Best President of your country ancient and modern age - Page 4

Scott, you've turned into a moron.

Take some xanax or something.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Scott, you've turned into a moron.

Take some xanax or something.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why because I pointed out what exactly is wrong with Bill Clinton using his interns for sex. Where did I go wrong?

The blowjob in public was not even the media's fault but was the fault of the relentless hounding by the prosecuter, who demanded that the whole of the transcripts with unecessary descriptions was released on the internet. And all this as a last resort because they spent millions chasing a phantom and new it all along.
Though it was stupid and showed a truly terrible side of Clinton to lie about his affair it should never have been an issue. We do not have a monarchy where the issue is to be a figurhead where all of your personality is your office: we have politicians who's job is to govern: their hours are 'on while not vacationing' so if they can squeeze in a little squeez3e and still do the job, maybe even better, then so be it.

Its only 'preying' upon because it's in your interests to see it that way. They were consenting adults.
There was even a good article, in Harper's back then, that took the tongue in cheek attitude that perhaps they were actually in love... well, in some serious infatuation at least . . .the article takes it all as a humorous possibility but ends up making a very good arguement . . . after all why not?!

[quote] ------ <hr></blockquote>

Anyway if you are going to play the 'Blame an American you Don't Like for Terrorism' game . . I would say lets go back to the lacadaisacl responce to the Beruit bombings: which resulted in our tail tucked pull out and the tacit instituting of a policy of lax responce:

now who was that president?!?!?

Yes it is the issue. If we want to have fair and open work place where people move forward based on job performace we cannot have bosses giving out rewards for sex. It's just that simple. Every working womans job was made harder when Bill Clinton used sex as a basis for a recomendation. It goes right to the core of what so many have been fighing for for so long. Promotions based on merit and not sexual favors.

It's just so simple.

Yep, I need to put my vote in for Clinton.

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Yep, I need to put my vote in for Clinton.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then you must hate women and think that the work place is a good place to get sex from women because you know they will do it for the right promotion.

[quote]Then you must hate women and think that the work place is a good place to get sex from women because you know they will do it for the right promotion. <hr></blockquote>

Wow Scott. You must really hate big business.

I agree that it is a terrible thing . . . if indeed that occured. But I'm not so sure it happened the way you think, and there is not proof that it did.

I know from my job, as a professor that student/proffesor relations are expressly forbid for the very reasoned point that you make. However, I also know many many professors who have ended up marrying their graduate students: I can name several from the University where I now am . . . (and they are not men Profs w/ female students) Human passions and love are not subject to simplistic rules... even though I agree with your arguement, and yes I will concede that it is more important than liberals are oft fond of assuming.

Anyway, what about Beirut?!?!

I agree about Beirut. I said as much in another thread (or was it this one?). We should have squashed these pissant little terror groups 20 years ago.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Every working womans job was made harder when Bill Clinton used sex as a basis for a recomendation. It goes right to the core of what so many have been fighing for for so long. Promotions based on merit and not sexual favors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep on saying this - that it was used for promotion. Proof?

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
You keep on saying this - that it was used for promotion. Proof?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Monica got a nice job in NYC from Bill's pal Vernon Jordan. Or don't you remember that?

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>

I think there is many women ready to suck the cock of any president of country. Monica Lewisky never said she was oblige to do, what she has done.
The fault of Bill Clinton was to be weak in that case, but it is not sexual harrassment (an ugly thing that exist )</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ahhhhh!!!!! Yes but the woman sharing an office with Monica might say, "How did you get that great job in NYC? I want one too." And Monica would say, "You have to drop to your knees ...."

Why is it liberals are so good at picking these situations apart in every other situation but this one.

Yea. That's part of the point. That's the world Bill Clinton helps to create. The one where secretaries tell their bosses at a job interview that the are willing to do "anything". I'm sure that last woman's boss made use of that. Rather than set a better example for the entire country Bill said "hell yea, get down there young lady".

Scott H., I want you to name all the bad policies that Clinton put forth. I also want you to name all the Presidents that haven't lied.

