BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Oct 5, 2005 21:51:01 GMT -5
And BTW, I guess it wasn't "proven" that OJ Simpson was guilty but...
Is he in jail? Are you willing to judge someone elses guilt? How? Should we bring up the law discussion we had a while back and debate that? Just wondering, that's all.
And if the "BJ" wasn't unfortunate (relatively speaking), then there truely is nothing that you and I could agree about (excepting Little Feat of course). The complete lack of responsiblility shown by Clinton is every bit as (if not more) arrogant than anything you try to pin to W. Oh, I know W's arrogant...but please. He's not in the same league as Clinton (for arrogance, in case someone feels like nit picking).
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 6, 2005 9:32:49 GMT -5
I think I get it now.
It's OK to be doing some coke bumps out at Camp David while Daddy is playin Prez, and planning how to "Punk" the USA when Rove has arranged your turn to play Prez...but just don't get caught in the pantry. They sell it as the "christian conservative" way, but I don't have to buy it.
Bill, you'll make a fine loyal comrade someday. Maybe they will give you a job guarding the Palace Entry, or food taster, or perhaps Scott McClellan's job. Once Rove has properly spun the stories, you'll get to announce the lies. Course if you enjoy personal honor and pride...you'll be screwed but you'll get to assist the "connected". And then you can go home and tell "Clinton Stories" to your grandchildren.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Oct 6, 2005 9:44:31 GMT -5
Well, even though I share a birthday with him, I do not know Bill Clinton (or any of those other shining stars representing me and us up there, out there, and down here). The same goes for Shrub. I know only what the media presents, or the officeholder (and an army of publicists and pr folk) wants me to know. It's all movie-acting, as far as the public image bit goes.
Clinton, assuredly, despoiled his office ... not so much because he had wild sexual appetites (I think we would be blown away by what has gone on behind the closed doors of the White House ... or any of its extended versions), but because he was caught. The moral indignation and outrage was natural and not unexpected. Hypocritical, certainly, since the number of people who do not engage in some form of moral debauchery (other than those of us on this list, of course) is rather small ... but when it is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, for god's sake, who gets caught ... well, that's sort of like catching the Easter bunny with a wet dipstick, or Santa playing around with one (or more) of his elves, if you know what I mean!
But no matter what bad example that might have been, no matter how abhorrent it was that he lied about it, no matter how the holier than thou purists rant and rave about the sheer depravity of the man ... his physical act and his lie were personal weaknesses that affected he and the people immediately surrounding him. And they were, in point of fact, the only people affected; no matter how badly we may want to point to our loss of faith, to the "if he lied about this, what else did he lie about ..." line of reasoning, or to the very fact that the President of the U.S. was caught in a bold-faced lie -- not a one of our complaints, no matter how personally valid they are, can in any way reflect upon public policy and how each and every one of us was affected by the Clinton Presidency.
In other words, when you get right down to it, you are either morally offended by his private actions or pissed off that he lied about it -- but his lying and his overactive id did not affect the life of one single soldier, resulted in no money coming out of anyone else's bank account, did not raise the price of gasoline by one penny, did not line the pockets of his associates (at the expense of each and everyone of us), did not endanger the lives of countless endangered species, did not increase the pollution of a single drop of water or breath of air, did not threaten to return school and schooling to Middle Ages beliefs about science and nature, or in any other way affect the well-being of any other American citizen (except, as noted above, for their sense of moral outrage).
I am not holding my breath about "justice" coming to the more egregious leaders of this administration. Yes, there are always fall-guys for the big shots. But in my book, as I have stated over and over again, this administration ranks right up their with the most corrupt, the most vicious, and the most zealously authoritarian administrations this nation has known. We used to hear about "tax and spend Democrats", and that was supposedly bad. The right wing of the Republican Party certainly let us know how evil we were. At least now -- FINALLY -- a few conservatives are standing up to and speaking out against the "tax-cut and spend Republicans" who have inherited Newt Gingrich's "revolution".
But then, if you are a student of history, you know what happens to any revolution ... the zeal and idealism of the founders dissipates quickly, to be replaced first by those seeking favors and special treatment, and ultimately by crooks and provocateurs (the ones who like to stir things up so they can really take charge!)
We're seeing the Christian Right on a very dangerous precipice. And, in reference to an earlier post in which you seem to think I believe the Christian Right is just a bunch of whackos ... let me set you straight. The Christian Right is the scariest thing to come along in this country in a long time. This is the same group of folks (in slightly different clothing) that brought witch trials to Salem, the Alien and Sedition Act, the Red Scare of the twenties, the KKK, and McCarthyism. In other countries, they have brought forward leaders such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco. We haven't had one of those yet ... but the Christian Right (now taking power in many European countries, again) is a dangerous bunch, always attempting to force their narrow beliefs on EVERYONE and crying foul if anyone stands up to them.
