So, whats wrong with Clinton?

[Johonebesus]

Do you believe that Clinton did not do anything at all to deserve official inquiry or investigation? Do you think that the Republicans somehow invented the shit they were investigating him for? I don't know how else to approach this.

To answer your question, long ago the Clintons were involved in some shady land deals. We all have at least heard of Whitewater. Exactly how involved the Clintons were was debated. When the scandal first broke, there were investigations and no real evidence was found that the Clintons did anything wrong. Years later, Clinton ran for president, and the muckrakers brought up this old affair. Based upon little more than rumors, the Republicans demanded that Clinton’s involvement in the Whitewater affair be investigated again by an independent counsel. Before anything was done about it there were Republicans calling for Clinton’s impeachment. The Democrats, probably thinking that once the investigators failed to find anything the matter would be put to rest, agreed. They never anticipated that the Republicans would so abuse the independent investigator to look for anything and everything that Clinton might possibly have done. Clinton spent his entire presidency besieged. It is a shame that he gave the Republicans ammunition, but I am surprised that after all the investigation the Lewinsky matter was the worst they could pin on him. All of the investigation, all the millions of dollars over six years, started with rumors of shady land deals.

Further, your argument is a bit frightening. If they were so sure he did something, then he must have. That is fallacious (and I hope you will forgive me if I cannot name the fallacy, it’s been years since my course in logic), and dangerous. It is precisely my contention that the investigations were motivated by political hatred rather than facts. They did not want Clinton as president, and when they were unable to beat him in the democratic process, they decided to forcibly remove through impeachment, so they desperately searched for anything they could accuse him with.

[Superman]

So, basically we have established here that the Clintons are evil demons if you are a) a conspiracy theorist, b) one who cannot debate without employing logical fallacies and c) a right wing moron.

If you just go by the facts, then Clinton was a damn good president.

[Durandal]

So, basically we have established here that the Clintons are evil demons if you are a) a conspiracy theorist, b) one who cannot debate without employing logical fallacies and c) a right wing moron.

If you just go by the facts, then Clinton was a damn good president.

He was good with the economy and domestic stuff, and he gave the US a good world image. I'd say a lot of it was due to his administration more than him. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton essentially redefined their positions and were very active. However, there have been plenty of legitimate criticisms of his office, like PardonGate.

[Howedar]

Which, interestingly enough, still has yet to be addressed in this thread.

[Darth Wong]

Which, interestingly enough, still has yet to be addressed in this thread.

How should it be addressed? No one has denied that it was crass opportunism at its worst. It's just as bad as, say, getting in bed with Enron and letting them control your national energy strategy, although it's not quite as bad as paying back a profitable business relationship with the Bin Laden family by quietly letting them fly out of the country on a private jet without so much as an interrogation while the entire civilian population was trapped in a no-fly lockdown after 9/11. We just can't figure out why there's this ridiculous obsession with sex-related topics, like condoms on Christmas trees or blowjobs in the Oval Office.

[Sea Skimmer]

So, basically we have established here that the Clintons are evil demons if you are a) a conspiracy theorist, b) one who cannot debate without employing logical fallacies and c) a right wing moron.

If you just go by the facts, then Clinton was a damn good president.

Until you look at what he did with and to the US military

[Howedar]

Which, interestingly enough, still has yet to be addressed in this thread.

How should it be addressed? No one has denied that it was crass opportunism at its worst. It's just as bad as, say, getting in bed with Enron and letting them control your national energy strategy, although it's not quite as bad as paying back a profitable business relationship with the Bin Laden family by quietly letting them fly out of the country on a private jet without so much as an interrogation while the entire civilian population was trapped in a no-fly lockdown after 9/11. We just can't figure out why there's this ridiculous obsession with sex-related topics, like condoms on Christmas trees or blowjobs in the Oval Office.

What I mean is, the anti-Clinton side really has yet to bring it up as a serious problem.

[Darth Wong]

What I mean is, the anti-Clinton side really has yet to bring it up as a serious problem.

So far, they've complained primarily about four things:

1) Underfunding the military
2) Sex scandals
3) Sex scandals
4) Sex scandals

The funny thing is that when they're not doing this, they're bitching about how Clinton's defenders always focus on the sex scandals and not the real issues.

[Howedar]

Precisely what I was getting at.

