View Full Version : Is There Really Any Difference?
ilovelucy
01-12-2003, 07:50 PM
Is there really any difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties overall?
I find them all saying different things, but acting the same for the most part--or is it just me/ ???
They differ on basic financial and social issues, but ultimately want to do the same thing. Take your money and give it to someone else and tell you what to do in your private life.
ilovelucy
01-12-2003, 07:56 PM
If this is the case, then they do not really differ on financial/fiscal issues nor much on social issues, either, in my way of thinking....
I am a bit disillusioned with it all of late....
If this is the case, then they do not really differ on financial/fiscal issues nor much on social issues, either, in my way of thinking....
I am a bit disillusioned with it all of late....
I just re-read my post and decided it didn't ake much sense. LOL
Anyway, I'll give examples instead...
The dems want to tell you what kind of car to drive, and the repubs want to tell everyone else who they can and cannot have sex with. In both cases, it's none of the government's darn business.
As for financial, you're right, they are exactly the same, they might be fighting with eachother about what to spend it on, but ultimately, they want to take your money and spend it on something.
ilovelucy
01-12-2003, 08:14 PM
Jen, Alexa is very lucky to have you as a mother.....:)
She will learn well.
ilovelucy
01-12-2003, 08:18 PM
It must have been nice to have the Wild West to escape to once upon a time--now, our only sure bet seems to be Costa Rica....
Jen, Alexa is very lucky to have you as a mother.....:)
She will learn well.
Thank you. Of course, I feel like the lucky one. :D
ilovelucy
01-12-2003, 08:39 PM
That's lovely for both of you.
I must say Goodnight.
Take care.
lucy
night Lucy. I'm going to make my husband a lunch for tomorrow and hit the hay myself. Have a good one.
Bassman
01-13-2003, 03:14 PM
Huge difference...
Who would you rather have appointing Supreme Court Justices...GWB or Sen Grendel kLinton?
Huge difference...
Who would you rather have appointing Supreme Court Justices...GWB or Sen Grendel kLinton?
neither.
Huge difference...
Who would you rather have appointing Supreme Court Justices...GWB or Sen Grendel kLinton?
neither.
But that is not an option, jen. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". ;)
Huge difference...
Who would you rather have appointing Supreme Court Justices...GWB or Sen Grendel kLinton?
neither.
But that is not an option, jen. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". ;)
It IS an option arod. If ya'll would stop voting for Republicans, then it WOULD be. :D I have made a choice, you just don't like it.
[quote author=arod It IS an option arod. If ya'll would stop voting for Republicans, then it WOULD be. :D I have made a choice, you just don't like it.
I SAID you had made a choice. What I'm saying is, it's not the choice you think it is. To vote for a third party candidate who can't realistically be expected to do anything but tip the election to a democrat is to vote for the democrat. Had Gore won, you would have been just as responsible for it as those who voted for him. And if you really see no important difference between him and W, I find that incomprehensible. Really.[/quote]
[quote author=arod It IS an option arod. If ya'll would stop voting for Republicans, then it WOULD be. :D I have made a choice, you just don't like it.
I SAID you had made a choice. What I'm saying is, it's not the choice you think it is. To vote for a third party candidate who can't realistically be expected to do anything but tip the election to a democrat is to vote for the democrat. Had Gore won, you would have been just as responsible for it as those who voted for him. And if you really see no important difference between him and W, I find that incomprehensible. Really.
[/quote]
Because Bush wouldn't force you to do or not to do anything you disagree with does not mean you should give him license and tools to take away your freedoms. Would you be comfy if say Hillary won the next election and she had control of all these spy tools we keep giving to the government? Ridiculous. I cannot believe that you, logic gu that you are, cannot see the inherent danger in BOTH of these parties.
Because Bush wouldn't force you to do or not to do anything you disagree with does not mean you should give him license and tools to take away your freedoms. Would you be comfy if say Hillary won the next election and she had control of all these spy tools we keep giving to the government? Ridiculous. I cannot believe that you, logic gu that you are, cannot see the inherent danger in BOTH of these parties.
