The Dimm-0-craps Agenda

[xrayzebra]

This article really explains why I dislike the dimm-o-craps. Their only
agenda is to get power back and screw anyone who stands in their way.
The offer nothing for the country. They have only a limited number of
ideas, and most of them are destructive to the country as a whole.
They wish for the defeat of this country and destruction of this countries
core values and support for any unholy attitude that furthers this
outlook.

Anyhow, I offer the following column.



Democrats' impeachment agenda
By Jeff Kuhner

Mar 31, 2006


President Bush beware: Democrats are gearing up for an impeachment campaign. This may seem ridiculous. But if the Democrats capture control of Congress in the November elections, then this nightmarish scenario is very likely to become a reality.

Sen. Russell Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, is proposing that Mr. Bush be “censured” for approving wiretaps on al Qaeda terrorist suspects without a court warrant. Leading congressional Democrats are distancing themselves from the idea. But liberal bloggers and grassroots activists are strongly supporting Mr. Feingold’s initiative. His bold attacks are resonating with Democrats, especially with the Howard Dean-MoveOn.org-Michael Moore voters that increasingly make up the core of the party.

In fact, should they retake the House or Senate (or both) censure will serve to pave the way for formal impeachment proceedings.

The logic of the Democrats’ rhetoric and their intense—almost pathological—hatred of Mr. Bush ensure that this will happen. The arguments of Mr. Feingold, Al Gore, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California all boil down to the same point: Mr. Bush broke the law. They assert that the president illegally authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic electronic surveillance without a warrant from a secret court, thereby violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Their claims are false. Contrary to their assertions, from the program’s inception the NSA wiretaps were disclosed to leading members of Congress, including top Democrats; judges on the FISA court were made aware of the program’s existence; and the attorney general’s office and lawyers from the Justice Department closely monitored the program to make sure no abuses took place.

Yet this hasn’t stopped Democrats—or the mainstream media—from denouncing Mr. Bush’s actions as “illegal spying.” Having outflanked and outmaneuvered the Democrats ever since coming into office in 2000, the president has become public enemy number one. The liberal establishment is desperately searching for a way to cripple the Bush presidency.

Impeachment is their ticket. Currently, prominent liberal journals, such as Harper’s Magazine, and influential leftist blogs like the Huffington Post are making the case for impeachment. Cities and towns are passing resolutions supporting it.

More importantly, the issue is gaining traction among prominent Democrats.

In a highly publicized speech on Jan. 16, Mr. Gore laid the groundwork for an impeachment campaign. “A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government,” he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, last year asked four leading scholars for their opinion on whether the NSA wiretaps are impeachable.

Yet the key figure is Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat and ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Conyers is leading a small but growing caucus of House liberal Democrats calling for a formal investigation into the administration’s alleged abuses of power. He has introduced a resolution, which has 33 co-sponsors, demanding the establishment of a “select committee,” whose ultimate purpose is “to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Should the Democrats win back the House, Mr. Conyers will become the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And Judiciary is the House committee in which formal impeachment proceedings must begin and then proceed to the floor.

Key Republicans are beginning to take notice. “The Democrats' plan for 2006?" Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman wrote in a fundraising e-mail last week. "Take the House and Senate and impeach the president.”

All of this means nothing as long as the congressional Republicans remain in power. In theory, impeachment should be about the law—namely, whether a president’s ethical and legal transgressions rise to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.” Clearly, the Democrats’ case against Mr. Bush is without legal merit. In reality, however, impeachment is about politics, and whether there are enough votes in Congress to go forward with it.

A Democratic victory in November will unleash a maelstrom of liberal support, first for censure, and then finally for impeachment. As the 2008 presidential campaign and fierce Democratic nomination fight nears, the momentum of the Bush-bashing, pro-impeachment forces will become unstoppable. More mainstream candidates, such as Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry and maybe even Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, will feel compelled to follow the lead of left-wing firebrands like Mr. Feingold and Mr. Gore, lest they risk alienating the party’s leftist progressive base.

Mr. Bush may find himself spending much of the latter half of his second term fighting for his very survival just like Bill Clinton did from 1998 until February 1999—a point that is not lost on many Democrats.

Mr. Feingold’s censure proposal is in fact a boon to the GOP; it should sound as an alarm bell foretelling the dangers awaiting Republicans should they lose in November. What is at stake is not only their status as the majority party, but the ability of Mr. Bush to effectively conduct his duties as commander-in-chief in a time of war. Republicans cannot say they were not warned.

