What's Bill Clinton experiencing at the moment?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Since Clinton is our elected President and Commander-in-Chief, we have the right and duty to spend a few moments trying to get inside his head and speculate on what he is thinking about...

Where is he now? In the White House Situation Room? Camp David? Oval Office? Which networks is he watching? For the first time in history, the House of Representatives just voted for articles of impeachment. (two out of four) There will be a trial in the Senate. And...the bombs are flying again, on the eve of Ramadan. I can imagine him in the Oval Office, legs crossed, pensive look on his face, people coming in and out. They're whispering in his ear and he's shaking his head alot. The phones keep ringing. He's probably the most well guarded human being on the face of the earth. Has the word "resignation" crossed his mind today? Is he chuckling about Livingston?

---WE interupt this post to announce that the President was not watching TV, but has been alone in the Oval Office with his "Spritual Advisor." Forget his name---

Looking at it through Y2K filters; could that 99 endfile thing be such a significant genetic defect, and the Pentagon knows this, that the DNA of civilization starts to unravel in this way? (I doubt it) Two weeks left until the programming controlling some of that expensive ordnance becomes obsolete? Will we see EO 12919 before the end of the year? (I doubt it) Is the purpose of this current mess a major distraction so the inevitable will appear to be caused by the political situation? ( I doubt it)

What are the proportions of Impeachment/Iraq that is Clinton dealing with now? Who's feeding him what information? What are the guards outside the Oval Office thinking? What conversations is he having with leaders from other nations? And Nixon felt beseiged? Ha! Bill Clinton's got his legacy now, that's for sure...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 19, 1998



not to nitpick but the first president to be impeached was Andrew Johnson (who replaced Abraham Lincoln).

my bet - just based on rumor control around here is that he still thinks that his lawyers can get him out of it during the trial...remember he's been able to skate out of every other problem he's had in his entire life - the concept of inescapable and absolute rules/laws/consequences is totally alien to him.

just my 2 cents' worth, Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 19, 1998.

Maybe he is contemplating following Livingston's lead by resigning. I hear he makes Clinton look like a choir boy. But let's not forget that Livingston didn't do it with his co-workers. I bet that's why he got a standing ovation. His wife and children must be so proud of him.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), December 19, 1998.

"not to nitpick but the first president to be impeached was Andrew Johnson (who replaced Abraham Lincoln). "

He came after Lincoln was killed (4/15/1865 - 3/3/1869). He was not an elected Prez... so Clinton is the first elected Prez to be impeached.

pshannon: Could he be lurking? wink.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), December 19, 1998.

Reports just in that White House lawyers will make the argument before the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, that the Articles of Impeachment were passed by an "illegitimate, partisan House of Represenatives, and has no legal or Constitutional authority", and request that "these articles be struck down and sent back to the House". Based on that argument, I motion that EVERY SINGLE law and tax ever passed by Congress after an election, before the seating of a new Congress in January- be IMMEDIATELY repealed and rescinded.

If the attempts by this White House fail to derail an impeachment trial, look for another card to be played (ala: the revelations of Bob Livingston), 900 FBI files in the hands of White House operatives goes a long way towards silencing Clinton's enemies doesn't it?

If those efforts fail, look for a declaration of a National Emergency as a result of some other event (terrorist or Y2K related?) as soon as it's convenient for this President.

As I said before, they are biding their time until they can legitimately declare phased stages of Martial Law. Those in power will obviously do ANYTHING to stay in power and ensure their survival and prosperity at the expense and sacrifice of the rest of us.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), December 19, 1998.

Or instead of laughing about this, we could realize just how disgusting this whole process has been. Clinton is not a choir boy, I do not approve of his personal life, fine, but let's take a look at his accusers for a moment huh?

Henry Hyde - Had an affair in his 40's and chalked it up to a "youtful indiscretion"

Newt Gingirich - Asked his first wife for a divorce while she laid in the hospital with cancer so he could marry his second wife.

Bob Dole - No proof, but it has looked like for years he cheated on his first wife with Liddy. (no he is not in Congress right now, just speaking of Republicans)

Bob Livingiston - A standing ovation for a man who had MULTIPLE affairs?

Oh yeah, these guys have a right to sit in judgement of someone else.

-- Disgusted (sick@ofitall.com), December 19, 1998.

I don't recall any of the above mentioned folks lying under oath, and obstucting justice? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not that I condone infidelity. I condemm it. Any married person who can't keep that most important of all committments can't be trusted with any others.

Fortunately, my husband is one of the many men who would rather cut it off than be unfaithful and lose me. I would prefer the latter, which may be why he prefers the fo

-- AsAbove Again (nevermind@nowhere.com), December 19, 1998.

