At least Clinton knew his left from his right.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:01 pm

From AP published in the NY Post, the pro-Republican propanganda machine of Rupert "I control almost all the US Press" Murdoch from Saturday, September 8, on page 2, upper right corner:

Sydney: Bush addresses the crowd (the APEC Asian Pacific Economic Conference) by referring to it as OPEC. He then thanks the Austrians for holding the conference (I'm not a geography major but Sydney is in Australia) and the promptly exists the stage in the wrong direction.

Can't blame partisanship for that article, not when it's published by the Post, and on page 2 no less. Of course it never would have been printed at all if just before one of Bush's elections when the propaganda wheels were grinding away putting trying to pass biased editorials as front page news, and succeeding.

Feel free to parrot me.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:11 pm

Humm....I have to wonder. Did Clinton use his right or left hand to use the "Monica cigar"?

Heard a good joke recently......about a guy with a George Bush and a Ronald Reagan tattoo, and an image of Clinton's wife that mysteriously appeared between the two. You fill in the rest......

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:23 pm

Same old childish nonsense while real world problems keep spreading.

Glad you listed all the things GWB has done right, they worth repeating.

Here they are again:

[This space intentionally left blank.]

Plissken · Post by **Plissken** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:09 pm

Speaking of BJ Clinton...
http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/report/7grounds.htm
Go ahead, search for "oral-anal" and "phone sex".
These acts took place in the oval office. I wonder if he was on the phone with Putin?

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:19 pm

Most people believe sex is a personal affair, especially if you can still get the job you were hired for done well.

Where does that place Bush? At the head of the line of the Church of Imbeciles or Global Embarrassments?

You choose. I think it's whichever one pays better.

JoeWPgh · Post by **JoeWPgh** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:15 pm

George Bush remains popular with the koolaid intoxicated knuckle draggers for 3 simple reasons. All by himself, he made:
Nixon look honest
Reagan look engaged
Quayle look intelligent

He falls off a bicycle pretty good, which I suppose was the primer for a foreign policy that alienates and divides allies while uniting and inciting enemies. I've been embarrassed for previous presidents. But this is the first time I've been genuinely ashamed. Worst.President.Ever.

VanWaGuy · Post by **VanWaGuy** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:31 pm

Aristide, sex might be mostly a personal affair, but their are times when it is not.

We have had several reminders at work that sex with someone in a less responsible position on the org chart can result in sexual harassment or rape charges. Most people in the country can be fired for using any job rank advantage as coercion for sex. The president is not above the law, and his relationship with a presidential employee was improper and would have gotten most people fired.

If he had relationships with strangers, that would not have been as improper, and the reaction to such would have been smaller. (Look at Kennedy and Marilyn or Kennedy and drowned Girlfriend.)

Clinton got grilled over Monica because 1) the relationship was improper, 2) he lied to those that voted him into office, and 3) he lied to Congress.

If he believed it was private, he could have not answered Congress. Even if he believes that it was private, that does not justify lieing to Congress.

Lieing to the voters and Lieing to Congress is what the attention was about, not the sex.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:06 am

aristide1 has been bashing the current USA president for quite a while, always comparing him to clinton. Apparently aristide1 is not a USA citizen living here, or his opinion of clinton might be different. I've had to endure the clinton years for too long, starting with his fiasco time in Arkansas. Now we're facing another possible clinton saga....... this time involving the carpet-bagger clinton.

Remember poor Vince Foster, another of the clinton throw-aways, like the rest of the US population. Hope it doesn't happen again.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 am

Whether Clinton was a perfect angel or not, is not the point. The point is that, this was Bush doing stupid things in public *again*, the guy is an idiot and most of the world couldnt believe that he was voted into power, and they were gobsmacked when he was voted into power twice. This reflects rather badly on Americans in genral, which is yet another reason to get the twat out of the White House.

The British (me/us) have our fair share of idiots, but most of them dont run the country, scandals involving politicians are common too, but Bush should be given an IQ test on live TV, he could obviously be outsmarted by one of his pet dogs.

