America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by tailgater. 10 replies replies.
60 minutes
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,025
Watched some of the 60 minutes program with the Clinton interview. He is certainly more human than Al Gore could ever hope to be. His response, however, to the Monica queston was somewhat disturbing. He was answering questions about his thoughts on individuals, and when Monica's name came up he mentioned that he wished it was not kept "private". Sure, he also appologized to those he hurt (family, etc), but he just doesn't get it. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that he denigraded the title of the office which he has held for 8 years. He doesn't admit that the act itself was wrong. He can't recognize that lying to the courts and the American People was unjust and should not go unpunished. He just doesn't get it, and he never will.
usahog Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Tailgator shoot me an email... [email protected]
Laterzzzzz
Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
I'm sorry to disagree with you. The act itself is not wrong. You do have two consenting adults. The problem is that a lot of people dislike his liberal leanings. OK, but taking an end run "He has disgraced the office" is just that. If he was not as disliked, this never would have been reported. No one knows how much sex has taken place in that office. Nixon was dirty to start with and because of that, his accomplishments are overlooked. Eisenhower died with an estate far exceeding the total amount of money he earned in his life and he is reported to have had a continuing affair with his female driver. Could he have discgraced a jeep or two? McArthur bought land in many of the countries we invaded, including Japan, and at a premium price. Where is the public outrage?
JFK may or may not have been a good president, but he was active with women. We think badly of Nixon, because he was not liked, but Eisenhower, McArthur (a soldier who disobeyed orders from his commander in chief), and JFK are remembered as good people, because they were and are liked. If you don't like what Clinton did, fine, but the Monica incident should have nothing to do with his work as president.
tailgater Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,025
Lest you forget, he lied DIRECTLY to the American People who put him in that seat. Truth be told, had he come forward when directed to do so, I would have brushed aside the issue of infidelity. But if that man can lie over a personal issue like that, then he is not fit to hold the title of President. I have no problems if you support his politics. But to support his lack of morals is unfathomable. As for the other Presidents you mentioned, if you believe all the rumors then they too were corrupt. But that does not dismiss the current President from taking responsibility for his actions. We can NOT simply accept lies and poor morals as being the norm with our politicians. Forgive me if I expect more from the highest office in this modern world. To expect less is reflective of ourselves.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
infidelity ok, but lying is not? many of the republicans in the impeachment debacle were guilty of worse sins. i would prefer a man of good morals, but look what happened to jimmy carter. behind his back deals were being made with the iranians about holdin the hostages longer to get reagan in office, where they could expect better treatment from our government. and if ollie north was working the iran contra scheme without the knowledge of reagan, as he said, where the devil was reagan when he was supposed to be in charge. why did we go to war to help one of the richist country in the world, never get rid of sadam, not expect the kuwait to pay for their own defense, and treat the veterans like garbage re the guld war syndrom.
tailgater Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,025
All very good points, Rick. I do not condone any of that behavior if it is true ( I don't believe in Gulf War syndrom). You will never hear me support that type of behavior. That is why I am not republican, but rather an independent. You, on the otherhand, support Clintons escapades in the oval office and dismiss it as "two consenting adults". Nevermind that one was a subordinate. Nevermind that when the details were made public (right or wrong) he emphatically and UNDER OATH denied they ever happened. Nevermind that his "untouchable" attitude supports the belief that he did attempt similar actions against the will of other women, as they so claim. Apparently that is all OK in your opinion simply because the Republicans did some wrong things as well. Hmmm. Where is our moral fortitude going in this country? I'm not that old (mid 30's), but I can still remember when two wrongs didn't make a right. As I stated earlier, I haven't agreed with much of Clintons politics, but I respect it as his partys views. It's his unnerving ego and lack of morals that I despise. Even Nixon resigned rather than put the country through an impeachment.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
No my friend, I neither condone nor support his personal conduct. The fact that republicans did similar immoral acts is not the point. Why have they the right to point a finger at him, when they are dirty to start with. If you are going to point your finger at someone, at least have the decency to have clean hands. The lying under oath as you put it is a very technical legal point. I don't know you background with the legal system is, but the rules, for good or for bad, are rigidly defined. He said and it was true, that the definition of sex with this girl, meant sexual intercourse. The courts gave him the definition and he did not lie under that ruling. The courts erred in not broadning the definition to include other sexual acts. They gave him room and he took it. We may disagree, but he did not lie. Subordinate? The girl in question has a background of instigating this behavior with other people. He was and is probably still unable to control himself like any other adult and is too easily led astray. They always refered to that as thinking with your d**k.