You're right, Arlin, Johnson was impeached in the House, and the it didn't pass the Senate by one vote:

"Rep. John Covode introduced a resolution to impeach Johnson for "high crimes and misdemeanors," and the House adopted the measure on a 126- 47 vote Feb. 24, 1868 even before official articles of impeachment had been drafted.

On May 16, the Senate took its first vote. The tally: 35-19, one short of the two-thirds needed for impeachment. Ten days later, after Republicans had nominated Grant as their 1868 presidential nominee, the Senate cast votes on two more impeachment articles and again fell one vote short on each."

quote from here

In Johnson's case, it was his own party out to get him. And, in this case, we all know that after a trial in the Senate (if they don't just dismiss it immediately) there will never be 67 votes to remove Clinton from office. The House is simply doing what they are doing because they know they can get away with it...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 19, 1998.

Very well put, Disgusted.

Might I add the hypocrisy of those judging others as immoral for partaking in premarital sex, like Dr. Laura Schlesinger, who was caught lying about nude photos of herself taken when she was a teenage slut.

And the schools across the country, where drug dogs are now routinely patrolling the campuses, searching out non-conformists. These very students' parents are the same generation that revolted over the authoritarianism of the leaders of their generation.

Defense secretaries lying about million dollar contracts...Speakers of the House lying about million dollar book deals...Banks lying about million dollar money laundering... So Clinton lied about sex. So what? Where is the smoking gun for Fostergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Campaigngate, RonBrowngate, Etc.gate?

And we're gonna IMPEACH him? In the middle of a WAR with Saddam Hussein?????!!!??

The right wing seems to be grooming our next generation for a repressive, totalitarian form of government in the years to soon come. As Pink Floyd says, all they want us to be is "just another brick in the wall" Paul Milne says this country is about to get what it deserves. Sometimes I want to agree with him.

-- a (a@a.a), December 19, 1998.

I keep hearing that perjury by the nations most powerful elected official does not rise to the level of impeachment. Proponents of this stance say that we have lowered the standards for impeachment by setting this precedent. Well consider this. If Bill Clinton was let off on these perjury charges another far more damaging precedent would have been set. Any future president called to testify before congress could lie with impunity knowing he could not be impeached for it. This would be an intolerable situation which would in very short order destroy what little faith the public retains in our elected representatives.

-- clem (clem@sat.net), December 19, 1998.

Maybe all elected officials should take an oath of truthfullness under penalty of perjury for every word that slides from their greasy lips during their stay in office. How different would the world be?


-- MVI (vtoc@aol.com), December 19, 1998.

Is the bombing in Iraq really necessary at the time of Islamic holy month of Ramadan or is this just a wag the tail Clinton reaction to save his job?

-- bobbyv (ctyankee@worldne.net), December 19, 1998.

Well, I just heard about the House impeachment vote on the radio. They said the impeachment issue will go to the Senate when it returns on January 6th. The story on the news said Andrew Johnson's Senate trial lasted a month...but this one could take longer.

I already knew that Clinton and Gore would receive blame for Y2K. Now I'm sure the Republicans will too. What was Congress doing in January 1999 when the public first became aware of Y2K failures? A newspaper article I saw a fews days ago suggested that Clinton's trial could drag into the summer of 1999.

What happened to the promise that this Clinton thing would be done with by the end of 1998? The story of Y2K is going to be one blunder by lawmakers after another. Rome is burning.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 19, 1998.

There are some who will always take the holier-than-thou stance of wanting to legislate morals. Clinton was just too dumb to do like Reagan and say, "I don't remember," about 50 times. If lying about sex, under oath, is considered a high crime, then friends, just consider that JQP may be next. The religious right has a strangle hold on the Republican Party, and they would love to run this country. James Dobson wasn't just making a social call on Lott and Gingrich. Lighten up; if the worst thing a president ever does is have a silly, sexual encounter, then we have nothing to fear.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 19, 1998.

One (hyphenated) word:


'Nuff said.

-- Furious George (hypocrites@gop.house), December 19, 1998.

"first elected Prez to be impeached"-- Rob

and not impeached by his electors, but by the oposition party. Very scary to live in the United States anymore...can't wait to go home.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 19, 1998.

gilda jessie What clinton did was not "silly sex". First of all, according to clinton - he did not have sex with her. She had sex with him. Second - the sex reported was not "silly sex" but perverted, unnatural sex which was demeaning and degrading to the woman involved. As a high school teacher I have difficulty responding to jokes the students have about this "silly sex " scandal. Third - would you have the same option if your daughter was involved with the same kind of "silly sex" with a superior? Let's bring morallity back in this country and let it start in the white house.

