narcimund 0 #51 January 14, 2007 You dance beautifully. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #52 January 14, 2007 QuoteYou dance beautifully. Why thank you! You should see my Salsa! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #53 January 14, 2007 Quote"However, I hope that if found not guilty then you guys would stop the bashing." Clinton was found not guilty in the way DaVinci was using the term; the bashing goes on to this day. Close but not right. I hope that if Bush is found not guilty of the crime of lying to lead us to war then you will quit saying he did. I still claim Billy lied under oath since he DID lie under oath and admitted to it. If Bush goes to trial about Iraq and gets accuited, you could still claim he had a DUI since he actually did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spudboy 0 #54 January 14, 2007 in 1994 starr was appointed to investigate whitewater, how that turned into so many unrelated issues is what is so pathetic, regardless of all the other allegations youve listed, the bottom line is Clinton got bj, get over it. Im very interested to see what investigations into how our tax dollars have been spent in iraq turn up. With our leaders spending over a billion$ a day over there someones going to certainly get caught with their dick hanging out for sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #55 January 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteI understand that clinton manipulating the truth about a bj is far more serious than anything the current administration has or ever will do, but can anyone explain to me how an investigation into a failed savings and loan resulted in the POTUS being required to discuss his sex life under oath? Starr's investigation was not about the Whitewater scandal. It was about sexual harrasment. He didn't just lie about getting a blowjob, he was also tampering with witnesses - from the official report: ... . Oh, official report! Is that as accurate as the official reports that Iraq had WMDs?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #56 January 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteI understand that clinton manipulating the truth about a bj is far more serious than anything the current administration has or ever will do, but can anyone explain to me how an investigation into a failed savings and loan resulted in the POTUS being required to discuss his sex life under oath? Starr's investigation was not about the Whitewater scandal. It was about sexual harrasment. . In August 1994 Starr was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had been appointed by the Attorney General prior to the reenactment of the Independent Counsel law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #57 January 14, 2007 >He was guilty, that's not bashing it's a statement of fact and only >the dishonest or ignorant would deny it. Then look for exactly the same sort of rhetoric from the left over Bush for the next few decades. "Sure, he wasn't actually FOUND guilty, but only a dishonest, ignorant fool would deny he was." Welcome to your own version of Monicagate. Except this time it involves 3000 dead american soldiers, not just a philandering politician. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #58 January 14, 2007 QuoteLive poll at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/ A whopping 87% want impeachment. And a whopping 0% of conservatives patronize MSNBC, clearly the most liberally slanted cable news network. I'm sure you can find even higher numbers on Randi Rhode's website. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #59 January 14, 2007 QuoteWelcome to your own version of Monicagate. Except this time it involves 3000 dead american soldiers, not just a philandering politician. One really big difference. We have proof Clinton had an affair. We have proof he lied under oath. You have nothing, but make the claim anyway. Then you defend Clintons actions by saying they are not as bad as Bush's...However, you STILL can't prove any wrong doing by Bush. So you are convicting Bush without evidence. And defending Clinton against evidence. Like I said before, I WELCOME an investigation, even an impeachment trial. And again I state that if he is found guilty, I will join with you to seek punishment. I also hope that if found not guilty you will drop your accusations that were found false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #60 January 14, 2007 QuoteWe have proof he lied under oath. Except that the judge had ruled that for the purposes of the hearing, the term "sexual relations" means sexual intercourse. Whether you agree with that ruling or not, that is the rule under which they were operating. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #61 January 14, 2007 >One really big difference. We have proof Clinton had an affair. We have >proof he lied under oath. Sorry, there was an impeachment, and it failed. Per our legal system, he was found NOT guilty of any crime sufficient to remove him from office. >So you are convicting Bush without evidence. And defending Clinton against evidence. I am not "convicting" Bush of anything. I don't need to defend Clinton from anything. He did that himself and was found not guilty of the crimes mentioned above. You can call him names for the rest of your life if it makes you feel better; it will not change the outcome of the impeachment against him. >I also hope that if found not guilty you will drop your accusations that were found false. Why would anyone do that, if you yourself are unwilling to do the same? Set the example and _then_ see if people follow your lead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #62 January 14, 2007 QuoteWhy would anyone do that, if you yourself are unwilling to do the same? Set the example and _then_ see if people follow your lead. Davinci wants his opponents to be voluntarily handicapped by morals and consistency. That would be convenient for him. It's equally convenient for him NOT to be handicapped by morals or consistency. The combination would give him the most sheer muscle power advantage over his opponents. And might makes right, right? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #63 January 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteWelcome to your own version of Monicagate. Except this time it involves 3000 dead american soldiers, not just a philandering politician. One really big difference. We have proof Clinton had an affair. We have proof he lied under oath. You have nothing, but make the claim anyway. Then you defend Clintons actions by saying they are not as bad as Bush's...However, you STILL can't prove any wrong doing by Bush. So you are convicting Bush without evidence. And defending Clinton against evidence. Like I said before, I WELCOME an investigation, even an impeachment trial. And again I state that if he is found guilty, I will join with you to seek punishment. I also hope that if found not guilty you will drop your accusations that were found false. I can forgive lying under oath about a blow job. I can't forgive lying (even when not under oath) in order to invade a country that results in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi people and American soldiers. If you have to have a guilty verdict in order to be convinced that he lied, then you haven't been paying attention. There's a plethora of evidence.