5/13

Yesterday's Daily News headline: "JFK Had A Monica"

And this is news? Does it surprise anyone that the original Headless Whore's Man was fucking his 19-year-old intern?

It is very well-documented that JFK liked them two at a time, the filthier the better. He was a fucking pig. A disgrace.

No, I don't judge presidents by the climate. Cuban Missile Crisis? Good job, Jack. But keep your fucking pants on...you're AMERICA in the flesh...our figurehead. Be a man, not a fratboy.

I try to think about me being president. Would I like to bonk a teenager? Sure I would. But is there nothing BETTER to do while president? Come on! If I was the most powerful man in the world, I would have MUCH more fun with international wranglings than some harlot. Shit, if I could get Vladamir Putin or Henry Kissinger or Tony Blair on the phone right now, I would cut my dick clean off, for Christ's sake!

All of which points to why I hate Bill Clinton, too. Rest assured that if Bush is in the Oval Office getting head, I won't like him anymore either. I'm egalitarian in these matters.

Uzi for President? Would you clean up your language when you're ruminating with Tony B? I could see you over there at a Parlimentary lunch - So Tony, fucking fish and chips again?

Its a sad state when our Presidents can't provide a little moral leadership too. Cigars in an intern - porno in the White House. And the sad thing is that his moral-less wife didn't let that stand in the way of her own political aspirations. Damage control, how can I get elected with this dope-husband of mine making tabloid news out of the White House. I know, I'll go to New York where all the psuedo-intellectual liberal jerky women will vote for me. I'll by off the Jewish vote with some amnesty that dick-brain can maneuver and then....please don't get me started, its a nice day.

Let me reiterate my central point, because I believe it is important.

I DO NOT buy into the "He can do what he wants on his own time in his own home" bullshit - this neo-individualistic baloney. FUCK THAT. He has NO time of his own, and I PAY for his room and board. The president works for ME, goddamn it, and he represents ME in ALL of his everyday activities.

So when the premier of the United Arab Emirates looked at a story about Bill Clinton hammering a cigar in Monica Lewinski's sweetness and had a good laugh, saying "Ahhhh, that American bozo," that reflected poorly on me, ALL of you, and America in general.

The president, first and foremost, is a reflection of America and Americans.

"Ronald Reagan"...his detractors might think Iran-Contra. Magnificent defense spending. Deficit. But you know what Soviets thought when they heard "Ronald Reagan"? "Oh dear God, Hulga, the American commander is beating his fists."

"Bill Clinton"...his supporters will bark on and on about their stock dividends and the wonderful economy. What does the world think when they hear "Bill Clinton"? They think of a pudgy redneck's little cock flapping in the breeze in the nation's capital.

I'm sorry. When it comes to perception, I choose the former.

The president has a cabinet. He has aides and advisors. There is Congress. There are thousands of men and women who keep the gears of government rolling.

And the last thing we needed was Bubba Clinton's Magic Dick getting stuck in those gears.

DNA proved that Thomas Jefferson had his slave mistress, Sally Hemmings; and Clinton shot off on Monica's dress. But lots of other alleged cases of philanderings exist: FDR, Eisenhower, Harding, Cleveland. Its a long list.

I think most Americans don't care about Presidential private lives anymore than Miscrosoft stockholders care about Bill Gates getting a blowjob, as long as his company performs well and makes money.

But perhaps these lies did affect others lives:

Nixon bombing Cambodia then the coverup?

Reagan/Bush's Iran-Contra lies? (I forgive Reagan because I'll assume he really didn't remember!)

GWBush going AWOL ( www.awolbush.com )

The list of presidential mistresses is longer than the list of first ladies. Does that make it right? Of course not. To me the opinion of the leader of the United Arab Emirates is about as important as whether or not we eat French Fries or Freedom Fries.

The rest of the world was amused by the big deal that was made in the news about the philanderings of Clinton, not that he was fooling around in the first place. A French president without a mistress is pretty much unheard of.

JFK had more than his share of health problems all of his life and was taking daily doses of mystery shots that he learned to give himself. They were supposed to be vitamins, but his brother suspected (correctly) that they were painkillers, amphetamines, and cortisone. JFK's administrations had a tremendous amount of highs and lows for someone in office such a short time. The Bay of Pigs was the low point, and his handling of the missle crisis is probably the high point. You really can't pin the Vietnam mess on him, though. He had ordered withdrawl of the advisors, an order immediately changed by Johnson.

Uzi, I think demanding a high moral standard out of a president is an admirable, but futile wish. Ford and Carter held the high moral ground, but I'm guessing you're not a Jimmy Carter fan. Politicians, by the fact that politics is their chosen profession, are not the type of person I would want my sister to marry. Even our current president, who is about as scandal free and seems to set high moral standards got down in the mud and threw those morals out the window in the South Carolina primary. His campaign's treatment of McCain was not a very good example of compassionate politics.

This is an argument where no opinion other than my own will matter...because I believe in it more than most others.

Marco and DA, just tell me who in the world considered Ronald Reagan a legitimate fool, dope, buffoon, or pushover during his presidency, and I will show you my small intestine. He was the quintessential president.

