Heres what the truth gets you

[Death Rattle]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/laney/cst-edt-laney29.html
This is what liberals will do to anyone who trys to do whats right.

[Death Rattle]

What no comments from the peanut gallery. Figures. :ohmy:

[CELL]

good...thats what he gets for trying to turn a hero into a monster

[angel]

Interesting story DR but I bet you can find a similar story for the otherside. Not to discount Mr Gardners account but there were 12 men on that swift boat 9 agreed with Kerry, 1 didn't and 1 is not talking. You can read what you want into the last two but the bottom line is the 9 that stood beside him could have gained more had they crossed over to the oppositon. Mr Gardner also gives an account of an incident where he was the hero, it may or maynot have happened but if you don't talk about something for 35 years you think you might embellish some of the story?

And I believe maybe even Kerry's account of what happened to him is partly embellished because men do love their FISH stories. But if they are all lies and he got medals because of it does that mean that our military can't be trusted to properly award medals to deserving soldiers? Should we request that the military go and investigate more thoroughly everybody that received a medal.

Do we all agree that Kerry was actually there? Even he had never earned a medal and cryed the entire time he was there he still deserves to be respected. Any man that volunteers for a war deserves to be respected. I think Kerry had enough pull to be stationed with Bush(if he could have firgured out where that was).

The election is over Bush won, why are you beating a dead horse? I don't know how old you are but volunteer to go to Iraq and then come back and write about it. Give us your account and then ask one of your comrades to give his account and lets see how it differs.

[humanhybrid]

Yes the election is over! And by the way just how far did a republican go to win an election that was very questionable? Your right, no farther than his brother for help. good day! Mr.peanut whos hanging out at the gallery.

[dutchie]

The election is over Bush won, why are you beating a dead horse? I don't know how old you are but volunteer to go to Iraq and then come back and write about it. Give us your account and then ask one of your comrades to give his account and lets see how it differs.

FYI, Death Rattle is 15. Ahhh, 15 - that blissful age.. You still have to get some pussy, and your arms are twice as thick from jerking off; cigarettes make you puke, and so does one glass of beer... I'm getting all melancholical here...

The TRUTH... You wouldn't notice it when it sat on your face and wriggled, Death Rattle..

[Death Rattle]

FYI, Death Rattle is 15. Ahhh, 15 - that blissful age.. You still have to get some pussy, and your arms are twice as thick from jerking off; cigarettes make you puke, and so does one glass of beer... I'm getting all melancholical here...

The TRUTH... You wouldn't notice it when it sat on your face and wriggled, Death Rattle..
You really got a thing for teenage boys don't ya Dutch. :bondage: Don't beleive everything you read.

[Death Rattle]

Yes the election is over! And by the way just how far did a republican go to win an election that was very questionable? Your right, no farther than his brother for help. good day! Mr.peanut whos hanging out at the gallery.
H.H. I am simply giving a link to a true news story. What proof is there that jeb helped his brother win the elction. I said Good Day!

[substand]

What no comments from the peanut gallery. Figures.

I thought you put them on your ignore list?

and whats wrong with 15 you all? I'm only 15, does that make my opinions any less valid?

[Keeblergiant]

Yeah...what's wrong with 15!? Haha naw, I got what you're saying Dutch...

[dutchie]

Just for the record: I have NOTHING against 15 year old kids, in fact some of those posting here are of that age and even less and I respect them highly. My remark was just meant in a sort of TIC way. It's just THIS teenager...

Irritating how a post loses its sparkle when you have to explain it...

Death Rattle, your innuendo just makes me want to puke over your shoes. :eww:

[Bigsky770]

