|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 11:39:38 GMT -5
Post by marysia on Apr 22, 2004 11:39:38 GMT -5
People who are obsessed with salacious details about others sex lives and then subsequently formulate their opinions about government, foreign policy, politics, and individuals running this country, etc., around that, really need to move on to something of substance and credibility.
unfortunately, president clinton brough that legacy upon himself. it was his choice. he could have quietly walked away and admitted to the affair. many presidents have a key phrase or little snippet for which they are remembered. remember potatoe...
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 12:04:40 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 22, 2004 12:04:40 GMT -5
unfortunately, president clinton brough that legacy upon himself. it was his choice. he could have quietly walked away and admitted to the affair. many presidents have a key phrase or little snippet for which they are remembered. remember potatoe... I disagree with you because really there was no reason for Starr to make it the public areana that he did. Bottom line, I don't really care if Bill did her or she did him. I don't care if he lied about it to them or the public. It really was no one's business beyond Bill, Monica and Hillary.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 13:40:07 GMT -5
Post by marysia on Apr 22, 2004 13:40:07 GMT -5
I disagree with you because really there was no reason for Starr to make it the public areana that he did. Bottom line, I don't really care if Bill did her or she did him. I don't care if he lied about it to them or the public. It really was no one's business beyond Bill, Monica and Hillary. originally i cared not one bit. however when he brazenly lied - that made it wrong to me.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 16:56:51 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 22, 2004 16:56:51 GMT -5
originally i cared not one bit. however when he brazenly lied - that made it wrong to me. Why? Because you feel you have some right to know? Does Bill Clinton, Kent Starr, George Bush, or any person in any branch of government know who you do or don't sleep with? Do they know when and how, and with whom you've ever had foreplay with? Should they?
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 18:09:58 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 22, 2004 18:09:58 GMT -5
I get the impression that you'd like to consider yourself an "elitist" who thinks they know a better way to reason with terrorists. [/color][/quote] "The United States has obviously not proved immune to terroist attacks--witness the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the blowing up of the Murrah federal office building in Oklahoma City in May 1995, and the assaults on New York and Washington of September 2001. In one way or another--one of the Murrah terroist was a Gulf War veteran--these incidents all suggest blowback* from U.S. government activities in foreign countries. The United States has also seen instances of state terroism, as in the federal agents' attack on the white supremacist former Green Beret Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and the FBI's assault on religious dissidents at Waco, Texas, in 1993. It is conceivable that in the future such incidents will bring out the troops. But, more important, "terrorism" is an extremely flexible concept open to abuse by the leaders of an ambitious and unscrupulous military.
**Blowback, a term invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended consequences of American policies. In his book "Blowback", Chalmers issues a warning America would do well to consider: it is time for our empire to demobilize before our bills come due. You don't reason with terrorist, but you can remove the "reasons" you've become their hated target, (or at the very east some of them) . Not quite sure how with at least 725 American military bases existing outside the United States (as of Sept 2001) not to mention the pleuthora of our money being poured into this secret "black budget" of the Pentagon's we are going to turn around this mess. We are steeped in our own mire so deep it's just incredible. But, I'll be interested in seeing what insights Chalmers offers after I read all this history and the background of how we got there.
