It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Clinton Attacks Nemesis Starr and Media in TV Outburst

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
……………..I don't think Mr. Holmes needs to provide citations for what is already common knowledge.
I think you’re supposed to call me Robin Hood or something like that, at least according to the drooling strawman among us. However, the lack of understanding of the word by the oh so educated sure was comedic

And for those of you who keep comparing shrub to Clinton….it wouldn’t matter if shrub was caught in flagrante delecto ….Clinton is still a degenerate.
if he was caught then both would be degenerates.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by keholmes]

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:10 PM
Oral sex is not adultery.

So, he didn't do anything wrong, and he's not degenerate.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Oral sex is not adultery.

Come on, Emily. Admit it. Your real name is William Jefferson Clinton, isn't it.

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:43 PM
And if you were to bring up my name in his presence, he would be shocked out of his chair that I even said this or spoke on his behalf.

He always thought I was one of his aggrieved adversaries.

He even let his wife come after me.

But God is my Protector because I only speak what I know is true; and so I have been able to continue in my work, despite Clinton's outrage.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Oral sex is not adultery.

So, he didn't do anything wrong, and he's not degenerate.
that is just too funny
oral sex is not adultery
that is hilarious please stop
are you booked anywhere, I've got a friend that is an agent and he's looking for fresh acts.

although that would explain how you so wildly misunderstood degenerate, even though websters is putting clintons picture in, so that those who can't read can also know what it means.
let's see do you know what a hamburger is by anychance.....wait don't tell me it's a whoopie cushion.
oral sex is not adultery, that's rich.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by keholmes]

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:03 AM
Kehomles.. just take 1 second to think about this.

why is Adultry bad?

it is taking the unnecessary risk of bringing a person into this world without a real family and if the issue was to be forced 9 times out of 10 there would worse issues regarding the original family.

So now we have Traditional decline.

let me bake your noodle..
You can't get someone pregnant through Oral Sex, therefore the Traditional Decline argument doesn't work. Falls apart like straw. Ironic huh?
Now then, the only way to *objectively* confirm the validity of this process
of understanding whether or not this is bad is to put on the non-involved parties shoes for a moment.

Was the non-involved party offended in such a manner as to void out a pre-conceived Tradition whose original merit has already grown up and gone to college? Nah, didn't think so, wouldn't surprise me she justified this with the what good for the gander is good for the goose.

As an added bonus, there was no chance of bringing another human life into the picture that wasn't wanted, further there was no backlash at all.
Therefore in conclusion the circumstances were conscentual.
Guess what that means?

No Adultry!

and to think that it took 700 people to figure out just enough of the basics to
make an umbrella clause, however indirect, for the sole purpose of impeachment, so as to indirectly please those who would abhor at what many would consider a natural act? The moral depravity and controlmania being substituted as Artificial peity is not distrubing.. I think it's funny!

The day I found out about that whole mess, I found it amusing and strangely
relieving that we actually have a human being as a leader for some time.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by IAF101
Do you really expect the president of America(worlds most powerful nation) to do nothing after 9/11?

Actually, there was a 9/11 before 9/11. The World Trade Center was bombed on Clinton's watch and it was supposed to be just as catastrophic as 9/11. Clinton did nothing.

When the USS Cole was attacked, Clinton did nothing.

On 9/11, al Queada hit a home run on Bush's watch and he's doing something about it. That should make every red-blooded American very proud.

Who gives a s@#t if adultery is bad. Was he doing his job? was he doing a good job?

As for not doing anything about WTC and USS Cole, what was that Tomahawk missile attack on Afghanistan?

Um, in '93 did the WTC fall over? Were three thousand people killed? WTC '93 was nothing Londoners hadn't seen before, or the Tory Party in Brighton.

George W Bush: We were attacked.

John Kerry: Saddam Hussein did not attack us. Osama Bin Laden attacked us, Al Qaeda attacked us.

What is President George W Bush doing?

Back to where it all began. Ken Starr was investigating Whitewater. What did Lewinsky have to do with that? Know where the shredded files were, did she? Have a copy of the e-mail instructing staff to destroy records, did she? Or did she just do for Slick Willie what Monroe did for JFK? Where are the attacks on JFK?
What about speaker of the House Gingrich, the man so concerned about morals, where's his first wife?

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:09 AM
Travelers Beware of Traveling on an Airplane With Peter Jennings Name on the Passenger List!!!

History has shown if you Cross a Clinton Your Odds Of Being Involved In A Catastrophic Airplane Disaster Dramatically Increase From About 1 in 1,000,000. To About 1 in 5 !!

