# Ambassador to the World?



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that if she is elected president, she would make her husband a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation's tattered image abroad.

*"I can't think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?"*

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070421/D8OL8VO02.html


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

Can't do a worse job than GWB is doing now.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

BC already spends much of his time in humanitarian causes both here and abroad. And from the polls I've seen, most Americans have had enough of a foreign policy that consists almost entirely of threats, intimidation, strongarming, bombing and shooting people etc etc.

What would be the proper terminology for BC? First Gentleman?


----------



## TPS (Aug 21, 2006)

Since I'm not American I might be a bit lost here, but was this really what the revolutionaries of 1776 fought for? Something seems a bit out of place in this idea of a self-perpetuating political aristocracy...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> What would be the proper terminology for BC? First Gentleman?


First Fornicator? Not sure if that CABG of his has slowed that down or not though.

I am sure many people will see Bill as a perfect "cheerleader" for the US. I am sure if he could run again, he would be re-elected. It all depends on what your vision of the US is as to whether or not you think he would be a great represenative for the US. It could be very, very, VERY entertaining though.

Can you imagine if Hillary had been POTUS at the time of the Dubai ports deal instead of just the junior Senator from NY? If memory serves, Bill was collecting seven figures for helping lobby for the ports deal, Hillary was posturing against Dubya and the ports deal. I can easily see Bill collecting huge sums of money as the First Fornicator.

The best thing is, anti-Dubya liberal folks are willing to suspend disbelief and let the Clintons get away with this stuff. Bill is easily far and away the most charismatic (to the weak minded and/or weak willed) POTUS and politician the US has had since JFK. He is a world class operator and I am frankly in awe of his ability to do things along the lines of giving a speech for family values while groping a random female at the podium. The guy is a slime ball but he is my hero in his ability to get away with it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Good point. I wonder if 'first spouses' even have to register as lobbyists?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> First Fornicator? Not sure if that CABG of his has slowed that down or not though.
> 
> I am sure many people will see Bill as a perfect "cheerleader" for the US. I am sure if he could run again, he would be re-elected. It all depends on what your vision of the US is as to whether or not you think he would be a great represenative for the US. It could be very, very, VERY entertaining though.
> 
> ...


Yep, he's pretty much the Democratic version of Teflon Ronnie.

If only the Rabid Right Republicans in the U.S. House hadn't spent four and a half years doing absolutely nothing except trying to unseat Clinton, a perjury charge about an extramarital affair which few people cared about (or should care about) might have actually meant something.

Or probably not.

As for "weak minded" people, in my view anyone who believes a moral politician exists in either major party falls squarely into that category. Personally I believe our current president and VP make Clinton and Gore look like saints.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yep, he's pretty much the Democratic version of Teflon Ronnie.
> 
> If only the Rabid Right Republicans in the U.S. House hadn't spent four and a half years doing absolutely nothing except trying to unseat Clinton, a perjury charge about an extramarital affair which few people cared about (or should care about) might have actually meant something.
> 
> ...


And all that had nothing to do with the OP


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Of 300,000,000 people living in the United States, 60 percent of poll respondents couldn't think of ANYONE better than Bill Clinton? Sorry, you're clearly not trying very hard.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

From the article:



> Clinton also said she would raise taxes for the wealthy, who she said "aren't paying their fair share."


I sure am interested in seeing how she defines "wealthy" but I am too afraid I know that answer (hint: 50k is all a household needs, right?). I wonder if Bill would have been taxed more on the seven figures he got for the Dubai port deal?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

The whole subject is immaterial to me simply because the prospect of a Hillary presidency is too nightmarish to contemplate. There is just something about her that is like fingernails on a blackboard. It isn't just her politics. Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer are female politicians a good deal more liberal than Hillary has positioned herself at present. I don't agree with them on many issues, but I assuredly don't have the same visceral antipathy that I do to Hillary. In fact, I used to think Barbara Boxer was pretty cute when she was running for senator 15 years ago.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

The liberal establishment in this country, as well as a majority of the population in the UK and EU seem to adore the way Clinton dealt with the world. They regard Bush as being indifferent to the rest of the world's opinions and too impetuous at using force.

