Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

On 22 Dec 2005 22:09:56 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 22 Dec 2005 15:07:18 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

They managed to get him, though, over a blowjob in
a round room.

Ah, you are unsuccessfully trying to rewrite history, Scott. He was
impeached for perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice.
He was *disbarred* because he was guilty of both offenses. The
Senate, however, did the right thing. A conviction of a sitting
president would do more harm than it would good, IMO.

Dave





And the perjury and obstruction of justice were over .... a blowjob.

Oh, I see. It is ok for a Dem president to lie under oath, but Joe
Slobbo that does it goes to jail. There were any number of people in
jail at the time because they perjured themselves over a similar
incident. Because he got caught lying over a blowjob or stealing or
selling stuff to the chicoms doesn't matter. He lied under oath, and
obstructed justice and those are impeachable offenses. If you can
find Bush did the same, I would be for *his* impeachment.

You are a Jew. Do you think God's Word in His Ten Commandments are
each rated on a scale , i.e. stealing is a greater offense than lying,
and lying is a greater offense than adultery, etc. (Other than the
most important Commandment, #1) Whether he lied under oath and
obstructed justic over sex, or money, or whatever, he *WAS* guilty,
and the Senate should have convicted him. As I've said, I am glad
they did not. No one in such a high position has ever been disbarred.
That alone should tell you something. Ask our resident lawyers what
would happen if THEY got caught lying under oath.

Bush has been lying to the American people and the world since he said
"I'm a uniter, not a divider". He hasn't committed perjury, because he
hasn't been under oath. He may have obstructed justice, depending on
what he's said in various investigations.

Prove he has broken any law. And then ask your Congressman to impeach
him. If he has broken the law he *should* be impeached. And I will
be in your corner if you prove it.

At the moment, he's ineffectual. He couldn't keep that pig Stevens from
slipping ANWR drilling into an unrelated bill, so the Defense
appropriation is still hanging. He couldn't bring through the Patriot
Act renewal-- he couldn't even get the House to rubberstamp the 6-month
face-saving extension that was arrived at. He couldn't make the Times
quash an unfavorable story. He can't stop Republican leaders from
calling for hearings on his abuse of the Constitution. He couldn't kill
Social Security. He's spinning out of control, and if we can get him out
of office, maybe something could get done.

Your bias is showing, or should I say hate.

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

On 22 Dec 2005 22:18:33 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

If he lied to Congress about the intelligence he was holding so he could
start a war, he should go to prison. If he usurped power not granted
to him by the Constitution he swore to protect and uphold, he should be
booted from office.

The first sensible things you have said, and I agree 100%.

But yet you would let Clinton walk because he *did not* uphold the
same Constitution. You are either a hypocrite or a Bush hater of the
worse degree. I would bet on "both".

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:29:01 GMT, "Thomas Littleton"
wrote:

Al Qaeda today, and who tomorrow, Dave? That is the whole point.

Why not ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed. They *both* knew about it.
Ask them who's next. Both Carter and Clinton did similar things
during their administrations.

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:37:08 GMT, "Thomas Littleton"
wrote:

Some oversight, huh?

And that is whose fault?
Try C o n g r e s s.

We have never heard of an "Enemies of George's" list, yet we *have*
heard of an "enemies of Bill's" list and laws were broken because of
it. I can't remember - were you so indignant then as you are now, or
is it because it is a Republican and not Gore/Kerry in office? A
little hypocricy goes a long way, Tom.

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
snip
We have never heard of an "Enemies of George's" list, yet we *have*
heard of an "enemies of Bill's" list and laws were broken because of
it. ...

Somebody has substituted stupid pills for your One-A-Days.
The Shrub administration is by far meaner, more vindictive,
more secretive and less tolerant of dissent than any in our
history.

Is it even possible for the whackjobs of the right to talk
politics *without* invoking the name "Clinton" ? No need to
answer, rhetorical question.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

The first sensible things you have said, and I agree 100%.

But yet you would let Clinton walk because he *did not* uphold the
same Constitution. You are either a hypocrite or a Bush hater of the
worse degree. I would bet on "both".





Let's do this one more time. Clinton lied about a blowjob. Many believe
that Bush lied about intelligence he had in his pocket so he could start
a war. If the last turns out to be true, these are not the same crimes.
Clinton's actions trashed Monica's dress, Bush's resulted in the death of
2,000 American citizens and 30,000 Iraqi bystanders.

I believe around the age of 7 is when children who are asked about a
situation where a hungry person with no means steals a loaf of bread to
feed himself or family starts to differentiate, flipping from "stealing
is wrong" to "maybe stealing isn't always wrong".

Bush Senior (remember the "I don't know nothing about selling no weapons
to Iran" Bush?), when asked if he were having an affair, pointed out in
no uncertain terms that it was wrong of the press to ask that question.