This article first appeared on Insight on the News


Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a regular contributor to the Commentary Pages at The Washington Times and editor of Insight on the News where this article originally appeared.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JeffKuhner/2006/03/31/192122.html

[ChumpDumper]

Feh, Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. There is no moral high ground to claim.

[Spam]

Bush sucks ass.

[RandomGuy]

Their only agenda is to get power back and screw anyone who stands in their way.
The offer nothing for the country. They have only a limited number of
ideas, and most of them are destructive to the country as a whole.
They wish for the defeat of this country and destruction of this countries
core values and support for any unholy attitude that furthers this
outlook.



The republicans only agenda is to keep power and solidify their stranglehold on the federal government.

They offer nothing for the country. They have only a limited number of ideas, and most of them are destructive to the country as a whole. They wish the defeat of this country and destruction of this country's core values and support any unholy attitude that furthers this outlook.

I offer the following as proof.


The New Right Wing Agenda
by Steven E. Miller
What is going on in Washington? What is the larger agenda behind the amazingly aggressive right wing moves coming from the White House? According to the people I’ve been talking to and the articles I’ve been reading, the right wing agenda has three main points, each of which has precedents in earlier Republican and Democratic Administrations but which have been pushed to a qualitatively new level by the W clique:

1) Fundamentally change the role of government. In the Nation a couple weeks ago, this was described as going back to President McKinley. In other words, stripping government of all social welfare functions and all economic regulatory activity. Instead, government would revert to the sole role of protecting property and sovereignty through the use of its police/military power. This change will be accomplished in all three branches. The judiciary will be stacked, the legislature will pass the appropriate laws, and the executive will become more centralized and autocratic. The transformation of our budget surplus to endless deficits is part of this strategy – instead of having to argue against specific social programs the right-wingers can now simply say that they’re being realistic and dealing honestly with the real lack of funds. Pushing the fiscal crisis down to state and local levels (whose governments are often constitutionally prevented from running deficits) further spreads the transformation and diffuses opponents’ ability to fight back. Those functions that simply cannot be eliminated will be privatized as much as possible. The end result is an authoritarian state whose main function is repression of all institutionalized (and individual) avenues of resistance, perhaps even of dissent, particularly the labor movement.

2) Fundamentally shifting the burden of taxation from capital (including profits and all forms of “unearned” income) to consumption. The eventual goal is to eliminate all capital gains, inheritance, and corporate taxes, as well as the entire income tax. Before that, it means finding ways to exempt as much as possible – starting with those aspects that primarily hit the “investing classes” (i.e. – the rich). Radical and repeated tax cuts help create deficits (re-enforcing the first strategic goal). They also make taxation increasingly regressive, putting ever-larger burdens on working families and the poor. Since this is happening at the same time that services provided by government to those groups are being reduced, it reinforces the traditional anti-tax feeling among the general population – making it easier to push for still more tax cuts and reinforcing the general anti-government feeling that has always been part of American culture.

3) Fundamentally change the nature of international relations from a “trilateral” world in which multinational elites collaborated on creating an investment-friendly world into a US-dominated “new world order” in which narrow nationalist goals are achieved through unilateral and pre-emptive use of the US’s military power and everyone else is forced to accommodate Washington’s ability to “create facts on the ground.” This involves the radical transformation or withering away of many existing multinational organizations and arrangements and the permanent escalation of US military spending (which helps support the other two strategic goals). It plays to the US’s currently dominating military strength while papering over our economic and other weaknesses. It also serves a domestic purpose of evoking knee-jerk nationalism and concern for the soldiers, which distracts attention other issues and makes it very hard to mount an oppositional movement. Acting like a bully also helps create the type of world that justifies the behavior. In the Middle East, Hamas and Sharon need each other to legitimize their own violence as the only viable response to the extremism of the other side. Similarly, by acting in ways that assume the world is full of terrorists, that allies are untrustworthy, that security comes from hitting everyone else before they can hit you, the new imperialists help create the very conditions they claim to be responding to, which then makes it necessary to act even more aggressively.