Give the Libertarians time, and one of two things will happen: they'll become Republicrats, or they will cede power to some faction which will tyrannize us. They're impotent at best. They are intellectually akin to Sartre at EZ, who imagines that a radical change in the Constitution will make up for the spiritual weakness in the populace, or like cobe, who thinks a new philosophy will do the same thing. If I'd ever support a third party, the Libertarians wouldn't be it, for sure.
As for the "inherent danger" in the dems & repubs, to put them on a par with each other makes no sense to me, considering, among other things, the Dems' conduct in the 2K elections and the Clinton impeachment hearings. It's like saying the Israelis are as bad as the Palestinians because they've both killed innocent children.
wendy
01-13-2003, 05:05 PM
I SAID you had made a choice. What I'm saying is, it's not the choice you think it is. To vote for a third party candidate who can't realistically be expected to do anything but tip the election to a democrat is to vote for the democrat. Had Gore won, you would have been just as responsible for it as those who voted for him. And if you really see no important difference between him and W, I find that incomprehensible. Really.
If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils you're still left with evil.
If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils you're still left with evil.
But we're always doing that. In 1980, we had a clear choice between Reagan and Carter, but even Reagan had his faults, without even considering the problems you might have had with his ideology.
Bassman
01-13-2003, 07:00 PM
[quote author=arod It IS an option arod. If ya'll would stop voting for Republicans, then it WOULD be. :D I have made a choice, you just don't like it.
I SAID you had made a choice. What I'm saying is, it's not the choice you think it is. To vote for a third party candidate who can't realistically be expected to do anything but tip the election to a democrat is to vote for the democrat. Had Gore won, you would have been just as responsible for it as those who voted for him. And if you really see no important difference between him and W, I find that incomprehensible. Really.
Because Bush wouldn't force you to do or not to do anything you disagree with does not mean you should give him license and tools to take away your freedoms. Would you be comfy if say Hillary won the next election and she had control of all these spy tools we keep giving to the government? Ridiculous. I cannot believe that you, logic gu that you are, cannot see the inherent danger in BOTH of these parties.
[/quote]
Sen Grendel would use the spy tools AND disarm us at the same time.She would install SC Justices with HER litmus test-anti 2nd Amendment.
Besides,that bitch would use spy tools even if they WEREN'T legal.
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 07:19 PM
I have to go with Jeny on this one--the legal precedents set regardless of party affiliation can be used to the detriment of perserving our freedoms if some neonazi type whether it be demo or repbub should come to power...imo, of course....
the more our freedoms are eroded, the more power any one political force can weld against us in the future....
arod, you completely missed the point of my post. We are busy giving away our fredoms to the government as we speak. You are comfortable with that because you agre with the ideology of the current administration. That will not always be the case. Someday, amybe in a few years, the Democrats will b back in control and with the power, they will take the keys to the kingdom, that we freely gave to them.
Instead of giving away the keys, we need to jealousy guard them. NO ONE should have the power these two parties have. It's time for everyone to ditch BOTH parties, now, before it's to late.
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 07:36 PM
exactly and well said---
like I told you, Alexa is lucky to have you as a mother, love, because so few people get this at the gut level!
best regards...:)
exactly and well said---
like I told you, Alexa is lucky to have you as a mother, love, because so few people get this at the gut level!
best regards...:)
you're sweet Lucy. I vote Lucy for forum Queen.
wendy
01-13-2003, 07:46 PM
I second the nomination....especially since GayAvenger isn't here to take up the crown. ;D
I second the nomination....especially since GayAvenger isn't here to take up the crown. ;D
snicker. I need to add a line to my signature. :D BRB
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 07:57 PM
Y'all are really sweet! Thanks.
I have a sick husband and daughter tonight and we had to put one of our pups to sleep this weekend because of Parvo and have been feeling so down about it all.....
You know, there is a special blessing in what we share here or anywhere, really, even in real life.
Jen.
I mean this because young women like you give me so much hope for my child growing up in this country....
(ps. Where is the GA anyway?)
Y'all are really sweet! Thanks.
I have a sick husband and daughter tonight and we had to put one of our pups to sleep this weekend because of Parvo and have been feeling so down about it all.....
You know, there is a special blessing in what we share here or anywhere, really, even in real life.
Jen.
I mean this because young women like you give me so much hope for my child growing up in this country....
(ps. Where is the GA anyway?)
