's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Some interesting reading on the Clintons!(62 posts)

Some interesting reading on the Clintons!Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 8:15 AM
This is a good expose on our illustrious 40th president and those surrounding his political life. Most people would be in jail for one sexual crime or another if they conducted themself the way it appears Slick Willy has. It's kind of funny and incomprehensible how NOW and many other feminists groups never took him to task and actually embraced him.
Wow, Steam. Now you're quoting a Commie rag toOldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 8:46 AM
indulge your troubling obsession with the Clintons. This is getting really, really worrisome.
I like to get all the information I can ....Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 8:58 AM
to make an informed assessment of the situation. I even read "Commie Rags" for that info -NY Times too :O) Is there anything in the article that is inaccurate or exaggerated? Clinton was/is a bad dude. His wife is just as scary. Why is it that evil people like this never get cancer or some other debilitating disease? I guess you can see I have a true disdain for them just as Doug does. Honest people always see through the evil of others ways :O)
Uh ... Well ...OldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 9:05 AM
I don't have the energy to even start. Inaccurate? Exaggerated? Hmmmm. Stringing together a bunch of ominous 'reports' and 'coincidences' and citing people who are 'scared to confirm it, but friends say it's true' and fashioning all that into a paranoid's dream of 'proof' is just a little too far out even for me, Steam. Sorry.
fair game when profiting from the hypeDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 9:23 AM
When they continue to inject themselves in public life, obviously in her legislative role and aspirations, and making millions on book deals, I think they are fair game. Heck, Hillary is the one dredging up all their messes to make a few bucks, if $8 million is a "few bucks."

BTW, the only thing apparently anyone cares about in Hillary's book is the Monica episode, and I hear people are really let down by the lack of details. I'll never know, though, as I'm not about to read, much less buy, the book.

Even if they are fair game, I agree it's pretty tedious at this point. Big yawn.

This unprecedented release of a former First Lady's memoirs. . .czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 10:28 AM
. . .is an invitation to all manner of baseless mudslinging. These people are so treacherous and evil, it is every decent person's responsibility to spread the foulest rumors they can cook up.

Plus, if it wasn't for Hillary "dredging" up all these messes, we'd never hear about them.
No need to make anything up. They provide enough ...Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 11:05 AM
of the material on their own. You and Old Ed may choose not to see the fire through the smoke, but that doesn't mean we all have to get burned. There is just too much information and too many people who have been effected by this duo (notice I didn't use the word couple) for it all to have been contrived.
Too bad not a single thing has been proven. . .czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 11:14 AM
. . .except that he did, in fact, have relations with that woman.

Everything else is a product of some severely depraved imaginations. But that is the Clinton's real crime: turning so many decent people in to sleazy muckrakers. Truly, this man is evil.
And given the incredible amount of time and money theOldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 11:21 AM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy devoted to proving something, I think it's safe to assume there's nothing to prove. Millions and millions of dolllars and man-hours spent to nail the Clintons, and the best they could cough up was a couple of tawdry affairs and a hummer in the Oval Office.

It's really kinda sad, when you think about it. Kinda like chimps masturbating.
Did he lie under oath? nmDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 12:04 PM
Not true at allNo_sprint
Jun 9, 2003 11:40 AM
He got national TV time to lie right into the eyes of all the nation. Had he been in front of me, I'd have kicked his @SS from here to nowhere. More importantly, he undermined one of the pillars of our entire Western Civilization. He lied under oath and then the liar got caught, shortly after *looking* us all in the eyes and swearing to speak the truth and whole truth. It doesn't matter who or how many others do it. For a President to, is absolutely worse than there are words for.
Yet Bush lies to your face about something that actually mattersczardonic
Jun 9, 2003 11:46 AM
. . .and you don't care a whit (or at least not that I have seen).
Wrong. nm.No_sprint
Jun 9, 2003 11:49 AM
You guys keep saying this with such certainty, yet ...Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 12:09 PM
where is the proof? Many of you, and I am not necessarily say you in particular, though you did post a response to the Clinton message, have said there is no proof of Clinton's alleged deeds of impropriety. Well there is no proof of any wrong doing on the part of the Bush administration either - just innuendo used to foil Bush's popularity among the American voter. You should act with the same indignation railed against Bush bashing as you have against Clinton bashing, because of lack of credible evidence.
This is not about innuendo. The falsehoods are plain to see. .czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 12:26 PM
. . .if you have your eyes open.

