Bill Clinton reacts to question about his administration's "throwing gays under the bus"

  • redheaded_dud...

    Posts: 408

    Mar 25, 2008 11:07 PM GMT


    The poor student reporter sorta threw herself under the bus, and he ran over her, too! His demanding her to answer HIS question seemed a little rough. Comments?

    Edit: Added comment.

  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Mar 26, 2008 2:14 AM GMT
    He's definately got more of a "Fuck It" political demeanor about himself now. Bad for Hillary, but makes for some entertaining interview.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 2:16 AM GMT
    groundcombat saidHe's definately got more of a "Fuck It" political demeanor about himself now. Bad for Hillary, but makes for some entertaining interview.


    Now if only the politicians could have that "fuck it" attitude towards the special "needs" of other politicians and special interest groups, than maybe more would happen in our political system =)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 2:19 AM GMT
    He's right on target.

    Hilary isn't going to push heavily to federally legalize gay marriage because it would cost her the election.

    Marriage isn't within the realm of the federal government to decide on and force states to accept. It's the stance the nation was founded on and Clinton rightly defended.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 3:38 AM GMT
    Trance, the Constitution requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the laws and contracts allowed by other states. Thus, a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts should be recognized by all states. The Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton makes it "legal" for states to ignore gay marriages performed in other states. A proper, even a strict-constructionist Supreme Court, would have thrown out this law.

    As for the Clintons, this campaign has been very sad, because two people I liked and supported (Bill and Hillary), have shown themselves uninterested in any cause except their election. The Clintons are willing to do anything to paint Obama as a "Black" candidate, willing to toss the African American community under the same bus they threw gays under.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 4:08 AM GMT
    The supreme court has already set precedent that many public policy examples are not bound to be recognized in every state. (example: Gay marriage)

    All that clause does is ensure that states respect the legal outcomes in other states. I'm sure the founders would be horrified to learn the institution of marriage had been taken up as a court case.

    It would now take a liberal supreme court to determine that gay marriage or couple rights are something that must be recognized. Not likely something thats going to happen anytime soon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 4:32 AM GMT
    So basically the translation is...

    If you let things as they are you can remain married, given you don't live or move to a state that won't deny your rights. and you are far better off if you don't rock the boat because your right will never really be federally recognized. so, enjoy your little gay marriage as it suits you and just be happy with that. Oh and by the way, never leave the state of Mass. cause the party ends there. In other words, we are throwing you a bone, chew on it and pretend to be happy, while we move on with the rest of our lives. Gay rights is not a priority.

    I mean that is reality. Right?
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Mar 26, 2008 4:37 AM GMT
    DJBens77 saidSo basically the translation is...

    In other words, we are throwing you a bone, chew on it and pretend to be happy, while we move on with the rest of our lives. Gay rights is not a priority.

    I mean that is reality. Right?


    Or he could just tickle your ass with BS promises when the reality is that the President of the United States is not the End-All Be-All God of American Law and Life that would be required for something like that in the near future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 4:46 AM GMT
    well if I get an ass tickling, then forget my rights. which is really what is happening.

    what the real takeaway is, is that he is the ex-pres, but he is making promises for the next pres (hopefully). So it is the end all, cause congress is not just gonna decide to put gay rights on the table on their own accord.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 4:48 AM GMT
    yeah, he seems to be struggling for words. It could be true he did not throw people under the bus .. you can't be driving and running over people and throwing them at the same time .. lol seriously though I bear no hostility towards him, but he needs to retire.

    As far as Don't ask Don't tell, I have had a few friends get the boot despite that. One is in the process of getting booted now about 5 years from retirement. In a discussion with a few friends when we were driving around a few weeks back .. two marines and one sailor .. the consensus was that some things have improved under it, but you can still get screwed with it too. It is not a whole lot to brag about.
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    Mar 26, 2008 4:49 AM GMT
    Actually the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not only apply to legal decisions. While judgments based on good jurisdiction must be honored by other states, laws must be as well. This is true in both the criminal (see extradition proceedings) and civil spheres. If states did not have to honor the laws of other jurisdictions much of our legal system would collapse, particularly in the area of contracts. (On a side note, it would make my life easier because I wouldn't have to learn about choice of law provisions, but that's neither here nor there).