-- bobbyv (ctyankee@worldnet.net), December 19, 1998.

bobbyv, If by morality you mean a system of conduct based on the principles of right and wrong, I'm all for it. I just don't think our lawmakers are capable of it. furthermore, all of the opinions expressed in threads of this type will not buy you one pound of rice.


-- MVI (vtoc@aol.com), December 19, 1998.

Why did they have the right to ask him the question in the first place?

-- s.e.c. (ciattis@earthlink.net), December 19, 1998.

Bobby V: The sex life of the president, or of any of your adult daughters for that matter, is none of your business. Lewinsky was an adult. The only lecherous ones in this story as far as I'm concerned are Ken Starr and prudes like you that like to know the intimate details of people's private lives so that they have another stone to cast their way. It's don't ask, don't tell, stupid.

Morals may be important, but the religious right has me very scared about the future of *liberty* in this country.

-- a (a@a.a), December 19, 1998.

If you have read this far you are not preparing for y2k.

o athanatos Bagga.

-- epigone (cc@bagga.athanatos.com), December 19, 1998.

If I had a grown daughter as stupid as Monica, I would have very little sympathy for her. He did not drag her kicking and screaming to his office; and as for the jokes, lighten up a little. I do not want a Saint or clergyman for a president. Setting moral examples should begin at home. I frankly am tired of the religious right and the moral majority claiming to be the only people with morals. What disgusts me most with Clinton and Congress, is not addressing the looming y2k problems.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 19, 1998.

What is most needful? The wrath of Bagga. Please flame the unrighteous, my protector, Bagga!

Bagga, Bagga, why have you foresaken us?

-- epigone (cc@job.com), December 19, 1998.


There shall be many anti-Baggas, and there shall be many who come claiming to be Bagga. But there is only One True Bagga.

Bagga, please cast down brimstone upon this unrighteous one, flierdude!

-- epigone (cc@inquisition.com), December 19, 1998.

Clinton is standing up for what he believes in. That used to be a noble thing to do before the right instituted "group-think"

-- eatme (get@a.life), December 19, 1998.

a@a.a; What right do you hasve to call me a prude. OK you want to get personal. What disgusts me is having clinton cronies like you not seeing any thing wrong with the man his lying under oath, his abusing dozens of women, his disguisting unnatural sexual behaviour his putting our troops in harms way, his killing of innocent Iraquais. I think tyhe real problem is the irrational people like you who support him at all costs to our country. Well I celebrating tonight because SLICK WILLY HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

-- bobbyv (ctyankee@worldnet.net), December 19, 1998.

Too bad the dialogue here has degraded into puerile idiocy. Kinda like what's happened to our government...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 19, 1998.

Bobbie V: I am notifying CIA that we have an Iraqi plant on the Yourdon forum. Advocating the overthrow of our president and at the same time defending an enemy of this country. Better hope your email address is a fake one...

-- a (a@a.a), December 19, 1998.

Epigone, What are you talking about?

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), December 19, 1998.

Bobby V, You say you're a high school teacher; then why are you having so much trouble with spelling, or maybe it's with typing. I don't mean to be nit-picker, or act like a grammar teacher. Maybe you're just so angry you can't see straight. In any case, I don't believe we have the right to nosy into anyone's sex life.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 19, 1998.

Clinton is thinking to himself, "Why me", "That bitch Tripp", "All this over a few hummers", "What else can I do to make the public like me?".... This guy is only pissed, because he was caught.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), December 19, 1998.

So, we're all either upset or jubilant over Clinton's impeachment. Lets change the subject then. How about Levingston resigning from House Spearker's position, over "past indiscretions"?

What have we learned from this whole mess people?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 19, 1998.

Mr.Clinton appears to consider himself and his leadership skills indispensible. Why,America would founder, he would have us believe should he himself be removed from the helm of our ship of state. Hmmm, I dont know, is America so short of lecherous liars and perjurors that we cant find someone else to rig congressional votes if we allow them access to everybodys FBI file? Can we not find another Benedict Arnold amongst our number who will continue funneling government defense secrets to the Chinese Army so that they can finally obtain the missles to deliver the nucleur warheads that never before were able to threaten us? This Teflon Don is special all right, no telling what we are in for now as he attempts everything unlimited power and money can conceive to save his ass and preserve his power.

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@proxigy.com), December 19, 1998.

That's pretty cool flierdude! I never saw anyone REMOVE a post before.

Maybe you are Bagga?

(epigone is having a faith crisis...)

-- epigone (cc@thaumasie.com), December 19, 1998.

