So, whats wrong with Clinton?

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-06 02:36pm

Political parties both exaggerate tales and horrors of sitting Presidents. The Democrats love to portray Republicans in a variety on vile manners, and the Republics also do the same to the Democrats, so in that areana there is parity.

But Clinton was, like many US liberals, going out of his way to be disrespectful and demeaning to the conservatives in America. Putting condoms, cock rings, and nude statuettes on a Christmas tree and then showing it to children... well, it may seem like a little thing, unimportant, but it is so blatantly disrespectful to a mass of the population that you know is going to be angered by it... I mean, the man can't even give it a rest on Christmas? He has to use the taxpayer funded event to make a political jab at people? Half the population?

One thing that really seems funny is that if I say "I didn't like Bill Clinton" every one of his defenders jumps up and starts screeching about how a blow job in the White House doesn't matter. I could care less about his goddamn blow jobs. I don't like him, his policies...it's not about fucking.

His blatant disrespect of the military and police had me seething. He is one of those candy-assed pricks that wants to be safe and sound and secure in his quiet home while sending the "underlings and cretins" to die for him. Preferably far away, out of sight and so he won't have to smell them. I would never have saluted that pig even if it meant five years in Leavenworth. He is an arrogant, self-righteous ass that so blatantly abused his power in office-- the pardons, the gun control, the irresponsible military deployments without commensurate funding or support... He didn't even try to paint over the shit that exuded from him, he openly reveled in it.

Eight years of Clinton was Liberal revenge for eight years of Reagan, I guess... and the best thing about George W. is how he has liberals twisting in knots in their blind rage and hatred. Bush is no savior and I've already stated that as a President I think he's just "fair to middlin'", but as a human being he is better than Clinton by miles. Which man would you sooner trust to babysit your kids?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-03-06 03:33pm

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

Indeed, but there is a long way from 'shows poor taste' to 'is a bad president'. Clinton may be a prick, but putting condoms in a christmas tree, true or not, is not one of the reason he is prick.

Perinquus wrote: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.

I think we've all seen how effective teaching abstenance as a method of birth control has been...

Oh, and condoms are very effective in preventing those "consequences".

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-06 03:35pm

Bush is no savior and I've already stated that as a President I think he's just "fair to middlin'", but as a human being he is better than Clinton by miles. Which man would you sooner trust to babysit your kids?

Indeed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-06 03:36pm

Perinquus wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote: 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.

Really! Please explain the objective basis for these standards.

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.

That's an argument? Sounds more like bullshit to me; hanging a condom on a Christmas tree is now "tacit approval of [kids] having sex?" Better not leave a Bible laying around; that would be tacit approval of genocide, right?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-06 03:39pm

Coyote wrote:Eight years of Clinton was Liberal revenge for eight years of Reagan, I guess... and the best thing about George W. is how he has liberals twisting in knots in their blind rage and hatred.

I like the way Americans tend to polarize the entire spectrum of political thought and opinion into "conservative" vs "liberal".

Bush is no savior and I've already stated that as a President I think he's just "fair to middlin'", but as a human being he is better than Clinton by miles. Which man would you sooner trust to babysit your kids?

Hmmm, lemme see. One is a shifty lawyer with overactive gonads and a clear history of greed and corruption. The other is a fundie idiot ex-cokehead with a clear history of greed and corruption, who was "born again" and would try to aggressively evangelize my kids and turn them against me once he discovered my atheism. Frankly, given those two unsavoury choices, I'd rather have Clinton babysit my kids. Since neither of them is an overweight brunette female adult, I don't see what they would have to fear from him in the short term.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-06 03:52pm

Frankly, I liked Clinton better, if only for the fact that he actually knew how to handle foreign policy, which is one of the few things the president has direct, unchallenged control over. Giving that kind of power to Bush has resulted in his infuriating, cowboy approach to foreign policy, which completely disregards the United States' world image in favor of what he thinks has to be done. At least the United States had a fairly positive image around the rest of the world while Clinton was in office.