To follow up on your earlier question, I firmly believe that some sins
are worse than others. Stealing the hard-earned money of the American
working class to give it to your buddies is worse than lying under oath
about a blowjob, or cheating on your wife. So is cherry picking
intelligence to start a war. So is rounding up Middle Easterners in the
US, and holding them uncharged and incommunicado. So is letting poor
people get even poorer trying to keep warm while the oil companies rape
them. All of those are higher up in the list of sins than spying on
American citizens, but if that's what we can get him on, so be it.
That's how the right treated Clinton's blowjob, and that's how I'm
looking at this.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
bruiser wrote:

current "conservative" fiscal policy! I remember years and years of

There are very few fiscal conservatives left in the GOP. Just
as there are very few environmental conservatives. A sad state
indeed.

Jon.

That unfortunately is correct. The American two party system has become too
ideological. Ideological parties, such as the Communists and the Birchers
and now the Neo conservatives and Friends have always attempted to seize
control of the two major umbrella parties as well as associations of
employers and Unions. In the American tradition, the "isims" were relegated
to third order positions, i.e. interests were traditionally articulated and
integrated and aggregated with many other interests into a basically
conserVING platform and policy set WITHIN THE PARTIES. Consequently, both
parties would offer a core of policies that represented an overlapping
national consensus on many important issues, with the main differences being
marginal differences in how and who and how fast the core policies would be
implemented.

Communist attempts to gain control of the labor movement were successfully
fought off in the 1940s and 50s, and similar efforts within the Democratic
party went nowhere, despite the conspiracy wet dreams of the Right. Similar
attempts by American Fascists in the R party in the late 1930s went nowhere.
And both parties, Ds and Rs, retained their essentially "big tent" American
character.

This has never set well with ideologues of either the left or the right, nor
with much of the country's educated elite. Many educated Americans, lacking
a practical understanding of the stability and (dare I say it) genius of our
system, said, and still say that the European parliamentary systems, with
their multiple ideological parties and proportional representation made more
sense and had more clarity. So the ground for an ideological takeover was
fertile.

In my opinion, a lot of our problem right now is the result of the capture
of ONE, the Republican, party by a strictly ideological far right party:
literally a party within a party. The Moderate majority within this party
have nowhere to go. They are not organized enough to re-capture their
Republican Party, and they are loath to join the Democrats who they see as
tainted. I don't think these are generally people who will acknowledge the
reform that the Ds have gone through, nor are they likely to have a stomach
for the endless internal squabbles through which the Democrats balance out
all the different interests under the big tent. Consequently I am not
sanguine over the prospects for some shift of moderate Rs into the D column.

Dave
Much too long but . . . .
Ideology sucks

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message

Oh, I see. It is ok for a Dem president to lie under oath, but Joe
Slobbo that does it goes to jail.

Like "Joe Slobbo" gets called upon to discuss oral sex under oath.


He lied under oath, and
obstructed justice and those are impeachable offenses. If you can
find Bush did the same, I would be for *his* impeachment.

Well, proof aplenty on number two. Please, implore those GOP Congressmen to
get on it. Quick. Please. As for lying, it thus far seems to have been
limited to baldly lying to the American public.


as for hate showing, when does the statute of Limitations on pointing at
Bill Clinton and going "lookee there" go into effect? That one is getting
pretty old to be using as your fiddle whilst Rome burns.

Tom

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

"Thomas Littleton" wrote in
news:nvHqf.58015$Ht4.20931@trnddc08:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message

Oh, I see. It is ok for a Dem president to lie under oath, but Joe
Slobbo that does it goes to jail.

Like "Joe Slobbo" gets called upon to discuss oral sex under oath.


He lied under oath, and
obstructed justice and those are impeachable offenses. If you can
find Bush did the same, I would be for *his* impeachment.

Well, proof aplenty on number two. Please, implore those GOP
Congressmen to get on it. Quick. Please. As for lying, it thus far
seems to have been limited to baldly lying to the American public.


as for hate showing, when does the statute of Limitations on pointing
at Bill Clinton and going "lookee there" go into effect? That one is
getting pretty old to be using as your fiddle whilst Rome burns.

Tom





Maybe we can switch off between that and Chappaquiddick to ease the
tedium.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Germans and Englishmen in the news
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message Some
oversight, huh?

And that is whose fault?
Try C o n g r e s s.

why is it their fault, given what I just spelled out for you.

We have never heard of an "Enemies of George's" list, yet we *have*
heard of an "enemies of Bill's" list and laws were broken because of
it. I can't remember - were you so indignant then as you are now, or
is it because it is a Republican and not Gore/Kerry in office? A
little hypocricy goes a long way, Tom.


hypocrisy my ass, as I clearly stated then that if proven, he should be
punished. They were investigated to death, nothing came of it, it is over.
Investigated by the opposition party, I might add, something you don't see
much of any more as that isn't allowed........like Scott said, it all came
down to a lie over sex. Bull**** stuff, compared to the stuff brought up
here about Bush. Don't you view the sacrifice of the rights and freedoms of
American citizens, treatment of military prisoners, lying to go to war, etc,
on a different plane, David??
Tom