clinton rollins i was thoroughly impressed when bill clinton gave his like five hours testimony about how he didn't get it on with the girl. and they asked him really direct questions like, "Look, didja get it on with this chick or not?" "GET? What do you mean by the use of the word 'GET'?" Basically he had 800 spears a minute thrown at him for five hours and he dodged every one of them. amazing. You know, most americans dont even speak english. Heres a guy who uses his tongue prettier than a fifty dollar whore. He's just amazing. "Look didja have oral sex with this woman?" "HAVE?? Now...." AMAZING! They should each Clinton in COLLEGE. He is just like an eel in the weeds in the ocean, man hes like an eel going through the sargaso sea. Hes slick and slippery ya cant catch the guy. hes not Teflon he's just oily. i was really impressed with his use of language. He just sat there composed. Took direct questions and turned them into these trapezoidal abstract queries. "Look, ya know, Red Light, Green Light? Yes or NO?" He's like, "WHAT???" and then he walks away like, "FUCK YOU!" ya gotta give him a little bit of credit. Because shit man, you can't even ya know, get by a parking ticket, man. By the end of him getting a parking ticket the cop would be giving him a hand job at the end of it. 010809 ... rollins i was thoroughly impressed when bill clinton gave his like five hours testimony about how he didn't get it on with the girl. and they asked him really direct questions like, "Look, didja get it on with this chick or not?" "GET? What do you mean by the use of the word 'GET'?" Basically he had 800 spears a minute thrown at him for five hours and he dodged every one of them. amazing. You know, most americans dont even speak english. Heres a guy who uses his tongue prettier than a fifty dollar whore. He's just amazing. "Look didja have oral sex with this woman?" "HAVE?? Now...." AMAZING! They should each Clinton in COLLEGE. He is just like an eel in the weeds in the ocean, man hes like an eel going through the sargaso sea. Hes slick and slippery ya cant catch the guy. hes not Teflon he's just oily. i was really impressed with his use of language. He just sat there composed. Took direct questions and turned them into these trapezoidal abstract queries. "Look, ya know, Red Light, Green Light? Yes or NO?" He's like, "WHAT???" and then he walks away like, "FUCK YOU!" ya gotta give him a little bit of credit. Because shit man, you can't even ya know, get by a parking ticket, man. By the end of him getting a parking ticket the cop would be giving him a hand job at the end of it. 010809 ... rollins sorry, temporary fuckedupness on my part. the computers at this fucking school suck. 010809 ... cigar two_words clinton monica 010809 ... Aimee god I miss that man... honestly, had I been old enough to vote and he'd been able to run again, I would have definitely voted for him again. 010809 ... kx21 As good as Einstein. His only mistake was that he did not know the definition of 'Sexual Relationship'. And One can speculate that as at today he still doesn't know this definition... 010810 ... Dafremen Actually his biggest problem as a person was his lack of self control. His biggest problem as a President was his lack of true concern for his constituency. Bill Clinton's primary concern in the Oval Office was Bill Clinton, period. Peace in the middle East? (Can Bill fanagle his way into a Nobel Peace prize? Carter was seen as a lousy President by most at the time, he redeemed himself as a statesmen, seems Bill was hoping for that sort of redemption in the eyes of posterity.) Gays openly serving in the military? (Hey, take it from someone who was in the military, it would rock if it could work, but without prejudice I must say that I doubt it could. HOWEVER, the campaign promise was made. If Bill Clinton had wanted to keep that promise, he had complete authority to do so. Anyone with military experience would have to agree. As the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President has full authority to ORDER armed forces policy changes. All he had to say was, "DO IT" and it would have been done. Not a problem for Bill though, making the promises is his forte, not keeping them, that's what his other amazing talent LYING is for.) Don't let anyone fool you, Clinton wasn't forced into breaking any of his campaign promises anymore than any other politician is. The difference was that Bill is in the HABIT of making promises he can't keep and making statements that the facts don't support. He is also brilliant at avoiding the consequences of his actions. I guess it's unavoidable for an individual who spends years living a reckless self-serving existence to NOT learn how to avoid consequences. After all, if he had ever been forced to FACE the consequences of his behavior...TRULY face them, he almost certainly would not STILL be this manipulative, self-centered and irresponsible. Even if the behavior HAD continued, he certainly wouldn't be as brazenly in-your-face about his deceptive and manipulative actions if he had been held accountable for his behavior in the past. Do I dislike Bill Clinton? No. I was one of those who voted for him in 1992. He was certainly an interesting president, that's for sure and he definitely was the most charismatic President we've had in a LOOONG time. He didn't belong in the White House, however. Regardless of whether we find his actions forgivable, normal, acceptable or unacceptable, the NUMBER ONE prerequisite for a job as a public servant is a true desire to serve the public. If Bill Clinton EVER had that desire it was replaced long ago by his desire to serve himself and his own agenda. At this point in his career his agenda consists of salvaging history's opinion of him. Currently the only difference between the entries for Clinton and Harding in the history books will be that Clinton is married and Harding was not. Of course his marital infidelities should all but negate THAT difference. Bush isn't necessarily my ideal politician either, mind you. I at least appreciate the fact that he DOES have that dedication to the public and the office he has been elected too. Does that mean that his policies are sound and that all of his motives are pure? Of course not, after all, he's a politician. What it means is that as awkwardly as he may carry himself in the office, Bush isn't putting on a practiced and perfected ACT. If Bush is a dull figure where Clinton shined it's because the former is a professional public servant, the latter a professional actor. 