hobitbob
I've just given away my copy, so I can't pull out some quotations for you, but I highly recommend Didion's "Political Fictions" for some clear-sighted writing on this point.
Yeah ... you libs is big on Political Fictions, ain't ya?
sorry, blatham ... but you handed off a straight line I couldn't pass up
:wink:
hobitbob wrote:Then you are unusual compared to others of your species. Why is he such a powerful influence on them?
Dunno if that's really the case ... again, I could be wrong, but I suspect your impression in that regard is at odds with the facts. My impression is that, apart from the rightwingnuts (yeah, we got 'em too
), he gets less mention than you perceive ... a mildly interesting thesis. If I get time before it slips my mind, I might research it myself. However, to me its a non-issue, all in all.
Oh, I should feel guilty about this, but I'm fiesty this morning ...
You libs is big on non-issues, too, ain't ya?
We love ya, Timber, we really do. And I'm especially fond of feisty........too bad you're so misguided.
back later, lunch time for me
Why do they hate Clinton so? My guess is that he won two elections and was invulnerable to the attempt to remove him from office. For that, they'll never forgive him.
Apparently, the same is true for Hillary.
D'art, Must not forget that the GOP tried to remove Clinton from office of a personal nature which lead to lying, while GWBush has committed crimes against humanity from his lying, but is still in office.
Which brings about the question; "Will whichever Democrat that wins in 2004 turn Bush and Regime over to the World Court to be tried for their crimes?"
Can't believe no comment on the Damn Yankees pic above....
D'art -- I think, quite seriously, that sexuality troubles many conservatives to a degree many of us can't comprehend. This isn't a neener-neener observation, but something which has seemed quite obvious to me for quite a long time.
Probably true, Tartarin. Sexuality must make some of them uneasy, for sure...
That's why they get dressed in the closet, hmmm!
The conservatives should study the life of Ramses II of Egypt. He had over 200 wives and concubines, and lived to be over 93 years old when the life expectancy was 40. Feeling shame about sexual matters is not healthy!
The whole of the former administration, from Travelgate to Florida, featured involvement of the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch, in concert, in the affairs of The Executive Branch. In as much as The Democrats retained The Executive Branch in '96, regardless their performance in the Legisltive Branch, indicates legal difficulties do not preclude re-election. Whether or not wrongdoing exists, mere allegation of wrongdoing remains, in absence of legal proceedings, mere allegation. Even given sufficient credence to merit legal proceedings allegations remain allegations unless and untill legally proven ... just ask O.J. Simpson, or the immediate former President himself. Should any member or associate of The Current Administration be brought to charges by weight of evidence, and those charges be fully litigated, the matter will be resolved. ... there are only three possible conditions: Allegation, Litigation, and Resolution. Posing argument of biased legal system inhibitting the process is ridiculous. The GOP failed to remove the Dems via Judicial Process despite the expenditure of considerable energy. As yet, and things could chang, but as yet, there are no legal proceedings ongoing, let alone resolved, involving the allegations levelled against The Current Administration. As difficult as it may be for some to accept, the fact is that the Judicial System just doesn't see any "There" there. Not to say there is or is not a "There" there, just to say no court or elected deliberative body has seen fit to look officially to see if there might be a "There" there. For all the outraged howling, all the rage and protest, opinion and interpretation, for whatever reason, folks just ain't goin' there. Yet. Maybe later, maybe sooner, maybe never, but there's nobody there right now, despite the considerable effort being expended to bring us there.
hobitbob wrote:Sofia wrote:blatham said, in part--
Quote:...how democrats couldn't find the Truth if it sat on an easy boy rocker with it's legs spread and a three acre flag flying from it's weenie.
--to which, Hell, I have to say-- you can't really blame them, since the truth is closely disguised as Clinton. :wink:
It is truly impressive how Clinton so caprtured the hearts and mids of the Republicans, becasue he hasn't the same hold over the rest of us. Even the ones who have more than two functioning neurons to rub together (can conservatives rub neurons together wthout sin?) like Sofia and Timber are captivated by him. All sarcasm aside, this phenomenon is one I have never understood. I am really curious, guys...why is he so fascinating to you? I'm not playing "gotcha," I really, really wish to understand.
1) I don't hate Clinton.
2) He is the last President before Bush. Many times, when comparing the current Pres., one refers to the previous. This is only common sense--only an indictment if Clinton compares unfavorably.
3) The symbolism in blatham's mental picture shouted Clinton.
<Damn. My references to Clinton just went up.> :wink:
Ain't at $65 million and 7 years...........a master conspiracy in futility without fulfilling any "There" - so there!!!!!!!
The truth is, I haven't heard any "outraged howling" for Bush to be impeached. Nothing, of course, like the hue and cry we all heard for the head of Clinton.
Now, that was "outraged howling," timberlandko!
D'artagnan wrote:The truth is, I haven't heard any "outraged howling" for Bush to be impeached. Nothing, of course, like the hue and cry we all heard for the head of Clinton.
Now, that was "outraged howling," timberlandko!
Certainly was ... and it occasioned official attention of both Legislative and Judicial nature, beyond partisan excitement. We still ain't there yet, whether or not we get there at some point. We ain't there now.
Believe it or not, D'Art, there is a group of people, who think a Pres. lying under oath--even about what he had for breakfast--is an impeachable offense. It is about respect for the rule of law.
The Pres. is where the buck stops on upholding the laws of this land. When he/she lies under oath--it slaps hard, the face of many of us, who believe no one is above the law.
He also broke a law, releasing a private letter from a woman who accused him of sexual battery. The first Pres to be known to break the law, while in the WH. No matter what his party, what he did was wrong, and in the opinion of a lot of people--an impeachable offense. Since it was about sex, many of us wish it had never come up.
<err, the 'issue' had never come up.>
Depends upon what the meaning of "is" is. If Politics hadn't of weighed into this, it would never have happened. Many of us believe that when a vote of conscious comes up in Congress, it should never be whipped - and it was whipped, very, very hard. Therefore, it was not a vote of conscious; but one of a Political persuasion - history will tell the truth and not the history of the revisionist party .........
Believe it or not!!!!!