What is Clinton experiencing right now?

Knowing him, probably vigorous oral sex with his bodyguard.


-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 19, 1998.

What's Clinton experiencing right now?

Probably has a hard on, smoking a cigar with a far away look in his eyes, just reminising...maybe about Monica, Jennifer, and Paula and the his next victim.

-- googooeyed (googooeyed@hots.com), December 20, 1998.

Ok - the rub for me is this - there have been quite a number of Federal elected officials caught with their pants down when it comes to lying under oath. Every member of Congress caught for lying under oath (who had nothing worse going for him - in a legal sense) was censured as far as I know. None were removed by the House. This, of course, includes Newt - unless you want to believe his absurd story of how he never reads anything his lawyer tells him to sign, and says whatever his lawyer tells him to say and doesn't know the truth from a lie because he can't remember. If I had been Clinton I would have pointed this out extremely forcefully - and then told the lot of them to go to h**l.

In case you are wondering - I strongly feel Clinton should resign. He is an embarrasment in his office. But trying to change the rules without warning, just because he is not a member of the majority party in the House violates my sense of proper conduct. If it is not impeachable for any other elected Federal official - it isn't impeachable for the president.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), December 20, 1998.

Livingston's resignation got me to thinking. Then I began to get a little nervous. I keep remembering these quotations from Gary North's writings (gleaned from this page):

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989, p. 87.

"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." Gary North, The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right, in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.

"The battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else." Gary North, Backward Christian Soldiers? An Action Manual For Christian Reconstruction. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984, pp. 65-66 .

I wonder now if what we've been seeing all year is the fruit of the successful operation of this ferociously radical, so-called "Christian" movement. North isn't running it. He only speaks for it.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), December 20, 1998.

I expect Clinton's experiencing a light bulb revelation similar to the following: It's OK to be involved in the greatest Savings and Loan scandal in the US and pardon your buddies your last day in office. It's OK lie about running guns, trading hostages, etc., then say, "I don't remember." It's OK to sanction break-ins to private property. It's OK to pardon you old buddy who sanctioned the break-ins. But By God it's not OK to get caught with your pants down! Got it!

Tom, your post was awesome.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 20, 1998.

There is nothing on earth, not even y2k nor war, that scares me as much as religious fanatics. The Christian Coalition and Religious Right are much more frightening, in their zeal to run the government, revise education and legislate morals, than the crash of the grid. My prayer is, "God please protect me from your followers." Thanks Tom for the information. I don't want to live in a situation like those in the "Handmaid's Tale" or "A Gift Upon the Shore", both very good books about the aftermath of disasters.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 20, 1998.

"God, please protect me from your followerd"


-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 20, 1998.

Good post Tom, it's the only logical conclusion that I have for what's happening.

Yes indeed Gilda, religious fanatics remind me of pitbulls. You can't reason with a pitbull, it's a biting machine that won't let go of its prey.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 20, 1998.

That's right. Start blaming the Christians for everything. Then you can begin to exterminate them like Hitler did the Jews.

-- Cant believe this trash (noway@nowhere.now), December 20, 1998.

Clinton obviously has significant emotional and mental disturbance to engage in such high-risk behavior for a few minutes of selfish ego- gratification. If he is so severely lacking in judgment, what qualification does he have to keep his job? More choreography by the powers that be.

I include some links from a prior discussion for the interested reader who wants to go a little deeper into this.

The Starr-Clinton Gambit: The Desperate Attempt To Save The President
Linked from: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn0.html
by Norm Olson

In a desperate attempt to save his own life, Bill Clinton entered into a secret pact with Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr. The plan would be to use Monica Lewinski as pawn to maneuver the President into a course of action that would result in Impeachment-- but a course that would, ironically, save Bill Clinton's life and the life of his wife and daughter.

Body Count Mounts Around Bill Clinton; Arkansas Most at Risk

The Clinton 'body count' New alarm over growing list of dead close to president http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/980924.exrivero_clinton_bo.html

Call it "Bloodgate." It's a scandal that threatens to connect the dots between some other "gates" -- including Whitewater and Vincent Foster.

Early allegations of White House drug usage.
http://www. accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/KIEV.html

What did he snort and when did he snort it?

The Death Of Vincent Foster: Vincent Foster's wounds were not as reported! http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NECK/neck.htm l

Ron Brown: Evidence Of A Cover up
http:// www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/BROWN/brown.html

Livingston: White House Secret Police Strike Again

For more info see:

Kwong's Corner (More Links on Politics and Y2k)

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), December 20, 1998.


I truly hope Clinton has learned the invaluable lesson from this experience that telling the truth works and nothing is secret.