They are being backed into a corner right now, which is why they are dangerous, and why we stand on a precipice. If they are truly "American", they will realize that their beliefs are in conflict with the very freedom that their wish to impose them on us implies. They will back off, and let the will of the people take its course. If, on the other hand, they feel oppressed and threatened, or if they have come to a point where they believe that the only way that America can be "saved" is through strict adherence to their belief system, they currently are close enough to the positions of power and authority (and/or the people who exercise that power and authority) that would enable them to take the final step to creating a Christian oligarchy (as opposed to the economic oligarchy under which we now live).
Should that come to pass, we will indeed be living in unfortunate times.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Oct 6, 2005 10:18:58 GMT -5
I think you boys miss my point. As I have stated earlier, it wasn't the act of sex that brings the outrage (to me anyway. There was a pattern of behaviour that indicated this could happen was always there) it was the arrogance in thinking he could weasel around it under oath and not get called on it.
As for being a loyal commrade, I resond thusly; with minor exception, I have NOT been a Bush apologist/defender. I have agreed with some things and not others. What I have been trying to do is show the inherent hipocrasy in you guys (generally speaking, of course) picking W apart while turning a blind eye to your own political allies. I have stated that all administrations are corrupt. Do you really think I would be so arrogant as to think that this administration was above that? I was/have been trying to illustrate that none of this is new. If need be, I can show how throughout history everything that's being done in politics today has been merely perfected over time. It was no different than Jefferson running against John Adams (1796 and 1800). Or John Quincy Adams v. Andrew Jackson (1828). It's not new, it's not going to stop and an all likely hood will start to decline again (this make take another 20 years or so but it will be cyclical).
In summary, how boring would this thread be if we all sat around stroking each other? Throughout this thread I have found things I agree with from Scott, Chad, Mark, Hank, JAshley (remember him?) and I'm sure some others. Mike, well, you and I just seem to be oil and water. And that's fine too. But we all have our OWN beliefs...not someone elses. As stated earlier (by Scott, I think) that our goals, for the most part, are the same. We just see different roads to getting there. And while both Scott and I (I think I can speak for him here) seem to agree that the current political parties are riddled with corruption and favoritism there really isn't any other way to go at this time. I will also venture a prediction that the fall of our current 2 parties (or even 2 party system) will coincide with my comments about mudslinging politics and how that will eventually and temporarily subside. Come on, who's gonna lay a C Note on this one?
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by featphoto on Oct 6, 2005 11:12:35 GMT -5
I think you boys miss my point. As I have stated earlier, it wasn't the act of sex that brings the outrage (to me anyway. There was a pattern of behaviour that indicated this could happen was always there) it was the arrogance in thinking he could weasel around it under oath and not get called on it. I'm with Bill here, although I think I'd change the word "arrogance" to "dishonesty and stupidity" ... perhaps it takes arrogance to be so dishonest & stupid, so they all apply ... what dismayed me most about Clinton, as much as I found a lot to admire about him and his presidency, was the glaring example of bad judgement that was his stonewalling/obfuscating/lying when it came to Lewinsky and the BJ in the OO. that juvenile attempt to avoid responsibility by denial set him back several large steps and badly tainted what otherwise was, to my left-of-center eyes, a fairly successful & occasionally stellar 8 years as president.. recent history held the lesson that the public is pretty forgiving if you just admit your mistake, apologize and move on. I guess Clinton missed that class ...
