Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J.B.C. who wrote (306260)	10/13/2006 11:14:24 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572562

Clinton is a paragon of honesty compared to Bush. You cannot compare Bush's 6 years of costly lies about Iraq, terrorism, energy, health care, education, taxes and all kinds of other issues to CLinton's personal private lie which didn't hurt anyone. Two points on CLinton in his defense. First of all, if you put GW Bush on the stand under oath and asked him about Tammi Phillips Houston stripper or cocaine use, he would lie and perjur himself. Any married man would deny cheating if he thought he could fudge the truth and get away with it. That's just human nature. Plus Clinton only got a BJ not full "sex" so he thought he could walk that tightrope. Second, the rightwing witchhunt which was Whitewater should never have been asking those kinds of questions of the presdient to begin with. What right did they have to ask him about his sex life? Was CLinton's penis on trial? The entire Whitewater was a big hunt for dirt on Clinton because he's was way too successful and popular for the rightwing to stand. That was the real disgrace, not Clinton's sexual act. Especially since during that edact time Clinton was trying to fight and kill OBL and AL Qaida. That stupid investigation cost him a lot of time and taxpayers a ton of money.,

To: J.B.C. who wrote (306260)	10/13/2006 5:37:14 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572562

Do you have no sense of morality? Oh please, you lecturing me on morality, that's too funny to even be taken seriously. You guys had no morality issues with a married President that actually had sex with a young intern, Then lied in a COURT OF LAW about it, but now are up in arms with a congressman that didn’t have sex with a Page? Too funny. Dude, I repeat: do you have no morality.....telling lie after lie whether its true or not and slandering another person in the process? Its disgusting and it makes you look like a horse's ass. And don't lecture me about Bill Clinton......we're talking about you and I. Your lie was debunked by the 9/11 commission. It was? Did you actually read the 16 page link to the 9/11 commission report linked in the article of your post? Or are you just repeating the left wing-nut mantra. I suspect it's the latter. Yes, I have read it but apparently you have not. even though the 9-11 Commission found no "reliable evidence to support" Please don't use quotation marks on a bald face lie, those words are nowhere in the 9/11 report. Have you no morality at all? You are not only morally challenged but a serious sociopath. When honorable people use quotations, they are quoting from the text. In this case the text was the 9/11 Commission report. So if it was a lie why is Clinton telling us in this tape that he turned down the opportunity in this audio tape? : newsmax.com ..that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton. I don't care what Clinton said on that tape. I am referring to the 9/11 Commission report. And I repeat to you their finding: there is no reliable evidence that the Sudanese gov't offered to expel bin Laden to the US. They distorted? How? The clip of him talking in my link is 30 seconds long, so they're not taking it out of context. Please explain how they distorted it? Just because you left wingers repeat the mantra intended to protect your god Clinton, doesn't make it true. Are you calling the 9/11 commission liars, o brilliant one? Are you saying that you believe the Sudanese gov't before you believe the 9/11 Commission? Also Clinton claimed several times including in the above audio tape that he had no basis to hold OBL. This was a Clinton speech made in 2002. Yet now, in 2006, he claims he was obsessed with the capture of OBL though-out his Presidency? Don't you see a little problem with his attempts at revisionist history here? Probably not, your Tin Foil Hat reception is just fine. And just for the record, I have never thought of Bill Clinton as a God although it would not surprise me if God thinks favorably of him. However, I have made it very clear that I think he is a far, far, far superior president to the current bubba for whom you voted for twice.

To: J.B.C. who wrote (306260)	10/13/2006 11:35:01 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572562

I repeat, Clinton was never offered Osama by the Sudan. This lie and myth was started by the rightwing after 9-11 in order to try and blame Clinton for a terrible catastrophe that happened on Bush's watch while Bush was ignoring terrorist threats. In actuality, if there was any offer at all, it never reached Washington DC or Clinton, it was very low-level, it was not considered seriously, and back in 1995-1996 or whatever it was the US government had no solid intel Osama Bin LAden was responsible for any bombings. In fact this was not proven until 1998. After that, Clinton immediately went to war against Al Qaida. And by war I mean 150 cruise missiles, which is a ton of firepower. And guess what? At the time, many on the far right mocked Clinton for it, even made fun of him. What is true is that in the mid 90's Osama was becoming a person of interest, a serious suspect, and was starting to be closely monitored. Alarm bells were ringing but there was no prof yet that Al Qaida had done anything but make threats.