Response #1 (of many) to Z and Anita : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Clinton told a group of visiting women, after it came out that unsavory characters had invaded the White House with money, that he had assumed that he had inherited a security system that worked automatically, and that meant his administration wasn't at fault. In fact, he inherited just such an automatic system, and his people purposefully dismantled it to increase the flow of donors with cash. He knew that, even if those women didn't.

Just an opening salvo.

-- Peter Errington (, October 29, 2000



You don't seem to understand. I'm not interested in your "evidence." You can string out arguments about why you feel justified in "despising" Clinton until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that "despising" someone you don't even know is an emotion based on your review of information on that person. Another individual might very well review the same information and state, "I wouldn't want this guy to marry my daughter, but I HARDLY despise him."

Emotions carry with them energy. I've never understood why folks wasted this energy on politicians or others they didn't know personally.

-- Anita (, October 29, 2000.

Jesus H Christ, Anita, that's the worst post I've ever read from you. So I don't know Clinton. I didn't know Hitler. I don't know Milosovich (sp?). What does that have to do with anything?

-- Peter Errington (, October 29, 2000.


I'm trying to tell you that you're wearing your emotions on your sleeve. That was obvious to me when you started this thread. The OTHER thread you started could have very well been a good place for you to lay out your "evidence", but you chose to start another. Actually, the other thread was started as a result of your first thread wherein Z, obviously offended you and you felt a need to go into MORE detail, in a MORE public way about why YOU were right and Z was wrong.

Even in THIS thread, Peter, you demonstrate your tendency to exaggerate, become emotional, and state opinion as fact. My worst post yet is certainly an opinion. I'm sure Hmm could go through the archives and come up with at least five of my posts that were objectionable to SOMEONE.

My point in responding at all, Peter, is that I think you're a good man who is wasting energy in negative emotionalism. Life's simply too short for that, IMO.

-- Anita (, October 29, 2000.

Anita, I'll tell you what I'm working toward, Clinton's winking at genocide in 1993 and 1994. And if my emotions show on my sleave about genocide, so be it.

-- Peter Errington (, October 29, 2000.

"Clinton's winking". I like that. Mr Winky will be the only memorable thing left to posterity by "big hands Bill".

The problem, Anita, is that both Clinton and Gore are hollow men. Say what you want about Dubya but he doesn't live for politics. Libs rail about bureaucracy but then vote for it every time. Amazing.

-- Carlos (, October 30, 2000.

"Say what you want about Dubya but he doesn't live for politics."

So, why then is he serving as Governor of Texas and why is he running for President? Call me an idealist (you'd probably be right), but if this is true then he has no business serving in and/or running for any office.

Funny thing is, I agree with you.....which is one of the *many* reasons Dubya won't be getting my vote.

Funnier thing is, there is no need to clarify your statement ;-)

-- Patricia (, October 30, 2000.


" I've never understood why folks wasted this energy on politicians or others they didn't know personally."

You don't know me, so would you waste any energy despising me if I raped and killed your mother?"

Certainly you would because I did something that impacted you personally even though you didn't know me and I never touched you directly.

Slick Willy is despised by many because he assaulted their sense of decency. He flaunted his power and arrogance in the faces of those who guide their lives by a moral compass.

He destroyed the principal of honesty that parents use in bringing up their children.

They despise him because he assaulted them.

-- Interested (, October 30, 2000.

Anita, "My point in responding at all, Peter, is that I think you're a good man who is wasting energy in negative emotionalism. Life's simply too short for that, IMO."

You have no negative emotionalism for Clinton, so you can't see why Peter exhibits this. Well, this forum is for people to express their views. Dialogue supports everyone coming in on a particular topic. What does the length of human life have on this topic?

Patricia, Clinton takes politics to a new high. Anyone who is not his friend, is definitly his foe. (Words spoken by George Stephanopoulus) His enemies are sought after with a vengence. He lives and dies by the polls. He can stand to see Gore not seeking his help and has thrust himself back on the campaign trail. That's the difference with Bush.

-- Maria (, October 30, 2000.

Maria, have you read anything besides Stephanopoulous? Just wondering because he seems to be the only one you ever quote.

Do you honestly believe the practices you've mentioned are exclusive to Clinton? Why is it that you seem to completely disregard some simple things about Bush? Why is it that you seem to completely "excuse" damn-near treasonous behavior in the Reagan and then Bush administrations, instead focusing solely on the fact that Clinton lied about getting a blow job?

