Though it has had scant attention from the mainstream media, a bipartisan effort to squelch an independent counsel's final report on Clinton-era abuse of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department has gotten the attention of Web activists and commentators, causing a growing call for the release of the document that is said to including damning evidence against the 42nd president and his administration.

Over 10 years ago, independent counsel David Barrett was charged with investigating former Clinton Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros in relation to his lying to the FBI about tax fraud he committed trying to cover up payments to a mistress. Though Cisneros pleaded guilty in 1999, Barrett, in the course of his probe, found evidence of wrongdoing within the IRS and Justice Department .......


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48079

Pretty mild stuff, by White House standards. Sex scandals, and covering them up, are old hat.

http://www.who2.com/hailtothesheets.html

Again this is an issue of Republicans getting all fired up over Clinton's dick because they don't have any other dirt on him.

If the country didn't go fucking apeshit every time a tit is shown on the telly, I bet nobody would really care what the president does in bed, and they wouldn't have to cover it up so fiercely.

This actually has very little to do with "clinton's dick" if you read it....

Here are the major points for those who have trouble reading:

-Though it has had scant attention from the mainstream media, a bipartisan effort to squelch an independent counsel's final report on Clinton-era abuse of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department has gotten the attention of Web activists and commentators, causing a growing call for the release of the document that is said to including damning evidence against the 42nd president and his administration.

-Over 10 years ago, independent counsel David Barrett was charged with investigating former Clinton Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros in relation to his lying to the FBI about tax fraud he committed trying to cover up payments to a mistress. Though Cisneros pleaded guilty in 1999, Barrett, in the course of his probe, found evidence of wrongdoing within the IRS and Justice Department in relation to the Cisneros fraud.

-Reportedly, Clinton team members tried to interfere with Barrett's investigation, which has cost $21 million, including conducting surveillance of his office.

-"When Barrett completed his report the Clintons' lawyers, led by that legendary Clinton pettifogger, David Kendall, tried to kill off the report either by gutting it with redactions or by getting it buried altogether. Kendall entered some 140 motions pursuant to this goal. The report has been ready for publication since August 2004, but Kendall's nuisance tactics have worked, and now what do we hear from the Clintonistas? They complain that Barrett has cost too much and taken too long. As they are themselves are the reason for much of the cost and delay, advocates of good government should be up in arms. This stratagem has been used too frequently by the Clintonistas to smear an officer of the court."

-While Barrett is said to want the entire report released with minor redactions – as is typical for independent counsel reports –Democrats, led by Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, have blocked it. Dorgan and fellow Democrats Sens. Richard Durbin and John Kerry tried to include an amendment to kill the report in an Iraq-war appropriations bill, but the move was blocked by Republicans. Later, Dorgan was successful in including an amendment to block 120 pages of the report – those listing Clinton administration transgressions – in another appropriations bill, which was signed into law last month.

-"By all accounts, the 400-page Barrett report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects," writes Snow. "At the very least, it would bring to public attention a scandal that would make the Valerie Plame affair vanish into comical insignificance."

hmmmm clinton's dick?... didn't see it.

And hey its no secret that there's alot of crap in gov't yea yea yea.... but i just disagree with the tone that it only happens under Bush's watch, and the Clinton years were pure and clean... get real

All-in-all, Decka, the entire thing elicits a mighty yawn from me. So the Clinton's tried to interfere with an IRS investigation? How many people in this country cheat on their taxes? and the fact that it was a bipartisan effort, as revealed in your first paragraph means something too. Maybe Congress feels that we just don't need to spend any attention on something so unnoteworthy. Sounds like business as usual up in Capitol Hill to me. Washington wouldn't need to spend god-awful amounts of money to hush up mistresses if the media didn't make every sex act a friggen' Watergate.

I fail to see how any of this could ever stack up against the impeachment worthy offenses the Bush administration is guilty of. And before you get on my ass about bringing Bush into this, Travh, the only reason this is even making press is to deflect accusations on Bush.

Ah, the Clinton years shoulda been a Waco up call...



I ain't sure he or Reno wuz ta blame fer that, though...




Janet mighta jest had a...




...bad shake while in office...



:(

Sure it can be hidden. Those White House rugs sure must be mountainous by now. However, you can always tell the difference between Democrat dirt and Republican dirt....the Republican dirt is oilier, filthier, smellier and each granule comes complete with its very own non-denominational confessional.

Originally posted by She-devil
However, you can always tell the difference between Democrat dirt and Republican dirt....the Republican dirt is oilier, filthier, smellier and each granule comes complete with its very own non-denominational confessional.

Misconduct in office is still misconduct in office, regardless of party. You step out of line and you've done as much wrong than the person of the opposing party that did the same. The current powerful US parties both have their scars, skeletons in the closet, and so on, why hold a double standard?

