Ok...im going to preface this once again by saying that Clinton was a lieing deviant in my opinion and that he was too busy getting bj's on the desk and would often take credit for other's actions or words....that said: This Col, Buzz is a scumbag and a disgrace to his position as well...what happens behind the curtain should stay there and he had top secret access...if he will sell stories of Clinton screw ups for a few shekels...what do you think he would give to the terrorists in exchange for 20 million????? the CODES??????
Expose on Clinton
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
Don't get me started with slick the bubba willy. 
Whamo, what you posted is nothing. You want serious bs? get the scoop on our subs/satellite tracking codes leaked (sold? provided in exchange for?) to the chinks. Talking about serious national security issues.
Pre Shrub and Co tried the impeach but the jerkoffs went for the monica cigar crap. I guess this is what the nation cares about
What the friggin f%$k are these goons thinking?
Whamo, what you posted is nothing. You want serious bs? get the scoop on our subs/satellite tracking codes leaked (sold? provided in exchange for?) to the chinks.
Talking about serious national security issues. Pre Shrub and Co tried the impeach but the jerkoffs went for the monica cigar crap. I guess this is what the nation cares about
What the friggin f%$k are these goons thinking?
I understand this. Which is why I asked if you knew who paid for this "list" to be compiled and why. There is also a video tape you can buy that details all these allegations. Interesting to see where the money goes that comes from the sale of these tapes.Quote from hapaboy:
Wasn't my list, RS7! I just noted the book!
While Hillary Clinton may be a repulsive money grabbing and power hungry wench, she made one point that holds true. She claimed there was a "vast right wing conspiracy", and she was right.
And if these conspirators were just politically to the right of the nation in general in their beliefs in taxes, or government spending or foreign policy, or whatever, it wouldn't bother me at all.
But the money is not going to a "political" group in the common sense of the word. It is going to a group that is fighting the separation of Church and State. Which, I always thought was part of our constitution. So maybe these people are not deserving of being called Americans. What do you think?
Peace,
Rs7I have absolutely zero knowledge about this "list," let alone who paid to have it distributed or how much money was spent. As a matter of fact, I hadn't seen this list until Whamo posted it. I was referring to the book by the ex-aide who carried the "football."
You're entitled to your opinion.
It's a two-way street. Republican Presidents have gotten their fair share of hammering too, right?
Good question, one we'll probably never know for sure in most cases.
Sorry if I pushed your sensitive button when I started this thread.
I can't vouch for the entire list but I do know that much of it is factual. How many of you know even one person who died suspiciously? How many people connected to Carter, Reagan, Bush41,etc, died violently? Probably very close to zero. Doesn't it strike anybody as damn odd that so many people in a position to ruin clinton had these unexplained mishaps? rs7 and the other liberal zombies think the vast right wing conspiracy soemhow is at fault for noticing this stuff. Certainly the major media did their best to keep it safely hidden. It is a continuing national tragedy that the Republicans were saddled with the spineless leadership of Trent Lott so that this whole sordid business didn't get the airing it demanded.
As for Clinton's great leadership, we will be cleaning up the mess he left for years to come.
I have qualms about military people publishing this type of book, but I think it was motivated more by a sense of outrage over Clinton's misconduct than any desire to get rich. No doubt he is part of the vast right wing conspiracy though.
As for Clinton's great leadership, we will be cleaning up the mess he left for years to come.
I have qualms about military people publishing this type of book, but I think it was motivated more by a sense of outrage over Clinton's misconduct than any desire to get rich. No doubt he is part of the vast right wing conspiracy though.
Quote from hapaboy:
I have absolutely zero knowledge about this "list," let alone who paid to have it distributed or how much money was spent. As a matter of fact, I hadn't seen this list until Whamo posted it. I was referring to the book by the ex-aide who carried the "football."
You're entitled to your opinion.
It's a two-way street. Republican Presidents have gotten their fair share of hammering too, right?
Sorry if I pushed your sensitive button when I started this thread.
The tape that "documents" all the murders and the drug running activities of Clinton, who is, as I have said, the evil brother of Charles Manson (at best) was produced by and sold by a Jerry Fallwell group. It is, as I have also said, not about politics really. It is about convincing the American public that Clinton (he was President at the time this stuff was produced) was completely evil. And so anything he stood for was, by association, also "evil". The bottom line is that it was an attempt to discredit Clinton to such a degree as to accomplish the goal of vilifying him to the extent that anything would be an improvement. In this strategy, it was intended to slip in the real goals of the religious right. In other words, to get the "separation of church and state" to be associated with all else that is evil. Such as murder and drug running and securities fraud. All this was done long before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.
Let's not forget that this was done at the time that Newt Gingrich was in his prime as a moral example of what America was ideally supposed to be about. Of course, as it turned out, we only know for sure that Clinton was guilty of slightly lesser charges than murder and such....Sex in the Oval Office and lying about sex (a horrible thing that was probably never committed by anyone prior to that).
Newt, who pushed his "Contract With America" and extolled "family virtues" ended up visiting his wife in the hospital and telling her while she lay in a hospital bed that he was divorcing her. To demonstrate how he took the "high moral road", he put her in the position to become the very first and only ex-wife of a member of Congress to have to go on welfare. Oh, the horror! Welfare, another "liberal" conspiracy.
As was Social Security (now a Republican backed issue).
Here is the key. Today's Republicans are really what we used to call "Kennedy Democrats" So the absurdity of the labeling of Democrats as "liberals" is as ridiculous as Republicans being labeled as "reactionary conservatives" ......after all, don't "conservatives" want to "conserve"? So if they do, then they should be the leaders in the "environmental" movement.
"Conserve" our planet.