One thing is for sure though -- Cheney, and especially Rumsfeld are behind a lot of this, even going way back to the Reagan years, and so it comes as no surprise to see how George Bush plays in it as well. First order of business...George Bush needs to go and we need a new administration in the White House ASAP.[/color][/quote] You are entitled to your own speculation and opinion, no matter how misguided, but that is ALL it is.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 23, 2004 6:40:46 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 6:40:46 GMT -5
People who are obsessed with salacious details about others sex lives and then subsequently formulate their opinions about government, foreign policy, politics, and individuals running this country, etc., around that, really need to move on to something of substance and credibility. The fact is your perception is debunked by the historical record. It's not about sex at all. It's about Clinton's preoccupation with sex that took the focus off of the terrorist problem and it grew to what it is now because of a lack of concern with dealing with it long ago. [/color] Along this line though is something much more interesting in relation to Bush's record that's gets back those other treaties you attempted to brush over by that narrow little focus of yours, and now changing the subject to sex once again...[/color] We are not bound by treaties with nations that no longer exist. That's a simple fact of life. [/color] "The Bush administration claims it fears "capricious" prosecutions of its officials and military officers by an international prosecutor over whom it has no control, even though the Treaty of Rome contains many safeguards against arbitrary prosecutions, including the right of any nation to precedence over the ICC in trying its own citizens for war crimes. If the United States resists the establishment of a court that can prosecute individuals for war crimes, it is precisely because its global imperialist activities almost inevitably involve the commission of such crimes. The United States is the sole country the old World Court (which can only try nations, not individuals) ever condemned for terrorism--owing to the Reagan administration's covert action to destabilize and destroy the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in 1984." Now i see where you're coming from and you're nuts! The Sandinista's were COMMUNISTS, who wanted to spread communism to the Americas and they needed to be destroyed, just as Reagan did with the Soviet Union. People like George Washington and the others didn't fight the war for freedom for America so people like you could come along and hand that freedom over to nations that hate us because of our freedoms!! [/color] "The administration has always claimed that its opposition to ICC is rooted in the desire to shield ordinary servicemen and low-ranking officers from war crimes charges, but its real concern clearly has been that the court might try to prosecute President Bush or other prominent civilian and military leaders. I would agree with that. No other nation has the right to judge the elected pursuers of freedom for the rest of the world. [/color] Remembering well the impact of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation of former President Bill Clinton for his sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, the administration fears that were an international prosecutor to open a public investigation into the acts of President Bush, it might have a deleterious political impact, even if it never led to an indictment."[/b] That's what you'd like to see, right? I suspected you were a liberal wacko, but now you've proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
[/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 23, 2004 6:51:39 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 6:51:39 GMT -5
I disagree with you because really there was no reason for Starr to make it the public areana that he did. Bottom line, I don't really care if Bill did her or she did him. I don't care if he lied about it to them or the public. It really was no one's business beyond Bill, Monica and Hillary. We the people pay the president to perform certain duties. One of those duties is to see to it that this nation is protected from outside aggressors. Bill Clinton was on MY time in MY White House when he was being "serviced" by Monica AND IT IS MY BUSINESS, as well as every other american's business!! He even was on the phone with, I think, Dick Morris discussing sending troops into harm's way while being "serviced" by Monica. Don't you dare tell me it's only his business!! I agree that in the residence on his own time is his personal, private business, but not when it's in MY WHITE HOUSE business section on my time.
Your not caring about whether he lied under oath says a lot about your character.
You may have more than a 5th grade education, but not more than 5th grade sense! [/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 23, 2004 6:53:55 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 6:53:55 GMT -5
Why? Because you feel you have some right to know? Does Bill Clinton, Kent Starr, George Bush, or any person in any branch of government know who you do or don't sleep with? Do they know when and how, and with whom you've ever had foreplay with? Should they? If Marysia were the president, we certainly are entitled to know if she would be derelict in her duties as Clinton was. Since she is a private citizen, your questions are none of anyone's business. You really sound like one of Clinton's groupies. [/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 23, 2004 7:22:53 GMT -5
Post by marysia on Apr 23, 2004 7:22:53 GMT -5
