as to what she knew”

i) “pardoning an FBI top 10 fugitive on his last night in office”

and last but not least…

j) “coming on televison and shaking his finger, saying “I did not have sexyul (his pronunciation) relations with that woman,” and then when busted beyond doubt claims that he didn’t have sex with her, she had sex with him; and his dancing on the head of a pin when testifying, saying such things as ‘it depends on what the word is, is.’”

k) “This is clearly a man who is inclined to do whatever he wants, as long as he believes no one can prove he did it.”

l) “…he’s had a long and public record of lying out his ass.”

m) “My belief is if you can’t believe everything someone says, you can’t necessarily believe anything they say. This is why I wouldn’t read his book, anything in it could just as easily be fiction as truth.”

Okay, Stoid! Since you were having so much trouble finding them I copied, pasted and labeled alphebetically each one just to simplify it for you. It was tiring but after all, I do want to know your take on them since the allegation they were posted in response to was that he never did anything wrong but lie about a blowjob.

59

Anyone else get the feeling this is turning into a lame comedy skit?

Starving Artist: “Clinton is slimy as hell! Look at this laundry list of allegations from his enemies!”
Everyone Else: “Almost all of that stuff has been disproven.”
Starving Artist: “If they’re false, why do people keep insisting they’re true?”
Everyone Else: “Who’s insisting they’re true?”
Starving Artist: “Clinton’s enemies!”
Everyone Else: :smack:
I don’t have the patience to debunk all this malarky, so I’ll limit myself to just one piece: b) “By their own admission, he used Arkansas state troopers to procure women for him.”

60

Check your dictionary.

Umm… SA… do you know the difference between indictment and conviction? Because it seems you are more than a little confused. There’s a saying that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich. Indictments are insanely easy to procure, it doesn’t take a whole lot more than a little finger pointing. Convictions, on the other hand, rise to a much, much, much higher standard. In fact, you could look at them as inversely proportional: it takes one percent of suspicion with 99 percent doubt to indict, but 99 percent certainty with 1 percecnt of doubt to convict. So comparing a lack of conviction to a lack of indictment is utterly meaningless.

That there wasn’t enough evidence of a single crime to indict Clinton is as close to proving a negative as you can get in this life.