    Also, the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the subject of same sex marriage. A challenge to Minnesota's refusal to grant licenses was dismissed for lack of a federal question, but that was over thirty years ago and was essentially the Court punting on an issue. That case also revolved more around the sex discrimination question than around the equal protection argument, though both are valid approaches.

    And a bit of debate coaching for Trance: it is poor form to use the proposition you are arguing for as an example supporting itself. It creates a tautology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 4:58 AM GMT
    Wait a second.... How is it a tautology if I'm comparing two different views on the same issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 5:11 AM GMT
    Trance23 saidWait a second.... How is it a tautology if I'm comparing two different views on the same issue.

    He's saying that you should have used another example beyond, "(example: Gay marriage)."
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    Mar 26, 2008 5:13 AM GMT
    Yes, because the underlying principle you are trying to illustrate is dependent on the example you have set out:

    Why is gay marriage not a national issue? Because it is the type of issue that should belong to the states.
    How do we know it should belong to the states? Because it is that type of issue.

    You would need further examples to legitimize this framework. I don't particularly agree with it since there are over 1000 federal rights associated with a federally recognized marriage, but given your established position on government generally I imagine you would say the federal government should get out of marriage completely and just allow individual contracts, but that doesn't seem particularly likely, so let's leave it in the realm of theory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 5:16 AM GMT
    Trance23 saidHe's right on target.

    Hilary isn't going to push heavily to federally legalize gay marriage because it would cost her the election.

    Marriage isn't within the realm of the federal government to decide on and force states to accept. It's the stance the nation was founded on and Clinton rightly defended.


    No. If o'l Iron knicker Hilary got in. The first thing she would have to do, is start another war. To prove she is one of the boys, and the hair on her chest, runs all the way dawn , to her balls.

    Hilary would not play the game any diffrtly, than the boys. It will be the Republicans that put the first women in the White House.
  • irishkcguy

    Posts: 780

    Mar 26, 2008 6:03 AM GMT
    Pattison: I thought Hillary's trip to Kosovo would have garnered status as one of the boys. She made that trip sound like an episode of 24.

    If you guys think the Clintons are looking bad now, wait until Denver. They are going to go into Denver behind Obama in the popular vote, the number of states won and the number of delegates pledged. And they are going to try to steal the nomination. It's going to get really, really ugly.
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Mar 26, 2008 7:37 AM GMT
    irishkcguy saidPattison: I thought Hillary's trip to Kosovo would have garnered status as one of the boys. She made that trip sound like an episode of 24.

    If you guys think the Clintons are looking bad now, wait until Denver. They are going to go into Denver behind Obama in the popular vote, the number of states won and the number of delegates pledged. And they are going to try to steal the nomination. It's going to get really, really ugly.


    Kind of like every other past President that "steals" the office by winning the most electoral votes while not securing the popular vote? That's the system, bro.
  • irishkcguy

    Posts: 780

    Mar 26, 2008 9:16 AM GMT
    Groundcombat: It seems quite different to me. It's one thing for the electoral vote to determine the outcome of an election--election strategies are built around it. It's completely different for a candidate to go into a convention and then broker some dirty back room deals in order to steal something she clearly did not win and subvert the will of the Democratic voters. If Hillary steals the nomination she will effectively destroy the Democratic party. This is exactly what Rush Limbaugh wants to happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 11:27 AM GMT
    ep83 saidActually the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not only apply to legal decisions. While judgments based on good jurisdiction must be honored by other states, laws must be as well. This is true in both the criminal (see extradition proceedings) and civil spheres. If states did not have to honor the laws of other jurisdictions much of our legal system would collapse, particularly in the area of contracts. (On a side note, it would make my life easier because I wouldn't have to learn about choice of law provisions, but that's neither here nor there).


    Trance is right. FFC doesn't really apply to marriage. Marriage has been traditionally viewed as a choice of law problem. With states having individual DoMAs, some of which are worded as evasion statutes, using FFC for marriage becomes problematic. And Federal DoMA complicates matters more.

    14th Amendment Equal Protection always made more sense to me as a legal argument. Federal DoMA certainly has equal protection problems, but that is neither here nor there. Turning to federal courts, at this time, to solve the marriage issue is a mistake. First, after 8 years of Bush and a republican senate that blocked Clinton's nominees, the federal judiciary has gotten more and more hostile to these type of claims.