. . .Though best as I can, I will try. I would advise you to take this in the spirit that it is intended, not as one who is reprimanding you for some insolance on your part whereas you may feel the need to express yourself and proclaim for all to hear: "I am HERE! and I have a wicked-cool name to boot"! To us, this matters little.
. . .Those of us within this "Forum" whom I call "friend" I do not do so lightly; many of them I have personal messaged with during various parts and pieces of their lives, and I have come to know and cherish them. The older of us have DONE and BEEN so-many things to so-many people, at times it can feel as though the weight of the world can be upon ones shoulders, but we share still, this is what drives us onward. To my PARTICULAR way of thinking, it is a part of my 'becoming'. And what is in my becoming, you may ask? Something greater/though as I happen to believe and hold fast to the ideologies encapsulated within reincarnation, I believe this unfailingly.
. . .Those you communicate with here/many of which have done and been so-many things, indeed, many of them have FORGOTTEN more than YOU KNOW up to this particular point in time; Please, understand. I was once where YOU ARE NOW. When I was 17, NO-ONE could tell me ANYTHING. I was THAT certain I KNEW. By the time I was 25, I learned how little I actually KNEW. By the time I reached my present age, (44) There are times I am juggling so-many variables within my mind, I now understand how little I ACTUALLY KNOW. I want you to know that I have hopes that one-day you will reach my age, though given the present state of world affairs hope can sometimes dwindle to a nothingness that can only be perceived when you should witness the darker sides of what 'humanity' has left to offer.

With HOPE, there will be a day when YOU will become as many of US.
Is that a "good" (or) a "bad" thing? In the end, YOU will be the JUDGE.

Joe (Bigsky770)

[substand]

sorry dutchie... i was just playing around. i thought your post was brilliant, and you didn't really need to 'splain it.

MD: I was just joking. I'm not 15 (but I suspect you know that). I'm whatever age will make my opinions most valid to each member.

[DontBeAfraid]

Your opinions that differ from mine have no validity.... Sorry, thats just the way it is.

[Skippy]

The whole Swift Boat thing gave me the sense that Kerry was throwing the election intentionally. With all the shit going on in the US and the world, how the presidential campaign got hung up on stuff that happened 35 years ago was not something I could understand.

[substand]

Your opinions that differ from mine have no validity.... Sorry, thats just the way it is.


ok Death Rattle....

=)

[substand]

how the presidential campaign got hung up on stuff that happened 35 years ago was not something I could understand.

I think it was because Kerry refused to define himself in any other terms.

[dutchie]

In another 4 years it won't matter anyway. If Harpo Marx runs for the presidency for the democrats then he'll get 75%, even with free foot deodorant as his single political spearhead.

Bets anyone?

[Bigsky770]

. . .I was always more partial to Groucho Marx. Perfect combination of wit and whimsy, with more than a dash of tongue-in-cheek. Besides, the honking horn always got on my nerves anyway. . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :evlol:

[dutchie]

He's clearly too republican to fit my post... :alcoholic

[Dead Man Walking]

Republican??? What Party do you adhere to? Comedienne?

[Death Rattle]

Your opinions that differ from mine have no validity.... Sorry, thats just the way it is.
Thats just arrogant. I have to be carefull not to hurt anyones feelings or i might be banned by dutchie. But i guess you can keep calling me names if you want.

[Bigsky770]

. . .You can attack an OPINION, Example: "Your opinion (or) what you say is invalid/asinine" Just not the PERSON Example: "You're a MORONIC ASSHOLE".
. . .If feelings should be hurt by the FORMER as opposed to the LATTER than, "Oh well", Don't look for us to make a move (or) step-in. Here, "Freedom of Speech" is cherished and we try to offer as much possible latitude as we can in debating and arguements betwixt and between participants. However, there are those occasions whereas we must step-in when the LATTER is apparent and we must apply discipline. K?

Be my guest, though it should become one also to be able to state WHY you believe an opinion to be invalid/asinine, with as much force with PROVABLE evidence, (i.e. statistical data, links, poll info., yah know) as you can muster to do this effectively, ALTHOUGH it's not an absolute prerequisite/just makes you a "better" combatant and you can exit the debate as the winner, (to your satisfaction, anywho):D

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[DontBeAfraid]

DR that comment was in jest.... And it was to subs... who then took a shot at you.

[Marajadex]

Ah... The folly of it all. I just wish we had a legitimate 3rd party to have chosen from for this election. Now we and the world are stuck with a leader who is not liked by 50% of the country he supposedly leads and is not liked by a good part of the world. He can truly be called "The Great Divider" for he has sure divided this country. And.. well... isn't there a saying that states "A house divided cannot stand"?