As far as ego, a person can not be in charge of anything, no less the country, without the ego telling him or her, I know what is best. I am smarter than others. I am a leader. JFK always surrounded himself with people that disagreed with him so that he could draw the opposite points of view. It kept him in touch with more than his ego. But remember Kennedy had so many affairs, he makes Clinton look like a hi-school boy. Nixon resigned after appointing a vice-president, who than becam president and appointed a vice president, Rockerfeller. At that time this country was led be two people who had never been elected to their office. As far as Gulf War Syndrom, my neighbor suffers from the effects of Agent Orange, he was in a part of the military that stoill is not discussed, and he knoes people who suffer from Gulf War Syndrom. You and I agree and disagree on many points, but I don't understand: "(I don't believe in Gulf War syndrom)." Always nice chatting with you. Have a good year. rick
tailgater Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,025
So many issues, so little room... First, the Gulf War Syndrome: It's amazing how people of all walks of life seem to suddenly get difficult to describe symptoms once a name is given to a disease. I don't doubt your neighbor, but the effects of agent orange are much better documented than the whole range of GW Syndrome victims. some have never been near agent orange. Others never were involved in any battle, nor were exposed to any known chemicals. I first thought it was Sadams chemical warfare, then I read up on the issue and learned of the steep rise in "victims" once a name was given and potential money was to be had. As for Clinton, where do I begin? If you are quoting the New Testament by stating "He hath no sin cast the first stone" then you are certainly holier than I. But I don't think the fact that past republicans wrong doings should have any bearing on the legal attack of Bubba. When Clinton was quoted as stating "by the definition of sexual relations as given to me" he embodied EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH THE COURTS AND SOCIETY today. He is a Rhode Scholar for crying out loud. Did he REALLY believe (under oath) that Sexual Relations meant intercourse only? C'mon, Rick, that's hogwash and you know it. Abuse of the letter of the law is NO EXCUSE for perjury. Period. Why do Liberal Lawyers and Democrats continue to ignore Common Sense? Please answer that! Just for the record, I will hold Dubya to the same standards that I set for any president, Dem or Republican. It is, afterall, the highest office in the land, and should be held with dignity. Something Clinton couldn't define with or without the help of his lawyers....
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
"then you are certainly holier than I" I wouldn't throw a pebble, but I didn't make the charges. "Abuse of the letter of the law is NO EXCUSE". You can't abuse the letter of the law, that is why it is spelled out with such precision. The fact that it displeases you in this instant is irrelevant. When I served as a witness in a divorce case, the lawyer said the letter of the law was "treated him/or with cruelty". He said those are the words in the divorce law, not he/she shot him in the head, not he/she wacked the hell out of him/her, just the words "treated him/her with cruelty." "ignore Common Sense" Fortunately or unfortunately common sense is not the law. Common sense tells us that people that smoke several packs of cigarettes a day are going to get sick, but their common sense tells them they won't. Common sense tells us driving too fast on an icy road can cause an accident, but common sense tells the speeding driver he can control his car. Whose common sense prevails? It is the clearly defined "letter of the law." Incidently my neighbor was asked to go to the VA and he would be entitled to a $70,000 bonus for contracting the agent orange syndrom. He didn't go.
tailgater Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,025
You can't abuse the letter of the law???????? Are you serious? Why don't you go play golf with OJ, since you agree wholeheartedly that he should NOT be in jail. It is THAT liberal attitude that turns my stomach. Honest.
tailgater Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,025
Rick, no offense but do you know what "common sense" means? Common sense is NOT what makes a person smoke two packs a day. Common sense is NOT what makes a driver speed on an icy road. Those are DECISIONS, not Common Sense. Common sense tells a person not to stick their hand under a running lawn mower. Liberal Democrat Lawyers tell a jury that unless it is expressly written on the mower deck, the rich lawn mower corporation is liable for damages done by some dumb ass. When someone does something stupid, like drive fast on an icy road, it is not their own individual common sense that causes them to do so. It is the LACK of common sense. It is not My Own interpretation of what is right or wrong. That is why it is called COMMON sense. Perhaps we need to re-name the word, because apparently it is not so common after all. Laws are guidelines. They are not intended to be as black and white as some would like. That is why we have judges and jurys. It is the INTERPRETATION of the laws that gains attention. Denying that oral sex falls under "sexual relations" is an OUTRIGHT LIE, unless you have no grasp of the english language. Do you need me to define "lie" to you? Rick, if you think Clinton was a good president, fine. If you feel the Lewinsky issue was blown (pun intended) out of proportion, OK. If you don't feel that it is the publics business what our elected officials do DURING WORKING HOURS, ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, so be it. But don't let your opinions blind you from what is fact. He lied, and he did so under oath. That is perjury, by definition. I don't have to understand why you are not outraged. We can agree to disagree on that. But you have to accept facts for what they are without trying to find a loop hole that doesn't exist.
Users browsing this topic
Guest