Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 25, 2007 23:57:40 GMT -4
Clinton was investigated as much as he was because he was dirty. And he was trying to distract the nation by launching cruise missiles into the desert. (And if you had meant it, I probably would agree with you that he was a "weekend" president).
But actually with Clinton letting OBL get away when he was offered to us on a platter I'm referring to when Sudan made preliminary offers to turn him over to us in 1996 (after the 1993 WTC bombings) but President Clinton reportedly didn't feel we had the evidence to charge him criminally and so turned down the offer. Again, it's hindsight that he really should have taken it, but OBL was already a wanted terrorist.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 26, 2007 0:18:17 GMT -4
Even now there is no hard evidence that OBL was involved in the '93 bombing of the WTC. How could they have prosecuted in '96? OBL wasn't on the CIA's radar until '93 and he wasn't considered much more then a nusience, al Qaeda doing little more than randomn shootings and kidnappings, until the '98 Embasy Bombings. Blaming Clinton for not having him handed over before that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 26, 2007 0:26:14 GMT -4
Just in case I get asked to provide backup to my above post: Time Magazine
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 26, 2007 0:34:54 GMT -4
And if you had meant it, I probably would agree with you that he was a "weekend" president I'm assuming you're criticizing the amount of time Clinton spent actually working. According to this site Bill Clinton only took off 152 days during his 8 years in office. George Bush Sr. took 543 vacation days (in just one term!), and Ronald Regan took 335 days off ( this article says 436). Jimmy Carter only took 79 days off. And George Bush Jr.? 250 days off in just his first three years in office, 418 as of August 9, 2007... almost all of his time in office has been wartime when he is probably needed more in Washington than Crawford, Texas.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 26, 2007 8:16:59 GMT -4
And you say he was dirty because...? The guy definitely has a problem keeping his pants zipped. That was the Paula Jones trouble and also, obviously, the Lewinsky scandal. After Ken Star's $50 million investigation, all he came up with was Lewinsky. Yes, Clinton had further trouble on the Jones case. However, Judge Susan Wright ruled that Paula Jones couldn't show that she had suffered any damages and dismissed the case -- during the appeal, Clinton and Jones settled out of court. Clinton paid a fine and was disbarred.
Marital infidelity? Yes. Whitewater? No. Filegate? No. Travelgate? No. Vince Foster? No.
Dirty? No. The right wanted him so bad, however, that they were willing to do absolutely anything to get the guy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2007 10:58:28 GMT -4
Marital infedelity, in my opinion, is more than enough to call him "dirty".
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2007 10:59:53 GMT -4
I was not criticizing actual number of days worked, more of his general attitude towards the Presidency.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 26, 2007 12:53:57 GMT -4
Languages are used to express thoughts. But I have also found that if a word does exist for a particular thought or expression in a language, then the people or culture will not even have the thought for such a word. I have a number of examples.
There is an expression in Japanese which when translated into English have a lot of Americans and Britons scratching their heads. It is “yes and no”. It is really a shame that this does not exist in English because it would defuse a lot of very hot headed arguments. Since the word does not exist, I find that the very idea does not exist. And trying to explain it is a lengthy process and the results are not guaranteed successful. People “assume” I am driving at something or have some hidden agenda in saying what I am saying. Why can’t I only be attempting to promote understanding and nothing more? Why is that a suspicious thing to do?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2007 13:20:53 GMT -4
The ideas of other languages can be translated into English, even if they can't be done in one word. There are several words in Dutch which do not have simple one-word translations to English but the concept can still be explained.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 26, 2007 15:15:03 GMT -4
The ideas of other languages can be translated into English, even if they can't be done in one word. There are several words in Dutch which do not have simple one-word translations to English but the concept can still be explained. Dutch is very close to English. You are incorrect in drawing a conclusion from this example. The further apart languages are, the more difficult it becomes to explain a concept and the best you can do is get close sometimes.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2007 15:23:15 GMT -4
True, Dutch and English are similar, but I still very much doubt that any idea in any language cannot be adequately explained in English (or the vast majority of other languages, for that matter). It may require some effort, but it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 26, 2007 15:27:24 GMT -4
Stephen Colbert interviewed someone last night who has written a book about about dying languages. He mentioned a language in Siberia (that currently only has about 30 speakers) which has a word for "2 year old uncastrated reindeer". The concept of 2 year old uncastrated reindeers is not beyond our ability to comprehend just because we don't define it with one word.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2007 15:30:17 GMT -4
The old wives' tale that eskimos have thirty different words for different kinds of snow doesn't mean we can't explain what each one refers to in English.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 26, 2007 15:42:09 GMT -4
The ideas of other languages can be translated into English, even if they can't be done in one word. There are several words in Dutch which do not have simple one-word translations to English but the concept can still be explained. Dutch is very close to English. You are incorrect in drawing a conclusion from this example. The further apart languages are, the more difficult it becomes to explain a concept and the best you can do is get close sometimes. I imagine it would be just as difficult to explain the concept of "Yes and No" to someone who spoke German or Dutch or French as it would to explain the concept of "yes and No" to someone who speaks English. The expression "lost in translation" exists for a reason, Jason. I do not see how you can disagree with this. In fact there are words in Japanese that have no translation into English. There are lots of words for "yes" that have no translation into English and the English/Japanese translation dictionary struggles with only getting close. There are two words in Portuguese for "time". Trying to explain the differences between these two words in English is, in fact, impossible because I am using English words to do it. The best I can hope for is to get close. "Saldade" is a word in Portuguese that has no exact translation in to English. "Longing" is the closest word we have. But it is not 100% precisely the same thing. "Soul Sickness"? No, that is not right ether, not even close but I have heard some people try that translation. "Home Sickness", no, not even close really. "Longing" is not an exact translation at all and no group of words or even lengthy explanation really come close enough. But since Brazilians have that word and we do not, it impacts their culture and it impacts our culture. My sister-in-law has told me that coming to the US is like going to another dimension and reality. You have to experience it to know what I mean. But back to the subject. Are you, in fact, arguing that the majority of people in western cultures DO have a grasp of the concept behind "Yes and No"? It is the fact that people do not have a grasp of this concept is what causes so many bitter divisions in western cultures and such deeply divided political parties and ideologies. Things are not always black and white and yet we have been conditioned by our upbringing and our societies and language to think there are. There are sometimes two ways of looking and interpreting an event. I brought this up because it is related to the subject of "Danger in Following the Herd" which is connected to the political discussion we were having (or I thought we were having)
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 26, 2007 15:50:45 GMT -4
I'm getting the impression, Bill, that you are here solely to look for an argument.
|
|