If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Congress spent $10 million investigating each inch of Clinton's penis but only will spend $3 million investigating all of 9/11   (centredaily.com) divider line 374
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8376 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2003 at 10:57 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-01-23 02:05:02 AM
01-23-03 01:31:52 AM Sweater Girl
As a citizen of NYC, I am pissed off and offended by how dubya has handled 9/11. The taliban are making a comeback in Afghanistan,

Nope. The Taliban has relocated to Indonesia and other terrorist sympathetic countries.

read up a little... the Taliban ARE making a comeback in Afghanistan. You probably don't get that sort of news in the States

the area has not been stabilized,

It's been a year. There are still Taliban sympathizers there. What do you expect? A magic wand?

Are the troops stationed anywhere else than in Kabul? And even there it is chaos. No magic wand. Just a complete intertia

and instead our leader picks on a different bully rather than do the hard work of helping a third world country get democracy and running water (not that the international community has done much either).

Are you aware of how many troops are stationed in Afghanistan? Tell them their work is futile.
Bush is picking on this 'new' bully because he isn't 'new', has broken his word countless times and shows no signs of changing.

How many troops are stationed in Afghanistan? Enough to see the pipeline go unchallenged?

and for someone who had no problem avoiding his military duty, he seems awful eager to send you and yours just to avenge his daddy.

"Iraq needs a regime change" -Clinton, 1998.
not to boggle you with facts, or anything

This is NOT 1988.

and how about getting new york the rest of the farking aid you promised us, you bastard, instead od pissing on the memory of 3000 people by throwing $3 million in the wind?

Sooooo, spending 3 mil to investigate the attacks that caused those 3000 to die is a waste?
Sheesh, at least be consistent.

3,000,000 IS a piss in the wind. Hell, how much do you think H. Kissinger settled on for his services? (before he stepped down, thank god


what are you afraid of bushie? that a 9/11 probe would turn up all the oil/blood money that you, cheney and your daddy have pumped into the middle east?

Yes yes, apparently the Middle East suffered a lot when there was no money coming in between 1992 and 2000. How in the world did they survive those 8 years of such a financial draught?

must have been aided financially by the US. Except for the sanctions that is, which pretty much crippled their economies and destroyed their freedoms.


(ok, i'm done, grrrrr.)

Meow.

Meow, indeed
 
2003-01-23 02:05:21 AM
I'm tired; I have to crash. Apologies if I miss responding to anyone.

I'll probably check back in tomorrow when I'm getting paid for being on line. =)
 
2003-01-23 02:11:18 AM
01-23-03 12:03:29 AM Sweater Girl
Is it, though? Palestine seems to have been a motivating factor for Bin Laden, and his hatred for the West (our support of Israel)
Saddam has publicly pledged 25 thousand dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.


Every arab leader around there gives 25 grand to the families of suicide bombers. It is the "norm" over there. When will people stop using that as a stupid excuse to say "Saddam supports terrorism!"

01-23-03 01:33:31 AM Sweater Girl
Oops, in the above I meant Al Qaeda has relocated. The taliban is pretty much useless, and has not made a comeback


Do you really enjoy being wrong? The Taliban is again taking control of the region. Fox News just doesn't say it.
 
2003-01-23 02:12:54 AM
Dr.Fey writes: Yes, the crime of perjury is that important.

Most perjuries are overlooked by prosecutors. Every criminal defendant that testifies to his own innocence and is convicted is assumed -- by the finding of guilt -- to have committed perjury. But, how many of those offenders are subsequently charged with perjury? Have you even heard of one? Similarly, perjuries in divorce proceedings are almost always ignored. The fact is, in this country, perjury meant merely to protect oneself from injury is nearly always excused.
 
2003-01-23 02:13:44 AM
(and, your analogy is inapt).

How so? Or did you not read the rest of what I wrote?

Also

But, it IS remarkable for the United States to use Iraqi conduct as an argument against them if that conduct occured while we were allied with them.

We weren't allies with him when he cut his people off due to sanctions, as we were the ones to impose those sanctions.
Also, there's that bothersome issue of him killing off those Kurds, and anyone who deigned to say anything against him.


There is evidence that both al Qaeda and the Taliban are returning to Afghanistan.
Links?

Mr. Bush wants to attack Saddam for two reasons: 1) lack of distraction would make his war on terra look like an abject failure and 2) there is an enormous bonanza of Iraqi oil to be had.
Heh, "war on terra" nope, you aren't biased. Not one bit.
Once again, where is the proof of your assertations?