IF (a big if) this whole experience causes him and others in the White House, Congress and the rest of the government to change their silent stance on Y2K, and start preparing a nation, because the personal and party repercussions of NOT telling the truth about Y2K are just as lethal, then, IMHO, the whole thing will have been worth the lesson.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 20, 1998.

"That's right. Start blaming the Christians for everything. Then you can begin to exterminate them like Hitler did the Jews. "

I precisely said "religious fanatics", not ALL christians. Fanatics as in "zealots", "extremists"..yada yada. There are zealots in any religion, Jews included.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 20, 1998.

"Clinton obviously has significant emotional and mental disturbance to engage in such high-risk behavior for a few minutes of selfish ego- gratification. "

Jon, you're either extremely naive as to the nature of man and his testosterone's power over his brain, or you're impotent yourself.

Heh, there's an idea! Perhaps we should require as a pre-requisit to the presidency that men candidates be castrated.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 20, 1998.

Don't worry Chris I am far from naive, in top health, and have a very satisfying personal life. Your conclusions are not only idiotic but betray sloppy thinking and vast ignorance.

I think Clinton is truly regretful over his actions, but can't you see he was either 1. done in by his poor judgment, 2. was duped in a set up, or 3. is just following a script to save his life. I go with #3.

Please read the links given and do not indulge yourself in simple- minded and childish ramblings. Put more thought into your messages before hitting the submit button.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), December 20, 1998.

>>There is nothing on earth, not even y2k nor war, that scares me as much as religious fanatics. The Christian Coalition and Religious Right are much more frightening, in their zeal to run the government, revise education and legislate morals, than the crash of the grid. My prayer is, "God please protect me from your followers." <<

Interesting: that one would pray to a God one does not follow. That's boiling hypocrisy down to it's essence.

Throughout this thread, by innuendo and implication, attempts have been made repeatedly to deflect the issue from the character and crimes of the perpetrator by setting up the "religious right" as a straw man. How quickly the subject leaps from "North" to "religious right" to "Christian Coalition" to "religious fanatics". I haven't seen any evidence to support these accusations, they're just stated as fact, and the vitriol spews out. Worse yet, the slurs go unchallenged! This is the method of small and desperate minds. (Indeed, it was Hillarious Clinton's accusation when the scandal broke; to blame a right-wing conspiracy.) It cannot get any more lame and irrelevant than that. It is the same sort of semantic hair-splitting and tortured (il)logic that Clinton has used to excuse himself and justify his behavior.

Someone explain how the religious right is to blame for Bill Clinton's years and years of indecent propositions to and peccadillos with women who are not his wife. If his behavior is so exemplary, then defend it! Explain how "good" and "right" it is. Explain it to your children.

It frightens ME that the guy running this country has such convoluted thought processes that he could rationalize destabilizing the world as a result of a personal political setback. (Oh, that's right, he just did, didn't he?)

One last opinion. The powers that run the government NOW are frightening, in their zeal to maintain their hold on power, to lie and deceive, to subvert education and to promote adultery and immorality by example. And it is even more frightening that there are sheep who defend these policies.

BTW, Chris, what makes you the expert on male behavior? Or even more knowledgeable on the subject than Jon or me?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), December 20, 1998.

To the Clinton critics:

You guys remind me of the y2k polyannas. You fail to address the issues and cannot provide facts (FACT (fakt) : 1. something that has actual existence. 2. a piece of information presented as having objective reality)

A. Where is all the evidence for the (insert conspiracy name here)-gate? Please don't point me to an X-files web page where they claim to have the "smoking gun". Can't you fools understand that if there was any substance to the long list of allegations on Clinton, that asshole Starr would have dredged them up during his $50,000,000.00 "investigation"? All he could come up with was a stinking lie about a marital affair - and he had to be ENTRAPPED to get that!

B. Why does Clinton's half-truth about a sexual relation deserve impeachment when Regan lied about thwarting National Security (Iran Contra), Def Sec. Weinberger lied about contact fraud, Newt lied about his million dollar book deal, etc. etc. etc.

C. Why does the right wing insist on ripping the heart out of the presidency in the middle of Y2K, a global economic meltdown, and the Iraq situation?

D. Why did the slut Paula Jones wait 8 years to bring up her case - and why was it thrown out by the presiding WOMAN judge?

E. Why would Clinton win not one, but TWO elections by a landslide if he's supposed to be such a shithead? Maybe you people that want to see him destroyed need to look for a new place to call home, like Cuba or China maybe.

F. Why is infidelity an impeachable offense for Clinton, but not for every other government official that has committed it? Why don't we put every man and woman in this country on a polygraph, shoot them up with truth serum, and then imprison each and every one that has committed these acts?

