| 29th October 2006 09:55 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413214&in_page_id=1770 |
| 29th October 2006 09:59 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Bills B-Day bash...is a bust...Imagine Cohl having to paper a 2900 seater? |
| 29th October 2006 10:04 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Give me an 'H'... Give me a 'U'...Give me an 'M'........etc |
| 29th October 2006 10:10 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
I am disappointed and angry, and I will drink beer all day in celebration of Bill's Birthday. |
| 29th October 2006 10:22 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
I am disappointed and angry, and I will drink beer all day in celebration of Bill's Birthday.
What?..no prospects for a bj?....hey isnt that jb backwards?.....hmmmmmmmmm...another conspiracy theory... |
| 29th October 2006 10:46 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
What?..no prospects for a bj?....hey isnt that jb backwards?.....hmmmmmmmmm...another conspiracy theory...
Clinton's private life is of no real concern to me, apart from amusement. Only republican witch hunters take it all that seriously. |
| 29th October 2006 10:52 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
At this point, it's amusement for us too. He ain't nothin' but a hound dog cryin' all the time! |
| 29th October 2006 10:55 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
You wish! He is still and will always be the "Big Dog". Fear him.  |
| 29th October 2006 11:02 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
I fear shit in the street to the extent that I walk around it. Same thing with yer big dog. |
| 29th October 2006 11:06 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I fear shit in the street to the extent that I walk around it. Same thing with yer big dog.
Whether one likes Clinton's politics or not its kind of hard to dis his accomplishments. |
| 29th October 2006 11:10 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
No, it's easy. Trust me on this one. |
| 29th October 2006 12:30 PM |
|
|
| chevysales |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Clinton's private life is of no real concern to me, apart from amusement. Only republican witch hunters take it all that seriously.
why the same was said of arnolds fund raiser for fenway which also was a bust. |
| 29th October 2006 12:37 PM |
|
|
| Michael Cohl |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Give me an 'H'... Give me a 'U'...Give me an 'M'........etc
A hummer? Oral pleasure will be provided by Official Stones Fluffers, for anyone who makes a large donation. Clinton and I came up with this idea. |
| 29th October 2006 02:08 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Even the Beacon is wide open... |
| 30th October 2006 10:13 AM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
If you think someone's personal life is only their concern, no offense meant, but you really don't know how security classifications and classified document access works. Anyone with a secret clearance or above might have a Security Investigation File (SIF) triggered whenever there is a report of an adulterous affair...especially someone in a high level position that is suspect to being blackmailed or manipulated with information they desire not to be release to the public. I have seen three recent SIFs for extremely minor military staff for outstanding warrants and credit problems. The office of OPM processes tens of thousands of SIFs everyday. A SIF requires the affected individual, their supervisor, and their Commander to respond to the cause of the SIF, why there is no relativity to security, and how they plan to resolve the problem. Clinton was in no way unique to this standard. It should apply to anyone with a clearance. That's why Sandy Berger lost his security clearance for stealing classified documents. Clinton was unique in that this standard was blatantly ignored for his benefit. But it's all very clear cut. One can learn more by reading up on "JPAS" or "security clearances".
|
| 30th October 2006 06:59 PM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Whether one likes Clinton's politics or not its kind of hard to dis his accomplishments.
_____________
???????
Said accomplishments, those he pursued/orginated, and saw to successful fruition are far and few between.
His presidency has aleady descended into footnote status, despite the wringing hands of liberal academia who will attempt to make it otherwise.
He and Kennedy share much in common in that regard (with the exception of the C.M.C.) as well as their penchant for dangerous sexual behavior while in office.
Differene is, Kennedy was shot, thus changing his status as a very possible one-term president into the modern saint of the Democratic Party.
And, might I add, Kennedy's politics today, particualarly his foreign policy is far close to the Republicans than the Democrats of 2006.
Clinton...so much potential, so little character.
|
| 30th October 2006 07:10 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
The Clinton Record
http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm |
| 31st October 2006 12:02 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
PeerQueer wrote:
_____________
Differene is, Kennedy was shot, thus changing his status as a very possible one-term president into the modern saint of the Democratic Party.
That's absurd. Kennedy would have won in an absolute landslide in 64. He was one of the most popular presidents ever, and his opponent would have been Goldwater. |
| 31st October 2006 12:11 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Zack wrote:
He was one of the most popular presidents ever...