[edit on 11/23/04 by Iwunder]

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:35 AM

keholmes says:
I wasn't saying he is a degenerate in comparison to anyone in particular, just noticing that he is a moral degenerate

Give it a rest. We all get the message that you think Clinton is a moral degenerate becasue a b.j. is such a nasty thing.

Bodebliss said:
What about the religious right always throwing the first stone. Didn't Jesus warn about that.

They do that because it makes them feel less morally depraved in comparison. Laying disproportionate moral judgment upon others helps them not to notice the tree trunk stuck in their own eye (see sayings of Jesus in the New Testament).

GradyPhilpott said:
he's doing something about it. That should make every red-blooded American very proud.

Doing something about it? What is he doing about it? Killing and pillaging. I cannot recall a time prior to Dubya's rise to glory when there was so much blood lust rampant throughout this land. 9/11 was exploited as an excuse to pursue a course of action that had been planned and mapped out well before 9/11/2001. It was the awaited 2nd Pearl Harbor needed to rally the public's support for the current fiasco which is a but a phase toward a larger goal.

What he should have done about it was (1) resist the rush to judgment, (2) ensure that a thorough, independent, and scientific investigation was conducted of the physical evidence of the events that occurred on 9/11, (3) preserve the evidence, (4) be honest and open rather than obstructive and insulting to the American people about what really happened, and (5) after the evidence was in, then, and only then, pursue the bastards who did it whether they be traitors from within or enemies from without and regardless of their political, economic, social, and religious ties and power. That would have shown some moral character and backbone. But we saw nothing of the sort. Who, in comparison, is morally depraved when when you stand Bill Clinton next to G.W. The question answers itself.

The U.S.'s actions in the aftermath of 9/11 are a hawk's wet dream that they, until then, they could only daydream about. What a woderful world this has become! We get to use up all our crumbly old weapons and munitions and get a bunch of nice shiny new ones again.

For those who think that consensual heterosexual activity such as a b.j. is a signpost of deep moral depravity, I suggest you get yourselves a b.j. or the female equivalent once in a while. It just might change your mind about its moral significance. Be sure you do it safely and in a way that does not violate your moral principles, relationship commitment, or marriage. That's right, even married couples can do that.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:15 AM
Captain Time Warp & his trusty ward, Lil Avatar? Team Semper Fi?

Look boys, it does serve the brain dead well as a rallying point, but a consentual affair does not make someone a degenerate - no matter how many dictionary definitions you subject us to in order to try and make a point that's not there. Even if they went "Around the World", which I'm sure they did ( that ' just oral ' thing is funny! ), it's still two consenting adults having sex.
Though I do admit to having a picture of the Ambiguously Gay Duo from SNL in my mind every time Team Semper Fi starts feeding each other on some thread with Bush love & opposition demonizing, I'm reasonably sure you guys are straight males. Please don't tell me that you think oral sex is a degenerate act?

Clinton is clearly at the entitlement point of ripping out the eye & skull humping to death any mediawhore who trys to further rewrite history, or even remotely offers that the Ken Starr action was anything but a partisan witch hunt.
I truely wonder at what decible of stuck pig you syncophants will squeal at if we ever reverse the Fascism trend and get team Bush up on trial?

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:39 AM
In Clinton's defense:

[A] number of independent observers judge [ABC's] stories to have failed journalistic standards. Some have even suggested that [ABC producer Chris] Vlasto took on a unique role as a kind of unofficial advisor to the Starr legal team as he worked behind the scenes and confronted fellow journalists who did not hew to Starr's line. In 1998 Salon's Joe Conason wrote, "After Murray Waas and I published an article in the Nation about Starr's conflicts of interest ... [a]mong the most hostile responses was a telephone call from ABC producer Chris Vlasto, who has worked the Clinton scandal beat at the network for several years. After swiftly dismissing our story, Vlasto proceeded to berate me for criticizing Starr, and condescended to inform me that the corrupt liars were in the White House, not the independent counsel's office. The possibility that Clinton and Starr both might need skeptical interrogation evidently didn't occur to Vlasto, who works closely with ABC White House correspondent Jackie Judd. Two years later ... it was Judd who became one of the most eager purveyors of Starr-inspired leaks and anti-Clinton rumors."

Did Clinton do some stupid things while in office? Yes. Did they affect his job performance as POTUS? No. Was he the victim of a "political witchhunt"? Yes. Does he have the right to call the guilty parties to account? You betcha.

FWIW, I watched the opening of the Clinton library, and I saw the "outburst." I thought he handled himself with great dignity and composure.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:51 AM
When the Conservatives turn Christ's righteousness into wearing their own righteousness as a "seal of good house keeping" they are Pharisee Christians and God will judge them by it.

"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them"(Mt. 21:44-45)

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:51 PM
Rumours Supported By Facts Are Not Rumours They are Fact !