Your facts seem to omit the fact that Mr. Clinton wanted regime change to be effected by IRAQIS. And, it is only the Iraqis who have the right under international law to change their leadership.


And you don't know your history. This is the mistake we made in the Gulf War. We told the Iraqis if they had an uprising, we would support them. They did, we didn't. Saddam was run out for all of a month, regrouped and came back. He killed all of those who made the mistake of being vocal about a regime change. Apparently Clinton missed that class in history, as well.

Not only is it a waste, it is an insult.

So it's better to keep your head in the sand and not look into it. Ah, I see.

You're missing the point again. The question isn't merely one of income; it is on the Bush crime family's connections to the region's financial dealings.

Missing what point? The one kitten_x postulated, or the one you bring to the table?
 
2003-01-23 02:15:22 AM
But the Republicans and the media HAD to get something pinned on Clinton... so they decided to charge him with perjury, and neither the nation, nor the world, cared.
 
2003-01-23 02:16:56 AM
Big Al
Do you really enjoy being wrong? The Taliban is again taking control of the region. Fox News just doesn't say it.

I enjoy being wrong as much as you like making generalizations.
Links, please.
 
2003-01-23 02:21:07 AM
Pardom my (non-existent) HTML suckage

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/15/gen.russia.muyaidin/index. html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.afghanistan.year.later.tm/inde x.html
 
2003-01-23 02:22:32 AM
Cool, thanks
I'll cut and paste (I suck at html as well)
I need to hit the hay, though. So I'll read and check back in in the morn.

Night all.
 
2003-01-23 02:26:14 AM
At least you read it, most people would just dismiss something that goes against their perceived views. G'night
 
2003-01-23 02:28:37 AM
Clinton told everyone involved in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit and any criminal cases to lie to investigators about his activities. When a special prosecutor was named Clinton was happy to say that he wante dit all to come out but when rubber hit the road he lied, stalled, attacked the accusers, diverted the attention of people by blaming others for problems....

Bush on 9/11, gee guys, we know that osama did it, we know how they did it, and we know where they came from. Now let's go eliminate this problem....
 
2003-01-23 02:32:58 AM
I admire how Clinton was actually doing his job while getting the vacuum treatment on his nether parts. He was phoning the prime minister of France at the time.
I'm sure interns only suck off Bush on one of 250 days off spent on the Crawford ranch (where they grow premium, uncut bullshiat).
Crawford, incidentally, is the only unpolluted piece of acrage in Texas. Go three miles down the road and it is back to the craphole we all look down on.

I want to become a politician too, so that I can also get sucked off by fat interns. Oh, and make policy. That's why a small part of Nebraska will soon declare its independence and become a principality of Scotland.
It'll raise the tone of the place and cause a rumpus, which is always nice!
 
2003-01-23 02:34:28 AM
Sweater Girl asks: How so? Or did you not read the rest of what I wrote?

I read the whole thing. You presented a terrible argument. Your analogy was inapposite because it failed to account for the fact that we were PARTNERS IN CRIME with Iraq. Your woman would look pretty foolish if she filed for divorce on the basis that her husband was faithful to her instructions to rob a bank.

We weren't allies with him when he cut his people off due to sanctions, as we were the ones to impose those sanctions.

If WE imposed the sanctions, how can it be that Saddam cut his people off? Don't forget that the Food-for-oil program wasn't implemented until 1994.

Also, there's that bothersome issue of him killing off those Kurds, and anyone who deigned to say anything against him.

What is more bothersome is that when he killed Northern Kurds (who were allied with Iran) by poisoned gas, the United States was his greatest benefactor. And, we continued to support him even after that atrocity.

Heh, "war on terra" nope, you aren't biased. Not one bit.

Does it really matter?

Once again, where is the proof of your assertations?

Where is proof of yours? My assertions are, at least, logical.

And you don't know your history.

I'd be willing to bet that my knowledge of history compares quite favorably with yours.

This is the mistake we made in the Gulf War. We told the Iraqis if they had an uprising, we would support them.

International law (and, our treaty obligations) prevent us from legally engaging in actions designed to change the political system of any foreign state. Mr. Clinton understood this and acted accordingly. The fact that Saddam suppressed an insurrection isn't a good argument against that. All governments have the right of self defense. It is an aspect of sovereignty.

So it's better to keep your head in the sand and not look into it. Ah, I see.

No, you don't see. It is better to do a thing right. A $3 million investigation will not come to any worthwhile conclusions and would probably do more harm than good.

Missing what point?

Read the original comments again. I explained it there.
 
2003-01-23 02:35:29 AM
Can you impeach a president if he's so dorky that no-one would go down on him?