Go for it.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Yea. That's part of the point. That's the world Bill Clinton helps to create. The one where secretaries tell their bosses at a job interview that the are willing to do "anything". I'm sure that last woman's boss made use of that. Rather than set a better example for the entire country Bill said "hell yea, get down there young lady".</strong><hr></blockquote>

All these things you say brings me back to my point earlier: why do you "know" so much about Clinton? Are you his close personal friend? Have you been stalking him?

On the whole CIA-crack cocaine issue:

Ok, I was going to put a direct link in, but UBB code is dumb. So, if you want to find the original Mercury News articles, go to <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/archives/#form" target="_blank">this page</a>, choose only to search the SJ Mercury News, enter the search term "dark alliance". Under "More Options", select the date range from 8/17/96 - 8/21/96, and you'll get the abstracts for the articles.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>The blowjob in public was not even the media's fault but was the fault of the relentless hounding by the prosecuter, who demanded that the whole of the transcripts with unecessary descriptions was released on the internet...</strong><hr></blockquote>

The transcripts were released by Congress. It was their call not Starr's. And the relentless hounding was because Starr knew Clinton had perjured himself during the Whitewater trials. Then along came the Lewinsky tapes - granite hard evidence of a different perjury. He pursued the case that was better established. Leaving aside the more lewd details I'm sure it was Clinton's simple contempt for the law that spurred Starr on as much as anything.

[quote]Originally posted by agent302:
<strong>On the whole CIA-crack cocaine issue:

Ok, I was going to put a direct link in, but UBB code is dumb. So, if you want to find the original Mercury News articles, go to <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/archives/#form" target="_blank">this page</a>, choose only to search the SJ Mercury News, enter the search term "dark alliance". Under "More Options", select the date range from 8/17/96 - 8/21/96, and you'll get the abstracts for the articles.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe The Mercury's editor apologized for some of the wild charges made in that article. Be sure to look for that too.

The apology wouldn't be found within that date range.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

I believe The Mercury's editor apologized for some of the wild charges made in that article. Be sure to look for that too.

The apology wouldn't be found within that date range.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I know, they can be found on the archive as well. However, since I already posted a negative critique of the articles (the gov't reports posted earlier) I thought it would behoove me to show the original articles. Also, while the editor apologized, the writer of the articles resigned over a conflict with the editor. So, there's a lot of information to seep through. I don't claim that the Mercury News is fundamentally correct, I just think it is an interesting series of events to look at.

Edit: Just in case anyone cares, the date of Mercury News editor Joey Ceppos correction of the "Dark Alliance" stories was 5/11/97

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020218/ap_to_po/president_s_day_poll_1&printer=1" target="_blank">This story</a> says white Americans choose Lincoln while black Americans choose Clinton as the greatest American president ever.

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>

My point was not to be the defender of Bill Clintion , i understand you are angry against him because he give a ridiculous image of USA, however, this affair was built by Starr to embarasse him. So some Americans where also angry against Starr, because he let pass politic (not the best one) after the image of USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No Clinton did those things all on his own. Starr didn't make Clinton get on TeeVee and lie to our faces. Also Starr didn't make Clinton use the White House as his stable of whores.

[quote]Originally posted by glurx:
<strong><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020218/ap_to_po/president_s_day_poll_1&printer=1" target="_blank">This story</a> says white Americans choose Lincoln while black Americans choose Clinton as the greatest American president ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Clinton was the first black president.

First of all I'd like to say; due to my age and my lack of knowledge in this stuff, I'm not the person to say who was the best president in the US. Even though I think that Clinton was a very very skilt president.

What really concern me about the discussion is that all you seem to care about is terroism and whether Clinton got a BJ.

What about economics and enviorment. Take fx the Koyto ageement that the US has just rejected. US is the country in the whole world who is producing most CO2 per captia and still they don't seem to think that that is a problem - to me that's plain stupidity.

IMHO Clinton did many good things to the economy and the poor people in your country.
He was a fair man.

