BILL CLINTON

[bassist_25]

And your post didn't give any evidence that Clinton's hummer didn't affect his time in office - what is the difference?

Umm, no I didn't, because that argument makes no sense! I CANNOT empirically falsify evidence that Clinton DID NOT make decisions which led to 9/11. In the face of no evidence to support a test hypothesis (i.e., Clinton's blow job is a casual variable for Bin Laden crashing planes into towers), then one cannot refute the null hypothesis (i.e., Clinton's blow job did not lead to 9/11). There are an infinite amount of situations in which I can attempt to refute causation between a blow job and 9/11, thus that hypothesis is not falsifiable. On the other hand, the test hypothesis is falsifiable because the causal factors can be empirically verified if they occurred. It's like asking me to refute the existence of a purple unicorn controlling man's destiny. I can empirically support evidence of the unicorn's existence, but I cannot fully refute its nonexistence. Think about it; as ludicrous as a purple unicorn sounds, tell me how to refute its nonexistence. It can't be done, because it's not falsifiable.

So yeah, there is a HUGE difference.

edited for a question mark when it should have been a period. Don't taze me Captain G.!

[DrumAndDestroy]

And your post didn't give any evidence that Clinton's hummer didn't affect his time in office - what is the difference?

Umm, no I didn't, because that argument makes no sense! I CANNOT empirically falsify evidence that Clinton DID NOT make decisions which led to 9/11. In the face of no evidence to support a test hypothesis (i.e., Clinton's blow job is a casual variable for Bin Laden crashing planes into towers), then one cannot refute the null hypothesis (i.e., Clinton's blow job did not lead to 9/11). There are an infinite amount of situations in which I can attempt to refute causation between a blow job and 9/11, thus that hypothesis is not falsifiable. On the other hand, the test hypothesis is falsifiable because the causal factors can be empirically verified if they occured. It's like asking me to refute the existence of a puple unicorn controlling man's destiny. I can empirically support evidence of the unicorn's existence, but I cannot fully refute it's nonexistence. Think about it; as ludicrous as a purple unicorn sounds, tell me how to refute it's nonexistence? It can't be done, because it's not falsfiable.

So yeah, there is a HUGE difference.

BJ's > Terrorism

by the way...i've seen that purple unicorn after a heavy cheesing binge.

[Banned]

There is a lot of evidence of the Clinton administration repeatedly turning down the chance to arrest Bin Ladin from a mid Eastern nation, possibly the Sudan if I remember correctly. There is a book written by some of the people involved.

It just happens that at this same time Clinton was involved in lying to his family and his country about the Lewinsky affair, which was part of a much bigger case about interfering in the White Water case. He used his Justice Department to quash any real finding in this and many other investigations, remember the Rose Law Firm records just suddenly turning up in the map room of the White House days after the subpoena expired? Cute but why do liberals seem to forget this blatant lawbreaking???


Hey on another topic, how about Obama rolling a 37 at the Pleasant Valley Lanes over the weekend.

[bassist_25]

Joe, did you just actually make a political post without plugging Ron Paul?!?!

[Blue Reality]

Hey Bassist_25 nice post about the need for direct empirical evidence. It would be nice if we could find such evidence for every facit of our lives, but as you know we can't. So I imagine we are faced with two choices. Simply shut down because we can't always find enough information to satisfy all theoretical requirements for empirical confirmation of our assumed knowledge base. Or we take stock of the veracity of our imcomplete knowledge base and make the best conclusions we can based upon the information at hand, even though it might fail to meet certain philosophical standards. I imagine you do the latter, as I am doing with the issue of Bill and the Oval Office Hummer...

Yes the statement that 911 directly from a blowjob received in the Oval is an overstatment and direct causality cannot be proved. But the qualifications through out my post are valid and can be discussed in light of direct imperical evidence. Bill's decsision not to go after Bin Laden was directly influenced by the fallout over the Lewinsky affair and did contribute signifcantly although indierctly to 911. This portion is very valid and worthy of discussion.

[Banned]

Joe, did you just actually make a political post without plugging Ron Paul?!?!

Thanks Paul for pointing out my slacker post, failing to promote Ron Paul. But I do list the local Ron Paul Meetup group and its hyperlink down below my posts, so it was there in a way. Missed ya at the jam.

