Clinton

Finedessert: PROBLEM: Two Videos are for sale - Which to Buy? Titanic or The Clinton Video

TITANIC VIDEO: $9.99 on Internet
CLINTON VIDEO: $9.99 on Internet

TITANIC VIDEO: Over 3 hours long
CLINTON VIDEO: Over 3 hours long

TITANIC VIDEO: The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
CLINTON VIDEO: The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.

TITANIC VIDEO: Jack is a starving artist
CLINTON VIDEO: Bill is a bullshit artist

TITANIC VIDEO: In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar
CLINTON VIDEO: Ditto for Bill

TITANIC VIDEO: During ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined
CLINTON VIDEO: Ditto for Monica

TITANIC VIDEO: Jack teaches Rose to spit
CLINTON VIDEO: Let's not go there

TITANIC VIDEO: Rose gets to keep her jewelry
CLINTON VIDEO: Monica's forced to return her gifts

TITANIC VIDEO: Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life
CLINTON VIDEO: Clinton doesn't remember Jack

TITANIC VIDEO: Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen
CLINTON VIDEO: Monica ... uh, never mind

TITANIC VIDEO: Jack surrenders to an icy death
CLINTON VIDEO: Bill goes home to Hillary ... basically the same thing.

Grandpa

Longhornjok: Hey guys, back after a long absence and good to be here!

I guess I am now wading into the very muddy waters of the political debate which apparently has been running on here intermittently. I felt compelled to do so only to clarify some points made by gigantikok which were, in fact, incorrect. I am sure these were oversights on his part, and not an attempt to deliberately misinform. As regards the so-called "partial birth abortion" legislation and it's history, please note the actual record (source: www.policyalmanac.org):

"Supreme Court Strikes Down Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion Ban

In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2000 struck down a Nebraska law outlawing partial birth abortions. The ruling declared the law unconstitutional because it failed to include an exception protecting the health of the woman and because it was too vague, possibly undermining a woman's right to abort a non-viable fetus.

The action came as Congress was considering a similar ban on the procedure. On April 5, 2000, by a vote of 287-141, the House passed legislation (H.R. 3660) that would ban partial birth abortions. The Senate passed similar, but not identical, legislation in 1999, but not by enough to override a threatened veto from President Clinton. Clinton vetoed similar bills in 1997 and 1996. No further action was taken on the bill before the end of the 2000 session of Congress. With a new president, the issue may reemerge in 2001, but supporters will need to devise language that complies with the June Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court, in related action, also ruled in a 6-3 decision that same day that states can restrict demonstrations taking place outside of health clinics. (6/28/01)"

This is obviously an emotionally charged issue for a lot of folks and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, to imply that Clinton was the ONLY person who opposed the legislation and, furthermore, to insinuate that this means he likes "killing babies" and couldn't have actually been taking an ethical position based on his OWN beliefs is both childish and specious. On the other hand, if one's only source for news is Rush Limbaugh and Bill "no spin zone" O'Reilly, this is to be expected. Debate should be kept to positions on issues and not to factual matters which are easily verifiable via the internet.

And how was YOUR day?! ;)

littleman: Hey jonb,

I am sure if they freed lenord pelatier all the answers and the truth would finally come out???

NOT

Why is it ALWAYS about white republicans verses native americans???

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1055296557;start=0#8 date=06/12/03 at 20:50:23]...this nation's nuclear arms secrets being sold to China, [/quote]

man,

you need to get to the fbi with your information on the clinton sale of nuclear arms secrets. of course, the fbi will require some harder evidence than "my rice krispies told me." ;D so you should go armed with dates, times, places of contact, persons involved, and ideally documentation of the funds transfer...lacking such infomation maybe you should cool it.

irresponsible defamation of another's character (even a public figure) smacks of the big lie which was practiced so well by the nazis in the 1930s.

jay

gigantikok: Look, JonB. I never said that no other politicians commit rape, Republican or Democratic. I never said that I don't care about these other issues, but it really is pretentious and rude of you to assume I don't care simply because I didn't bring up the topic. That wasn't the topic at hand, and instead of responding to the topic about CLINTON raping someone, you spiraled way out into some other atmosphere and brought up a totally different topic in a weak attempt to try and defend yourself in some way. Either way, this guy is not the fucking president of the united states. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES raped a woman, a man in position of power, running our country was no better than some criminal in prison. I think that is unheard of, good luck trying to find some Republican president in the past who raped. Anonyms brings up a good point in regards to why Juanita Broaddrick remained silent for so many years. OK, so a Republican Governor killed and raped a little girl, I don't condone that. But then, um what other DEMOCRATIC politicians were involved in seedy kidnappings and murders? The list could go on forever, but lets bring up a very noteworthy Gary Condit (forgive me if I've spelled his name wrong). Either way, if you want to get into a childish finger-pointing, name calling game...so be it.

gigantikok: [quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1055296557;start=0#12 date=06/13/03 at 18:48:02]Not that a cover-up was necessary; raping underage Indian girls is like counting coup for South Dakota rednecks. [/quote]
JonB, you really are a pistol, aren't you? Look at those "loaded words", folks. I had over looked your very racist statement towards the people in South Dakota. Not very wise to be making comments as ignorant and as offensive as that. Just because you are part of a minority it does not give you a right to insult any other group of people, majority or not. That's sinking to a pretty low level.