The most important implication of all this is that large segments of the domestic and world population are no longer seen as worth worrying about. On one level, this is just racism and classism. But there’s more than that going on. In the past, capitalism was optimistic and assumed that it would keep expanding, which provided the basis for a “corporate liberalism” that saw everyone in the world as a potential consumer and/or laborer – and therefore having some potential worth. But the new reactionaries see the future as much more of a zero-sum game. Partly, this is an expression of their incredible greed and corruption – their incessant efforts to rip off wealth for themselves and their narrow sets of cronies. In any case, the result is that most of Africa, large swaths of Latin America and Asia, and significant parts of the domestic US population have been simply written off –individuals who may arise from the trodden mass are welcome as junior partners, but there is no concern at all for the general well being of these sectors beyond token PR and the limited need to keep local elites from causing too much anti-American trouble on the world stage.

The amazing thing is that the right wing fundamentalists have been able to seize power and win a large amount of support – or at least acquiescence -- among the US electorate. The people I talk with point to a number of contextual reasons. First, this country lacks any significant institutionalized alternative. The Democratic Party is both complicit and fratricidal. The labor movement is the only really powerful potential organized opposition, but they are ideologically scattered, organizationally weak, and under unremitting attack. In addition, the powerful role of money in shaping our electoral outcomes is another key ingredient in the right wings success, as well as in keeping liberal (much less radical) alternatives from gaining influence in the Democratic Party. The increasing dominance of US media by an incredibly small number of incredibly right wing corporations has a powerful impact. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the lack of any significant “third way,” and the resulting feeling that there is “no viable alternative” has been a very important context for the right wings’ ability to present themselves as inevitable and unstoppable. Finally, the current climate of insecurity, fear, and even paranoia – which the government and media are successfully doing their utmost to deepen and expand – plays an important role in making it hard to opposition to find political space.

Using all these institutional-cultural supports, the reactionary clique has built a broad and powerful coalition. They’ve become a “big tent” for anti-abortionists (pulling in the Catholic right wing), anti-feminists (attracting not only status-concerned men but women who feel threatened by the loss of the “security and respect” given to traditional female roles), homophobes, anti-immigrant and anti-affirmative action groups (drawing on the racist undercurrents that always rise during periods of uncertainty, unrest, and change), gun advocates (pulling in huge numbers of rural and western voters), property-rights advocates (dipping into the traditional distrust of government bureaucracy), business advocates (offering a path forward to businesses increasingly pressed by foreign competition during an economic downturn), and more. And they’ve found ways to give everyone of these constituent groups immediate monetary, policy, and cultural-symbolic payoffs – further tightening their bonds to the government clique.

Most important, by wrapping themselves in the mantle of religion, the GOP leadership has made themselves a vehicle for the growing religious fundamentalist upsurge – parts of which can accurately be described as a fascist movement. Having god on your side means you are always right, no matter what other people may think or how events may fall out. You simply never have to say you are sorry, and all your failures are the result of evil forces beyond your control. Being on a Crusade, having an absolutist and deeply ideological sense of mission, also underpins the right wing’s willingness to use all the power at their command – legal and extra-legal – to push for a maximal agenda. No matter how thin their electoral margin of victory, once in office, they act without hesitation or compromise. They understand that success creates its own legitimacy and its own tailwind, pulling others along with it.

The scariest part is that the right wing lunatics feel that they’ll get away with it. Who remembers Afghanistan, or the absence of Iraqi’s supposed weapons of mass destruction? Who seems to care that our economy is collapsing? In the short term, Bush and company win not because of smarter strategies or brilliant tactics, but because they have access to overwhelming resources and power and they can simply outlast everyone and everything else. In fact, they are so incompetent and so blind to the complexities of the real world that they will make huge mistakes. So it is possible (but not inevitable) that the world situation will spin out of control and the small clique now running the country will have to pass the baton to others in 2004 or 2008. But we should not underestimate their willingness to keep imposing their will through direct (or indirect) force -- the racism, lies, manipulation, and violence used to secure the 2000 election are likely to be repeated or exceeded in coming years.

In any case, while I believe that whoever replaces Bush – either in the next election or in the one afterwards, either Republican or Democrat – will moderate W’s most extreme and obviously counterproductive actions, they are very unlikely to want or be able to reverse all the fundamental changes that he (as the culmination of a process that started with Ronald Reagan, or perhaps even earlier with Scoop Jackson) has so successfully pushed forward. Even if they wanted to go back to the pre-Bush status quo – which wasn’t so wonderful anyway – in politics, as in life, you can never go back. They will have to make their way forward using the “new world order” as their starting point. Already, European leaders who opposed the US invasion of Iraq are making their peace with the reality that the US went ahead anyway and with the overall agenda of which it is merely one expression.