However, anything you can accuse one party of, you can probably accuse the other party of, as well. Did anyone else notice how quiet the screaming about Enron that the Democrats were doing got? That's because Enron gave money to both parties, not just the Republicans. That's why we need a third party in America. Both the Democrats and Republicans are too caught up trying to undermine and throw shit at each other.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-06 03:52pm

I like the way Americans tend to polarize the entire spectrum of political thought and opinion into "conservative" vs "liberal".

90% of the VOTING Polulace is either Liberal or Conservative, The rest in the American tradition can go fuck themselevs

Basic idea behind American politics

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-06 03:55pm

Frankly, I liked Clinton better, if only for the fact that he actually knew how to handle foreign policy, which is one of the few things the president has direct, unchallenged control over. Giving that kind of power to Bush has resulted in his infuriating, cowboy approach to foreign policy, which completely disregards the United States' world image in favor of what he thinks has to be done. At least the United States had a fairly positive image around the rest of the world while Clinton was in office.

North Korea-They have Nukes because Clinton gave them the Reactors
China-Can now hit the US with its missles because Clinton PERSONALY Oked a American company to rent them out Missle Tech's to try and find the problem the Chinese where having with their Missles
Iraq-We had a UN Resoultion to invade and Remove Saddam from power

Granted he handled some things well but many of the other things he fucked up, and not just fucked up alitle, FUBARED

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-06 04:01pm

What's wrong with Clinton? Eight words: "Ah did not have sex with thet womin." Two lies right there. First off, he sure as fuck did have sex with Lewinski. Second, he called Lewinski a woman.

What's wrong with that? When a motherfucker will debase his own character in the seat of power We The People put him in, and then lie to every single one of us about it as smoothly as any lemon-hawking used-car salesman, you really need to wonder WTF else he lied about, or -- worse yet -- what he never had to lie about by not getting caught.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-06 04:01pm

Durandal wrote:However, anything you can accuse one party of, you can probably accuse the other party of, as well. Did anyone else notice how quiet the screaming about Enron that the Democrats were doing got?

Actually, didn't the Democrats have a similar mess with Global Crossings?

That's why we need a third party in America. Both the Democrats and Republicans are too caught up trying to undermine and throw shit at each other.

I dunno, the political cynic in me thinks that we'd just end up as an extension of the current system, where instead of a two-way mudfight it'd become three-way.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-06 04:05pm

You do have more than two parties. The fact that Americans can't grasp that and take more than two parties seriously is not something you can blame on the government.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-06 04:11pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:What's wrong with Clinton? Eight words: "Ah did not have sex with thet womin." Two lies right there. First off, he sure as fuck did have sex with Lewinski. Second, he called Lewinski a woman.

Egads, you've proven that a politician is a liar!

What's wrong with that? When a motherfucker will debase his own character in the seat of power We The People put him in, and then lie to every single one of us about it as smoothly as any lemon-hawking used-car salesman, you really need to wonder WTF else he lied about, or -- worse yet -- what he never had to lie about by not getting caught.

If he lied about something really important, that would matter. Lying about something as ridiculous as a blowjob doesn't mean shit to me, since it has nothing to do with his job. Greed and corruption mean more to me. That's why I have real problems with PardonGate, but not the blowjobs.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-03-06 04:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:You do have more than two parties. The fact that Americans can't grasp that and take more than two parties seriously is not something you can blame on the government.

Much of the structure of the government is set up so that it does encourage a two-party system. Its pretty damn hard for a third party to get a foothold on the national level. At best, they get a small handful of congressional seats. Its not completely the government's fault, but its not completely the citizen's either.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-06 04:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:You do have more than two parties. The fact that Americans can't grasp that and take more than two parties seriously is not something you can blame on the government.

A big part of alternative parties' inability top gain acceptance has to do with campaign finance. There needs to be a fuckload of change and reform in that area.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-06 04:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:What's wrong with Clinton? Eight words: "Ah did not have sex with thet womin." Two lies right there. First off, he sure as fuck did have sex with Lewinski. Second, he called Lewinski a woman.
Egads, you've proven that a politician is a liar!
What's wrong with that? When a motherfucker will debase his own character in the seat of power We The People put him in, and then lie to every single one of us about it as smoothly as any lemon-hawking used-car salesman, you really need to wonder WTF else he lied about, or -- worse yet -- what he never had to lie about by not getting caught.
If he lied about something really important, that would matter. Lying about something as ridiculous as a blowjob doesn't mean shit to me, since it has nothing to do with his job. Greed and corruption mean more to me. That's why I have real problems with PardonGate, but not the blowjobs.