010810 ... kx21 What are the possibilities if he confessed to engaging in sexual relationship before he flapping his wings in the White house, like a butterfly, and then evolving into a Big Bang in the Earth / world? Specifically what is his fate in this Scenario in the USA'context? 010810 ... Dafremen I would not have felt the regret over my decision in '92 that I did by '96. 010810 ... kx21 Would He be one of candidates for US 1996's Presidential election? 010811 ... Dafremen I would say that is a safe bet....yes. 010811 ... kx21 Then Clintion is more inconceivable than one can perceive... Was he trying to stretch the limit or standard of US' judicially system or judge? 010811 ... Dafremen A) No he was trying to push the limits in much the same way that a 3 year old pushes limits. B) The executive branch of the government should keep it's grubby paws away from the judicial branch. Hey they get to pick Supreme Court justices. 010812 ... kx21 An Expert who is specialised in crafting the initial conditions of Butterfly_effect(s) in various Fields? 010813 ... Dafremen Bingo! Pullin' the wings off too and then laughing as the poor thing flaps around helplessly staining blue dresses willy-nilly. 010813 ... Sam Vaknin In the hallways of the Smithsonian, two moralists are debating the impeachment of the President of the United States of America, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton. One is clearly Anti-Clinton (AC) the other, a Democrat (DC), is not so much for him as he is for the rational and pragmatic application of moral principles. AC (expectedly): "The President should be impeached". DC (no less expectedly): "But, surely, even you are not trying to imply that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanours, as the Constitution demands as grounds for the impeachment of a sitting President!" AC: "But I do. Perjury is such a high crime because it undermines the very fabric of trust between fellow citizens and between the citizen and the system of justice, the courts." DC: "A person is innocent until proven guilty. No sound proof of perjurious conduct on behalf of the President has been provided as yet. Perjurious statements have to be deliberate and material. Even if the President deliberately lied under oath – his lies were not material to a case, which was later dismissed on the grounds of a lack of legal merit. Legal hairsplitting and jousting are an integral part of the defence in most court cases, civil and criminal. It is a legitimate – and legal – component of any legal battle, especially one involving interpretations, ambiguous terminology and the substantiation of intentions. The President should not be denied the procedural and substantive rights available to all the other citizens of his country. Nor should he be subjected to a pre-judgment of his presumed guilt." AC: "This, precisely, is why an impeachment trial by the Senate is called for. It is only there that the President can credibly and rigorously establish his innocence. All I am saying is that IF the President is found by the Senate to have committed perjury – he should be impeached. Wherever legal hairsplitting and jousting is permissible as a legal tactic – it should and will be made available to the President. As to the pre-judgment by the Press – I agree with you, there is no place for it but, then, in this the President has been treated no differently than others. The pertinent fact is that perjury is a high misdemeanour, in the least, that is, an impeachable offence." DC: "It was clearly not the intention of the Fathers of our Constitution to include perjury in the list of impeachable offences. Treason is more like it. Moreover, to say that the President will receive a fair trial from the hands of his peers in the Senate – is to lie. The Senate and its committees is a political body, heavily tilted, currently, against the President. No justice can be had where politics rears its ugly head. Bias and prejudice will rule this mock trial." AC: "Man is a political animal, said the Greek philosophers of antiquity. Where can you find an assembly of people free of politics? What is this discourse that we are having if not a political one? Is not the Supreme Court of the land a politically appointed entity? The Senate is no better and no worse, it is but a mirror, a reflection of the combined will of the people. Moreover, in pursuing the procedures of impeachment – the Senate will have proved its non-political mettle in this case. The nation, in all opinion polls, wants this matter dropped. If it is not – it is a proof of foresight and civil courage, of leadership and refusal to succumb to passing fads." DC: "And what about my first argument – that perjury, even once proven, was not considered by the authors of the Constitution to have been an impeachable offence?" AC: "The rules of the land – even the Constitution – are nothing but an agreement between those who subscribe to it and for as long as they do. It is a social contract, a pact. Men – even the authors of the Constitution - being mortal, relegated the right to amend it and to interpret it to future generations. The Constitution is a vessel, each generation fills it as it sees fit. It is up to us to say what current meaning this document harbours. We are not to be constrained by the original intentions of the authors. These intentions are meaningless as circumstances change. It is what we read into the Constitution that forms its specific contents. With changing mores and values and with the passage of events – each generation generates its own version of this otherwise immortal set of principles." DC: "I find it hard to accept that there is no limit to this creative deconstruction. Surely it is limited by common sense, confined to logic, subordinate to universal human principles. One can stretch the meanings of words only thus far. It takes a lot of legal hairsplitting to bring perjury – not proven yet – under one roof with treason." AC: "Let us ignore the legal issues and leave them to their professionals. Let us talk about what really bothers us all, including you, I hope and trust. This President has lied. He may have lied under oath, but he definitely lied on television and in the spacious rooms of the White House. He lied to his family, to his aides, to the nation, to Congress " DC: "For what purpose do you enumerate them?" AC: "Because it is one thing to lie to your family and another thing to lie to Congress. A lie told to the nation, is of a different magnitude altogether.