T Nation

Clinton Being Clinton

When I stated that many (not all) on the right refuse to look at things in a realistic way I feel that Rainjack is a perfect example of this. Through his prism Bush, Reagan, Bush Sr., hold godlike status! From what I have read of his posts they are above reproach never having committed error, ordained by god, without sin, while to him Clinton is the spawn of satan turning the White-House into a tittie bar.

He expects the utmost respect for the passing of Reagan, but if Clinton was the one to have died he would be spewing venom ad nauseam!

Whether it is Bush, Kerry, or Clinton, I just see men who have their collective faults, their good points and bad, Do I think Clinton puffed some weed in his youth? you bet! Do I think Bush snorted some candy in his? you bet! I just happen to be more in line with the democratic philosophy on running things, but I don’t think it is above error or reproach and I do think mistakes are made!

From what I’ve seen of the right since Reagens passing is very reminiscent of cult like behavior! It almost reminds me of old footage of Nazi or SS gatherings! Im not comparing Reagan to the Nazi’s more so the behavior of the flock. I think it is dangerous when any group of people look at a normal human being like they are an example of perfection godlike. I don’t know why it just scares me!

First of all, it’s the Drudge Report, so take it with a grain, or cups, of salt.

Secondly, it makes sense to have those people speak. Bush is the current president, Bush Sr. was the VP, Margaret Thatcher was the PM of England - our close ally now and during the Cold War, and Canada is America Junior.

Something else to think about:

When President Reagan was in office, he wanted to uphold the honor of the office. For that reason, everyone was required to be in jackets when they were in the Oval Office. Clinton didn’t even wear pants.

Elk -

Show me where I’m wrong. Show me one shred of evidence that I am a Nazi. I think if you read my last post, you’d see that I didn’t defend Nixon. I merely stated that the office healed itself .

I love the way you liberals throw around the ‘N’ word. Is that the best defense you have? Talk about blind ignorance. If you disagree with someone…check that…If a conservative disagrees with you, they become a facist, a Nazi, totalitarian, or any myriad of other names.

Give me proof, elk, that I am a Nazi, or a facist.

Disagreement with the liberal dogma does not a nazi make. The fact that I support the president, does not make me a facist. The mere disagreement with the pat liberal line does not make me a totalitarian.

I’d expect better of you than that, but judging from your recent posts, you seem to have turned into a knee-jerk liberal.

Rainjack-
I never said you were a nazi! I said the some of the extremist adulation people are showing since Reagans passing reminds me of the kind of blind obediance the nazi’s had. Or that the Khmer Rouge had for Pol Pot.

There’s more than one way to lose life and liberty… and more than one way to stand on guard against that loss.

Elk -

By using your logic, then the blind following of another president…say JFK…would elicit the same response from you?

Or say FDR and the yellow-dog democrats?

Or is that different than my support of a president that brought our party back together?

I fail to see how the conservatives’ fervor for Reagan, or our support of a president in a time of war, is in any way congruent with genocide, or any type of ethnic superiority.

But then again - I don’t think like a liberal.

Rainjack, your logic is, well it’s not logic - what it does display though is a distinct dislike of Clinton, and in that light your comments are at best ad hominem.

I fail to understand how you can causally argue that the actions of an individual [or in your example two individuals], while in office, doesn’t reflect on the office in question, but the actions of another individual do.

I find this, [which you wrote], especially bizare:

In Clinton’s case, and the point I was trying to make, he showed absolutely no respect for the office. I’m not talking about a “stained dress” here. He lost the respect of the military, of the american peoplr, and of other past presidents.

You have, in one sentence clearly contradicted yourself. Sure, Clinton may have abused the office, but those listed by you lost respect for the man, not the office.

Let’s face facts, if every time a president was involved in some measure of malfeasance then the office would be a redundant one in terms of the respect it was granted; certainly there’s enough examples of the President being a naughty boy, throughout the history of the office to make it the post a sinecure if we follow your [Rainjack’s] logic.

But no, it just appears that only Clinton diminished the standing of the office…

While he was in office - he whored out his position to the highest bidder,

The office of the President, as a representitive of their particular party, has been beholden to innumerable number of ‘Special Interest’ groups for a long time. I want you to tell me, with a straight face if you can manage it, that the current administration isn’t using it’s position to support certain interest and/or business groups.

Evidently, my opinion is held by at least one other person in this world - Mrs. Reagan.

Isn’t that a tad arrogant on your part, just because she doesn’t want him to speak doesn’t mean she agrees with you. She might just not like the guy, let’s face fact, she was, when Reagan was in office, almost as big a grandstander as Clinton.

iscariot -

I didn’t know my logic had to meet with your approval. But I’ll tell you just like I told Elk. If what I am saying is wrong, the prove it.

So far the best you guys can do is question my logic and compare my (and other conservatives’)adoration of Reagan to the blind fervor of the Nazis.

No - I don’t like Clinton. He stole shit out of the white house like a family of trailer trash would steal ashtrays out of a Motel 6. He showed absolutely no respect for the office of the presidency. Compared to Reagan, JFK, LBJ,or Jimmy Carter - he’s a disgrace.

You react as if I’m the first person to say these sorts of things about Clinton. I don’t think I’m breaking any new ground here. And I’m not alone in my opinions.

When was the last time Clinton made you proud that you were an american?

Rainjack -

I didn’t know my logic had to meet with your approval.

Maybe not. But logic follows certain accepted truisms. The problem I have with your logic is not what you’re saying but how you’re saying it. You’re creating and comparing different sets of criteria to arrive at a conclusion.