When You Swim In The Sewer, Sonner or Later You Are Gonna Smell Like Crap!

Like he said dont go there you might expose his Crap!

[edit on 11/23/04 by Iwunder]

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
...WHILE at this moment in the Oval Office there is a man--an avowed Satanist, who has a long history of homosexual relationship with the Mayor of Louisville--

You have to be kidding how about some proof for such amazing and crazy claims? Oh wait you dont have any
It ok for you to make up whatever you want about Bush with no proof but talk something Clinton really did and is backed up with much evidence.

"Dont go there" please

IMO the whole thing wasnt anywhere near as bad as the Mark Rich Pardon Clinton made. That was 10 times more important and wrong on his part. A pardon of the biggest tax cheat in US history all the while taking money from the guys wife. He takes a bride and lets the guy get off scott free.

Clinton got mad at this interview because he served for 8 years as President and he will be remember more for Monica and a cigar then anything eles he ever did
Great way to leave your "mark" on history Bill.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:03 AM
Grady, when it comes to politics we have quite a different view of things. Regardless, I respect your point of view when it’s presented in an intelligent way, and when there is some substance and/or value to it. Even though we may see things differently, I still often enjoy reading what you have to say, and do sometimes puzzle over how and why you think as you do. This is not one of those times, though, and I will not bother to puzzle over it.

It’s kind of disappointing, coming from you, and obviously intended to incite an e-brawl. Perhaps you were bored and wanted to pick things up a notch or 2 on the board. Or maybe you find the topic titillating, and it elicits provocative, stimulating visual imagery whenever it comes up. Then again, there’s always a chance that you secretly desired to have Monica all for yourself, and just can’t stand the thought that Bill got her first.

I don’t know the reason for this thread, but I’ll make a few comments anyway.

I don’t blame Clinton for lashing out a little. What happened back then was a blatantly hateful, unconscionable personal attack orchestrated by blood-thirsty, sociopathic, impotent Republicans who hated Bill Clinton simply because he was so much bigger intellectually and more powerful than they were. His ability to run circles around most of them really disturbed most conservatives. His success greatly upset a lot of Republicans.

The public was outraged at the time over the sheer ruthlessness of the Republican Party in pursuing this. Republicans displayed such a vengeance and ferocity for bringing Clinton down, NO MATTER WHAT, that most people found the whole spectacle disgusting. Just as today, the whole world looked at America and wondered what’s wrong with America’s political system and leaders. The Republicans made America a global laughing stock; a country of blithering idiots and Bible-thumping old fools. Now enter George Bush and the tradition of insanity lives on.

It’s a far stretch to think that pillow-talk about Whitewater may have occurred between Clinton and Lewinsky. That’s the justification Kenneth Starr used for investigating Monica Lewinsky, you know. Ken Starr must REALLY need to get laid. What a cruel, hateful, vengeful thing to do. IMHO, the Lewinsky thing was something to be dealt with by the Clintons on a personal level. I also think most of America agreed with that opinion at the time.

The conservative leaders (Republicans) didn’t give a hoot about the nation’s opinion, though, and proceeded like a lynch mob to crucify Bill Clinton. They were so hell-bent and crazed over ruining Clinton’s life, it was kind of unsettling, and most definitely unprofessional. It became a personal thing to many politicians, and these people are supposed to be above that. All the time, money and resources that wastefully went into this lynching were of no consideration to those lunatics so filled with hatred and spite that it totally blinded them to fairness and decency.

I don’t know what it is about sex that it upsets so many people in this society. It’s a completely natural thing, and, believe it or not, it actually occurs outside the sanctity of marriage from time to time. I know some of you may find this hard to accept, but it’s important that you know this. If it was a perfect world, then, of course, there would be no such thing as hot, shameless, unbridled sex. Unfortunately, though, it’s not a perfect world, and I’m afraid we’re stuck with it for awhile. Trust me on this one. So for now, please, you must get over it and get ahold of yourself. Perhaps, when genetic engineering has had a chance to advance a little, we will finally eradicate that monstrous cancer and it will then become the perfect, sterile, pure and pristine neo-con world we’ve all dreamed of. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!!

In the meantime, why don’t you layoff Clinton. At least he didn’t trash the economy, lead us into a senseless war against a defenseless nation, and make the rest of the world despise and disrespect us …

[edit on 11/24/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 11/24/2004 by netbound]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:25 AM
And again we hear from bout strawman, with his majic don’t focus on fact act….brilliant, try to get this into your two brain cells although it obviously won’t fit, huh….kind of limiting having that one word queue. I could care less about what ever he did to get were he was…..obstruction of justice by the chief law enforcement officer in the land is a bad thing…not a good thing. Now that you’re one high queue has been overwhelmed please feel free to continue on with your strawman argument.


