SkletonKee said:

But I'm talking about every aspect of public service life, not just personal matters.

No offense taken to anything, actually, I agree with everything that you have said, NuPower and Supernova. No politician, or human being for that matter, (with the exception of one in some beliefs) has ever been perfect nor will they ever be. But, as I said, America is scared of "minority" leadership, especially if they had a tarnished past. With white leaders, the mass public seems to be able to dismiss it, but with minority leaders, in my experience, the public seems to have more of a critical microscope over those candidates. Even the minority Republican leadership have major problems becoming frontrunners, because the left seem to disregard them as sellouts and the right seem to think that they are tokens of some sort, which isn't fair to voters or the minority candidates themselves. I also consider some third party candidates, no matter what race they are, to be "minority", because they are treated as such by the public, as if they have no real qualities simply because they don't have the money or support of the 2 major parties.

So, in conclusion, do I think that Al Sharpeton deserves to have a chance in the ballots? Absolutely yes. Do I think he has a chance at all? No.

Peace,
JD

I feel ya, JD.

Jimmy Carter was scandal free... but he sucked. As I recall, the only President for the last 30 years since Nixon who was found guilty of a major crime was Clinton. As much as many didn't like Reagan or Bush Sr., neither of them have had to pay a legal fine or sacrifice their careers after their Presidency like Slick Willy or Nixon did.

Carter may have sucked as a President, but he is the best ex-Prez we've had in a long time.

Dippydippydope said:

And what "major crime" might that have been? He was appropriately acquitted at his bogus impeachment trial, and the politically motivated Paula Jones sexual harrassment trial (please review differences between civil and criminal litigation) was settled, as I recall. Was there another trial?

And for the record, it was actually the practically retarded George BushJr, himself who was previously convicted of a "major crime:" See Driving Under the Influence.

Gotta get those facts straight. Don't want to make good on that org username, do you?

Max,
Thank you for the opportunity to set you straight. For the record, Clinton admitted to giving false witness and accepted the penalty of giving up his ability to practice law in front of the Supreme Court, for the next half a decade. He also paid a very hefty sum. I stand by my statement. Most of the country considers PERJURY a major crime.

Put it like this, if your sister was sueing her boss for sexual harrassment, and he was found guilty of lying on the stand and there was evidence that he was tampering with witnesses, don't you think you'd be pissed off? Don't you think that every woman deserves a fair day in court?

A simple yes would do.

Schools in. Maybe you should sit up front.

hahahaha. Dippy that is funny as hell. Like alot of people I am no fan of Bush or Clinton (didnt vote for either one because they both sucked) but Ive never heard it spelled out like that one before. Why didnt anyone on TV say it as simply as that.

Supernova said:

Yeah I feel ya too JD.

I feel al winning...who with me?

madhouseman said:

Because the lie was about adultery and had nothing to do with lying about his job. Besides, just about everybody says it as simple as that.

Thank you Supernova. Yes the man is a liar. I guess that depends on your definition of "is".

Dippy, you're showing further signs of the appropriateness of your username. Let me be as clear as possible. In your statement, you said that Clinton was "found guilty of a major crime." You are wrong.

His settlement (do you know what that word even means?) with the Arkansas State Bar did not involve a trial. In fact, he voluntarily gave up his license to practice law in Arkansas to avoid the possibility of prosecution for his alleged perjury. No admission of guilt. To trial. You've just flunked your first course.

Now, what about your clueless comments about the US Supreme Court. Please do your homework before you make a fool of yourself. Disbarment (which is not a "major crime") from the US Supreme Court usually follows disbarment in lower courts. That's their policy. Once again, there was no trial, and no admission of guilt. He merely accepted the disbarment protocol as part of his settlement. That's your second "F".

School's out. Go home. Do your homework, Bushie.

Dippydippydope said:

So let me get this straight, Paula Jones is your sister?

Oh, and another thing, you're still hung up on that factual error - Clinton was not "found guilty of lying on the stand..." He was accused of perjury during his deposition in the frivolous, politically motivated Paula Jones civil suit. At his impeachment, he was ACQUITTED (look that up, okay), not "found guilty."

Later, the Arkansas State Bar felt that he provided misleading testimony in that same civil suit deposition. As part of a settlement (look that up too), he agreed to a temporary suspension of his law license and paid a fine. The US Supreme Court, following it's usual response to a lower court disbarment, then suspended him from being able to argue cases in their court as well. No "major crime" committed. They can disbar you for many noncriminal reasons.

Lastly, the PJ civil suit itself was also settled - no admission of guilt, no verdict of guilt, no "found guilty of a major crime," blah, blah, blah.



You're kidding me, right? Was Paula Jones denied due process? On the otherhand, have you ever heard of the tort called "malicious prosecution." Frankly, even if PJ's allegations were completely true, most legal experts agree that those allegations didn't factually constitute sexual harrassment, rather a case of crude, poor judgement.

___

Your impotent flailing bores us. Please move on to a subject that isn't so 1990s.

Clinton is/was a disgrace. Nothing anyone can say or do can change that.

Glad you agree that he provided misleading testimony. Perjury is a bad thing. Welcome to the club. Only took you a few years to catch up, but we'll wait while you catch your breath.

Now go on and put on that new wig I bought you. hahahaha.

Dippydippydope said:

Us? I think TheMax is doing just fine.