G. Why is Clinton's private sex life anyone's business but his own?

H. Where will the Right's invasion of privacy stop?

Please address these issues without pointing me to Joe Smoe's Illuminati page, and don't just whine about how indecent it was for him to accept a blowjob from that "poor little innocent girl".

-- a (a@a.a), December 20, 1998.

The amount of total ignorance, ideological hate and rhetoric in this thread by you liberal socialist apologists astounds me.

Responses from idiots like a., gilda jessie and Tom Carey prove to me without a shadow of a doubt, we have entered the beginnings of another civil war. So be it. When the shooting starts, it will all be over.

This country will soon get what it deserves. I will shed not one tear at our demise at the hands of an apathetic and morally irrelevant people who deserve all that a Y2K or terrorist attack disaster may bring.

You have done it to yourselves. You have created a moral wasteland in the nation by exalting evil as good, and denouncing good as evil. (Alan Dershowitz last week said as much. "Christians and the Right wing are EVIL" he exclaimed). Fine.

You have become gods in your own eyes, by your own definitions and spit in the face of God.

As a result, a new type of government will emerge amidst the coming chaos.

RIP America.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), December 20, 1998.

'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.'

-- (NIV@bib.com), December 20, 1998.

"Cry aloud, spare not. Lift your voice like a trumpet and declare to My people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins" - Is 58:1

"When you see the cloud from the West, you say 'Rain is coming', and so it is. And when you see the South wind blow, you say 'it will be hot', and so it is. If you then can read the signs of the earth and of the sky, why can you not then read the signs of the times?

>>>apply to Y2K DWGI's??<<<<<

"And why on your own initiative do you not JUDGE what is right?" - Lk 12:54-57

"..Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to pass judgement? Do you not know we shall judge angels? How much more then shall you judge the matters of this life? 1Cor 6:2-3

"Is it not for you to know justice? You who hate good and love evil? You who would tear the flesh from My people, and break their bones and chop them up as for meat in the kettle. Then they will cry out to the Lord, but He will not answer them. Instead He will hide His face from them at that evil time because they condoned evil deeds." Mic 3:1-4

RIP America.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), December 20, 1998.

I agree with you Invar. That guy talking about 'specks' and 'planks' sounds like a liberal and a moral relativist. The people need our protection. Who will stand up for the law? Where is the right wing and Pontius Pilate when we need them?

-- Tongue planted firmly in cheek (family@values.org), December 20, 1998.

God is not mocked, and neither am I.

The people need no protection by anyone except God whom they have forsaken for their own definitions of moral authority.


RIP America.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), December 20, 1998.

America has ben around for over 200 years as a nation we survived the Civil War-- World War 1--The Great Depression--World War 2--The Cold War--Korean War--Vietnam War--Water Gate--Desert Storm to many hard times to think about in a young nation. When we as a people stand togather we always win but when we fight each other we are weak it makes me sad to see fellow Americans argue over things on this forum. Please remember we all live in a great nation that people have died to give us that right.This nation will survive what is happening in Washington and we will make it through Y2K of this i have on dought.Water Gate happened 24 years ago when i think about what happened it seems so long ago. America will survive this sad time we are living in. As Mr.Nixon died we all were sad as americans to hear the news even the people who hated him one day the news of Mr.Clinton passing will be in the news and we will be sad and all the bad things will be forgotten that is what makes me proud to live in this great land called America. Bubba

-- Bubba (badhabbit@water.com), December 20, 1998.

I would never dream of mocking God.

I'm a Christian. I agree people have forsaken God's understanding for their own definitions of moral authority. This country is about to fall because of the selfish choices it has made.

But God is neither left- nor right-wing. There has been confusion about this in the US ever since Jerry Falwell decided that God had an opinion on the Panama Canal treaty. The so-called 'religious right' believes that society needs protection in the form of laws it enacts that limit choices, trying to prove over and over to themselves they know God. Unselfish choices come from a change of heart though and not through laws.

To be fair, the so-called atheistic left wants to limit our choices as well. What does this have to do with Clinton? He's a sleaze but so were the Iran-Contra people. Newt Gingrinch lied too.

What does this have to do with Y2k? We're about to enter 1999 with an impeachment trial that could last for months. The country may not take Y2k seriously if they think Clinton is bringing it up only to divert attention from the Senate trial.

I believe I would be a hypocrite to continually criticize Clinton when I know former presidents and the Congress are guilty of much the same things. I could think I'm honoring God with my lips by criticizing Clinton without ceasing, but my heart tells me the greater good at this time is to focus on Y2k.

