So, whats wrong with Clinton?

[Darth Wong]

Is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

IIRC, the tree was one for public viewing at the White House.

Again: is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

[edit] I believe that there were also sex toys like cock rings and whatnot on it as well.

Repeat previous question. Why is it wrong? And SOMEONE must have reported it, otherwise you wouldn't know about it.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

IIRC, the tree was one for public viewing at the White House.

Again: is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

[edit] I believe that there were also sex toys like cock rings and whatnot on it as well.

Repeat previous question. Why is it wrong? And SOMEONE must have reported it, otherwise you wouldn't know about it.

It wasn't scandolous at all in my opinion, but it makes you think: What kind of sicko puts condoms on their Chrsitmas tree?

[Alex Moon]

Is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

IIRC, the tree was one for public viewing at the White House.

Again: is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

[edit] I believe that there were also sex toys like cock rings and whatnot on it as well.

Repeat previous question. Why is it wrong? And SOMEONE must have reported it, otherwise you wouldn't know about it.

If it were in the private residence it wouldn't be an issue. However, this one was a public tree, that would be seen by thousands of people over the holidays, many of them religious if only moderatly, and many of them with children. The theme was said to be "The twelve Days of Christmas". It would be like you taking your sons to a birthday party, only to find out when you got there that there was hardcore porn playing on the living room tv. Even better, imagine if you had to drive or fly a long distance to get there. It was disrespectful towards the people who visit the White House, as well as towards the tradition for the Clinton's to put up a display that was bound to offend many of the people who came to see it.

[Howedar]

I pretty much agree with Wong. I don't say much though because it seems that just about everyone at this board thinks that Bush is some kind of savior even after him being shown to favor a religion.

Oh for fucks sake, as if thats the biggest problem with the man...

Disregarding the constitution, being so stupid that he isn't fluent in his first language and lost money in the fucking oil business, being where he is solely because of his daddy's connections, showing a unique knack for making other countries fearful of America with his inflammatory rhetoric, taking only token measures to address the Enron disaster, being guilty of Enron-ite practices himself in the past, lecturing the world on morality while being a former coke head ... all easily overlooked, eh?

Who is this aimed at?

[Johonebesus]

The trouble with Clinton is the Right Wingers hated him. They did not just dislike him or disagree with his policies; they hated him. They refused to give him any peace or respect. They spread rumors and lies to discredit him. They threw away traditional Republican ideals to go after him. They wasted millions of dollars to investigate and impeach him. It is difficult to judge him objectively with all the spin and vitriol.

My impression is he was not a great president, but neither was he the worst. He was a little too slimy (the first time I saw him I though he looked like a used car salesman). He was not good with foreign policy, and he was pretty loose with financing. However, the Right had him on the defensive for his entire tenure, and it is hard to judge what might have been if he had not been under constant and immoral attack. I think the biggest scandal of the nineties was the way the Republican party and the Right used government institutions to attack their political opponent for purely political reasons.

And the story about the Christmas Tree is exactly the sort of rumor that the CC loved. I am very doubtful of its veracity. What is the source? Are there any photos? Clinton was not a fool, and putting sex toys on a public Christmas tree is stupid.

[RedImperator]

Oh, of course, it was all the Big Bad Repubicans' fault. That's why when his party controlled the house, the senate, and the white house, he bugged out of Somalia like a chickenshit and tried to force Hillary's healthcare boondoggle down our throats. That's why his education department supported ending standardized testing because it was "unfair". That's why his state department let Osama Bin Laden go when Sudan offered him to us. Tht's why he couldn't even be bothered to visit New York when the first WTC bombing happened and why his justice department didn't try to run down the terrorists' foreign connections. That's why he signed a Kyoto treaty that disproportionately punished the industrial states for (cynically, by the way--he had no intention of ever sending it to the senate to be shot down). That's why he pissed away US military power on ethnic pissing contests in the Balkans but couldn't be bothered to interfere with the organized butchery of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans. Come to think of it, when he was on his African tour, I don't remember him dropping by Kigali to apologize, eager as he was to apologize for almost everything else, so long as he wasn't actually personally involved in it. Mean old Republicans.

The Right hated him because his policies were shit, he was a sleaze, a moral and political coward, and yes, a brilliant operator who completely befuddled them in legislative battles. But it's not the fault of the opposition that he was a worthless president who's going to be remembered alongside Warren Harding and Richard Nixon by history. We're in the mess we're in right now because he pissed away the 8 years we had to get our shit together and figure out just what the fuck we're doing in the world after the cold war.