Why is it that, no matter what the topic of the discussion, you always manage to work Clinton into the discussion? (Please point out where I mentioned Clinton anywhere in my post to Carlos.)

-- Patricia (, October 30, 2000.

Webster's Partisanship: 1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

It is why I shall forever(?) remain an Independent. I won't go deaf, dumb and blind on behalf of anyone or any organization. Sorry that this is a harsh analysis, but I've just had enough of Partisanship!


-- Bingo1 (, October 30, 2000.

FWIW, I have never been registered in a party, and I have voted across "party lines" many times.

(My original thinking when I first was able to register to vote was, "They're ALL idiots". That hasn't really changed any.)

On my voter registration card, it (proudly) states INDEPENDENT. As I shall remain :-)

-- Patricia (, October 30, 2000.

Patricia, what's the first word on this post?

-- Maria (, October 30, 2000.

But Maria, you were responding to me (well, you started the sentence with "Patricia", so I naturally assumed.....) and I didn't mention him anywhere. And that was my point.

-- Patricia (, October 30, 2000.

Carols wrote, "Clinton and Gore are hollow men" I assume pointing out differences with the next statement. I think that he actually meant that these two listen to the polls a whole lot more than the other candidate (W). I took the point a little further. And no, not all my posts are about Clinton, just ask Anita ;)

I can turn this back to you. Why are you so annoyed by my talking about Clinton? So much so, that every time I mention his name, you point out that I'm talking about him. And I won't address the bitting comment on George S.

-- Maria (, October 30, 2000.

Not to turn this into "you said"/"I said" schoolyard nonsense, but I have yet to see you actually say something about Bush without it becoming a Clinton-bashing.

I have stated on this board and the other board on any number of occasions that Clinton's lying should be punished, falsely assuming that that would have made my point. I guess you missed that. You go on and on and on about do many alleged Bush supporters. They don't actually support Bush as they just despise Clinton. (Hence my repeated comment that Clinton isn't running.) What this has to do with Gore is beyond my comprehension. Is it because he's Clinton's VP? Well, let's see quote George S. an awful lot, and he was part of Clinton's staff (point made and taken, BTW). So I guess association with Clinton is OK as long as the guy now disagrees with him and/or dislikes him as much as you do, right? IOW, he's just fine as long as he mirrors your line of thinking.

And as Clinton is only going to be in office two and a half more months (at which point the bar will take over and you shall have your "justice"), this makes even less sense.

But I wonder where you draw your line. Is it worse, in your opinion, to lie about getting a blow job than it is to, say, wage a one-man unsanctioned war? Is it worse than shredding probable evidence regarding the same? Is it worse than repeating "I don't recall" for six full months? Was it worse than having the hostages held until the minute Reagan took the oath of office? (Didn't you ever wonder just a bit about the timing of that? I know I did; I wondered about it alot in the ensuing "Reagan Years".)

What is your definition there; where is your "line"? Did you get yourself all worked up over those Republican "indiscretions"? Or is your "outrage" and "disgust" simply reserved for Democrats?

-- Patricia (, October 30, 2000.

I actually wrote this when you pointed out that Bush supporters are simply Gore haters.

it appears their only reason for supporting him is the fact that he's not Gore --You know, I think this is also true of a lot of Gore supporters. But let me make one point, republicans are very different than democrats (more than just the Hollywood image of a bad MAN - Hollywood never depicts a woman as a republican). Republicans believe in their party's causes. I'm not so sure of the dems. Polls taken show the repubs vote repub 90% of the time while demos vote demo 70% of the time.

One final comment if I may, it's all about style. I think that Gore will be a micro manager; that really bothers me. No ONE person can do it all. I think that Bush will depend more on his advisors; I like that style. Let the people do the job they've been hired for.

Notice I didn't mention Clinton. I also addressed your comments on Reagan- Ollie scandals on another thread. I didn't talk about Clinton's BJ, I made a point on Gore's deal behind the back of the congressional committee.

Isn't the US of America a wonderful place? I can bash the prez any time I want. But I have to be careful or Pat will call me on it.

-- Maria (, October 30, 2000.

Pat, So I guess association with Clinton is OK as long as the guy now disagrees with him and/or dislikes him as much as you do, right?

George still adores the prez (agrees with all Clinton's liberal policies and loves his political tenacity) as far as I can tell in his book. I point out his writings only because he was close to the prez and knows him intimately (well, maybe not that intimate) and has a better view than either you or me.

-- Maria (, October 30, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