[bassist_25]

Hey Bassist_25 nice post about the need for direct empirical evidence. It would be nice if we could find such evidence for every facit of our lives, but as you know we can't. So I imagine we are faced with two choices. Simply shut down because we can't always find enough information to satisfy all theoretical requirements for empirical confirmation of our assumed knowledge base. Or we take stock of the veracity of our imcomplete knowledge base and make the best conclusions we can based upon the information at hand, even though it might fail to meet certain philosophical standards. I imagine you do the latter, as I am doing with the issue of Bill and the Oval Office Hummer...

I definitely agree that empiricism does have its intrinsic flaws, though on the other hand, I think that there is a time and place for deductive reasoning. It is true that when attempting to infer either causality or even correlation in the light of an uncontrolled environment, it is difficult to completely stipulate all of the parameters. There will always be a threat to internal validity when discussing the causation of world events.

While talking on a message board about whether Clinton's hummer directly affected his decision to pursue or not pursue Bin Laden is not really a life or death thing, I do think that empiricism should be applied more when trying to formulate policy and make more cogent decisions. I think that was major flaw when we went to war looking for WMDs. These weapons may still exist, but until they are found, I can still can't reject the null hypothesis.

Sorry if I came off elists in my original post. It's just that sometimes people here say things that I swear are pulled from their asses and it's hard for me to ignore it sometimes. Obviously, I was wrong thinking that was the case with your argument.

And Joe, I wish I could have made it to the Jam, but I hit the bed when I got home that night.

[Blue Reality]

Hey Bassist no problems here. I did over state things and it was intentional. So many people it seems look at the present state of affairs and find fault on some simple level and leave it at that. Like Iraq is all Bush's fault. Deficits are Bush's fault. The Clinton's are theives and liars. The issues are so complex and at this point in our political development, both sides are heavily corrupt. Both sides should be called to task. The events that lead to 911 are pretty complex, but lets deal with the depth of the complexity. We really have got to end the rallying around a sound bite that bashes the other side and paints "our" side as the great hope. This is really putting our country in a difficult position. I'd just like to hear someone say that deficits are the result of both parties screwing us all. Or that no one really can fault Bush for entering Iraq given the repercussions that our country felt after 911. Had he not held onto Rumsfeld and himself been over principled, the stabilization we are seeing in Iraq now might have been reached years earlier. We very well could be drawing down troops at this point. Beat him up endlessly for that. He deserves that.

It's sad when the people who beat up Bush about the Middle east are the same ones who think Clinton was great and the uproar about Monica was just senseless moralizing by the religious right. That Blow Job had repurcussions on the present day in Iraq. But it's just easier to beat the other side up and ignore a complex situation

[BDR]

Jesus, everyone knows the real cause of 9/11 ...



r:>)

[DrumAndDestroy]

Jesus, everyone knows the real cause of 9/11 ...



r:>)

thank you, rob.

[songsmith]

But it's just easier to beat the other side up and ignore a complex situation

Yeah, Clinton got investigated, impeached, and still pays every day.
Bin Laden just moved to another cave.
Ol' Saddam sure paid his price for 9/11, though didn't he? I bet he wished he HAD actually perpetrated 9/11.

I take a great deal of comfort in the fact that in about 9 months, the worst administration in my lifetime, and perhaps the last century, will be GONE. The Nixon-era cronies will have exhausted their deathgrip on America, and America can't wait. The pendulum has been swinging toward the middle since the midterm elections, sick of the P.C. contentiousness of the left and the clueless authoritarianism of the right. Soon enough, we grab the stick away from the Bush Pilots, and take power away from our government... and go back to the halcyon days when there was seperation of Church and State, when you had to have a warrant to tap my phone, back when gasoline was $1.45 a gallon... you know... 2001.
The Bush-bashers, like the Clinton-bashers who still whine as loud as they did 8 years ago, will have to settle for being hopelessly out-of-date... I suppose I'll manage.
At least I'll have gotten to vote Republican for president for the first time in 24 years. McCain's not my first choice, but he's centrist-leaning-socially-left. I'll wait and see if he breaks the deal by scooching right in the lead-up to the election, but right now, since Ron Paul's mathematically eliminated, I'd vote for McCain. I think Obama's gonna win, though.--->JMS

[BDR]

I think Obama's gonna win, though.--->JMS

Frightening.

r:>)

[BDR]

It's sad when the people who beat up Bush about the Middle east are the same ones who think Clinton was great and the uproar about Monica was just senseless moralizing by the religious right.