Bush claimed, repeatedly, that Iraq had WMD in vast quantities. The only place where evidence is lacking is in support of the following statements:
    "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

    United Nations address, September 12, 2002

    "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

    "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

    Radio address, October 5, 2002

    "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

    "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

    "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

    "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

    Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

    "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

    State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

    "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

    Address to the nation, March 17, 2003


Forget the alleged weapons. Where is the evidence on which these statements were based. Where are the sources? Where are the satellite photographs. Why is it that every piece of "evidence" produced to date has been immediately discredited as a falsehood or a forgery? And if they were there, but are not there now, who is responsible for letting them slip through the cracks?
apples and orangesNo_sprint
Jun 9, 2003 12:41 PM
Clinton lied, then lied about lying. It's different than making decisions within your realm of responsibility with the best info you've got, when not everything is crystal clear.
He asserted crystal clarity. Therin lies the lie. (nm)czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 12:48 PM
No lie, apples and oranges, see above. nm.No_sprint
Jun 9, 2003 1:04 PM
Your Bush apologia is much more convincing the second time. nmczardonic
Jun 9, 2003 1:13 PM
Hypocrisy regarding Iraq (a little long)BikeViking
Jun 9, 2003 12:46 PM
Clinton Makes Case for Strike Against Iraq

By John F. Harris and John M. Goshko
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 18, 1998; Page A01
President Clinton offered his most detailed public explanation to date yesterday for why curtailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs is worth going to war, while the administration blessed an effort by the U.N. leader to travel to Baghdad to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
In a noontime address to the military at the Pentagon broadcast live by television networks, Clinton said Iraq's history of "delay and deception" over weapons inspections since its surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War has created an impasse in which a U.S. military strike may be "the only answer."
Speaking in stern and subdued tones, Clinton insisted that a diplomatic solution remains "by far our preference." But he also laid down what he called inflexible U.S. terms for a negotiated pact to avert military action and allow weapons inspections to continue.
"We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in the inspection business," Clinton said.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed last night that he plans to visit Baghdad on Saturday and Sunday. His trip follows an agreement by the United States and the Security Council's four other permanent members on a potential compromise that Annan can offer Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Under this plan, administration officials said, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) teams that conduct inspections would be accompanied by what in effect would be diplomatic chaperones, chosen by Annan, when visiting Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. U.S. officials said the UNSCOM inspectors would be allowed to go where they want, when they want, and would be accompanied by diplomats only when visiting presidential residences.
Earlier yesterday, Clinton administration officials described themselves as unenthusiastic about the prospects for successful diplomacy by Annan. But after a telephone conversation between Clinton and Annan, as well as a meeting between Annan and diplomats for the permanent Security Council members, White House officials said his trip held promise.
If Annan's mission fails to produce an Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections, administration officials said yesterday an extended air bombardment campaign will become a virtual certainty. Whereas the administration's old line was that military force could come "within weeks not months," by next week the new slogan will be "days not weeks," officials said.
"The United States is supportive of his trip, and we wish him well," said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson. "But we reserve the right to disagree if the conclusion of his trip is not consistent with U.N. resolutions and our own national interest."
At the Pentagon, Clinton was joined by Vice President Gore, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and nearly all the senior members of his national security team except Richardson, who was in New York negotiating over the allied "advice" Annan would take with him to Baghdad.