[Hate_Republicrats]

What is the point? Not really that much of a difference between Bush or Kerry anyway. They are both part of the same old boys network Skull&Bones. They are both pro-war and pro NAFTA. They are both corporate controlled whores. By the way your boy Bush has been busy getting laws passed that make it more difficult for government employees to whistle blow on illegal government activity. He has also been destroying the freedom of information act, not to mention the constitution and bill of rights.
Keep watching Fox and listening to Rush oh brainwashed one.

[dutchie]

Republican??? What Party do you adhere to? Comedienne?
A day without laughter is a day not lived...

Yes, DMW - even I can appreciate a joke...

FYI, I voted D66.

[substand]

with a leader who is not liked by 50% of the country he supposedly leads and is not liked by a good part of the world. He can truly be called "The Great Divider" for he has sure divided this country. And.. well... isn't there a saying that states "A house divided cannot stand"?

If this is such a divided country, it sure didn't happen under Bush's watch. The last president (besides Dubya) to win with 50%+ of the vote was Bush 41, way back in 1988, and even that victory is looked at as "Reagan's 3rd term." I just don't think its a deep division, and if its even worthy of talking about then its worth noting that the country was divided well before Bush 43 took office, and is probably mostly due to the moral failings of Clinton more than anything else (which made conservatives louder than they normally would have been and turn out in droves to make sure he or anyone like him cannot get back to the office).

[DontBeAfraid]

Clinton getting a blowjob in no way divides a country more than bush sending people to a war that many believe unjustified.

[Marajadex]

the country was divided well before Bush 43 took office, and is probably mostly due to the moral failings of Clinton more than anything else (which made conservatives louder than they normally would have been
You got me there Subs. :headbang:
You are right... Although Clinton getting a blow job under the desk dosn't seem to be a matter for impeachment... It did get all the Christian Conservatives to swing drastically to the other side. And... When Bush the first... was president ie:Regans 3rd term... It did divide the country pretty well then too.

[angel]

the moral failings of Clinton more than anything else (which made conservatives louder than they normally would have been and turn out in droves to make sure he or anyone like him cannot get back to the office).

Was his moral failings based on his lying about the blowjob or actually having had the blowjob. It was never quite clear what conservatives were more pissed about. Personally, I think every president should be required to have a blowjob before he makes any major decisions. :angel: To clear their head .....lol

[Defiant Noquisi]

The problem with the BJ Theory, although much "fresher", is that it happened in the past. I liken it to the Vietnam rhetoric used during the last election which I fault BOTH for. The shit is old. Blaming just Kerry for it misses the other half of the spectrum that Bush donated to it. Kerry's medals had as much validity in it as did Bush's missing records.

But since its been brought up......

Im more apt to believe Kerry (note that I did not post I believe him proof positive) over Bush when it comes to military "past". Both were of priveledged background, both entered the military yet only one of them actually served in Vietnam and didnt dodge it. Yes, the medal throwing is questionable at best but at least the guy had a reason to act the way he did when he got back and had all the "research" he needed to formulate his opinion since he had been there.

I dont fault Bush for not going. Who wouldnt after the truth came out about what was behind the decision making? But for the sake of arguing with some validity, Kerry saw it and Bush didnt. Kerry was there and Bush wasnt. Most all the men of the swift boat are positive towards Kerry. One of the men who spoke against him in favor of Bush later recanted his statements and apologized. There has been no one that I have heard of that produced much in the way of positive or negative service towards Bush other than the wild accusations made public and no solid evidence to either. A few documents do not encompass an entire duty. Please correct me if I missed something.

Simply put, I lean more towards Kerry regarding military service because there is more evidence of it. I cant even begin to form an opinion about Bush's military record because of the lack of it. Yeah, at least Bush joined but I think it might have been because he didnt have a cool excuse like going off to be a Rhodes scholar at Oxford.

Its a hilarious argument. The "questionable" swift boat duty and medal chucking versus missing documents and craftily dodged Vietnam tour of duty. Woowoo! BIG winners!!!

[dutchie]

In Holland we have a word for this whole discussion, which is always used in a sarcastic tone. LB
(lekker belangrijk or quite important...)

[Bigsky770]

. . .What the hell;

GROUCHO FOR PRESIDENT '08

[dutchie]

Is he gonna do the free foot deodorant, Joe?!