Why did the American people vote for someone whose eyes are so close together?
 
2003-01-23 02:36:20 AM
I'd admire Clinton more if he would have been honest. As for being on the phone with France, so what, he was also on the phone with China, Taiwan, a buttload of Asian nations taking campaign bribes. Gave back something like 5 million dollars alone from the 96 campaign. not to mention the other campaigns he was involved in.
 
2003-01-23 02:36:58 AM
Ricbach229 writes: Clinton told everyone involved in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit and any criminal cases to lie to investigators about his activities.

There's no credible evidence that Mr. Clinton suborned perjury.
 
2003-01-23 02:38:58 AM
Ricbach229 writes: I'd admire Clinton more if he would have been honest.

Mr. Clinton lied about his personal behavior. George Bush (who lied more in his first year than Clinton did in eight) lies about policy. Which should be more disturbing to the public?
 
2003-01-23 02:40:39 AM
Shrub wont even admit that the war that the upcoming slaughter in the Gulf is because "He tried to kill muh daddy".

When someone accuses you of receiving a knob polishing in public, you say no. It's automatic, a male genetic response. I would say no, you would to and republicans deny everything. Sorting through the skeletons of Republicans has made people forget what the closet looks like.
 
2003-01-23 02:41:55 AM
R1niceboy asks: Why did the American people vote for someone whose eyes are so close together?

Don't forget: more Americans voted for the other guy.
 
2003-01-23 02:43:27 AM
b.s. Richbach229

If you think we know even half the story behind the WTC attacks, then you are sticking your head in the sand.
When Clinton did his misdeed, the world was laughing. When he was impeached, it laughed even louder. It was sex for crying out loud, and America was willing to disrupt its credibility over sex! I'm not saying that Clinton was a great president or anything, and I never make comparisons over who is or was better. I could care less. The issue is what is happening NOW. We are talking about world disruption, or worse. How is wiping out Iraq going to save the West? It's not. It's just going to make a few rich men even richer. And the downside is that it very well might lead to the next serious world conflict.

Iraq is the only eastern nation that runs like a Western one. Sadaam was welcomed and encouraged by the US years ago, and he built schools, hospitals -- women were encouraged to educate themselves and become doctors. To achieve this, Sadaam murdered his opponents, that is true. With the backing of the States he stabilized his country.
It is scary how the States determines who is acceptable and who is not depending on what year it is. And I don't care who is president. It really doesn't matter.
 
2003-01-23 02:43:42 AM
that whole Starr report was filled with details. The reason it sounded like softcore porn was to explain exactly what falsities Bubba stated in regards to Paula Jones and raping other interns.

I loved his policy allowing certain American companies to transfer technology to foreign countries. Nevermind that the only companies that benefited from his policy were owned by a single contributor that invested a full $1,000,000 in DNC contributions. Paid off handsomely in exports but according to numerous congressional reports it definatly hurt US security interests.
 
2003-01-23 02:46:17 AM
When Clinton was Impeached it was for purgory. He LIED to a federal grand jury about his actions in regards to sexual conduct with an underling. Honestly I couldnt give a rats' ass what Clinton did between him and consenting adults. But the trial was about whether or not he sexually harrassed and assaulted Paula Jones. That makes his personal sexual habits court business.
 
2003-01-23 02:49:34 AM
Ricbach229 writes: When Clinton was Impeached it was for purgory.

And, he was acquitted.

But the trial was about whether or not he sexually harrassed and assaulted Paula Jones. That makes his personal sexual habits court business.

I'll simply copy what I wrote earlier on this topic:

Most perjuries are overlooked by prosecutors. Every criminal defendant that testifies to his own innocence and is convicted is assumed -- by the finding of guilt -- to have committed perjury. But, how many of those offenders are subsequently charged with perjury? Have you even heard of one? Similarly, perjuries in divorce proceedings are almost always ignored. The fact is, in this country, perjury meant merely to protect oneself from injury is nearly always excused.
 
2003-01-23 02:51:50 AM
Incorrect, Mr. Clinton was Impeached by the House of Representatives. He just wasnt removed from office by the Senate.

So his bullshiatting a court because it's his penis and denying another person there day in court is supposed to be forgivin just cause?
 
2003-01-23 02:54:11 AM
As for your argument that anyone that takes the stand and professes his innocence and is subsequently convicted is guilty of perjury is factually wrong.

Perjury is making false statements in court that have an impact on the outcome. Saying your innocent and being convicted has no effect on the outcome so it's not perjury.
 