And a comment about the BJ: Here in Denmark we were laughing so much so all the danes pissed their pants not because of the BJ. But because of the way the opposition reacted - in a truly desperat way. I couldn't care less if he was getting a blowjob by Mrs. L. She is most likely not the only one who has given the president a blowjob besides the wife (and that goes for all the presidents).

Here in Denmark it's a official secret that our "president" (we' have a monarchy) wear womens clothing and his even right winged. But people don't care. It is off course funny, but hell it's none of our business.

So get a grip of yourselves (Sott H.)

Sorry for the spelling

[quote]Originally posted by fukuhela:
<strong>
What about economics and enviorment. Take fx the Koyto ageement that the US has just rejected. US is the country in the whole world who is producing most CO2 per captia and still they don't seem to think that that is a problem - to me that's plain stupidity.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Kyoto is a perfect example of Clinton's failure to lead. While the treaty was being negotiated the Senate conducted a test vote. Not a single senator voted in favor of it. He greenlighted it anyway. If all you are interested in is looking good, that's what you do. But if a President is really concerned that this is a serious issue and he wants a treaty that will make a difference (I'm not saying there's such a thing but you seem to believe it's possible) then he has to listen to the other side of the debate. Clinton didn't.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Kyoto is a perfect example of Clinton's failure to lead. While the treaty was being negotiated the Senate conducted a test vote. Not a single senator voted in favor of it. He greenlighted it anyway. If all you are interested in is looking good, that's what you do. But if a President is really concerned that this is a serious issue and he wants a treaty that will make a difference (I'm not saying there's such a thing but you seem to believe it's possible) then he has to listen to the other side of the debate. Clinton didn't.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

First: I was not saying that Clinton did thr right thing. But I was saying that I just don't get what Bush is doing - alloowing oil-drilling in Alaska and bring up the co2-productiion per capita (that's the consequences of his plan). The climate is getting varmer and varmer (it's a wellknown fact) but still he doesn't see any problems with that. We're slowly distroying the enviorment.

By the way; it wasn't Clinton who wrote the treaty in Kyoto. The many other countrys involved in this treaty had allready taking a lot of comprimisses so that the US would agree. But I guess many americans just don't know or care about the severity of this problem.

The problem is Bush way to focused on the production and GDP, so the enviorment don't bother him. But the thing is that is so egoistic because when the co2 production gets higher in the US then it is'nt only the US that will suffer from it but the hole world. But what the heck it's only Holland and other unimportant countries that will be floded when the indland ice starts to melt.

All in all I think it's a very bad excuse to say that Clinton has the fault of Bush making the enviorment suffer even more.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: fukuhela ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by fukuhela:
<strong>
First: I was not saying that Clinton did thr right thing. But I was saying that I just don't get what Bush is doing - alloowing oil-drilling in Alaska and bring up the co2-productiion per capita (that's the consequences of his plan). The climate is getting varmer and varmer (it's a wellknown fact) but still he doesn't see any problems with that...</strong><hr></blockquote>

a.) Kyoto would have failed to ameliorate the problem.

b.) The question of whether greenhouse gases are causing global warmimg is not at all settled. (You must be aware of your <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=100001698" target="_blank">fellow Dane</a> who is of the opinion that the enviroment is not at all in the dire staits you imagine.) However, even conceding that the planet is getting warmer (since the early 19th centuy) that doesn't mean this is a consequence of a buildup of greenhouse gases. Most of the temperature increase came before the greatest increase in CO2 emissions.

c.) Bush has presented an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7397-2002Feb13.html" target="_blank">alternate proposal</a>.

The thing about Kyoto was to lower the co2 production in the western countries gradually. Noone believes that such thing happens overnight. But it would lower the production seen over a timeperiod. If it wasn't for the US who wasn't willing to do so. Unless if they could sell their pollution to countries who wasn't producing as mucg co2 as the western countries.

Yeah and I know all to well about my fellow dane. And the funny thing is that his studys is based on one pair of statistic oberservations and he found there was no connections between co2 and global varming. But if you talk to any other biologist or proffessor in enviorment then you would hear something else. Everywhere he has posted his work he get bashed because it's so easy to proove other. Many articles by real scientist in "the sceintist" and other respected forums has shown this.