[Superman]

Sea, I am an officer in the Army Nat'l Guard and I have no problems with what Clinton did with the armed services. He understood that less defense spending plays part in a strong economy. He also understood that there was no reason to have this huge military we are aiming for now.

[Darth Wong]

Some of the people here basically judge a president solely by how much money he pours into the military.

[His Divine Shadow]

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

And 90% of the voters are what? 50% of the american people?

[Perinquus]

I think that George Bush's constant references to God watching over America are ridiculously offensive, and far more vulgar and crass than anything as trivial as a condom in public view. Perhaps you can call that subjective too, except that I can actually produce an explanation of why that's wrong, while the best you can do is say that you don't like it. Telling 20 million Americans that they don't count and reinforcing the worldwide image of Americans as a bunch of religious fundie morons is much more harmful than letting kids see (egads!) a condom.

When did Bush Jr. ever suggest to 20 million Americans that they don't count? I grant you, his father said he didn't think atheists should be considered good citizens - a remark which both angered and offended me greatly. But as for Bush Jr.'s belief in God, and the idea that God watches over America, why is that in poor taste? What's so bad about that? It harms me not in the slightest. I happen to disagree with it, but I can disagree with a person and still respect his right to believe whatever he wants. Why the hell should I be offended by something like this? Why should you be?

I think hanging condoms and sexually suggestive items on, of all things, a Christmas tree that is open to the viewing public, and which displays a disregard, bordering on contempt, for the standards of taste held a majority of the population he leads is in far worse taste than the really rather harmless belief that God watches over this country.

Then why did you say earlier that any attempt to teach safe sex will inevitably encourage them to have sex at a young age? How does letting a kid see a condom make him run out and lose his virginity at age 8? Please explain; I'd love to know how this works.

I don't contend that a kid seeing that Christmas tree will immediately go out and start looking for a ho to fuck. But seeing that sort of thing in the goddamn White House, for Pete's sake, certainly does not help reinforce those standards of good taste and responsible behavior I've been talking about.

The mechanics of reproduction they'll learn about in biology.

No, they won't. Biology teaches it on a microscopic cellular level. Most biology teachers don't delve much into the mechanics of the insemination process, thus allowing weird myths like "you won't get pregnant if you stand up and walk around afterwards" stick around.

Well what can I say? I learned how this process works in biology (insert tenon A into mortice B, then all the little swimmers head for the egg, etc. etc.) If I could learn how that works in that fashion, I fail to see what's so hard about incorporating that into regular biology classes.

I agree. But how does any of this support your assertion that letting a kid see a condom in public somehow encourages him to have sex?

Perhaps we are not quite on the same sheet of music here. Letting kids in on the facts of sex and reproduction is not something I oppose, nor have I ever. What I am against, is the kind of sex education that prevails in a lot of places in this country, where kids are taught how to take advantage of contraception and have "safe sex", without being warned that "safe sex" is really a misnomer; there are only lesser degrees of risk. And no contraceptive method is foolproof. And they are not sufficiently warned of the possible consequences of having sex, like getting an STD, or an unwanted pregnancy. I am against the kind of sex ed that is given in the spirit, not of giving the facts and warning of the risks, but rather in the spirit of "since you're gonna do it anyway..." and barely even attempts to discourage them, if indeed it does at all.

Did I ever say it was? How many fucking times do I have say that PardonGate really pissed me off before you stop lumping me in with the goddamned stereotype of the "left-wing liberal" that you so obviously carry around in your head?

Well given that Clinton has that in his background, and all the other things as well, I find it hard to put Bush on quite the same low level.

[Darth Wong]

When did Bush Jr. ever suggest to 20 million Americans that they don't count?

I dunno, lines like "we all worship the same God" from his administration give a pretty good hint.

I grant you, his father said he didn't think atheists should be considered good citizens - a remark which both angered and offended me greatly. But as for Bush Jr.'s belief in God, and the idea that God watches over America, why is that in poor taste? What's so bad about that? It harms me not in the slightest. I happen to disagree with it, but I can disagree with a person and still respect his right to believe whatever he wants. Why the hell should I be offended by something like this? Why should you be?

Because he's ramming it in your face. It's not as if Clinton went on national TV and dangled the fucking condoms repeatedly in front of the camera or continually hijacked policy discussions by waggling condoms around and talking about how great they are, but metaphorically speaking, this is precisely what Bush is doing with his religious beliefs.