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #64 January 14, 2007 QuoteQuote"However, I hope that if found not guilty then you guys would stop the bashing." Clinton was found not guilty in the way DaVinci was using the term; the bashing goes on to this day. Close but not right. I hope that if Bush is found not guilty of the crime of lying to lead us to war then you will quit saying he did. I still claim Billy lied under oath since he DID lie under oath and admitted to it. If Bush goes to trial about Iraq and gets accuited, you could still claim he had a DUI since he actually did.Only prob. is Bush/Cheney won't take an oath. Excecutive privilege don't ya know? Can't reveal any STATE secrets don't ya know (unless it benifits him/them)? Gotta keep you safe, don't ya know? It's all for your own good young man.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #65 January 14, 2007 QuoteOnly prob. is Bush/Cheney won't take an oath. Excecutive privilege don't ya know? Can't reveal any STATE secrets don't ya know (unless it benifits him/them)? Gotta keep you safe, don't ya know? It's all for your own good young man. Then turn them over to the WORLD COURT in the Hague.... they have b een good at finding ways to circumvent far too many American Law.. let them try it on the world stage. AND t just to make sure the court gets the truth.. send ALL of the Administrations assholes who perpetrated this crap on the world as well. ITs called conspiracy.... remember.. that whole just following orders thing did not work out so good last time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #66 January 14, 2007 QuoteThat 87% in favor number is obviously skewed due to the nature of the questions asked: QuoteYes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. MSNBC should be put on trial for journalistic malpractice. The question is obviously leading - "between the" clearly implies presumption of guilt. A proper question would have said that he has been accused of... I think the results of a poll should always be shown with the exact question asked so that such bullshit can be identified. Are you suggesting the government has not engaged in secret spying under this administration? By definition isn't ALL spying supposed to be "secret"? Or are you suggesting there were not deceptions leading up to the war (note the question did not specify whether deception was intentional)? Edit to add...even if the option were biased, I'm pretty sure the last option ("the man has done nothing wrong") cancels it out. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #67 January 14, 2007 Although I have little doubt that the United States would be a lot better off without Bush/Cheney at the helm, I would not support an impeachment proceeding. What should happen is this: Congress should pass a bill requiring US troops to leave Iraq by a certain date/under certain circumstances, per their powers under Article 1, Sec 8 clauses 11-16 of the constitution. If Bush vetoes it, override the veto. If he still refuses to follow a valid law passed by Congress, then impeach him for an obvious violation of US law. There won't be much question about guilt vs innocence in that case. In the meantime, a congressional censure would be more appropriate. You censure presidents for stupidity, dishonesty and incompetence. You impeach them for serious crimes. Lying isn't a serious crime for politicians (unfortunately.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #68 January 14, 2007 QuoteExcept that the judge had ruled that for the purposes of the hearing, the term "sexual relations" means sexual intercourse. Then why did he get fined 90,000 and get disbared if he did nothing wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #69 January 14, 2007 QuoteSorry, there was an impeachment, and it failed. Per our legal system, he was found NOT guilty of any crime sufficient to remove him from office. You keep just ignoring that he pleaded out one day before he left office. "In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[10] Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote: "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [11] In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [12]" All I have ever said was he lied under oath. Which is true. QuoteI am not "convicting" Bush of anything. No, but you are making claims with no proof. I ahve proof of my claims. QuoteI don't need to defend Clinton from anything Then why are you always doing it? QuoteWhy would anyone do that, if you yourself are unwilling to do the same? Set the example and _then_ see if people follow your lead. All I have done is state fact, you state conjecture. Like I said, you could say Bush got a DUI. I would not disagree nor defend it. But you keep making accusations with nothing to back it up then defend Clinton when he was in fact been proven to have lied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #70 January 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteExcept that the judge had ruled that for the purposes of the hearing, the term "sexual relations" means sexual intercourse. Then why did he get fined 90,000 and get disbared if he did nothing wrong? Clinton's mistake was NOT saying "I'm sorry, I can't recall" like Reagan and his cronies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #71 January 14, 2007 QuoteDavinci wants his opponents to be voluntarily handicapped by morals and consistency. That would be convenient for him. Not even close, I just want people like you to be able to back what they say, or quit saying it. Again I am FOR the impeachment. Like I said I just hope if nothing is found that people like you will only quote facts, not continue to try and state accusations as fact. But you are free to continue to think otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #72 January 14, 2007 QuoteI can forgive lying under oath about a blow job. I can't forgive lying (even when not under oath) in order to invade a country that results in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi people and American soldiers. Then you are willing to admit to a double standard. QuoteIf you have to have a guilty verdict in order to be convinced that he lied, then you haven't been paying attention. There's a plethora of evidence. Then it should be easy to provide the proof in a court then? So far no one has been able to provide proof. And if nothing comes from it, will you then drop it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #73 January 14, 2007 QuoteAnd if nothing comes from it, will you then drop it? You mean drop it in exactly the way YOU AREN'T? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #74 January 14, 2007 QuoteIn the meantime, a congressional censure would be more appropriate. You censure presidents for stupidity, dishonesty and incompetence. You impeach them for serious crimes. Lying isn't a serious crime for politicians (unfortunately.) How would a censure work? Just a vote, or would there be a "trial"? A censure could just be a political tactic if there is not a "trial". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #75 January 14, 2007 QuoteYou mean drop it in exactly the way YOU AREN'T? All I am doing is stating a fact. I am sorry if that is inconvenient for your beliefs. Of course you may not have an issue with a guy lying under oath. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