Anyway getting off of my rant about Bush, he is synonymous with "stupid" and so much so that everytime he does something stupid that is caught on camera it appear in the press - I find it rather amusing, but rather depressing that he is running the USA.

The fact that people write whole books of the stupid things that he has said in public - and the fact that they are often funny is a good reason for it to appear on page 2 of a newspaper. My only complaint is that I havent read it all, anyone got a link.

http://www.amazon.com/George-W-Bushisms ... 0743222229

Andy

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:44 am

Bloody hell, I just scrolled down and Amazon have another 5 Bushisms books (yes five (5) that are all in English).

My Dads got one, I'm going to borrow it tonight.

Andy

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:09 am

aristide1 has been bashing....

You are clearly confused, all I do is identify what he has done and not done. You are the only constantly joking and swaying away from issues. What does that say about you? Why would I bash GWB when he proves what he is all by himself?

As for Clinton being a liar, who can get the job without being one? GWB doesn't lie because he hides and his men hide behind executive order, is that an improvement? If Clinton did that what would you have said? Apply the law and ethics to everyone, not just those you are predisposed to dislike, yes?

... current USA president for quite a while....

Well he may be labeled a president but who's running the show?

.... always comparing him to clinton

My initial post didn't bring up Clinton. You do that, plain and simple, followed by a lack of relevent facts. Remarkable how the 31% tries to justify rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Thinking adults don't stick to a party just because they dislike the other one on an emotional level. You didn't like what Clinton did? Swell, who on earth likes everything a leader does? You identify his mistakes, so what? Everyone does that. You measure the harm by what? Your wallet? How about my national security? Who's watch did 9/11 occur under? Who had 8 months to fix Clintons mistakes? Who did nothing? Who drapes energy policy behind national security?

But the biggest problem may be yet to come. The only time the US has a decent set of checks and balances is when neither party holds the presidency and both houses. As seen recently when one controls all, and it doesn't matter which one, things get messed up in a hurry. Logical arguments are dismissed and pet pork projects are approved at the drop of a hat. So if there's a republican backlash next year and everything goes in the opposite direction things may get worse before the people ever understand or accept a decent balance. If they are capable of doing that on a logical level by voting for the best candidate, regardless of party.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:30 am

Aristide, sex might be mostly a personal affair, but their are times when it is not.

Absolutely correct, but I don't recall Monica filing any complaints.

Remember poor Vince Foster, another of the clinton throw-aways, like the rest of the US population

Do you really want to being up talk of innocent deaths in the defense of this administration? That seems hardly logical.

Give us a tally of how many people in Bush's or Reagan appointees resigned before being prosecuted and a direct comparison of Clinton's appointees. If you're going to bring up issue bring up ones that have not already been dismissed after being investigated. Alberto Gonzalez has gone so far as to taint the entire American Justice system.

Hint - there's an entire forest beyond that tree you are fixated on.

VanWaGuy · Post by **VanWaGuy** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:29 am

Any complaint would have been after the fact and irrelevent to Clinton's motives and actions, and are you then saying that the unreported rapist is somehow better than the convicted rapist?

Monica basically stayed quiet so that she could later make a few million $$ selling her story. That is no defense of the situation.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:32 am

and are you then saying that the unreported rapist is somehow better than the convicted rapist?

I'm content throwing GWB and Clinton in jail, but since that should be based on the magnitude and frequency of the crime whom do you think should go first and the longest?

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:10 pm

Plissken wrote:Speaking of BJ Clinton...
http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/report/7grounds.htm
Go ahead, search for "oral-anal" and "phone sex".
These acts took place in the oval office. I wonder if he was on the phone with Putin?

How many have died from GWBs lies? And when will we be able to stop counting?

And I wonder how many in FA won't be allowed to vote in the next election? What that governor's name down there?

None of this means I am pro H1-Billary. Far from it.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Just where are you from anyway? Saying anything good at all about either clinton, proves to me you've never set foot in the USA......and don't have a clue about USA politics.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:41 pm

Isn't it obvious? I come from the land of justice and ethics. I'm not partisan, I'll jail any crook, any where, any time. Why?