May God save us from Democrats and Republicans, the left and the right, the doctrines and precepts of men, and our own stupidity and selfishness when we don't walk with Him.

-- Tongue not planted in cheek (family@values.org), December 20, 1998.

"BTW, Chris, what makes you the expert on male behavior? Or even more knowledgeable on the subject than Jon or me? "

My background in psychology, anatomy/biology, sociology and wisdom acquired over the years as a woman. I'm also an RN, and as such I've heard quiet a few confidence from both the professional men I worked with and patients.

I'm not going to launch into a lecture or point out to references, but it is quite clear that men with strong leadership qualities have a healthy amount of testosterone, and thus a biological as well as psychological drive to spread their seed to many women. The more the better for the health of the species. It is a basic male instinct in most species on this planet, humans included. This male drive in most "civilized" western cultures has been "closeted" first by religions, then by governments by demanding monogamy, and making polygamy illegal. Polygamy is still practiced in many non-western cultures. In those cultures, men are still faithful to their many wives, still provide for them and their family. Whether women in those cultures truly accept it is another matter.

So it is "immoral" to have sex with women other than your wife in this country, but biologically and anthropologically it is a logical drive. That men disobey this moral law is hardly a shock to me. Especially men in high positions who constantly have to fend off women's advances, such as Monica Lewinsky did. She was far far from being an innocent child, only an immature but conniving woman who was after scoring the most powerful man in the world. That too, is a basic drive in female of all species, but that's for another fireside chat.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 20, 1998.

"...to lie and deceive, to subvert education and to promote adultery and immorality by example."

Oh and E.G., Clinton did not intend to "promote adultery and immorality by example", he tried very hard indeed to hide his human fault, but Starr wouldn't let him.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 20, 1998.

Would some Bill Clinton defender please tell when I should believe him? In other words, given that its apparently all right to lie when under oath, and given that you have swallowed his other campaign lies "because all campaign statements are lies", and 'all politicians lie", and given that the Democratic media support and promulgate and publish as truth both his lies and his propaganda and his truths (if ever), when is he not lying?

Can you point to any statement or policy he has made that is not a lie exaggeration or misleading statement, and defend it, and then tell me when and why the next one will be true?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 20, 1998.

Well, Chris, it is unfortunate that with all that training and experience, the best you can come up with is an excuse based on dubious deductions drawn from evolutionary theory. If man is an animal, then Clinton is truly a beast. If that's all you expect from a leader, then you will naturally defend his bestiality. 8-/ But if your concept is correct, why defend him? If he is removed from office, why, that's just evolution in action.

Glaring by it's absence is any mention of self-control.

You have to look elsewhere for ideals like honesty, justice, right, truth, fidelity.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), December 20, 1998.

Well...So much for the benevolent society described by Robert Waldrop in his "Old Ways/New Ways". All of you make me sick. Fighting over crap that won't mean shit one year from now. Morality means one thing to me and I've said it before. Its simply a system of right and wrong, do unto others....A sense of right and wrong should just be as natural breathing. And NONE of you have the right to define it to anyone else.

Left, right, moderate, christian, atheist, conversative, feminist, marxist, middle of the road, it DON'T MEAN SHIT. Now who GETS IT?

MoVe Immediate

-- MVI (vtoc@aol.com), December 20, 1998.

There's another Greenspun forum for the topic of this thread, at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=The%20Government%20o f%20the%20United%20States The Government of the United States.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 21, 1998.

Chris, you say that men who are leaders have an inherent desire to sleep with as many women as possible. As a guy who considers himself a competent leader, I must say that that is a load of -no offence- rubbish.

I have one girlfriend who I have never cheated on. I do not have any desire to cheat on her, either -ESPECIALLY with someone as ugly as Monica.

The way I see it, we should impeach Clinton not because he womanises, but because it is sick to think that our leader -and power IS an aphrodisiac, I know that from experience- chooses Monica Lewinsky to have sex with. A fat, ugly intern. On a 1-10 scale of attractiveness, with 1 being Roseanne Barr, I would rate Lewinsky as about a two. That our leader chose her means that he has either really bad judgement or is a sexual pervert of some sort. Either way, he's NOT the kind of guy I'd like to see running the country ;)


-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 21, 1998.

I have been called an "idiot" and "hypocrite" by the zealous right wing on this thread, even accused of Christian bashing and praying to a God I do not follow. Now how do you know I don't follow God? I didn't say that. My God is a very tolerant, kind- hearted, God. He does not condemn people for "poor judgement," or behaving like fools. You know nothing about me, but one thing I've learned in several years of living and meeting both tolerant Christians and intolerant Christians, is that tolerance is always best. Just read your history; it wasn't the tolerant sector that condoned the persecutions. It wasn't tolerant, kind people who burned great libraries, put to death those who disagreed, burned Jewish people. It must be nice to be so moral and never have made a mistake, or two in your life.