I think hanging condoms and sexually suggestive items on, of all things, a Christmas tree that is open to the viewing public, and which displays a disregard, bordering on contempt, for the standards of taste held a majority of the population he leads is in far worse taste than the really rather harmless belief that God watches over this country.

"Taste" is subjective. The fact that Bush uses every conceivable opportunity to peddle his religious snake-oil is not; it is quite objective, and very clearly established. You had to look into an obscure source to even discover this supposedly horrible transgression, while Bush broadcasts it to the entire world. Repeatedly. You honestly can't see the problem?

Then why did you say earlier that any attempt to teach safe sex will inevitably encourage them to have sex at a young age? How does letting a kid see a condom make him run out and lose his virginity at age 8? Please explain; I'd love to know how this works.

I don't contend that a kid seeing that Christmas tree will immediately go out and start looking for a ho to fuck. But seeing that sort of thing in the goddamn White House, for Pete's sake, certainly does not help reinforce those standards of good taste and responsible behavior I've been talking about.

In other words, you admit that "encouraging sex" has nothing whatsoever to do with your "good taste" issue and it was a pure red herring that you brought up in an attempt to drag yet another issue into your Clinton-bashing.

Well what can I say? I learned how this process works in biology (insert tenon A into mortice B, then all the little swimmers head for the egg, etc. etc.) If I could learn how that works in that fashion, I fail to see what's so hard about incorporating that into regular biology classes.

Learning about that does not mean you know about all the available methods of birth control and STD prevention or their respective success rates.

I agree. But how does any of this support your assertion that letting a kid see a condom in public somehow encourages him to have sex?

Perhaps we are not quite on the same sheet of music here. Letting kids in on the facts of sex and reproduction is not something I oppose, nor have I ever. What I am against, is the kind of sex education that prevails in a lot of places in this country, where kids are taught how to take advantage of contraception and have "safe sex", without being warned that "safe sex" is really a misnomer; there are only lesser degrees of risk. And no contraceptive method is foolproof. And they are not sufficiently warned of the possible consequences of having sex, like getting an STD, or an unwanted pregnancy. I am against the kind of sex ed that is given in the spirit, not of giving the facts and warning of the risks, but rather in the spirit of "since you're gonna do it anyway..." and barely even attempts to discourage them, if indeed it does at all.

And what does this have to do with the Clintons supposedly hanging condoms on a Christmas tree? Oh yeah, precisely nothing.

Did I ever say it was? How many fucking times do I have say that PardonGate really pissed me off before you stop lumping me in with the goddamned stereotype of the "left-wing liberal" that you so obviously carry around in your head?

Well given that Clinton has that in his background, and all the other things as well, I find it hard to put Bush on quite the same low level.

No, Bush is just a business cronyist who paid back business partnerships by letting the Bin Ladens violate the civilian no-fly zone in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, letting Microsoft get away with a slap on the wrist for defiantly breaking the law, subverting the entire computing industry, mangling standards, and basically corrupting the entire course of computing for years to come, letting Enron decide the energy policy of the country, taking only token measures to deal with the Enron debacle before quietly putting it on the backburner, etc. If Clinton's motto was "let's see what kind of personal gain I can squeeze out of the presidency", Bush's motto is quid pro quo for his business backers, no matter who they are.

[Superman]

I have one word that shows that Clinton could never have stooped to Bush's level: ASHCROFT.

Let's clothe the lady justice statue! After all, the naked breast is very offensive to all of the fucking worthless fundies that pollute our country! What's next? Shorts on M-angelo's "David?"

[Perinquus]

When did Bush Jr. ever suggest to 20 million Americans that they don't count?

I dunno, lines like "we all worship the same God" from his administration give a pretty good hint.

That could just as easily be a thoughtless slip. Or it could be an attempt to appeal to a common denominator for political purposes. I really don't see a statement like that as threatening or offensive. Foolish yes, but hardly ominous.

Because he's ramming it in your face. It's not as if Clinton went on national TV and dangled the fucking condoms repeatedly in front of the camera or continually hijacked policy discussions by waggling condoms around and talking about how great they are, but metaphorically speaking, this is precisely what Bush is doing with his religious beliefs.

