Tonight - Bill O v. Bill M

[dissention]

Well, I have to say that you can count me out of these kind of political discussions from now on. We've circled the same things for over a month, the extreme liberals only agree with the extreme liberals, the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans (whether some of you care to admit it) only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, the moderate Republicans only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, and the ones who try to stay objective cannot do so, even if they claim they can.

It's gotten tedious and has degenerated into snarky remarks and vicious attacks on each others politics, none of which are appealing. I take responsibility for my hand in it, y'all should for yours. I won't single anyone out, you KNOW who you are.

Vote for whoever you want, most of you will vote Republican anyways.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
We had him cornered in a cave, but came back to the press with our tails between our legs because we managed to lose him.

You know this for a fact? The press and the MI consistently said we thought he was there. No conclusive proof has demonstrated he was actually there.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - Congress gave Ken Starr the right to ask that question. So, he was completely proper to do so. Moreover, Bill Clinton set it up so it was proper to do so. If Clinton had not lied in the first place, then Starr probably could not have asked about subsequent sexual indiscretions. But, Clinton, like every other male on the planet , lied about other women. So, Clinton put it at issue.

Doll-

READ MY POST AGAIN. I said that I didn't believe Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions.

Good lord.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, I have to say that you can count me out of these kind of political discussions from now on. We've circled the same things for over a month, the extreme liberals only agree with the extreme liberals, the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans (whether some of you care to admit it) only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, the moderate Republicans only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, and the ones who try to stay objective cannot do so, even if they claim they can.

It's gotten tedious and has degenerated into snarky remarks and vicious attacks on each others politics, none of which are appealing. I take responsibility for my hand in it, y'all should for yours. I won't single anyone out, you KNOW who you are.

Vote for whoever you want, most of you will vote Republican anyways.

I enjoy your comments (and actually agree with some of them ) and am sorry to see you go

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Doll-

READ MY POST AGAIN. I said that I didn't believe Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions.

Good lord.

So - you are saying Congress should never have authorized a special counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter? The Clintons should just have been allowed to get away with that? Morevoer, if complaints of sexual harrassment are levied against the President of the United States, Congress should just ignore that? Finally, when the President of the United States consistently lies about sleeping around with women in his employ (before and during his Presidency) and he gets them or tries to get them swell jobs as hush money, that is okay? If so, as I said before, I am a little floored.

In my book, I agree Bill Clinton should never have been asked about Lewinsky. But, he put it at issue by screwing his subordinates and then trying to pay them off by getting them better jobs and then lying about it for years. The blame falls on him and no one else in my book. AND I still like the guy and would vote for him again

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I enjoy your comments (and actually agree with some of them ) and am sorry to see you go

Just call that post a fit of aggravation.

Do you honestly think I'll be able to stay away?

I think we should all take a look at how we respond to each other, though. The veiled remarks of rudeness and "I'm-smarter-than-you-are-about-politics" really need to go out the door, or else it is really going to become an unpleasant discussion. Before people label themselves as objective, they need to read their posts over again and think before they say that. As you probably know, I never once claimed to be objective.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Just call that post a fit of aggravation.

Do you honestly think I'll be able to stay away?

I think we should all take a look at how we respond to each other, though. The veiled remarks of rudeness and "I'm-smarter-than-you-are-about-politics" really need to go out the door, or else it is really going to become an unpleasant discussion. Before people label themselves as objective, they need to read their posts over again and think before they say that. As you probably know, I never once claimed to be objective.

WELL THANK GOODNESS!!!!!!!

Seriously, I was set to type one of my "Gone With the Wind" in length PM's trying to cajole you into staying

Since I was going to offer bait to do so - here is some

Bush flat out lied about the nuclear threat of Iraq and or that he should be lobotamized

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
So - you are saying Congress should never have authorized a special counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter? The Clintons should just have been allowed to get away with that? Morevoer, if complaints of sexual harrassment are levied against the President of the United States, Congress should just ignore that? Finally, when the President of the United States consistently lies about sleeping around with women in his employee (before and during his Presidency) and he gets them or tries to get them swell jobs as hush money, that is okay? If so, as I said before, I am a little floored.

I'm still not convinced about Whitewater. The fact that Ken Starr and his staff asked what's-her-face (her name escapes me) to lie about the Clintons over the Whitewater deal made me even more suspect. Take that for what you will.

Also, Lewinsky never complained of "sexshul harrassment." Jones sued ten years after the fact and Gennifer Flowers had a consensual relationship. Willey never cried sexshul harrassment either. (Note, i'm not saying I agree with his conduct, I don't).

The Ken Starr investigation was a witch-hunt. A right wing witch-hunt.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
WELL THANK GOODNESS!!!!!!!

Seriously, I was set to type one of my "Gone With the Wind" in length PM's trying to cajole you into staying

Since I was going to offer bait to do so - here is some

Bush flat out lied about the nuclear threat of Iraq and or that he should be lobotamized

I'm here for good.

As for the bait: he doesn't need a lobotomy, he would have to fulfill the requirement of having a brain.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm still not convinced about Whitewater. The fact that Ken Starr and his staff asked what's-her-face (her name escapes me) to lie about the Clintons over the Whitewater deal made me even more suspect. Take that for what you will.

Also, Lewinsky never complained of "sexshul harrassment." Jones sued ten years after the fact and Gennifer Flowers had a consensual relationship. Willey never cried sexshul harrassment either. (Note, i'm not saying I agree with his conduct, I don't).

The Ken Starr investigation was a witch-hunt. A right wing witch-hunt.

I agree it became a witch hunt, esp. after it was apparent the Whitewater investigation was going nowhere, but it does not obviate Billy C's lies (obstruction of justice) in my book. I am however, not really sure that rose to the level of an impeachable offense as that term is historically used. Hillary went into great detail in her book about this issue and she was correct.

Also, that for the $50 million price tag of the Starr report all we got factually was that the Pres. was a typical male cheating pig who lied about it when cornered - I have to say I want my money back because I could have told you that for free

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, that for the $50 million price tag of the Starr report all we got factually was that the Pres. was a typical male cheating pig who lied about it when cornered - I have to say I want my money back because I could have told you that for free

I feel bad for the folks who bought the report when it went on sale.

Why not just read the Penthouse Forums???

[strandinthewind]

Intersting article.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Don't be scared...people can spin history any way they wnat to advance their theories...The Bush=Hitler thing is completely ridiculous and only seriously backed up by liberal blogs and web pages. Rob

Guess you missed this quote from a professor at the Army War College in the article I posted:

"Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means."

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
"The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108113,00.html

Sad - very sad

But, I think the case with the American citizens being held as enemy combatants is still a go. Does anyone know about this case?

One more nail in the coffin.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Your two positions are falese. WMD have been found buried in a marsh. Granted these were older weapons, but the fact that they were there (hell - we probably gave them to him ) and buried proves my point that SH was in violation of his agreement with the UN to account for and dispose of all WMD, which for about 11 years the UN unanimously agreed he had. Did he just forget about these 36 warheads that he buried to hide from detection? If anyone believes that, well I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale So, WMD have been found and who knows how many more are buried in the desert or shipped off to Syria or some other place.

Give me a break. The mortars found were field tested. The tests err on the side of caution to protect the soldiers. What was actually in those has not been confirmed yet. We probably won't know what is in them until tomorrow. As I said, they were probably forgotten.
Your blind and strident defense of the neocons is causing you to lose your objectivity. I'm disappointed.