[quote]JD430 wrote:
There is plenty of very real problems going on here that we could discuss. instead, we get the usual bullshit stuff that liberal guys trot out from time to time that makes the rest of us question their intelligence.[/quote]
I’m not “liberal”, but what topics are there that are not being discussed on the political forum that you feel are being ignored? Am I missing something? This forum is filled with topics so which ones do YOU think we have forgotten?
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Better yet, did President Bush tell the American people that Iraq was a grave threat and had weapons of mass destruction?
Just answer the question.[/quote]
Yeah. He did. What is your point? When a madman that tortures his own people breaks resolution, what better reason do you need to stop him? The weapons of mass destruction thing was wrong. Bad intelligence. I don’t know. Hell, if I was President, and there was a psycho that was the ruler of another country, I’d do whatever it took to get him out of power. There is evidence that shows Saddam paid Palestinians to attack Israel. That goes to show that Saddam was aiding terrorists.
Are you saying that going after Saddam was a bad move?
Just answer the question.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
ZEB wrote:
RSU:
You disapoint me, buddy. You don’t post around here for quite sometime, then you come up with a 20 year old clip?
Actually, I stumbled upon this clip when I went to killsometime.com to view the clip of the bencher dropping the bar on his chest…intrigued by the material at the sight, I found this clip of Bush, thought it was funny and thought I’d post it.
My thought at the time, however, included something related to things you’ve said in the past, ZEB, regarding Clinton’s actions. You have said that you shouldn’t have to explain Clinton’s deplorable actions to your children.
What if, ZEB, while you were viewing this clip, young ZEB came wandering in the room just as GWB flipped the bird? Young ZEB might ask “Poppa ZEB, what does that mean? Why did the great president of the US do that?” He might even begin copying GWB (like the baby in Meet the Fockers)…Quite a predicament, no?[/quote]
RSU:
There is no comparison between a sitting President taking sexual advantage of a 20 year old (fat) intern in the Oval office and a very youthful George Bush making an obscene gesture to a camara for a cheap laugh.
My young son has already seen people make that same gesture at me, or others while riding in the car. On the other hand he has never seen someone recieve oral sex, much less the President of the United States!
The fact that you can even try to compare a sitting President committing adultry with a young girl in the oval office to someone fipping the bird to a camara is laughable.
By the way, I am not a big Clinton hater and only mention this sorry episode in his Presidency in order to answer your question.
“Papa Zeb” I laughed hard at that one, thank you!
[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:
Better yet, did President Bush tell the American people that Iraq was a grave threat and had weapons of mass destruction?
Just answer the question.
Yeah. He did. What is your point? When a madman that tortures his own people breaks resolution, what better reason do you need to stop him? The weapons of mass destruction thing was wrong. Bad intelligence. I don’t know. Hell, if I was President, and there was a psycho that was the ruler of another country, I’d do whatever it took to get him out of power. There is evidence that shows Saddam paid Palestinians to attack Israel. That goes to show that Saddam was aiding terrorists.
Are you saying that going after Saddam was a bad move?
Just answer the question.[/quote]
Ahh…its a trap.
Of course.
RSU: Did Clinton lie about the WMD’s?
Was the UN Security Council lying?
Answer the question.
[quote]Snoop wrote:
GriffinC wrote:
I agree. Practically everyone has tried drugs at one point or time, and if you haven’t you probably will sometime soon. His drug use affected us in no way shape or form, using cocaine a few times will not ruin your life. If you feel otherwise, you can argue with over half the country about it. Don’t forget WE voted him into office, well not you Al, your still like 12, but your parents probably did. So keep that in mind 
Guess what? The PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA should be held to higher standards.
Furthermore not everyone or even practically everyone tries drugs during their lifetime. I didn’t, my wife didn’t and 90% of my friends did not use/try drugs. And the simple fact that a lot of people do does not make it legitimate.[/quote]
Guess what? Bush senior THREW UP ON SOME JAPANESE PEOPLE! And Clinton GOT HIS DICK SUCKED IN THE OVAL OFFICE BY SOME FAT INTERN!!!Apparently are presidents are humans as well, so we cannot treat them like machines.
If you haven’t tried drugs, great for you! I’m sure there’s a big empty room full of people who care!!!