So he's a religious man, and he's not shy about publicizing it. Again, I fail to see what you find so offensive about this. Irrational, I grant you, but offensive...

"Taste" is subjective. The fact that Bush uses every conceivable opportunity to peddle his religious snake-oil is not; it is quite objective, and very clearly established. You had to look into an obscure source to even discover this supposedly horrible transgression, while Bush broadcasts it to the entire world. Repeatedly. You honestly can't see the problem?

No. If he starts pushing to put prayer in schools or equal time for "intelligent design" theory, then I'll start worrying. I'll also start writing my congressman and senators, and the local newspapers, and the president himself. But so what if he constantly trumpets what his beliefs are, and what he thinks of them? I don't consider that ramming it down my throat. Trying to incorporate religion into the government I would consider ramming it down my throat. He's entitled to his opinions on this subject, and he's entitled to express them as often and as loudly as he likes. To be irritated, or exasperated, or amused, or saddened by someone else's expression of their religious convictions is fine. To be offended by it, however, is rather... intolerant.

In other words, you admit that "encouraging sex" has nothing whatsoever to do with your "good taste" issue and it was a pure red herring that you brought up in an attempt to drag yet another issue into your Clinton-bashing.

It's another one of many indications of how far the Clinton's and their entourage were out of step with the moral convictions and standards of most Americans. I would not consider this consideration entirely unimportant in a leader. When people see a man behave as Clinton did, cheating on his wife, treating women like mere sex objects, lying about it, and getting away with it, then putting up sexually explicit ornaments on the Xmas tree... I do not think this is an appropriate image for our commander in chief to present, nor do I think that it is good for people to see the president behave in ways regarded by most people as reprehensible, and basically avoid any negative consequences. And this is only one aspect of a generally sleazy character. There are also other, more substantive examples of his poor conduct.

Learning about that does not mean you know about all the available methods of birth control and STD prevention or their respective success rates.

Fine, by all means, give them this information. That's not the issue I have with this. The problem with sex ed is that it often doesn't present children with the idea that it's unwise to experiment with sex while your still an adolescent. Take ,for example, the comment that started us off on this tangent in the first place: Sir Sirius' comment in response to the idea of encouraging abstinence. He just dismissed the idea out of hand, complete with to show that it was a stupid idea, unworthy of any serious consideration. This is an attitude shared by all too many of our so-called educators, and it reflects in the way they teach sex ed.

And what does this have to do with the Clintons supposedly hanging condoms on a Christmas tree? Oh yeah, precisely nothing.

It has to do with lowering the general moral standards of society and vulgarizing the office of the president, which is supposed to maintain a certain dignity and decorum. He just sets a really bad example. That may be entirely subjective, I grant you, but I don't think you should underestimate the importance of leadership by example.

[Perinquus]

I have one word that shows that Clinton could never have stooped to Bush's level: ASHCROFT.

Janet Reno was no better or more trustworthy a guardian of your civil liberties, trust me. She was just a little better at PR.

[Sir Sirius]

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 think that it has been quite strongly established that "abstenance only" policy doesn't work all that well. See here.
Why not try something different for a change?

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?

And of course all other possible contributing factors have been ruled out as causes for the change in pregnancy rates...

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 [stigmatized those who masturbated as well, not to mention gays], and (gasp!) we had lower rates of teen pregnany too. Imagine that!

OM...eh, never mind... You are one of those "Ah, the golden years.." morons who pine after the '30 or something all the time. Has the though occured to you that more then just sex ed has changed since? BTW the level and quality of sex ed in the States blows big time.

[sarcasm]You know there was an age in America when you kept slaves and (gasp!) you had lower crime rates back then too.[/sarcasm]
I belief that this type of is thinking is called the 'Questionable Cause fallacy'.

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?

I would rather provode with proper knowledge of sex, prophylactics and their uses so that I could be confident that IF she decides to have sex she will know how to protect herself. Rather then the just stick my head in the bush and hope that she doesn't have sex at all, like the "conservatives" like to do.

What if the condom breaks? It happens.

What if she get's run over by a semi while crossing a road? 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?

Eh, reducing the probability of things such as these happening is precicely the reason sex ed should be given.

The problem with sex ed is that it often doesn't present children with the idea that it's unwise to experiment with sex while your still an adolescent.

