Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Oh man....This is just too good....:lamo As if liberal progressives are somehow smarter, more enlightened, and repubs are just too damned dumb not to do as they say....*shakes head*... Wow!
You attribute his impeachment proceeding to partisanship ? Seriously ? He lied under Oath, committed perjury, something that would get our average American citizen in a whole bunch of hot water.
High crimes and misdemeanors....for Republicans only right ?
Lying under oath, that's pretty much okay in your book? Yes, it was the House that was wrong here, not Clinton. That about right?
Most Presidents don't have to testify in court for these types of offenses.
I'm not sure you're point here! You type something mockingly in your first couple of sentences then basically type something I agree with.
You are right...most Presidents don't have to testify about infidelity in court...because no American gives a ****! Some of the most popular Presidents in US history were having affairs in office. So Congressional Republicans asked a question they should of never asked that has no bearing on Clinton's duty to the American people and...yes a man lied about an affair!
So sure...yes he lied under oath...but as I mentioned in another post...I could easily compile a list of questions for any Republican President that would make him lie out of embarrassment/hiding a person fact.
The fact is...Congressional Republicans acted like dicks and looked like dicks during this whole fiasco. In history books people will guffaw at how ****ing nutty Republicans were (assuming they become respectable agains).
So wrong. You focus on the irrelevant, like other Presidents affairs, when the material fact is that he lied under oath. Other Presidents didn't. I am pretty sure it will be the perp, Clinton, that will be remembered as an abuser of women.
Rubbish. First of all everybody lies during a deposition, since by its nature there's a dispute and the two sides disagree. If you sought perjury charges against every businessman who was deposed and said "I didn't breach that contract" half of America's CEOs would be in jail.
Second, the deposition was so friggin' weird, with the inept judge allowing a freakish and incoherent definition of "sex" which went on for two pages. God only knows what the question meant. Clinton had no duty to make sense out of the garbled nonsense.
The impeachment was pure politics, funded by rightwing loonies who set up the Paula Jones case with the help of an inept and biased judge.
But I am disappointed that the Democrats didn't impeach Bush. The GOP needs to be punished.
So wrong. You focus on the irrelevant, like other Presidents affairs, when the material fact is that he lied under oath. Other Presidents didn't. I am pretty sure it will be the perp, Clinton, that will be remembered as an abuser of women.
And the point of my post was to point out the false claim that: "Obama has also ignored the mid-1990s welfare-reform law, allowing states to strip the “work” out of workfare"The point of the article is the lawlessness of BHO's means of effecting the change, not the details thereof.
Ah, the "everbody does it" excuse, like a 3rd grader. Grow up.Rubbish. First of all everybody lies during a deposition, since by its nature there's a dispute and the two sides disagree. If you sought perjury charges against every businessman who was deposed and said "I didn't breach that contract" half of America's CEOs would be in jail.
Oh, it was weird. Another great one. You should have called his lawyers before he got disbarred, I'm sure that would have saved him.Second, the deposition was so friggin' weird, with the inept judge allowing a freakish and incoherent definition of "sex" which went on for two pages. God only knows what the question meant. Clinton had no duty to make sense out of the garbled nonsense.
What? Politics in Washington??? You've got to be kidding!The impeachment was pure politics, funded by rightwing loonies who set up the Paula Jones case with the help of an inept and biased judge.
You are like the republicans that want Obama impeached. Not happening. Please detail how Bush would have been impeached, because it was not possible.But I am disappointed that the Democrats didn't impeach Bush. The GOP needs to be punished.
The point of the article is the lawlessness of BHO's means of effecting the change, not the details thereof.
And the point of my post was to point out the false claim that: "Obama has also ignored the mid-1990s welfare-reform law, allowing states to strip the “work” out of workfare"
You know, the statement you with which you ended your post?
It wasn't lawless. This discretion was granted by Congress.
Facts say otherwise, though I know you're not a fan of facts when they get in the way of your propaganda.Yes, and you were incorrect again.
Facts say otherwise, though I know you're not a fan of facts when they get in the way of your propaganda.
Except that's not what we were talking about just now. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed.I'm just not prepared uncritically to accept the Executive's justification for its unilateral actions.
Except that's not what we were talking about just now. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed.
Please stick to one topic or the other, that way I know on which one I need to obliterate you.
You have. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed. You were wrong on that.I have not switched topics.
You do not accept what Congress themselves wrote. Interesting.I do not accept that Congress granted the Executive the unilateral authority to alter the requirements of the welfare reform law.
For argument's sake, let's say this is true. If they have backed down, then they did not act lawlessly, even if they so desired. Thus your entire premise is blown up.I believe the Executive wanted to act lawlessly, but has been forced (thus far) to back down.eace
You have. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed. You were wrong on that.
You do not accept what Congress themselves wrote. Interesting.
For argument's sake, let's say this is true. If they have backed down, then they did not act lawlessly, even if they so desired. Thus your entire premise is blown up.
Again, pick one topic and stick with it. I can destroy you on either one.
Uh, yes, he is. What a ridiculous thing to say. One is only a criminal if one violates the law.When a criminal is dissuaded from crime by security measures, he is no less a criminal.eace
Uh, yes, he is. What a ridiculous thing to say. One is only a criminal if one violates the law.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Uh, yes, he is. What a ridiculous thing to say. One is only a criminal if one violates the law.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
You simply could have answered "no" and saved yourself some time twisting yourself into a pretzel.When I use the word "criminal" that means a person with a history of criminal acts. Now, please return to the topic.
You simply could have answered "no" and saved yourself some time twisting yourself into a pretzel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?