As neither a Democrat or a Republican, I can see some merit to that. But I also see Clinton's foreign policy as the polar opposite to Bush's, and not much better(maybe even worse for America in the long run.)

He was very reluctant to use force, which every world leader should be, but I think he took it to an extreme that was detrimental. First, he withdrew from Somalia against the warlord Aidid(which I don't completely fault him for, because it was a mission he inherited that went out of control.) But when a military dictator(Cedras) overthrew the democratically elected government in Haiti, Clinton was just about to remove him, but in the final hour, reached a deal where the US paid Cedras in cash and property to voluntarily leave. Clinton also came very close to striking North Korea in 1994 and Iraq in 1998(some airstrikes had already gone under way in the latter case, but there was going to be a major escalation.) In both cases, last minute deals were struck, and we now know neither was honored by the other parties. Even when the Bosnian Serbs stormed into a UN-designated safe zone and committed genocide against 8000 Muslim men, Clinton refused to take any action against the Serbs beyond the UN's woefully inadequate parameters.

I think under this foreign policy, America looks too easily coerced, deceived, and frightened. So if Bush is too stubborn, Clinton is too much concession. I think the ideal foreign policy probably lies somewhere in between.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> The liberal establishment in this country, as well as a majority of the population in the UK and EU seem to adore the way Clinton dealt with the world. They regard Bush as being indifferent to the rest of the world's opinions and too impetuous at using force.


Not quite. Stubbornness and aggression can be useful and even respectable in the hands of a person with sound judgment. Take Reagan for example. Reagan also frequently formulated a foreign policy that ran counter to popular opinion (best example might be the SALT treaties with the Soviet Union), yet he was correct on most of these issues and the American people learned to trust his judgment over their own.

But in Bush's case, not only is he stubborn, his judgment has proven to be astonishingly bad. Not just in foreign policy but in domestic policy as well, his judgment has proven to be inept, reactionary, incredibly short-sighted and counterproductive, and in a few cases catastrophic.

Bush told us there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein still possessed WMDs. He was wrong. He claimed banned weapons were found in Iraq. They weren't. He insisted empty trailer trucks were chemical weapons facilities. They weren't. Etc. Lie and half-truth after lie and half-truth. And unlike Clinton's lying about a blowjob, Bush's lies have cost us the lives of 3200+ of our kids so far, and over a half trillion dollars. Not to mention the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

That is the major difference here. The American people trusted Reagan. They don't trust Bush, or the power structure behind and responsible for Bush. The last poll I saw had 68% of Americans saying Congress should be directing our troops in Iraq, with only 29% saying the military's own commander-in-chief should be directing them. If that's not a vote of no trust or confidence in Bush, nothing is.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Isn't Bill Clinton the gentleman that appeared to be selling pardons for contributions to his presidential library fund in the final days of his presidency? Wasn't the Clinton Administration the one responsible for leaving something over $200,000 of damage in their wake, as the stripped the White House and associated offices of "souveniers" of their service to America? Are we really ready for another term of service by this collection of trailer trash?

Is this the best and the brightest America has to offer?


----------



## Cool Cal (Jan 19, 2007)

I'm pretty sure we already have an ambassador to the world, their title is President of the United States. What's up with everybody trying to staff out the job? First the war czar, now this...


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

This is a good idea. It would keep Bill out of the country, plus he could work on his international playboy skills.

M8


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"To everything there is a season." In spite of efforts like Happy Days and That 70s Show, the Clinton's time is past. Old Boxers usually have to be humiliated by second rate fighters to realise this, Mick Jagger unknowingly interviewed by AARP and The Bill and Hilary Show voted down. Political dynastys are not new. We had the Adams, the Kennedys and Taft went on from his term to a long and very distinquished career on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I'll nominate Bill Bradley for this gig. He's mostly honest, and it shows.