"JeffR wrote:
Did Clinton as Chief Executive for Enforcing laws/lawyer stand in front of law enforcement officals and purjure himself?
Was he openly flaunting and misusing his position?
I don’t want any Nixon did this, LBJ did that. Just answer the question.
JeffR"
"Better yet, did President Bush tell the American people that Iraq was a grave threat and had weapons of mass destruction?
Just answer the question."
I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your answer to my question.
Oh, in case you missed it, Iraq had WMD both before and after the invasion. Plenty of undeclared weapons found that you and your pals like to just write off with your litany of excuses for SADDAM.
Oh, I’d say sponsoring and harboring terrorists makes you a grave threat to the United States.
I’d appreciate you answering my question. Thanks!!!
JeffR
[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Yeah. He did. What is your point?[/quote]
Uh, I guess this is my point:
…
[quote]Are you saying that going after Saddam was a bad move?
Just answer the question.[/quote]
I think it was the wrong move at the wrong time. We coined the phrase “war on terror” and then diverted resources away from it (al Qaeda/Afghanistan) and focused them on Iraq. We wasted a ton of money and human lives on a cause unrelated to the instigation (9/11). We were duped, and like you said, that was wrong.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
RSU:
There is no comparison between a sitting President taking sexual advantage of a 20 year old (fat) intern in the Oval office and a very youthful George Bush making an obscene gesture to a camara for a cheap laugh.[/quote]
Ah, so the fact that she was overweight is what really burns your buttons, huh?!
[quote]
My young son has already seen people make that same gesture at me, or others while riding in the car. [/quote]
I can understand this – especially if you drive like you debate politics! (joke)
[quote]On the other hand he has never seen someone recieve oral sex, much less the President of the United States!
The fact that you can even try to compare a sitting President committing adultry with a young girl in the oval office to someone fipping the bird to a camara is laughable.[/quote]
I think you know what my point is, but you won’t publicly acknowledge it…no biggie, and no need to get into it more…
First off, learn how to use the quote function.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
"JeffR wrote:
Did Clinton as Chief Executive for Enforcing laws/lawyer stand in front of law enforcement officals and purjure himself?
Was he openly flaunting and misusing his position?[/quote]
Perhaps so, perhaps not. I don’t know the details of how their affair began, how he courted her (if he did) or how she seduced him. I do know this: tons of men (and women) are adulterous, many of them DO solicit sexual favors based on their powerful positions, and hardly anyone needs to go on national television and acknowledge the issue much less have an investigation launched costing the American people, what, $70 million?
Clinton’s blowjob was not an impeachable offense, my friend. Deplorable? Yes. Impeachable? No.
[quote]
I don’t want any Nixon did this, LBJ did that. Just answer the question.[/quote]
Done.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Better yet, did President Bush tell the American people that Iraq was a grave threat and had weapons of mass destruction?
Just answer the question.
JeffR wrote:
I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your answer to my question.
Oh, in case you missed it, Iraq had WMD both before and after the invasion. Plenty of undeclared weapons found that you and your pals like to just write off with your litany of excuses for SADDAM.[/quote]
You are the only one who believes this. The administration even admits it – weird that THIS is the only time you don’t fall in line with them!
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
ZEB wrote:
RSU:
There is no comparison between a sitting President taking sexual advantage of a 20 year old (fat) intern in the Oval office and a very youthful George Bush making an obscene gesture to a camara for a cheap laugh.
Ah, so the fact that she was overweight is what really burns your buttons, huh?!
My young son has already seen people make that same gesture at me, or others while riding in the car.
I can understand this – especially if you drive like you debate politics! (joke)
On the other hand he has never seen someone recieve oral sex, much less the President of the United States!
The fact that you can even try to compare a sitting President committing adultry with a young girl in the oval office to someone fipping the bird to a camara is laughable.
I think you know what my point is, but you won’t publicly acknowledge it…no biggie, and no need to get into it more…[/quote]
RSU:
Actually, I thought I would throw in the “fat” comment for a cheap laugh. I do drive sort of…um fast…I also get the finger quite a lot. No one likes to be passed I have found out.
My original point however is valid: Sitting President adultery in the oval office compared to a 20 year old clip of GW giving the camera the finger. Big difference…very big…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m not “liberal”, but what topics are there that are not being discussed on the political forum that you feel are being ignored? Am I missing something? This forum is filled with topics so which ones do YOU think we have forgotten?