Why? Because you feel you have some right to know? Does Bill Clinton, Kent Starr, George Bush, or any person in any branch of government know who you do or don't sleep with? Do they know when and how, and with whom you've ever had foreplay with? Should they? If Marysia were the president, we certainly are entitled to know if she would be derelict in her duties as Clinton was. Since she is a private citizen, your questions are none of anyone's business. You really sound like one of Clinton's groupies. [/color][/quote] heehee hee -- precisely why i would not consider running for any type of public office you know, we get a lot of "famous and infamous" people here. it's rather comical the way the press that comes to find or travels with believe that they are entitled to know every little thing -- what they ate & drank, what special requests they made, cripes even what time they called for a wake up call -- it's pathetic. while i understand fully that there is a difference between one's personal and public lives -- when the personal infringes upon the public that is when things go wrong.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 23, 2004 15:34:39 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 23, 2004 15:34:39 GMT -5
We the people pay the president to perform certain duties. One of those duties is to see to it that this nation is protected from outside aggressors. Bill Clinton was on MY time in MY White House when he was being "serviced" by Monica AND IT IS MY BUSINESS, as well as every other american's business!! He even was on the phone with, I think, Dick Morris discussing sending troops into harm's way while being "serviced" by Monica. Don't you dare tell me it's only his business!! I agree that in the residence on his own time is his personal, private business, but not when it's in MY WHITE HOUSE business section on my time. LOL... the reality is that YOUR time {rofl..} undoubtedly owed the President all kinds of personal time for missing lunch hours, being awakened by ugent matters in the middle of the night, reading briefs and reports before bedtime, etc., etc. This is now the second post of yours this morning (and others before) I've read of yours where you make a little dig about my character. I won't put up with that without calling you down for playing "spoiled looser" by doing so. Your posts are littered with snippity, bitter, and pompous remarks to everyone who doesn't agree with you genesda. You act like a bully and brat on a school playground. That's truly the type of character I'd be ashamed to own. Why don't you learn how to debate your opinion with others without turning your comments into some personal vendeta you continuously hurl out at them?? It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 24, 2004 15:54:25 GMT -5
Post by Onion on Apr 24, 2004 15:54:25 GMT -5
unfortunately, president clinton brough that legacy upon himself. it was his choice. he could have quietly walked away and admitted to the affair. many presidents have a key phrase or little snippet for which they are remembered. remember potatoe... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Still OBSESSING with Clinton. ha ha ha ha ah aha All the while are Moron-in-Chief is Sending America to HELL!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 24, 2004 15:57:24 GMT -5
Post by Onion on Apr 24, 2004 15:57:24 GMT -5
There was a truck loaded with chemical weapons that came from Sryia and was intercepted just as it crossed the border into Saudi. I wonder where they got the chemical weapons? Could it have been from Saddam? Is that where he moved them to? We know he had them, and we have no intellingence that Syria was developing chemical weapons, so.....? [/color][/quote] They're developing NUCLEAR WEAPONS in Isreal. I wonder where they got the technologies???Hey by the way, who supported and ARMED Saddam??? AMERICA DID!!!! Gees you people need to WAKE UP!!!
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 24, 2004 17:38:29 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 24, 2004 17:38:29 GMT -5
They're developing NUCLEAR WEAPONS in Isreal. I wonder where they got the technologies???Hey by the way, who supported and ARMED Saddam??? AMERICA DID!!!! Gees you people need to WAKE UP!!! That they do, Onion. But you know, it's much more comfortable and guilt free if instead one remains in denial about the true nature of the actions of their government. Gives them the illusion of a clear conscious I would imagine.
I find you a bit radical, but nevertheless, you post some excellent points along the way.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 25, 2004 10:20:25 GMT -5
Post by Pietro on Apr 25, 2004 10:20:25 GMT -5
a little more reading for you..... It's about time! If those nations harbor or help terrorists, then they are no better and should be treated the same way! [/color][/quote] Can someone show me where in the New Testament war, and even self defense is advocated? Is that what Jesus taught? If so please show me where.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 26, 2004 6:30:08 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 26, 2004 6:30:08 GMT -5
LOL... the reality is that YOUR time {rofl..} undoubtedly owed the President all kinds of personal time for missing lunch hours, being awakened by ugent matters in the middle of the night, reading briefs and reports before bedtime, etc., etc. That came with the territory. That doesn't give him the right to demean the office of president by having BJ's in the White House. He should have gone to a hotel, or just taken a ride with her. [/color] This is now the second post of yours this morning (and others before) I've read of yours where you make a little dig about my character. I won't put up with that without calling you down for playing "spoiled looser" by doing so. Your posts are littered with snippity, bitter, and pompous remarks to everyone who doesn't agree with you genesda. You act like a bully and brat on a school playground. That's truly the type of character I'd be ashamed to own. Why don't you learn how to debate your opinion with others without turning your comments into some personal vendeta you continuously hurl out at them?? It's ridiculous. I'll try to do better, if you'll quit making those same kind of remarks about the president and his staff without any proof of wrongdoing on their part. Did you ever stop to think that the response you get is because of the venom in your own posts? [/color]
|
|