And as you can see by Balta's timeline, there's always a "good" reason or justification for the Democrats to do what they need to do. Now those evil Re-pube-licans on the other hand... they're shady as all get out, and they need to be examined, you know, the full anal probe.

 

You seem to forget that Clinton was impeached for a lot of the same thing.

You seem to forget that Clinton was impeached for a lot of the same thing.

 

As he should have been. And, might I add, as Bush should be.

 

I'm actually OK with that. Although I don't think what Clinton did was removable. But I can understand the need to fully investigate and prosecute any legitimate violation of the power of the office.

 

I think that the Bush administration should definitely be fully investigated for a number of things. These investigations by Congress have been sadly not coming along nearly as quickly or with as much force as the GOP hacks like to claim, and they haven't been nearly as thorough as I'd personally like them to be.

I'm actually OK with that. Although I don't think what Clinton did was removable. But I can understand the need to fully investigate and prosecute any legitimate violation of the power of the office.

 

I think that the Bush administration should definitely be fully investigated for a number of things. These investigations by Congress have been sadly not coming along nearly as quickly or with as much force as the GOP hacks like to claim, and they haven't been nearly as thorough as I'd personally like them to be.

 

These investigations by Congress are not happening because they think Bush will impose martial law and invalidate the constitution. And I wouldn't put it past the Son of a b****. In fact, I'm not sure this presidential campaign will amount to a hill of beans, and if someone else does in fact move into the White House, it'll be more of the same. Regardless of party.

Edited November 20, 200718 yr by YASNY

I'm actually OK with that. Although I don't think what Clinton did was removable. But I can understand the need to fully investigate and prosecute any legitimate violation of the power of the office.

 

I think that the Bush administration should definitely be fully investigated for a number of things. These investigations by Congress have been sadly not coming along nearly as quickly or with as much force as the GOP hacks like to claim, and they haven't been nearly as thorough as I'd personally like them to be.

 

See that is the fun part of deciding that some laws are OK for Presidents, and other people in power to break... They just take it a little further each time.

 

Well if purjury isn't a big deal, why should X be a big deal? Its the old slippery slope.

Well like I said, I don't know that what Clinton did under oath easily fits the definition of perjury. He may have dry humped that line, but I don't know that he crossed it....

 

I just don't think that what he did rose to the level of perjury, and I don't think that what he did would have gotten him convicted in a regular court either.

These investigations by Congress are not happening because they think Bush will impose martial law and invalidate the constitution. And I wouldn't put it past the Son of a b****. In fact, I'm not sure this presidential campaign will amount to a hill of beans, and if someone else does in fact move into the White House, it'll be more of the same. Regardless of party.

Come on YAS. Bushie is a stupid ass, but he's not that far of a whackjob.

 

Well like I said, I don't know that what Clinton did under oath easily fits the definition of perjury. He may have dry humped that line, but I don't know that he crossed it....

 

I just don't think that what he did rose to the level of perjury, and I don't think that what he did would have gotten him convicted in a regular court either.

 

And there you go right down the slippery slope. Its not really lying, so Bush gets away with it too. Its politics. If we don't have standards for our Presidents, we don't have standards as a country.

 

He lied under oath, and half of the country make excuses for him, while the other half wants his head. The sad thing was that wasn't even the worst thing he did, but that is a discussion for a different day I guess.

And there you go right down the slippery slope. Its not really lying, so Bush gets away with it too. Its politics. If we don't have standards for our Presidents, we don't have standards as a country.

 

He lied under oath, and half of the country make excuses for him, while the other half wants his head. The sad thing was that wasn't even the worst thing he did, but that is a discussion for a different day I guess.

*cough* China *cough*

 

But that's just a conspiracy concocted by the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Wackos"...

And there you go right down the slippery slope. Its not really lying, so Bush gets away with it too. Its politics. If we don't have standards for our Presidents, we don't have standards as a country.

 

He lied under oath, and half of the country make excuses for him, while the other half wants his head. The sad thing was that wasn't even the worst thing he did, but that is a discussion for a different day I guess.

 

Exactly. Clinton's inability to act in a moral manner, then lying about it, effectively killed any leadership and power he had after that point. The worst was not being able to go after Bin Laden. The half of the country that wanted his head would have been screaming "tail wagging the dog", he's making up this bogeyman. And to tell you the truth, I probably would have agreed. And I know it is wrong to hold one person's actions against another, but I really cannot stand the thought of him smiling at some head of state function with the other spouses. I just wish they would go away.