These kinds of issues are what get me really bent out of shape sometimes. I believe in some issues that are claimed to "belong" to one party or another.. Causes go in and out of favor. And in and out of the platforms of the different political parties.
I HATE being labelled. I would prefer NOT to be registered to one party or another. A problem with our system. If I want to vote in a primary election, I HAVE TO BE registered. I resent this system.
Because I vote for candidates from both the Republican and Democrat parties. As is my right. And, to me, my obligation. I don't think anyone who votes a straight party line can possibly be an informed voter. Anyone, like Mondo Trader, who thinks, and even writes that "half the Democrats should be in jail for sedition" is a dangerous person. And I assure you that if he made this statement at a joint session of congress, he would be booed by everyone. On both sides of the aisle.
Hapaboy, to get back to your post...yes, being a President
comes with getting "hammered" ...part of the job.
And no, you did not "push my buttons". I like a good debate. I welcome a challenge. And as I told you before, I would argue either side of most issues as an exercise.
abortion, torture, capital punishment....these are all issues (among MANY others) that have good arguments to be made on both sides.
It is only a post like Mondo Trader's that really can "push my buttons"....because his kind of thinking (if you can even call it thinking) is divisive, brainless, and dangerous. Like I said, it is very much like the kind of things we heard from Hitler while he was building a constituency based on hate and bigotry.
Mondo Trader is an embarrassment as an American. I have probably an exactly equal number of Republican and Democrat friends. "Liberal and Conservative" friends. I respect them all. I have no friends like Mondo Trader. And I am sure that Mondo Trader has no friends at all. There is nothing more dangerous than a guy that paints half the nation with a broad brushstroke of bigotry and assumptions based on no facts, no truth, and no understanding of what makes an American an American. (much less an understanding of what is going on in the world).
Peace,
Rs7RS7, I wish I could comment more on the whole Falwell thing but as I'm utterly unfamiliar with it, I cannot. Off the top of my head I'd have to say that it sounds pretty ridiculous.
Like you, and I think this may come as a surprise to some people, I try not to think along party lines. Although my stances on Iraq and capital punishment are clearly documented here on ET, on other issues I can hardly be called an outright conservative. The issues, as you say, ought to taken on individually and not lumped together as being conservative/Republican or liberal/democrat. And I say this knowing I have been guilty of making some sweeping statements on this site, i.e. "the liberal left must be hating the fact that we're going to war" when in fact there are some liberal lefties out there who have surprised me by being for us going in.
Politics is a morass, plain and simple. If you can ever figure the whole system out, I think you'll be the first!
All the best,
Hapa
Being more "liberal" than "conservative" (by today's standards), I guess I am an example you can use to prove your point. As I have stated (quiet extensively), I am in favor of "us going in" (but not necessarily with the tactics we are likely to see). But ridding the world of Saddam is necessary. So there ya go. Does this make me less of a "liberal"? I don't think so. Sometimes "politics" play no part in delineating right from wrong. At least not for Americans. Which we all are (not all on ET...all Democrats and Republicans, and American liberals and American conservatives). No snub intended to the many non-American ET members. Just trying to stay on topic here.
Anyone figures that out, and there will cease to even be a need for "politics". Get the Utopian answers to everything. Social, Cultural, Religious, and Economic, and that's all she wrote. World peace and harmony forever. Miss America for President. Or FasterPussyCat...would make no difference really. A do nothing job. Just have someone who will look good on currency in a hundred years. I heard Faster has a great ass. Aphie told me so.
And Miss America....how bad could that be? (Make her a blonde though, ok?)
Peace,
rs7Quote from trader556:
Don't get me started with slick the bubba willy.
Whamo, what you posted is nothing. You want serious bs? get the scoop on our subs/satellite tracking codes leaked (sold? provided in exchange for?) to the chinks.
Pre Shrub and Co tried the impeach but the jerkoffs went for the monica cigar crap. I guess this is what the nation cares about
What the friggin f%$k are these goons thinking?
Could you do me a favor? Stop posting in other threads about the war and your anti war sentiment....you are not antiwar...you are 'anti-bush/Republicans'...there is a difference.....to just unilaterally oppose anything that Bush does or says undermine your own arguments , especially when you consider how many times Clinton launched missiles at Iraq,...even in an expose about Clinton...you found a way to get GW involved...start A new thread with wild or msfe called "I HATE GEORGE BUSH"...This way you can have somthing to talk about
Quote from rs7:
... .
I don't think anyone who votes a straight party line can possibly be an informed voter.
This is an opinion that many voters would agree with, but I think it's dead wrong. The fact is that congressmen are under tremendous pressure to toe the party line. Do you really think almost every Democratic Senator was eager to take the unprecedented step of fillibustering an outstnading minority appellate court nominee like Mr. Estrada? Of course not, most of them know very well that he is eminently qualified but they are forced by party discipline to support the extreme left wingers who control their party.
The sad fact is if you vote for a"moderate" Democrat, to the extent there are any left, you are also voting for extremists like Kennedy, Schumer, Clinton, Leahy and of course Daschle to be in control. In fairness, if you vote for a liberal Republican, you are also voting for a basically conservative agenda.
It's even worse in presidential elections. The fact is that most policy is not made by the actual President but by cabinet and sub-cabinet appointees. If you vote for a Democrat candidate, you can rest assured most of those positions, particularly below the top jobs, will be held by party activists who may be far more extreme in their views than the candidate, or at least more extreme than the candidate is willing to admit.
This unhappy situation is reflective of the growing idealogical gulf between the two parties. At one time it could safely be said that it didn't matter all that much which side won, since there was broad agreement on major issues. That was a strength of our system, since people did not find compelling reasons to fight every issue or election to the last drop of blood. If anyone doubted that those days are over, the last presidential election should be proof enough.