Good policies with bad intentions, bad policies with good intentions...I guess, my vote goes to...a good-bad girl versus a bad-good one, heh heh. (Hey! I'm a guy! What can I say? My head's in the taliban toilet.).

Hey Info,

Maybe you should look at the Dems because Reich is a good example of the majority. Want another example, take Houston Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. She uses tax payer money to ride the 1 block from here apartment to work (a violation of House rules), she has gone through more staffers in her short tenure (they quit because of her abuse) then any other member of Congress, she no longer can fly on Continental Arilines (Houston company) because of her abuse to airline personnel but I guess this is all OK by you because she represents the lower income people of her district by her good intentions. Need another example, take your own Senator Clinton. I love how she supported New Yorkers after buying her election but I suppose her good intentions make her better than the thousands of people that sent aid, workers, and assistance.

I enjoy seeing your posts but have trouble understanding how you can blindly support the liberal agenda, which is based on intentions. I would think that you would support people that take positive action to correct problems over people that just talk about possible good ideas with no action.

Alright let the Democrat bashing begin!!

Sorry Info, but Reich is a great example. He's a leader in the party who says one thing and does another. You can add Al Gore to this pathetic example-his first year as VP he gave less than 2% of his earning to charity. You see, to democrats, the government is a huge charity. So they figure why give any of my hard earned cash to real charities that help the poor and disadvantaged.

Let's add Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) to this list--a true IDIOT! Here's a quote:

"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide"

She actually believes that the Bush administration not only knew this was coming but that they could have stopped it.

Oh wait, that's not exactly what she meant--let her clarify:

"I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

"I see. Well, just let me just say that I am not aware of any evidence that Ms. McKinney has murdered several children or that she personally profited from sleeping with the entire defensive squad of the Atlanta Falcons. However, a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case." (Jonah Goldberg)

Of course we have Tom Dashcle who lied about the whole "secret government" scandal (for some political purpose I suppose). "I never knew anthing about it, no one informed me." Uh, Tom, you were at the breakfast meeting with the President when he informed high ranking members of Congress about this plan. "Oh, yeah."

And why exactly was it the Hilary Clinton did not attend a single funeral for a firefighter, police offficer, or civilian victim of 9/11 until after Bill O'Reilly reamed her for it on TV (nearly 2 months after the attack)? She cares doesn't she? And why again, was she kissing Yasir Arafat's wife 2 years ago and now she signs a petition to GW telling him how disappointed she is that Colin Powell talked to Yasir Arafat? She's not a hypocrit is she?

More examples-ALL GOOD!

And Flame was spot on with the Sheila Jackson-Lee bit as well. Nice example of a limosine liberal!

Shall we add the Democratic National Committee to the list. They were the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from Global Crossing. What is Global Crossing? The biggest company to fall apart from illegal practices and management. Bigger than Enron and this happened during the Clinton administration! Why didn't the Dems come out with legislation and fix this problem before Enron happened? Oh, they had good intentions but didn't want to kill there cash cows.

Pop quiz-Can anyone tell me the truly frightening part of the Global Crossing collapse (the part with national security implications)?

More classic Tom Daschle:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle believes in the public's right to know. In a speech to the nation's newspaper editors last week, he proclaimed himself a true believer in the Freedom of Information Act and declared his belief that journalists ought to ask politicians more questions, not fewer.

Unless, that is, they want to ask politicians like Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, why the public shouldn't know how much Uncle Sam is giving in tax-paid farm subsidies to "farmers" like NBA star Scottie Pippen, ABC News journalist Sam Donaldson, CNN founder Ted Turner and financial magnate David Rockefeller. Tom Daschle meet Tom Daschle.

INFO-HE's always looking out for the little guy!

Already posted it before, but it fits.

Don't forget the NC Democratic party under FBI investigation for denying state employees jobs and raises they were qualified for. They'd give you the job, but only after making large donations to the campaign funds of the Democratic Party.

Info, please provide us with as many (or at least one good one) examples of republicans and conservatives behaving just as badly....

And yeah, the school thing was kinda dull

A little blurb from the Washington Post today:

The General Accounting Office has found that departing Clinton aides vandalized the White House and Old Executive Office Building, stealing two historic doorknobs, scrawling obscene graffiti on walls and inflicting $14,000 worth of damage.