Your family has the flu? Or a cold? Yuck. How old are your kids Lucy?
And thank you Lucy, it's very nice of you to say to me. If we don;t have hope, we don;t have much at all, now do we?
arod, you completely missed the point of my post. We are busy giving away our fredoms to the government as we speak. You are comfortable with that
Seems to me we covered this in my "government encroachment" thread. Freedoms are inevitably limited in time of war. IMO, it is not so much the gov't which is violating our freedoms as it is terrorists. They are a clear and present danger to the survival to the survival of the country, and they must be stopped at all costs. I don't see surveillance of email, for instance, as a long term threat to our freedom. That cannot be said for AQ.
because you agre with the ideology of the current administration.
It's way more than that. The current administration, at least at the top is morally superior to the Clinton/Gore administration by far.
That will not always be the case. Someday, amybe in a few years, the Democrats will b back in control and with the power, they will take the keys to the kingdom, that we freely gave to them.
They won't just "be back in control"; voters will PUT them in control - perhaps with unwitting help from third parties.
Instead of giving away the keys, we need to jealousy guard them. NO ONE should have the power these two parties have. It's time for everyone to ditch BOTH parties, now, before it's to late.
That is a cure worse than the disease. As I said before, there is no credible alternative at this point.
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 08:11 PM
some kind of awful virus...
I have one daughter, but would have liked to have had at least 6 or more (hence my post on "how many kids").....
There is great hope, love...You look around you and see the strength of our personalities even at a little place in space such as this and yet, diversity and difference of opinion can meet and share and have such great empathy with each other.....if we are chomping each other in the butt:D But, even then, I suspect often this, too, is done, in a special sort of friendship....of common roots or simply because we happen to be passing each other on the way.....
But, we should defend our freedoms. This much is a given because there is no other country like us in the known universe....we have truly been a grand experiment in the history of man and I hope we will continue to be a light and a beacon, not a Rome or a fallen empire....
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 08:16 PM
arod.
You know I respect you so very much. I guess you feel the "but" coming here...:)
We are not being told the truth anymore, imo.
So, regardless of the advent of a political knight riding in on his white horse which I wish myself would happen. to tell you the truth, I feel we need to look at what is really happening to our country and why and who gains from decisions being made that will greatly determine our future and prepare ourselves accordingly...
I do not know the answers. I only have so many, many questions at the moment...
lucy
arod, WHY do we let the terrorists take away our freedoms? If we allow that, then they have won already.
The moral superiority of this adminstration over the last is irrelevant. You KNOW that there is no such thing as "temporary" in the land of government. Email surveillance is here to stay, no matter what state of "war" we may or may not be in. We have allowed them in, and they are not going to leave peacefully.
And yes, the voters may "put" them back in control, but really, I see no difference between the two parties if all we're going to do is hand them our freedom and our property and our guns and say "we're scared, save us"
The "cure" is to teach the politicians that they have no power, or should I say remind them of such. WE have all the power, unless we keep giving it away of course.
And I have voted to keep liberals out of control at times, even if it means voting for Republicans. In CA of course, any presidential vote other than DEM is a non-vote due to the elctoral college. Last time I voted for the LP. So sue me.
We are not being told the truth anymore, imo.
About what?
I do not know the answers. I only have so many, many questions at the moment...
How about running the most important ones by me, just for the hell of it?
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 08:32 PM
We are not being told the truth about 9/11 for example.
We are not being told the truth about why we are venturing into Iraq
We are not being told the truth about terrorists in our midst.
We are not being told the truth about why we are not worrying about our border security.
We are not being told the truth about the full implications of the Homeland Security thingy.
We are not being told the truth about our real economic morass.
etc
etc
etc.
just for starters....
arod, WHY do we let the terrorists take away our freedoms? If we allow that, then they have won already.
Then they won when we elected Clinton, the terrorist's best friend. Kiss your asparagus goodbye.
The moral superiority of this adminstration over the last is irrelevant.
Jeny, that's insane.
You KNOW that there is no such thing as "temporary" in the land of government.
Nonsense. Remember when the Constitution said that a black man was 3/5 of a person?