Originally posted by Evakian
Misconduct in office is still misconduct in office, regardless of party. You step out of line and you've done as much wrong than the person of the opposing party that did the same. The current powerful US parties both have their scars, skeletons in the closet, and so on, why hold a double standard?

In the last several decades, Democrat corruption seems to be very tame in comparison with Republican corruption. Republicans seem willing to sacrifice more innocent blood in the name of their selfish cause. Has a Democrat been as willing to topple a foreign leader via a bloody coup, just so the new leadership will provide something like oil for America to profit from? Has a Democrat been as willing to befriend brutal dictators and ignore their crimes, just so they can have a military base on their soil or gain access to new resources/markets? Has a Democrat been as willing as often, to train terrorist thugs like Osama, just to beat the Soviets at their own gain?

Provide me with some examples and I'll change my statement. It just seems as though, Republicans are willing to sacrifice their morals and allow thousands of innocent civilian deaths just as long as they gain some sort of paltry advantage. No, I'm not talking about some truly legitimate threat to America's national defense either....I'm talking about turning a blind eye at and in many cases even causing thousands of innocent deaths, in exchange for corporate profit.

Originally posted by She-devil
Has a Democrat been as willing to topple a foreign leader via a bloody coup, just so the new leadership will provide something like oil for America to profit from? Has a Democrat been as willing to befriend brutal dictators and ignore their crimes, just so they can have a military base on their soil or gain access to new resources/markets? Has a Democrat been as willing as often, to train terrorist thugs like Osama, just to beat the Soviets at their own gain?

Indeed, the US federal and state governments are composed of Republicans, Democrats, and a minute number of third party candidates. For decade after decade in American history, all sides are in it together and have worked for their goals together. Peddling corporate interests, involving themselves in foreign affairs, spending exorbitant amounts on our government funds and military spending, even abuses of our Constitution rise from them. These are not isolated incidents nor exclusive to a party or a person, it is the United States government as a whole that is responsible for what has happened over the many years.

sure prosecute him.

However the fact that you are ragging on clinton for this while simultainiously letting Bush of the hook for stomping the 4th amendment just further illustrates what a brainwashed little tool you are. It makes it quite hard to take anything you say seriously.

Decka

You're 23 years old which means you were between 10 and 18 when Clinton was president.

Had you been your current age then and in the workforce, with a good head on your shoulders (which I think is probably so) you, more than likely would have gotten rich during the 8 years Clinton gave us the best economy in history.

And I mean seriously rich. Millions. You would be set for life and never have to work again unless you wanted to. Many people did it so don't tell me it didn't happen.

The only ones that lost are the ones that just plain hated Clinton or were too blind to see what was happening or refused to participate and of course, those that were Enroned.

There is a distinct reason many (most) people think Clinton was the best president ever and their wallets show it.

Therefore I simply discount your hatred for Clinton based on not having benefited from his presidency.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
There is a distinct reason many (most) people think Clinton was the best president ever and their wallets show it.


The conditions under which the Clinton and Bush administrations worked were very different. President Clinton had a technology boom, no great national economic challenges and still left a recession behind when leaving office.

I'm not saying Bush is great, or Clinton was bad, but they operated under very different conditions.


PS - I don't judge a president's greatness by how well I personally benefitted economically.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Had you been your current age then and in the workforce, with a good head on your shoulders (which I think is probably so) you, more than likely would have gotten rich during the 8 years Clinton gave us the best economy in history.

Yes Dop, the majestic Clinton waved his magic wand and gave us a good economy out of his compassionate heart. And it had nothing to do with anything else but William Clinton being Commander-in-Chief. :rolleyes:

There is a distinct reason many (most) people think Clinton was the best president ever and their wallets show it.

Have you proof to back up that most people thought President Clinton was the "best" POTUS ever? And that the determination is based off their financial status?

Therefore I simply discount your hatred for Clinton based on not having benefited from his presidency.

Very well Dop, then you, as well as no one else, on your logic, can dislike or like any particular president or other leader that they did not live under, either because of the time or place in which they existed at the time of the person's term(s).

Apparently you missed the boat too Eva. Sorry 'bout that ... sad to say, it was probably the last boat for a while at least while this bunch is running things ...

crimminey ... these economic powerhouses would have you puting your money in the stock market while real estate is going up anywhere from 15% to (pick a number)

ROTFLMAO

Bring back the guy from Arkansas.

It'd take a constitutional amendment to make that happen, Dop. Any hope for the wifey?

Hillary will probably be the dem candidate and I see no one in the republican line up that can beat her ... at least at this time.