I'm sorry, guys. The president is our ultimate ambassador, and part of that is maintaining the integrity of the office. If our presidents cannot assume a position of great strength and moral clarity, what does that say about America? If the president cannot behave, who can?

Uzipoke, you're excatly right. Notice it's all the democrats too.

Do you hold all elected officials to the same standard? If not, why not? Most of the presidents come from a lower elected office, so the standard should be set at that level. Isn't a United States Senator a representative of our nation and subject to the same standards? What about the appointed officials, like Secretary of State? You can't hold the Senators to a high standard and let the congressmen off the hook. Then of course, you have the state senators and assemblymen, local mayors, town council.

The problem is, we don't elect saints as our elected officials, we elect people. People have faults, imperfections, and are prone to making mistakes. The high moral person would make decisions based on what is the best for the people, not based on partisan politics, or whether or not the NRA or Trial Lawyers or the Teamsters gave more money to the campaign. We all know that isn't reality.

Was Reagan a good president? Absolutely - he was effective and a great leader. I should have included him when I listed Carter and Ford as moral high ground presidents.

Joltin Joe, don't be naive and think only the democrats get caught with their "pants down". Of course, JFK probably is the standard by which philandering presidents are measured but the list is long and bi-partisan.

hence the smilie

At least you don't have the Royal Family to worry about. These people give each other crack for christmas. Oh and don't get me started on Prince Philip!!

Split open your gut, because I think the guy was a pushover. He deserves a lot of the blame for LISTENING to his (not necessarily conservative) supply side economists and budget director (who later wrote he had no idea what he was talking about). National debt nearly tripled under Reagan making us go from the world's greatest creditor nation to its greatest debtor nation. USSR scared? Likely. But their demise was partly due to their own poor economic/political model (see Communist thread).

Speaking talent (simple and easy for the masses) and charisma only go so far. Falling asleep during international summits, dufus quotes and mix ups and simply, like the B actor he was, reading his scripts well enough before his disease went up full crank. I was an adult during those years and I remember being embarrassed by him.

BUT, he wasn't all bad, I like him better than Wubya. I just strongly disagree with the "quintessential president" statement...there were FAR better! We may think of Clinton's cock but I think of Reagan as a Bozo.

(Guess I exposed myself to having my cyber-arse virtually kicked by 200 GBB'ers).

JFK is not admired by me as few world leaders are. I don't see what was thought special about him anywhere. Someone please try to explain it to me, why was he so popular and influential?.

I agree with the addition of the president being the ultimate embassador and absolute representitive of a country's morals and its population's completly. Though it's abysmally clear the world is imperfect, and its people are the agents of aforementioned imperfection.

Marco; truly people and not saints are elected. But; saints were once people! Political leaders should all be models, and represent what they were elected to represent; virtously. They are serving their population and community. Though it would be prosposterously outrageous, and ignorant stereotyping to judge a country by some of its leader's actions. But. The president is the the highest political leader in most civilized countries. So no; I would not say that he should be treated with the same standards as a lowly mayor. For he represents that mayor and the mayor's family. Even ancestors in cases.

Donsadvisor. Yes abjectly and seemingly, most American citizen's remain apathetic to their president's private life, but that's where they are wrong. He represents them with his private life as well. What if he sold cocaine to children through or was in deals with international organized crime figures, or even national in his time outside of his office.Would they care then? If he lacks sexual temperance, and uses the position I gave him. To satisfy his sexual desires? That's not what I placed him in office with my vote for.

.. I care.

Young, good-loking, wealthy, beautiful wife and cute children, good sense of humor. Tragic assassination contributes to legend and popularity after death. Influential? No more so, I don't think, than any other President.

GP, presiding over the most tumultuous time in modern history is quite a sufficient reason to be so revered. Bay of Pigs!

Also, as Plawrence said, he was a celebrity. A young, handsome family in the White House.

As far as the other things going on in his life, they are news to me. And shocking news at that. But I have to disagree with Uzto on this one. I don't care one bit about what he does in his personal life so long as he is an effective President. JFK was. Clinton was. And, as hard as it is to admit, Reagan also was.

Sure, Clinton was a dolt for cigarfucking his intern, but do you think any other nation gave a shit? I highly doubt other world leaders used that as a sign of weakness or something to exploit. Everyone has skeletons in thier closet. And even if they did take it as a sign of weakness, which as I said is unlikely, it still did not matter. We managed to avoid war under Clint, which is nothing to ignore.

While Reagan may have done a nice job handling the Cold War, it came at a huge expense to our budget. We pay for it to this day. And while he was an effective President, he was one dumb motherfucker. Star Wars?! Trees polluting more than cars?!

Now, I would certainly rather have Clinton and his stinky cigar in office than Reagan, the laughingstock of world politics.

and one more thing...the Kennedy family was publicized a lot.

There is one reason, and one reason only. It's because of the way he died.

