Confederate flag racist?

Originally posted by NeXus
Imagine if we found out Clinton had financial interest with the McVeigh family after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Click to expand...

Presidential financial interests are usually put into trusts while they serve. But beside that point, what exactly is the problem with the McVeigh family? Decent people as far as I know.

No nothing wrong with the McVeigh family at all. I have no idea who they are. Just using it as an example. But the Bin Laden's......thats another story.

What Im saying is that if Clinton did in fact have financial ties with the family of a known terrorist bomber, the Right would have jumped on that story and ripped Clinton apart.

As far as Im concerned, the Dems are being pussies by not hanging Bush for this. They never mention it. They're too dickless or something.

The President did have ties with the Bin Laden family and still have ties w/ the Saudi Royal family. The Saudi's have been the US's business partner since forever. The Prince Bandar even calles George H. W. Bush the first, "Bandar Bush". Why do you think that the headlines read "Terrorists attack World Trade Center". Despite the fact that almost all the hijackers were Saudi's. And now were in Iraq. For WHAT?

If a bunch of Chinese attacked the WTO. Headlines would say "Chinese attacks WTO".

But come on, you know O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity would hang Clinton if this was his case. The only thing they could get Clinton for was getting a blowjob out of wedlock and lying so his wife wouldnt find out. I actually feel bad for the guy. I mean who dosent enjoy a blowjob?

Originally posted by NeXus
The only thing they could get Clinton for was getting a blowjob out of wedlock and lying so his wife wouldnt find out. I actually feel bad for the guy. I mean who dosent enjoy a blowjob?

Click to expand...

It was ironic that the liberal Clinton was being dragged into court on a workplace sexual harasment suit (by private citizen Paula Jones) -- something liberals love to support until it happens to them. You know, looking for patterns of behavior, etc.

Unfortunately he and Ms Lewinsky decided to commit perjury (Clinton was eventually disbarred for that in his home state.)

So it had nothing to do with sex per se -- despite the Carville spin.

What was troubing was that it came out that Clinton had raped Juantia Broderick some 20 years earlier.

Hard to feel sorry for a rapist.

first of all Clinton was not even arrested or tried or anything for rape, so dont even start make assumption. Dont act like getting your dick sucked has anything to do with politics. You must also feel thats its necessary to waste the American tax payer's money for some stupid investigation. You could of settle this case on FoxTv on Divorce Court. Instead of having to go to the Supreme Court. What a waste of time and money.

Oh yeah, and he didnt harass anybody. It was a consented sexual act.

You seem to make a big deal out of adultery, you'd probably like Suadia Arabia. Yeah! There, they behead people for crimes like infidelity, sodomy, and adultery.

Originally posted by NeXus
Also, its not a democracy when big business and special interest basically picks who will run this country.

Click to expand...

Its not supposed to be a Democracy anyway.

Originally posted by NeXus
first of all Clinton was not even arrested or tried or anything for rape, so dont even start make assumption

Click to expand...

That is true, but dont you think its strange that so-called feminists and supporters of sexual harrassment legislation paid no attention to any women who claimed they were sexually harmed?

Originally posted by NeXus
Clinton was not even arrested or tried or anything for rape

and he didnt harass anybody. It was a consented sexual act.

Click to expand...

The Juantia Broderick rape was beyond the statute of limitations by the time she came forward. He was Attorney General of Arkansas at the time of the rape. She figured she didn't have a chance at the time.

Whether Clinton harassed Paula Jones or not was what the civil case was about that she was bringing. Unfortunately Clinton and Lewinski conspired to commit perjury in that case, and Clinton was later disbarred in Arkansas for his perjury.

Like Nixon before him, it was the cover up more than the alleged crime that did him in.

What about Arnold? He groped all those women and even admitted to it. But since he's a Republican he gets a free pass, and Clinton gets impeached.

