Liberal Hypocrisy
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
VegasGuy said:
The internet is a motherfucker ain't it.
You tell me how worldnewsnet meant it.
BTW, now that Rove is gone, the conservatives are going to remake image? Not likely
source: worldnetdaily.com
Danny Boy and child support
Posted: January 4, 1999
1:00 a.m. Eastern
What's the definition of irony?
On the last day of 1998, while 13-year-old Danny Williams was awaiting the results of a DNA test he and his prostitute mother believe will prove Bill Clinton is Danny's biological father, the president announced a sweeping new federal child-support crackdown designed to harness all the coercive power of Washington in squeezing America's deadbeat dads.
I'm not kidding. For anyone who didn't think it was possible for Clinton to humiliate himself, his family and his country more than he already has in sex, lies and hypocrisy scandals, get ready for Danny-gate.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, this is a story that has been kicking around for a long time. I first saw the photo of young Danny about six or seven years ago and was struck with the likeness to Clinton. But a face alone does not make for proof. Photos do lie. So do some down-and-out mothers. But, generally speaking, DNA tests don't. That's why it will be very interesting to see what tabloid reporter Richard Gooding comes up with when Danny Williams' DNA is compared to the sample Clinton gave Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigators in the matter of the semen-stained dress.
Danny has reportedly been told his entire life that he is Clinton's son. His mother, Bobbie Ann, says she conceived her son during a paid sex act with Clinton. She reportedly passed a lie-detector test.
How was a story like this bottled up for all these years? Thank the Clinton attack machine. When political consultant Steve Denari, director of Ross Perot's Illinois campaign, informed George Stephanopolous that he was ready to go public with the story before the 1992 election, he was warned he would never work in Democratic Party politics again.
"It's completely bull----!" barked Stephanopolous. "If you went on the radio and said that Bill Clinton is the father of an illegitimate black child, you will be laughed at. People will think you're crazy. ... You will be embarrassed before the national press corps. People will think, nobody will believe you, and people will think you're scum."
Stephanopolous also broadly hinted that, if the story went away, there might be something in it for Denari. Hmmmm. Maybe some dinero for Denari? Blackmail, threats, extortion. The Clinton slime machine has proved time and time again that playing hardball still works in American politics.
But that was then and this is now.
If the DNA match is positive, will Clinton's defenders be able to spin their way out of this web? Thirteen years without paying child support is a long time. What will the ensuing scandal mean to Clinton's staunchest bases of support -- America's black community and U.S. women? And how will the president's newest child-support initiative play politically after this revelation?
In announcing the crackdown on deadbeat dads, the White House said: "Despite record child-support collections, there are still too many parents who flagrantly ignore their obligations to their children, and the president will propose to spend $46 million to identify, investigate and prosecute these deadbeat parents."
"Since taking office, President Clinton has made child-support enforcement a top priority, and those efforts are paying off for children across America," the statement continued.
Danny Williams will, no doubt, be grateful to hear that. But will it take a DNA test, once again, to get Clinton to admit his offense? Or, this time, with Clinton facing an impeachment trial, will he ever admit anything? Is anything ever enough with Clinton?
Well, talk about being hoist by one's own petard, in June Clinton signed into law the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, creating two new categories of federal felonies for the most egregious child-support violators, a measure he had called for in his 1997 State of the Union address.
So, if it's more high crimes and misdemeanors the Senate is looking for, maybe Bill Clinton's mistreatment of Danny Williams and his mother, Bobbie Anne, for all these years will prove to be the last straw.
Under Clinton's new scheme, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will establish investigative teams in five regions of the country to identify and investigate cases for prosecution. The Justice Department promises aggressive prosecutions and convictions of this new felony class of crimes. No word on whether Janet Reno will name an independent counsel to look into the issues surrounding the First Son.
Hey, look what I found. Back in the late 1990s (the dark ages to the conservatives and republicans) the wing nuts were screaming Clinton had no executive privileges. Of course now among republicans, the Unitary Presidency theory is all the rage.
HIPOCRACY!
source: salon.com
Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :
(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.
Tony Snow, Fox News, March 18, 1998:
In our latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll, we asked a series of questions about executive privilege. Most believe it's an attempt to stonewall Ken Starr's investigation. There's an even split on whether the White House has something to hide. And a majority thinks conversations with the first lady should not be covered.