    Marriage equality will only be one state by state, and it will be perceived as a slow process, even though this change is happening quickly compared historically to other civil rights movements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 12:08 PM GMT
    Funny how other Nations have legalized gay marriage throughout, whereas, the Nation of "freedom and democracy" sets out to do it State by State.

    The US is going in reverse in many ways and this is a prime example. Discrimination, no matter what level, is a national issue especially when so many people of one group are affected.

    It's sad that a country such as the US is making this issue into a political gain/loss issue, not to mention allowing the religious right to have such a large influence in this decision. Gay marriage or civil unions (to placate those religious folks) should be legalized on the National level. Look at Spain as an example. A Nation almost entirely Catholic, yet gays can marry throughout, yet in the US, we have to have each and every State in our country legalize it separately. Spain is not the only example either; look at almost all of the rest of Europe...and even S. Africa! If gay marriage isn't legalized in those countries, civil unions are...on a NATIONAL level no-less!!
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 26, 2008 12:10 PM GMT
    Why do gays have to go to another state to get married? The failure in Bill Clinton's answer is that he doesn't recognize gay rights and equality as a universal human right.

    I feel like one of the "Colored" people from the segregation era who had to go to a separate bathroom or a separate water fountain or go to the back door of a restaraunt to get my food. Why do I, or anyone, have to go out of my way for equal rights?

    State's rights to discriminate against gays is contrary to the US Constitution!

    PERIOD.
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Mar 26, 2008 12:36 PM GMT
    Personally I think you're getting too het over this issue.

    Let some states allow Gay marriage and some not. After a few years the states that haven't yet allowed it, will see the world hasn't ended in the more liberal states, and then there will be a case for all states allowing this legislation.

    The race discrimination laws didn't happened over-night so we should settle for small steps and show some patience.

    Equality will happen, but only has the older, more-bigoted generations die out.

    Lozx

    ps. I love Bill Clinton, but think he was maybe attracted to the young reporter and trying (too hard) not to show it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 2:04 PM GMT
    That young lady was treated with kid gloves compared to Chris Wallace when he interviewed former President Clinton. Clinton uses the tactic of counter attack in interviews, too bad he didn't counter attack very well when Al Qaeda was attacking us under his administration. Any journalist who interviews Clinton needs to be prepared for that.

    There's a lot of "throwing someone under the bus" going on. ENDA was throwing the transexuals under the bus, "don't ask don't tell", and of course DOMA. Since President Clinton was the commander in chief, he did have the authority to sanction gay/lesbian service men and women serving openly without anyone's approval. He didn't do that. Then again, it was Clinton's plan all along to ruin the US Military. He almost succeeded.

    It just seems to me that the case could be made for the First Amendment in same sex marriage. That part about "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise there of" (or something like that) should apply. Since denial of same sex marriage is based on a religious standard and marriage is regulated by the state and not the church, why isn't that used?

    Nothing stays buried forever. One of these days the Clintons will be exposed for the criminals they are.
    They make the Nixon administration, CREEP and the plumbers look like angels. Anyone who could testify against them end up dead from a suicide, die in a plane crash or are murdered, or go to jail to hide their activities and protect them. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a similar fate doesn't await Bill Richardson.














  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Mar 26, 2008 3:15 PM GMT
    I just love conspiracy/assasination theories.

    Princess Diana was killed by Elvis on a mototrbike working for the Clintons and MI5. FACT.

    Loz
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2008 3:58 PM GMT
    Oh Dear Laurence,
    President Clinton came into office amid scandal from Little Rock. His appointees covered up a lucrative narcotics smuggling operation and any attempt to investigate it was thwarted by then Governor Clinton. People ended up dead from murder, plane crashes and suicides. Governor Clinton was shielded by his appointees and the Rose Law Firm.
    Another Governor Clinton scandal was his hobby of picking up young women for sex and his State Patrol body guards assisted him. In the Jennifer Flowers situation, the man who reported the frequent visits by Clinton to her apartment was beaten and left for dead after the scandal broke.
    So when Vince Foster and Ron Brown die mysteriously and Monica Lewinsky fears for her life and has to use her stained blue dress, it fits the same old pattern.
    Then throw in Jim and Susan McDougal, Jim died and Susan was pardoned, but they never divulged what they knew.
    Then throw in Web Hubble and voila, with all the dirty dealing and intrigue, how could the Clinton's not be involved? Or, at least, how could they not know? Keep an eye on Bill Richardson.