Now, if you were able to prove that one set of completely reprehensible actions reflected soley on the person and not the presidency and that another, wholly different, set of reprehensible actions reflected on both, then fine. Only problem is, you didn’t do that.

But I’ll tell you just like I told Elk. If what I am saying is wrong, the prove it.

I fail to understand why the burden of proof should be on those who dispute an unsupported, wholly subjective, statement.

So far the best you guys can do is question my logic and compare my (and other conservatives’)adoration of Reagan to the blind fervor of the Nazis.

Well, your logic is being questioned because you haven’t formulated an argument based on solid evidential premises.

Secondly, a lot of Democrats/ Liberals liked Reagan too, what I believe was being challenged was your, was the rhetoric associated with the eulogising used by some, not the sentiment; and nowhere that I saw, was anyone called a Nazi.

He showed absolutely no respect for the office of the presidency. Compared to Reagan, JFK, LBJ,or Jimmy Carter - he’s a disgrace.

Subjective statement.

You haven’t proved this.

Also, Clinton, while his faults are acknowledged, is also respected for a lot of the things he did do in terms, amongst other things, strengthening the international community.

You react as if I’m the first person to say these sorts of things about Clinton. I don’t think I’m breaking any new ground here. And I’m not alone in my opinions.

Not the point. The point is that you’re putting forward your opinion as fact without providing any support for said opinion.

Now, did Clinton do some pretty stupid things. Yup. But depending on your opinion his actions were no worse than the failings of a number of other presidents. [That’s an opinion BTW, in case you didn’t recognise it :)]

When was the last time Clinton made you proud that you were an american?

…welllll, I’m not a Merkin, but I sure as hell respect what he did for the international community a hell of a lot more that I do Bush. That being said, Clinton was a more internationalist President than Bush and as such their policies and actions reflect their beliefs.

Iscariot -

You have issues because I post opinion and try to pass it off as fact?? I was not aware that I was under any obligation to post a notice to unsuspecting readers

Wake up man !!! - that’s all these boards are!!! Some may cut and paste and article here and there, but make no mistake about it there, slick - it’s all opinion.

But- to hold you to your own standard - You’re going to have to come up with some proof that Clinton was good for the international community. That is completely unsubstantiated.

But then again - liberals tend to make the rules - they just have a hard time playing by them. For those of you in Poland - THAT IS AN OPINION.

It warms my heart to know that Chirac loved Clinton so much.

Wow, rainjack, you’re not too bright, are you?

Hey Malonetd take it easy on Rainjack… he means well… Now that was sarcasm Rainjack. You better watch it are were gonna start calling you Rainman minus the math skills! J/K bro!

well clinton didn’t speak… sucks…

Here are a couple of facts

Clinton, a man in his 50’s, had a young woman in her very early 20s, give him a blowjob in the Oval office.

He got caught and he still lied about it.

So much for his superior intelligence.

Those of us who have daughters have a different perspective about the piece of shit who tainted the White House for most of the 90’s.

This great country allows for that behavior in the $10 billion porn industry. Clinton should have formed a partnership with Larry Flynt and all the boys in Porn valley and stayed out of the White House.

People are people. Why do so many citizens think of their leadership as heroes and elevate them due to the position they hold?

Is it some naive wish to believe that only the best and brightest and most honorable get to be leaders? You don’t deserve respect because you got elected. You and or your position don’t deserve respect because of the title associated with it.

The presidency is just a special type of job.

What on earth do sexual habits have to do with “intelligence” ? I can’t see any way to correlate fooling around with younger women with intellect.

I don’t think of anyone as a hero anymore. I think heros are for kids. However, I have employed many people over the years, and I have found that the best employees are not always the super intellects. The best employees are the ones that you can trust! They are usually “family types” that show up for work on time. Tell the truth and have integrity.

I expect as much from our leaders. With Clinton I got short changed! And it didn’t feel very good!

[quote]Tlenora wrote:
Here are a couple of facts

Clinton, a man in his 50’s, had a young woman in her very early 20s, give him a blowjob in the Oval office.

He got caught and he still lied about it.

So much for his superior intelligence.

Those of us who have daughters have a different perspective about the piece of shit who tainted the White House for most of the 90’s.

This great country allows for that behavior in the $10 billion porn industry. Clinton should have formed a partnership with Larry Flynt and all the boys in Porn valley and stayed out of the White House.
[/quote]

Here are a couple of facts

  1. In 1976 George Bush was arrested for Drunk Driving which to me is far worst than getting head in the oval office! Whilst driving with his sister in the car at the time. Drunk driving claims the live of 17,000 a year.

  2. He spent years covering it up. And when it did surface his campaign people lied on his behalf. Which to me is as good as him lying. He also denied spending time in jail which is a lie.

  3. He absconded from military service. So add the charge of a deserter to the list. Although he is unconvicted.

  4. He has been arrested 3 times.

  5. He’s done coke and surreptiously skirted around a frank admission of the truth which at the very least is an attempt to deceive. This is as good as a lie.

  6. He got in to power through ‘cheating’ and fraud by ‘fixing’ in Florida.
    Al Gore should have been inaugurated as President on January 20th 2001. And this is what I would be most concerned about, that your great country allows this to happen.

Hilary and Bill appeared to be enjoying some nice afternoon naps at the funeral.

they were praying… ive seen the pic… look at the woman behind him…

you mighta been thinking about prince charles… he did doze off…