Bill Clinton will be here in San Angelo tomorrow for Hillary. My wife is tasked with taking the 8th graders from her school to go see him. I asked her to ask him "Where's Monika?". She declined as to not get fired dammit...

Sure, ask your wife to do it. Coward. LOL.

have her tell one of the kids to do it....
but...I spose that child will end up "missing"....

Hmmm... tempting...

Where's he going to be at again?

I agree with Greg! Thats a damn good idea!

You seem obcessed with a BJ that happened 13+ years ago.
I wish you would ask equally tough/tougher questions of the current adminstration who have bent us all over in a much worse way (and in this case it wasn't voluntary, as Monica's action were) )

Ah the age-old argument - the liberals (i.e. Clinton-supporters) claim everybody's obsessed about the act, when in reality, it's fact that 'he committed perjury and got away with it' that's the issue - that's just a feeble attempt to shift the focus away from any wrongdoing whatsoever (minimize the infraction and most people will forget about it). I'm not minimizing the mistakes and unpopular things the current administration have done in the least, but people aren't going to remember Bush for much beyond the their disagreement with War on Terror stuff and his higher-than-normal number of grammatical errors.

Clinton on the other hand, is known:
- by less than flattering names that everyone can recite without having to think about it,
- being a dumb-ass country-bumpkin (just like Bush),
- his infamous string of affairs (especially the BJ you spoke of),
- lying 'to the face' of everybody watching TV when he declared his innocence which was later found out to be wrong,
- real-estate scandals,
- doing nothing about Osama bin Laden when he had the chance(s),
- and the fact that his wife was a b!tch that nobody could stand while he was in office and had to wonder if it was really her running the show in the first place.


And you're concerned because someone makes comments about going somewhere to heckle him at a public gathering? I'm thinking I can guess how you're going to vote.


WTF exactly does that mean, anyway? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Voluntary or not, I would've been just as happy NOT knowing the details about how the bimbo went about collecting DNA samples... and happier still if we as tax payers hadn't had to foot the bill just for the privilege as well for something as trivial as that... only to find out that apparently, high-ranking government employees answer to a different, much more lenient set of laws than what they determine is fair for the rest of us.

OMFG Eric, T-shirt is apparently a hopeless liberal. Give him a break. Your sheer size would intimidate him to beleive whatever you tell him (although I know you are a pussycat - so to speak Socialism is not the answer. Try the socialized healthcare in the UK. They have a mandate that they treat people withing 4 hours, so they just leave the patient in the ambulance for 5 hours until they can keep the 4 hour time limit mandated by the gov. That's what clinton is trying to mandate here. Think about it............

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/feb/2...los-auditorium/

That's exactly my point, what should have remained a private matter, between Bill Monica and Hilary, was whipped up by linda Tripp and Ken Starr for purely political reasons as Starr was unsucessful in linking the Clintons to the whitewater fraud cases.
The witchhunt of whitewater, lewinsky, and Paula Jones cases cost US taxpayers around $60 million, most of which would not have been spent on a less public figure.
Yes there was tax and bank fraud in whitewater, but the clintons were not involved.
apparently there was something to the Paula Jones case, even though she lost, Clinton payed a $875k settlement to her.
So his morals are loose, and he attempted to bluff his way out of a public accusation of having an affair.
Unseemly yes but it pales compared to the events in the Bush white House- CIA leak scandal, the false evidense leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the damage to OUR civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Yes I'm fairly liberal, and probably will vote for the democrat

First do not wish to pursue the idea of President Clinton, and his extra martial affairs given that this is normative behavior in the United States-lies, fabrications, sexual-representations, jumbled wording-or, double speak, nor stained dresses! In the United States, the majority of males, and over 70 % of females have extra-martial affairs-and lie about it, Presidents too. (see United States Census Department, for added information) Yes, if Star could have nailed him on Whitewater, or something more tangible, other that jumping someone's bones, it obviously would have been better-the rest is baloney-sliced thin indeed!