The speech, carried live by television networks, came on the eve of a broad effort by the administration to build public support for confronting Iraq. Today, Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger will appear at a televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University to explain why military force may be justified.
Clinton portrayed the crisis in a broad historical context, drawing an implicit parallel between the challenge facing the United States and its allies today and the crisis that resulted in the appeasement of Nazi Germany that was later blamed for the onset of World War II.
"In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggressio
We now know Clinton was a liar. So, evidently, is Bush. QED nmczardonic
Jun 9, 2003 12:50 PM
This is not about innuendo. The falsehoods are plain to see. .BikeViking
Jun 9, 2003 12:50 PM
"In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, action," Clinton said. "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed.
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity," he said.
But Clinton's speech was notable also for what it did not contain. He did not set any precise deadline about when Baghdad must back down or face an air bombardment campaign, saying only that a resolution must come "soon." Moreover, his remarks seemed purposely subdued. While Clinton had just received a briefing from his senior military commanders and a potent air and naval arsenal is stationed off Iraq, he did not dwell at any length on what this force is prepared to do. The president made only passing reference to the 30,000 U.S. troops poised off Iraq with an armada of ships and planes.
A senior administration official said it was important for Clinton not to appear to be "bloodthirsty" for war at a time when diplomacy still holds at least some promise -- especially because France, Russia and other U.S. partners on the Security Council have expressed varying degrees of opposition to military action.
But other officials involved in preparing the speech said Clinton always intended to be measured in tone. More bellicose pronouncements will come in the future if needed, they said. "He doesn't want to be seen as overhyping," said one administration official. "This is an important way station, a way of getting the American people ready for what may come."
Clinton devoted much of his time to documenting what he called a long history of Iraqi evasion of the terms of its surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. As President George Bush did in that earlier conflict, Clinton personalized the conflict -- making plain that U.S. grievances are aimed directly at Saddam Hussein.
Under the surrender, Clinton said, Saddam Hussein agreed to "make a total declaration" of his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as the missiles that would carry these weapons.
"Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment," Clinton said. He noted that Iraq has filed false reports about what programs it has and that UNSCOM learned the truth about extensive biological weapons programs only after Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, defected in 1995. Kamel later returned to Iraq and was executed.
And Clinton ridiculed Saddam Hussein's claims that he is merely asserting legitimate national pride and sovereignty by restricting access to personal residences. While the White House complex is 18 acres, Clinton said, one site Saddam Hussein is claiming off-limits is 40,000 acres -- roughly the size of Washington, D.C.
If Saddam Hussein refused to back down and let inspectors go where they want, Clinton said, "he, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."
Clinton stood by the more limited mission he has outlined lately if a military strike comes. While in the past he has said it is the U.S. goal to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Clinton last week acknowledged, and repeated yesterday, that the most that is possible is to "seriously diminish the threat posed" by such weapons.
"Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity," Clinton said. "But it can, and will, leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons. . . . And
Did Congress get same info?DougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 1:44 PM
Was Congress provided the same info as the President? Seems like it would have been. I think you realize the implications, if so.

"Seems" based on what? And what implication?czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 1:58 PM
That the Republican dominated Congress was just as eager to start a war to further their political interests?
not answering the questionDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 2:10 PM
It seems to me that if provided to congress, it would have been provided to Democrats, too. Why wouldn't they have been screaming about the "obvious" lies?

The implication is that either 1. the "lies" weren't so obvious, i.e., there was at least a reasonable belief the WMD existed (no lies); or 2. the Democrats participated in the lies.

