| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2004/9/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33273 Activity:insanely high |
9/1 Anyone else catch Arnie praising Nixon? High-larious!
\_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
story not just Watergate.
\_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
a bit in the rewrite.
\_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
in this state.
\_ Of course. He didn't slip it in secretly. And the talking heads
commented on it afterwards. What about it? What Nixon did would
not even get mention today. What happens commonly today and is
dismissed by the media and public would yield prison terms during
Nixon's era.
\_ You mean it wouldn't matter if a Republican did it. Or have you
forgotten that a blowjob in the Oval Office seems to be more
impeachable than leaking the identity of a CIA agent?
\_ Um, no. Perjury and suborning perjury. Not a blowjob.
\_ Yeah wow, lets have THIS argument again. Woohoo. You've
heard of the Nixon tape where he tells Chuck Colson to
BLOW PEOPLE UP, right?
\_ I'm not the above poster, but what does blowing
people up have to do with blowing people in the
oval office?
\_ Lying about getting a blowjob ... How many politicians
tell the truth about affairs unless confronted directly
with incontravertable evidence?
\_ Sheesh. This is such a lame attempt at
justification. He was under oath in front of a
grand jury. Lying to a grand jury is not ok no
matter who you are.
\_ Note that it appears to be ok to lie to Congress
(Reagan, Bush Sr), the SEC (Bush Jr), and to fuck
your employees even if you're married (Gingrich).
Don't be a democrat.
\_ And the earth is round and the sky is blue. All
true, but not the issue. The man should not have
been questioned about an infidelity in front of a
Grand Jury to begin with.
\_ The case was a SEXUAL HARRASSMENT CASE.
\_ which was THROWN OUT for being MERITLESS
\_ Nope. Sorry. It was in the context of the
Whitewater probe, remember?
\_ And you remember this?
"Having an affair with an intern is not a
federal crime, but lying about it, or asking
others to do so, is. And that's why
Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth
Starr's inquiry has expanded to include it.
Allegations so far involve possible perjury,
suborning perjury and obstruction of
justice."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/cnn.content/starr.legal
\_ and then there's lying in front of grand jury
compared to lying about WMD's infrot of everyone.WTG!
\_ Nixon was an effective president, a crook, but a pretty good
president. -liberal
\_ So its okay to be a criminal, as long as you are an effective
criminal?
\_ Isn't that what all the Clinton lovers taught us?
\_ If lying under oath about your infidelity is wrong, I don't
want to be right!
\_ So you think infidelity is ok? Does your wife/gf know
you think that way?
\_ Nixon started out with great intentions and fell into paranoia
and dirty tricks. By the end, he was up to his neck in ethical
and legal violations, and the only thing he could think about
was trying to save his own ass.
\_ if Nixon rose from the dead, I'd vote for him
instead of gwbush.
\_ Oh no! Zombie Nixon!
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/store_tshirts.php
\_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
story not just Watergate.
\_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else. Ok tnx.
\_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
a bit in the rewrite.
\_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
in this state.
\_ I haven't taken part in this thread at all yet, but while
I had once approved of Ah-nold prior to his speech, I now
disapprove and this probably won't change. "If you still
support George W. Bush, you're still stupid."
\_ Sheesh, just trying to inject a bit of humor into this
landmine filled motd "debate"
\_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else. Ok tnx.
\_ Yeah because you can win any debate by just comparing the other
guy to Hitler. This is brilliant! Now I have the key to
winning any debate on any topic! Thank you motd!
\_ What did Ah-nold actually say?
\_ "I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was
full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I
remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on
TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I
heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which
is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was
talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back,
lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to
Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air."
\_ What's really great is that Nixon NEVER DEBATED Humphrey...
\_ Ah-nold never said he watched them debate.
\_ He has in the past, and it's what he implied. Listen
to the speech rather than just reading the transcript.
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/08/1951245&mode=nested&tid=1
\_ See, I don't see what's so bad about this. I probably
wouldn't have said it, but saying he liked what Nixon
said about economics in his campaign speech is hardly a
big deal to me.