Those who have seen the GAO report, a preliminary document, say as many as 75 computer keyboards had to be replaced — at a cost of more than $5,000 — because Clinton staffers had broken off the W keys, a jab at George W. Bush, the winner of the bitterly contested 2000 presidential election, who was often referred to during the campaign as W.
Two historic doorknobs were stolen from the Old Executive Office Building along with a presidential seal, valued at $350, said the sources, who could not detail how the rest of the damages were inflicted.
Chairs and telephone tables were broken, desks were overturned, garbage was strewn in offices and telephone lines were cut, the GAO report says, but does not, in each case, attribute the acts to vandalism.
Democrats dismissed the findings of the investigation — which they say cost about $200,000 to conduct just to find $14,000 in damages — but one congressman was infuriated by the report.
"It should not matter whether the damage was $14, $14,000 or $40,000, no one should get away with deliberately vandalizing one of our country's most sacred public monuments — the White House," said Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican and the initiator of the probe.
Although he has not yet seen the report, Mr. Barr said "the Clinton spin team is still doing what it does best. They consistently refuse to take any responsibility for their actions and instead, seek to shift the blame and obscure the truth."

There's some great Democratic behavior for you INFO! Please note that the GAO is a non-partisan orginization.

Marty,

I'm a hard-core Republican, but if you believe that BS, then I've got some ocean front property for sale in Arizona...that rumor has been going around for months and it is TOTAL BS...come on brother, do some research.

TE-Hey I didn't make up that story! These allegations popped up right after the election and I believe that the Bush team just let them go so as not to be seen as vindictive against Clinton and to keep Clinton's name out of the press.

If you don't believe it then just explain to me why the GAO would make it up.
There were some pictures of this stuff posted on the Drudge web page right after the election as well.

Plus, I always do the research TE!

Here's a bit more from the story:

"The White House had little comment yesterday on the matter. "We've put this behind us. We've considered it closed for over a year," said Bush spokeswoman Anne Womack.
What the new report says depends on which side you ask. One former Clinton official who has seen the report said the evidence supports their position: There was no widespread vandalism at the White House, as Bush administration officials have charged.
The Clinton official said less than $1,000 of the $14,000 in damages can be attributed to outgoing staffers, blaming the rest of the cost on simple wear and tear.
"They want to say anything that is wrong is because of us, but that's not substantiated in this report. It just isn't," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

Oh, since it's less than a grand we shouldn't worry about it. TE-I bet if someone came and did $1000 worth of damage to your house you'd be pissed! And you'd want some blood! I'm just saying that if they did ANY damage to our White House then they are dispicable. And it appears from this story they admit to doing apporximately $1000 worth of damage. And we know how truthful the Clinton administration was!
Very sad!

Here's the link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020419-803782.htm

Marty,

First, it was not the GAO, it was the Washington Post reporting on what they think the GAO said...not what the GAO actually said...if you can provide a link to the actual GAO report, I'd be happy to read it/RECLAMA (admit I was wrong) my statements...

Second, if the Bush administration has put it behind them, then lets do the same...I agree that any desecration of the White House is BS, but what was actually done? Keyboards? Computers? Desks?...of course, the desks depend on their historical significance...

If more was done, I'd be happy to review the evidence, but I still maintain that this is in fact, BS...if it wasn't, then the Bush administration/Republican leadership would most likely be milking it for all its worth (against the Dems)...and the bottom line is, no matter what happened or what has to be repaired/replaced...we, the US taxpayer will pay for it (in that sense, then YES, I would like a full accounting...).

Bottom line, until I see concrete evidence in a specific GAO report or Congressional inquiry (which, based on your inputs, this would warrent), I won't believe it...provide that info/link, and I'll stand corrected.

On a personal note, you are doing very well here in the forums...you articulate your position well on the many issues involved, and back that position up impecably with evidence and research...I'm glad to count you among my friends, and proud to say we've served as PJs together!

TE-Well what's going to happen here with two hard-headed PJ's going after each other?!

You're right that at this time it's just speculation but I'll go out on a limb here and say that the actual report (when it's released) will back me up!

As to putting it behind me-it only concerns me in how it shows the way that the Office of the President was held in such low esteem for 8 years. That is tragic, and the ripple effect of that will show up for years to come. I am truly proud of my country and to have a group of people (if it's true) disgrace the second most important symbol of our country for some childish reasons is truly beyond the pale.

You would think that if it was true the Bush team would milk it but he has really shown (at least to me) that he is for this "different tone" in DC. It's pointless to him to milk it because it's just more crap about Clinton-and people are tired with all the crap about Clinton!

As soon as I'm proven right, I guarantee that I'll post here straight away!

I'm honored that you count me among your friends, TE! I certainly count you among mine. I do try to put serious thought and research into the things I post on your site (otherwise I'd be wasting space)-which I think is the best of it's kind BTW. But if we turn this into a love fest I'll lose my edge! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

You are my brother and when you are proven wrong I will accept your apology humbly! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Love fest? You said it...not me...

Hey Marty, don't forget about your arch nemesis now. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> I'm still not out of the game.

Was on vacation by the way.

On to the hard core stuff <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> You're right that at this time it's just speculation but I'll go out on a limb here and say that the actual report (when it's released) will back me up! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At least TE did not presume to know what the official GAO report would say when released. It shows that some on one side can still be objective. So tell me, why do you presume that the official report will back you up? I guess it just feels right to brainwash yourself into believing that democrats are always wrong, even without proof huh?