[Bigsky770]

. . .One can only HOPE! ::)):

Joe (Bigsky770) :rolling:

[angel]

looks like someone wants some POTUS kneepads...that or someone has a huge crush on WJC.

No MD I'm just amused....We gave so much energy to a man and his blowjob. Who almost lost his job because of it. But a man who starts a war under false pretenses gets a pass. We can't forget the fact that Clinton lack morals but we forget the lies we were told about the necessity of this war. I'm just laughing to keep from crying. Our self righteous superiority amuses.

[substand]

Clinton getting a blowjob in no way divides a country more than bush sending people to a war that many believe unjustified.

My point is that the "division" we're talking about was around before Bush 43 took office. Regardless of the "unjustified" status of the war, we were bombing Iraq every other week under Clinton, and Clinton signed the bill that made regime change in Iraq official US policy, and Clinton ordered strikes against Iraq, and Clinton said the same things Bush said, and even said he would have done the same (if the political climate was right, if I remember correctly the reasoning behind "why not?")... Yet no outcry from the left. I don't think there's a deep divide here, and what makes the little divide seem so big are the "moral failings" (which I will respond to in a moment) of Clinton... and they are only important for the fact that it drove conservatives out en masse to get rid of him, win the senate and the house, and reellect GWB. If we want to get technical, we could say the country is less divided than it was in 2000 by counting the votes. The margin of victory was much greater this time around, what with him winning the popular vote and all (and it was bigger by percentage as well if we want to say Al Gore should have won).


Was his moral failings based on his lying about the blowjob or actually having had the blowjob.... Although Clinton getting a blow job under the desk dosn't seem to be a matter for impeachment... and all the other impeachment bj stuff

The moral failings are definately a part of getting caught cheating on your wife in the oval office. It may or may not happen all the time, but the fact that he was caught is pretty bad. Whether its right or not, people (including kids) look up to the president and expect a lot (probably too much) out of the man. I don't want my daughter thinking because the president said he didn't have sexual relations with the woman, it was just a blowjob, that its ok to go around giving married men blowjobs, or any man for that matter. Now a blow job is ok, but not for my 13 year old daughter.

But, it was not the blow job that gave legal cause to impeachment. It may have given them desire to do it, but not legal cause. Clinton perjured himself. That is a felony, as far as I know. He lied UNDER OATH about his relations. That leads to impeachment.


Its a hilarious argument. The "questionable" swift boat duty and medal chucking versus missing documents and craftily dodged Vietnam tour of duty. Woowoo! BIG winners!!!

What does any of that have to do with the "division" of the country? Did I miss it?

[edit: changed "legality" to "legal cause" b/c it made more sense.]

[Defiant Noquisi]

What does any of that have to do with the "division" of the country? Did I miss it?My post had nothing to do with division but it had everything to do with the fact that Clinton's BJ's are still being talked about. Sure, its not near as old as Bush's military records or Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts, but its still old.

Clinton lied under oath and got impeached. Bush has lied to the public numerous times after taking the oath of office and hes damn near hailed as a saint by many conservatives.

As far as I am concerned I'll take Clintons lies over Bush's. At least Clinton's lies didnt result in the death toll we have under the Bush Regime now. Clinton said he would have done the same thing Bush did regarding going to war. He did not say he would have done it the same manner as Bush did as far as I can remember.

People died when the Cole got bombed, people died when the motel was bombed too but NO ONE(no outcry from the left?) screamed "REVENGE!" then. Oh no, because it didnt happen on our turf. Yet Clinton lied about a damn blow job and a few other things typical for a politician and the sheer outrage damn near blocked out anything thing else news worthy and more important. These same people will easily blame Clinton for stealing the headlines and the country's attention away from more important issues.

Do you not see how twisted this is/was? WTF?

Also, Clinton obviously reacted to terrorism (bombing every other week?) but leave it to the fickle public to view it as unimportant because it hadnt happened here, it was happening over there. Apparently, the people who died because of terrorism were not as important pre-9/11. Clinton actually listened to the public (no scores of emotional outrage) and didnt make a big deal out of the murder of our people in other countries because of terrorism. What a gigantic mistake! He would have been butchered by the public if he had gone to war as Bush had. If Clinton said the same things Bush said, Id certainly like to see it.