Bill Clinton was a dreadful fraud, and his legacy disimproves daily.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

now, I'm not a fan of ol' slick willy...I dont really care for his wife either...but...I never understood this Pavlovian hatred towards the clintons...to me it's just as annoying to hear somebody talk about how much they hate "That cu** Bi***" or how bill "disgraced the white house" as it is when some uninformed liberal talks about how stupid GWB is...

it's like...okay we've heard it before...time to get a new rant...

but RE: the topic at hand...yeah I think there are better choices...but at the same time, let's face it...alot of the world is liberal...and for whatever reason...to liberals this guy walks on water...it might do us some good...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

oh and I didnt vote just because...yeah I can think of some better...not hundreds or thousands...and no I'm not a liberal...just open minded...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We have ambassadors already. The american doctor who treated Chernobyl victims practicaly has his own icon. Julia Butterfly Hill visited Italy, discovered a neglected folk story of an italian nobleman who protested social ills sitting in a tree and got it published for children. Everytime we witness a world disaster our own americans of various origins rally to help the motherland. Suggesting Willy spokesman for America is like Rosie O'Donnell being selected to depict Lady Liberty on a new coin. Ambassadors? We need to push second languages on our kids and send them overseas for a year in the Peace Corps or just to live and get a real education. Driving across the canadian border for cheaper prescripton drugs or Mexico for tequilla is not world travel. Singer/actor Khris kristoferson once observed tongue in cheek He and Clinton were America's example of Rhodes Scholars.Kris looked better in a beard and wasn't afriad to inhale and admit it.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Does the US even need an "ambassador to the world" in the first place? This is the sort of suggestion designed to make US citizens feel warm-and-fuzzy inside. It is foolish, patronising, and insipid. The last thing anyone needs is a self-righteous American lecturing to the world. The world despises Americans already (while yearning for their wealth). The US has an enormous PR problem and I don't think Bill Clinton is the solution. I've had enough of the inaneness, thank you very much.


----------



## Egdon Heath (Sep 11, 2006)

*The Gabba Goul* has written above that "..._some uninformed liberal talks about how stupid GWB is_."

Hmmmm. Color me uninformed and enlighten me while you're at it: what level of information input does one have to reach before they become shaky in their belief that this is indeed the stupidest individual ever to have held this particular job?

EgH


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Egdon Heath said:


> *The Gabba Goul* has written above that "..._some uninformed liberal talks about how stupid GWB is_."
> 
> Hmmmm. Color me uninformed and enlighten me while you're at it: what level of information input does one have to reach before they become shaky in their belief that this is indeed the stupidest individual ever to have held this particular job?
> 
> EgH


pay the man some respect huh??? he is, after all, the elected leader of the free world...

Perhaps you feel you could do a better job??? then why dont you run???

all I'm saying is that all presidents current and former are entitled to the respect that their office holds, I cant stand bill Clinton, but I refuse to bash him just because some fat chick blew him in his office...he also dealt with carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders for 8 long years (and it seems to me that's quite a feat)...I dont know why left wing nut jobs refuse to give GW the same respect...nobody says you have to like him or sing his praises...but the man is a long way from stupid...grow the hell up...


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

A random Amish guy would be a better ambassador to the world.


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> pay the man some respect huh??? he is, after all, the elected leader of the free world...
> 
> Perhaps you feel you could do a better job??? then why dont you run???
> 
> all I'm saying is that all presidents current and former are entitled to the respect that their office holds, I cant stand bill Clinton, but I refuse to bash him just because some fat chick blew him in his office...he also dealt with carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders for 8 long years (and it seems to me that's quite a feat)...I dont know why left wing nut jobs refuse to give GW the same respect...nobody says you have to like him or sing his praises...but the man is a long way from stupid...grow the hell up...


Didn't some people in the 1770's fight a revolution so we wouldn't have to give automatic respect to leaders we didn't like? I respect the office, not the holder of it.


----------



## Egdon Heath (Sep 11, 2006)

You say, Gabba Goul, that "..._he _[GWB] _is the elected leader of the free world. _I must have missed those fun _free world elections_. Where exactly do they hold them?

And do you suppose if you were to poll the electorate of the countries of your free world that they might agree with me (and probably with Laura) that he who currently holes up in the Oval Office may be toting a smarts suitcase of only carry-on size?

