|
|
 |
laxpimpj |
+ |
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 11:25 AM What is that word they describe clinton as being... drew: clinton is clearly a "______________________" —laxpimpj |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc |
+ |
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 3:01 PM I was gonna post something about this: I am sick of Drew and Adam making assumptions without any evidence about him being an alcoholic, sociopath, sex-addict, etc. Last week Drew said to look for signs that President Clinton would be going through alcohol withdrawal after being released. But what happened? He seems to be fine w/o any complications. —Marc |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mason Jar |
+ |
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 3:22 PM President Clinton obviously has some sort of sexual dysfunction, call him a sex addict, call him whatever, he has fetishes and can't control himself in the face of the consequences (which were huge when he was President.) He is obviously a liar and a master of exploiting syntax. I’m not saying all other politicians don’t lie too, but none have been as calculating and purposely misleading as him. Finally, it is a commonly known fact that Clinton’s father and step father were both abusive alcoholics so he definitely has the genes for alcoholism, whether he drinks or not, who knows, you would think that if he did the Republicans would have talked more about it. I support President Clinton, although I hate his party. I think Adam and Drew hit the Clinton topic right on the head.
—Mr. Mason Jar |
|
|
|
|
thejoeinme |
+ |
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 4:03 PM Thank you, Mr Mason Jar. I was hoping someone would be able to refute that post (you know, the one you refuted haha), so I wouldn't have to. Now what'll it take for you to go liberal? —thejoeinme |
|
|
|
|
Puff |
+ |
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 6:58 PM Liberals suck. —Puff |
|
|
|
|
laxpimpj |
+ |
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 9:19 PM thanks, sociopath was what i was looking for. —laxpimpj |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Friday, September 17, 2004 at 5:54 AM What do you mean other politicians weren't as calculating and misleading as Clinton? B/c there seem to be several examples of much more extreme cases of lying. Like the whole attempt to get Clinton impeached was a extremely calculated effort by the certain right wing elements. Its well documented that millions of dollars were spent to fund this effort by various conservative think tanks, trying to find something to latch onto. B/c there are several politicians who have had affair and lied about it, even during the impeachment proceedings, a top politician resigned because he was a part of the investigation and it was discovered he had an affair as well.
And in the case of the Iraq war, and the build up to it, it was extremly carefully calculated to mislead the public. It couldn't have been done without the media's support, but there was virutually no dissenting opinions reported during the build up, despite several government officials speaking out about it. And the facts they spoke of were right, but they were labeled as traitors and america haters and all that.
And now, folks like Rumsfeld act shocked that somehow people think got the impression Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war, denying he ever made such claims. I am not a fan of the democrats, at best they are pussies, but I think it's important to acknowledge the bullshit the conservatives bring to the table as well. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Nosuchsoul |
+ |
Friday, September 17, 2004 at 8:53 AM You have to be a sociopath (or have tendencies) to be a politician so you can sleep at night. —Nosuchsoul |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mason Jar |
+ |
Friday, September 17, 2004 at 9:52 AM Piesore, You say you want to acknowledge the bullshit Republicans bring to the table yet throughout your writing you weren’t able to name one credible fact other than a convoluted conspiracy theory aimed at impeaching Clinton. Take your conspiracies and make a movie, don’t try to debate with them. Both parties have faults. My contention from the beginning is the same as Dr. Drew’s: Clinton is a calculated liar, sex addict, and has the alcoholic gene. —Mr. Mason Jar |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 11:14 AM It's easy to say conspiracy theory, but again, the money trail is pretty clear. He was essentially impeached for actions in his personal life. He got sucked off by an intern and lied about it, WOW.
I don't debate he is a liar, alcoholic and sex addict, but these are traits which are by no means unique to him. Again, with the current administration, there was an incredibly calcuated lying campaign which mislead the nation into war. Facts were known beforehand about lack of WMDs, as well as the point that Saddam was in fact cooperating with weapons inspectors, yet these points never were given equal time as the war strategies, and there was a huge push to discredit the UN. For me, this bothers me a lot more than what a person does with their personal life.