We’re in for a long fight. We can’t pretend that merely exposing the power elite’s wrong doings or failures will cause their downfall. To survive, we need to find issues and movements that can provide some safe space, that uphold a different world view while not denying the new reality in which we live, that can win some concrete and meaningful small victories (which will require some new strategies) while projecting a vision of a more significant change. I think we’ll be dealing with defensive steps for a while to come. But if we’re lucky, we can keep a bit of the progressive spirit alive as kindling for the next wave of upsurge. And the bigger the oppositional movement we build the more likely we are to see significant changes. You never know…sometimes things change much quicker than we anticipate.

[RandomGuy]

This opinion piece really explains why I accept every opinion piece as a given fact without thinking for myself.

I like to read these pieces and believe everything I am told because otherwise I might have to take a more realistic view of the world. It is so much easier to be outraged about every little distortion of reality that is given to me by people with an axe to grind than to think for myself.

Anyhow, I offer the following column.



Democrats' impeachment agenda, a straw man argument in four-part harmony
By Jeff Kuhner

Mar 31, 2006


President Bush beware: Your supporters are slowly realizing that you really are a negligent president.

I would also like to say that since I really don't like democrats, I will take the actions and words of a few and pretend that everybody in the party believes that way.

The cool thing about this is that I can do it in such a way that it will excite the GOP base into thinking that they are threatened and get them to come out and vote based on a scary and highly unlikely scenario. Hell, it worked to sucker all the dumbasses into Iraq, I am sure it will work again to help my one-party government get re-elected despite the fact that they can't find their collective ass with both hands.

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!! Them democrats are out to get yer guns and give them to the terrorists too!!!

------------

Find this story at: http://www.steamingpileofcrap.com/opinion/columns/JeffKuhner/2006/03/31/192122.html

[gtownspur]

Feh, Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. There is no moral high ground to claim.


You're an idiot.

Prove that he was impeached for a blowjob and not perjury that was tied to a sexual harrasment lawsuit.

[Paulie]

You're an idiot.



Hey, shut up before I get Rocko to break your lips,
you good for nuthin' bum.

[ChumpDumper]

You're an idiot.

Prove that he was impeached for a blowjob and not perjury that was tied to a sexual harrasment lawsuit.LMAO, how many millions of taxpayer dollars went to that pissant little nothing of a case that was laughed out of the Senate?

$64 million - money well spent, right? I mean, it's not $251 billion, but it was a good start for you guys.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for ol' Bill to be prosecuted for those high crimes and misdemeanors. Tell me why that hasn't happened.

Prove that a meaningless perjury charge was worth $64 million of your money.

It's the $64 million question.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny, it's the first item in the Articles of Impeachment:

....William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee....

So I could have been more specific: He was impeached for lying about a blowjob. You certainly can't prove he wasn't.

[boutons_]

"impeached for lying about a blowjob"

why was he ever questioned about a blowjob, consensual sex between adults?

The Paula Jones case was dismissed.

=====================

dubya LIED: "I did not want (Iraq) war"

... dubya's huge advantage is that he/dickhead/Repugs have lied so much, so fatally (eg, US lives wasted in Iraq) that nobody expects them to tell the truth.

[Trainwreck2100]

So if the somehow impeach Bush, (which they won't), then Cheney takes over at the job he's doing anyway, what's the diff?

[boutons_]

"what's the diff?"

The disgrace of forcible removal from office. It would formalize/officialize dubya as totally failed president and administration.

But I really doubt dubya/dickhead/Repugs are bothered by something as nuanced and unmanly as public disgrace. They already wallow in disgrace, corruption, and dishonor, by definition, as professional politicians.

[Trainwreck2100]

"what's the diff?"

The disgrace of forcible removal from office. It would formalize/officialize dubya as totally failed president and administration.

But I really doubt dubya/dickhead/Repugs are bothered by something as nuanced and unmanly as public disgrace. They already wallow in disgrace, corruption, and dishonor, by definition, as professional politicians.


Exactly, GW will easily go down as one of the worst presidents, impeachment or not, so why waste tax payer money, and give him an early vacation.