[Perinquus]

And the story about the Christmas Tree is exactly the sort of rumor that the CC loved. I am very doubtful of its veracity. What is the source? Are there any photos? Clinton was not a fool, and putting sex toys on a public Christmas tree is stupid.

One source for this story, but probably not the only one, is Gary Aldrich, an FBI agent who was one of the men responsible for conducting background checks on White House personnel. He quit in disgust after two years. The Clinton administration, he found, actively obstructed him and his fellow agent working in the White House in conducting these checks, and he ascribes this to a general contempt for those in the profession of law enforcement that was noticeable in many highly placed individuals in that administration, and even in the Clintons themselves. He even reports Chelsea Clinton as having said her parents referred to their Secret Service detail as their "personal trained pigs".

The condom story was reported by him as one more bit of evidence that the values and ideals (a very liberal, 60s-style counterculture social agenda) held by the Clintons were not those of most Americans, and would probably be shocking to a great many Americans.

[Johonebesus]

Imperator, do you deny that, before Clinton did anything as president, there were Republicans in Congress howling for his impeachment over some rumors of shady land deals years before he was elected? Do you deny that right wingers publicized scurrilous rumors, such as the troopergate scandal, that turned out to be so much BS, purely for the purpose of soiling his reputation? Do you deny that they abandoned the traditional Republican position of Executive Privilege when Paula Jones brought suit (which the courts later threw out)? Read my post. I never said he was a great president. But your own response just shows the level of personal hatred the right had for him. What will you say when I point out that under Reagan’s economic plans inflation continued to rise faster than wages, the number of high-wage manufacturing jobs with benefits shrank to be replaced with an explosion of minimum wage, no benefit service jobs, for the first time in generations the average youngster said that he did not expect to do better than his parents, the national debt sky-rocketed, taxes went up, and there was a serious scandal that, at best, indicated that the president was perhaps incompetent. Yet do you see me fuming about how horrible and evil Reagan was?

Yes, mean old republicans. They lied, they hypocritically attacked his personal morality, they abandoned some core political philosophies of their party, they abused government to try to remove him from office for political reasons, and they hounded and attacked him mercilessly and perpetually for his eight years. Republicans are not responsible for Clinton’s failings, but their failings were, in my mind, even greater. Comparing Clinton to Nixon is ridiculous. He may go down with the likes of Johnson, but any abuses in the Whitehouse paled in comparison with the abuses on the Capitol. Unfortunately, it may be years before there can be an objective history of Clinton.

[Vympel]

How about the consistent lies about Clinton's aides 'vandalizing' the White House when they left it?

[Johonebesus]

The condom story was reported by him as one more bit of evidence that the values and ideals (a very liberal, 60s-style counterculture social agenda) held by the Clintons were not those of most Americans, and would probably be shocking to a great many Americans.

That is exactly why it is dubious. Clinton's opponents were not content to attack his policies and official actions. They insisted on attacking his personal morals. They wanted to convince America that Clinton represented everything wrong and evil that was destroying our society. He was the Devil opposed to the Christian Coalition. So they spread rumors to paint him as a degenerate. Many of the tales turned out to be false, two of the most famous examples being the “troopergate” scandal and Paula Jones’ accusations. In this climate, I am automatically skeptical of any rumor that tells of an outrageous act which shows how “the values and ideals held by the Clintons were not those of most Americans, and would probably be shocking to a great many Americans.” So many of these tales turned out to be lies, that I need a great deal of evidence to believe any of them, the more outrageous, the more unlikely they become.

[Perinquus]

The condom story was reported by him as one more bit of evidence that the values and ideals (a very liberal, 60s-style counterculture social agenda) held by the Clintons were not those of most Americans, and would probably be shocking to a great many Americans.

That is exactly why it is dubious. Clinton's opponents were not content to attack his policies and official actions. They insisted on attacking his personal morals. They wanted to convince America that Clinton represented everything wrong and evil that was destroying our society. He was the Devil opposed to the Christian Coalition. So they spread rumors to paint him as a degenerate. Many of the tales turned out to be false, two of the most famous examples being the “troopergate” scandal and Paula Jones’ accusations. In this climate, I am automatically skeptical of any rumor that tells of an outrageous act which shows how “the values and ideals held by the Clintons were not those of most Americans, and would probably be shocking to a great many Americans.” So many of these tales turned out to be lies, that I need a great deal of evidence to believe any of them, the more outrageous, the more unlikely they become.