The point I'm trying to make is that the piddly shit is the bulk of what he was caught for, and if anything hints that there are much bigger turds floating in the bowl we didn't see. Egh. I've got to improve my mental imagery.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-06 04:44pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that the piddly shit is the bulk of what he was caught for, and if anything hints that there are much bigger turds floating in the bowl we didn't see. Egh. I've got to improve my mental imagery.

Who fucking cares? He got a blow job from an intern. Jesus, why is this such a big deal? Would you tell the truth if someone asked you that kind of question, which he had no business asking?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-06 04:52pm

Durandal wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that the piddly shit is the bulk of what he was caught for, and if anything hints that there are much bigger turds floating in the bowl we didn't see. Egh. I've got to improve my mental imagery.
Who fucking cares? He got a blow job from an intern. Jesus, why is this such a big deal? Would you tell the truth if someone asked you that kind of question, which he had no business asking?

I would tell that person that it's none of their fucking business. You don't have to tell the truth about your personal life to people who have no business knowing about it, but you don't have to lie out of your teeth, either.

If Clinton had either just fessed up to getting the blowjob rather than repeatedly denying it, or just said that it's nobody's business than he wouldn't have been so oppressed by the eeeeeevil GOP. He dug his own grave.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-06 04:59pm

Sir Sirius wrote: I think we've all seen how effective teaching abstenance as a method of birth control has been...

Oh, and condoms are very effective in preventing those "consequences".

You know this is one of those assumptions liberals always trumpet as though it were an established fact. In fact they dismiss any suggestion to the contrary just exactly as you did - as though the person suggesting it is a moron. Funny thing is, they never think to test this assumption against experience. I used to have a really great article clipped out of the London Times on just this very subject. It was from about ten years ago, and reported two neighboring towns in North Carolina. The school board in one decided to encourage abstinence and the other to teach sex education and the use of birth controls. Guess which one saw the rates of teen pregnancy drop? I'll keep looking for that damn article, but I moved into a new house last year, and I'm still not sure where it is.

In any case, there was a time in this country's history when we did encourage kids to abstain, and stigmatized those who didn't, and (gasp!) we had lower rates of teen pregnany too. Imagine that!

Let me ask you, if you had a fourteen year old daughter, would you be okay with her having sex as long as she used condoms? What if the condom breaks? It happens. What if she and her boyfriend decided to risk sex without it "just this once", cause they're feeling horny and don't happen to have one handy? What if - and I know this is going to be really hard to believe, but just bear with me - these teenagers just happen not to display the kind of foresight and responsibility that an adult should display, and they just don't use them?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-06 05:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Perinquus wrote: Oh come on, there are such things as standards of good taste.
Really! Please explain the objective basis for these standards.

Oh come on Mike! There are no objective standards for some things. Especially when it concerns human behavior. There are some things that we just have to live with where the standards are subjective. Music, art, literature, a whole host of things dealing with human behavior do not really admit of objective standards, but you still have to draw the line somewhere. There is some art, music, etc. that we just don't approve of or want our kids to see because it's in poor taste. Would you really want your kids to be exposed to hardcore porn and sexually explicit music lyrics and images of realistic violence while still in grade school? If not, it's most likely because you don't consider that material appropriate for kids at that age. Well, what would your objective basis for that determination be?

Darth Wong wrote: That's an argument? Sounds more like bullshit to me; hanging a condom on a Christmas tree is now "tacit approval of [kids] having sex?" Better not leave a Bible laying around; that would be tacit approval of genocide, right?