Certainly not Frist, not Allen, not Jeb, not Moore ... dunno ... who else do they have? ... don't say McCain or Rudy cause neither one can get the nomination.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Apparently you missed the boat too Eva. Sorry 'bout that ... sad to say, it was probably the last boat for a while at least while this bunch is running things ...

Can you tell me just how bad the economy is right now?
Feel free to post links.

I was asking if Hillary had any chance to be as good of a pres as her hubby was. I already know she's probably gonna win it in 2008, barring something big.

Clinton (Bill) is permanently out of the political picture unless he makes the unlikely decision to run for some lower office. (Admittedly I have not been keeping up on the mans life, he might have already done this.). All in all, I see no reason to continue this right-wing circle jerk around his carerr. It carries no benefit and is a waste of time.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Hillary will probably be the dem candidate and I see no one in the republican line up that can beat her ... at least at this time.

Certainly not Frist, not Allen, not Jeb, not Moore ... dunno ... who else do they have? ...

You're seriously deluded.

I truly believe that the RightWing could run a ticket with Fred Phelps for President and Scooter Libby for V.P and trounce Hillary Clinton.

You just have NO idea, Dop, the sort of relentless character assasination and villification the Rightwing is going to unleash on Ms Clinton if she has the extreme misfortune to be the Democratic candidate.

I don't like her (far too rightwing for me, and she voted for this bullshit trillion-dollar oil war of Bush's), so I hope she DOES get the Democratic nod, just so we can all see HOW goddamned low the Republican spin machine will sink as it regards dirty tricks.

What Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly and the other little ConservaFascist talking heads will do and say about Hillary Clinton will be a fucking circus.

A sickening, bloody, vindictive, hate-filled, no-holds-barred circus.

One thing's for certain; it will be interesting.

But Hillary cannot win.

If she even begins to look remotely close to having a chance of winning, they will either eliminate her or (more likely) fall back to the Diebold option.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lungdop Philing '
[B]

There is a distinct reason many (most) people think Clinton was the best president ever and their wallets show it.


More than anything, this speaks volumes about most American's sad lack of knowledge about our own history.

I read somewhere that 9 out of 10 Americans cannot name a single Civil War battle, nor a Revolutionary one. Maybe that's because some 60% of our population now had their ancestors still living in the old country, during those times......with this kind of lack of knowledge or concern so prevalent, is it any wonder that most people consider Clinton a better President than Jefferson, Polk, Lincoln, or FDR?

It's like the country didn't even exist until 20 years ago.
Ignorant and frightening.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Apparently you missed the boat too Eva. Sorry 'bout that ... sad to say, it was probably the last boat for a while at least while this bunch is running things ...

Provide evidence of the poor quality of the current economy, and evidence that it will be in a declining or low state "for a while".

Bring back the guy from Arkansas.

So, based on your logic that you if you do not defend yourself you are guilty-

You fall victim to the fallacy that Clinton was solely responsible for a strong economy during his term.

You admit that you are wrong that "most" people do not believe President Clinton was the best president ever by lack of proof.

And you cling yourself to the belief that no one can pass judgment on a leader that they did not live under, because of time or location restraints.

Are you aware that civilization keeps records?

Originally posted by rendova

More than anything, this speaks volumes about most American's sad lack of knowledge about our own history.

I read somewhere that 9 out of 10 Americans cannot name a single Civil War battle, nor a Revolutionary one. Maybe that's because some 60% of our population now had their ancestors still living in the old country, during those times......with this kind of lack of knowledge or concern so prevalent, is it any wonder that most people consider Clinton a better President than Jefferson, Polk, Lincoln, or FDR?

It's like the country didn't even exist until 20 years ago.
Ignorant and frightening.


War??? There was a Civil War here in america???? Geez i never knew that i was too busy gettin my food stamps and going home to get my wife pregnant for the 15th time......


LOL


You are very right rendova... education is not a "big thing" anymore... liberals like people just the way they are... dumb and impressionable.

Originally posted by Decka
... liberals like people just the way they are... dumb and impressionable.

Then why does the fact that you're an idiot bother me so much?:D

Really Decka, that was a pretty dumb thing to say.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Then why does the fact that you're an idiot bother me so much?:D

Really Decka, that was a pretty dumb thing to say.

You know what is funny pagan.. as SOON as i hit the *SEND* button... i did a Homer Simpson "D'OH!!!".... because i cant say ALL liberals... i should have put *most* in front of it to keep people like you out of the same boat as those like FT and 500....

my apologies... its getting old isnt it. LOL

Originally posted by Decka
You know what is funny pagan.. as SOON as i hit the *SEND* button... i did a Homer Simpson "D'OH!!!".... because i cant say ALL liberals... i should have put *most* in front of it to keep people like you out of the same boat as those like FT and 500....

my apologies... its getting old isnt it. LOL

That's fine Decka, but you've still staked out a pretty indefensible position IMO.