I think he was kidding around with TE there, seemed to me like it had a humorous tone there. We need a new subject, something venomous to really stir things up. Anybody got any ideas?

If it's laying on the ground, brown in color, smells bad, and a dog just left the area; I don't need the lab results to tell me it is just dog sh@#!

The Clinton administration consistently lied and misused the offices so I too am willing to go on the limb with Marty that the vandalism was from the outgoing administration which will be documented in the GAO report.

And I will humbly (OK, maybe not so humbly) tender my apology if this is proven to be a wrong (I am sure it is right) assumption! LOL

Here is a link that might interest a few:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020419-803782.htm

The final report should be interesting.

INFO-You may be a nemesis but it's more like I'm Superman and you're Mr. Mxyztplk. (I know Flame will like that one!)

I'm willing to think the worst about Clinton's staff because that's usually what we got from Clinton. Not because I'm brianwashed. Notice I never mentioned this until I had some source to back me up. A Clinton staffer admitted that they did "less than $1000 worth" of damage. Well if they are willing to admit it, I'm willing to believe they did it-except it was probably much worse than $1000.

So Flame and I are out on the same limb but so far it's seems pretty sturdy!

I'm with Marty & Flame here as well. Hell, even if the DID do less than $1k worth of damage, that's $1k more than should ever be done to a building like that. It makes me sick.

Info (the token liberal on ST.com <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ),

I don't think all Dems are wrong (I know the comment was for Marty) but I also don't claim that all Reps are right. It "appears" (ATC lingo here) that you accept Dems as always having good intentions therefore they can't be bad. This reminds me of a saying back in the 60s: If cops are so bad then next time your being robbed, call a hippie. Let's update this to: If the military is so bad then next time the US is attacked, call a liberal (preferably from Berkeley)! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

Flame,
Actually, you got it a bit wrong there. Its not the people behind the policies that I feel have good intentions (there are bad apples on any side), its the overall philosophy within the party that has good intentions. And you know, I don't even agree with many on the left. But in the end, they represent the average working class family while the republican's do not.

Wrong Info. Look at the platform of the Republican party (like I said God knows how many posts ago). They stand for the beliefs that the majority of the working class also stand for (i.e. pro-life, pro-gun, small government, etc.). If you want to talk purely on philosophical grounds, read that, and you'll see. Not to mention the fact that Republican policies are realistic.

Matt

ebbertt,
Who told you that the majority of the working class are pro-life and pro-gun? I guess next you'll tell me that the labor unions are republican based as well huh? I think your forgetting all too quick that Al Gore (as much as you dislike him) won the popular vote and Clinton had the largest approval rating than any other president in history, even after Monica. So just imagine if that incident never happened.

Then if you factor in all the people who do not vote (which are usually the lower classes and poor), then its clear that the majority of people in this country are liberal. But we can go further. If you eliminate the rich votes and only count working class votes, its a landslide of working class support for the democratic cause. I think you should rethink your statement.

Small note: Just like Islamic extremist in the east are on the far right with their views, the radical extremist in this country are in the far right as well (ex: timothy mcveigh). Although they don't regularly go as far as the Arabs do, they both are indeed a very unique breed of man.

approval ratings don't mean squat. If they recognize a name and have $20 in their pocket then they'll say he's doing a good job. It's like when most people just vote for whoever's name they recognize... That's why advertisements don't put out products much, just a name and an image. Politicians are the same as any other product. Controversy is free advertising.

And to go with the approval ratings comments: Info's "facts" are again incorrect. G. W. Bush has the highest approval rating and has also sustained a high approval rating longer than any President!

Info,

The overall policy of the Democratic party is to "enslave" the working class by brainwashing them. They continue to lie and mislead people so they can maintain their voter base.

Tell me why are the labor unions democratic based? They are basically a big corporation. The leaders make high wages while their members do not. Woudn't this make them Republican supporters? No, they are Democratic supporters because they want to control the working people.

Look at recent events in California by labor unions. The unions are supporting illegal immigrants against companies. The latest is a man that falsified documents to get work then had the unions (which knew he was illegal) sue the company for higher wages and back pay. When the company determined the man was illegal during this court case, they fired him. Now the unions are sueing the company to reinstate the man in violation of immigration law.

This is BS. The unions should be working to remove illegals from the country so honest, hard working people can have these jobs. Instead they try to get the courts to force companies to hire illegals in violation of federal law.

Now we have unions and liberals saying that people that violate our laws should be allowed to stay and take work from people that obey our laws. Maybe they want these people to stay so they can expand their voter base not for good intentions but for power and control. This is the basis of the Democratic Party's "good intentions".