You may scoff at such things, but a person's actions are indicative of his character. Displaying contempt for things that are generally held to be respectable, referring to men who would voluntarily step in front of a bullet for you in contemptuous terms, and privately scorning values that the majority of people in your society adhere to, while publicly claiming to uphold those very same values... these are things indicative of a really cheap character - someone who is arrogant, dishonest, and lacking in both integrity and moral courage.

As I said, sneer all you like, but values do matter. Character does matter. If you think these things do not... well, there have been other people in history who shared that view. Joseph Stalin, for example, was a man who once denigrated characteristics such as honesty, integrity, and other virtues as irrelevant in a ruler. He once said "gratitude is a disease of dogs", for example. This is but one example of the low regard in which he held the nobler virtues. Stalin is, I grant you, an extreme example. But he was, after all, simply a politician who took the phrase "the ends justify the means" more thoroughly to heart than most would ever have the stomach to do.

As I said, character does matter.

[Perinquus]

Oh, and before one of you comes along and puts words in my mouth; I am not putting Bill Clinton in quite the same class as Josef Stalin. I merely use Stalin to illustrate how dangerous it is to think that character in a leader is not important.

[Vympel]

That's not what Johonebesus was arguing- that character doesn't matter. What he was saying that the tales were intentionally crafted to attack his character, and many of them were outright lies. He's right to be skeptical at these outrageous bullshit claims.

[Perinquus]

That's not what Johonebesus was arguing- that character doesn't matter. What he was saying that the tales were intentionally crafted to attack his character, and many of them were outright lies. He's right to be skeptical at these outrageous bullshit claims.

Your statement is loaded with preconceived ideas. For example: statements which call Bill Clinton's character into question are not possibly credible assertions deserving of investigation; they are "outrageous bullshit claims"?

You do not treat attacks on Clinton's character as statements which may just possibly be true; you unthinkingly, uncritically, automatically dismiss them without review as "outrageous bullshit claims". Not just as "probably false", or "of questionable veracity", but "outrageous bullshit claims." Pretty emphatic language. You don't offer any evidence to indicate Aldrich and others are fabricating their evidence against Clinton; you simply take it as read that they are lying. You've obviously made up your mind ahead of time.

[Vympel]

Your statement is loaded with preconceived ideas. For example: statements which call Bill Clinton's character into question are not possibly credible assertions deserving of investigation; they are "outrageous bullshit claims"?

Considering that many of them turned out to be bullshit, I hardly think it's a preconception- it's experience.

You do not treat attacks on Clinton's character as statements which may just possibly be true; you unthinkingly, uncritically, automatically dismiss them without review as "outrageous bullshit claims". Not just as "probably false", or "of questionable veracity", but "outrageous bullshit claims." Pretty emphatic language.

What is the point of this semantic nitpicking? What is your argument?!

You don't offer any evidence to indicate Aldrich and others are fabricating their evidence against Clinton; you simply take it as read that they are lying. You've obviously made up your mind ahead of time.

Demanding proof of a negative. The burden of proof is on them.

[Perinquus]

Your statement is loaded with preconceived ideas. For example: statements which call Bill Clinton's character into question are not possibly credible assertions deserving of investigation; they are "outrageous bullshit claims"?

Considering that many of them turned out to be bullshit, I hardly think it's a preconception- it's experience.

And given Clinton's lying under oath, given pardongate, given the obstruction of justice during the investigation of Vince Foster's death, given the Clinton Presidential Library scheme to accept numerous gifts and cash donations while still in office, I think experience shows that Bill Clinton is a dishonest. Therefore he had less credibility than Aldrich and others who accuse Clinton of wrongdoing and moral turpitude.

You do not treat attacks on Clinton's character as statements which may just possibly be true; you unthinkingly, uncritically, automatically dismiss them without review as "outrageous bullshit claims". Not just as "probably false", or "of questionable veracity", but "outrageous bullshit claims." Pretty emphatic language.

What is the point of this semantic nitpicking? What is your argument?!

That Clinton is dishonest, and that you have already decided to disbelieve arguments that show this to be true before ever giving them a fair hearing. I should think that's pretty obvious.

You don't offer any evidence to indicate Aldrich and others are fabricating their evidence against Clinton; you simply take it as read that they are lying. You've obviously made up your mind ahead of time.

Demanding proof of a negative. The burden of proof is on them.

Aldrich already gave his proof, a whole book's worth of it in fact (published under the title Unlimited Access). Rather than refute the arguments he makes; rather than say: "he is wrong because... (insert comments here)" You just dismiss it all as "outrageous bullshit claims". Well, sorry, not good enough. When someone makes an assertion and supports it with evidence, it is not enough just to say he is wrong; you have to give some evidence of your own to say why he is wrong.