EgH


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

From the sidebar posted at that site, it looks like Bill Clinton is already a roving ambassador to Canada:

"Clinton's new girl friend - How Bill's friendship with Canada's Belinda Stronach is making waves
www.thefirstpost.co.uk"


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I thought she was dating a hockey player. Looks like Peter Mackay may have had a point.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

I think the whole "war of independence" thing in the 1770s was a drastic mistake, for Americans, and it would have avoided present difficulties. The American presidency is sort of a quasi-monarchy anyway. The respect Americans accord to the president astounds beyond belief. Let's bring back the monarchy. But then again, I'm a hopeless reactionary. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Beresford said:


> From the sidebar posted at that site, it looks like Bill Clinton is already a roving ambassador to Canada:
> 
> "Clinton's new girl friend - How Bill's friendship with Canada's Belinda Stronach is making waves
> www.thefirstpost.co.uk"


https://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=578&p=2


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Egdon Heath said:


> You say, Gabba Goul, that "..._he _[GWB] _is the elected leader of the free world. _I must have missed those fun _free world elections_. Where exactly do they hold them?
> 
> And do you suppose if you were to poll the electorate of the countries of your free world that they might agree with me (and probably with Laura) that he who currently holes up in the Oval Office may be toting a smarts suitcase of only carry-on size?
> 
> EgH


you can pretend to misunderstand me all you want, but you know damn good and well that whenever somebody makes one of their obnoxious remarks about the slickster...liberals go bat$hit...but at the same time they think it's hunkie dorie to talk all kinds of crap about GW...

what I'm saying (just incase you really are a little dee dee dee and honestly dont understand it) is that the president, no matter what I think of the man (or woman) personaly, they deserve a bit of respect, as it is, kind of an important job to have...that's why it is important to be critical of the candidate...dont like hilary? fine, dont like Rudy? Boss...have at...but if either of them becomes president, I think they have earned the right to be respected by John Q public, and not be called by the same names that get thrown around in a middle school locker room...

but then again...that might just be me...y'see I actually like America...


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

So do I, and I do think Clinton is a bit of a slimeball, but because I love this country I will use my right to criticise who I want.

but then again...that might just be me...y'see I actually like free speech...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Free speech should never be confused with fresh thought. The Clintons have their supporters and detractors, conspiracy theories and skeletons in the closet Monica rubbed shoulders and God knows what else with. George Bush has his supporters and detractors, conspiracy theories and skeletons in his closet that may include the skull of Geronimo fellow bonesman Kerry didn't come clean to the Apache nation over, knowing Arizona was locked in for the Republican ticket. These attacks by both sides of the political spectrum, whatever colour is dead center in the prism of politics have all the appeal of ancient grey circles of chewing gum, the torn remains of roadkill pets loved only by eager maggots, old cigarette butts and spittle for pedestrians to dodge.


----------



## Egdon Heath (Sep 11, 2006)

For *The Gabba Goul*.

If what you're saying is that the President of the United States, no matter what the party or conduct, deserves respect because of the office, then no, of course I don't agree.

And why would you? Or is it connected to your final line where you say "..._ya see, I actually like America_", suggesting that those of us who think George W. Bush too stupid to be President somehow dislike America.

Actually it's _because_ we like America that our eyes turn downward, hands go into pockets and we shift from foot to foot when this Global Embarrassment speaks, or worse, takes action.

EgH


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Egdon Heath said:


> For *The Gabba Goul*.
> 
> If what you're saying is that the President of the United States, no matter what the party or conduct, deserves respect because of the office, then no, of course I don't agree.
> 
> ...


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Teddy Roosevelt almost had it right. No politician is worthy of anything except contempt and mistrust, because when all's said and done, it's a delusion to believe one person is able to adequately represent thousands or millions of others, and it's also a delusion to believe politics isn't simply a final refuge for people whose egos have become too large to be contained by the private sector. It has been this way since ancient Rome and probably long before.

Still, GWB has to represent some kind of nadir in U.S. politics, even lower than Nixon or Hoover. He seems to be intent on leaving one of the ugliest legacies in American history.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Teddy Roosevelt almost had it right. No politician is worthy of anything except contempt and mistrust, because when all's said and done, it's a delusion to believe one person is able to adequately represent thousands or millions of others, and it's also a delusion to believe politics isn't simply a final refuge for people whose egos have become too large to be contained by the private sector. It has been this way since ancient Rome and probably long before.