As for Clinton, the incident with Monica did happen just like the incident with Paula happened. It is not his personal actions that created the problem, it is his consistent lying to the American people. If your boss promised you a raise then did not give it to you; would you trust him the next time he promised you a raise? I doubt it and that is the bottom line on Clinton. His actions did not support his words or intentions!

Question: What do you get when you cross a lesbian with a draft dodger? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

CHELSEA CLINTON!!!!!

INFO-Here's a little update on that great Campaign Finance Reform bill:

"Fox News has learned that dozens of election-year demonstrations criticizing Republicans and the president for ties to fallen energy giant Enron Corp. have been coordinated by a little-known group called the Progressive Donor Network.

Documents show the network held a private conference in Washington earlier this month to discuss ways of raising and spending money when new campaign finance laws kick in after election day.

Some of the most powerful Democratic-leaning special interests attended, including the National Abortion Rights Action League, People for the American Way, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, environmental groups, labor groups, and others.

"There are already practitioners who are figuring out the new strategies," said Larry Noble, executive director and general counsel at the Center for Responsive Politics.

Noble said it was inevitable that once national political parties were banned from receiving unregulated soft money, the cash would simply be funneled through special interests.

"The concern was that it would go to these third-party issue groups that would use the money in some way to mirror what the parties are doing or to shadow what the parties are doing so they would be indirectly influencing federal elections," he said.

Progressive Donor Network documents suggest they will raise and spend on "targeted TV, radio, phones, mail" using a "network of allied organizations."

Oh great now money flows through special interests. Wow that realy cleaned up politics!

Flame,
<<<Info's "facts" are again incorrect. G. W. Bush has the highest approval rating and has also sustained a high approval rating longer than any President!>>>

G W hasn't left office yet. I'm talking about approval rating at end of term.

<<<As for Clinton, the incident with Monica did happen just like the incident with Paula happened.>>>

Show me proof of the Paula part? Let me guess, with G W, you need proof to accuse him of anything but with Clinton, anything goes? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

<<<It is not his personal actions that created the problem, it is his consistent lying to the American people.>>>

I'd love to see how you'd react when forced to answer questions about your sex life. My mom always told me never to judge anyone without having walked in their shoes. Good advice. Especially when you know that deep down, your capable of the very same actions. Its called "being human."

<<<Tell me why are the labor unions democratic based? They are basically a big corporation. The leaders make high wages while their members do not.>>>

You are grossly misinformed!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by InfoSeeker:
<strong>Small note: Just like Islamic extremist in the east are on the far right with their views, the radical extremist in this country are in the far right as well (ex: timothy mcveigh). Although they don't regularly go as far as the Arabs do, they both are indeed a very unique breed of man.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, Info, the radical left in this country is responsible for more "home grown" acts of terrorism than the radical right. There have been one or two incidents of radical right terrorism (OK City comes to mind). On the radical left, the environmental groups destroy millions and millions of dollars worth of property and equipment, not to mention lost revenuse caused by those acts, of both corporations and individuals.

"Oh, but they are just hurting the evil Republican corporations!!" you'd say. Well see what happens to the workers as soon as the corporations start loosing huge sums of money. Can you say "lay offs"??

On the other hand, no one in this conversation is a big fan of the radical left or right, so why bring that up?

Matt

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by InfoSeeker:
<strong>I'd love to see how you'd react when forced to answer questions about your sex life. My mom always told me never to judge anyone without having walked in their shoes. Good advice. Especially when you know that deep down, your capable of the very same actions. Its called "being human."</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He was guilty of perjury. You're right, legally, it doesn't matter that he had sex IN THE OVAL OFFICE (or back in Arkansas, etc.). What does matter is that he LIED under oath. THAT is the point Republicans tried to make. As the nation's leading law enforcement officer, and the head of this country (not to mention being a lawyer, so he obviously KNEW what he was doing), he should not have done that. He was guilty of perjury, plain and simple.

As for having sex in the Oval Office or otherwise abusing you power, legally, no that isn't wrong. Morally, absolutely. As the head of this country, you have an obligation to serve with dignity, because for God's sake, you're portraying America in a bad light when you do that.

Matt

Marty,
Again, I don't know what the reform bill entails but that isn't the point I've tried to make. The point is that reform does need to be made across the board. However, to compromise on both sides, sometimes new policies and laws tend to sound... well... basically, unsound.

Government is a separate institution of the people (ALL THE PEOPLE). It is not meant to serve a group, a class, or a corporation. It serves us all! And for the government to be privately sponsered like an indy 500 race car is absolutely rediculous. THIS IS OUR GOVERNMENT... The foundation of what makes this nation great. Its our voice, its our security. No outside influence should tarnish its mission. And just like all branches of government have checks and balances, the same needs to be done with the private sector/government relationship. And that is the center piece to why campaign finance reform is so important.

ebbertt,
The radical left does not compare to the radical right in any way. The real extremist in this country are the people who want to have arsenals of guns, who are plotting ideas of overthrowing the government in the name of the second amendment (I call it teriny), and fighting to turn this country into christian slavery (right wing). And all that my friend only comes from the RIGHT. I only bring it up because many of you express views that are directly in line with those types.