Longhornjok: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1055296557;start=0#19 date=06/25/03 at 1524]*OK, so a Republican Governor killed and raped a little girl, I don't condone that. *But then, um what other DEMOCRATIC politicians were involved in seedy kidnappings and murders? *The list could go on forever, but lets bring up a very noteworthy Gary Condit (forgive me if I've spelled his name wrong).[/quote]

Haha, so are you keeping a tally sheet of the ooooooooo "bad Democrats"? What exactly is your point, gigantikok? That somehow when people registered to vote and affiliated themselves with this party or that party, all the "bad guys" (or even most of them) checked the Democrat box?? That is so ludicrous as to defy comprehension. Perhaps you also believe that when the U.S. was being settled, it just so happened that all the racists chose to live south of the Mason-Dixon line, while all the white folk up North sat around singing *"We Shall Overcome".

Those who makes sweeping generalizations implying all Democrats behave this way or all Republicans behave that way do nothing to advance their specific political pov. "Any one who doesn't agree with me is bad/evil/wrong/criminal/anti-American." No, any one who doesn't agree with you may actually have an ethical, moral set of principles guiding them, too, believe it or not. Just because they don't share your beliefs, doesn't make you right - or righteous.

It's sad that this is what informs so much of the so-called political debate these days.

Longhornjock..

well said.

jay

balls: This shit is like debating religion. Both sides are as dogmatic and both sides require a hell of a lot of faith.
Vote Libertarian.

gigantikok: yea, this topic seems to keep spiraling out of control by people who precieve me to be ignorant and want to discredit my arguement (because they don't agree with my political opinion) by changing the subject and using loaded phrases and preachy speeches. Well, my POINT longhornjok, which you and JonB seem to purposely overlook because you probably love the man so much, is that Clinton is a rapist. I dont see why you saw the need to lecture me about generalizing when in fact i WASN'T the one proclaiming that any political party member acts any certain way. If you read back, it was actually JonB who made the sweeping generalization...but, it's ok because he belongs to a minority and agrees with your political opinion. *coughbullshitcough* Of course, you saw the need to judge me and lecture me, since i don't agree with you. I don't even know why I keep responding to this stuff, it just brings up more people like you that feel the need to keep changing the subject because you can't seem to be able to find any way of defending your precious ex-president rapist.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1055296557;start=20#20 date=06/25/03 at 15:30:56]
JonB, you really are a pistol, aren't you? Look at those "loaded words", folks. Â*I had over looked your very racist statement towards the people in South Dakota. Â*Not very wise to be making comments as ignorant and as offensive as that. Â*Just because you are part of a minority it does not give you a right to insult any other group of people, majority or not. Â*That's sinking to a pretty low level.[/quote]
It's not racist if it's true, gigantikok. An Indian woman is 3 1/2 times as likely to be a rape victim as a white woman; 82% of the time, the rapist is white. Straight from the Justice Department.

If it occurs on the rez, we lose by Oliphant v. Suquamish and Duro v. Reina. If it occurs off the rez, we lose by nullification.

Longhornjok: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1055296557;start=20#24 date=06/26/03 at 11:40:11]yea, this topic seems to keep spiraling out of control by people who precieve me to be ignorant and want to discredit my arguement (because they don't agree with my political opinion) by changing the subject and using loaded phrases and preachy speeches.[/quote]

Gigantikok, your argument/opinion of Clinton being a "rapist" is based on your interpretation of various people's rehashing of past events, not on any first-hand knowledge or any legal charge or conviction. Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion. I did look back at jonb's posts, and I don't see what they, OR your "Clinton is a rapist" argument have to do with you saying:

"But then, um what other DEMOCRATIC politicians were involved in seedy kidnappings and murders?"

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of suggesting entire groups of people, based on political affiliation or otherwise, have a market on immoral or unethical behavior. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest anything like that though, right?

P.S. I'll try to keep the "loaded phrases" to a minimum if you want to point those out to me.

P.P.S. Based on any politically-oriented posts of yours I've seen here, you are the last person who should accuse anyone else of being preachy.