Despite what's said..Clinton's troubles in office DO NOT parallel Bush's

Since the "shit hit the fan" with all the stuff now effecting the White House and Bush, I have heard several talking heads on TV making a parallel to President Clinton's "scandals" while he was in office....They seem to be trying to equate the two situations...
I just saw Bob Franken on CNN referring to the fact that Clinton was able to function so well during his trying times (the many "scandals"), because he could compartmentalize everything and thus was able to handle it....Has it dawned on anybody that Clinton could function well because he knew he was not guilty of all the phony charges trumped up by the right wing?....The sex thing with Monica was all there was!....He knew "Whitewater" and the many other charges against him were bogus so his conscience was clear....and I believe he knew that the American people, although not approving of the Monica thing, would recognize that he was doing a good job as president....THERE IS NO PARALLEL TO BUSH'S TROUBLES!

I had to say this....I have seen the parallel drawn so many times by so many people!....

Clinton also had the courage of his convictions. The only conviction Bush has (please god) is in the future and of a legal variety.

basically "Bush is no more criminal than Clinton". i can take that as an answer (if i have to) but, at least admit Bush is a criminal nonetheless.

I don't believe Clinton acted criminally at all....Imorally, but not criminally...IMO..

When will Fitzwater drag in Gannon? Of course, unlike Whitewater, all else has not failed.

More manufacturing by conservatives who obviously can't handle the truth.

Clinton "scandals" manufactured by right wing haters

bush scandals, a result of the actions of conservative republicans.

If a bush supporter had a shred of decency he/she would be suicidal right now.

Torture, war of aggression sold on lies, etc., etc. Clinton got a blowjob.

It's a ludicrous comparison. It's like comparing Dr. Phil to Saddam Hussein.

And what's with the overuse of the dots instead of a period and two spaces to separate sentences? I know you are not a freeper, and I am NOT saying you are a freeper, but I do note that it is a common thing over there to use that construction. It makes your text hard to read. Three or four dots have a specific meaning and your usage creates cognitive dissonance.

my style....Sorry you find it hard to fathom....nobody else has ever complained............................................................

P.S....Perhaps we should submit our entries to yor for corrections before we post them?...You really are rather full of yourself!

Anyone can create new conventions in writing. What is your reasoning for mixing them up and creating cognitive dissonance like you do? Ultimately I'm more curious about it than anything else.

any1 Can Create New conventionsinwriting.whatisyour REASONing FOR m1x? them up and crE8t1ng |=05|\|1tive diSSonnnaanns lyk u du? ultim8tleeimmorcurEusbowtitdananeetingelze....

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

They are BY FAR my personal favorite grammatical construct...

FREEPER?
HARD TO READ?
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE???

HOLY COW, Dude...pop a valium or four, won't you?

Perhaps if you just let people write the way they want to write and stop playing Conan the Grammarian, there would be a little less of this "cognitive dissonance" around here...


Ellipses RULE, Bernardo La Paz DROOLS!!!

People for the Ethical Treatment Of Elipses...
...
...
!!!

ah...
zzz...

:)

:rofl: ... :rofl: ... :rofl: ... :rofl: ... :rofl:

... longer ... than you've been alive ... kiddo! :evilgrin:

TahitiNut *loves* ellipses! Better bad style than no style!!

And will he wear a blue dress, or "green jeans?"

Who can plumb the depths of depravity in this WH?

Because, yeah, both were presidents plagued by scandal.

But Clinton's involved an investigation of a land deal that went nowhere at all, sexual harassment charges from people of questionable character and motivation, and a BS impeachment that was just political grandstanding, over something as simple as a blow job.

Meanwhile, Bush's include deliberate manipulation of intelligence information, lies that led to 1900 unnecessary American deaths in a war, prisoner abuse, gross incompetence (at the very least) during 9/11, and treason.

That's why people draw those comparisons.

Compare and contrast.

But I completely appreciate your sentiment.

... if they'd give $100 million to a rabidly partisan Special Prosecutor and a left-wing Judge to oversee him and give him Carte Blanche.

Clinton knew he was there to do the people's business, he stayed on the job because that is what was asked of him. He was there to work for us, regardless to what happened to him personally...

Bush on the other hand, has always been a President for himself and his cronies only. He could care less about doing a good job for us because we don't matter to him one bit.....He's off on vacation again for God's sake. The man simply doesn't care about the people's business.

The difference here is professionalism. Clinton had it in spades, Bush does not.