Ugggh. Well, if they'll let him get away with war mongering, and secretly taping citizen's private conversations, what makes you think he's gonna get touched by this?

Talk about biting the hand that feed you though - yikes.

well, of course I don’t think he is going to touched by this. that doesn’t mean I can’t keep bringing it up to point out the hypocrisy to those who pretended to be outraged by a hummer, and going so far as to carry out an impeachment proceeding over it. but treason and building a war of duplicitous motivation (guaranteeing a further destabilized middle-east in the future) on a stack of lies is apparently no big deal.

You don't understand. Getting a blowjob is a crime against God and Nature and thus the highest form of immorality. Lying to convince people you need to blow up brown-skinned (sub-human) people is The Lord's Work and thus the highest moral calling there is. Or at least that's what they tell me at Little Green Footballs.

shame on you for your sarcasm, jay. Saddam was a big bad man.

fish ass licker.

Christ. A man gets drunk and crashes head first into a fishtank and all of a sudden he's "jay the fish ass licker". Where's the justice in that?

Boys, boys, now don't make me give you two a time out.

fish ass licker - heh.

Fish Ass Licker, is that any thing like Moonshine?

Getting a blowjob is not the crime the Clinton was persecuted for. Interfering with corporate profits was his offense.

tfg, you’re obviously a smart guy, BUT, if is walks like a conspiracy theory, talks like a conspiracy theory, it’s a probably a duck. Never mind the fact that most corporations flourished under the economics of the Clinton administration - not all, of course. I’m sure a Haliburton would be more than happy to finance a witch hunt. The blowjob witchhunt had many contributing factors: The republican congressional sweep of 1994 (a consequence of Clinton’s overreaching agenda of his first two years (not to mention Hillary’s healthcare package debacle), the consequential appointment of a unprecedented wildly partizan investigator (Kenneth Starr) to the Whitewater Investigation (which many Conservative analysts have admitted simply added up to a really bad investment), a cutthroat and aggressive RNC political machine, Starr’s abuse of the independent inquiry, really really ugly partizan fighting, and admittedly, Clinton’s habit of diddling and sexin’ and perjuring himself. It was not a conspiracy of secret profit mongering men pulling the strings of democracy to maximize profits. After all, as your boy Nader said, the Democrats and Republicans are both part of that vast conspiracy, right?

It was not a conspiracy of secret profit mongering men pulling the strings of democracy to maximize profits.

Who do you think funded the republican congressional sweep of 1994? Trust me, if Clinton would have invaded Iraq like the PNAC had called for in it's open letter, he could have received blowjobs in the Rose Garden at high noon with impunity.

Turn HTML on in your comments, too.

on the first point, we could go around in circles forever. on the second, everyone knew the starr report was forthcoming for four full years before it was released in december of 1998. there was no more stopping that trainwreck than there was stopping the bush administration of invading iraq, regardless of CIA and UN findings on WMD. the PNAC letter was sent jan 26, 1998. of course it was ignored or dismissed by the clinton administration as crazy talk... there was no way the clinton administration was going to act on its recommendations. i am sure that wolfowitz, rumsfeld, fukuyama, et al, understood this full well. the only way logic would hold that there was anything resembling a relationship between the starr report and the PNAC letter would be to consider the letter a form of open blackmail. that is conspiracy talk. there was no relationship. I suppose one could argue that if clinton followed its recommendations, the earth turned around on its axis, and jesus came back to earth and hosted a giant bbq for all the world's religious leaders, than yes, the war profit machine could have conceivably have moved in and convinced the independent council and congress to squash the report. but, of course, clinton did not follow its recommendations, the earth did not turn around, etc.... such conjectures are meaningless.

You read to much into my last comment, I was using Iraq as an example. I didn't mean to imply that Clinton's impeachment proceedings were the consequence of his rejection the PNAC's letter.

I did mean to imply that Clinton's impeachment proceedings were a direct result of the fact that his administration's hesistance to let corporations run amok, like we are currently seeing.

In fact, I recall paying $0.81/gallon at the pump under Clinton. I also recall that bankruptcy for individuals was a viable option under Clinton, while bankruptcy for corporations as a union busting strategy wasn't. Nor do I recall Clinton manufacturing reasons to start an illegal oil war. Also, Clinton didn't run record deficits to fund his backers from the defense and engineering construction industries.

If you want to immerse yourself in political ideology and strategy, that is your perogative. However, our elected officials are little more than corporate errand boys. And what is every corporation's goal? To maximize profits.

"I did mean to imply that Clinton's impeachment proceedings were a direct result of the fact that his administration's hesistance to let corporations run amok, like we are currently seeing.

In fact, I recall paying $0.81/gallon at the pump under Clinton. I also recall that bankruptcy for individuals was a viable option under Clinton, while bankruptcy for corporations as a union busting strategy wasn't. Nor do I recall Clinton manufacturing reasons to start an illegal oil war. Also, Clinton didn't run record deficits to fund his backers from the defense and engineering construction industries."

Of course, i agree ON ALL THESE POINTS, as I've said in the past. But, I am wondering, if this is the way you feel or felt about the Clinton Administration, why did you actively participate in bringing down the continuation of his administration in 2000 and handing the government over to the corporations?

In my opinion, voting for the democratic party only slows the rate at which the government is handed over to the corporations. After all, who brought us NAFTA and electric deregulation.

As I've said before, the only answer is to eliminate corporate political contributions. Since this is a lost cause, no problem with not delaying the inevitable.

rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric... oh, and by the way, I looooooooove NAFTA. I gave NAFTA a reach around at a cocktail party once, and I'll do it again. As far as I can see, I'm not the one immersed in idealology.

"I gave NAFTA a reach around at a cocktail party once, and I'll do it again. "

More bleeding heart liberal ideology. A conservative would have had NAFTA give the reach around for $4/hour and a temporary visa.

heh. no, that is what a moderate would have done. a conservative would have wasted a perfectly good boner and let NAFTA starve to death... on principle. Strangely enough, that is exactly what was an anti-free trade liberal would have done too. It is amazing how opposing extremists always seem to come to the same conclusions.

Amazing, indeed.