The thing is, you posit the popular cliche as an impenetrable axiom on the order of 1+1=2, forgetting that governments are made of people. If the people our gov't is made of at present are predominantly Stalin types, the axiom holds; if they are made of Reagan types - as is strongly suggested by the presence of Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, IMO - it doesn't.
Email surveillance is here to stay, no matter what state of "war" we may or may not be in. We have allowed them in, and they are not going to leave peacefully.
You presuppose that the administration wants that power for its own sake, and not as a necessary wartime expedient. Evidence for that view, if you please.
And yes, the voters may "put" them back in control, but really, I see no difference between the two parties if all we're going to do is hand them our freedom and our property and our guns and say "we're scared, save us"
I'm not suggesting we do that. And I don't agree with everything W does. I just object like crazy to the idea that we could've given Gore the job without catastrophic results.
The "cure" is to teach the politicians that they have no power, or should I say remind them of such. WE have all the power, unless we keep giving it away of course. And I have voted to keep liberals out of control at times, even if it means voting for Republicans.
Then we are not that far apart. ;)[/quote]
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 08:50 PM
Arod...
Who controls the outcome of elections in the US?
Do you think we have sincere and law-abiding electoral process?
Arod...
Who controls the outcome of elections in the US?
Do you think we have sincere and law-abiding electoral process?
Do I think every vote is legally cast? Obviously not.
If you're implying that the whole thing is a sham, a poster named Whistleblower tried to sell me on that idea at NM. Jeny may remember. Didn't hear much from him after that. ;)
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 09:00 PM
Maybe not all the votes, but only enough to make a difference. Look at the illegal voters in certain parts of the country and if one honestly thinks multiple entry type chads were the simple mistake of octogenerian voters in Dade county then I have a shrimp farm in Bayou La Batre waiting for you.....
Maybe not all the votes, but only enough to make a difference. Look at the illegal voters in certain parts of the country and if one honestly thinks multiple entry type chads were the simple mistake of octogenerian voters in Dade county then I have a shrimp farm in Bayou La Batre waiting for you.....
Who are you suggesting was responsible for those "multiple entry chads" then?
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 09:16 PM
In the case of Florida and the recount, definitely Al Gore and his dems....
The military vote, which would have been decidedly Republican from the viewpoint of experts, was nullified as well....
I do not believe Al Gore won the popular vote as commonly perceived, though. Not legally.
But that is my opinion from various sources of voting records I read at the time....
I am particularly annoyed that non US citizens should be allowed to participate in our voting process...that would be unheard of in any other country.....
Lucy, I agree that the process has been corrupted, but you seem to be implying some grand conspiracy. It would appear that the vast majority of votes by illegal immigrants would have favored Clinton, likewise the political alignments in the contested Florida counties. Is it your view that the puppeteers just screwed up, or that they didn't care who won, or what?
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 09:37 PM
Arod,
I am even worse than you think...
I think the votes are decided before they are even counted...depending of course on the district so not to alarm voters.........
I am not sure how it works yet, but I think basically all votes are pretty much voided.
I know this is a radical point of view and I wish I could provide more evidence, but I can't at this point...it just seems to be so to me.....
I hope I am wrong for our sake as a country....
Arod,
I am even worse than you think...
I think the votes are decided before they are even counted...depending of course on the district so not to alarm voters.........
I am not sure how it works yet, but I think basically all votes are pretty much voided.
If that's true, the votes of illegal immigrants are irrelevant.
I know this is a radical point of view and I wish I could provide more evidence, but I can't at this point...it just seems to be so to me.....
MORE evidence? How about ANY evidence?[/quote]
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 09:57 PM
Arod.
There have been some books written on the subject and a couple of websites, I think, discuss the voting situation....
I could try to look these up for you. As I said, this is my "hunch" and I honestly have not done adequate research to back up this theory.
for this I do apologise, but since the thought pertained to the thread, I thought I would lay the idea on the table so to speak....
Could you give me some time to try to find references?
If I can't, I will retract the statements I have made.
I hope I am wrong, to tell you the truth.
Could you give me some time to try to find references?
The problem is the credibility of your sources. I'd hate to have you spend a lot of time on it only to have me write it off because it's from John Coleman or someone like that.
Just to give you an idea, I'd probably consider anything from WND or NM worth looking at.
Anyway, I'm gonna crash, so seeya later. :)
ilovelucy
01-13-2003, 10:51 PM
Goodnight.