You need something new to latch onto that's has nothing to do with your point of view?

I note the lack of substantial argument in your "don't have a clue about USA politics" claim.

No points for consistency.

Sign at the local U-haul center. A picture of a forest, underneath it read:
More trees, less bush.

Oh do you think any potential allies in our fight in Iraq would ever have been allowed a portion of the business opportunities after the war? Tells us now about your expertise in USA politics.

VanWaGuy · Post by **VanWaGuy** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:08 pm

Sure is interesting how differently people can see the same events. I thought that it was the dems not wanting to count the absentee ballots from the military, so what are you saying about Rep's not allowing people to vote?

The Rep's did fight the absurd dem scheme to recount some counties where they thought they would gain, but not to recount any others where the Rep's might gain. Having a partisan directed recount would have been a LOT more absurd than anything I remember happening there.

Obviously, whoever lost there was going to whine, but whining because the votes were not recounted till the dems won is not even a valid thing to cmoplain about.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:19 am

Wow......aristide1. The latest politically-correct "Superman", fighting for truth, justice, and "all that stuff", from an un-disclosed foreign/alien land, able to fly through the air with a click of the mouse........and quite willing to twist the facts to fit his way of thinking.

Poor Vince Foster.....the man who knew too much, an inconvenient murder in the dark, with the real truth never to be known or legitimately investigated.....even by our own aristide1, the great seeker of truth and justice.

Too bad the title of this thread gives away his motives.....

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:05 pm

Bluefront wrote: Poor Vince Foster.....the man who knew too much, an inconvenient murder in the dark, with the real truth never to be known or legitimately investigated.....

Please, not this again. There is absolutely zero factual evidence for these weird murder conspiracy theories; you'd need to have a wide collection of tin-foil hats to believe nonsense like this.

Clinton is most definitely guilty of many things, including illicit sexual activities in the White House and perjury; he is not, however, guilty of murder, and multiple investigations into this have exonerated him. This is unsubstantiated rubbish proliferated by talking media heads, and I wish you'd stop mentioning it.

I personally think Clinton's behavior was disgraceful, but if I had to pick and choose between oval office tomfoolery and a pointless, fruitless war in the middle east costing the country half a trillion dollars, thousands of US soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, the decision would be obvious. Clinton was merely a pervert; Bush and his administration are either 1) Liars, 2) Incompetent, or 3) Both, and the depths of incompetence, in my opinion, are absolutely staggering.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:15 pm

Bluefront wrote:Poor Vince Foster.....the man who knew too much, an inconvenient murder in the dark, with the real truth never to be known or legitimately investigated.....even by our own aristide1, the great seeker of truth and justice.

Yeah, right, and Bush flew the planes into the towers.....

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:19 pm

aristide1 wrote:From AP published in the NY Post, the pro-Republican propanganda machine of Rupert "I control almost all the US Press" Murdoch from Saturday, September 8, on page 2, upper right corner:

Sydney: Bush addresses the crowd (the APEC Asian Pacific Economic Conference) by referring to it as OPEC. He then thanks the Austrians for holding the conference (I'm not a geography major but Sydney is in Australia) and the promptly exists the stage in the wrong direction.

Can't blame partisanship for that article, not when it's published by the Post, and on page 2 no less. Of course it never would have been printed at all if just before one of Bush's elections when the propaganda wheels were grinding away putting trying to pass biased editorials as front page news, and succeeding.

Bush is not a good public speaker. That said, I don't think this is a particularly insightful criticism of his policies and actions while in office. I could see how it would be easy to bungle "APEC" and "OPEC", especially while speaking in front of an audience.

I wouldn't mind a discussion regarding what Iraq has to do with Islamic jihads flying planes into buildings, but too often that sort of debate is displaced by cheap pot shots and mindless posturing.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:33 pm

Beyonder....the answer to your last question is simple. Bush wanted a second term, as do most presidents......understandable. He had to do something after 9-11, some sort of pay-back involving our military. Anything less than that would have meant certain defeat in the next election. Iraq was a good target. They had a mean dictator. They gassed their own population. Maybe they had other awful WMD. They had never been completely broken in our first war with them. Etc....