If she really did get raped she would of come forward much sooner. If she waited that long, it probably didnt happen. Dosent matter who he is, when there is an allegation, there is an investigation.

But yet again, these have nothing to do with politics. But explain to me why America is not supposed to be a Democracy? Is it Faschism then?

Originally posted by NeXus
But explain to me why America is not supposed to be a Democracy? Is it Faschism then?

Click to expand...

It's a republic. a Constitutional Republic.

When Ben Franklin was asked his opinion on whether to have a Democracy of Republic, he replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Because he recognized that a republic was the much preferred form of government, but it would be difficult to maintain. It would require, as Jefferson said "eternal vigilance."

As far as the whole Arnold groping situation.I'm not sure how to state my opinion on this. I would try to put it delicately,but..
Basically, I dont think it's that big a deal.I dont think its a good thing if he did violate someone's person/ However, the sexual game is very complicated. There is a lot of flirting, verbal, non-verbal, physical,etc. And sometimes you have to be a little bold and "make a move" or whatever. And adults can usually handle themselves in that situation, feel out things, and lay down boundaries. I mean, I've grabbed an ass or 3 in my young life, and it was always welcome; but I'm not always 100% sure before hand. You read signals and touch people in certain ways and feel things out. its a big double standard, because (at least in my case) females tend to be agressors in certain physical flirting. I mean, I cant tell you how many times a female has touched me in a certain way, purposely brushed my genitals,etc But I'm not going to press sex assault charges against a female for flirting with me. Or if a girl starts giving me a blowjob without first asking permission for every move, I am not going to charge her with rape.. thats another thing: Theres something wrong if you can have sex with a woman and she never withdraws consent, never says no , but "thinksto herself "no" inside her own head but never articulates it, and its considered rape.
Among other things.

But, you see it doesnt really matter what I think on the issue. the problem is these people who lobbied to basically make normal male/female interactions a criminal offense, leaving many men afraid to have testicles less they endup in prison for a casual misunderstanding. But they create a special class ( Clintons, Kennedys,etc..and usually people that committ REAL sexual offences) for whom these laws do not apply.

Originally posted by NeXus
explain to me why America is not supposed to be a Democracy?

Click to expand...

In a pure democracy, minorites serve the pleasure of the majority.

The US is predominantly white, predominantly Christian, predomiantly hetero.

Now if majorities define the "morality" of governance, then if they wish to enslave the minorities, or opress them, or exterminate them ... well, that's democracy.

If you assert that individuals have some natural rights that aren't rightly abridged even by majorities, then you no longer want a pure democracy.

What the founders did was to establish a layering of authorities (local, state, federal) and a distribution of power to competing branches (legislative, executive, judicial.) All are constrained by written Constitutions that take a lot of agreement to change.

Some layers and branches have fast turnovers, some have lifetime appointments.

The whims and impulses of the populace are thus smoothed out, filtered over the long term.

When we want change, we are always impatient for the outcome, and lament the slowness of the system. But on the other hand, it prevents massive erosion of other rights when passions are inflamed.

Its not a democracy even if the majority wants to enslave or whatever you said. Because theres a thing called The Constitution which invoke Civil Liberties to prevent these kind of things.

I dont think anyone in office should serve life-terms in there job. Especially the Supreme Court. Old people dont change with the times. I bet the majority of racists and anti-gays, are older people who are so afraid of the unknown that they freak out. Look at Jerry Falwell. He discriminates against anyone who isnt a white Christian. If he had a gay son, I bet he's dis-own his own flesh and blood.

Tell me, how are your rights being eroded?