FrankDC, 
Assuming what you say about the mind of a politician is correct your flaw is that you're not offering an alternative. The difference with us and despotic rulers is free elections and public accountability. You're holding our form of government against some _Platonic Idealism_ and then standing back and saying "look at how corrupt these people are." *Outline an alternative and then perhaps we'll listen!*



> Still, GWB has to represent some kind of nadir in U.S. politics, even lower than Nixon or Hoover. He seems to be intent on leaving one of the ugliest legacies in American history.


This has to be one of the dumbbest sentiments I've ever heard regarding the presidency of GWB, and I'm not singling you out here. It seems to be the refrain of most liberals and the left everytime a U.S. President asserts the power of the U.S. in the name of our interests. What shall we do? Lay down like dogs at the feet of our master (the world community) while they determine what our fate shall be? Look at what happens when the U.S. does not get engaged:
1) Rwanda
2) Darfur
3) The Killing Fields of Cambodia (yes that's right. This is what happens when we pull back our military support for our allies who are struggling. This is what happens when we give in to the myopic world vision of the left).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> FrankDC,
> Assuming what you say about the mind of a politician is correct your flaw is that you're not offering an alternative. The difference with us and despotic rulers is free elections and public accountability. You're holding our form of government against some _Platonic Idealism_ and then standing back and saying "look at how corrupt these people are." *Outline an alternative and then perhaps we'll listen!*


The "alternative" is what we had for the first 150 years of our nation's history, and what our founding fathers had originally envisioned: a limited government kept in check by the constant possibility of another revolution. I've outlined my opinion about this in other threads. In 1940 the advocation of revolution was made a federal crime. The Declaration of Independence was therefore gutted, and it's been a one-way freefall toward corrupt, obscenely bloated and totalitarian government ever since. Our government no longer has to worry about revolution. In fact, with the corrupt two-party political cartel that's been in place for the last several decades it doesn't even have to really worry about popular opinion! Every election we get to choose between frick and frack, between tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend. Between bigger government and bigger government. Any movement or candidate raised by the electorate which threatens this status quo is immediately marginalized and discredited, not only by both parties but by our media.

Given this situation I don't know where, how or even if this madness will end. As it is, government in the "Land of the Free" now has more people behind jailbars (both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the population) than any industrialized country on Earth. And we have a president who uses "signing statements" to create a dictatorship within a government, effectively nullifying any and all laws and court orders he doesn't agree with. Not even Nixon was that morally bankrupt.



pt4u67 said:


> This has to be one of the dumbbest sentiments I've ever heard regarding the presidency of GWB, and I'm not singling you out here. It seems to be the refrain of most liberals and the left everytime a U.S. President asserts the power of the U.S. in the name of our interests. What shall we do? Lay down like dogs at the feet of our master (the world community) while they determine what our fate shall be? Look at what happens when the U.S. does not get engaged:
> 1) Rwanda
> 2) Darfur
> 3) The Killing Fields of Cambodia (yes that's right. This is what happens when we pull back our military support for our allies who are struggling. This is what happens when we give in to the myopic world vision of the left).


"Our interests"? Good God! 54,000+ of our kids were sacrificed in Korea and yet the country is still in a state of civil war. 58,000+ of our kids were sacrificed in Vietnam and yet the country is still Communist. 3,200+ of our kids have been sacrificed in Iraq and yet the country still hates our guts and wants us to leave. You simply don't get it, do you?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Interesting how a question about Bill Clinton becomes a referendum on GWB. This is why US politics is where it is. Both sides want to justify their behaviour through juxtaposition to the other side. People need to seperate and identify problems, not have a pecker context over who's guy is the least loser.

Bill Clinton has great charisma for his target audience. Bill Clinton is a world class operator, the best liar I have ever seen, completely lacks a conscience, will have sex with anything in a skirt that comes out of a trailer park or acts like it does. He would "WOW" the liberals of any Western nation, impress the third world by "feeling their pain", and defrock the tubby daughters of all the dignitaries he can, worldwide. He would probably be deemed a success in this role by anyone an inch left of center worldwide. People an inch right of center think he is a slimeball, but such people are usually too busy working to cause as much trouble, endlessly hold protests, rallies in Berkley, etc. as those on the left, so this lack of public hue and cry will be seen as tacit consent. Bill and Hill would probably also retire billionaires for the fees he would generate while she is in office. If you are so disposed to be 1" left of center, you will think he is perfect for this job, just like about 48% of the US population.