So because sex ed, supposedly, often/sometimes doesn't cover this point there should be no sex ed at all?
The purpose of sex ed is to educate kids on sex, prophylactics and STD's. Leave the moral condemnation of sex and scare tactics to the parents, sprouting that bullshit along with actual usefull information will just weaken the main point.

Take ,for example, the comment that started us off on this tangent in the first place: Sir Sirius' comment in response to the idea of encouraging abstinence. He just dismissed the idea out of hand, complete with to show that it was a stupid idea, unworthy of any serious consideration.

And I wonder why I did that...

[Sebastin]

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.

Uh, yes you can blame it on the government, or more precisely the voting system. A direct mandate (winner takes all) system like the usa uses commands a two party political enviroment. Only relative represantation or split vote systems like most (all?) of europe uses can sustain multi-party systems.
Incidentially this is exactly the point where I would start when tasked with improving the us political system.
Changing that may be less effective than educating the voters and making them make intelligent decisions, but it would be much easier. It´s only almost impossible.

[Perinquus]

Take ,for example, the comment that started us off on this tangent in the first place: Sir Sirius' comment in response to the idea of encouraging abstinence. He just dismissed the idea out of hand, complete with to show that it was a stupid idea, unworthy of any serious consideration.

And I wonder why I did that...

I really do wonder, since educators have been doing things precisely as you suggest for the past four decades, in ever increasing numbers, and teen pregnancy rates rising all the while, I really do wonder why it never seems to occur to you people that you just might not have it all figured out.

[Sir Sirius]

I really do wonder, since educators have been doing things precisely as you suggest for the past four decades, in ever increasing numbers...

Well, you see teachers in the U.S. are actualy MORE likely to focus on abstinence and less likely to present students with actual sex ed then they were ten years ago. See here.

...and teen pregnancy rates rising all the while...

Let's just say that I am not surprised.

...I really do wonder why it never seems to occur to you people that you just might not have it all figured out.

LMAO!!!

*Edited to fix typos.*

[Darth Wong]

I really do wonder, since educators have been doing things precisely as you suggest for the past four decades, in ever increasing numbers, and teen pregnancy rates rising all the while, I really do wonder why it never seems to occur to you people that you just might not have it all figured out.

Wow, nothing else has changed over the last 4 decades? We've also seen a resurgence of Christian fundamentalism; by your "false cause" logic of confusing correlation with cause, that must be the cause of increased teen pregnancy rates. Oh wait, we've also seen the civil rights movement. THAT must be the cause of teen pregnancy rates!

Why are there countries in which sex ed is not frowned upon as it is in puritanical America, and yet the teen pregnancy rate has not skyrocketed? Why is teen pregnancy inversely correlated with socio-economic class, when, if we use your theory, it should be the opposite, since lower-income kids generally receive lower quality of sex education (or education in general?) Why do you use anecdotes and false cause fallacies to prop up your claim?

You earlier cited "moral" concerns with condoms on a Christmas tree. I have asked you repeatedly to explain what is immoral, since immorality is about causing harm, and you have failed to show any harm from that fact. Have you completely bought into religious notions of victimless "sins" despite breaking away from your family's indoctrination in other areas? What is "immoral" about it?

[Wicked Pilot]

Some of the people here basically judge a president solely by how much money he pours into the military.

Well, it's not just that. It also has to do with the increased op tempo of the US armed forces during the period of extreme downsizing. Decreasing the size of the military for a new non cold war era was certainly the right thing to do, but not to the point that we can barely keep up with our multiple committments world wide. We have some career fields in the Air Force where personel spend an average of almost 300 days out of the year deployed. This sort of thing decreases unit effectiveness and moral. It's this trying to have your cake and eat it too that's pissing people off. When you factor into it the number of base closures and the dropping of veterans from the military medical system during the Clinton administration, well, it gets ugly.

Of course, in an effort to say something nice about Clinton, he is the reason we are deploying to the Gulf so fast these days. While in office, he greatly increased the capabilities of Military Sealift. Other than that, it was an eight year procurement holiday.

[Perinquus]

I really do wonder, since educators have been doing things precisely as you suggest for the past four decades, in ever increasing numbers, and teen pregnancy rates rising all the while, I really do wonder why it never seems to occur to you people that you just might not have it all figured out.