I'm not going to answer to a hypothetical red-herring. (nm)czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 2:18 PM
Especially one so easily dispensed with.czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 2:27 PM
Why would you assume that Congress was in on fix when the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees just opened investigations to determine if the Adminstration was abusing intelligence?
wasn't assuming, really -- I was asking nmDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 2:32 PM
give us $50 million and an investigative teamrufus
Jun 9, 2003 1:56 PM
and we'll give you proof. let's look into harken, and halliburton, and the fact that 9 out of 30 members of the defense policy board have ties to the defense industry, and the president's own fathers' ties to defense and see what we come up with. let's get the energy policy meeting documents released, and the investigation of the 9/11 intelligence failures released too.

c'mon $50 million is pocket change for this administration.
Yet Bush lies to your face about something that actually mattersBikeViking
Jun 9, 2003 12:41 PM
There is no evidence YET, that Iraq did not have any WMD prior to this latest war. The truth is yet to be told on this matter, so calling him a liar for this particular thing is a bit premature.

The country has not been thoroughly searched and our fine me are still dying over there, so the environment to find these things is not entirely hospitable.
Yes. It remains impossible to prove a negative.czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 12:53 PM
But we already know for sure that Bush didn't have the proof that he claimed to have. Whatever is found, it is too late to vindicate Bush.
rummy said we knew right where they wererufus
Jun 9, 2003 3:40 PM
in and around baghdad and tikrit. seems that would narrow the search area quite a bit.
missed the whole point of the Clinton scandalDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 12:03 PM
Clinton was sued in a private lawsuit for sexual harrassment. As part of that lawsuit, he was deposed (sworn testimony under oath). He lied in that deposition. Later, he lied about lying.

Clinton not only committed simple perjury, that is, lying under oath, but he also was a lawyer with a higher sworn duty of candor and truth to the court.

The substance of his lying was not important for perjury, contempt, and state supreme court/ethical issues. Lying is lying.

His defenders have sought to minimize his wrongdoing by focusing on the substance of the lying, minimizing the wrongfulness. However, he did commit perjury and was found in contempt by a United States District Judge and relinquished his bar license rather than be disbarred involuntarily or convicted.

Should his status as president have immunized him from prosecution of a civil suit, contempt, perjury, or bar investigation? If your answer is "yes," then you are saying it's ok to lie under oath to every person in America, or at least that the president is above the law. I disagree with both.

I fully appreciate the point.czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 12:36 PM
And I care about substance. I think that lying while not under oath in order to put American troops in danger for political purposes is much worse than lying under oath to protect details that are none of my business.
BTW, Bill's slap on the wrist fit the crime perfectly. (nm)czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 12:39 PM
More good stuff. nm.No_sprint
Jun 9, 2003 12:37 PM
Clinton bashing is so 20th centurymohair_chair
Jun 9, 2003 9:02 AM
Can't you guys find another punching bag?

The truth is, few people cared then, and no one cares now. If he runs for office again, you can bring all this stuff up. Otherwise, let the man be.

Be imaginative for a change. At least find out who the new players are. Did you realize Al Sharpton is a candidate? He's as easy as Clinton to bash, and it might be refreshing. I'll start. When did Al go legit?
We're having a little discussion about Al below. It'sOldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 9:07 AM
pretty interesting, the transformation.
late to the ball againmohair_chair
Jun 9, 2003 9:32 AM
I need to call down to the desk and get a wakeup call.

I still remember an item on a Letterman top 10 list, years ago, about new food products. One was "Al Sharpton's Veal Medallions." He used to wear those big medallions on gold chains. Not sure if he still does, but I'll bet he wears them to the inauguration if he wins!
Sharpton is not a serious candidate in the ....Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 9:10 AM
true scheme of things. No need to realy waste time on him. Hillary on the other hand is. Besides the Clintons keep putting themselves out there to prove their relevance - reference her book. We must constantly be reminded of how evil and corrosive they really are. Sort of like being reminded of how horrible the Holocaust was. We don't need a repeat of the Clinton debacle.
Darn and I was going to vote for himKristin
Jun 9, 2003 10:26 AM
You don't think he'll make it to the primaries?
Well the polls have him tied for 4th with ....Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 11:14 AM
Senator John Edwards and the first Dumocratic primary is in South Carolina I believe. He may get a good portion of the black vote there. It could make him relevant, but it will more than likely eliminate the weakest of the candidates.
If I ever meet himKristin
Jun 9, 2003 11:23 AM
I guarantee I'll puke on his shoes. He makes me nausious. Thankfully we don't run in the same circles.
More entertaining than a circus...No_sprint
Jun 9, 2003 11:41 AM
Shows the lack of anything good or intelligent in so many.
Clintons/Holocaust Analogy: thanks for reminding metorquer
Jun 9, 2003 11:10 AM
why I find myself spending less and less time on this forum.