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 6, 2005 12:36:21 GMT -5
Throughout this thread I have found things I agree with from Scott, Chad, Mark, Hank, JAshley (remember him?) and I'm sure some others. Mike, well, you and I just seem to be oil and water. And that's fine too. And while both Scott and I (I think I can speak for him here) seem to agree that the current political parties are riddled with corruption and favoritism there really isn't any other way to go at this time. Bill L You don't care for "mouthy" Texans huh...well that just hurts! At this venture if you had corruption and favoritism in the Democratic Party, how would you be able to tell? I don't see the current TX/DC gang giving up any cookies. Oh yeah...Kerry took some bullets in Viet Nam. Shame on him. Then McCain a Republican, had the gall to be a POW and got slammed for it so, I don't think it is actually a "party" gang fight. Bush & Son's, don't really give a shit what party is most loyal to them. It just happens to be the Republican party and Christian Right at this point that makes a useful vehicle for em.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Oct 6, 2005 18:10:09 GMT -5
Mike says: You don't care for "mouthy" Texans huh...well that just hurts! Actually, I love "mouthy" Texas chicks. Just don't tell my wife. As for the balance of your post, well...whatever I say will come sounding too snotty and, in all honesty, I don't see how it'd be worth it. And thank you Hank. I would like to publically ammend my previous comment from arrogance to "dishonesty and stupidity". And with a little luck, Hank and I will be dishonest and stupid October 23 in Mass for a show in Pittsfield. Now that I think of it, I don't have to wait that long to be dishonest and stupid. I do that every day. Bill L ---after reviewing some of my last few posts, I request a bad-spelling-pass. Scott, if you could please sign that so I can be on my way.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 6, 2005 18:29:44 GMT -5
Actually, I love "mouthy" Texas chicks. Just don't tell my wife. Now that I think of it, I don't have to wait that long to be dishonest and stupid. I do that every day. Bill L doh...I hope she doesn't read the boards. ;D My dishonesty could use some work, but sometimes I can excel at being stupid.
|
|
|
Post by featphoto on Oct 7, 2005 7:21:43 GMT -5
And with a little luck, Hank and I will be dishonest and stupid October 23 in Mass for a show in Pittsfield. actually, we engaged in a little impromptu stupidity yesterday with that other lobstah mafia don: Rollin' Mark ... say, I wonder why I find myself hanging around with all these right wing yahoos?
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Oct 7, 2005 8:23:14 GMT -5
Hank said: say, I wonder why I find myself hanging around with all these right wing yahoos?
'Cause that's where all the action is. Jim Baker (Jessica Hahn), Bill Bennett (Vegas), Bob Packwood (lots 'o ladies). How could you resist hanging out with us.
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Oct 7, 2005 9:57:36 GMT -5
Actually, I love "mouthy" Texas chicks. Just don't tell my wife. That little quote launched me right into yesteryear for a moment or two. I have a little Texas history myself - went to college in Dallas for a time, and every now and then reflect on a couple of the aforementioned type of ladies. Remember the adage "Be careful what you wish for." It's a good adage. I sometimes wonder if I ran into either of those women today, would I be thrilled to see them or disappointed? My mind's eye still sees them as they were in 1980. Then I laugh at myself for thinking like that, because they would be seeing me as well - and I'm just about damned certain that they would be disappointed -- Speaking of mouthy Texas chicks, I must say that I'm hoping Harriett Myers does not get the confirmation for an appointment on the Supreme Court. I do like President Bush's thoughts about what a Supreme Court Justice's job is... "interpret the Constitution and don't legislate from the bench." That's why we have a legislature. But I don't think he picked the right person here. Brett Favre is the type of player who brings everything to the NFL that a player should... right state of mind, focused, gives 100% each play, etc. That doesn't mean he'd be the right guy to serve as the NFL Commissioner. And that's how I see Harriett Myers. Probably a very fine lawyer, but what other credentials do we have here?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 7, 2005 10:15:20 GMT -5
Myers. Probably a very fine lawyer, but what other credentials do we have here? Same ole crap...she's been a personal attorney for the Bush family since '93. She's had her hands full with Neil!!! BTW- If Carter had to suffer through Billy..and Clinton had to repeatedly apologize for Roger...how is it that Neil Bush stays completely under the radar? Speaking of mouthy Texas women, I married one. Smartest move I've ever made!
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Oct 8, 2005 4:33:11 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]HALIBURTON GIVEN CONTRACT TO REBUILD CHENEY[/shadow] WASHINGTON, DC—Halliburton was awarded an $85.5 million contract to rebuild damaged U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney Monday. "We are proud to serve the executive branch in their hour of need," CEO David J. Lesar wrote in a statement released later that day. "Due to our vast experience with oil-well fires and refinery mishaps, we are well-versed in the sort of reinforcement, rewiring, and exoskeleton refitting Mr. Cheney so desperately needs." The Department of Ways and Means defended awarding the contract to Halliburton on the grounds that they had done the original work on Cheney in the 1970s. Goosfraba ;D -chadgumbo
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Oct 8, 2005 7:56:36 GMT -5
HALIBURTON GIVEN CONTRACT TO REBUILD CHENEY
Now that's funny.
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 8, 2005 14:41:04 GMT -5
The Department of Ways and Means defended awarding the contract to Halliburton on the grounds that they had done the original work on Cheney in the 1970s. Goosfraba ;D -chadgumbo It sounds like the infrastructure is pretty well shot, so Hallibutt'n would have to be the only choice here.
|
|