| Author |
Message |
    
Mem
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 12:47 pm: |     |
But I was wondering what people here in Maplewood think of the Clintons these days, especially with the pardons, etc. A couple of us were comparing them to the Beverly Hill Billies, Bill being a Jethro gone bad and Hillary being Granny. Anyone? |
Algebra2
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 1:41 pm: | |
Who does that make Chelsea? Ellie Mae? Jane Hathaway? |
Tjd
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 2:05 pm: | |
That's so funny that you say that because a columnist in the NY Post recently did a comparison of the Clintons to the Clampetts. He stated that the comparison was not fair because the Clampetts were not corrupt, just simple. Rather, the columnist stated that the Clintons were more like Nicolae and Elena Ceacescu, Romanian communists who were "hopelessly vulgar and thoroughly corrupt."
I think the column ran on Superbowl Sunday. If you go the NY Post site, you can only get a summary of the column for free.
Not passing judgment, just passing information. |
Nursie
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
Mom and Dad Clinton are and always have been a couple of buffoons or should I say baboons! (is it okay to launch a personal attack here on the Clintons?) I'll probably get in big trouble. Thier true colors are showing even more now, along with thier complete arogance and total disregard of public opinion! |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 2:13 pm: | |
Neither one of them has any shame. Both of them are disgraceful. |
Mem
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 2:27 pm: | |
Tjd - None of us even saw that column about the Clampetts. But it was not a hard stretch comparison. I have to admit, whether I get slammed or not, I am completely bewildered as to why anyone would vote for Hillary. |
Pastorofmuppets
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 2:40 pm: | |
It is disgraceful. Yet thoroughly Clintonesque... neither of them did anything illegal. The president can pardon anyone... and there is absolutely no law anywhere that says he can't take money or pardon his friends.
With that said, I think Chris Matthews put it best... he said that in Washington there is never any overt here is money for you now do this. It is all a "Come on.. wink, nudge". So Clinton wasn't lieing when he said there was no quid pro quo, of course not, but there was a lot of monetary coersion going on by his contributors and friends... they knew he would do it.
I was not surprised by this mess... if you could rent out the Lincoln bedroom with contributions, why not buy a pardon with them?
I find it hillarious that Hillary is now just denying all knowelege of the Rich pardon, Anything slick Willy did, Her BROTHERS involvment, or Her Campaign managers involvment.
Does anyone believe her?
And when Ed Koch and Jimmy Carter come out against a fellow democrat, you know something really stinks. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 3:31 pm: | |
I have to say I'm very confused about Hillary's attitude yesterday. She says that it was wrong for her brother to take money for this. Why? It seems to me that if a pardon is justified then it's perfectly reasonable to lobby for it. If it's reasonable to lobby for it, why is it unreasonable to pay a lobbyist for it?
Follow her criticism to its logical conclusion and it has to redound to the pardon itself. Of course, Hillary is the last person from whom I would expect sincerity. Still, it really is amazing how every day this matter seems to get worse. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 3:55 pm: | |
What were you saying when Clinton was carrying on with Monica? I remember a lot of people thinking his behavior had no impact on his job as president, or some such silly response. The fact that the little woman stood by him was because she had her agenda mapped out and was only counting the days. At the time, anyone who criticized him was placed in the uptight far right category or conspiracy nuts.
A recent report I heard about over the radio yesterday reveals that the most popular form of sex acts among kids - starting as young as 10! - is of the oral variety. (Of course, Bill doesn't think that is sex.)
Now, that is the Clinton legacy in a nutshell!
If you lie to your wife, lie to your staff, lie to the country over TV, why do we continue to seem surprised at what is revealed? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 4:07 pm: | |
Pastorofmuppets... Koch has often come out against Democrats -
I told everyone on here we would miss the Bill and Hillary show and would be talking about them before we talked about Bush.
As for pardons, Does anyone remember Nixon and who he pardoned? How about Gerald Ford? And going way back look at all the pardons of criminals, etc. How come all of the sudden such a big fuss? Because it is Clinton.
Let's hope they do away with Presidential Pardons because of this. There is no good reason for them to continue and they has always been some abuses of the power that goes with it. |
Mck
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 7:44 pm: | |
lseltzer: one insight why HC felt compelled to state that she was heart broken and disappointed in her brother:the Florida bar has rules about lawyers accepting contingency fees for criminal matters...
big Hugh may be in some big trouble. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 8:06 pm: | |
Mck: I haven't considered myself an expert on Florida law for a couple months now, but I wouldn't assume that this is what is considered a criminal matter. It doesn't involve the criminal justice system at all. It's basically lobbying. (I'm not saying I believe this, it's a thought experiment.) |
Dacar
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 11:00 pm: | |
why all the outrage now? nothing has changed with the clinton's - only the game changes - how did they ever get elected |
Nursie
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:32 am: | |
Dacar,
You are so right!! |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:35 am: | |
That's the question of century Dacar...how DID they get elected? |
Kestrel
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 1:48 pm: | |
And why not? One only has to look at the caliber ( if I may use the word ) of the most popular TV, and radio shows, magazines, music, etc, to get an idea of what our collective "values' are these days. Sleaze is the word!! |
J123md
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 2:01 pm: | |
everybody should leave the clintons alone. |
Konigen
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 12:27 pm: | |
First off, I'm no fan of Clinton but I do find it "interesting" that everyone is so upset over his pardon of Marc Rich, when no one blinked an eye at Bush' secret pardon of Poindexter and the other stars of the Iran-Contra scandal.
Speaking of which...it's also interesting that Clinton's lie about an adulterous affair is far more deplorable than Reagan's and Bush's lies about their involvement in Iran-Contra -- i.e. genocide.
Not trying to imply that lying is okay in any case, but it sure makes you go "hmmm" when the Republicans try to smear Clinton for his lies, while believing it was somehow "situationally ethical" for them to to lie in cases where the stakes were far greater.
Konigen |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 4:37 pm: | |
Konigen, I have the same questions. To me, lying about things that jeopardize the democratic process at a national level is a much more serious offense than lying about who you're having sex with. (Do we need a poll about who has told such lies, how many times, etc.?)
And why on earth was Nixon pardoned???!!! Why was that okay???
Bacata |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 4:39 pm: | |
It's the accumulation of lies, deceit, shoddy legal maneuvering that has most people stunned. What one thing of all the things the Clintons have done which most offends? They left a trail of distaste for 8 years!
The Wall St. Journal tagged them grifters. Mighty strong word, but on the money! |
|