I think the best I got was from votescam.com or something like that but now I can't remember because it has been a while.......
Anyway, I appreciate your not writing me off as a loon....:)
Lazarus
01-14-2003, 12:01 AM
I voted for Clinton in 1992 because he promised a "middle class tax cut." I and evey other American was LIED to, becuase one of the firt things he did was RAISE taxes on the middle class and tax social security benefits for the first time.
Then and there I resolved to vote against him in the next election. Had my fellow Americans had been equally wise--vote AGAINST any politician who DECEIVES YOU, then the impeachment debacle would have been avoided, and there might have been so many breaches in National Security that might never have happened.
The truth about 9-11 is that the American people are to blame for not holding Clinton to account after the 1993 WTC bombing. It was not enough to treat it as if it was a "crime". It was a declarationsof war and was a sneak attack all rolled into one.
There can be decent Democrats--with integrity--and decent Republicans with integrity. I think that this country is blessed that G.W. Bush is a man of integrity. I do not see any similar men of integrity on the Democrat side--not even Lieberman. He would sell his mother to be President--and flip all of his policy positions in a minute to win all the marbles.
Get to know the people you vote for. I regret I did not pay more attention in '92. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, then shame on me.
Shame on the American people who bought into a phony sense of economic security built on funny numbers and cooked books during the 1990's and 2000.
You will get exactly the government that you deserve. ::)
Goodnight.
I think the best I got was from votescam.com or something like that but now I can't remember because it has been a while.......
Anyway, I appreciate your not writing me off as a loon....:)
Hey - I can do that any time. No big hurry. :D
As for votescam.com., that's the one Whistleblower tried to sell me on. To bad you didn't see the thread he started - and I finished - on NM. He's one of my "confirmed kills". ;)
ilovelucy
01-14-2003, 11:13 AM
sorry I missed that one Arod...what about votescam?
just curious.
sorry I missed that one Arod...what about votescam?
just curious.
Unfortunately, I didn't save the thread. All I remember is that Whistleblower just about ran himself into a heart attack trying to dodge my questions regarding the feasibility of such a conspiracy.
From what I DO remember, I think I said that such elaborate machinations were WAY too susceptible to discovery. The idea also dictates that people evil enough to do something like this would prefer Bush over Gore, a brain-dead automaton if ever I saw one, which is preposterous on its face.
lgllady
01-14-2003, 01:11 PM
The American People are going to find out whether tax cuts are right and in the worst possible way.
George Bush faced with a faltering economy wants to cut taxes to increase spending and investment. This is the republican way.
Gray Davis faced with a disastrous economy wants to tax his way out of it. He wants to increase government spending and triple if not quadruple taxes. This is the democrat way.
We will shortly have graphic evidence of which system works and which does not.
Bassman
01-14-2003, 01:18 PM
The American People are going to find out whether tax cuts are right and in the worst possible way.
George Bush faced with a faltering economy wants to cut taxes to increase spending and investment. This is the republican way.
Gray Davis faced with a disastrous economy wants to tax his way out of it. He wants to increase government spending and triple if not quadruple taxes. This is the democrat way.
We will shortly have graphic evidence of which system works and which does not.
I think the Dems WANT CA to tank.It'll be used by the media to overshadow any recovery on a Nat'l basis,plus that would dampen a Nat'l recovery to boot.
Dem rat bastards want a bad economy to run on.Who cares who gets fucked as long as they get votes,right? >:(
I think the real difference is how both parties view the average worker.(US)
The republicans don't and the Democrats care a little.
1 and zero are both small numbers. This is why third party candidates should get equal time to debate
It's not about the choice of GWB, whiose economic policy has failed already once, or Clinton who said he would provide a middle class tax cut, then as he faced the rising deficits given to him by Reagan and Bush 1, raised taxes or we would be in worse shape than we are today.
It's not about the impeachment of a man for having consensual sex with a woman who was an adult. Something many republicans had done.
It's just about letting all ideas into the marketplace to be heard. They aren't now, and what you have is competition for money, not votes of the people.