As far as Clinton goes, I never said he wasn't guilty of perjury. I only ask that you look at the sevarity of the crime and ask yourself if it warrants the hassle, the punishment, and the 40 million dollars it took to investigate it.

Now put your bias aside and just look at the case objectively. Ask yourself, what happens in the average perjury case in a civil trial? Then ask yourself exactly what did the lie covered up? Did it cover up a crime? No. Was it a lie designed to cover up something detrimental to the case at hand? No. So when you put all those factors together, political biases aside, does it warrant the outcome? Does it warrant the expense? Did it affect his job performance? On the moral side, have other great president's commited adultry? Have republican politicians commited adultry? Recently? If so, why don't I hear anyone condemn those names as well? Basically, one needs to put it all in perspective first before you take a side. Its all political spin and crap dished out by the pissed off right wing.

Infoseeker:

The cost of incarceration is exactly why many states are seeking ways to punish criminals without having to put them in prisons or letting criminal off with early release programs. The point is the President of the United States is no better than the common citizen and if I did what he did on the job in my office I would be fired, if I went into a court of law and deliberately committed perjury over the same matters I would have been punished more severely. So was he elected to get get blow jobs on the job?

All I know is there are criminals walking the street because it cost too much money to deal with them. So what is your solution to crime and punishment as it effects the average citizen on the street and in their homes?

By the way did you mean tyranny, I could not find teriny in the dictionary.

V/r

John

Damn Info, quit applying the traits of the few to all people in a group. Ever hear the phase "don't judge all of us by the worst of us"? You are judging all conservatives and right wingers by the poorest examples, and then doing the opposite with liberals, ignoring the worst few of them, and raising them up as heroes because of the best few. Fact is, most people, on both sides, are smack dab in the middle.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The radical left does not compare to the radical right in any way. The real extremist in this country are the people who want to have arsenals of guns, who are plotting ideas of overthrowing the government in the name of the second amendment</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BS. How many NRA members and gun owners do you really think plot to overthrow the government? I promise it's less than the number of NRA members and gun owners who WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. I own a gun, I got it for marksmanship and to shoot the bad guy breaking into MY house, to do me and mine harm. And who protects that guy for his crime? Usually liberal democrats.

So they want to own guns and protect themselves. Wow, that's much worse than eco terrorists driving spikes into trees to destroy chain saws. You know what happens when an industrial chainsaw hits a big metal spike? People get hurt. Damage enough equipment, companies lose money, and the WORKING MAN (the people your vaunted left wingers are best representing) lose jobs. What makes it worse is the eco terrorists ignore the fact the lumber companies plant three trees for every one they cut down, and there are more trees in the north west now than there were when Washington was president.

As for perjury and the punishment, it's not the level of the crime, it's the level of the man committing the crime. He was the freaking President! The highest office in the country, and he lied to the people of the country. Repeatedly! He's admitted the Whitewater case was a criminal act. Highest law enforcement official, yet he gets away repeatedly with committing crimes. You think cops get it easier when they are caught breaking the law? I don't know about your power abusive friends in NY, but from what I've seen, cops get it bad, because they are in a position to know and enforce the law, yet they break it instead of protecting it.

You just constantly take all the bad things that, honestly, a small group of right wingers do, and assume it applies to all. Then you take the good things a few left wingers do, and assume it applies to all left wingers. You ignore all the good things right wingers do, turn a blind eye to all the bad things left wingers do, and then go on preaching how the great liberal left wingers are perfect for the rest of the poor saps in the middle. You are focusing (with a biased eye)on minorities within each group, and fail to realize that most people are in the middle, where they would not wholeheartedly agree with either you, or your counterparts on the right.

It seems to me your mindset distorts things and truly doesn't allow you to see the whole picture.

INFO-That update I gave was for educational purposes only, you were all for this bill and you had no idea what it would do. I said not one dollar less would flow into Washington and I was right. Money is like water in politics, money is the river and politicians are the sea and as we all know the sea refuses no river. (Where's that from?)

PROOF, you want PROOF! You can't handle PROOF! (Jack Nicholson imitation) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I watched Clinton on TV with Hillary when he was Governor of Arkansas. He admitted having an affair and said that it was a mistake. He admitted in court documents that he lied about seeing Paula Jones also. That is called proof! Sound familiar? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then it must be a duck. If you haven't noticed, it is the issue of integrity not his actions

Yes, I am biased against people that lie to me. If he had refused to comment on the issue then that falls into the area of personnal behavior. When he stands in front of television cameras and reporters making the declaration that he "never had relations with that woman", then this is lying. When he makes written and verbal statements to the court that are false then that is lying. He is a liar and can not be trusted, PERIOD!