As another poster wrote as one of these left/right exchanges was spiralling out of control: "There's a saying in the world of debate that if you have to bring up Hitler in your argument, you've already lost."

We (note the plural) need to get a grip.
Re: Hitler, LOL!No_sprint
Jun 9, 2003 1:23 PM
I hear ya regarding spending not much time here at all. I rarely do.
I'm sorry, but at least 50% of the article is garbageKristin
Jun 9, 2003 10:21 AM
First of all, I read up to 1980 and NOTHING written to that date was verified with any source on record. Questionable? You bet! Someone has a lot of time on their hands and enjoys garbage picking.

I liked this quote. "One-time apartment manager Jane Parks claims that in 1984 she could listen through the wall as Bill and Roger Clinton, in a room adjoining hers, discussed the quality of the drugs they were taking." That was good for a laugh. No one can hear anyone talking "quietly" through the walls of an apartment building. When was the last time you--as a renter--heard someone talking quietly through the walls. This Jane Parks isn't too bright. She should have claimed they were boasting loudly.

I'm not saying Clinton isn't a creepy guy. I don't trust the man...something in the eyes. And there are too many on record accusations of sexual misbehavior for them to all be false. BUT, I don't buy for a second that he regularly used cocaine. The drug is just too addictive and has too many side affects. He would not have gotten so far in politics and certainly not without it being obvious if he had become a hard core addict in the 80's. No one shakes a coke habit easly or quietly. Marijuanna I could accept, but regular cocaine use. Over the top. That's what makes rags like this so uncredible. They don't know when to stop. Perhaps they should turn to writting soap operas.
What's with the Clinton bashing?Jon Billheimer
Jun 9, 2003 11:03 AM
Not that I'm a Clinton fan, I'm not. But consider this: one President gets a blowjob and lies about it and it becomes a national obsession criticizing him years later. Another former President actively deceives Congress and defies an act of Congress--which behaviour I was given to understand merits impeachment--and years later he's regarded as some sort of All-American godfather and icon. The current President cooks up a pretext for a probably-illegal and unjustifiable war and he's currently regarded as a hero. Lack of evidence to substantiate his widely trumpeted reasons for the war are blithely shrugged off by the majority of the American people as an insignificant detail. Where's the perspective in all this?
Maybe its collateral damagetorquer
Jun 9, 2003 12:14 PM
of class warfare.

Bill's oval office hummer was hardly a national obsession; it became the obsession of the same noisy claque that had previously accused Bill & Hill of everything from knocking off Vince Foster to being personally responsible for the collapse of the savings & loan industry in the late 1980's. Basically, it was a convenient (not to say ineffective) excuse to hamstring an administration that threatened to pass any (however half-a$$ed) progressive measures.

Personally, after Willy's display of spinelessness with "Don't-ask-don't-tell", failed medical insurance and punative welfare reforms, I'm just as happy to be rid of the SOB. Hill's falling in line last fall with Dubya's march to glory in Iraq shows she's not much better.

I suggest we concentrate on the other side of the aisle for our tragicomedy, where Trent Lott and Rick Santorum seem to be auditioning as the Amos and Andy for the neocon century.
Some people ...sacheson
Jun 9, 2003 7:55 PM
... are idiots and can't put the Clintons to rest.
Idiots - we would like them to just go away :O) nmLive Steam
Jun 10, 2003 5:00 AM
I'd like to see you try and educate yourself on the ...sacheson
Jun 9, 2003 7:52 PM
... lying, cheating person in office now.