[/quote]
Honestly, I haven’t poured over every post in this forum, so maybe you have hit all the important bases. Even if thats the case, does that then give license to come up with something absurd and petulant like this thread and then pretend it is some kind of indictment of the president’s character?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
My original point however is valid: Sitting President adultery in the oval office compared to a 20 year old clip of GW giving the camera the finger. Big difference…very big…
[/quote]
No it isn’t. You previous argument, with me no less, was that you didn’t want to have to shield your kids from acts that you felt were against your morals or values. I then argued that you should use those times to teach your kids instead of acting as if they need to be shielded from everything. This was all during the debate about Janet’s nipple during the Superbowl where you insisted that television needed stricter guidlines during peak hours because of your personal values. By your admission here, you don’t mind obscenities being thrown at your kids, but simple nudity in a non-sexual act is something you can’t deal with? Do your kids know what humans looks like naked? If not, you may want to get on that.
It really doesn’t make sense. You pick and choose what you find goes against “values”. Apparently, as long as Bush does it, it is fine. If Janet had done this at the Superbowl instead of the nipple, you would have been fine and we wouldn’t have heard your voice at all, right?
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I’m not “liberal”, but what topics are there that are not being discussed on the political forum that you feel are being ignored? Am I missing something? This forum is filled with topics so which ones do YOU think we have forgotten?
Honestly, I haven’t poured over every post in this forum, so maybe you have hit all the important bases. Even if thats the case, does that then give license to come up with something absurd and petulant like this thread and then pretend it is some kind of indictment of the president’s character? [/quote]
Absurd to whom? You? It isn’t absurd to me because I DO find issue with it. I should only debate what you find worthy? Who the hell are you and why should I build my actions around your beliefs? Please, let me know.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Absurd to whom? You? It isn’t absurd to me because I DO find issue with it. I should only debate what you find worthy? Who the hell are you and why should I build my actions around your beliefs? Please, let me know.[/quote]
Hey Mr. Civility(please see the “Why the POlitical Forum Thread”),
Im glad you find major issue with the president jokingly flipping the bird. It clearly demonstrates how the big picture is being missed because of an irrational hatred of the president(who, for the record, I am supporting less and less every day, but thats another matter).
I love the “who the hell are you?” question. Most asinine thing to ever throw in an argument. The usual reply is “WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?” , but you wont get that from me, because its a waste. You really expect an answer?
[quote]JD430 wrote:
You really expect an answer? [/quote]
If someone is going to log on, claim they haven’t read much of the rest of this forum, then go on to reprimand anyone who feels this was a topic worth discussing, it helps to know who I’m dealing with. I can only assume that your level of debate is on par with Hannity and Colms(sp?), or hell, at least Regis. I can’t wait to get into a battle of words with you on a topic that “matters”. I have no doubt that it will be televised and school children will write reports about it well into the middle of the century. Shit, I’m taking notes as we type.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Absurd to whom? You? It isn’t absurd to me because I DO find issue with it. I should only debate what you find worthy? Who the hell are you and why should I build my actions around your beliefs? Please, let me know.
Hey Mr. Civility(please see the “Why the POlitical Forum Thread”),
Im glad you find major issue with the president jokingly flipping the bird. It clearly demonstrates how the big picture is being missed because of an irrational hatred of the president(who, for the record, I am supporting less and less every day, but thats another matter).
I love the “who the hell are you?” question. Most asinine thing to ever throw in an argument. The usual reply is “WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?” , but you wont get that from me, because its a waste. You really expect an answer? [/quote]
JD
It’s people like you and responses like yours that prompted the “POLITICAL FORUM” thread. Your first post states that you haven’t read all the posts. Your second thread attacks a poster–with capital letters–nonetheless.
You have brought nothing to the table and yet you want to go toe to toe with the Prof. With no stance to argue on!
Does anyone really have to explain to you their position and justify it, when you take no stance of your own.
Come back with a clue, there will be someone for you to discuss it with you then.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
You really expect an answer?
If someone is going to log on, claim they haven’t read much of the rest of this forum, then go on to reprimand anyone who feels this was a topic worth discussing, it helps to know who I’m dealing with. I can only assume that your level of debate is on par with Hannity and Colms(sp?), or hell, at least Regis. I can’t wait to get into a battle of words with you on a topic that “matters”. I have no doubt that it will be televised and school children will write reports about it well into the middle of the century. Shit, I’m taking notes as we type. [/quote]
now that’s a funny post, I don’t care who you are!