Money needs to be removed from the campaign process.
truelies
01-14-2003, 03:56 PM
Yeah right. Democraps 'care' about workers. The principal use a democrap political has for any worker/employee is exactly the use Bubba Klintoon had for one of his employees named Paula.
ilovelucy
01-14-2003, 08:42 PM
If the dems wanted to help the American worker, then why do they try so hard to ship our jobs overseas or tax small companies to death, plus NAFTA, plus OSHA regulations, etc....
Taxes are key--so are regulations and restrictions on business....higher minimum wage sounds great on paper as well, but look at what is really going on--companies are getting around this by hiring illegals to work for very low wages and not hiring US citizens or so it seems to me.....
But, like I have said more or less, there seems to be little difference between the parties anymore---they want our money and a carte blanche with which to write checks with that money for this that and whathaveyou....
I could be wrong.
Meanwhile we have a big problem with illegals getting benefits and voting privileges, etc....huh?
It's not about the impeachment of a man for having consensual sex with a woman who was an adult. Something many republicans had done.
You know very well he wasn't impeached for his sexual conduct, liar.
BTW, good move, speaking in defense of the first President known to have been a rapist. ;)
ilovelucy
01-14-2003, 09:19 PM
Arod.
The telling thing is that investigations never went beyond the little tete a tete with Lewinsky and many of us were stunned that our American Congress (including the Senate of course) could allow the stupidity of such a narrow focus of the investigation to continue without any accountability for any other actions committed by a sitting American president for far greater grievances committed while in office.
Stupid. Lewinsky and Clinton deserve each other--fat meglomaniacs crying for attention and money.
Arod.
The telling thing is that investigations never went beyond the little tete a tete with Lewinsky and many of us were stunned that our American Congress (including the Senate of course) could allow the stupidity of such a narrow focus of the investigation to continue without any accountability for any other actions committed by a sitting American president for far greater grievances committed while in office.
If I remember correctly, the Thompson hearings on the Clinton fundraising scandal were publicly sabotaged by democrat ex-hero John Glenn. If you look at the other scandals, I suspect you will find the attempts to obfuscate coming mainly from democrats.
ilovelucy
01-14-2003, 09:35 PM
The sabotage also came from Republicans, if I remember correctly.
Thompson gave a splendid farewell to his tenure in the Senate,　by　 the way. He is a good man and very charming. I am glad he was my Senator.....
The sabotage also came from Republicans, if I remember correctly.
Is this supposed to contradict what I said?
ilovelucy
01-14-2003, 09:52 PM
No, I don't want to contradict you, dear Arod.
But, I expected more moxie from Republicans at the time.
I suspect many might have been blackmailed.
for various reasons.....
When I said that Democrats care a little, I meant exactly that... a little.
At least those at the top. If they really were working for the average joe, then they would be up in the republicans faces with counter arguments, because what conservative Republicans are trying to push over is easily disputed.
Arod,
You are simple minded. Now Clinton supposedly raped this woman while either governor or Attorney General of Arkansas. Yet the world doesn't hear of it until the Lewinsky hearings. Paula Jones went up to the Governors room at hisrequest and at an hourt where any reasonable thinking person would know that the invitee was looking for only one thing.
Paula Jones was paraded around the country financed by the Heritage Foundation. A conservative "think-tank."
Rape was illegal when Clinton was Attorney General, he could have been prosecuted then. Since the charges are unproven and are really what are called allegations, you are committing a crime to state that Clinton raped anyone.
Speaking of allegations, you support a man who allegedly snorted cocaine for many years. Now this man stands before us talking about ending the war on drugs. But that's O.K, he can do as he pleases because he's a conservative.
Arod,
You are simple minded. Now Clinton supposedly raped this woman while either governor or Attorney General of Arkansas. Yet the world doesn't hear of it until the Lewinsky hearings.
A woman who had been raped by an AG could perhaps be forgiven for thinking no one would believe her if she said anything.
Paula Jones went up to the Governors room at hisrequest and at an hourt where any reasonable thinking person would know that the invitee was looking for only one thing.
It wouldn't be the first time common sense was overshadowed by an excessive respect for governmental authority.
Paula Jones was paraded around the country financed by the Heritage Foundation. A conservative "think-tank."
Rape was illegal when Clinton was Attorney General, he could have been prosecuted then. Since the charges are unproven and are really what are called allegations, you are committing a crime to state that Clinton raped anyone.