The Clintons are so 1999. Geez.
I am already "educated"! What would you kie to know?Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 5:06 AM
Please show us all where he lied or cheated. I see a man who is following the platform upon which he ran. I guess you liberals aren't quite used to that concept.

As for the Clinton's, they are not old news. One of them is my state senator and the other just can't keep his mouth shut long enough to keep the flies out. Hey he ruined your party, so I understand your frustration :O)
'Steam, you are, quite plainly, an idiot. Bye.cycleaddict
Jun 10, 2003 6:07 AM
I think everyone should read you post to ...Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 12:40 PM
experience for themselves your whit and intelligence :oO Listen my friend, and I use that term sincerely as we all have a common interst in cycling and have exchanged many ideas and lots of information here on RBR, this is debate and opinion, what we are doing here on the non-cycling forum. There is no need to take it personally or to attack someone for having a differing opinion than your own. You only prove your intollerence for others. That's not very mature, but perhaps I'm expecting too much.
I think "bye" is short for, "good bye". . .czardonic
Jun 10, 2003 12:54 PM
. . .as in you have convinced him that it is a waste of time trying to reason with you.

And what with your laughable appeal to tolerance, I can't imagine why! Consider this: some people might find your pretense of civility a little bit insulting to their intelligence. Who do you think you are fooling? If you want to throw a few jabs around, fine. You won't here me scolding you. But don't turn around and try to paint yourself as some conciencsious [sp?] objector to "attack(ing) someone for having a differing opinion than your own". Those who aren't turned off by your confrontational style will be turned of by your phony moralizing.

Do you really think it's confrontational?Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 2:40 PM
Hmm? Maybe your right. I generally try to post something that is of issue and then comment about how it makes me feel or what I think of it as it pertains to the issues at hand. I generally do not attack unless attacked and certainly do not call someone an idiot just because it makes me feel better. I said it in the prior post, but I do feel like we are all sort of friends here. I have come and gone during the year and sometimes just check in to see what the topic of the day is - the General forum was mostly what I visited. However one can talk about the virtues of Campy over Shimano only so many times. Cycling events do pique my interest and I will weigh in on them, but World events are fun to toss around. I think some people here take things too personally. I don't care if Old Ed calls me Archie Bunker. I would only feel bad about that if I thought it were true. But I know my virtues and my faults and probably fall right next to the average Joe just trying to do his best and not cross anyone intentionally. Cycleaddict has been calling me names and getting uppity for some time. Most times it's like water off a ducks back. On a bad day I may get annoyed, but I always try to stay civil. Get a sense of humor for goodness sakes. This board is like a mirror and I appreciate the feedback I get form even you. It makes me think about my position and how I or it may effect others and how it/they effect me. Life is too short to be so serious.
I agree with most of what you say here. . .czardonic
Jun 10, 2003 3:16 PM
. . . but consider the source!

That being said, I've noticed that when cornered you often affect an attitude of obtuseness designed to frustrate any further discussion. Then you wonder why no one want's to discuss!

Case in point. I suppose it is possible that someone could believe that Bush is following the platform he ran on. But given the clear evidence to the contrary, I'd have to conclude that such a person was a lost cause and move on.

Are you sure that you aren't taking things a little too seriously yourself? What is really at stake if you concede a little ground once and a while?
You're right :O) nmLive Steam
Jun 10, 2003 6:37 PM
educate ...sacheson
Jun 10, 2003 8:12 PM
First, I've had the opportunity to read the string of posts extending down from here (cycleaddict, and czar's), so I'm going to encapsulate a response to all here.

Regarding educating yourself on the guy in office -

Lying: the lack of evidence to support invading a country
Cheating: shading business loans from Harken Energy, relaxed penalties for crimes in the past, and manipulating himself out of Vietnam.