Originally posted by she-devil

In the last several decades, Democrat corruption seems to be very tame in comparison with Republican corruption. Republicans seem willing to sacrifice more innocent blood in the name of their selfish cause. Has a Democrat been as willing to topple a foreign leader via a bloody coup, just so the new leadership will provide something like oil for America to profit from? Has a Democrat been as willing to befriend brutal dictators and ignore their crimes, just so they can have a military base on their soil or gain access to new resources/markets? Has a Democrat been as willing as often, to train terrorist thugs like Osama, just to beat the Soviets at their own gain?

Democrat corruption is no better and no worse than Republican corruption. Clinton used the FBI to investigate political enemies, he used his office to discredit women whom he had sexually harassed, he used his office to falsely accuse members of the White House Travel Office of crimes he knew they did not commit, he gave defense secrets to our enemies.

Which selfish cause is Bush spilling blood for? Setting up a democracy in the Middle East? We could have gotten the oil cheaper and more easily had we made a deal with Saddam Hussein rather than toppling him.

Democrats have supported just as many dictators as Republicans. I don't remember any Democrats who removed dictators from office but I do remember Republicans doing so, Reagan with Pineapple Face and Bush with Hussein.

Lungdop

I was working during the Clinton years and yes, I made money, a lot of money, but it wasn't because of Clinton. It was because of a convirgence of fortuitouls circumstances; the technology bubble, the dot com bubble, no major war. The economic good times had nothing what-so-ever to do with Clinton being president. They would have happened had Mortimer Snerd been president.

Vilepagan

Actually Decka's position is not totally indefensible. Some liberals, not all, but some, maybe even a plurality do like to see the electorate a bit on the dumb side and definitely impressionable. So long as voters are not doing well they will tend to vote Democrat which is the preferred voting party of most liberals. As people do better and have more to conserve they tend to become more conservative and to vote Republican.

Maybe dumb is the wrong word. Maybe dependent is a better word. Many liberals like to see a large dependent class that will populate the Democrat base. In my opinion this is one of the reasons Democrats and liberals were opposed to welfare reform. Once people get off welfare and start earning decent money they drift further from the Democrat Party.

You will probably disagree with me, but you know what they say, that is what makes horseracing and politics.

Originally posted by Freethinker
You're seriously deluded.


Apparently Hillary is a hot button for you -- otherwise I find it hard to explain this outburst and deviation from your usual well focused and meaningful posts.

I truly believe that the RightWing could run a ticket with Fred Phelps for President and Scooter Libby for V.P and trounce Hillary Clinton.

You don't seriously mean that so I'm going to just skip over it.

You just have NO idea, Dop, the sort of relentless character assasination and villification the Rightwing is going to unleash on Ms Clinton if she has the extreme misfortune to be the Democratic candidate.


There is nothing left to trash -- there are no more skeletons in the closet, there are no more exposes, there are no more stories period -- it's all been said before and even the husband/BJ story won't carry any new punch. It's played out. And who will be listening? The 50 million Hillary haters already hate her to the maximum and don't intend on voting for her so let them pour on the trash ... what's it going to accomplish? Friggin nada -- that's what.


I don't like her (far too rightwing for me, and she voted for this bullshit trillion-dollar oil war of Bush's), so I hope she DOES get the Democratic nod, just so we can all see HOW goddamned low the Republican spin machine will sink as it regards dirty tricks.


Yes, she's DLC ... nothing new there -- but by voting for the IWR she removes the meme that she is too easy on terrorism. I've been saying all along that Hillary is playing the War issue perfectly with 2008 in mind. They will not be able to attack her on that issue and they would be fools to do so which would be analagous to attacking some of their own who voted for it.

What Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly and the other little ConservaFascist talking heads will do and say about Hillary Clinton will be a fucking circus.

I'm praying all the FOX-type hate radio and TV talking heads do slander Hillary cause they're going to find a law suit filed against them personally and against their station (network) -- Hillary simply won't take it like the rest of the pussy dems. She'll fight back and in spades.

If she even begins to look remotely close to having a chance of winning, they will either eliminate her or (more likely) fall back to the Diebold option.

Diebold needs to have the polls somewhere around 6 point or less to pull off an outright cheat -- based on what is known from the '00 and '04 elections. Any number higher than that would result in an investigation and they won't take that chance. If they should be exposed, they would lose all chances of taking those close senate and congressional seats that keep them in control. I doubt they can keep it within 6 points.

If you don't like Hillary that's fine but it appears you discount her based on your heart and not your head. That's not wise.