So here we have 9/11, we go to look for Osama, Saddam's WMD's and a few other things briefly mentioned but chief among them and pushed on us more was Osama and then the WMD's Saddam had. Years later we have nothng, NADA, ZIP. Oh yes, we do have Saddam, sort of...but no Osama, no WMD's and instead we get pieces parts of the Patriot Act 2 yet to come. Not to forget we have a whole lot of families that are missing loved ones because of "bad" evidence.

Votes, were votes mentioned? Who gives a damn that Bush won by 2% and who gives a damn that "moral" conservatives pushed the win in. What apparently is being missed here is that damn near half the voters DID NOT LIKE Bush and voted accordingly just as just over half the voters DID NOT LIKE Kerry and did the same. Thats damn near 50/50. If that isnt a big enough chasm I have no idea what would be. That clearly shows a nation divided.

If it ever came down to having to choose between a perv doing a decent job of running this country and an egomaniac letting this country fall apart to satisfy his bloodlust and clean up daddy's mess, Ill take the damn perv over and over again. Religious morals should not run this country. Tell me how moral Halliburton is as well as teaching our kids bullshit history.


I don't want my daughter thinking because the president said he didn't have sexual relations with the woman, it was just a blowjob, that its ok to go around giving married men blowjobs, or any man for that matter. So be a parent and take an active role in her upbringing. Dont rely on anyone else to be the example for her but yourself. Use the situation as a teachable moment. Its up to YOU to teach her, not the president, a sports icon or anyone else. Dumping that responsibility on others is irresponsible and imMORAL. What are you going to do when she sees porn? Sue the publishers? What are you going to do when she gets flirtaceous with a guy? Lock her in a closet until she is 30? Maybe youd want her to look up to more "moral" people like Jim Bakker, Jim Jones or Jimmy Swaggart? How would you know that they were immoral if they hadnt been caught? Or in the case of Jim Jones, your daughter would be dead before you knew how bad things truly were. Clinton's BJ seems like an innocent past time compared next to a bible thumping monster like Jim Jones.

Please tell me how a "moralistic" liar who has treated our sorry state of economics, vast job loss and enormous deficit as "first four years" afterthought is somehow better than a liar who managed to maintain a surplus, maintain jobs, see the stock market shoot through the roof and got his knob polished.

You are missing an enormous picture here. Theres an old saying that says, "You cant take care of anyone else unless you take care of yourself first." This country is no different and it takes more than lip service.

[dutchie]

That moralism is exactly what is going to be the doom of the USA. It draws the attention away from things that do matter and clouds judgment. I'm not saying we should do away with values and morals - it's more like "hey, let's stay focused on the really important issues here.." IMO a blowjob doen't fit the bill (yep, I do have a way with words..). OK, the man lied, I honestly don't know what I would have done in that situation - do you, subs? And don't give me that crap about not wanting to have that blowjob at all... :wink:

All in all, I really do think WJC did a better job of being a president.

[substand]

My post had nothing to do with division but it had everything to do with the fact that Clinton's BJ's are still being talked about. Sure, its not near as old as Bush's military records or Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts, but its still old.

They are being talked about BECAUSE we were talking about the "division" of the US, and were posited by myself as being the origin of this so-called division, being that they made conservatives GOTV a lot more than normal, I would say.



As far as I am concerned I'll take Clintons lies over Bush's. At least Clinton's lies didnt result in the death toll we have under the Bush Regime now. Clinton said he would have done the same thing Bush did regarding going to war. He did not say he would have done it the same manner as Bush did as far as I can remember.

...

If Clinton said the same things Bush said, Id certainly like to see it.





Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, in some way, I'll guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.


-Bill Clinton

More at: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
and http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/ and http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ .... all of which show Clinton saying the same things as Bush.


Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003. The prime minister said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040122.shtml ... originally from the Agence France-Presse at afp.com

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp is another great source of not just Bill, but other Democrats as well, all saying the same things Bush said.

So if you are correct in your assessment of Bush's lies, then Clinton lied about more than just a blowjob, as he and everyone else was telling these "lies." But you don't seem to get that its not about the blowjob, its about the perjury. On the stand. Under Oath. To the court. You see, I can lie to you all I want- its not illegal. Clinton can lie to the American people all he wants, its not illegal. When you are in court under oath and you lie, then it is illegal.