I believe I said "encouraging kids to use condoms", and this is something that hanging them on a Xmas tree is only a part of. The Clintons and others on the political left are well known for their tendency to encourage sex-education while simultaneously asserting that attempting to persuade teenagers to abstain is a waste of time. Hanging prophylactics and sexually suggestive materials from a Christmas tree hardly leads one to believe that they are trying to teach kids not to dabble in these things until they are older and more mature.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-06 05:29pm

Perinquus wrote:You know this is one of those assumptions liberals always trumpet as though it were an established fact. In fact they dismiss any suggestion to the contrary just exactly as you did - as though the person suggesting it is a moron. Funny thing is, they never think to test this assumption against experience. I used to have a really great article clipped out of the London Times on just this very subject. It was from about ten years ago, and reported two neighboring towns in North Carolina. The school board in one decided to encourage abstinence and the other to teach sex education and the use of birth controls. Guess which one saw the rates of teen pregnancy drop? I'll keep looking for that damn article, but I moved into a new house last year, and I'm still not sure where it is.

Why can't you inform students of both? There's no need for this black-and-white, condoms-or-abstinence bullshit. Simply tell students that the only 100%-effective way to avoid teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases is to not have sex, but if they choose to have sex anyway, they should use a condom and know how to use it correctly.

Simply telling students about abstinence does nothing to help those who will choose to have sex anyway. Sure, you can be a prick and say, "Well you shouldn't have been having sex, anyway," if a girl gets pregnant, but that's simply asinine. If I receive medication from a doctor, he's obliged to tell me of the consequences of taking that medication while drinking alcohol, even though I'm under 21. He can't consider himself a moral person and withold that kind of information from me with the knowledge that I might, even though I'm not of legal age, consume alcohol.

Oh, and if the condom breaks once, she gets an abortion, another option that students should be made well-aware of.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-06 05:42pm

Durandal wrote: Why can't you inform students of both? There's no need for this black-and-white, condoms-or-abstinence bullshit. Simply tell students that the only 100%-effective way to avoid teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases is to not have sex, but if they choose to have sex anyway, they should use a condom and know how to use it correctly.

The problem is how do you convey that message without simultaneously weakening your argument that it is just not something that they should be doing in the first place. If you're looking for a perfect solution, there isn't one. There never is. But the one with the least negative consequences for society as a whole may just be to tell them "you're not old enough yet".

Durandal wrote: Simply telling students about abstinence does nothing to help those who will choose to have sex anyway. Sure, you can be a prick and say, "Well you shouldn't have been having sex, anyway," if a girl gets pregnant, but that's simply asinine. If I receive medication from a doctor, he's obliged to tell me of the consequences of taking that medication while drinking alcohol, even though I'm under 21. He can't consider himself a moral person and withold that kind of information from me with the knowledge that I might, even though I'm not of legal age, consume alcohol.

Well rather than saying: "well kids, you really shouldn't have sex at your age, but if you're gonna do it anyway..." Why not try just telling them some of the potential negative consequences of having sex, and that there are means adults use to avoid some of these consequences. You can even explain what these means are while adding that these means are not available to them, because they're not old enough and store keepers are not going to sell them these various contraceptive devices, any more than they'll sell them alcohol or cigarettes. So better wait till you're older kids, or you just may find all those wonderful plans you were making for your future have just been overtaken by events.

Durandal wrote: Oh, and if the condom breaks once, she gets an abortion, another option that students should be made well-aware of.

That's assuming that abortion is an acceptable solution to this girl and to her parents, and the the father as well for that matter. It might not be. But that's a whole other debate, and I'd rather not drag this off on that tangent.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-06 05:52pm

Perinquus wrote:The problem is how do you convey that message without simultaneously weakening your argument that it is just not something that they should be doing in the first place. If you're looking for a perfect solution, there isn't one. There never is. But the one with the least negative consequences for society as a whole may just be to tell them "you're not old enough yet".

That's not my argument. I'm not arguing for either position. I'm saying that students should be informed so they can make an informed decision. If two kids want to have sex, they're going to do it, no matter what some teacher tells them. Where does this logical leap of "informing kids about safe sex means that you're encouraging them to have sex" coming from? If I inform someone about how to safely jump off a cliff through use of a bungee cord, does that mean I'm encouraging him to jump off cliffs?

Well rather than saying: "well kids, you really shouldn't have sex at your age, but if you're gonna do it anyway..." Why not try just telling them some of the potential negative consequences of having sex, and that there are means adults use to avoid some of these consequences. You can even explain what these means are while adding that these means are not available to them, because they're not old enough and store keepers are not going to sell them these various prophylactic devices, any more than they'll sell them alcohol or cigarettes. So better wait till you're older kids, or you just may find all those wonderful plans you were making for your future have just been overtaken by events.