In terms of President Bush, and lies about going into Iraq predicated on one. Check out his initial speech given about how he intended to conduct the efforts to attack terrorism just after 9/11. You will find that there were over seven countries, and about 67 terrorist organizations that were listed as enemies. (See: State Department for current list.) Iraq was one of them. Dealing with all these organizations is not unlike the War of the Roses. Sen. McCain was correct in the statement of the possibility of 100 years-noting that we are still in several counties now over 60 years.

In terms of public information, CIA, FBI, or other agencies, the only problem with President Bush was indeed releasing to much information-on a personal note, would have told the press to read the the United States Articles of War, and their duty, and subsequent conduct during wartime-which translates into support for our military, and not comfort to the enemy with often contrived, or politically motivated renditions. Why? During war we support the troops, and their efforts period. How the war has been conducted after the initial confrontation, is quite another issue that apparently this current election will address.

Bottom line: there's a huge difference in my book between 'lying,' and 'being lied to.'

Clinton - 'lied' about Lewinski

Bush - 'lied to' by intelligence community which prompted War

Two very different outcomes, so it's tough for some to discern the difference - however, which would you find more reprehensible:

Both live underground

Clinton - says the sky is green <wags finger at camera> because he saw it with his own eyes

Bush - says sky is green based on information provided by intelligence community (granted, he attacks the sky for no apparent reason other than he was told it's green, but I digress)

If you still have a problem with figuring out the difference - then you must be rather closed-minded. Having loose morals with seemingly trivial consequences is somehow viewed as more noble and honest than being misled and making poor decisions based on bad information - that says a lot about how our society has degraded. Just like sacrificing a little bit of individual privacy for increased public safety is supposedly much less desirable than sacrificing increased public safety for a tiny bit of individual privacy. Isn't the point to survive? Safety goes a lot farther towards guaranteeing that... freedom does not. Why is it also that people have no problem with organizations committing commercial fraud stealing our privacy in the name of 'freedom of speech,' yet when the government does it in the name of 'preventing terrorism' it's suddenly a bad thing?

I guess being liberal makes one seem a little more selfish - or just dense... I haven't figured out which yet. I'm curious to see how the next round of rebuttal will make my point for me.

Hmmm ... thought that all the liberals became environmentalists after the fall of communism, and the Berlin Wall?

Still, during wartime there may be many actions taken by a President that are not the same than when not at war. What is for public dissemination is usually to inspire and motivate those into supporting their commander in chief. Much of what is said is called propaganda. Generally, propaganda is for the benefit of the enemy so they will misread, and the plan puts the opposition (us) at a decided advantage. In terms of President Bush, I support him as long as he is the commanding chief, and gladly would give the life of an enemy for his country, if required.

In terms of the social lubrication effort of lies, none-truths, and other bogus statements made .... these are features found in wartime on both sides. Often the enemy will use anything to embarrassed and sway public thinking and opinion. As far as President's Bush's conduct is concerned, again while in office he must, and should be supported. If the president were to give an unlawful order, he should not be obeyed ... that is why there is a chain of command to relieve some one that goes tapioca! Should we win the war on terrorism-no question about it. But, there is a difference between doing wars, and doing ideologies afterwards-not in agreement with that aspect. Notice that Japan still has an emperor, England a queen, and many countries in the middle East are divided up accordingly by kings, and religious ideologies that are a few thousand years old. Wars we can win, and should. BTW, China is still Communist, but is doing fine in terms of productivity, providing a trade system with us, and so on .... Cuba even had their big guy retire after 50 years! Point is, we are Americans, and indeed we have have a very special Democratic arrangement that works well for us ... others obviously have a long way to go, and frankly, am not overly concerned about their systems, unless they attack us, or our allies. After that, just want to kick their ass and win.

Finally, In terms of lies and moral behavior while in office durning none wartime .... maintain that sexual misconduct, and adultery is normative behavior, and an issue for the family to work out. Is it correct, and do I support this form of behavior? No.