[smeagol]

Funny how die hard Democrats think Clinton did nothing wrong. Getting his dick sucked by a twenty-something year old in the Oval Office (plus all the other cases where he was accused of indicent conduct, i.e. Flowers, Jones, etc) is OK judging by how some posters defend his actions.

[ChumpDumper]

Clinton did plenty wrong.

Nothing that would get him removed from office though.

Why compound it with a $64 million witch hunt?

[boutons_]

Clinton was an adult, Monica was an adult, sex was consensual.
Absolutely no one else's business what they did, or where they did it.
And it clearly wasn't illegal.

[smeagol]

Clinton was an adult, Monica was an adult, sex was consensual.
Absolutely no one else's business what they did, or where they did it.
And it clearly wasn't illegal.
So a married man having an affair is ok with boutons. And the fact this guy was the President is nobody's business, boutons adds.

Yeah, right.

As I said before, amazing the lenght some Democrats go to defend Clinton (same thing with Republicans and Bush).

[danyel]

Lying about getting a blow job vs lying about a country having WMD to invade it...yeah, almost the same thing...

The weird thing is how people on both sides believe they have some sort of superior morality, they believe themselves better just for having a different point of view...

[smeagol]

Lying about getting a blow job vs lying about a country having WMD to invade it...yeah, almost the same thing...

I never said they were the same kind of lies.

But they are both lies and people from both parties keep defending the indefensible (check boutons and any necon posts)

[boutons_]

smeagol, get off your holy-roller tricycle and simplistic, moral judgementalism.
And grow up.

Was what Clinton+Monica did ILLEGAL in Wash DC?

One doesn't impeach a President for a private, consensual sex act, no matter how tasteless or disliked.

[danyel]

Was what Clinton+Monica did ILLEGAL in Wash DC?

Isn't adultery illegal?

What was illegal is lying to the justice about it though. I believe thats why he got impeached for, but I might be wrong.

[Vashner]

Also sex with a subordinate in a government office. Remember this didn't happen in the residency. It happend in the executive office that's inside the oval. I think Laura sneaks around with a black light looking for cum stains on the wall...

[ChumpDumper]

This is a high crime and misdemeanor?

The Senate said no.

[Ocotillo]

Isn't adultery illegal?

What was illegal is lying to the justice about it though. I believe thats why he got impeached for, but I might be wrong.

Illegal? No. Immoral? Of course.

What Clinton was impeached for was politics plain and simple. Once the Republicans took control of the House in '94 the witch hunt began. Congress took it upon themselves to focus most of their energy into investigating the President for whatever, whatever they could get that would stick (no pun intended).

Ken Starr was hired and what began as an investigation into a land deal (Whitewater) evolved into a witch hunt going through Travelgate, Paula Jones, etc.... until Starr had is 64 million dollar prize.

The President was (is) a philanderer and he had the evidencer to prove it. Now getting a consensual blow job from an intern while disgusting is not an illegal act. Perjury is.

Adultrey is not illegal but it is damn uncomfortable when the spouse finds out about it and Starr knew if he could get Clinton to testify under oatch about this, one of two things would happen. If he fessed up, he faced public humiliation and probably private wrath. If he tried to avoid admission, Starr had his case.

That is what is so irritating about the whole Clinton impeachment thing to Democrats. Clearly it took four years and 64 million dollars to find something, anything to move forward with an attack on a Democratic president. Plain and simple, Hillary was not far off with her "vast right wing conspiracy" claim. The Republicans loathed Clinton and it became their mission to get him.

Let me add, as a Democrat I am irritated that Bill Clinton is a "hound dog". He damaged his legacy and his presidency by being one. During his term in office, the country enjoyed peace and prosperity. Without his wandering eye, he would have gone down as one of the great presidents of the 20th century.

Bill Clinton's lies were a lot less harmful to this country than George Bush's lies.

Censure is in order for this president. What he has done with the NSA probably meets the standards for impeachment but I tend not to support that because if he were to be removed from office, Cheney is there to take over and that if it's possible, would probably be even worse for the country.

[smeagol]

smeagol, get off your holy-roller tricycle and simplistic, moral judgementalism.
And grow up.

Hahaha!

Funny it's you telling me I'm simplistic when 99% of you posts are a "simple" Repugs/Shrub/Dickhead/Rove/ blah blah blah . . . with little content whatsoever but your blind hate.