JFK did have the glamourous young wife and adorable children; something quite refreshing from prevous administrations. The sheer size of the Kennedy clan was interesting stuff in those days...remember, father Joe Kennedy had been quite a public figure during the 1940's. However, politically speaking JFK was NOT a popular President, NOT the popular idol we percieve him as today - and it is thought by many of his peers that he would not have won re-election in 1964. (Of couse, he would not have won in 1960 if the election weren't stolen...but that's another story). The very reason he was in Dallas that day was a special trip to 'mend political fences'.

Once the shots were fired and we saw Jackie in the blood stained pink suit, and the nation went through 4 days of shock and mourning, and once we witnessed how Jackie and the children bravely carried on...then JFK became the stuff of which legends are made. Adding to this mystique of course, was the assasination of brother Bobby, during his own Presidential campaign in 1968. Bobby would have easily sailed into the White House on sentiment alone. While it is tragic that he was killed and left 11 children to grow up without a father - I am so grateful there was never a SECOND President Kennedy.

Apple

PS - Two things JFK MUST be given credit for...he did possibly avert WWIII by his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and he did initiate the space programs goal to get a man on the moon before 1970. It might have been interesting to see 'Former' President Kennedy a witness to the Apollo 11 mission.

Guineapig: aren't you really William Bennett in disguise?

So you think Bob Dole may have won in 96 if he said: "I can't get it up!! So I guarantee you I'll never have a mistress!!!"

well speaking of JFK and The Bay of Pigs:

"Kennedy's a pimp, he never could've outfought Fidel"

Although I don't condone his sexual escapades, I still hold JFK dear to my heart. It's true that his assassination endeared him even more, but let's remember that he never even completed a full term in office and it's hard to tell with his short term, exactly how his Presidency would have played out. We just have a short time of his Presidency to evaluate.

I was about 12/13 when he was running for President, and although I am not as politically informed as many of you, he is the one that got me into politics at a young age. I never listened to political debates before, but when he and Nixon had their famous debates, I could easily see, even then who had the "edge".

And yes, remember The Bay Of Pigs everyone? I remember the nation on needles and pins over the Cuban Missle Crises, and then the total "shock" of the assassination that had the country grieving together.

Although I understand that it should be expected that the President is our "leader" and SHOULD have a sense of morals, but in reality, I don't think that's always possible. If a President makes me feel safe and secure and is knowledgeable in the matters that concern our nation, I'll not condone, but will overlook his sexual appetite.

TIS

He is a president that got more popular as time went by. His domestic programs, like civil rights, were bogged down in congress and passed after his death by a combination of pressure from LBJ and RFK, and not wanting to vote against something the dead president wanted.

Recent polls amoung voters in the 1960 election showed almost 80% said they voted for Kennedy. Either the poll is tragically flawed or people won't admit they didn't vote for him. The 1960 election was one of the closest in history, with the Chicago mob ensuring he carried Illinois and got the needed electoral votes.

Have you lost your mind? A "laughingstock"?

No. Never mind. If Reagan's world stature in the 1980s is not enough to convince you that he was about as powerful and effective as a president can get, I can't say a damn thing.

No doubt about it.

Uztopoke, I never doubted Reagan's image in the 80's. I even conceded that you were right as far as that was concerned. What bothers me is that not only did he shit on our economy, he was the worst public speaker we've ever had; until GW Bush. While he may have gotten away with it while in office, there is no doubt he is a laughingstock NOW. All of his ridiculous quotes are the stuff Yogi Berra was made of.

I wasn't a Reagan fan, politically. He did run up the debt, but he fought a war with the Russian using what we use best - economic pressure. The Russians couldn't afford to compete with the military buildup and they folded. It took us years to whittle down the debt, but no lives were lost and I think that is a very effective way to fight.

I would never call him a bad public speaker; in fact I think he was one of the best when delivering a speech. He didn't do as well "off the cuff" in the impromptu setting of a press conference.

Donsadvisor. Have you seen my picture in the members photoalbum thread?

No. I was being rhetorical when comparing you to William Bennett, author of the "Book of Virtues", and harsh Clinton critic. It turns out that he used the profits from his book and lecture circuit fees to fund his high stakes gambling.

LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.

Donsadvisor; you think; that: I, did not notice that? I used the question to disarm your argument and to contrast myself to him to achieve the revealing of the differences between him and I.

I have; many sins [ I suppose, according to the bible, which I don't care for ] - and I still cast stones; I rain them down. And for anyone who object such behavior from my part; I say:

It turns out that he used the profits from his book and lecture circuit fees to fund his high stakes gambling.

^ Donsadvisor.

Does it get more human and hypocritcal than that? Without going to an extreme?

What in me reminds you of him?

GP: The statements below remind me of William Bennett. Critics that mix their own private morality with public leadership.


We can all agree on what's illegal: i.e. cocaine, drunk driving, stock fraud.

But morality is grey. Some people think it's ALWAYS wrong to kill, hence they're against capital punishment or can't join the army.

Suppose it comes to light that Bush is getting blowjobs from an intern? How much would it hurt him politically? My guess is somewhat, but not a big sudden drop in approval.

am i correct in sayin that JFK was ,at the time, the only (famous) white man in America who willingly said he wanted to be black?