Did the president invoke executive privilege to preserve the presidency or hold Ken Starr at bay?
Paul Gigot, Fox News, March 8, 1998:
GIGOT: Senator Torricelli, the president has from the very beginning pledged to cooperate with the investigation, said he wants to get the truth out sooner rather than later.
Would you define claims of executive privilege as cooperation? . . . But aren't claims of executive privilege usually reserved for national security matters -- in particular, matters of state secrets and foreign affairs?
Kate O'Beirne - Capital Gang - May 2, 1998:
O'BEIRNE: Let me say, Mark, I think Newt Gingrich delivered a really good speech. He gave voice to that which millions of people know to be true. I don't think it's good news for the Democrats. The Republicans have had trouble finding their voice on this and they're scared off by being told it just has to do with the president's personal, private behavior. And Newt Gingrich, I think, has given voice to them in a way that's not helpful to Democrats.
He says there are two principles involved, the public's right to know, because secrecy has so benefited Bill Clinton, and second, no one is above the law. Now, if the public increasingly sees this scandal about their right to know, so much for executive privilege and Secret Service privilege, and no one is above the law, Bill Clinton's in a lot of trouble.
Tony Snow's Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998
SNOW: Mr. Burton, back to your committee -- if you cannot immunize those witnesses, that's the kiss of death. You're not going to have any more hearings. . . . .
BRIT HUME: And have you been assured, sir, that you will remain as chairman of that committee through the coming months.
GOP COMMITTE CHAIR REP. DAN BURTON: Yes. I have no problem with that, and I don't think the speaker does either.
We're going to continue on it until we get the truth for the American people, or at least do our dead-level best to get the truth for them.
You know, the president could solve a lot of this problem if he wouldn't hide behind executive privilege, if he'd just come out and tell the American people the truth.
In 1998, when Bill Clinton invoked it, "executive privilege" was a cynical and corrupt tool to prevent Americans from learning the truth about scandal and keep the President above the law. In 2007, now that George Bush has invoked it (and it's hardly the first time, but this time it will likely be tested), it will be a doctrine of the gravest importance and steeped in our most cherished democratic traditions and it must be defended at all costs in order to preserve the Power and Honor of the Presidency.
HIPOCRACY!
source: salon.com
Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :
(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.
Tony Snow, Fox News, March 18, 1998:
In our latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll, we asked a series of questions about executive privilege. Most believe it's an attempt to stonewall Ken Starr's investigation. There's an even split on whether the White House has something to hide. And a majority thinks conversations with the first lady should not be covered.
Did the president invoke executive privilege to preserve the presidency or hold Ken Starr at bay?
Paul Gigot, Fox News, March 8, 1998:
GIGOT: Senator Torricelli, the president has from the very beginning pledged to cooperate with the investigation, said he wants to get the truth out sooner rather than later.
Would you define claims of executive privilege as cooperation? . . . But aren't claims of executive privilege usually reserved for national security matters -- in particular, matters of state secrets and foreign affairs?
Kate O'Beirne - Capital Gang - May 2, 1998:
O'BEIRNE: Let me say, Mark, I think Newt Gingrich delivered a really good speech. He gave voice to that which millions of people know to be true. I don't think it's good news for the Democrats. The Republicans have had trouble finding their voice on this and they're scared off by being told it just has to do with the president's personal, private behavior. And Newt Gingrich, I think, has given voice to them in a way that's not helpful to Democrats.
He says there are two principles involved, the public's right to know, because secrecy has so benefited Bill Clinton, and second, no one is above the law. Now, if the public increasingly sees this scandal about their right to know, so much for executive privilege and Secret Service privilege, and no one is above the law, Bill Clinton's in a lot of trouble.
Tony Snow's Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998
SNOW: Mr. Burton, back to your committee -- if you cannot immunize those witnesses, that's the kiss of death. You're not going to have any more hearings. . . . .
BRIT HUME: And have you been assured, sir, that you will remain as chairman of that committee through the coming months.
GOP COMMITTE CHAIR REP. DAN BURTON: Yes. I have no problem with that, and I don't think the speaker does either.