That would, I believe, be a civil case, not criminal; as many times as the allegation has been made with no legal response from Clinton that I am aware of, I'm not terribly concerned. That aside, anyone who saw the press conference he held about it - where, rather than issue a categorical denial, he bloodlessly referred the matter to his attorneys - knows he did it. ;)[/quote]
arod,
There would have to have been an investigation if charges were brought forth.
Well arod, his attorneys could haver told himi that he should stay quiet and open his mouth in court.
In your usual style, you have not posted up a reply to the issue of GWB's cocaine use.
arod,
There would have to have been an investigation if charges were brought forth.
Well arod, his attorneys could haver told himi that he should stay quiet and open his mouth in court.
Which would amount to not opening it at all, it appears, since he beat the statute of limitations, and Broderick has apparently not gone the civil route.
In your usual style, you have not posted up a reply to the issue of GWB's cocaine use.
There was no nationwide interview featuring an eyewitness to it, and any other evidence was obviously not enough to give the story legs. Even more to the point, he didn't spend 7 months denying it as Clinton did the Lewinsky matter.
And of course, cocaine use is not in the same ballpark as rape.[/quote]
No, I don't want to contradict you, dear Arod.
But, I expected more moxie from Republicans at the time.
I suspect many might have been blackmailed.
for various reasons.....
Certainly possible. However, I'd point Senator Hyde and Congressman Burton as examples of guys who refused to be blackmailed as a stark contrast to John Glenn, for instance, who sold his credibility for a joy ride. To me, that's emblematic of the difference between the two parties.
Bassman
01-16-2003, 02:37 PM
How fast do y'all think the "it's only sex" crowd would be screaming for GWB's head on a platter were he to be caught getting skull jobs in the WH from fat chicks half his age,and then lied about it?
Mach 5000 or thereabouts.
::)
Pity the bums.Look who they're stuck with as Sainted Maximum Leader.
Bassman,
I think that if GWB was caught like that, the reason anyoe would blast him is because republicans started the shit.
arod,
There was no nationwide interview featuring an eyewitness to it, and any other evidence was obviously not enough to give the story legs. Even more to the point, he didn't spend 7 months denying it as Clinton did the Lewinsky matter.
And of course, cocaine use is not in the same ballpark as rape.
Coaine use has caused crimes like rape to happen. I think that any person with proper compensation would stand in front of a TV camera and make sexual accusatijns against a president already known for womanizing.
She could have pressed charges when it happened.
Bush never denied using concaine, all I remember is him saying that he will not taklk about the past. And you people let that go. And that's hypocrisy considering that every inch of both the Clinton's pasts were examined and we paid over 100 million dollars to find out that Bill Clinton was a freak.
Your leaders got their desired result, they have bamboozled their way into controlling everything. You have a president who lost the election in power and who wants to bomb everyone to hell regardlessof he long term costs to this nation.
Govewrnment has grown under this administration, they are not letting anyone know what is going on. If Clinton woould have had the kind of secrecy this administratioon has, all of you conservatives would be scraming for his head without a platter.
And certainly we don't want to duscuss Halliburton Oil and the sales of stock by our VP and our President as they recieved insider information that other shareholders did not have. I don't see the republicans calling out for an independant counsel to investigsate this.
GWB, the man who was not qualified to get into Yale, but since his daddy was alumni he recieved preference points for it ,and now he stands against preferences.
GWB, the great and moral leader whose daughters are underage and break the law by drinking and getting drunk enough to be disorderly enough to be arrested by police.
Oh what kind of outcry would have came about if Chelsea Clinton had been arested for a couple of DUI's!
Hypocrites!
arod,
There was no nationwide interview featuring an eyewitness to it, and any other evidence was obviously not enough to give the story legs. Even more to the point, he didn't spend 7 months denying it as Clinton did the Lewinsky matter.
And of course, cocaine use is not in the same ballpark as rape.
Coaine use has caused crimes like rape to happen.
LOL :D
I think that any person with proper compensation would stand in front of a TV camera and make sexual accusatijns against a president already known for womanizing.
Without evidence, this is nothing but a slanderous insinuation against Broderick. On the other hand plenty of women besides her complained about Clinton. Again, if you think they said all that for money, provide the evidence.