There are plenty of allegations about the current president's past life, draft dodging, cocaine use, alcoholism, an abortion. Regardless of the validity of these claims, there's not the same fervor, trying to get him impeached over transgressions in his personal life, despite compelling evidence in some of the cases. Thus far, aside the accusation that the documents used in the CBS interview are false, there is no real evidence that bush did in fact serve the correct amount of time in the national guard. Regardless of whether or not the documents turn out to be true, there are several other records which confirm the same information and are not being questioned by any authorites.
Again, as a personal transgression, this bothers me more than an affair, because it resulted in the death of men who had to go to Vietnam in his place. There already are movies and books on the clinton impeachment topic. The Hunting of the President just came out, and there's a book by the same name, which has been out for a while, as well as others. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 12:42 PM god your fucking retarded. Monica was a huge security risk that left the president of the united states open to blackmail. What if someone found out about Monica? How far would Clinton have gone to keep it a secret? These are important questions. Leave Your faggoty "HUURRRRRR IMPEACHED 4 HAVING SEX HURRRRR" bullshit at home (homo?). —Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
Proc |
+ |
Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 1:57 PM In the June 7, 2004 Darryl Hammond show they discussed Clinton at the end. Drew is sure he's an alcoholic/sex addict. But both Adam and Drew agreed that he was an effective president. Adam suggested the word sociopath, Drew strongly disagreed, and Adam reworded. —Proc |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 6:39 PM What do you mean if someone found out about monica? —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Trainwreck jm |
+ |
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 7:23 PM Piesore, you're every bit as partisan (and dishonest) as the people you're railing against. Not to drag this out, but Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying under oath. Why was he under oath? because he was under investigation for obstucting justice (i.e., witness tampering)in the matters of the several sexual harrassment lawsuits filed against him. It's real simple: Go around groping and exposing yourself to anything in a skirt, and eventually it's going to come back and bite you in the ass. —Trainwreck jm |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 9:32 PM B/c there are several politicians who have had affair and lied about it. That's what I said in the first post. I never denied he was impeached for lying, but he was impeached for lying about personal matters in his own life. Again, there's no push to make Bush testify under oath about his cocaine use, war record, or other things. Hunting of the Presdient discusses this, and it doesn't claim there is a vast right wing conspiracy, or that Clinton is without fault, not by a long shot.
But I still don't know why the poster meant when he said what would have happened if people found out about monica. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 10:13 PM HEY! IF YOU ALL LIKE BILL CLINTON SO MUCH, WHY DON'T YOU MARRY HIM?!?! —ZT |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 10:53 PM Yeah, but still... —steve |
|
|
|
|
GDG |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 10:57 PM
Edited Monday, September 20, 2004 at 10:59 PM >It's real simple: Go around groping and exposing yourself to anything in a skirt, and eventually it's going to come back and bite you in the ass. It has been truly damaging to Gov. Schwartzenegger. Many of these guys that are in power think they can get away with it. Republican or Democrat. Guys in power get away with it all the time. Chicks dig guys who have power, or at least the appearance of it, and some virility. They sometimes throwing themselves at them, like Monica did by showing Clinton her thong. I wouldn't respect a guy who, when presented with some easy sex from someone besides their wife, wouldn't at least get a little something. That's why I think all those guys who talk about their faithfulness to their wife at the drop of a hat are probably really gay or have a sordid history of mistresses and/or whores. Adam and Drew both believe that husbands should be able to get a little something from their wives even when they don't feel like it because it is biological need practically like other body functions. Especially if that guy has some power, it's setting up a guy to get something outside of the marriage. —GDG |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 11:08 PM "B/c there are several politicians who have had affair and lied about it." SO FUCKING WHAT? Having an affair and lying to your wife about it is not against the law. No one fucking gives a shit. People do that everyday. Thats not what Clinton was impeached for. "he was impeached for lying about personal matters in his own life". HELLO MY NAME IS HISTORY PLEASE READ ME. How many articals of impeachement were there? He was brought up on like 10 different charges. not a single one of them had anything to do with "lying about personal matters in his own life". Why not? Because thats not against the law. The impeachment charges were about "perjury in a court of law" and "obstruction of justice" among othere. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? Can you? Its not that hard. "Again, there's no push to make Bush testify under oath about his cocaine use, war record, or other things". Cocain use? Says who? Please give clear evidence that is credible enough to warrent a criminal invsestigation and also explain what law(s) were broken by Bush and if the Statute of limitation applies. Where are your sources? Let me guess. you have NONE. your primary source is that book that was written by a convicted fellon right? To quote X-Files: "I WANT TO BELIEVE"