Kids writing reports about it! Classic!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
My original point however is valid: Sitting President adultery in the oval office compared to a 20 year old clip of GW giving the camera the finger. Big difference…very big…
No it isn’t. You previous argument, with me no less, was that you didn’t want to have to shield your kids from acts that you felt were against your morals or values. I then argued that you should use those times to teach your kids instead of acting as if they need to be shielded from everything. This was all during the debate about Janet’s nipple during the Superbowl where you insisted that television needed stricter guidlines during peak hours because of your personal values. By your admission here, you don’t mind obscenities being thrown at your kids, but simple nudity in a non-sexual act is something you can’t deal with? Do your kids know what humans looks like naked? If not, you may want to get on that.
It really doesn’t make sense. You pick and choose what you find goes against “values”. Apparently, as long as Bush does it, it is fine. If Janet had done this at the Superbowl instead of the nipple, you would have been fine and we wouldn’t have heard your voice at all, right? [/quote]
Prof,
First of all I don’t have to “shield my child” from anything that President Bush did. Obviously, a 20 year old clip like the one in question is only going to show up on the internet. If he were to give his state of the union message and end by giving all of the liberal who voted against him, the finger then I would have a problem with that. Get it yet? He’s not out in public doing this stuff and the press is not writing about it, so it’s not in my kids face.
Janet (the slut) Jackson on the other hand stripped during a half-time show at the Super Bowl. That is in the face of every child watching the football game. It’s also a direct insult to every parent attempting to bring up their child their own way. this is something that you know nothing about as you are not a parent…someday however you will see!
According to your incredibly flawed logic (as usual) there should be nothing wrong with airing porno on prime time. Hey…their just human bodies and if parents don’t want the kids to see this stuff it’s up to the parents to turn off the TV. After all you have a right to watch porno! See how silly your argument is?
Finally, my original point was comparing what each President had done, aside from family values, and how it hurt their Presidency. Outside of Internet circles not many even realize that there is a 20+ year old tape floating around with GW giving the camera the finger. Contrast that with Clinton committing adultery with young intern inside the oval office. As you know there is no real comparison.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Janet (the slut) Jackson[/quote]
Wow!? A slut? Are you sure? Do you know her sexual history or are you just using the term as something explicitly derogatory to show your dislike of her?
ZEB, you’re one of the first people to discourage name-calling, but you’ve called Ms. Jackson many, many names as well as many other celebrities.
Now I will be the first to say that when someone pushes themself into the public’s eye, they deserve most of the the criticism they receive. They put themselves in the spotlight to be a “celebrity” so now they can deal with everything that comes along with that lifestyle.
My only problem here is that you constantly call Janet names. It almost seems like you’re can’t let go of an issue. Did she forever ruin the Superbowl for you, ZEB? Or worse yet, did she steal your chin up bar?
Also you’re celebrity name-calling seems almost childlike. It reminds me of the thread where everybody wanted to beat up Jared the Subway Guy. Aren’t you a little old for that type of immaturity?
It didn’t happen during the game. It was halftime. Not trying to justify it, just adding specifics. And I still don’t believe that you and the little Zeblings were watching MTV-caliber entertainment. C’mon ZEB, admit it – you’re a big Nelly fan, aren’t you.
Porno is aired on prime time, just not on free network television. It’s aired on cable and pay channels. Just wanted to make you aware.
Ok, back to the topic at hand: GW flipping the bird. I agree with you here ZEB. Who cares? I still don’t like the guy, but I don’t have a problem with his gesture from 20 years ago. Hell, if I see him I might flip it right back. Every president is a hypocrite to some degree, get over it.
Give me two perrr…
Toddy
RSU,
Lying under oath is an impeachable offense. Will you think about that for a few minutes?
Don’t divert the discussion. Think just about that statement.
Had Billy Boy had his little fling without lying under oath, many of us wouldn’t have had much to say.
Remember, it grew out of the Paula Jones case. It was an ongoing attempt to prove him to be a sexual predator.
That is within her rights.
When caught, he lied under oath.
Lied under oath.
JeffR