2003-01-23 02:55:01 AM
Who cares that someone lied about their sex life? How does that concern the rest of the world? You are defending a man who has no clue about how the world is past or present or future. You are defending a man who never left his continent until he was drafted into the presidency. And now, he is so high on himself that he is willing to risk the balance of the earth. He can point at countries and call them "evil" and call their leaders "evil dictators". This is supposed to be a man of the world!

Whether he is acting on his own, or being led by others, he has no clue of what he is doing. He's on a power trip, and a very dangerous one.
 
2003-01-23 02:58:00 AM
Jill Billy, the only reason I care is because his defense set a precedent. In law precedents are everything. I've already heard of at least one case in the New England area being dismissed because if the Presidents sexual deeds didn't cross the line into sexual harassment then how could a boss who snapped a secretaries bra strap possibly cross it?
 
2003-01-23 02:58:05 AM
Ricbach229 writes: Incorrect, Mr. Clinton was Impeached by the House of Representatives. He just wasnt removed from office by the Senate.

Sorry, but, you're incorrect. How did the Senate trial end? With the following words from Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist: It is therefore ordered and adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton be and hereby is acquitted of the charges in the said articles.

So his bullshiatting a court because it's his penis and denying another person there day in court is supposed to be forgivin just cause?

Paula Jones had her day in court. In fact, she had much more than that. But, the court found that even if everything Ms. Jones alleged was true, she still HAD NO CASE. The court issued a summary judgment in favor of Mr. Clinton and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
 
2003-01-23 02:59:38 AM
I'm going to rant. I don't care if anyone reads, agrees, or disagrees. But here it is:

Politics is masturbation. Simply masturbation. The bloated party political system in this country is disgusting. The people we elect are immoral, useless duesch bags that care more for their hair and bank accounts than they do about the people that voted for them.

Every position a republican or democrat takes is completely without personal bakcing. They don't care about taxes, or abortion, or factory workers in Ohio. They don't care about education or trade or any thing else that really matters. They speak about them because they want us to think they care. The positions they take are the positions required, every single one calculated to win the highest majority numbers so said politician can sit in a better chair, in a bigger office, and seem even more powerful.

This is something that will not change.

We, as Americans, have created a disgusting, disturbing faith sorrunding these political parties. A majority of us no longer analyze each issue, we simply have a rabid hatred for the other party, and we will do whatever it takes to keep them out of power. We breed the politicians we get, and tghen we biatch and moan when we learn they could give a flying fark about any one of us. Here is the truth:

You have no power anymore. We have no power. We can do nothing to change this, and it will simply continue the same way. We will elect dirt-bags because of a symbol on the podium, they will piss on us, we will whine, and then the whole damn process will repeat with more hatred, anger, and agression, all the while the parties become more and more the same. One day, they will become one, and that hatred will have no where to go. There will be nothing to channel it. Frankly, you deserve it. If you are ignorant enough to play the game, you deserve to be chained to it.
 
2003-01-23 03:00:54 AM
ummm... who had control of Congress when they spent the 10M??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????

sorry - probably a duplicate post...
 
2003-01-23 03:02:39 AM
Paula Jones had no case because the witnesses were told to lie or deny any actions on behalf of the president that might show a history of similar actions. He was Impeached by the House, acquittel in the Senate only means he wasnt evicted from the white house.

Please remember. Paula Jones wasnt the only one to claim she was assaulted. Others came forward saying that they were raped by the Clinton with State Troopers standing in the hallway.
 
2003-01-23 03:04:21 AM
okay Richbach... so in a discussion about the comparison of investigative spending, you are more in favour of putting the resources into the problematic issue of brastrap-snapping, over putting the resources into just what happened to make 4 jetliners be crashed onto American soil???

I see your point. Puritanism still rules the homeland strong and free.

Goodnight, I can't take anymore.
 
2003-01-23 03:06:36 AM
Let's see, 19 Arab males, roughly in there early 20's flew 4 airliners into 3 building and a field in pennsylvania. We know there names, there national origins. We know how they were funded, how they got in, what they did when they were here. Hell we even know the name of the stripper that gave them a lap dance the night before. Please tell me what more do i need to know?
 
2003-01-23 03:06:56 AM
Ricbach229 writes: Perjury is making false statements in court that have an impact on the outcome.

You're wrong on two counts. First, in most jurisdictions, ANY false statement is perjury. Second, you've completely farked the definition of "material" that is used in those jurisdictions that require it.

Material does not mean dispositive. Material means related to the ultimate issues evoked by the pleadings. ANY testimony by a defendant that pertains to his innocence IS MATERIAL. But, Mr. Clinton's testimony about Monica Lewinsky was NOT material. In fact, it was not even proper. The judge ruled it inadmissible.
 