"You're seriously deluded".--------Freethinker, in commenting on Dop's thinking that Hillary has a good chance to win the presidential election

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Apparently Hillary is a hot button for you -- otherwise I find it hard to explain this outburst and deviation from your usual well focused and meaningful posts.

No, it's not really Hillary that's the hot button........it's just that the ReichWing has a built-in advantage in running against Hillary, because they have already laid the groundwork of 15 years of relentlessly indoctrinating the Conservative fuckwits in this country to absolutely despise her.......not to just disagree with her, not just to hold a different political position than her, but to truly and deeply HATE her with a white-hot intensity.

THAT will be her undoing.

I truly believe that the RightWing could run a ticket with Fred Phelps for President and Scooter Libby for V.P and trounce Hillary Clinton.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
You don't seriously mean that so I'm going to just skip over it.

I mean it. I absolutely beleive it to be the case.

Dredge up in your mind the two most loathsome, callous, dishonest, inhuman, despicable fucks who currently belong to the Republican Party (yes, i realize that the plethora of choices makes it hard to pick only two) , and insert their names in place of Phelps and Libby........and I believe that that combo would STILL defeat Hillary because of the many many years the Corporate Mainstream Media has spent indoctrinating the sheep with the --"Hillary is an e-ville liiiiiiiiiiibruuul"---- mindset.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
If you don't like Hillary that's fine but it appears you discount her based on your heart and not your head. That's not wise.

While i do not like her, and will not vote for her myself, I still would find her FAR more preferable than any Reagan/Bush clone the Reichwing would try to install in the White House.

I just do not think there is the slightest hope of her winning.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I just do not think there is the slightest hope of her winning.
I'll second that notion.

I'd be willing to bet that if she finds her way to the oval office....

http://www.gamecenter.cz/storage/articles/2165/scout.jpg

....she'd be better off skipping the inaugural address and all public appearances, period.

Originally posted by Frogger
Democrat corruption is no better and no worse than Republican corruption. Clinton used the FBI to investigate political enemies, he used his office to discredit women whom he had sexually harassed, he used his office to falsely accuse members of the White House Travel Office of crimes he knew they did not commit, he gave defense secrets to our enemies.

Which selfish cause is Bush spilling blood for? Setting up a democracy in the Middle East? We could have gotten the oil cheaper and more easily had we made a deal with Saddam Hussein rather than toppling him.

Democrats have supported just as many dictators as Republicans. I don't remember any Democrats who removed dictators from office but I do remember Republicans doing so, Reagan with Pineapple Face and Bush with Hussein.


LMAO, do you seriously think the Republicans don't use government funds or the FBI to investigate their enemies? Clinton was put on trial for sexual harassment and the facts didn't prove him guilty. Does anyone truly believe that those power hungry women were forced to do anything they didn't want to do? Come on! The Republicans used their elected offices to put the President on trial for infidelity....all the while, the Republican Speaker of the House was getting some action from an intern on the side too. :rolleyes:

A democracy??? Yeah, like the democracy he's making in Uzbekistan by partnering with Karimov in the war on terror and the Uzbekistan dissidents get boiled alive. :rolleyes: Does it make Bush a hero because his Daddy and his Daddy's boss, propped Saddam up as a dictator and then Junior Bush comes along and takes him out of power??? The answer, is an unequivocal no!!! Do you know why? Bush willingly chose Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc. who all played very instrumental roles in assisting Saddam Hussein wreak havoc and death against his own people. Saddam had simply embarrassed them and they wanted to embarrass Saddam to get even. They care absolutely nothing about installing democracy in Iraq....except now, Bush's legacy is hanging on it so they're praying like hell that it turns out for him. For him, not Iraqis! :rolleyes:

By the way, Saddam no longer wanted anything to do with making deals with the U.S. Look where the last ones got him. He wanted to do business with Russia and China and Bush couldn't have any of that....not when they consider all of the money they spent trying to gain control of Iraq's oil in the 80's...and Iran in the 60's, 70's and 80's....they weren't letting China and Russia get their hands on it. Wake up and quit being so gullible!

Those same bastards you have in office, also were responsible for killing thousands in Central America. Name me a few examples of Democrats who supported dictators. Don't just say it happened. Tell me exactly when.

Originally posted by She-devil
By the way, Saddam no longer wanted anything to do with making deals with the U.S. Look where the last ones got him. He wanted to do business with Russia and China....
Don't forget France and Germany, too.

Originally posted by She-devil
Clinton was put on trial for sexual harassment and the facts didn't prove him guilty.
Maybe not, but that doesn't change anything. The bitch complained, and consequently, when he was indicted, he lied under oath. Outside of that, what are we talking about here?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I'll second that notion.