Funny |
| 31st October 2006 01:11 AM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
Kennedy had ideas on tax reduction that would make modern dems squirm.
|
| 31st October 2006 04:28 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Funny
My grandfather wouldn't carry dimes in his pocket because they had Roosevelt's image on them. Now THAT'S funny. |
| 31st October 2006 09:45 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
The sooner the right-wing naysayers admit that Clinton was by far the best president of the last half of the 20th century, the better off they'll all feel. Without the witch hunt and his momentary lapse of judgement, he would be considered the best of all time. Lose the hate and submit. |
| 31st October 2006 11:14 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Momentary lapse in judgement???? WTF???? Bimbo eruptions wasn't coined by his enemies, it was coined by his friends. They knew him well. And you might be too young to remember the first 2 years of his administration but it certainly wasn't anything to write home about. Only when he lost the House for the first time in 48 years did the GOP keep him turned right & force him to do things their way. |
| 31st October 2006 11:39 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
OK, fine. "LapseS". And yes, I remember his first two years. They were filled with promise and hope and yet on that fateful Nov. day in 94, all those hopes came crashing down when the Republicans lied to the American public and put their Party before their country. A tactic they are still using to this day. Such wasted promise. Historians will not look kindly on the Republicans and what they did to this country. |
| 31st October 2006 11:39 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
LOL Party lines sometimes make us look like drones! |
| 31st October 2006 11:47 AM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
quote:
Taptrick wrote:
Kennedy had ideas on tax reduction that would make modern dems squirm.
You are absolutely correct - most so-called Kennedy lovers actually know very little of his administration. They know the images of the assassination, the funeral, the Rat-Pack aura of Camelot...all the carefully constructed public persona of the Kennedy machine.
Fact is, Kennedy thought (actually some key members of his administration - Kennedy personally could give a shit)lower taxes were better, an aggressive foreign policy was absolutely necessary, and a hot piece of ass several times a day one of the perks of being a Kennedy...
He cared far less for Civil Rights than did Bobby, who was the social liberal of the family, (while also being one of the toughest political insiders ever)Bobby was the real deal - his death was far more of a loss to this country than was Jack's.
Kennedy won the presidency by a very narrow margin, with clear voter tampering on a wide scale throughout a number of important states via the Mob...his inaction with the Bay of Pigs angered many throughout the country - which his handlers then carefuly sought to counter with his action during the Cuban Missile Crisis - which, while a legitimate international incident, was blown way out of proportion by the administration and the media, allowing Kennedy to appear far tougher than he actually was. His pre-Cuban Missile Crisis polls had him at just over 50% popularity - post-crisis had thise numbers climb to nearly 60%, though just prior to the assassination, the poll showed him trending downward at around 55%. After the assassination, his favorable numbers escalated to nearly 80%, where they have remained since. JFK was not terribly intelligent...witty yes, disarming,yes, manipulative, certainly, all of which fit perfectly in the then emerging and all-powerful medium of television. He was the first truly modern president, and has been the mold by which all other aspiring presidents would follow. Reagan borrowed heavily from the Kennedy playbook, (including an assassination attempt!)though unlike Kennedy, Reagan had a very strong core of political ideals that he clung to. Kennedy lacked any such ideals - very similar to Clinton, who, like Kennedy, had a finely honed and disarming wit that allowed him to shuck and jive his way to the White House. Clinton though, to his credit, possesses a greater intelligence than Kennedy, but also suffers from an insatiable appetite for poon...
Clinton's ranking has continued to drop since his leaving office - the continued historical reconsiderations of his presidency will not prove kind - placing him firmly in the middle-of-the-pack of modern presidents.
That is, unless he can regain access to his beloved White House via his business partner Hillary.
America loves a comeback...
|
| 31st October 2006 11:54 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Business partner? Good one! |
| 31st October 2006 12:01 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
And many Goldwater's stances were more reflective of today's Democrats than today's Republicans. Up/Down/Black/White/Blah, blah, blah... |
| 31st October 2006 12:02 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
No way. Goldwater actually stood for a strong defense. Many of his libertarian ideas came later in life. |
| 31st October 2006 12:10 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
True, Democrats do not want a strong defense. They hate their country and want the terrorists to win. |