We're going to continue on it until we get the truth for the American people, or at least do our dead-level best to get the truth for them.
You know, the president could solve a lot of this problem if he wouldn't hide behind executive privilege, if he'd just come out and tell the American people the truth.
In 1998, when Bill Clinton invoked it, "executive privilege" was a cynical and corrupt tool to prevent Americans from learning the truth about scandal and keep the President above the law. In 2007, now that George Bush has invoked it (and it's hardly the first time, but this time it will likely be tested), it will be a doctrine of the gravest importance and steeped in our most cherished democratic traditions and it must be defended at all costs in order to preserve the Power and Honor of the Presidency.
<font size="3">
Related thread:
</font size>
What does left, right and center mean?
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=267938
`
Related thread:
</font size>
What does left, right and center mean?
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=267938
`
As far as I know, if the stock belongs to a non-profit foundation, then he doesn't own it.
'Dem spin doctors do it like this ->
All spinning tops fall eventually.
All Peter Schweizer does is prove my point. These rich people that he writes about are not on the left. They are Right Wing Liberals.
Right = Rich
Left = Not Rich
Political Leaning has no bearing on the above.
i know this post is old but...iam not a fan of michael moore in any way but whats wrong with owning stocks?
As far as I know, if the stock belongs to a non-profit foundation, then he doesn't own it.
'Dem spin doctors do it like this ->
All spinning tops fall eventually.
Yo. This post is SO OLD that I don't even remember what the premise was....
oh you just one of those insecure white privilege crutch junkies......
why wait for civil rights??? Its already law!
the question that most of you white privilege junkies dont seem to understand..
is why fight for civil rights when we were born with HUMAN rights?
one thing history taught me, is greedy people need laws to treat other humans respectfully.
whats that saying about the others who want to deny another human their God Given Birthrite to be free...
I have been in cyberspace long enough to know white privilege junkies never attack the message but love attacking the messenger.. and have the audacity to act like the words came out of Obamas mouth himself, total insecure reactions....
and then you have so called civilzed people, making jokes about a man being killed....
and the only way my black ass would be swinging from a tree, if i am blowing darts at silly mildly retarded neo nazi's such as your moms..
oh you just one of those insecure white privilege crutch junkies......
why wait for civil rights??? Its already law!
the question that most of you white privilege junkies dont seem to understand..
is why fight for civil rights when we were born with HUMAN rights?
one thing history taught me, is greedy people need laws to treat other humans respectfully.
whats that saying about the others who want to deny another human their God Given Birthrite to be free...
I have been in cyberspace long enough to know white privilege junkies never attack the message but love attacking the messenger.. and have the audacity to act like the words came out of Obamas mouth himself, total insecure reactions....
and then you have so called civilzed people, making jokes about a man being killed....
and the only way my black ass would be swinging from a tree, if i am blowing poison darts at silly mildly retarded neo nazi's such as yourself..
wffffftttt right in yo chickenshyt neck!!
The point was?oh you just one of those insecure white privilege crutch junkies......
why wait for civil rights??? Its already law!
the question that most of you white privilege junkies dont seem to understand..
is why fight for civil rights when we were born with HUMAN rights?
one thing history taught me, is greedy people need laws to treat other humans respectfully.
whats that saying about the others who want to deny another human their God Given Birthrite to be free...
I have been in cyberspace long enough to know white privilege junkies never attack the message but love attacking the messenger.. and have the audacity to act like the words came out of Obamas mouth himself, total insecure reactions....
and then you have so called civilzed people, making jokes about a man being killed....
and the only way my black ass would be swinging from a tree, if i am blowing poison darts at silly mildly retarded neo nazi's such as yourself..
wffffftttt right in yo chickenshyt neck!!
did you forget?
BUSH is the liberal argument!
When you be critical towards liberals, you all of a sudden a republican.
Politics as usual...
this story was also posted on prison planet so it has to be true (cough cough)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/021105ownsstock.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/021105ownsstock.htm
Lest we forget. Is 9-11 about winning?
From 2000
From 2000
[WM]http://www.youtube.com/v/xrOaOd_5CKo&hl=en&fs=1[/WM]
Who is more hypocritical?
Similar threads