I'd be willing to bet that if she finds her way to the oval office....

http://www.gamecenter.cz/storage/articles/2165/scout.jpg

....she'd be better off skipping the inaugural address and all public appearances, period.

LMAO... WOW... talk about hardcore!!!!

I actually am glad to see Hilary go right, and take a mid-ground status... i dont think she can win the presidency, her past is too marked. Too many people know about her scandals and all... it WOULD be a field day by Rush and such...

but i dont think the major media would be as quick to exploit the wrong doings of Hilary....

maybe put it on the 3rd page...

or drape the whole story in pity and sorrow, like SHE is the victim....

wow, sure is different from what you see today.

"Dumb" ..... may be the wrong word ........to describe the liberal socialist Democrats ideal voter.

How about ..........."still on the plantation" ........??


Slim

Originally posted by slim
"Dumb" ..... may be the wrong word ........to describe the liberal socialist Democrats ideal voter.

How about ..........."still on the plantation" ........??


Slim

What a shock - a bigotted republican. Yep, all us demon-crats is just sittin in our trailer parks drinkin beer and waiten' for the guvmunt to give usens money.

Originally posted by The Praetorian

I'd be willing to bet that if (Hillary) finds her way to the oval office she'd be better off skipping the inaugural address and all public appearances, period.

I think you're correct that some Rightwinger would direct murderous violence toward her........but then, i believe her ever delivering an inaugural address is an entirely moot point.

Someone had better tell Gallup that no one like Hillary.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=20635

Prae...::shakes head::...

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Originally posted by Frogger
Democrat corruption is no better and no worse than Republican corruption.

I agree completely.

It would be like saying --"The Gambino crime family are crooks, but the Luchese family are REALLY crooks!!"

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans make up the coin-op Congress that does the bidding of the Corporations while letting the long-suffering People take the hindmost.

The slight difference is that the Dems WILL give SOME of it to the poor and disadvantaged people in the country, while the Republican Party's attitude seems to be more --"Fuck the poor people!!....we want it ALL!!!"

Originally posted by Frogger
Clinton used the FBI to investigate political enemies, he used his office to discredit women whom he had sexually harassed.....

True.

He was as crooked as they come.

Originally posted by Frogger
Which selfish cause is Bush spilling blood for?

The enrichment of his cronies in the big Oil and big Defense industries.

War is a racket, plain and simple.

The current one is the biggest racket of them all, owing to the fact that it was totally unwarranted and was trumped up on lies.

Originally posted by Frogger
Which selfish cause is Bush spilling blood for...........Setting up a democracy in the Middle East?

No.

Bush and his PNAC co-conspirators have demonstrated in myriad ways that they do not give a fuck about maintaining democracy HERE in America!.....and they do not genuinely care about the people of the Middle East having one.

The bullshit ---"We're bringing democracy to the Middle East!!"-- claim was simply the back-up story they concocted after no WMDs were found.

Originally posted by Frogger
We could have gotten the oil cheaper and more easily had we made a deal with Saddam Hussein rather than toppling him.

It is more about Bush and the PNAC's publicly stated agenda of controlling the flow of the oil than it is about getting it cheaper.

Control the flow, and you can control the price.

Originally posted by Frogger
Democrats have supported just as many dictators as Republicans.

I agree 100%.

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans are lapdogs of the Corporatists, and every dictator this country has EVER backed, aided, supported or put into power was done for the purpose of protecting or enhancing the interests of some U.S. Corporation operating in that country.

I think Hillary has learned alot in the last 15 years. The nomination is hers if she wants it, and she will run a masterful campaign. Underestimate her at your peril.

I think the Republican's efforts to instill their voter base with an absolute hatred of Hillary will backfire eventually.

Originally posted by sedan
I think Hillary has learned alot in the last 15 years.

I agree.

Originally posted by sedan
The nomination is hers if she wants it

I (guardedly, hesitantly) agree.

Originally posted by sedan
and she will run a masterful campaign.

I agree.

Originally posted by sedan
Underestimate her at your peril.

I agree that she should not be underestimed in what SHE will do in running a presidential campaign........but what's more important here, imo, is what the GOP controlled mass media will be able to do to villify and character assassinate her.

When you can control public opinion, it doesn't matter if the candidate you're pushing is a dimwitted failed businessman with a background of drug use and being AWOL from service and the candidate the opposition is backing is an extremely intelligent and erudite military veteran.......... control the people's mindset and you control who they will select.

she-devil

LMAO, do you seriously think the Republicans don't use government funds or the FBI to investigate their enemies?

Yes. As a matter of fact I don't think the Republicans used the FBI to investigate Democrat members of Congress. If the Democrats or the news media had even a hint of such goings on it would have made page one headlines.

Does anyone truly believe that those power hungry women were forced to do anything they didn't want to do?

Wow! Blame the victim. They had it coming. They were power hungry bitches who were willing to do anything to advance their careers. Even when Katherin Willy was mourning her husband she was still conniving to advance her career and power. She and all the other women were willing participants in a made scramble for power and only reported Clinton as part of their master plan.

No one can accuse she-devil of being a feminist. She is right in there with the crowd that says of the rape victim, "If she hadn't been walking down that dark street she wouldn't have been raped. Bitch deserved it."

Originally posted by Freethinker
I think you're correct that some Rightwinger would direct murderous violence toward her........but then, i believe her ever delivering an inaugural address is an entirely moot point.

I think... and hope.. that there was some sense of humor in the claim... i can't speak for someone else. I certainly took it on a comedic level....
Originally posted by Freethinker

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans make up the coin-op Congress that does the bidding of the Corporations while letting the long-suffering People take the hindmost.

Thats what i've been saying for a long time on this board.... glad we can agree on something.
Originally posted by Freethinker

I agree that she should not be underestimed in what SHE will do in running a presidential campaign........but what's more important here, imo, is what the GOP controlled mass media will be able to do to villify and character assassinate her.

In case you havn't noticed... it happens no matter WHO is in office. Are you going to try to tell me there was no attempt at character assassination on Bush??? Oh let me guess... everything against bush is true....

If the mass media is "GOP controlled".. than why is it PROVEN to be liberal?
Originally posted by Freethinker

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans are lapdogs of the Corporatists, and every dictator this country has EVER backed, aided, supported or put into power was done for the purpose of protecting or enhancing the interests of some U.S. Corporation operating in that country.

agreed again....
Originally posted by Freethinker

The slight difference is that the Dems WILL give SOME of it to the poor and disadvantaged people in the country, while the Republican Party's attitude seems to be more --"Fuck the poor people!!....we want it ALL!!!"

Where do you draw the line FT??? When can you say enough is enough on giving gov't handouts???
Originally posted by Napsterbater

I think the Republican's efforts to instill their voter base with an absolute hatred of Hillary will backfire eventually.

I agree.. Rush will probably have a heart attack and make himself look like he's 15. Some of the things said about Hilary ARE warranted, but not everything....

I challenge FT to say the same about Bush....

Originally posted by Frogger
Wow! Blame the victim. They had it coming. They were power hungry bitches who were willing to do anything to advance their careers. Even when Katherin Willy was mourning her husband she was still conniving to advance her career and power. She and all the other women were willing participants in a made scramble for power and only reported Clinton as part of their master plan.

No one can accuse she-devil of being a feminist. She is right in there with the crowd that says of the rape victim, "If she hadn't been walking down that dark street she wouldn't have been raped. Bitch deserved it."


Nice try Frogger. As a woman, I generally have a 6th sense about what women truly are "taken advantage of" and what ones are lying. Those bitches were lying and they don't even give a damn that their lies, hurt women who truly are in need of the law.

Originally posted by Decka

Where do you draw the line FT??? When can you say enough is enough on giving gov't handouts???


Not answering for FT here -- but for myself ...

When we spend more on building the infastructure in Iraq than we do on the infastructure of the US and when we american tax payers foot the bill for a completely free Iraqui national health care system which americans would love to have, and when we build more libraries in Iraq than we do in the entire united states and when the US treasury has a direct pipeline to the pockets of Halliburton ... that's the line that needs to be drawn and the american people are close to doing just that.

Originally posted by Decka

Where do you draw the line FT??? When can you say enough is enough on giving gov't handouts???

Let me borrow Dop's answer, (because most of it is exactly the sort of answer I would have given) but insert a revision at the end.

When we spend more on building the infastructure in Iraq than we do on the infastructure of the US and when we american tax payers foot the bill for a completely free Iraqui national health care system which americans would love to have, and when we build more libraries in Iraq than we do in the entire united states and when the US treasury has a direct pipeline to the pockets of Halliburton ... that's the line that needs to be drawn except that the People in America --and most particularly the conservative faction in America---are never going to DRAW that line, because they have been brainwashed into an extremely nationalistic mindset that says anyone the US attacks and destroys is "evil" and needed killing, and that NO MATTER HOW MANY TRILLIONS WE SPEND ON THE MILITARY AND ON WARS, IT IS NOT ENOUGH!!!!.