But that's what it was. Clinton was not the first (nor will he be the last) president to get his trailer hitch polished. He's just the only one who got lynched for it, at the expense of millions of dollars and countless wasted hours of investigation over nothing. A stained dress? A hummer? Gimmie an effing break. There are more pressing issues in the world (4,000 dead and counting) than who's sucking the president's wang.

Honestly, considering the stress levels that no doubt come along with the job of president, it's somewhat comforting to know that the prez is getting a little "stress relief" from time-to-time. Granted, it didn't come from his wife but who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to play the role of morality police?

I met and chatted with Ken Starr several years ago. Nice man, intelligent man, but his withchunt was such an extravagant waste of time and money.

Maybe if W. would've gotten a little "stress relief" over the past seven years, it might have helped him to think more clearly and make some better decisions. But I bet Laura doesn't do that, either.

r:>)

[bassist_25]

Well, I'm just glad that we have some real candidates to vote for this time around. In '04, I chose not to vote because while I wasn't a Bush supporter, I didn't think that John "Keep me away from a live microphone" Kerry would have been much better.

There are things about all three of the primary candidates that I both like and dislike, so I'm definitely going to have to do some comparisons when it comes time to cast the vote. I actually switched my party affiliation to vote in the democratic primary. I'm definitely leaning Hillary for the democratic nomination, because I feel that she'll actually get things done, but for the main she-bang, I'm thinking McCain; though, his support of the war bothers me. On the other hand, maybe he'll actually offer an exit solution that doesn't create bigger problems than what we already have.

...like I said, there's a lot of things to consider in this election.

[nightcrawler_steve]

Honestly, considering the stress levels that no doubt come along with the job of president, it's somewhat comforting to know that the prez is getting a little "stress relief" from time-to-time.

Perhaps a "fleshlight" should come built into the desk in the Oval Office.

Think what it could do for world peace

[BDR]

Honestly, considering the stress levels that no doubt come along with the job of president, it's somewhat comforting to know that the prez is getting a little "stress relief" from time-to-time.

Perhaps a "fleshlight" should come built into the desk in the Oval Office.

Think what it could do for world peace

Dat's what I'm talkin' 'bout ... Willis.



r:>)

[Blue Reality]

Well call it moralizing over the blowjob if you want. He lied to everyone and his wife. What so hard to accept about that? Why do you balme the 'Right" for over reacting to a blowjob? If Bill was the stand up guy everyone says he is, why didn't he just say yeah she did. What's wrong with that???

[YankeeRose]

Well, call it moralizing over lies about WsMD and Iraq not being involved in 09/11 at ALL if you want. G.W. and his administration lied to their country and the world, and 'forgot' where Bin Laden was! What is so hard to accept about that? Why do you blame the 'left' for over-reacting about 4,000 and counting Soldiers dead, and thousands more of them disabled? (No need to mention the tens of thousands of dead innocent Iraqis...they're seemingly inconsequential.) If George is the stand up guy everyone says he is, he and his 'religious right' administration should just admit they were wrong...what's wrong with that???

[BDR]

Why do you balme the 'Right" for over reacting to a blowjob????

... because people who think like you post on public forums that "a blow job" was the cause of 9/11.

Lunatics were the cause of 9/11, nothing else. They hated us when Clinton was in office, they hated us when Bush I was in office, they hated us when Reagan was in office, etc., etc., etc.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, but it could've happened on anyone's watch. They hate for the sake of hating. This isn't a GOP vs. Dem thing.

Just remember, take one lunatic out, another one comes in behind him. Terrorism has always existed and will always exist. No moratorium on blow jobs in the Oval Office will change that, nor will Bush's (and probably McCain's) war on terror.

r:>)

[Blue Reality]

Hey now we agree on somethings. First I qualified my claims that stating 911 resulted form a blowjob was an over statement that was made for effect. I still stand by my other statement that the whole incident had an effect on Clinton's decision not to go after OBL and that had a huge impact on 911. You're right that if you remove one another emerges, but that's the way it goes. We'll keep removing them until we can figure out a way to solve this issue, if that ever happens.

BTW I have never given Bush a free pass on Iraq, WMD's or the presecution of the war. He should be held to task for a TON of stuff. But the conversation can't end at that. Let's say that we didn't go into Iraq, what's your strategy for containing well funded terrorists partiularly if you reject military options. You don't like 4000 dead and a poorly prosecuted war, what do you propose???? Answers please. I want non-violent solutions and yes Bush screwed up. But to say we want peace and Bush was an idiot and leave it at that is only adding to the problem. Let's deal with reality good and bad on both sides and think about the real hard work which is to contain our enemies without killing them.

