I’ve just reviewed my post to Diceman, and want to clarify one point - my comment about paranoia was referring to the sites I posted, and was not meant to apply in any way to you. I understand that you are simply asking a question, and I would not want you to think I’m lumping you in with the Republic of Texas crowd or others of that ilk.
In answer to your most recent question, my immediate reaction as a lawyer is not to read too much into a slight difference in wording in an insurance policy. It may be because the exclusions were amended at some point, and a new exclusion was added with slightly different language. Or, there may be a very precise technical difference between the terms that applies to very particular fact situations. (Since I’m not trained as a U.S. lawyer I wouldn’t want to speculate any further.)
But, I was not being facetious when I said in my original reply that your starting point should be the U.S. Constitution. It is the Constitution, not an automobile insurance policy, that sets out the framework of the U.S. federal government, and assigns its powers.
JoltSucker wrote: “And BTW, as a Liberal who’s proud of it, I still say the Bill Clinton is the best president we’ve had since FDR (another hero of mine), despite his moral flaws.”
Jeez, Jolt, don’t there have to be morals in the first place, in order for them to be ‘flawed?’ I think we should probably take this argument elsewhere, but I wonder that anyone with a functioning brain can consider Bubba to be anything other than a liar, a cheat, a perjurer, and an obstructor of justice – on multiple and public occasions!
FDR, more than any president in our history, actively conspired to load the Executive Branch with the power he felt was his due. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that, in the aftermath of a series of unfavorable rulings, FDR became the ONLY president in our history who seriously proposed the packing of the U.S. Supreme Court with judges who thought his way by enlarging the court from nine to thirteen members. Would you care to hazard a guess as to who would be appointing the extra four judges under his design?
I have to agree with you that there is no EFFECTIVE conspiracy within our federal government to control the populace. I think I made the point that our government, by its structure and design, is incapable of the type of concentrated effort necessary to make that happen. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a great many federal agencies are better off – and therefore have a natural vested interest in – limiting the rights of individuals.
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
Oh, yeah. There’s no such thing as a “50mm machinegun.” Or at least, there’s no such thing that anyone “totes.” You may be referring to a “.50 caliber” machine gun, a thing seldom “toted” by any one person. You may be referring to a “two-inch” mortar.
Actually, I have no idea what you’re referring to, and I suspect you don’t have a clue either.
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
Is that it, then? If you like something that Clinton has done then you don’t have a functioning brain?
Let me hazard a guess here … if you can make wild guesses about the brainpower of a whole political movement I can make guesses about you. You don’t care whether Clinton is all those things. If you did, you would care equally about the Iran-Contra scandal, about Reagan lying under oath about what he did and didn’t know. (Did you see that? I disagree with what Reagan did as President, yet I can still bring myself to type his name! And I didn’t even spell it with a K! Maybe you can do it too!)
The real reason you hate Clinton is his policies. This is what makes it so easy for you to ignore what your Republican buddies have done - sure, they mined Nicaraguan harbors, broke into opposition offices, destroyed the careers of their political opponents with latter-day witch-hunts. You just like their policies better. This is why FDR’s “court-packing” plan looms so large in your mind; John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts are forgotten; Republican “impeach Earl Warren” campaigns are forgotten; flag-burning bans are forgotten.
The difference between you and me is, I’m willing to admit that I oppose certain politicians for policy reasons; faux-moralists like yourself try to hide behind some paper-thin outrage. Outrage from the Watergate / HUD scandal / Iran-Contra / Teapot Dome / Joe McCarthy set. It just make me wonder.
You missed the whole point, Boris, something liberals do quite often. If you believe that Clinton has something positive, that’s great. But could you honestly look TBone2 in the eye and tell him “I believe that Clinton has not lied on multiple occasions.” Even incompetent dolts manage to do something right now and then.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
Oh and Boris: Politics aside, the reason so many people hate Clinton so much is because he is a selfish, lieing, corrupt sex addict who has done things that diectly harmed the security of our country (like selling our missle technology to the Chinese). Alot of people don’t care for FDR either, but he wasn’t a reprehensable weasel like WJC is.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
Whereas Clinton is a weak man, Ronald Reagon is quite possibly an evil man. I mean, making a deal to keep hostages in bondage so you can gain poll points and win an election? Maybe we should take this to great debates and discuss further?
Let’s face facts. If Bush and Gore are the two candidates for the Presidency next year, at least 95% of the people who claim they are outraged by Clinton because he is a sex addict, an adulturer, a drug user, a draft dodger, a liar, or just “slick” will turn around and vote for Bush. The same people who have spent eight years declaring a Democrat president unfit for office because of his character will suddenly want to take character off the agenda for a Republican president.