\- also see:
home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
\_ so, how is Nixon different from Dubya and friends, other
than getting caught? -lame troll #69 |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/cnn.content/starr.legal -> www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/cnn.content/starr.legal/ CNN report from January, 1998 A Legal Thunderstorm Looms For Clinton Why might an alleged affair with a White House intern become a federal case? Having an affair with an intern is not a federal crime, but lying about it, or asking others to do so, is. And that's why Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr's inquiry has expanded to include it. Allegations so far involve possible perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. The first element involves Clinton's testimony in the Paula Jones case. In his deposition last Saturday in Jones' civil-rights lawsuit against him, Clinton was reportedly asked whether he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky; In a deposition also taken for the Jones case, Lewinsky has reportedly denied any affair with Clinton. lewinsky "He adamantly denies it," says the president's personal attorney, Bob Bennett, "and she under oath denies it." Next in the mix is former White House aide Linda Tripp, who turned over to Starr taped conversations between Tripp and Lewinsky that allegedly contain Lewinsky's graphic descriptions of sexual activity between her and the president. The tapes also allegedly contain Lewinsky's accounts of attempts by the president and presidential friend Vernon Jordan, a Washington lobbyist, to get her to lie to investigators about the matter. If that is what the tapes contain, and if Lewinsky's accounts prove credible, they contradict Clinton and Lewinsky's sworn testimony, and could prove to be the basis of charges of perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. Tripp, who now works in the Defense Department, worked with former deputy White House counsel Vince Foster, and knew Starr from his investigation into Foster's death. tripp Armed with the tapes, Starr went to Attorney General Janet Reno last week to seek permission to expand his investigation into this matter. Reno agreed with the request and took it to a three-judge panel, which approved the probe's expansion on Friday. If Tripp was in the Pentagon when she made the tapes, her clandestine taping of the conversations is legal under Virginia law. The state's laws say only one party in a telephone conversation needs to be aware that the call is being recorded. Clinton's potential legal headaches may go beyond the courtroom. "I think the charges against the president and Mr Jordan are just that, charges," he told CNN. Hyde said Starr's investigation will either verify the charges or "disavow" them. "If he verifies these charges," said Hyde, "impeachment might be an option." |
| www.filibustercartoons.com/store_tshirts.php These shirts are high-quality, they're made in this special silk-screening place in Vancouver, which is the city where I live. So not only will you have a Zombie Saddam shirt, you will have a Canadian-made Zombie Saddam shirt! Filibuster Cartoons version 30 - Design copyright 2003 Jaco Joubert - All original images copyright 2001-2003 JJ McCullough - Non-original images copyright their respective owner. |
| www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/08/1951245&mode=nested&tid=1 Email this article The Body Politic The Walrus on Arnold Schwarzenegger by Matt Welch LOS ANGELES-"California," the Washington Times's Wesley Pruden wrote, about this month's gubernatorial recall, "is the place where the fruits intersect with the nuts." What Pruden, and most baffled outsiders, fail to grasp is that such warmed-over Woody Allen jokes are not taken as insults here, but, rather, as points of pride. For more than 150 years, the Golden State has welcomed ambitious hustlers with murky pasts--who have returned the favour by incubating weird revolutions. It's no accident that the Summer of Love, Ronald Reagan, the Free Speech Movement, the Internet boom, Hollywood, and Richard Nixon all sprang from here. It may not add up to one coherent whole, and that is precisely the point. Most years, Californians can't be bothered to learn the basics about their elected leaders, let alone vote. But every generation or so, a groundswell of popular anger creates a wave of reform that crests over the nation, from the tax-cutting of the late 1970s to the immigration backlash of the early 1990s. Perhaps the greatest of such citizen movements was the Progressive Revolt of 1910-1930, which beat back the perfidious influence of railroad companies by giving voters a series of direct-democracy tools, such as the ballot initiative (whereby any resident of California can write a proposed law, collect enough signatures, and put the question up for a yes-no vote), and the recall. For ninety-two years, the recall mechanism lay mostly dormant. A deeply unpopular governor with no natural constituency, who barely won re-election last November against a clueless Republican with social-conservative views far to the right of most Californians, revealed not long after the polls closed that his budget deficit was not the disastrous $24 billion to which he'd admitted, but an unfathomable $38 billion. Gray Davis had won statewide elections by portraying his opponent as an anti-abortion, anti-environment creep, but he squandered a $9-billion surplus, bungled a multi-billion-dollar energy deregulation fiasco, and increased government spending. That Republican, United States Congressman Darrell Issa, was