She could have pressed charges when it happened.
And Clinton could sue for slander, if she were lying.
And I'm still waiting for you to tell me why Clinton referred the matter to his attorneys when the statute of limitations had already made him out of reach of criminal prosectution.
Bush never denied using concaine, all I remember is him saying that he will not taklk about the past. And you people let that go.
Without evidence, there is no reason to do otherwise.
And that's hypocrisy considering that every inch of both the Clinton's pasts were examined and we paid over 100 million dollars to find out that Bill Clinton was a freak.
That, of course, is Clinton's fault, since he lied to the nation's face, then stonewalled for 7 months on the Lewinsky affair alone.
Your leaders got their desired result, they have bamboozled their way into controlling everything. You have a president who lost the election in power
"Lost the election in power"? What the hell does that mean?
and who wants to bomb everyone to hell regardlessof he long term costs to this nation.
Govewrnment has grown under this administration, they are not letting anyone know what is going on.
I'm aware that broadcasts of top level cabinet meetings on national security issues would get swell ratings, especially in Arab countries, but ther is...umm...no precedent for it.
Oh what kind of outcry would have came about if Chelsea Clinton had been arested for a couple of DUI's!
Why scrounge for minnows when a salmon like the Lewinsky affair is thrashing around in shallow water?
Bassman
01-18-2003, 09:59 AM
Bassman,
I think that if GWB was caught like that, the reason anyoe would blast him is because republicans started the shit.
arod,
There was no nationwide interview featuring an eyewitness to it, and any other evidence was obviously not enough to give the story legs. Even more to the point, he didn't spend 7 months denying it as Clinton did the Lewinsky matter.
And of course, cocaine use is not in the same ballpark as rape.
Coaine use has caused crimes like rape to happen. I think that any person with proper compensation would stand in front of a TV camera and make sexual accusatijns against a president already known for womanizing.
She could have pressed charges when it happened.
Bush never denied using concaine, all I remember is him saying that he will not taklk about the past. And you people let that go. And that's hypocrisy considering that every inch of both the Clinton's pasts were examined and we paid over 100 million dollars to find out that Bill Clinton was a freak.
Your leaders got their desired result, they have bamboozled their way into controlling everything. You have a president who lost the election in power and who wants to bomb everyone to hell regardlessof he long term costs to this nation.
Govewrnment has grown under this administration, they are not letting anyone know what is going on. If Clinton woould have had the kind of secrecy this administratioon has, all of you conservatives would be scraming for his head without a platter.
And certainly we don't want to duscuss Halliburton Oil and the sales of stock by our VP and our President as they recieved insider information that other shareholders did not have. I don't see the republicans calling out for an independant counsel to investigsate this.
GWB, the man who was not qualified to get into Yale, but since his daddy was alumni he recieved preference points for it ,and now he stands against preferences.
GWB, the great and moral leader whose daughters are underage and break the law by drinking and getting drunk enough to be disorderly enough to be arrested by police.
Oh what kind of outcry would have came about if Chelsea Clinton had been arested for a couple of DUI's!
Hypocrites!
Nah.kLinton started that shit when he denied sticking his dick in Monica's mouth.That's something everyone can understand.
So...the Dems would be EXACTLY the same as the Repubs were,as y'all claim-sex obsessed dick sniffers,eh?It would be worth the price of admission to see allllllll of the libbies who contorted themselves into pretzels explaining away kLinton's escapades harumphing about GWB and his immoral behavior.
Maybe even Sen Grendel herself could join a panel on Crossfire explaining how blow jobs really ARE sex...
thebib
01-23-2003, 09:00 PM
I consider it two sides of the same coin.
They run under different banners and spin opposing slogans BUT
it's ALL about power and control ... and definied by personal power and control.
No, Lucy, I don't see a great difference either.
Machiavelli reigns.
The PROBLEM with ANY form of government is that it attracts power seekers/power mongers to positions of power.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
And let's face it ... NO ONE who runs does so because of their as philanthropic leanings ... they run for personal power ... and absolute personal power, at that.
JUST like pedophiles situate themselves among children by ingratiating themselves and camoflaging themselves to enhance their position, so too, politicians.
They are NOT there for the common good. They are only there for their own good.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.