The only people who listen to lomborg and thinks he is right are those people who wants him to be right. Here in Denmark we've just got a new Government who wants to close all the institutions involving enviorment studys and open only one new based on Mr. Lomborg ideas. The only dane who claims what he does. But because it fits so very well with the right winged policy that the government practice they think he's right. And they justifice it with there are to many laymen that get time in the medias eventhough they don't know what they talk about. So we've got a government that decides who are right.
My point is if you want to believe then you believe even though it's an "one against all others".

About the alternate proporsal. It's excatly what I'm refering to in my previous post. It allows the USA to rise the co2 per capita even further. I would though like to say there are one good thing about the proposal, and that's he is interested in getting more windmills. But as long as he will be drilling in Alaska and build evenmore powerplants.

Maybe people should learn to turn of lights, computer, tv etc. when leaving home and work.... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: fukuhela ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by fukuhela:
<strong>
... But if you talk to any other biologist or proffessor in enviorment then you would hear something else...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not so. There are other dissenting voices. Here's <a href="http://www.discover.com/feb_01/featgospel.html" target="_blank">another one</a>.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Not so. There are other dissenting voices. Here's <a href="http://www.discover.com/feb_01/featgospel.html" target="_blank">another one</a>.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Point taken. But still the picture is the same; few "against" the world.

[quote]The question of whether greenhouse gases are causing global warmimg is not at all settled. <hr></blockquote>

This is so absurd I can't believe it.
Who pays these guys!?!?!

Everytime the issue has come up, for years, there is one whack pulled out of the wood pile that has a possible question, and that is enough to legitimize inaction when everybody KNOWS to the contrary, and everyone fmeans a lot a lot a lot of trained scientists with mounds of very compelling data!!!!!!

So much for the notion of peer review if there is a possible corporate/political position

Meanwhile its still OK to drive my Ford Excursion-3-mile-a-gallon-in-the-city-to-get-to-work stylish monster . . .after all there is one payrolled assistant professor scientist out there somewhere (i know it if not I have to up the pay) that says there might be questions.

Even if there is no global warming (which I think there is overwhelming evidence to show that there is GW), actions to prevent global warming have the nice side effect of not doing anything bad while also reducing air pollution, water pollution, etc. When you reduce CO2 emissions, you generally also reduce CO and O3 emissions at the same time, which means less smog, less people sick due to bad air quality. There is no reason to not invest in a switch to renewable energy resources other than cost.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
This is so absurd I can't believe it.
Who pays these guys!?!?!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know but Mr. Christy's data was used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it issued it's last report. Also, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has said that, "there is very little consensus" among experts in his field. We don't know if it will continue to get warmer or if the warming that has occurred is a consequence of human intervention.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

Roger, I think you're going where even Bush doesn't go. I don't believe he denies that human-caused global warming is occurring. His reasons for being against earlier proposals are that it would hurt our economy too much and it was internationally imbalanced. Not because he doesn't believe in human-caused global warming.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushglobal_061101.htm" target="_blank">Bush's original (June 11) speech about global warming.</a>
His new proposal is actually pretty sound - I just don't understand why he isn't interested in proposing it in the context of Kyoto (maybe he will).
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_global_warming_13" target="_blank">Here is an article about his plan.</a>
Basically, the new proposal seems to just "encourage" reduction of greenhouse gases with tax incentives, rather than mandating it.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<strong>Roger, I think you're going where even Bush doesn't go. I don't believe he denies that human-caused global warming is occurring...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I haven't denied that it's occurring!!! Please read what I've written.

edit: Okay I failed to carefully read your post. The words "human-caused" are an important qualifier. I don't think that has been established. Yes, Bush hasn't gone there in his arguments.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

What? Teddy R. did not make it into the Top 5?

Oy.

[quote]Originally posted by jhtrih:
<strong>What? Teddy R. did not make it into the Top 5?

Oy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I voted for him, just look for my posts.

oops wrong topic

[ 02-21-2002: Message edited by: glurx ]</p>