the public face of the recall movement until August 6, four days before the deadline to file for the election. That's when Arnold Schwarzenegger--whose own advisers were certain he wouldn't run--shocked the country by throwing his hat into the ring. Arnold's sudden move was perfectly in step with his style of competing. " Nevertheless, skeptics from across the political spectrum were quick to charge that the Terminator had an empty hard drive where his political philosophy should have been. fake," thundered right-wing talk-radio king Rush Limbaugh. "I've heard only clichs so far," sniped US Senator Dianne Feinstein, California's most popular Democrat. The Austrian-born robot thespian did little to ease concerns in his first vague pronouncements on the campaign trail. When asked about a controversial and expensive family-leave bill, he told NBC's Today Show, "I will have to get into that, because, as you know, I'm very much for families and very much for children and children's issues and all that stuff." Asked by another reporter about his position on the environment, he said, "I will fight for the environment. Early polls showed the Republican actor far ahead in the race to recall the Democrat Davis, who will be fired by the public if 501 percent vote "yes" in the first question on the October 7 ballot. With Arnold enjoying a double-digit lead over the nearest of the 134 other candidates listed on Question Two, conventional wisdom figured he would just coast on his celebrity and postpone the alienating business of taking positions until the last possible moment. If he could glide into the statehouse as a fuzzily defined "fiscally conservative social liberal," well, why not? This analysis, however, totally misses the two things that make Schwarzenegger's candidacy potentially seismic: Yes, Arnold does indeed have a defined political (and campaign) philosophy. And what's more--if he survives the attacks from Right and Left, the muscle-bound monosyllabist may just recast American politics in his own chiseled image. "This much I learned," he recounted in a September 21, 2001, speech to the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce. "Humphrey talked about protectionism, more government planning, and a lot of liberal solutions. The Republican-Nixon-talked about less government, lower taxes, the free market, international trade, and a stronger military. "I pretty much thought it was as simple as the movies," he continued. "The Republicans were the Good Guys--and the Democrats were the Bad Guys." But two events eventually jolted him from his partisanship: First, he married into the country's most famous Democratic family, the Kennedys, when he wed Maria Shriver in 1986. "This was where I got my biggest and rudest awakening," he told the Sacramento Chamber. "Because as I went around from inner city to inner city, I saw first-hand that this is not the land of opportunity for those kids. Since then, Schwarzenegger has focused the bulk of his political energies on expanding after-school programs for kids (culminating in the passage, last fall, of Proposition 49 in California, which increased state spending on such programs by $450 million a year). He has also discovered the civilizing virtues of bipartisanship. "Both parties had good ideas--so it was dead wrong to see things only as us versus them, Republicans versus Democrats. American politics, at its base level, is a screaming match over a handful of social issues that clearly divide the two deadlocked political parties: abortion, gay rights, environmentalism, gun rights, affirmative action, attitude toward business. On the first three counts, society is moving demonstrably toward the Democratic side of the aisle, especially in coastal states like California and New York. On the latter three concerns, they are beginning to lean Republican. Schwarzenegger's positions on wedge issues basically mirrored the country's, except he spent as little time as possible talking about them, so as not to alienate anybody. That's why his candidacy drew the most fire from social conservatives and partisan Democrats: If he wins the election, they are threatened with irrelevance. California Republicans are hopelessly divided on social issues--the moderates think the conservatives lose elections, the conservatives think they define Republicanism. The moderates have on their side none other than George W Bush, who is eager to woo Latino voters to the GOP (immigration restrictions are a favourite conservative cause, and the main reason why California's booming Hispanic population votes Democrat). Last year, a conservative slate was routed at the polls, shutting Republicans out from statewide office for the first time since the 1880s. A Schwarzenegger victory could bring the Republicans back from California's political wilderness, and pave the way for similar moderate GOP victories in states where the anti-abortion, homosexual-bashing platform is on the wane. It could give Bush a crucial toehold in a state that has rejected him thus far, and force venal Democrats like Gray Davis to come up with something better than a least-worst scenario. National conservatives like George Will are already accusing Bush of selling out his party's principles, while openly wondering if it wouldn't be better for the California party to accept "ruin" instead of the indignity of electing a pro-choice Kennedy-in-law. Schwarzenegger's views, such as he's articulated them, are more in tune with the public than those of the two eternally warring political parties. A nation's political class is eagerly watching to see if he can survive such an outrage. |