Clinton is Suck.......

[thebestMAX]

<<his accomplices committed suicide.>> HeeHee, Corn

Yeah, right. Depends on your definition of suicide. &quot;Yes, Officer, he stabbed himself right in the middle of his back.&quot; (For purposes of illustration only)

All the FFOB (Former friends of bill) should be known as the DFFOB.

Ill never believe Vince Foster offed himself.
How about Ron Brown?

 

[PG]

oh yes, vince foster again.

You are forgetting Ron Brown and many others who have died. 4 people who saw his body said there was a .45 inch hole in his head. Before they could do a full autopsy he was buried. These 4 people spoke out, but lost job privledges immediately and were reassigned. The skull X-rays have been lost. We cannot say for sure that Clinton was involved, but it seems very fishy.

Read this

 

[SuperTool]

There is certainly no lack of innuendos about Clinton, people accuse him of everything and anything. But if he did all these horrible things he is accused of, why did the republicans waste the impeachment attempt on lying about sex? Wouldn't they want to impeach him on the worst crime he committed, given a choice? Oh, maybe that was the worst one

 

[Stark]

The republicans had nixon.
The democrats have clinton.

I think that evens the score... and give me an idea for a poll

 

[SuperTool]

Yeah, but Republicans also have Bush

 

[Zucchini]

Stark,

that only shows the motivation for republicans to paint clinton in as bad of a light as possible.. they are desperate to even the score. They fail in terms of degree of crime.. no matter how they try.

 

[SJ]

Does it matter? Clinton is sleazier than Nixon. We DO NOT KNOW the extent of what Clinton has done, because for the most part, most of it has been covered up. But still Clinton is still a fvcking moron, pardoning three criminals for money tsk tsk tsk. It will all come out just watch.

 

[thebestMAX]

SJ-

Lets hope it all comes out but he will still get away clean. And they called Reagan the teflon president.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

That article has some stuff that is totally inaccurate, such as the flak over the cost of his office. No worry anymore, as he has instead leased an office in Harlem that will be much cheaper.

As for Clinton wasting money, aren't we wasting $300K a year (plus whatever staff salaries are) for an office in CA that nobody uses? Conveniently overlooked.

And when one starts naming/calling lists of Presidents who have committed criminial acts, esp. felonies, they are only proving themselves hypocritical if they leave off &quot;Ronnie Ray-gun&quot; (remember Star Wars, and not the movie ...) and his partner in crime, GHWB. If ever a President or Vice Pres. has committed treason against this country, it was them with their Iran-Contra affair. Unless of course you don't think aiding an enemy is treason. Truly they were justifiable candidates for impeachment.

While Clinton's pardon of Rich is at best questionable, at worst who knows, it cannot be any worse than the pardoning of Ollie North. Or Weinberger for that matter.

It's far past time to take Clinton out from under the microscope (brought to you courtesy of the Rosenberg (sp?) Institute, and other well-heeled (R) operatives). Even our new President Bush is now calling for an end to these witchhunts.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

He's not a traitor? What about Chinagate...

 

[Zucchini]

yes what about it? Evidence wasn't enuph again? these investigators must be totally incompetent.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Yeah, I wonder what happened to all the evidence, hmmm...

 

[Zucchini]

thats how it goes with all unfounded accusations.. so thats the best you can do.. haahha

 

[PistachioByAzul]

It doesn't seem fishy to you that all the incriminating evidence against the Clintons magically disapears and all the people involved in their questionable activities are either dead or given high-level Government jobs. Why would you give him the benefit of the doubt? Because he's a Democrat?

 

[Zucchini]

because the conspiracy would have to be of enormous proportions.. unlikely? of course, look for the simplest explaination, which would be repubs just trying to slander the guy.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

You call the mountains of evidence against him slander? There is more behind these Clinton scandals (there are a few dozen, geez) than what is covered on CNN and the in New York Times.

