Quote:
Originally posted by Onslow@Jun 26 2005, 06:57 AM
The Clinton lie helped to solidly divide an already fracturing country and was far from harmless. He disgraced a woman, he cost billions of dollars in investigations and hearings.
Freddies comments: Clinton did not cost billions of dollars in investigatoins. It was the Republicans who spent the billions of dollars trying to catch Bill Clinton doing something wrong. Clinton has the best record of any President in recent history concerning people in places of leadership not getting into trouble. Not one Clinton ofical was found guilty of any wrong doing despite billions spent by Republicans trying to find someone guilty.
The simple fact that he went on television and wagged his finger and denied what happened is much more than a minor infraction.
Freddie's comments:
It was totally improper to be asking such questions in the first place. Clinton should have said, "It is none of your damn business." And he should have stuck by that and let the Congress put him in jail for refusal to discuss personal sex issues if they were of so mind. Let the world know how democracy functions here.
I ask you DrRock to stop for a moment and think about this happening to you. Let's just for arguements sake say that you had a hot torrid sexual relationship with someone and then the person you were with denied it left and right and accused you of being a liar. How would you like that? How about a female family member who was placed in the awkward position which Lewinsky was placed in as Clinton continued to lie? How about being the spouse of the liar and having to deal with the fact that your partner was a disgrace? How about being the child of the liar? Clearly there was NOTHING harmless about his lie.
FREDDIE'S COMMENTS:
Correct. Nothing harmless here. Devastation to a daugher and a wife. Serious, very serious. But is it a matter of public government. NO. It was unconstitutional for the Congress to be trying to get copies of Bill Clinton's dick for public viewing and a statement of his personal blow jobs. That was Hillary's business.
As for Junior, I would say you cannot and will not in all your efforts find anything which he intentionally lied about. He was clearly under the impression according to the documents given to him, that there were indeed weapons in Iraq and if you look at some of what is there, then it is easy to see that even if they did not yet have them they were obviously on the way to getting them. The storage containers were there, don't try to deny that fact.
FREDDIE'S COMMENTS: The evidence is coming out that both Junior and Dick knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Junior lied to the American public about this as a pretense for going to war. He lied and knew he lied and he lied about governmental affairs which is an impeachable offense.
So what do we have? Clinton an intentional liar and Bush a liar only because later facts reveal him to have been in error. An error does not a lie make. I'll stick with Junior. Maybe it has some twisted connection to that dreadful time I spent residing in Arkansas. Clinton was governor and even then he was known as Slick Willy just for the way he would extricate himself from so many situations. Clinton is the one who if he was shown on video stabbing someone a hundred times or committing any crime, he would wag his finger and tell you "I didn't do it" and get away with it. Yes, most definitely I'll stay with Junior as the man I'd most trust.
Freddie's Comments:
Clinton has come clean on more than one occassion. How many times must he tell the truth before you will accept the fact that Clinton can tell the truth at least part of the time.
|
Yes, the Repubicans are beginning to unwind. Opinion polls are dropping. Only those who are senior citizens remember the hate filled capital city during the last Republican occupation in the early 1950's Now that the Republicans have gained complete control, a first since the early 1959's, we see that they have not changed one damn bit. After all the pain and suffering the American public will endure in the next three years, it may be another 50 years before another group of people vote in a total Republican government.
Democrats want properity and freedom for all. Republicans want prosperity and freedom for just Republicans. That pretty much sums up the difference between the two politcal parties.