Wow, nothing else has changed over the last 4 decades? We've also seen a resurgence of Christian fundamentalism; by your "false cause" logic of confusing correlation with cause, that must be the cause of increased teen pregnancy rates. Oh wait, we've also seen the civil rights movement. THAT must be the cause of teen pregnancy rates!

I'm beginning to feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. I have not claimed that sex education caused teen pregnancy to rise. I am, however, concerned that the kind of sex education people like Sir Sirius seem to be in favor of, i.e. teaching them all about intercourse, contraception, etc. without any apparent emphasis on the wisdom of abstinence - indeed, where the mere suggestion that we should encourage kids to abstain is greeted with scorn and ridicule - is a poor approach; but it's one increasingly favored these days, because of the automatic assumption that it's useless to encourage kids to abstain until they are older and more mature. And if this approach aims to reduce the rates of teen pregnancy, it obviously isn't working.

Why are there countries in which sex ed is not frowned upon as it is in puritanical America, and yet the teen pregnancy rate has not skyrocketed? Why is teen pregnancy inversely correlated with socio-economic class, when, if we use your theory, it should be the opposite, since lower-income kids generally receive lower quality of sex education (or education in general?) Why do you use anecdotes and false cause fallacies to prop up your claim?

One possible reason it occurs more among poorer people is that the poor kids must get by with public education, and the public schools are dominated by the NEA and teacher's unions - the same poeple who brought us such great success stories as the whole language method, outcome based education, reduced emphasis on grades and more on self esteem - in short, the same people who have turned American public school education into the joke of the world. Wealthier families can more often afford to send their kids to private schools, or if not that, than their parents tend to spend a little more time at PTA meetings and such like, actually trying to look into how thew schools run, and these public schools get better teachers and more money.

Then of course there is the fact that these poor inner city kids seem to get less supervision from their parents.

You earlier cited "moral" concerns with condoms on a Christmas tree. I have asked you repeatedly to explain what is immoral, since immorality is about causing harm, and you have failed to show any harm from that fact. Have you completely bought into religious notions of victimless "sins" despite breaking away from your family's indoctrination in other areas? What is "immoral" about it?

In terms of sexuality, things which encourage promiscuity and licentious behavior can be said to be immoral, since they tend to encourage kids to engage in more high risk behavior and thus increase the number of teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. When students see the President of the United States behave as a sexual libertine, and smilingly move from one sexual conquest to the next, it sends them signals that promiscuity is okay. Even when you're married and are supposed to be living a monogomous lifestyle, it's really not so bad. It's okay to sleep around. If it's not, why isn't he condemned for it? Why can he perjure himself about it and get off scot free? When they then see the White House Xmas tree festooned with condoms, cock rings, statuettes of "12 lords a-leaping", each with phallus erect, it again sends the message that a sexually active lifestyle is okay. These sort of decorations positively celebrate a sexually active lifestyle. This can be taken by impressionable kids as tacit approval of their own sexual activity, and they start having intercourse before they're ready to deal with the consequences.

In short, it's immoral because it encourages risky behavior, which has proven negative consequences. The President is a role model, especially when he's charismatic and popular as Clinton was. He sets an example, and some people are going to follow it. Clinton set a bad one.

[Mr Bean]

And 90% of the voters are what? 50% of the american people?

Voting Popluas which is close to only 30%


Anyway what was wrong with Clinton as was asked eariler by Wong?

1. Gutting the Military, slashing Paychecks and Bugets, Cutting useful projects and funding worthless ones
2. Fucking over the Economey in 93 and 2000(He did not do anything when the Economey start heading south just so he could fuck up the next fellow in office) His Economey people acutal FALLSIFED Economic Data in True Soviet Fasion to make the Ecomeny of 2000 seem much better than it was
3. Sex Scandels all the way back to his Governer Days
4. Stealing American Tax-payer Dollers in various ways
5. Accepting Bribes or a the very least A total of Five Million Dollers in Tax Free Money, More than one hundred thousand dollers of which came from CHINA
6. Giving China the Technology to Hit America with ICBM's(He personaly oked US Company that sold the Tech to them)
7. Along with Carter he is Responsible for the North Korea Situation
8. Various fork up involving terrirosts inculding letting some go(Osama being the biggest example)


Thats a more complete list there Wong