&quot;Public Opinion&quot; decides most of what Congress does, since all it's members really care about is holding their seat. &quot;Public Opinion&quot; is controlled by the media. They release biased polls (even non-biased polls mean absolutely jack sh!t) and selectively &quot;cover&quot; the news, putting out only what suits their agenda. But now even many people in the media have realized how foolish Clinton made them look, and there has been a wave of articles from former-Clinton apologists now seeing the light.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Do you think OJ is innocent? No? Well what's the difference between Clinton and OJ.

 

[Zucchini]

oj was actually on trial in a court of law, clinton tied to a pole in a witch hunt.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Most people see OJ as being guilty because they feel indifference towards him and are able to look at his case objectively. I think relatively speaking, for this sake of this argument at least, the evidence against OJ is equal to that against Clinton.

People will always believe what they want to believe, blocking out reality and using rationalizations.

oj was actually on trial in a court of law, clinton tied to a pole in a witch hunt.

Or maybe you're just conditioned to percieve it that way, so you instinctively believe such a thing without examing the facts. Isn't that a possibility?

 

[Zucchini]

OMG!, i didn't realize that my judgement was blinded by my unnatural love of the clinton! oh yea, thats it..


engineNr9, now you are just being silly. you did not reinforce your arguement one bit, try a little harder. You feel the evidence is equal? hah, well you can feel that all you want but thats all it is.. a feeling. Your original assertion is that clinton is a traitor.. must be killed etc, yet you don't have enough evidence to prove anything. then of course you claim he cleaned up the evidence... so what are you left with? a baseless claim.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Well obviously he shouldn't be executed without a fair trail. Of course, I think he would be found guilty as the existing evidence (I'm sure they would discover more if they launched an all out investigation) certainly points toward his guilt.

 

[jobert]

What's REALLY Suck
is that our president reflects the average
values of our people.

Don't forget, millions and millions of people
are well aware of what a scumbag Clinton is,
but voted for him anyway, for one sick reason or another.

 

[Zucchini]

(I'm sure they would discover more if they launched an all out investigation)

ah, so you want more investigations..waste another 50mil(can't remember exact figure) for nothing.

 

[AndrewR]

<< The rest of us would never have been asked the question. >>


I must have missed that earlier, but that doesn't mean it's not a statement very full of sh|t.

If you were accused of sexual harassment, the plaintiff would certainly try to prove a pattern of conduct to demonstrate habitual behavior and a history of harassment. Since Paula Jones was trying to prove sexual harassment, the subsequent dalliances of the now-President are relevant to show that not only did he engage in those behaviors before (ie., pursued underlings, Paula Jones), he is still fooling around with co-workers (Monica Lewinsky).

So, you better believe the rest of us would be asked that question in the very same situation, assuming of course that we would be in a position to harass multiple women who worked for us. The difference is that a lie which prejudices judicial proceedings on a material fact (see history/pattern of conduct argument above) would be very bad for the average citizen in such a court case -- a jury would cream you.

Simply because you don't agree with a question under oath doesn't give you license to lie about it. And before anyone starts bringing up Iran-Contra or some other unrelated topic, keep the argument to the facts revolving around Clinton. Everything that happens is mild compared to what Hitler did to the Jews -- does that make even gross injustices ok because there's something worse out there? Such a stupid debate tactic yet so often used.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Don't forget, millions and millions of people
are well aware of what a scumbag Clinton is,
but voted for him anyway, for one sick reason or another. >>

That about sums it up. So many people turned their cheeks and dementia-inflicted loons like Zucchini continue to do so (no offense). Even the press was &quot;blind&quot; to the truth. Now since they no longer need him they finally put on the pressure like they should have done initially if they were true patriots.

I don't understand it. Certainly Rs have gone over the line to bring Clinton down but regardless of their furvor he ought be pay for what he's done. How many dozens of individuals have suicided, fled the country or were convicted? Hey if they were innocent nothing would have come of it.

So by supporting the criminal you partly become one. A great president? *spits* Only by some crazed, unethical standard. He rode the internet economy and the R congress held him in check. That's his legacy. Oh and utterly destroying Serbia, displacing 100,000s and destroying their homes. Sure we destroyed their 13 tanks but it should have never happened.