But he went too far, IMHO. I would have bombed the Hell out of the bastards, but never set foot in the place. Very few dead Americans, minimal cost, pay-back for 9-11......even if it wasn't exactly the right target.

How soon we forget the 9-11 disaster.......Bush would have been criticized no matter what he did. Tough spot for any man....

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:15 pm

Hello Carl,

Bluefront wrote:pay-back for 9-11......even if it wasn't exactly the right target.

Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Nothing. To believe otherwise is deceiving yourself.

We had a terrible crime committed against us -- so we should punish the Iraqis?

George W. Bush thought that he had an excuse to attack Iraq -- so they trumped it up until they believed their own lies. And we have wasted all the lives of each person who has died because of this war of aggression; American and Iraqi lives have been wasted. Billions of dollars have been wasted -- we spend ~$13 million per hour in Iraq.

And we have wasted the good will of everyone -- we were the victims on September 11th, and we squandered it all going after a despot who had nothing to do with it.

Back on topic: George W. Bush is has violated the Constitution. Dick Cheney has violated the Constitution. They should both be impeached, and then tried, and then thrown into jail. They are just men -- the Constitution is the law of the land, and it is what makes this country great.

Plissken · Post by **Plissken** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:48 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:George W. Bush is has violated the Constitution.

I've read this, but it's never said exactly what he's violated in the Constitution. Please be specific and brief, thanks.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:14 am

Neil....you're missing the point. Had you been the President on 9-11, what would you have done that would have extracted sufficient pay-back to ensure your own re-election in 2004?

Remember President Carter and what he did (or didn't do after the Iran hostage thing).......his party was soundly defeated for years after that. President Truman always said "speak softly but carry a big stick"......but you certainly have to be willing to use that stick when things warrant the usage.

I would never have used a ground invasion of Iraq after 9-11, and I would have sealed our borders, as well as expelling many non-citizens, since it was non-citizens that caused the disaster. You wouldn't like that either.

So what was the alternative for George Bush? Has Clinton ever stated what he would have done? I think not.....but his wife sided with Bush at the beginning, as did most Americans. It was only after things started going badly that many people switched sides.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:15 am

Neil....you're missing the point. Had you been the President on 9-11, what would you have done that would have extracted sufficient pay-back to ensure your own re-election in 2004?

I always thought that politicians are supposed to do things for their country and not the other way round. What you seem to be saying Bluefront is that Bush started a war so that the people of the US would re-elect him, so that in return he could do the country a dis-service by attacking the wroung country, killing thousands of his own people and costing the American public loads of cash that is not being spent on them in their neighbourhoods.

So GWB is a great man after all - his war was far less of a crime than Clinton doing a bit of horizontal-jogging with someone in the Whitehouse.

He should be in jail - for life, just like Bliar.

Andy

floffe · Post by **floffe** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:15 am

Bluefront wrote:Neil....you're missing the point. Had you been the President on 9-11, what would you have done that would have extracted sufficient pay-back to ensure your own re-election in 2004?

Made sure that Afghanistan was finished off (and also being able to draw on a lot more international support here since that war was approved by the security council), and the Osama couldn't hide there. I'd think capturing him would have given pretty good odds for a second term.

But yes, I certainly hope that politicians don't just care for their re-election, but do what's best for the country.

mr lahey · Post by **mr lahey** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:49 am

â€œIn 1913 America was a free country. Then a band of powerful bankers achieved their fathersâ€™, and great grandfathersâ€™ goal.â€

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:13 am

Bluefront wrote:Poor Vince Foster.....

Poor Ken Lay, he was a good man.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 42498.html

I believe John Gotti was a church going man, though no less a murderer, and Hitler believed in God as well.

At least Clinton knew his left from his right.

At least Clinton knew his left from his right.

Re: At least Clinton knew his left from his right.