2003-01-23 03:09:06 AM
please notice, i dont care about what Clinton diddles. I only care that he lied and cheated someone else out of Justice. Sounds cheasy but I think the President of the United States should stand for more than a bj and a facial.
 
2003-01-23 03:09:42 AM
Ricbach229 writes: Paula Jones had no case...

No. Can't you read? The court ASSUMED EVERYTHING JONES ASSERTED WAS TRUE and found that her CLAIM did not amount to an action that could be brought at law. She simply had no case.
 
2003-01-23 03:10:56 AM
Ricbach229 writes: I only care that he lied and cheated someone else out of Justice.

Once more, for emphasis: no one was cheated out of Justice -- with the possible exception of Mr. Clinton himself.
 
2003-01-23 03:12:29 AM
I feel no pity for that liars loss of sleep. He took a shiat load of illegal money for campaigns. Sexually assaulted interns during his days as governor of Arkansas. Then when he was caught he lied to everyone about it.
 
2003-01-23 03:15:32 AM
Ricbach229, your claims are just Clinton-hating nonsense.
 
2003-01-23 03:20:48 AM
you do realise that every single leak to the press during the whole ordeal came from Clintons people as a way to make Starr look over zealous? Listen. I said, I dont care what he did in bed. Not my business. But he LIED in court. Hell the entire Supreme Court refused to go to his state of the union address after his lies came to light. You cant even say that it was the conservative court that wouldnt show. It was the whole thing, all 9.
 
2003-01-23 03:37:32 AM
He lied about something they shouldn't have asked about in the first place.
The Supreme Court are a bunch of 'if you figure out what the genetic makeup of Dna is, you can patent it' dumbasses.
Republican's are closet homo's.
Bush Jr. is a spoiled rotten little brat.
The Republican agenda is The Poor don't work hard enough and that's why their poor. Business shouldn't have to pay for labor, or labor should be very low on the cost scale because it eats into profits. Pollution is a byproduct of business and isn't cost effective to deal with so why should they deal with it. Why should the rich, like any person who like to hoard their money, should be forced to pay so much taxes.
Well during the depression with 50%+ unemployment, the rich had to pay 90% of their income to taxes because if they didn't no one else could have kept the American Government going.
I don't know if anyone remembers what was one of the first statements GW Bush Jr. said after he became President, "Well things would be much easier if I was a Dictator."
 
2003-01-23 03:44:55 AM
If Clinton hadn't whipped it out on a couple of unwilling interns then no one would have asked. If he'd limited himself to the willing ones he'd be remembered as a Kennedesque president. Got around, had a few dosen STD's but hell of a nice guy. Instead he went on a slash and burn defense swearing the slut accusing him was just making it all up and that he'd never do anything like that. Turns out he did, and does.
 
2003-01-23 03:53:04 AM
so would someone like to tell me what we dont know about the 9/11 hijackers that we need to pour money on to find out?
 
2003-01-23 04:19:41 AM
Just bout what I expected.
 
2003-01-23 04:24:18 AM
Here they go again,
The Yanks in their armoured parade
Chanting their ballads of joy
As they gallop across the big world
Praising America's God.
The gutters are clogged with the dead
The ones who couldn't join in
The others refusing to sing
The ones who are losing their voice
The ones who've forgotten the tune.

The riders have whips which cut.
Your head rolls onto the sand
Your head is a pool in the dirt
Your head is a stain in the dust
Your eyes have gone out and your nose
Sniffs only the pong of the dead
And all the dead air is alive
With the smell of America's God.

© Harold Pinter, January 2003
 
2003-01-23 04:32:51 AM
That's probably because 3M is all it costs to produce a smooth-over campaign for Bush when he actually organized it all in order to have the excuse to try and sort the middle east out once and for all.
 
2003-01-23 05:19:21 AM
Damn. Missed another good flame war. Sucks to be me.
 
2003-01-23 06:43:01 AM
Please note, Clinton was accused of perjury... he was never actually convicted of it. Articles of impeachment were produced in the house based on the charge of perjury, but they were voted down by the senate.

So... in the eyes of the law. Clinton never actually perjured himself.

Thank you, flame on...
 
2003-01-23 07:04:15 AM
Ricbach229, you know just what you have been told (as of course do I)

Why no intercept?
 
2003-01-23 07:12:34 AM
Trickle Down Economics > Reagan Bush

Trickle Down Sperm Droplets > Clinton Lewinski
 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report