I notice you didn't answer the question about your employer, raises, and trust. There is no cover-up, there is no harm to anyone, there is nothing illegal about this. WOULD YOU TRUST YOUR EMPLOYER IF HE/SHE LIED?

Integrity is a much better premise for support than intentions.

As for political spin and crap, both sides dish it out always. Like drilling in ANWAR will harm the beautiful, pristine environment. Notice how the Dems are pissed because the Bush administration showed real footage of the actual location where they want to drill for oil. They went so far as to call it illegal for the EPA to produce factual footage. Talk about political spin.

Marty, the sea refusing the river thing: Hemmingway?

Discord-No, not Hemingway--it's Pete Townshend! He's better than Hemingway!

yukon,
What job are you in that you would get fired for having sex outside of marriage?

<<<So was he elected to get blow jobs on the job?>>>

The presidency is the only job I know of where your office is also your home. And with that being the case, I believe you have a little extra freedom in that office. And people will be people in their homes no matter how different they seem to be in the spot light. I guess you still haven't realized that yet. This doesn't just affect Clinton, we're talking about all politicians and all human beings in general.

Yes, I meant tyranny. I wrote it so fast and didn't use spell check on it.
------------------------------
discord,
<<<BS. How many NRA members and gun owners do you really think plot to overthrow the government?>>>

Counter question: How many NRA members and gun owners just "think" about the idea of overthrowing the government and revolve around that atmosphere with their gun lovin groupies?

<<<I own a gun, I got it for marksmanship and to shoot the bad guy breaking into MY house, to do me and mine harm. And who protects that guy for his crime? Usually liberal democrats.>>>

Bull**** generalization

<<<He's admitted the Whitewater case was a criminal act.>>>

If you are attempting to make statements like that, then back that up with solid proof!
-------------------------------
Flame,
<<<He admitted having an affair and said that it was a mistake.>>>

Yea? And how does his affair with Jennifer Flowers prove sexual harrassment again?

<<<He admitted in court documents that he lied about seeing Paula Jones also.>>>

What do you mean by seeing??? Are you saying he dated the girl! If your trying to tell me that, then show me proof. And then tell me how all this is proof as to him pulling his pants down for her?

<<<WOULD YOU TRUST YOUR EMPLOYER IF HE/SHE LIED?>>>

Do you masterbate while thinking of the beautiful women you see on tdy? How would your wife feel if she knew what you did? Would you answer honestly? I bet you wouldn't. And if its not that, then there are other personal things you would hate to reveal right? Does it have anything to do with your performance as a combat controller? So if you answer no to the first question, do I have a right to get mad and call you a lier that should get fired or imprisoned?

Infoseeker:

Many employers in the United States impose behavior and conduct limits on their employees. Look at any employee handbook and you will read conditions relevant to breach of trust, dishonesty, professionalism, and personal relations at work.

Consequently, SEX in the work place does get people fired especially when the sexual relationship is between a manager and someone he or she manages directly or indirectly. Furthermore, these same policies often stipulate employees are expected to use good judgment to ensure on-the-job behavior supports the company’s standards of professionalism and conduct. Failure to do so can be grounds for corrective action, which may include termination of employment.

Clinton did not have sex with Monica in any residential area of the White House, but in the West Wing. The West Wing is the center of activity at the White House. The West Wing houses the President's Oval Office, the offices of his executive staff, the Cabinet Room, the Roosevelt Room, and the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. Furthermore, he and she did it while he was conducting business on the phone. Regardless, the real crime is how much more good might he have accomplished had his conduct and behavior not caused his presidency to be a joke. On the other hand, what more serious crimes would he have committed had people not cared about his conduct and behavior? Only the Shadow knows. The legacy of the Clinton Presidency is nothing more than disgraceful history.

Your use of tyranny is not rational as the people you are being a bigot about have not overthrown the government yet and thus are not yet in charge of an oppressive and unjust government. However, please continue to feed your conspiracy fears and build your network of suspicion and scapegoating, it is very entertaining.

So let me get this straight INFO-thinking about overthrowing your government is worse than thinking about some particular girl while you masturbate? Are you going to be in charge of the thought police?

So what if Bill Clinton was thinking about overthrowing the government while receiving his hummer at his desk? Armageddon?

Here's the thing INFO-if you want to elect a guy who can't even live up to the promises he made in his wedding vows, then that's up to you. It's not as though Monica was a one time occurence, he was, and I would be willing to bet is, a serial adulterer (if not a rapist). So I ask, if he can't even be honest with his wife (whom he made sacred vows to) why do you think he would be honest with you? And this isn't just a question for Clinton, this is a question for any and all politicians of whichever party they belong to.

