DaVinci 0
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,470
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Even the hint of a republican doing something wrong is front page news
>and the dems scream for them to be put to death. Yet they over look their
>own problems and even promote the people involved.
Quite right. In other words, overlooking some philosophical differences, they are quite similar to republicans. They just haven't had as much opportunity to get themselves in trouble since they've been out of power.
>and the dems scream for them to be put to death. Yet they over look their
>own problems and even promote the people involved.
Quite right. In other words, overlooking some philosophical differences, they are quite similar to republicans. They just haven't had as much opportunity to get themselves in trouble since they've been out of power.
The teflon shield to which I refer is what is perceived by most voters as morally correct political character.(which is total bullshit to begin with)
The dems can scream all they want for blood but nothing sticks to republicans in the voters mind because the Republicans own the market on moral correctness and have for some time since Bill Clintons stupid and unfortunate lack of good judgment.
The reason we argue so much about this crap is because it does have a bearing on who gets to make the policy we all have to live by after the next election.
Speaking of characters- Hamilton was a military hell cat who had an affair during his tenure and his reputation DID suffer(The teflon shield was not yet developed) he regularly bled himself in the white house to try to heal the bullet wounds he got from a number of pistol duels -Imagine trying to censure that mo fo.
The dems can scream all they want for blood but nothing sticks to republicans in the voters mind because the Republicans own the market on moral correctness and have for some time since Bill Clintons stupid and unfortunate lack of good judgment.
The reason we argue so much about this crap is because it does have a bearing on who gets to make the policy we all have to live by after the next election.
Speaking of characters- Hamilton was a military hell cat who had an affair during his tenure and his reputation DID suffer(The teflon shield was not yet developed) he regularly bled himself in the white house to try to heal the bullet wounds he got from a number of pistol duels -Imagine trying to censure that mo fo.
Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415
D S #3.1415
DaVinci 0
QuoteQuite right. In other words, overlooking some philosophical differences, they are quite similar to republicans. They just haven't had as much opportunity to get themselves in trouble since they've been out of power.
I think they have had the opportunity, but since they were not in power it just didn't make great news.
But I really wonder why the dems have ignored what Jefferson did? I mean he was caught on video and he was found with 90 grand in the freezer?
billvon 2,470
>But I really wonder why the dems have ignored what Jefferson did? I
>mean he was caught on video and he was found with 90 grand in the freezer?
Same reason the GOP is ignoring the investigations into Frist I suppose.
>mean he was caught on video and he was found with 90 grand in the freezer?
Same reason the GOP is ignoring the investigations into Frist I suppose.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteOn what charge?
This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months.
I agree - You could impeach him, but on what charge? Goofing up Iraq? Being in a League with the Oil Barrons? Sounding Stupid?
Sheesh - at least when they Impeached Clinton, they had something concrete against him, like lying under oath. You got nothing on Bushy other than the fact you don't like him.
Usurpation of power, lying to Congress, just need a Dem version of a Ken Starr and go fishing. See, with these investigations, that's what they are doing, but Bush has learned to not go under oath at first, let the lies hit and see what doesn't wash; change those.
If the Dems can go fishing as the Repubs did, theywill find plenty. But doing ti the way our criminal in chief wants insulates him from that and makes him only liable for teh things we can independently proove.
Lucky... 0
QuoteUsing WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq was based on faulty intell, the same intell that other countries had and that members of congress had access to.
Not according to Ken Mehlman, RNC chair. He said n Meet the press that Congress had teh exact same intel...... a bit of Russert's evidecne...... Congress had basically the same intel..... Under oath, we could finish breaking that myth.
QuoteRemember, Hillary herself said we could not stand by and do nothing if we had reasonable cause to believe Iraq did have those WMDs and she subsequently voted to go to war.
After she received, "basically the same intel." Uh, I think if they investigate and draw all of teh intel that was then available and cherry-picked, I think we would see that turn to no where near all of teh intel and establish he suppressed intel.
QuoteYou would be hard pressed to prove Bush intentionally misled congress about WMDs, and though he has made a lot of bonehead decisions that in itself is nothing near an impeachable offense.
I think Mehlman has spliied the beans. We knew CLinton was a liar about the sex scandals and we know Bush is a liar about the WMD's. We knew Reagan-Bush traded arms for hostages. We also know that OJ killed his wife and friend, as Blake killed his wife. All we have to do is grill the Bushies and get our fish.....
QuoteIf anything, "censure and move on" would be the best course if congress wants to do something.
The world, other than US neo-cons felt the same about Clinton and the sex scandals, but the neo-con Congressmen decided to press on. Can't bitch when your party set the tone.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI keep wondering how this "goofball" "too stupid to tie his shoes" succeeded in fooling most all of congress who has some of the brightest minds in history (Hilary
) that Iraq had WMD when he "knew" the intel was faulty.
Was he stupid or smart? You can't have it both ways.
The country was under this mass dose of temp patriotism after 911. Then Bush came in and lied to Congress by suppressing intel and only showing the data that supported this silly notion that Iraq had WMD's. Does it take a genius to not reveal all of the intel? I think not.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteOn what charge?
I am no fan of Bush, but I was wondering the same thing.
Usurpation of power, lying to Congress.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteA recent AOL poll just showed that 62% said yes he sould if he keeps the Iraq idiocy going.
This is the problem I have with these things. The poll is suggesting that he wasn't wrong in doing it, but just keeping it going is impeachable.
Huh? Is it a high crime or misdemeanor? Or is it just a policy for which 62 percent of the public are unhappy?
There may be other reasons for impeachment, but not if he "keeps" his Iraq policy.
----> There may be other reasons for impeachment, but not if he "keeps" his Iraq policy. That's a political question - not a criminal one.
Good, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one; fits perfectly.
As for the poll, it denotes a bit of a mob mentality, I agree. It misses teh obviosu point that Bush lied to Congress to get them agree to go to war and fund it. Perhaps a tit for tat from the Lewinsy idiocy.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteProbably has to do with lieing to congress about WMD's.
Well, who can tell? You can poll people on an incorrect question, but the results only prove GIGO. If the polling is accurate, more people are in favor of impeachment than who actually voted in the last election.
Apples/oranges, who knows what percentage of the last election voters voted in this poll. This poll is remotely scientific, but I bet if you took the same poll from a cross-section of AMerica the results would be similar.
QuoteThe difference is that the conservatives didn't focus on this. They did not focus on the readily apparent difference between two consenting adults and the head of government with an intern.
The move on Clinton was focused on the moral - not the legal. On that basis, the conservatives blew it, no pun intended.
ROTFLMAO, Lawrocket!*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}
Lucky... 0
Quote
No, it would just waste a huge amount of congessional time and taxpayers' money, like the GOP did with Clinton.
Best way to deal with him is to render him incapable of doing further damage by the use of the pursestrings.
Yep, oh well, Cogress would just be arguing over something else anyway. One benefit of an impeachment and failed removal would be that of healing relationships with the rest of the world. We would show that the voters elected Reps who were sick of this assfuck criminal, so they tried to remove him. The world would realize the idiocy is just a remote part of America and not the entirety.
Not true at all. The Dems have done the SAME things they claim the repubs are doing yet they do nothing.
Case in point: Patrick Kennedy crashed his car while high in DC...Yet the dems jump all over Rush.
William Jefferson was caught on tape taking a 100,000 bribe. He was found with 90,000 in a freezer. Yet he was just appointed by Pelosi to a big commitee.
Even the hint of a republican doing something wrong is front page news and the dems scream for them to be put to death. Yet they over look their own problems and even promote the people involved.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites