Our Next President?

[ATV]

Our Next President?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&eurl=

[JansenFan]

Depending on who else was running, I'd consider giving him my vote no matter what he was wearing.

[HailSkins94]

Depending on who else was running, I'd consider giving him my vote no matter what he was wearing.

I second that

[ATV]

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.

Ok, what about his adultery?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml

This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

[Cappster]

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.

Ok, what about his adultery?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml

This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

Clinton got "his" while in the white house....literally. He also left behind "evidence" which exposed his "I did not have sexual relations with this woman" lie. Those are just two of the differences.

[Irn-Bru]

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.

Ok, what about his adultery?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml

This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

It seems ironic to me that you're pointing to a double standard this thread while in another thread you're dismissing Clinton's "draft dodging" by saying that it doesn't really matter anyway (except when it comes to Republicans, apparently).

[ATV]

Why does everything have to go back to Clinton with you facists? It doesn't matter the subject - "Well, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton". I swear, that blowjob will turn out to be the most detrimental (in the loss of life, our national prestige, our treasury) blowjob in the history of mankind, only because it opened the door for the Right Wing to exploit it. It's their old standby. Because of this we find ourselves with a totally incompetent President and the fiasco we're in. But what do we hear? "Clinton, blowjob, Clinton, Clinton Clinton". Clinton can't be President, but Giullianni can. Try focusing on the future.

[Irn-Bru]

Why does everything have to go back to Clinton with you facists? It doesn't matter the subject - "Well, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton". I swear, that blowjob will turn out to be the most detrimental (in the loss of life, our national prestige, our treasury) blowjob in the history of mankind, only because it opened the door for the Right Wing to exploit it. It's their old standby. Because of this we find ourselves with a totally incompetent President and the fiasco we're in. But what do we hear? "Clinton, blowjob, Clinton, Clinton Clinton". Clinton can't be President, but Giullianni can. Try focusing on the future.

(1) How am I a fascist?

(2) How does any of this negate or respond to what I was commenting on?

(3) Since you brought it up: I really don't care about Clinton's sex scandal. There are far worse things to point out when it comes to Clinton.

(4) I would really hope that Giullianni won't be president some day, but I hope that for reasons other than his personal life.

(5) . . . .fascist?

[Jake]

Our Next President?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&eurl=

Linda Tripp?

[Countertrey]

(5) . . . .fascist?

Yes... it's part of his pledge to respect opposing views...

We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to facists... and, it would appear, most of us qualify. I really never knew that about you, FFA.

[ATV]

Sorry, but repeatedly harping on a past President to avoid the current topic is NOT a conservative belief.

[crazyhorse1]

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.

Ok, what about his adultery?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml

This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

It seems ironic to me that you're pointing to a double standard this thread while in another thread you're dismissing Clinton's "draft dodging" by saying that it doesn't really matter anyway (except when it comes to Republicans, apparently).

Clinton took advantage of the prevailing laws at that time, backed by both Republicans and Democrats. He didn't have to have his daddy to pull strings and he didn't go AWOL.

[crazyhorse1]

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.

Ok, what about his adultery?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml

This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

It seems ironic to me that you're pointing to a double standard this thread while in another thread you're dismissing Clinton's "draft dodging" by saying that it doesn't really matter anyway (except when it comes to Republicans, apparently).

Clinton took advantage of the prevailing laws at that time, backed by both Republicans and Democrats. He didn't have to have his daddy to pull strings and he didn't go AWOL.

Rudy's got too much baggage (adultery, connections to the mob, wearing a dress.)

McCain has in the past ticked off the right and is now ticking off independants and the left. Also, he wants to continue the war.

Too many people hate Hillary.

Edward can't get the nomination over Hillary.

Obama's too young.

The least offensive of these shortcomings is Obama's.

[Irn-Bru]

Sorry, but repeatedly harping on a past President to avoid the current topic is NOT a conservative belief.

ATV, my original comment was:

It seems ironic to me that you're pointing to a double standard this thread while in another thread you're dismissing Clinton's "draft dodging" by saying that it doesn't really matter anyway (except when it comes to Republicans, apparently).

because, without anyone else bringing it up, you said in this thread:

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.

Ok, what about his adultery?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml

This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

i.e. You brought up an unrelated item (adultery) and pointed out that conservatives don't get up in arms about him even after being so upset with Clinton. Your claim is that this is hypocritical.


This is all fine and good, except that in just another thread in the Lounge you were nailing Bush for being a draft-dodger, and when someone else brought up Clinton's draft-dodging you said:

Yes, Bill Clinton dodged the draft. You can be certain that a Rhodes Scholar can tell you the lessons learned from Vietnam, though. Let's stay on-topic.

So, basically: Yes, Clinton dodged the draft, but at least he would have learned lessons from it. Stop bringing this up, and let's keep talking about Bush.


So what if CT or someone else came in that thread and wrote:

Hmm, so what about Clinton's draft dodging? This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Bush did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

This is all I was noting in my first post. . .I didn't give you a single view of mine on Bush, Clinton, Mayor Guliani, or Republicans or Democrats. Yet somehow your response to what I originally wrote is 'FFA, you're a fascist.' (among other things). So how am I a fascist for what I wrote?

[Irn-Bru]

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.
Ok, what about his adultery?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml
This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

It seems ironic to me that you're pointing to a double standard this thread while in another thread you're dismissing Clinton's "draft dodging" by saying that it doesn't really matter anyway (except when it comes to Republicans, apparently).

Clinton took advantage of the prevailing laws at that time, backed by both Republicans and Democrats. He didn't have to have his daddy to pull strings and he didn't go AWOL.

Well, that would be one thing, crazyhorse. I'm not one to say, but I bet if Bush had the exact same actions as Clinton we'd hear from Dems about his draft-dodging, just as we hear from Reps abot Clinton's. I don't really care either way; I think it's odd that we would spend so much time talking about these men.

Tim O'Brien wrote a good section on his personal experience with the draft in 'The Things They Carried'.

[nuskins]

The only way Rudi Guiliani would get my vote is if my only other choice was Hillary Clinton.

[ATV]

Huh? I dunno how you arrive at that. At least I don't feel like putting in enough brain energy to try to understand that. I suspect it's a bit of a stretch....that's the only thing I'll intently write to justify my comments.

I brought up Clinton to gain some historical perspective with how some feel about Giulliani. I suspect these are the same people that wanted to see Clinton get kicked out of office for the blowjob (and then trying to cover it up, as if nobody else would have tried to do this). Yet, here is a guy (in Giulliani) who not only cheated on his wife, but also divorced her, and these are probably the same people that enthusiasticly endorse him.

I wasn't defending Clinton (as I think you may have been trying to suggest), though if you'd like me to I will - Because I myself believe he was a good President.

[crazyhorse1]

Yea, he'd make an excellent First Lady.
Ok, what about his adultery?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 4784.shtml
This seemed to bother a lot of folks when Clinton did it. Hmm, I wonder what's different this time....

It seems ironic to me that you're pointing to a double standard this thread while in another thread you're dismissing Clinton's "draft dodging" by saying that it doesn't really matter anyway (except when it comes to Republicans, apparently).

Clinton took advantage of the prevailing laws at that time, backed by both Republicans and Democrats. He didn't have to have his daddy to pull strings and he didn't go AWOL.

Well, that would be one thing, crazyhorse. I'm not one to say, but I bet if Bush had the exact same actions as Clinton we'd hear from Dems about his draft-dodging, just as we hear from Reps abot Clinton's. I don't really care either way; I think it's odd that we would spend so much time talking about these men.

Tim O'Brien wrote a good section on his personal experience with the draft in 'The Things They Carried'.

When a person dodges the draft, he actually dodges the draft. I don't know the specifics of the Clinton case, but I do know that people who were students and/or supported children were automatically classified as 3A at the start of and during the war. The classification was not something one would seek, and didn't necessarily mean that a person wouldn't be drafted, only that it was less likely. The U.S. was definately, at the time, husbanding resources, including intellectual and other resourscs (from students to skilled workers and fathers), and putting most of the actual fighting of the war on the backs of unmarried males who were unsuccessful at getting into or staying in college.

The policy reeked of unfairness, but was thought at the time by the Congress and President to be necessary for the economic present and future of the country, as well as for the war effort. Most of the people in grad programs and colleges at the time throught of themselves as complying with the policy of the government, as did those in the National Guard, who were not more likely to see action than 3A.

Bush shouldn't be faulted for being in the National Guard, which was honorable, but rather because he pulled strings to get there and then went AWOL after being extensively and expensively trained. Clinton was in accord with U.S. policy; Bush, on the other hand, was not. The difference remains huge.