OK Ladys. Stop your bickering. Cant we agree that Bush was a drinker who got a DUI when he was younger (idiot move) and Clinton did some real stupid things (lying about a blow job or 2, acting stupid when questioned ("I dont recall..."), and hitting on alot of white trashy women (female choices arent his strong point). Neither man is a rocket scientist and neither will get a FDR/Reagan sized landslide in ANY election.

Oh Dippy you are wrong about Clintons win in 1996. I remember hearing that it was a landslide so he must have gotten over 50 percent of the votes.

Now girls, curtsie to each other and make up. I cant imagine any sane person defending either of those two losers (Clinton and Bush, not Max and Dippy. hahahaha)

thechronic said:

Personally, I believe Hilary Clinton has better chance at winning the presidency than Al sharpton, espeicailly if Clinton choose an African American Vice President. She'd the get the majority of the votes, all women and all African American votes.

I believe Hilary Clinton would get the majority of the votes, all women and all African American votes.[/quote]


Ummm. I dont think that we are that gullible. I know Id only vote for a qualified Black (yes, not African-American-if they want to be President the better be ALL AMERICAN). I think it is EXTREMELY prejudice of you to assume that we vote in lock step because of the color of someone's skin. I dont know and dont care if SUMMERRAIN is white or black but I hope that they dont think that all of us Black folk vote for Blacks and all women vote for women. I think that women are educated enough to know a scam artist when they see one.

The best examples of this I can see are not all Jews voted for Leiberman, or women for Ferraro in 1984 (she was on a ticket that lost 49 out of 50 states). Please give people the benefit of the doubt. The democrats need to find a way into the south where they aren't getting much votes. Having a clam like Hillary on the ticket wont make any inroad in that respect.

Besides democrats dont need female votes, they need male votes. Males vote for republican much more than democrat. A Hillary ticket will further polarize their dwindling base.

Odd are Gore will have the chance to lose again. TYSON/HOLYFIELD II. Cant wait.

madhouseman said:

Ummm. I dont think that we are that gullible. I know Id only vote for a qualified Black (yes, not African-American-if they want to be President the better be ALL AMERICAN). I think it is EXTREMELY prejudice of you to assume that we vote in lock step because of the color of someone's skin. I dont know and dont care if SUMMERRAIN is white or black but I hope that they dont think that all of us Black folk vote for Blacks and all women vote for women. I think that women are educated enough to know a scam artist when they see one.

The best examples of this I can see are not all Jews voted for Leiberman, or women for Ferraro in 1984 (she was on a ticket that lost 49 out of 50 states). Please give people the benefit of the doubt. The democrats need to find a way into the south where they aren't getting much votes. Having a clam like Hillary on the ticket wont make any inroad in that respect.

Besides democrats dont need female votes, they need male votes. Males vote for republican much more than democrat. A Hillary ticket will further polarize their dwindling base.

Odd are Gore will have the chance to lose again. TYSON/HOLYFIELD II. Cant wait.[/quote]


Whatever, Dude. I only implied that I think most people would view this combination as a neutral adminstration. Why wouldn't people vote for neutrality? People who want to see change maybe? How is it racist to acknowledge the fact that the majority of the votes are women and african americans? I believe we can agree that past and present adminstrations have failed our country miserably. What's wrong with wanting to try something new? I see no prejudice in that, friend.
[This message was edited Sat Aug 31 17:26:37 PDT 2002 by SummerRain]
[This message was edited Sat Aug 31 17:29:39 PDT 2002 by SummerRain]

SummerRain said:

Like I said, not all African Americans (theres that phrase again) would vote for a person because they are Black. And I dont think all women would do the same. Please understand that we are not all step and fetch-its who dont have minds of our own. The democrats already get a majority of Black votes so why would a Black person on the ticket help them when their trouble is in the south?

Yes the past administrations have failed us but (and although I dont like Bush himself) the Bush administration has put women and Blacks into power positions that theyve never held before. See Condie Rice, Karen Hughes, Colin Powell, etc. I doubt that any of them would vote for Hillary so, somehow I doubt that ALL women and ALL African Americans would vote that way.

Why is white America so condesending to Blacks?

thechronic said:

A black man will never be president in America.

It won't happen. Ever.

BNATURAL said:

You are so wrong. Next thing you'll tell me is that England, India or Israel couldn't have a female leader.

Sorry to tell you this, but you are so wrong. Actually, I am not sorry to tell you this, but it felt good saying that.

BWAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA!!!


No, in all honesty...




I really don't think so.

It will NEVER happen!!!

And even if by some dumb stroke of luck he DID win the presidency, he'd be assasinated like JFK.

as Chris Rock mentioned.

There will be a black President but not a black VP. If there was, there'd be hundreds of brothers trying to gun down the Prez, just to get the VP behind the desk. And where would they send the assassin? To jail, where he'd be treated like a hero.

Also, if you don't think that there will never be a Black President, apparently you haven't seen that Meteor movie where the guy from Driving Mrs. Daisy is President, or on 24 this season where a black man is President. These are both documentaries (from what I've been told) and don't distort the truth at all. I just don't remember a big meteor hitting the earth, but other than that, they are true to life.

I guess that proves my point. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, stay out of my food.

Even If he Did Win Do you Really think they would allow him in office? Just look at all the Fuss Gore gave in conceeding to Bush for Presidency. So,I say for sure the Bureaucrats wouldn't allow it. They would Go Absolutely Hog Wild. Ape Shit for sure! What a Fiasco that would Be!