Posted on 06/15/2004 9:25:09 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Were the Clinton's "great parents"?
Time will determine great parenting and no amount of speculation will change the outcome!
Has the passage of time highlighted Clinton's strengths?
Its hard to highlight strengths when a country as a whole put this man in office twice without regard for its own strength not all voted for this man but those who did believed in him BLIND BELEIF is still belief.
Did Clinton show great compassion for people in need?
He showed compassion for people of his need his kind he affected all those around him was this compassion is different compassion its selfish encirclement
Did Americans (that means you) know that Clinton was working hard to bring a better day closer?
I'm not Americans I'm but 1 American my opinion among a sea of millions is less than equal to those who followed this wretch of a man !
Is HRC an extraordinary person? Has HRC proved herself more equal to the challenge of being a Senator?
In the grand scheme of things this female windbag amounts to nothing other than that !! WIND
Can Clinton today be even prouder of decades of service, and effort, and perseverance?
Only time will tell weather his head will fit through in decades to come!
You'll have to twist if you're going to answer "yes" to any of those questions.
I have answered your questions without twisting i could have answered more ravenously but X42's times are over in the white house hes not worth getting worked up about !
And if you answer "no" even to one, here's the next question:
I have answered neither and yet have answered all!
Did President Bush know it was a false statement?
I will not stoop to call my President a liar ! Nor should you
If you answer "no," then he is at least dumber than you or I.
My Friend he is smarter than both of us combined.
Oh, don't get me wrong, he was being a gentleman. What I meant about not going that far was that I wouldn't figure that all the folks this ticked off are idiots. I do believe he was trying to be classy and that there may have been some strategory, but the main motivation was respect for the Presidency.
Faint praise is like a feather in the wind.
I didn't even know who the hell you were until you claimed to call American Indians "Injuns", and we pulled your butt to the curb. Now you whine about it all. Poor little baby. [Snicker.]
I say. Oh my goodness, he looks just like his Daddy.
Don't buy into his B.S., TOUGH STOUGH. Whether you agree with his point or not regarding the topic of this thread is one thing, but just so you know - Protagoras and I have a brief history, where he enjoys using my "race" against me when we debate. It has nothing to do with you, just as an FYI (unless you condone racial digs at people. Somehow I doubt that) ;0)
I agree, W is smart. That is why I conclude that he lied. He knew that what he was saying, that the impression he created by his words, was not true.
Dan
Well, now, that would depend on your race, *wink*.
Only kidding less anyone take me seriously. Of course I don't condone racial digs at people.
Regarding this particular issue, I think the president could have toned down both his rhetoric and his enthusiasm and still have been gracious.
However, what he said could have been far more disingenious, and I do think he was trying his best to be diplomatic. His prescence at the event was probably not something he could avoid, and as I said previously he was in a bit of a sticky wicket. Therefore, I can't get too angry at him over this one.
Perhaps, he will get better at it with continued practice. I am certain anything he might have said would have made someone angry.
Was W lying when he campaigned for Specter?
I can't think verbatim of anything he said, except that he needed Arlen Specter in the Senate. I guess you have a point; if I'm remembering right, that certainly is not true.
THough I might say it's in a different category than these statements. W knows best why he might (incredibly) imagine he needs Specter. But whether or not the Clintons are "great parents," etc.? Give me a break.
Dan
But come on, even that statement is not true - and W had to be aware of it.
On the other hand, he at least tries not to lie, as BIG and as much as many other politicians.
Well, I think you're right. I think that would be a lie.
What an odd thing. I don't like comparing lies, but W lies to be generous to enemies, whereas The Nameless One lied constantly and only to serve himself.
But lies are lies, and lying is wrong. W shouldn't do it.
Dan
An excellent distinction. I can't say for certain, but I hope W is as generous to his friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.