[Mr Bean]

Again: is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

Let me remind you that it is tradtion for the sitting President to spent some quailty time reading to the nation's youth underneath the public tree
Youth meaning 5-11 year olds Wong...

[Vympel]

And given Clinton's lying under oath, given pardongate, given the obstruction of justice during the investigation of Vince Foster's death, given the Clinton Presidential Library scheme to accept numerous gifts and cash donations while still in office, I think experience shows that Bill Clinton is a dishonest. Therefore he had less credibility than Aldrich and others who accuse Clinton of wrongdoing and moral turpitude.

And which of them are true, and which are false? I'm skeptical. And I'm far less interested in credibility than I am in actual evidence.

That Clinton is dishonest, and that you have already decided to disbelieve arguments that show this to be true before ever giving them a fair hearing. I should think that's pretty obvious.

No, I've decided that they are bullshit until proven otherwise. This is called not believing in something until proof is actually presented. I don't believe, as you seem to, that one is 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Aldrich already gave his proof, a whole book's worth of it in fact (published under the title Unlimited Access). Rather than refute the arguments he makes; rather than say: "he is wrong because... (insert comments here)" You just dismiss it all as "outrageous bullshit claims".

Lol! Because it's in book from, it's EVIDENCE rather than ASSERTIONS, is it? You obviously don't know the difference between evidence, and testimony. Do you think the Bible is evidence of the existence of God, perhaps?

Well, sorry, not good enough. When someone makes an assertion and supports it with evidence

Where's the evidence? He wrote a book? You set the bar real high there- maybe I can start calling Ann Coulter books 'evidence' now too.

it is not enough just to say he is wrong; you have to give some evidence of your own to say why he is wrong.

I don't need to do anything of the sort. If someone makes a claim, it is entirely on him to provide the proof, as he is asserting something.

[Darth Wong]

Again: is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

Let me remind you that it is tradtion for the sitting President to spent some quailty time reading to the nation's youth underneath the public tree
Youth meaning 5-11 year olds Wong...

Again, I ask the SAME FUCKING QUESTION: why is it scandalous? If a kid sees a condom, so what?

[His Divine Shadow]

Oh for fucks sake, as if thats the biggest problem with the man...

Disregarding the constitution, being so stupid that he isn't fluent in his first language and lost money in the fucking oil business, being where he is solely because of his daddy's connections, showing a unique knack for making other countries fearful of America with his inflammatory rhetoric, taking only token measures to address the Enron disaster, being guilty of Enron-ite practices himself in the past, lecturing the world on morality while being a former coke head ... all easily overlooked, eh?

Who is this aimed at?

Wasn't he agreeing with you?

[Darth Wong]

If it were in the private residence it wouldn't be an issue. However, this one was a public tree, that would be seen by thousands of people over the holidays, many of them religious if only moderatly, and many of them with children. The theme was said to be "The twelve Days of Christmas". It would be like you taking your sons to a birthday party, only to find out when you got there that there was hardcore porn playing on the living room tv.

Bullshit. A condom hanging on a Christmas tree (assuming this story isn't bullshit, since it is an uncorroborated account by a person with a grudge against the administration; wonderfully credible source ) is hardly equivalent to hardcore porn. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to test my bullshit meter; it's redlining right now.

Even better, imagine if you had to drive or fly a long distance to get there. It was disrespectful towards the people who visit the White House, as well as towards the tradition for the Clinton's to put up a display that was bound to offend many of the people who came to see it.

People who are offended by seeing a condom can go fuck themselves.

[phongn]

That's why he signed a Kyoto treaty that disproportionately punished the industrial states for (cynically, by the way--he had no intention of ever sending it to the senate to be shot down).

Kyoto was defeated in the Senate 95-0-5, remember?

[Perinquus]

And given Clinton's lying under oath, given pardongate, given the obstruction of justice during the investigation of Vince Foster's death, given the Clinton Presidential Library scheme to accept numerous gifts and cash donations while still in office, I think experience shows that Bill Clinton is a dishonest. Therefore he had less credibility than Aldrich and others who accuse Clinton of wrongdoing and moral turpitude.

And which of them are true, and which are false? I'm skeptical. And I'm far less interested in credibility than I am in actual evidence.

You do know that a person's first hand testimony is a form of evidence I trust? That's why we allow people to testify to things in their own personal experience in court. And credibility is a very important part of that. Aldrich was an FBI agent in good standing, with a distinguished career behind him (he is now retired), serving in a very desirable post that many aim for and few get, which means he displayed a certain level of merit and competence to get there. That makes him a very credible source. Clinton on the other hand ia a man who has been caught lying on occasions too numerous to mention. That makes his credibility rather less than stellar, to say the least.