Votes, were votes mentioned? Who gives a damn that Bush won by 2% and who gives a damn that "moral" conservatives pushed the win in. What apparently is being missed here is that damn near half the voters DID NOT LIKE Bush and voted accordingly just as just over half the voters DID NOT LIKE Kerry and did the same. Thats damn near 50/50. If that isnt a big enough chasm I have no idea what would be. That clearly shows a nation divided.


divided in only that way, not many others, therefore i dont see a deep division. my main point was that this "division" was around before Dubya took office, therefore he is not to blame for this political division.



Religious morals should not run this country. . Tell me how moral Halliburton is


Tell me how Halliburton or any of this (especially Halliburton) has to do with religion? I said the Clinton moral lapses caused the current division by making the right come out stronger than normal. I didn't say it was right or wrong. As for halliburton, last I heard they were being investigated for their accused immoral pricing schemes and if found guilty, will be punished. Thats more than you can say you supported for Clinton, so who is selectively choosing to pursue justice for wrongdoing?


as well as teaching our kids bullshit history.

I read somewhere that we should not "rely on anyone else to be the example for [our kids] but yourself. Use the situation as a teachable moment. Its up to [US] to teach [our kids], not the president, a sports icon or anyone else. Dumping that responsibility on others is irresponsible and imMORAL."



So be a parent and take an active role in her upbringing. Dont rely on anyone else to be the example for her but yourself. Use the situation as a teachable moment. Its up to YOU to teach her, not the president, a sports icon or anyone else. Dumping that responsibility on others is irresponsible and imMORAL. What are you going to do when she sees porn? Sue the publishers? What are you going to do when she gets flirtaceous with a guy? Lock her in a closet until she is 30? Maybe youd want her to look up to more "moral" people like Jim Bakker, Jim Jones or Jimmy Swaggart? How would you know that they were immoral if they hadnt been caught? Or in the case of Jim Jones, your daughter would be dead before you knew how bad things truly were. Clinton's BJ seems like an innocent past time compared next to a bible thumping monster like Jim Jones.


You and I both know that short of locking your child in a closet as you say, it is impossible to be the only influence on them. Yes, you can and should teach right and wrong, but I don't think its too much to ask that a president try to be a good role model.

This is all irrelevant to the point anyway. But no I'm not going to sue porn studios or lock her in a closet when she flirts. I'm going to kill the bastard she's flirting with =). But a 12 year old girl watching Clinton say that blowjobs are nothing is going to be a lot more apt to try it sooner than they should. And it didn't help that he was so old and she was so young either.

But again, irrelevant. The only point was to show why conservatives were mad, which led to them voting in larger numbers, which led to the division that someone blamed Bush for, but which existed before he was in office. You have yet to address any of that, and seem to be venting your frustrations for some perceived attitude of mine that Clinton wrecked this whole country.

I obviously don't feel that way about him, though I think he ruined what could have been a useful and successful presidency... and turned it into a waste of 8 years, accomplishing little and letting great chances to change the world for the better slip by.



Please tell me how a "moralistic" liar who has treated our sorry state of economics, vast job loss and enormous deficit as "first four years" afterthought is somehow better than a liar who managed to maintain a surplus, maintain jobs, see the stock market shoot through the roof and got his knob polished.


I never said Bush was better than Clinton. On the child rearing front though, I think its pretty obvious.

Presidents have little to do with the economy, and your facts are wrong even if presidents did matter a whole lot.

A liar getting his knob polished did not maintain a surplus. Congress did. Do you think if Clinton was allowed to pursue his socialized health care that we would have had a "surplus" which wasn't even really a surplus? Of course not. And we have just as many jobs now as we had under clinton, and we are adding to them. the stock market and the recession started under clinton anyway, and got worse after 9/11. so it would be hard to blame Dubya for any of that even if we were trying to place blame on a president. The economy is now getting Better under Dubya. Are you ignoring that? Maybe the president doesn't have much to do with it, aside from major policy decisions. Still, its hard to imagine one man can have such an effect on a huge economy based on a trillion other things besides the president. Its like blaming Bush for the Hurricanes or for Global Warming... its retarded, in fact.