If some guy is standing up and making promises to me about this and that and I learn he's cheating on his wife-he will NEVER get my vote. (Notice that the GOP made Newt Gingrich resign the speakership when it came out that he too was having an affair---yet the left had no problem with Jesse Jackson giving Bill Clinton advice while bringing his own mistress to the White House to meet the fine President) I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't hold someone up to at least that standard. But it was proven during all of this that liberal democrats have no standards when it comes to personal behavior.

So why is it so troubling that G.W. used to be an oil-man. That was his personal life-it has nothing at all to do with how he conducts himself now! How can you hold that against him?! And yet you do-and you think it influences every decision he makes. Wow-what a bizarre double standard you have.

Info-

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> discord,
<<<BS. How many NRA members and gun owners do you really think plot to overthrow the government?>>>

Counter question: How many NRA members and gun owners just "think" about the idea of overthrowing the government and revolve around that atmosphere with their gun lovin groupies? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I really don't understand your question. Are you asking how many people have thought about doing something bad? **** everyone has! I personally have never met an NRA member that wants to overthrow the government, they all want to work with in the system (met a lot, I live in the South). I can't answer to what people think. It doesn't matter anyway, it's WHAT THEY DO THAT MATTERS. But it's nice how you dodged my question of how many actually actively plot compared to how many work as government employees by posing a confusing couonterquestion instead of answering mine. I'm not going to get into a thought police argument with you. And I really liked how you went and pejoratively labeled thousands of your fellow Americans (most working class), as gun loving groupies. Way to be the best representative of the people. I didn't realize representing included calling them names and marginalizing them and their beliefs. How would you feel if I said I best represented New Yorkers, but then called a good percentage of them "a**holes that can't spell?"

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <<<I own a gun, I got it for marksmanship and to shoot the bad guy breaking into MY house, to do me and mine harm. And who protects that guy for his crime? Usually liberal democrats.>>>

Bull**** generalization </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't know. It was liberals who argued against peoples' right to shoot intruders, liberal lawyers and judges who award damages to burglars injuring themselves in their victims houses. Conservatives argued for the right to shoot people trying to do you harm, and I agree with that. If they are breaking into my house to steal my stuff or hurt me and my family, they deserve to get shot, and I have the right to protect myself. It is a bit general yes, but I don't think it's pure BS.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <<<He's admitted the Whitewater case was a criminal act.>>>

If you are attempting to make statements like that, then back that up with solid proof!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have already backed this statement up. I already posted it. It was in a news story a month or two back, Clinton came out after the leaving office, and stated that he could have been rightfully charged of criminal acts including perjury, fraud, and embezzlement, during the Lewinsky trials and the Whitewater cases. I believe I used it to make a point about Clinton and about white collar crime, which you say is a very bad crime. And surprisingly, you simply ignored it at the time. I wonder why? I can go back and find that post if you. And I can try to find a printed version of the story, but it was a radio news show. Might take some time. But I did not make it up, it was aired on national news. And I've already said it before, you just chose to ignore it the first time.

And stop being a hypocrite. If we took a poll of the people who've been keeping up with this post, who would get the most votes for "least solid proof in his arguments?" Three guesses....

Did I touch a nerve Info?

<<<He admitted having an affair and said that it was a mistake.>>>
Yea? And how does his affair with Jennifer Flowers prove sexual harrassment again?

Simple, watch the interview from his governorship when he admitted his indiscretion and compare to his interview (with B. Walters) from his presidency. They are identical! Again I will state, if he had refused to make false statements concerning his activities then he would not be a liar. I never said it was sexual harrassment. Also, while Clinton was having his fun with Monica, his administration was prosecuting a VA administrator for having sexual relations with an intern at her hospital. She received a jail sentence (commuted to restriction to home while wearing a locator bracelet), loss of medical license, and fired from the VA. All this for having a relationship (she was not married) with an "intern"! Talk about double standards.

<<<He admitted in court documents that he lied about seeing Paula Jones also.>>>
What do you mean by seeing??? Are you saying he dated the girl! If your trying to tell me that, then show me proof. And then tell me how all this is proof as to him pulling his pants down for her?

Once again I never stated this was proof of his sexual indiscretion. I stated this to show his lack of integrity and the fact that he is a serial liar even in official/legal court documents. If he is so clean then why did he accept being barred from legal practice in Arkansas?

<<<WOULD YOU TRUST YOUR EMPLOYER IF HE/SHE LIED?>>>
"Do you masterbate while thinking of the beautiful women you see on tdy?" How would your wife feel if she knew what you did? Would you answer honestly? I bet you wouldn't. And if its not that, then there are other personal things you would hate to reveal right? Does it have anything to do with your performance as a combat controller? So if you answer no to the first question, do I have a right to get mad and call you a lier that should get fired or imprisoned?

How do your comments relate to the question? Let me re-phrase the question? Would you trust your life to a liar? I wouldn't so why would I trust my government with a liar?