Originally posted by Freethinker
that's the line that needs to be drawn except that the People in America --and most particularly the conservative faction in America---are never going to DRAW that line, because they have been brainwashed into an extremely nationalistic mindset that says anyone the US attacks and destroys is "evil" and needed killing, and that NO MATTER HOW MANY TRILLIONS WE SPEND ON THE MILITARY AND ON WARS, IT IS NOT ENOUGH!!!!.[/i]

Dont your realize that you sound exactly like the guy down the street who said he was abducted by aliens FT???

"AHHH THOSE CONSERVO FACISTS!!! THEY'RE OUT TO GET ME!!!!"

LOL

Originally posted by Decka
Dont your realize that you sound exactly like the guy down the street who said he was abducted by aliens FT???

"AHHH THOSE CONSERVO FACISTS!!! THEY'RE OUT TO GET ME!!!!"

LOL

And you don't have the same ideas about liberals?

Originally posted by Decka
Dont your realize that you sound exactly like the guy down the street who said he was abducted by aliens FT???

Decka;

If you cannot see the vast difference in asserting that----

a) there are aliens flying about in spaceships ,and they abducted me .....

....and MY assertion, which was that --

b) the conservative political system in America has become one wherein State and Corporate power has been merged, and that merger is something that Mussolini called *fascism*, hence the term 'ConservaFascists'........

.......then you're not thinking very clearly.

Originally posted by she-devil

Nice try Frogger. As a woman, I generally have a 6th sense about what women truly are "taken advantage of" and what ones are lying. Those bitches were lying and they don't even give a damn that their lies, hurt women who truly are in need of the law.

I don't believe it. she-devil is a sexist of the first order. "As a woman I generally have a 6th sense about what women truly are 'taken advantage of" and what ones are lying." That is one of the most sexist statements I have ever read and if something similar was posted by a man he would be laughed off the internet.

Your womanly intuition tells you these women were just a bunch of lying bitches. All of them, right she-devil. You mysterious womanly powers tell you that.

You have, with a single post, changed yourself to a serious poster to a laughable parody of a poster. You are going to have to go a long way before you redeem yourself.

Originally posted by Frogger

You have, with a single post, changed yourself to a serious poster to a laughable parody of a poster. You are going to have to go a long way before you redeem yourself. [/B]

Frogger gets nasty when he comes up against reason. Instead of attacking the message he attacks the messenger and comes across as a clueless wimp.

Originally posted by Echo2
Frogger gets nasty when he comes up against reason. Instead of attacking the message he attacks the messenger and comes across as a clueless wimp.

Actually, i'd say Frogger [for once] has a point in saying that for someone to claim--

--"Well, i know by my "sixth sense" what is truly inside people's hearts" --

--and then base their subsequent points on that mysterious force..........is bullshit.

I disagree. Women are definitely more intuitive than men. Guys like Frogger and Praetorian don't like it too much when they display that peculiarity, because they consider it attacking their superior masculine intellect. And FT, it seems.

Originally posted by Frogger
I don't believe it. she-devil is a sexist of the first order. "As a woman I generally have a 6th sense about what women truly are 'taken advantage of" and what ones are lying." That is one of the most sexist statements I have ever read and if something similar was posted by a man he would be laughed off the internet.

Your womanly intuition tells you these women were just a bunch of lying bitches. All of them, right she-devil. You mysterious womanly powers tell you that.

You have, with a single post, changed yourself to a serious poster to a laughable parody of a poster. You are going to have to go a long way before you redeem yourself.

Do I think that my intuition would stand up in a court of law? Absolutely not. I'd be laughed out of there faster than you could say, Jack Robinson. However, add my intuitive belief to the facts that were presented in court, and everything I said is absolutely correct. Case closed.

Your sexist argument is hogwash Tadpole. Is it sexist to say, that when a child is crying at night, (even very lightly) more often than not, the mother will instinctively awaken faster than the father will? No, it's an unexplainable fact. Just like, a man can generally tell when another man is attracted to his significant other....even when the other man is lying. You should accept that sometimes there's no rhyme or reason, other than "it's in our nature".

By the way, thanks Echo and Nap. :)

She-devil said ....."Just like, a man can generally tell when another man is attracted to his significant other....even when the other man is lying. "

Don't forget about gaydar .......I can tell a mile away ..........when a man is attracted to another. OK OK ...I'll admit .....sometimes I have to look twice to ....make a transexxxxual ......*W*.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
She-devil said ....."Just like, a man can generally tell when another man is attracted to his significant other....even when the other man is lying. "

Don't forget about gaydar .......I can tell a mile away ..........when a man is attracted to another. OK OK ...I'll admit .....sometimes I have to look twice to ....make a transexxxxual ......*W*.


Slim

Slim, I confess. I'm a sexist. It was very sexist of me to assume that in my very own hypothetical example, the man's significant other would be a woman.:p

The She-devil dirt cannot be hidden. I wear my filth proudly in every post.