CLINTON: THE PORTRAIT OF DORIAN GRAY

Dqban22 | November 10, 2001 | Dqban22

[Ligeia]

Brookins at the RTD

[Dqban22]

I apologize to Snow Bunny, Post 40 was a response to Von Rex in Post 31.

[Cardenas]

In your post to Dqban22 you quoted him;“he was most respected and admired” by the students of that prestigious Jesuit institution, as affirmed by the student during the O'Reilly program.

And you stated: "Would that statement imply that William Jefferson Clinton represents the best that a Jesuit education can produce?"

Apparently, that is the opinion of most Jesuit students in Georgetown University today. It seems that the Administration and the Jesuit professors share the same opinion; otherwise they would have already spoken expressing their disapproval.

[onedoug]

#32: Are you truly that pathetic?

[Lady_Marmalade]

Are you truly that pathetic?

Pathetic for reading the speech and not just the chosen tidbits? Yes, Virginia, I guess I am that pathetic then.

Based on your response, it's clear that you haven't read it. You read the parts that appeared in your narrow media universe. Since ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest guy on earth.

[onedoug]

"...you must be the happiest guy on earth.

For having had my country sold out by a traitor who was President Of The United States?

Yes, I read this miscreant's speech, which was little more than piling on for the sake of "establishing" the base from which he would continue to attack the United States.

There is no defense for a traitor...of any stripe.

"Yes, Virginia, I guess I am that pathetic then."

Thank you for at least that honest an answer.

[Lady_Marmalade]

For having had my country sold out by a traitor who was President Of The United States?

sigh... you're too Shakespeare -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Come one, admit it, you really didn't read the full text of the speech. If you did, you would realize the gist of it doesn't support the thesis of the posted article. But, I'm sure that won't stop you.

[Dqban22]

All the contributors to this article should read Thomas Sowell article about this discussion.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

[karth]

Did you guys actually read Clinton's speech? I read it at a site called dailyhowler.com that I started going to from a link during the whole Gary Condit hullabaloo. Its in the Current Articles section as a link in articles about the weirdness of the Washington Times articles on the speech. If you read the speech, you have to know the media commentary has been ignorant, just plain ignorant. Over and over again, Clinton voices support for Bush and for the war effort in Afghanistan. Thats just a fact. The oft-quoted elements of the speech are INDISPUTABLE FACTS: We ARE still paying a price for slavery. Whats controversial about THAT? Read the speech and you see that the slavery comment is an "aside" not a comparison to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Yeah, I'm not a Clinton fan, either, never voted for him, have been commenting negatively about him for years on FR but I'm not going to be a yahoo just to comfort myself and cling to disliking Clinton as some kind of emotional security blanket in the face of terrorists. Be honest; don't be lazy; read the speech. Its not a controversial speech and you have been lied to about it.

Don't bother to reply to me unless you read the speech.

[Dqban22]

I certainly read the whole speech and I maintain every point in my article. It was really disgusting. Please read professor Thomas Sowell's article on Clinton's speech. Sowell is one of the highest intellects in U.S. and you will find that he shares my views of Clinton's ramblings against our country. You can spin all you want, but Clinton's words leave no doubt about his message.

[Cardenas]

Jewish World Review Nov. 14, 2001 / 28 Mar-Cheshvan, 5762 Thomas Sowell

ANOTHER OUTRAGE

NOTHING is an outrage when the reigning fad is being non-judgmental. So perhaps it is not surprising that there has been no nationwide chorus of condemnation of Bill Clinton's anti-American speech at Georgetown University. According to the former president, America is "paying a price today" for slavery in the past and for that fact that "native Americans were dispossessed and killed."

[Bigg Red]

Von Rex member since October 23rd, 2001

[murdoog]

It's impossible to accuse him of any crime or treasonous act he hasn't committed.

In fairness, I am pretty sure he had nothing to with the murdoer of Nicole Brown Simpson.

[karth]

Now, I DID read the Sowell article but I most certainly do not believe that either of you 2 read the full text of Clinton's speech.

Sowell's article is pathetic. He didn't read the speech either. He's working off the little excerpt and dishonest spin from the original Washington Times article. And he's got it all bass ackwards. This guy is not an intellectual.

Read the speech. Its long but cogent. It obviously wasn't delivered by someone who was drunk, so that alone should cause you to distrust the pundits who told you Clinton was drunk. I mean, this is not Dan Quayle turning the motto of the UNCF into "What a terrible thing it is to lose one's mind." Clinton's message is hopeful one, if you read it with an honest mind.

[Dqban22]

"Sowell's article is pathetic. He didn't read the speech either. He's working off the little excerpt and dishonest spin from the original Washington Times article. And he's got it all bass ackwards. This guy is not an intellectual."

Wow! Neither Clinton nor you can fill Sowell's shoes. Professor Sowell, is a brilliant economist of the Chicago School, Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a historian and scholar, philosopher, humanist, prolific writer and one of the most powerful and clear minds in America. Disparaging him because he does not agree with your ideas or intellectual reach, is really pathetic; it shows the baseless of your arguments.

[karth]

Hey! I'm not disparaging him because I don't agree with his views nor he with mine. I disparage him because he clearly didn't read the speech but there he is using a dishonest Washington Times column about the speech as the basis for his syndicated column. He's not only unintellectual, he's lazy.

In fact, I disagree with Clinton's remarks, but not on the silly, petty, partisan-baiting grounds that Sowell does. Clinton's message to those students was to be confident that we'll get a handle on the terrorists and the countries and peoples who currently sympathize with the terrorists will change. It was a hopeful, optimistic, pro-western civilization message. I'm less optimistic. September 11 was a new kind of warfare that used our own resources against us and I don't see the possible limit to that. Every terrorist organization in the world must have sleeper operatives here in the US already. I had to make 4 NYC area bridge crossings last weekend; I was apprehensive.

[onedoug]

I'll call Clinton a traitor, becuase he is. But I haven't called you a liar...yet.

Must I lay the whole text out for you, line by line, (commentary added, of course) to demonstrate my voracity? What might you say then, to the effect that I hadn't read this "sensitive rapist's" diatribe? (for what obvious little it would mean to you anyway.)

[Eva]

I am under the impression that Clinton never earned any degree from Georgetown. He left to attend Oxford and never completed any degree work there, either. I don't think that you can claim an alma mater unless you graduate from the institution.

[DreamWeaver]

Bump

For an excellent article that needs exposure and a reminder of what he is all about.

[onedoug]

There's a lot more of value in Sowell's article than in The Traitor's so-called speech...whether he read it or not.

Personal responsibility is an anathema to the disbarred one.