None of that has a thing to do with GWB.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think with Hillary busy in Washington, Bill and Monica could represent us well in the world. If Bill's charm doesn't win over the foreign leader, well, Monica could go to work.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I think with Hillary busy in Washington, Bill and Monica could represent us well in the world. If Bill's charm doesn't win over the foreign leader, well, Monica could go to work.


I belive the fatal flaw (or perhaps the genius ) in your logic is that Monica would just "blow another opportunity!" (wink, wink)


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> FrankDC,
> Assuming what you say about the mind of a politician is correct your flaw is that you're not offering an alternative. The difference with us and despotic rulers is free elections and public accountability. You're holding our form of government against some _Platonic Idealism_ and then standing back and saying "look at how corrupt these people are." *Outline an alternative and then perhaps we'll listen!*
> 
> This has to be one of the dumbbest sentiments I've ever heard regarding the presidency of GWB, and I'm not singling you out here. It seems to be the refrain of most liberals and the left everytime a U.S. President asserts the power of the U.S. in the name of our interests. What shall we do? Lay down like dogs at the feet of our master (the world community) while they determine what our fate shall be? Look at what happens when the U.S. does not get engaged:
> ...


We were in Rwanda. We would have tried to help the people of that country(like the other UN nations did) but we were too busy leaving


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> I belive the fatal flaw (or perhaps the genius ) in your logic is that Monica would just "blow another opportunity!" (wink, wink)


Oh c'mon the Monica thing is so overdone. It was just a blow***. Most guys would take one from a horse if it didn't have teeth.

Which by the way is the REAL reason why people raise miniature horses and why there's a secret society of equine teeth-pulling dentists :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Oh c'mon the Monica thing is so overdone. It was just a blow***. Most guys would take one from a horse if it didn't have teeth.
> 
> Which by the way is the REAL reason why people raise miniature horses and why there's a secret society of equine teeth-pulling dentists :icon_smile_big:


ROFALOL! While I may be a "country boy", I can't say we ever got that close to our horses. Although, your observation about miniature horses does give new meaning to the old expression, "getting a little a**!"


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Good one, Martinis!!

I guess Roy Rogers is lucky that Dale Evans never made him choose between her and Trigger!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Our American Eagle can make good use of Randy humor when the situation is right, too, I see!!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

From the 'Things you didn't know and wish you still didn't' file. If you can find an older horseman or farmer ask what the term 'stump trained' means.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Kav said:


> From the 'Things you didn't know and wish you still didn't' file. If you can find an older horseman or farmer ask what the term 'stump trained' means.


Or also known as stump-breaking. However, with the miniature horse, no need to find that tree stump :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Interesting how a question about Bill Clinton becomes a referendum on GWB. This is why US politics is where it is. Both sides want to justify their behaviour through juxtaposition to the other side. People need to seperate and identify problems, not have a pecker context over who's guy is the least loser.
> 
> Bill Clinton has great charisma for his target audience. Bill Clinton is a world class operator, the best liar I have ever seen, completely lacks a conscience, will have sex with anything in a skirt that comes out of a trailer park or acts like it does. He would "WOW" the liberals of any Western nation, impress the third world by "feeling their pain", and defrock the tubby daughters of all the dignitaries he can, worldwide. He would probably be deemed a success in this role by anyone an inch left of center worldwide. People an inch right of center think he is a slimeball, but such people are usually too busy working to cause as much trouble, endlessly hold protests, rallies in Berkley, etc. as those on the left, so this lack of public hue and cry will be seen as tacit consent. Bill and Hill would probably also retire billionaires for the fees he would generate while she is in office. If you are so disposed to be 1" left of center, you will think he is perfect for this job, just like about 48% of the US population.
> 
> None of that has a thing to do with GWB.


_Very_ well put.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Although I personally dislike Bill Clinton, I do wonder if as an Ambassador to the World, is it more important that we like him, or they like him; or does it even matter that we like him? I don't like most of the policies of other countries of the world either so wouldn't they be good for each other? Give them the one American politician they like and maybe they will shut up for a while.


----------