"Moral judgementalist?"

Yes, I believe cheating on your wife is wrong. Sorry if that's too conservative for you.


Was what Clinton+Monica did ILLEGAL in Wash DC? No, it was wrong. What Clinton did when inquired by the Grand Jury was ilegal.

"I-did-not-have-sexual-relatioships-with-that-woman!" Remember that famous phrase? The dude was lying through his teeth and you think there is nothing wrong with that.


One doesn't impeach a President for a private, consensual sex act, no matter how tasteless or disliked.

Can you read the shit that I've been posting?. Show me where I mention the word "impeachement". I don't. You are so blind in your CLinton defence you lose persepective of what he did. At least chump admits Clinton did stuff that was wrong (I assume he includes under this category perjuring himself).

Again, you are another partisan idiot who will defend his party at all costs and attack whoever critizes the Democrats. You are no different than your imbecile nemesis, gtown. The funny thing is that you think I'm a Republican and that other asshole thinks I'm a Democrat, simply because I crtizice stuff from both sides of the political spectrum.

[smeagol]

Let me add, as a Democrat I am irritated that Bill Clinton is a "hound dog". He damaged his legacy and his presidency by being one. During his term in office, the country enjoyed peace and prosperity. Without his wandering eye, he would have gone down as one of the great presidents of the 20th century.

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

Excellent post altogether, Ocotillo.

Read and learn, boutons.

[Trainwreck2100]

Let me add, as a Democrat I am irritated that Bill Clinton is a "hound dog". He damaged his legacy and his presidency by being one. During his term in office, the country enjoyed peace and prosperity. Without his wandering eye, he would have gone down as one of the great presidents of the 20th century.

Have you seen his wife? There's no wonder he has to screw around, she's obviously a closet lesbian.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I believe this unecessary war demands someone be held accountbale for it. Unfortunately dumbya has blamed the UN, Democrats, and now the media for Iraq's becoming a mess. Dumbya and the boys have been trying to expand presidential powers and may have broken the law doing it. SO now we have a situation where the dems are criticized for trying to hold this administration accountable in some shape or fashion. We still have the Iraq war defenders supporting dumbya's plan 'victory'? We now know we will stay the course although no one has explained what this 'course' is.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hahaha!

Funny it's you telling me I'm simplistic when 99% of you posts are a "simple" Repugs/Shrub/Dickhead/Rove/ blah blah blah . . . with little content whatsoever but your blind hate.

"Moral judgementalist?"

Yes, I believe cheating on your wife is wrong. Sorry if that's too conservative for you.

No, it was wrong. What Clinton did when inquired by the Grand Jury was ilegal.

"I-did-not-have-sexual-relatioships-with-that-woman!" Remember that famous phrase? The dude was lying through his teeth and you think there is nothing wrong with that.



Can you read the shit that I've been posting?. Show me where I mention the word "impeachement". I don't. You are so blind in your CLinton defence you lose persepective of what he did. At least chump admits Clinton did stuff that was wrong (I assume he includes under this category perjuring himself).

Again, you are another partisan idiot who will defend his party at all costs and attack whoever critizes the Democrats. You are no different than your imbecile nemesis, gtown. The funny thing is that you think I'm a Republican and that other asshole thinks I'm a Democrat, simply because I crtizice stuff from both sides of the political spectrum.





My problem with this of charade of an independant investigator was why did it come to this? I mean Starr had been investigating Clinton going on 6 yrs..on a totally unrelated charge from the intial purpose of the investigation. So as a Dem I give slick Willy a pass.. he had his law license suspended and was impeached after 6 yrs of combing through his past. he paid his dues..Clinton did come on and admit he lied.. something our president would has not done yet whether with the wiretaps or his unecessary war..

[boutons_]

Bullshit. The Repugs and conservatives like Richard Mellon Scaife, unable to beat Clinton at the polls, conducted a witch hunt of the Clintons.

Sure they found stuff on Willie, but it was stuff that was incosequential to doing his job, and similar scorched-earth campaigns against any high official, Senator, Conrgressman would expose similar siht.

Even when impeached, Clinton (his govt, his policies, the person) were very high.

The vote to impeach in the Congress was the worst kind of cynical, hardball partisanship, distracting Clinton and country to absolutely no benefit except to embarrass and impede Clinton's otherwise highly successful presidency, as the Repug Senate went flaccid and couldn't finish the job.