Little Nemo has a point. Personally, I hope McCain wins the Republican’s nomination. He has a reputation as a very honest man. As for Gore v. Bradley, good Lord is that primary getting nasty! I’m half-expecting a drive-by shooting one of these days.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
Sure, maybe I missed the point, but I read the text. I won’t quote it again here, since I’ve already quoted it once. I consider Clinton to be many things other than a liar - a budget balancer, a vigorous diplomat, a friend of the environment, in fact any number of things that Reaganauts hate. As to the other charges, cheat seems vague - I only use the term in the context of games; perjurer is a moot question - he was acquitted; obstructor of justice is a legalistic term I’ve never had fully explained. And no, I don’t care for you to explain it to me; it’s been thrown around so much by the right wing in recent years that I’ll take my definition out of reference book, thank you. Why would I want to tell TBone2 or anyone else that Clinton isn’t a liar? He is a liar, and you’ll have to come up with a vastly better charge than that if you’re going to make him look worse than Reagan.
[QUOTE]
Oh and Boris: Politics aside, the reason so many people hate Clinton so much is because he is a selfish, lieing, corrupt sex addict who has done things that diectly harmed the security of our country (like selling our missle technology to the Chinese)
[QUOTE]
Politics aside? What do you think politics are? I believe most politicians lie and are selfish; I believe the same about most non-politicians. Corrupt is a vague charge which usually involves taking bribes. Sex addiction is a terrible personal flaw displayed by lots of people in positions of power.
As to selling missile secrets to China, yeah sure I think we need to tighten up our foreign military sales laws. I don’t like the Clinton administration’s policy to China, any more than I liked the Reagan administration’s policy to Afganistan, the Contras, or any number of other shady character and regimes.
I still can’t quite get over the “politics aside” comment. Is national security above politics or something? I can’t see how. Are your feelings about sex addiction above politics? Is anything involving brickbats hurled at a head of government going to be above politics, or beside, underneath, or over the hill from politics for that matter?
As I’ve said before, if you don’t like the man’s politics, fess up. If you’re just fine with the man’s politics, then you can tell us exactly how you feel about Newt Gingrich’s sexual mores, Richard Nixon’s honesty, Ronald Reagan’s safeguarding of U.S. missile technology, Dan Quayle’s competence and ability to get things right now and then, and Joe McCarthy’s sense of fair play.
You’re stuck with the likes of FDR, the “man who would be king,” and a man who died with his ‘significant other,’ and NOT his wife, at his side. You’re stuck with JFK, the man who never met a hot babe he didn’t admit through the back door. You’re stuck with LBJ, an arm-twisting bellowing crook. You’re stuck with Jimmy Carter, who might have made it as the quiet preacher down the road, but instead orchestrated a military embarrassment in attempting to rescue the Iran hostages and who claimed to have encountered a “killer rabbit” in some swamp somewhere.
Now you’re stuck with Billy-Bob, a trashy crook from Arkansas who has (finally!) admitted to more low-down cheap crap than any other president before him, and denied a lot more that the evidence says is true!
I would be willing to postulate that Truman was the ONLY decent Democrat president this nation has had in ANYONE’s memory!
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
TBone, if I can be permitted to answer for Boris, you’re missing the point. It’s fine to say that you don’t like Bill Clinton as president because you disagree with his foreign policy decisions or his health care program or his economic policies. But to say you don’t like Bill Clinton as President because he cheats on his wife and lies about it is asinine. Bill Clinton’s abilities as a President should be judged on how he carries out the duties of a President not how he carries out the duties of a husband. I’ll admit he’s generally failed as a husband (although several prominent conservatives have performed even worse in that regard).
Sure, Nemo! You have my permission, for what it’s worth, to answer for anyone!
You said, “TBone, if I can be permitted to answer for Boris, you’re missing the point. It’s fine to say that you don’t like Bill Clinton as president because you disagree with his foreign policy decisions or his health care program or his economic policies.”
OK, I don’t like Bill Clinton in any of those respects. Selling technology to the Chinese is not my idea of prudent foreign policy. The Mr. and Mrs. tried to pirate away 1/7 of the economy with their health care program; no points there. His economic policies… uh, his economic… uh, his… oh, hell, I doubt if the man can spell ‘economy’ the same way twice in a row. His only ‘economic policy’ is ‘ride the tide and take the credit.’
But YOU, my friend, have missed the point! Sure, Billy Bob is a philanderer, a low-life, cheatin’, lyin’ loser. But what sets him apart from all the other low-life cheatin’ lyin’ losers is the fact that he LIED about it, under oath, to two grand juries. This is called ‘perjury,’ and if you or I had done it, we’d be in the slam.
Come on, man! I’m not making excuses for anyone! Why is anyone making excuses for Bill? Jeez!
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
I’m not making excuses for Clinton. I said he cheated on his wife and is a bad husband. What I’m saying is that that’s irrelevant to his Presidency. As for lying under oath, perhaps you’ve forgotten the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings. Yes, I’ll agree it’s a disgrace the way George Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon were all imprisoned for lying under oath and Bill Clinton walked free but they should have been smart like him and used an alias like “Bubba Boy” or “Billary” when they broke the law.