Sorry thats not actual evidence. "what would have happened if people found out about monica." I mean that what would happen if someone found out about monica before the story broke in the news? Like what if a representative or spy from a forgien nation(and yes we are spied on constantly everyday from almost every country on earth including our allies like isreal and the UK), found out about the Monica affair and threatened to break the story to the public if the president didn't cooporate. You know, BlackMail. How far would Clinton have gone to prevent the affair from going public? —Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
GDG |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 11:15 PM
Edited Monday, September 20, 2004 at 11:16 PM FF, thank you for supporting Michael Jackson. —GDG |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 12:40 AM Ahhh but Michale Jackson is a little different. His child molestation charges are recent. You know that whole "You have a right to a speedy trial" thing from the bill of rights? Even if there was a smoking gun that proves beyond a doubt that Bush did coke 35 years ago, there is nothing he could be punished for (at least by the courts, voters can always punish him by not voting for him). Also there is actual evidence to support the molestation claims against Jackson. Child molestation charges with actual testimony and maybe even forensic evidence for a serious crime commited within the last few years warrents a trial in a court of law. Possible cocain use 30 years ago does not warrent a trial. In my opinion, Current cocain use even with real evidence shouldnt warrent a court trial, but the whole war on drugs/victomless crime thing is another debate.
—Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 8:37 AM Again, I realize he was not impeached for a personal affair. I'm not denying that.
With Bush, before the last election, when asked about if he'd done cocaine, he said he would not answer the question b/c he didn't want kids to make the same decisions he had. There is other testimony from family members, reliable or not is not clear.
But that wasn't even my main point. There are many more allegations, but there hasn't been the same multi-multi million dollar campaign to dig up dirt on him as there was with Clinton. In terms of real evidence, the whole war on Iraq thing has enough evidence to warrent a criminal investigation, as far as I can tell. Lying to Congress is a federal crime, and that is what potentially happened with providing the case for war. It's difficult to believe that various officials within the government, as well as ex-officials were aware of Iraq's true weapons capabilities, while the top officials in the adminstration were not. It either points towards gross negligence, or a more deliberate attempt to deceive both Congress and the public.
And the same could be said for his military record. The CBS scandal is really a moot point, and it's interesting to see how the whole thing has played bout. Because even though the memos are purportedly fake, they really don't reveal anything new that is known about his military record. There are military documents which no one questions the authenticity of, which show he did not appear for the proper amount of time. And even though the secretary who supposedly wrote the memos denise the fact that she typed them, she also says that she believes the information in the memos are true. There are other people, not just the guy interviewed by 60 minutes who have credientials and have made similar statements about him and others getting preferential treatment. I understand what you are saying about Monica, but at the same time, I don't see why this is a special case. Several politicians, presidents and others alike have had personal affairs, and could be blackmailed. JFK seems to be a popular example. But even Bush senior, there were rumors of him having an affair with a top official, written in the Washting Post, I believe, I could be wrong, and it was not prusued by the opposing politcal party, because it was a personal matter.
Using the current president as an example, allegations about his past, or his current policies could theoretically present a security threat using that same standard. Like the fact that the documents revealing Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium turned out to be fake should have raised questions about who would fake such documents, as well as why this information was continued to be used by the administration even though it was known to be false, but it was turned on its head and the reputation of the official who revealed this information was slandered.
—piesore |
|