With the new Patriot Act, very ironic name by the way, my rights are starting to be trampled. The laws that were set in place, in the Vietnam era, for the FBI and CIA are now being revoked. They can now profile protestors and basically anyone who questions their governmnet. I hate it when people say that Im not patriotic because Im not for the war, or because I hate Bush.

show me some evidence that clinton or kennedy are rapists please . . .

you guys go around saying that "oh, female/male relations are complicated, rape can be a double standard" and all this other dribbling justification for arnold possibly violating a few women, then you string up clinton and kennedy for what so far as i know is just hearsay?

i'm not going to get too riled up on here because i got in trouble before, but um, i'll just say that a couple of half-confident high school lincoln douglas debaters could have a field day with a few of the posts up here.

one thing i will say: when liberals attack conservative presidents it's about politics. when conservatives go after liberals, it's about slander so they can sabotage. easy as that. sometimes i wish the democrats would really get nasty like the GOP has defined itself by doing, but in some ways i'm proud they keep it above the belt.

Which Kennedy? JKF was quite the womanizer. But as far as I know they were all more than willing.

Clinton was accused of rape by Juantia Broderick. In any accusation, you have to pick who you believe. Juantia sounded believable to me. She expressed interest in working for Clinton's campaign based upon mutual policy agreements. Clinton invited himself to her hotel room to discuss whatever. She accepted. Once inside he forced himself on her, biting her lip until she relented to his sexual demands. Her friend witnessed the swollen and torn lip just after. So she has corroborating testimony to the time and place of the physical injury. She also related the rape story to the friend at the time. NBC TV verified this occurred at a time/event where Clinton was that day.

So there are two witnesses who'd testify to the physical injury, though, of course, only Juanita was in the room with Clinton at the time.

Since he was Attorney General of Arkansas at the time, she was too afraid of the consequences of coming forward. After Clinton's "nuts and sluts" smear team got done trashing her -- it seems her long fears were born out.

Clinton was/is a low life. He was willing to trash Lewinski herself as suffering from fantasies etc rather than to simply refuse to answer. Too bad for him she kept that blue stained dress.

Kennedy, by comparison, had some class.

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
one thing i will say: when liberals attack conservative presidents it's about politics. when conservatives go after liberals, it's about slander so they can sabotage.

Click to expand...

I think liberals classify their hatred as righteous. Therefore their hatred is a good thing, aimed at the right targets -- virtuous even.

The funny thing is, everyone who hates feels exactly the same way.

I've never seen a hater of any political stripe who didn't feel that his or her hatred was not only justified, but a moral duty.

quite valid

So what exactly do liberals hate?

Also, sexual incidents have nothing do with politics. It has to do with monohamy. So drop it already. Bush turned a Clinton trillion dollar projected surplus into a trillion dollar deficit. Clinton was a very good president and a very charismatic leader, Bush is one of the three stooges.

Originally posted by NeXus
Also, sexual incidents have nothing do with politics. It has to do with monohamy. So drop it already. Bush turned a Clinton trillion dollar projected surplus into a trillion dollar deficit.

Click to expand...

I think monohamy has to do with Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy.

Manufacturing employment began declining three years before the end of the last Clinton term.

And of course the dot.com bubble happened under Clinton.

So the previous recession that we are now coming out of was set up during the Clinton years.

However, beyond the partisan braying, presidents have very little to do with the economic cycles.

If you want to learn anything about how the economy really works, the first thing you have to do is filter out the blatherings of partisan political hacks.

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
show me some evidence that clinton or kennedy are rapists please . . .

you guys go around saying that "oh, female/male relations are complicated, rape can be a double standard" and all this other dribbling justification for arnold possibly violating a few women, then you string up clinton and kennedy for what so far as i know is just hearsay?

Click to expand...

As usual, I never said that. My statements of the sexual harrassment ambiguity applied to all people. I never accused Kennedy or Clinton. But I did point out the double standard in that self professed liberals or feminists gave Clinton and other liberals a free pass.

Furthermore, Arnold is a liberal. He ran under the (R), but his policies are more in line with Democrats. True conservatives, at least ones with any principles, voted for McClintock or Gary Coleman. Of course, I am neither (R) or (D).

Arnold is both a conservative and a liberal. He is liberal in his moral values but conservative in his economic values, which California despertly needs.