Some much for your cooking noodles….I could give a flipping frig what deal he and his ho have worked out. I don’t particularly care about your traditional decline argument and you’re tree fell in the forest and no-one was there so it must not have had a sound argument. And as far as your excuse of consenting adults….did that judge agree to be lied too, did the fbi agree to be lied too I don’t remember that being in the paper….hmmm so you’re saying that the fbi, the judge and the opposing counsel agreed to be lied too….wow, I guess I just missed that one, must be all the smoke from your flaming noodle, that blocked my vision. I guess it was my fault with all of this discussion as I choose to call Clinton a degenerate. I should have guessed that most here couldn’t get past the pervert connection; I kind of thought that besides being descriptive of the action that brought his pain on it, would imply the criminal element. Upon reflection I would probably have used malefactor.

[edit on 24-11-2004 by keholmes]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:59 AM
... is--naturally--because the mods here are fundamentally conservative and they're happy to over-react to anything written about Clinton and also to suppress any information that doesn't jibe with their preconceived anti-conspiracy bias.
... They belittle hard data they don't want to acknowledge and come up with all kinds of excuses why that data can't possibly be right.
... I am not surprised that this very twisted, stilted article made it into the News category because this place believes in the media. The major moderators here do not see any conflict between a reporter's using the words, "former President Bill Clinton lashed out at Ken Starr and the media," and the conduct he actually displayed, as sandge says, "He handled himself with great dignity and composure. "
... No "conservative" mind is able to see this. They see their Guy Bush bumble and stumble and that's okay. But to see Clinton perform with dignity and grace, that's over their heads--just as it was over the head of the reporter at Scotsman. Conservatives would NEVER ALLOW Clinton to be described as anything but "gutteral" or "degenerate."
... ATS is a conservative bastion. And if we don't all realize this and take it into account as we bring issues and information here, we're going to always be disappointed in the response and the outcome.
... The guys who have all the points are busy smashing and slashing at anything "divergent"; that's where they get their kicks. They play low-ball. Okay? So, let's just deal with it.

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 05:57 PM
Ive seen alot of your posts and believe you are very close, honest, as well as funny on many of if not most that ive came accross, I'm no one to judge and we are alkl entitled to our opinion as you said, but I believe if you look at Ken Star's report and documentry with and open mind as well as the clintons as a whole I think you would actually see there was very Cynister Activities surrounding both Clintons whole political careers. Never in history has a US politician been under direct suspition for such a multitude of scandals, misconduct, suspicious deaths of witnesses that came forward from heart attack, suicide, and airline dissasters all within days or weeks of testifying against the Clintons, Pardons to persons suspected of illegal involvement, illegal prosecutions, and investigations just to name a few.

This Man way surpasses the term "Above Suspicion" ! I understand your frustration on the bush thing but thats for the bush thread.


[edit on 11/24/04 by Iwunder]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:37 PM
... isn't ENOUGH? You wanna spend more?

... When do you want to stop hounding this man?

... I understand 34 people are dead-and-gone?

... Who did it? What is Bill? What is Hillary?

... Where do we begin to thread together, the real culprit?

... And when does simple character assassination become real truth-seeking?

... I'm not satisfied with mere ridicule. If Bill is guilty of something, let's let somebody put their cards on the table.

... But innuendoes don't cut it in a civilized society, hear?

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:49 PM
IMHO, it was vulgar, disgraceful and a black eye to our nation to put an American President under oath and quiz him about his sex life. A President, by the way, that the rest of the world had quite a high opinion of. I’m aware that many members here couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks of us, but I have a very different opinion. I think it does matter what the rest of the world thinks. It isn’t 1850 anymore. We exist within a global social structure to a great degree, and our actions do, indeed, affect other nations in this world. Being an Isolationist nation makes no sense; we have global ties and we should respect them, and not behave like either spoiled adolescents or blood-thirsty animals.

I recall the reaction of the rest of the world at that time; they were really confused about what all the hoopla was about. They laughed at the U.S. for our immature sexual hangups, and they were appauled with us for taking such a thing to the level of impeachment. I agree with the rest of the world; it was completely out of character for the Leader of the Free World to expose the sex life of a very successful sitting President in an attempt to destroy him. It was motivated by personal hatred and intended to bring the man down in humiliation and disgrace. It was an attempted coup d'état, and it was shameful.

It was quite obvious to everyone that this whole thing was a setup. It was a hate filled witch hunt and took our nation’s status down a few notches with the rest of the world. I know, “Who cares?”, right? Well, I care, for one. It was kind of nice when we had the respect and admiration of the rest of the world. I doubt we’ll earn that back anytime soon ...

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in