Compare Clinton's record AS PRESIDENT with dubya's fucking on-going, fatal disaster.

[smeagol]

Bullshit. The Repugs and conservatives like Richard Mellon Scaife, unable to beat Clinton at the polls, conducted a witch hunt of the Clintons.

Sure they found stuff on Willie, but it was stuff that was incosequential to doing his job, and similar scorched-earth campaigns against any high official, Senator, Conrgressman would expose similar siht.

Even when impeached, Clinton (his govt, his policies, the person) were very high.

The vote to impeach in the Congress was the worst kind of cynical, hardball partisanship, distracting Clinton and country to absolutely no benefit except to embarrass and impede Clinton's otherwise highly successful presidency, as the Repug Senate went flaccid and couldn't finish the job.

Compare Clinton's record AS PRESIDENT with dubya's fucking on-going, fatal disaster.

You still don't get it. The point is not the impeachement, the point is he committed an inmoral act and he lied to the grand jury. You need to come to terms with that and stop comparing Clinton to Bush.

[boutons_]

"point is he committed an inmoral act"

still on your holy roller tricycle? Immoral, unethical does not equal illegal.

He lied yes, but the bigger crime was even asking him about his sex life.

If you think dubya is "moral" or "ethical", explain all the lies and 2000+ wasted US lives in Repug Iraq.

I'd much rather have Willie "gettting lip service" and no war in Iraq, rather than dubya "giving lip service" to being born-again "Christian" and all the dead in Iraq, Katriina, and general govt fuckups under him.

As long as one claims to be a "Christian", then any behavior is fine with other Christians, right?

[smeagol]

"point is he committed an inmoral act"

still on your holy roller tricycle?

What holy roller tricycle are you talking about? You fuck your mistress, you are an adulterer. And adultry is wrong. Plain and simple. What part of "adultry is wrong" you don't get?


Immoral, unethical does not equal illegal.

I never said it did. Re read my posts please. I said committing perjury is illegal.



He lied yes, but the bigger crime was even asking him about his sex life.

Huh?

So if I steal money from a store and the guy next to me robs that same store but in doing so kills the clerk, this somehow makes my crime right?

Flawed logic.


If you think dubya is "moral" or "ethical", explain all the lies and 2000+ wasted US lives in Repug Iraq.

I don't think some of the things Bush has done are moral or ethical. I think the reasons for going to war against Iraq have very weak legs to stand on. I've fought with necons on this board about this topic (mainly whottt), but as I said in a previous post, you are so dumb you must think I'm a necon myself.


I'd much rather have Willie "gettting lip service" and no war in Iraq, rather than dubya "giving lip service" to being born-again "Christian" and all the dead in Iraq, Katriina, and general govt fuckups under him.

Again you go off on a tangent comparing Clinton to Bush when I have stated many times that is not the point of my argument.


As long as one claims to be a "Christian", then any behavior is fine with other Christians, right?

Wrong and irrelevant to the discussion about fucking your mistress and lying to a grand jury. Again botones, you can't have an intelligent discussion about Clinton without bringing Bush into the picture.

[xrayzebra]

^^Guess it is okay for a President to talk on the phone while having oral sex
performed on him, oops, forgot oral intercourse is not sex. What a warped
sense of perception. And then lie to all of America and a Grand Jury. But
he was a great President according to those who defend him.

[Trainwreck2100]

^^Guess it is okay for a President to talk on the phone while having oral sex
performed on him, oops, forgot oral intercourse is not sex. What a warped
sense of perception. And then lie to all of America and a Grand Jury. But
he was a great President according to those who defend him.


Bush lied to the UN and America, if your calling Clinton a bad president for lying to millions, aren't you doing the same for Bush?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So now we are parsing words in that immorality when it pertains to prejury is more serious (morally) than misleading a country into an unecessary war? So then it would be safe to assume that Clinton's perjury is far worse than the unecessary war?

[smeagol]

^^Guess it is okay for a President to talk on the phone while having oral sex
performed on him, oops, forgot oral intercourse is not sex. What a warped
sense of perception. And then lie to all of America and a Grand Jury. But
he was a great President according to those who defend him.
There's morons on the left and there you :rolleyes

Clinton was a great president, even with his flaws.