Now, just to set the record straight, there are parts of ALdrich's book that are not from first hand evidence, and are not corroborated elsewhere. For example, he contends that Clinton frequently visited a downtown Washington hotel to a room rented by a woman, and says she may have been someone well known, but there is no corroboration for this story, nor does he have personal knowledge of it. I am not prepared to believe such assertions as this until some corroborating evidence can be found. But where he speaks from first hand knowledge, or his assertions can be corroborated, it's a different story, even allowing for a certain level of exaggeration.

That Clinton is dishonest, and that you have already decided to disbelieve arguments that show this to be true before ever giving them a fair hearing. I should think that's pretty obvious.

No, I've decided that they are bullshit until proven otherwise. This is called not believing in something until proof is actually presented. I don't believe, as you seem to, that one is 'guilty until proven innocent'.

In a head of state, one certainly ought not to be in a position where people can make so many credible accusations of wrongdoing. Even for a politician Clinton was an oily bastard. There's certainly no question that Clinton lies with facility. And there's no question that pardongate was as shabby a bit of business as any president has carried on. There's no question that the Clinton Presidential Library was a very convenient way of allowing him to accept gifts and donations that he was not permitted to accept as a sitting president. And these do not cover all Clinton's supposed misdeeds by a longshot.

Aldrich already gave his proof, a whole book's worth of it in fact (published under the title Unlimited Access). Rather than refute the arguments he makes; rather than say: "he is wrong because... (insert comments here)" You just dismiss it all as "outrageous bullshit claims".

Lol! Because it's in book from, it's EVIDENCE rather than ASSERTIONS, is it? You obviously don't know the difference between evidence, and testimony. Do you think the Bible is evidence of the existence of God, perhaps?

As I said, first hand testimony is evidence. We recognize it as such in a court of law. In his book, Aldrich is describing things he himself personally had experience of, and given that his credibility is greater than Clinton's, and given that much of what he asserts can be independently corroborated, I find Mr. Aldrich's assertions credible enough that they certainly ought not to be dismissed as "outrageous bullshit claims" without ever even reviewing them. Those which are not based on first hand evidence, and cannot be corroborated elsewhere, I view in a different light, but the difference is, I'm making my mind up after reviewing the claims, not before.

Well, sorry, not good enough. When someone makes an assertion and supports it with evidence

Where's the evidence? He wrote a book? You set the bar real high there- maybe I can start calling Ann Coulter books 'evidence' now too.

Ann Coulter, not having worked inside the Clinton White House, would not be in position to testify about Clinton's behavior from first hand experience. But given Clinton's dishonesty, I would even look at her claims and weigh them against the evidence before I dismissed them as "outrageous bullshit claims", rather than simply dismiss them without bothering to examine their veracity.

it is not enough just to say he is wrong; you have to give some evidence of your own to say why he is wrong.

I don't need to do anything of the sort. If someone makes a claim, it is entirely on him to provide the proof, as he is asserting something.

And if he makes a credible assertion, you have to do just a bit more than say "outrageous bullshit claim". That is no refutation, merely an unsupported statement.

[Sir Sirius]

Again: is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

Let me remind you that it is tradtion for the sitting President to spent some quailty time reading to the nation's youth underneath the public tree Youth meaning 5-11 year olds Wong...

So what?
Condoms make GREAT water balloons. I used to play with them all the time as a kid, hell, everyone in my neigbourhood playd with them. There was this one particular brand of extra-strong condoms that would just streach and streach, you could easily make 10 liter water balloons out of those (though you did need a bucket to carry those things around), dropping them of the seventh floor balcony would produce gicantic splashes. MUCH fun!!!

I seriously doubt that seeing a prophylactic in a christmas tree is somehow harmfull to children, unless you consider uncontrollable fits of laughter to be dangerous. Hell, if American kids saw prophylactics more often they might not consider them to such a big taboo and would be more prone to using them when they should.

[Perinquus]

I seriously doubt that seeing a prophylactic in a christmas tree is somehow harmfull to children, unless you consider uncontrollable fits of laughter to be dangerous. Hell, if American kids saw prophylactics more often they might not consider them to such a big taboo and would be more prone to using them when they should.

Oh come on, there are such things as standards of good taste.

And let's not forget the argument that encouraging kids to use condoms is also tacit approval of their having sex - something they should not be doing in the first place until they're a little older and more prepared to deal with some of the consequences.