I'm sure that this is a nice solution in your Christian-conservative world, but we live in the real world. People are going to have sex whether you want them to or not. It's extraordinarily irresponsible and dangerous to keep them uninformed of safe sex practices that could save their lives.

That's assuming that abortion is an acceptable solution to this girl and to her parents, and the the father as well for that matter. It might not be. But that's a whole other debate, and I'd rather not drag this off on that tangent.

Does the fact that she or her parents might not agree with abortion mean that she or the rest of the girls in her class shouldn't be informed of what abortion is and how to get one if the need arises?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-06 06:10pm

Durandal wrote: That's not my argument. I'm not arguing for either position. I'm saying that students should be informed so they can make an informed decision. If two kids want to have sex, they're going to do it, no matter what some teacher tells them. Where does this logical leap of "informing kids about safe sex means that you're encouraging them to have sex" coming from? If I inform someone about how to safely jump off a cliff through use of a bungee cord, does that mean I'm encouraging him to jump off cliffs??

I'm more concerned with observable results. What I see is that in all the years that we have been informing kids of their options, the rates of teen pregnancy have been rising. I do not think this is a coincidence, and the actual results of this practice may differ sharply from the intended results.

That "well, they're just gonna do it anyway argument" is the same one people use to try and justify legalizing drugs, and all manner of other things. I am not persuaded by it. Sure, some people will do it anyway, just as some dumbasses will get themselves addicted to drugs anyway. They'll just have to pay the price for their lack of foresight. But the negative consequences of not opposing this behavior outweigh the supposed benefits of not opposing it.

Durandal wrote: I'm sure that this is a nice solution in your Christian-conservative world?

I'm an atheist smegbreath. Stop assuming you know things about me that you don't.

Durandal wrote: , but we live in the real world. People are going to have sex whether you want them to or not. It's extraordinarily irresponsible and dangerous to keep them uninformed of safe sex practices that could save their lives.?

Again, I'm looking at the actual results, and what I see are climbing rates of teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs dating from the same time that it became fashionable to teach kids how to use contraceptives in sex ed classes. Not having sex could save their lives. If they then go ahead and do it anyway, which I grant you some will do... well, they get to learn a little earlier than their schoolmates that actions have consequences. If that sounds harsh, oh well; I for one was never under the misapprehension that life is always either pleasant or fair.

Durandal wrote: Does the fact that she or her parents might not agree with abortion mean that she or the rest of the girls in her class shouldn't be informed of what abortion is and how to get one if the need arises?

It means that she would be better off not having sex while she is still attending junior high, and she should be positively discouraged from doing so in the strongest terms.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-06 08:12pm

(sigh) a condom/sex-ed argument, eh? I'll say 4 things here:

Teaching kids about something does not necessarily encourage its use. Do you believe that teaching kids about gun safety will encourage them to go out and shoot people?
Yes, Perinquus, there are no objective standards for art or literature. So what? How does that change the fact that you have not established any material harm from hanging condoms off a Christmas tree? Appeals to popular opinion are worth precisely dick.
If the only people in the country who encourage sex education are "liberals" as you put it, then liberals are completely justified in saying that conservatives are fucked in the head.
Claiming that Bush has superior character because he never lied about a blowjob and "merely" engaged in Enron-style insider trading/influence peddling/Bin Laden family quid pro quo in the past is simply laughable. Comparing the characters of Bush and Clinton is like comparing shit and manure.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-06 09:20pm

Durandal wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that the piddly shit is the bulk of what he was caught for, and if anything hints that there are much bigger turds floating in the bowl we didn't see. Egh. I've got to improve my mental imagery.
Who fucking cares? He got a blow job from an intern. Jesus, why is this such a big deal? Would you tell the truth if someone asked you that kind of question, which he had no business asking?

Still not getting this. Okay, let me put it this way. Did it ever occur to you to wonder if, while Clinton was lying to the entire fucking country about getting a BJ on our dime, that he might've been secretly breathing a sigh of relief that nobody asked whether he'd been selling our security to a foreign nation, or chopping up little kids in the West Wing? The point is, with all the shit we knew about, what else was that fucker hiding?