Sticking with his platform? If you're talking about the platform on making the rich richer and opening up protected lands for industry, then yeah I guess he did. Other than that, I don't agree.

Next, I read several times where you badmouth cycle addict for calling you an idiot. Let me ask, how is it different when you use the term "you liberals" in a demeaning manner? It's not. (and, along those lines, how is it you can call me a liberal? Do my previous posts ellude you?). Just because you concatenate a little smiley to the end of your cutdowns doesn't erase them. You, of anyone here, are guilty of pointing fingers and calling names.

And just because someone disagrees with your stance on a subject doesn't make that person a "liberal" or whatever the term d'jour is.

As for the "we're all friends here" comment you make, I disagree again. I don't like people because they are cyclists. I like people because of their personalities, openmindedness, intelligence, and ability to overcome hatred and be a little understanding. In a year of reading your crap on here, I don't think you posess any of these qualities and do not, would not, and will not consider you a "friend". Harmless, obnoxious loony, maybe :0).
Sory you feel that way.Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 8:49 PM
However you still haven't made a case for your allegations of lying, cheating, and the rest. Sort of the same response that comes from Clinton apologists about his rapes, sexual assaults, crooked business dealings and the rest.

If you chose to be offended by the term liberal then I cannot help you there. I guess it is used the same way so many liberals like to use the term neocon. Are they being derisive too?

Lastly, I did not say we should all be friends because we all like cycling. I only said that is a common ground for us. If you still want to call me names and make judgments about me fine. I think it is fairly evident who is the close-minded, judgmental and hate filled person here based on your response. If you don't like reading my posts - DON'T. Your high intellect should tell you to avoid reading posts with the handle of posters that offend your sensibilities. Don't click on mine. I think one must be rather disturbed to sit around for a year reading someone's posts he has no interest in reading and who he also has a strong dislike for - especially strange since you have never had the pleasure of meeting me :O) Oh by the way, "concatenate" is the wrong use of the word in this instance :O)

You know if I were a suspicious person, I would think you, CZRA and cycladdict were one and the same person based on your post. They all lack any sense of humor.

So you don't like me - BIG DEAL!
strong dislike ... who said anything about strong dislike?sacheson
Jun 11, 2003 9:39 AM
Dude, where do you come from? And whereever that is, is it common to make ill references, mis-quote, and draw false conclusions?

First: lying and cheating.

Lying ... what news publication can you read an not find information regarding the lack of proof on Iraq's WMD program? We just invaded a country on a set of lies GW presented to us and the world.

Cheating / other skeletons ... you seem to find nice, speculative, unsported sites for your Clinton obsession. Here's one on GW.

I'm not offended by the term 'liberal'. I only stated your use of liberal is meant in a demeaning manner, much like cycleaddict calling you an idiot. Therefore, you are guilty of the same practice you are whining of others using. If anything, I was calling you on your game, not accusing you of anything. And a liberal using the word Neo-Con is demeaning, yes.

The comment I made on you calling me a liberal was simply meant to correct you. I'm not a liberal and have never represented myself as one here. I simply don't like GW ... last time I checked, that doesn't make one a liberal.

Next, I assure you - cycleaddict, sacheson and czardonic aren't the same person ... nor do I know cycleaddict or czar.

And, who said anything about strong dislike? I said I do not, would not and will not consider you a friend. Jumping to the "strong dislike" assumption is another unsupported leap of faith. Assure yourself, I don't care enough about you to dislike you. Sorry. I simply view you as an obsessed, vulnerable character who has some wacky and unfounded views. Yeah, I might be lowering myself in bothering to retort, but most everyone is guilty of stooping to a lower level and taking advantage fools, aren't we?

Finally, Webster's states concatenate is: "To link together; to unite in a series or chain". Whereas I agree, it might not have been the best use of the term (although not necessarily wrong), I don't think you are one to correct anyone's use (or abuse) of the English language (example: sorry is spelled with two "r"s).