[Defiant Noquisi]

When you are in court under oath and you lie, then it is illegal.I agree, however I also believe that when a person take the oath of office they should be held to similar standards. Just because he isnt in court and under oath there does not mean he should "embellish" the truth or mislead the country. Thanks for the info I asked for though and I see what you mean by Clinton saying the same.


Tell me how Halliburton or any of this (especially Halliburton) has to do with religion?I cannot remember why I posted that but after reading it I have left something out and cant remember what it is. Sorry about that.


You and I both know that short of locking your child in a closet as you say, it is impossible to be the only influence on them. Yes, you can and should teach right and wrong, but I don't think its too much to ask that a president try to be a good role model.I agree with that of course, but on the same token I feel the same way about Bush. He is no role model to my child in that he uses his own arrogance as a tool. You bet, I want my kid to grow up telling people he might have made some mistakes but not admitting what they are. If the mistakes arent there or swept under the carpet, he doesnt have to own up or pay up does he?

I also want my kid growing up learning that he doesnt have to base any of his "facts" on solid evidence and getting away with killing people because of it. Or at least getting other kids to do it for him.

I want my son to disrespect old people and make it harder for them to live. I mean, its not his fault.

I want my son to spy on everyone and have no responsibility whatsoever to gather whatever information he wants against them, even though they may have nothing to do with terrorism at all. I want him labelling children and other students who may have learning problems as "potential future terrorists".


But a 12 year old girl watching Clinton say that blowjobs are nothing is going to be a lot more apt to try it sooner than they should.Thats where you step in as I do with my son. Believe me, we have had many talks over the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" bs as well as why he was impeached. However, I find it sickening that people got so damned dramatic over his lies than over people being killed and for what? Im with MM here, where is the proof?


You have yet to address any of that, and seem to be venting your frustrations for some perceived attitude of mine that Clinton wrecked this whole country.No, but I am a bit perplexed as to the apparent defending of Bush and conservatives when I had understood you to be more Libertarian in your views. The way you have been posting doesnt appear logical in some ways but it may be that Im confusing the educational aspect of your posts with your viewpoint.


I never said Bush was better than Clinton. On the child rearing front though, I think its pretty obvious.Im confused here.


Presidents have little to do with the economy, and your facts are wrong even if presidents did matter a whole lot.They have alot more to do with it than you are giving them credit for. They can influence the economy even indirectly. Just the elections can do that.


The economy is now getting Better under Dubya. Are you ignoring that?Ill believe that when I see it. How is it getting better? Where is it getting better? Are you ignoring that it has gotten worse? If it is getting better why are businesses folding and hundreds upon hundreds of people getting laid off because of this "better" economy? Where are these jobs?


Still, its hard to imagine one man can have such an effect on a huge economy based on a trillion other things besides the president. Its like blaming Bush for the Hurricanes or for Global Warming... its retarded, in fact.I have no idea what you mean here. In fact I am very confused by this.

[dutchie]

Presidents have little to do with the economy, and your facts are wrong even if presidents did matter a whole lot.

Presidents in general might not be very influential on economies, but presidents of the US sure as hell are... Especially when they're spending money on major conflicts like it was water..

[Skippy]

I wouldn't say that Bush is responsible for a divided country, and I wouldn't consider elections to be a deciding factor for deciding that a country is divided. But I would say that Bush polarized the country, and I use the massive, and small demonstations against him as evidence of this.

[substand]

Presidents in general might not be very influential on economies, but presidents of the US sure as hell are... Especially when they're spending money on major conflicts like it was water..

Well, the reason I say it ... I was referring to US presidents, but I say it because our Congress approves and approved funding for these conflicts... therefore, the president, yes, could use some money. But the billions of dollars we are needing in Iraq is appropriated by our congress. Therefore, if our congress decided it was time to quit, we would pretty much have to leave for financial reasons... though they could not give a direct order to the military to leave.

[dutchie]

Bwahahaha!!!!

So now it's the congress that did it?!? ...weak...

[substand]

Bwahahaha!!!!

So now it's the congress that did it?!? ...weak...


i'm just giving an example as to why i dont think presidents have as much influence over economy as most people think. Why would I be "blaming" the US Congress for taking actions I think were good actions to take?