If I answered the question then YES, it would be an honest answer. You still don't get it do you. The subject is integrity not his personal life. Clinton lied in public and in court. Your good intentioned people are the ones who created the obfuscation. This is similar to the female B52 pilot that was court-martialed. She made many public statements and tried to turn it into a witch hunt about her personal life. This issue was not her personal life but her disobeying a direct order from her commander. The AF didn't go looking for her affair but when an airman reported the officer having an affair with her husband then the commander had to respond. He ordered the LT to have no contact with the husband until he was separated or divorced although (according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice) he could have charged her at that time. He gave her a chance to correct her mistake. A few weeks later she took the husband on a vacation with her. Would you trust this officer to fly a bomber with a nuclear weapon? Can she be trusted to obey her commander's orders concerning her use of nuclear assets? I sure as hell wouldn't!

You can call me anything you want, that is your right. I can defend myself against your accusation with facts and will to the fullest extent of my abilities! If I am lying then I should receive the consequences of my actions. If you are lying then you should receive the consequences of your actions. That is called integrity and fair justice!

>>>>The radical left does not compare to the radical right in any way. The real extremist in this country are the people who want to have arsenals of guns, who are plotting ideas of overthrowing the government in the name of the second amendment (I call it teriny), and fighting to turn this country into christian slavery (right wing). And all that my friend only comes from the RIGHT. I only bring it up because many of you express views that are directly in line with those types.<<<<

I don't believe this garbage! What do you think the second amendment was included for? Because our founders knew that there was always the possibility of corruption taking control of the government. What about "for the people, by the people"? Don't get me wrong, I love our system and would die to uphold it. Its not pefect, but its the best system out there. But that doesn't mean it could never get out of hand.

I agree that there are nutcases in both the conservative and liberal camps, and there will always be some in the government who simply abuse. But to make a blanket statement saying those who arm themselves are some kind of extremists is not only ignorant, but is disturbing as an American.

The government exists to serve the people. It is our responsibily as Americans to uphold our system. An honest government has nothing to fear from armed citizens. If the government were afraid of us arming ourselves, what would that say about that goverment? Citizens who lack the means to defend themselves are no longer citizens; they are Slaves.

This is America. Its not us and them. We are the government. I wonder if you would have labeled our founders as right-wing extremists? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to go overthrow the government. All I am saying is that if we lose the means to defend and uphold our freedom, what's to stop someone from stripping that freedom away?

Halleluah! Well said Whutnot. Too bad it will either get ignored or twisted by the liberal ranger. It doesn't matter if the founders were extremist or not, it's their intentions.....

16 pages and 398 (I was hoping we'd get to a good round 400) replies-guess it's time to put this one to bed!

Plus, I think we scared off INFO. Next time we need to have a rule that only one person can bash him at time. Although I would love to know of some liberal BBS that I could go on and fight with the whole lot of them!

There's just too many post to respond to. I'll try to kick start what I can today because I have a little bit of time.

Whutnot,
#1, we as civilians will never EVER be able to overthrow our government so that argument goes out the water. Whether the government has gotten too strong or not, I think you, and many like you, like the idea that we have a kick *** military. And for that reason, no country's military can beat it, and definitely no domestic civilian group will be able to beat it. If we ever tried, we will only end up being a country of sporadic terror attacks that will last for decades and who knows, maybe even centuries. I rather not think of such chaos. I'd like to think that we are a nation of intelligent people with intelligent leaders and intelligent lawyers that can always speak on our behalf when we see an outrage. It's worked so far and in my eyes, any other strategy beyond that still does not require violence. We can protest, we can volunteer to be arrested by the 1000s, we can hold back campaign finances to those who believe in an oppressive system, and lastly, we can vote. Those are ideas only off the top of my head but my point is that we have many many tools at our disposal that are actually affective where as violence is not for one simple reason. The government is nothing without its people. It needs us as much as we need it. That alone keeps both sides in check.

And when and if violence does happen against an oppressive government, will it be 1 injustice that starts it? Maybe some tolerate 2? Or 3? How many injustices will it take for people to commit to a losing battle? What I'm trying to say is that not only will we lose, but we won't even know when we are justified to step in because, for us, an oppressive system takes so much time to develop. Those who fight will only be labeled as vigilantes and outcast like Timothy McVeigh

So for me, the second amendment only serves to protect an individual or his family against criminals. And It was clearly written with the ability to allow restrictions placed on it for the safety of the public. With that being said, closing gun show loop holes is a common sense safety that is allowable under the law. Restricting criminals from obtaining guns is a common sense safety that is allowable under the law. Placing individual safety restrictions is a common sense safety that is allowable under the law. I think I made my point on guns.
------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton on the other hand is a really hard issue to debate on here. Maybe its best to stay away from that as there are just way too many points for discussion.