This past week I went to a forum on the Iraq War. There were 5 professors at my school that talked about an hour combined, all of them not supporting the war and all of them making fun of Bush and one person even said, "I don't see parties as Democrats or Republicans, I see them as the party of life, or the party of death," and he for sure wasn't talking about abortion. It just bothers me because the university didn't get one single pro-war or conservative view point. There was one person that gave facts and everyone else mostly gave opinions about it.

This past week I went to a forum on the Iraq War. There were 5 professors at my school that talked about an hour combined, all of them not supporting the war and all of them making fun of Bush and one person even said, "I don't see parties as Democrats or Republicans, I see them as the party of life, or the party of death," and he for sure wasn't talking about abortion. It just bothers me because the university didn't get one single pro-war or conservative view point. There was one person that gave facts and everyone else mostly gave opinions about it.

 

That's a shame. Worse is when the token opposition is so clearly mismatched, it's comical.

And there you go right down the slippery slope. Its not really lying, so Bush gets away with it too. Its politics. If we don't have standards for our Presidents, we don't have standards as a country.

 

He lied under oath, and half of the country make excuses for him, while the other half wants his head. The sad thing was that wasn't even the worst thing he did, but that is a discussion for a different day I guess.

 

Nope, you misread what I said. I didn't say he was honest. I do say that I don't think his testimony rose to the level of perjury.

Nope, you misread what I said. I didn't say he was honest. I do say that I don't think his testimony rose to the level of perjury.

 

Oh I got what you said, I just don't agree with it, or its forward looking implications, at all.

Nope, you misread what I said. I didn't say he was honest. I do say that I don't think his testimony rose to the level of perjury.

If you and I were sitting there in that same EXACT situation (not being a political person or POTUS but a common every day citizen) we would be sitting in jail. Don't kid yourself, Rex.

Actually no. If we were in that EXACT position, we would not have been even charged with perjury, I wager. It's an argument of interpretation vs lying under oath - and its a pretty thin one.

This past week I went to a forum on the Iraq War. There were 5 professors at my school that talked about an hour combined, all of them not supporting the war and all of them making fun of Bush and one person even said, "I don't see parties as Democrats or Republicans, I see them as the party of life, or the party of death," and he for sure wasn't talking about abortion. It just bothers me because the university didn't get one single pro-war or conservative view point. There was one person that gave facts and everyone else mostly gave opinions about it.

That's not a forum, that's high tea for liberals. I'd be pretty pissed too.

 

That's not a forum, that's high tea for liberals. I'd be pretty pissed too.

 

And people wonder where they right gets the idea that college is a left wing haven. Way to fuel the fire...

#2 GOP Senator Trent Lott (MS) resigning by the end of the year to "Pursue other opportunities."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/26/lot...sign/index.html

Who did he piss off? I just started another thread.

Nobody, he wants to be a lobbyist and doesn't want to wait two years to do it.

This is pathetic, even for a politician

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007...ted_in_nh/8203/

 

Congressianal candidate prosecuted in N.H.

 

 

Published: Nov. 26, 2007 at 9:44 PM

Print story Email to a friend Font size:MANCHESTER, N.H., Nov. 26 (UPI) -- Prosecutors allege New Hampshire congressional candidate Gary Dodds faked a disappearance to gain publicity in his 2006 campaign.

 

The documents claimed he staged a car crash and disappeared for 24 hours in April 2006 because he believed it would strengthen his primary campaign for the U.S. House, WMUR-TV in Manchester, N.H., reported Monday.

 

Investigators said Dodds took out two mortgages on his property without his wife's knowledge to finance his failing campaign.

 

Dodds has been charged with leaving the scene of an accident and causing an unnecessary search.

 

BTW, since UPI forgot to include it, Dodds is a Dem.

I was kind of surprised at this result from this poll question among Iowa Republicans only:

 

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)

Yes 51%

No 37%

Undecided 12%

 

51-37 to leave Iraq, even among the GOP faithful? Interesting. Thoughts or comments?

 

I think perhaps Iowa Republicans are a little more of the independent-minded, small government and mildly isolationist variety than the crusading, change the world types.

 

Why is it that someone who realizes that we can't just leave is a "crusading, change the world types"?

 

Why is it that someone who realizes that we can't just leave is a "crusading, change the world types"?

OK, remove "crusading". By nature, if you think we should stay, you think we should change the world.