Ohh and BTW "I don't know how to solve the problem" is not an option here if you choose to bitch about the other party.

[BDR]

IMO, there are only three sensible things to do to deal with the threat of terrorism prior to using military force:

1) Protect the borders,
2) Initiate diplomacy, and,
3) Continue to look for diplomatic resolution.

I was 100 percent behind the invasion of Afghanistan because, and I know this is retarded, but that's where the effers who attacked us were hanging their hats. I was not for and am not for attacking and occupying a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11. It makes no sense other than the fact that W. is a war monger.

I think those like yourself who are looking for a permanent solution for ending terrorism need to face a fact and I said it in a previous post: It will never go away. All anyone will ever be able to do, at the most, is chase them back into their caves. There will always be people with hate in their hearts and you can't change that. Hell, I know people that live every day with hate brimming over. No real reason, they're just hateful people who hate for the sake of hating.

That's why vigilance at home is so important.

r:>)

[BDR]

I still stand by my other statement that the whole incident had an effect on Clinton's decision not to go after OBL and that had a huge impact on 911.

Of course it had an affect on his decisions and not just with regard to ObL. How could anyone concentrate on their job (no matter the job) and do it to the best of their ability during that kind of witch hunt? The hard right GOPs led that charge and wasted a lot of time, money and effort over a non-issue — a blow job and a stained dress. Funny thing is, Clinton still did a better job with all that distraction than W. could ever hope to do.

It still amazes me to this day that people can look at that whole campaign against Clinton and not decide that it was utterly ridiculous. His infidelity is his and his wife's business, not mine and certainly not yours or anyone else's.

r:>)

[Blue Reality]

I don't think there will ever be a complete solution to this problem. And I don't think think diplomacy will ever work either. Chasing them back can only haooen with military force.

One long term solution is to no longer purchase their only economic asset: oil. But neither Clinton or Bush had the balls to effect change.

Since China and India are becoming major players with capitalism and consumption of resources, I wonder how long it will take for terrorists to target them as they have us. Will that cause these nations to have greater role in dealing with this problem? Non-violent methods require a large number of nations to work in united efforts. That probably won't happen until other nations suffer harm and must defend themselves.

You won't like this but.... I agree with a main premise behind the Iraq that stable Iraq and Afghan nations provide a tremendous disruption in terrorist efforts and help to contain Iran and Syria. Iraq is a stretch in this argument, but with the post 911 anger I'll put this in context that a majority of the country didn't mind seeing Saddam's but get kicked at the time. Bush's arrogance allowed chaos to rule in Iraq and we have suffered beyond measure for that. I believe that had he listened to Colin Powell and others who predicted the chaos and not allowed Rumsfeld to persist, we would have been able to see Iraq stablaize in a period which would have been tolerable to most Americans. You don't hear it in the news cycles but Iraq us rapidly moving in positive directions. It's just ohhhhh 4 years late in coming and the price in deaths, money and division within the US is just too high and indefensible. None of Bush's screw ups are tolerable. None. I am glad he'll be gone. I just hope that this contry can move forward, but I have my doubts.

[DirtySanchez]

If you were against someone (or their wife) getting elected, wouldn't you want to hear them speak? Maybe hear it from the horses mouth? Maybe ask them some pressing questions? Plus, If there's one thing Mr. Clinton can do, it's public speaking.

I use him for an example when I teach sales reps how to sound confident.

The bad example I give: George W. Bush. He does not stick to the script and pays for it.

Sorry to get back on topic. Back to the bashing. Fuck'em all.

The chorus to Fedup's "Gang Violence"

Conservative and Liberal
One nation under God for all.
Show your colors, red or blue.
Who really knows what's best for you,
for me, for us, for everyone.
For everything under the sun.
America let's make some sense.
Our politics are Gang Violence.

[Blue Reality]

I've said it before that politics has become a game in the US and they care about themselves and their power or have no comprehension at how their decsisions make it tough for everyday Americans. I say throw them all out and start over again. No one can be elected unless you've had to work for a living and wonder how you're gonna pay bills, afford health care or raise kids. If those questions have never been a concern for you then you probably live outside of the effect of your decisions and that should disqualify from making decsions that effect everyone else.