Do read "A Gift Upon the Shore" by M. K. Wren. It's a classic tale of people living in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster and how they cope with religious zealots (fanatics), who attempt to rule by "wrath of God" intolerance and moral judgements, instead of by working together to try and remake a decent life. I do not suffer fools gladly,so carry on, and blast someone else with your holier-than-thou posturing. Ciao

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 21, 1998.

What is the Democratic view on escalating war in the Middle East, especially as its being done merely to "gain popularity". So a president of the US starts a war because of a sex scandal?

Saddam outlasted Bush & Thatcher, he'll outlast Clinton no matter what.

BTW I do not support the British Govt's stance. Leaders can do what they like once elected, even without recourse to the people.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

The French laugh at the Brits and Americans with their "sex scandals", they expect their leaders to have mistresses eg Mitterand.

If sex leads to blackmail and compromising the politicians integrity, payoffs, selling of secrets etc well thats another matter, eg Profumo. The attitude of the public does make this more likely.

Why not concentrate on Mr Clinton's other shady dealings.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 21, 1998.

Chris, go easy on poor Monica. Our president is after all, A BABE.

-- KarenKurious (bubblehead@thinking.com), December 21, 1998.

Hey, at least this thread has gotten some of the lurkers posting. Don't be shy folks - sound off once in a while. Look at all the nasty comments I have had to put up with - hasn't hurt me yet!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), December 21, 1998.

According to my morning newspaper, the poll that says 72% of respondents approve of how Clinton is handling his job, also says the Republican Party is viewed unfavorably by 58% of respondents--the worst standing for the Republicans in the 14 years the question has been asked.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 21, 1998.


Most people have an innate dislike of bullies in any form ... political, military, religious, forum posters, etc. They will band together on that level and still hold to their personal value systems.

For my part, I don't like seeing a hijacking of our Constitution. But, this too, we will survive. For those who choose, e-mail the new Congress after January 6th, remind them about their national responsibilities pertaining to Y2K, then ignore 'em.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 21, 1998.

Wow, this turned out to be a hell of a thread. I thought it was going to be a throw-away. People are certainly opinionated, and opinions here seem to run the entire gamut. I think this proves that it is difficult for us to govern ourselves.

I can see this thread as being like a little microcosm of the government. And, unfortunately, just like the government, on this thread there seems to be very little willingness on the part of folks with differing opinions to listen to each other and be willing to incorporate other's ideas into one's own thinking. Like the government, things easily devolve into a lot of name calling, irrelevancies, a lack of willingness to compromise vision. Let's ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!! Call 'em names, cause they're not one of us! No wonder we're in so much damn trouble...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 21, 1998.

Cool. I get the last word

"When the government and religious fanatics are shooting at each other, I,m a happy man." -------George Carlin during the standoff at Waco. Say goodnight Gracie

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), December 22, 1998.

Goodnight, Gracie!

-- Gracie (Allen@Heaven.gov), December 22, 1998.

Fostergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Campaigngate,

etc ad nauseam, Nixon's greatest claim to fame, the spawning of profligate Water GATES

I'm totally fed up with the use of that word except to describe a "hinged movable barrier".

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 22, 1998.

It's a "sound byte" Richard. Sound bytes are meant to shorten the English language to shorthand because they don't have an adequate attention span, and to shrink people's brains further. This one works like this: Watergate=very bad. Gate=very bad. Clinton is very bad, therefore anyone associated with Clinton or any of Clinton's actions which people question is designated with "gate". See how logical it is? Works well too.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 22, 1998.

Pardon my shrunk brain, the first sentence should say "because people don't have an adequate attention span..."

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 22, 1998.


I could lend you my copy of "American English English American: A two-way glossary of words in daily use on both sides of the Atlantic" ISBN 0 902920 13 8 by Abson Books Abson, Wick, Bristol, England which we picked up at the Salisbury Cathedral tourist shop on our first tour day in August 1981 for 85p.

However, "gate" appears neither between American "gas station" and "gear shift" nor between English "garden" and "gear lever", nor anywhere else I've looked in the 48 slim pages.

>I'm totally fed up with the use of that word except to describe a "hinged movable barrier".

Well, yes, of course. We could have packed my compact edition of the OED with magnifier in my suitcase, but my wife hated that idea and insisted we'd have no trouble communicating.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com.us), December 23, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