Dems Boo and Heckle Bush in 2005

[rdean]

The rulez:

When a Republican does "it," whatever "it" is, the Democratics assure us that "it" is the vilest and most loathesome breach of civility, integrity, legality, etc., ever, in the history of the Republic!

When a Democratic does "it," whatever "it" is, the Democratics assure us that "it" is not really a big deal and that the Republicans are merely being hypocritical, disingenuous and dishonest.

-- These Rulez are Endorsed by President Barack Hussein Obama and the leadership of the liberal Democrat Parody!

Yeah RIIIIGHT, kind of like how a democrat (clinton) lied under oath and the righties proclaimed that perjury (which clinton did NOT commit) was a high crime and he deserved to go to jail.

yet when a righty (scooter) is tried and convicted of perjury the righties scream and cry that his punishment is too harsh.

LOL

Or how about when democrats spoke out against bush and were called tratorous and un-American

However, now that conservatives are speaking out against obama it's the patriotic thing to do.

BTW I wonder what republcians said about the jeers directed at W back then and if they are even remotely close to what the righties are saying now??

President Clinton did lie under oath. YOUR belief or disbelief in that FACT is irrelevant. DNA trumps you entirely.

The "evidence" that Scooter Libby's incorrect statements were "lies" is ridiculous and it required a "trial" in DC to obtain a conviction. He shouldn't have been convicted and shouldn't have been tried and shouldn't have been "charged" in the first place.

I happen to agree (but only for very strict technical reasons) that Pres. Clinton's lie under oath failed to qualify as "perjury," but the distinction is razor thin. He was still deliberately lying IN a Court proceeding and that pretty much does obstruct justice.

I deem the rest of your post to be mere babbling by you.

Actually, President Clinton signed an affidavit that he "didn't have sex with that woman". Remember, Republicans spent more than forty million dollars of taxpayer money and thousands of man hours to get "something" on Clinton. Something, anything. Even today, some Republicans believe the Clinton's were charged with a felony over Whitewater and that was why he was impeached. But no. It was just a blowjob. The Special Prosecutor finally came to his senses and the affidavit was never used. So yes, he signed an affidavit and lied, but it was never used in court.

Funny Newt said that at exactly the same time, he was having an affair, but, except to his wife and kids and sister and employees and the family of the woman he was having the affair with, he never lied.

Now, did Bush lie? Except for Iraq and WMDs and yellow cake and a few other tiny white lies, so small that they hardly count, I was say no.

 

[Oscar Wao]

the president is the commander-in-chief, the leader of the country, and in many unspoken ways treated as a king.

And THIS is one of the reasons why our country is the state it's in right now.

 

[paperview]

the president is the commander-in-chief, the leader of the country, and in many unspoken ways treated as a king.

And THIS is one of the reasons why our country is the state it's in right now.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the article:

Here, I'll help:

"...We stand when the president enters the room, no matter who the president is. He has his own tune when he goes anywhere. When he gives a speech, his seal is on the lectern. The president is treated with royal respect, even though he is overtly not a royal.


Ever since George Washington declined to become a king, we have established traditions that give the president all the kingly trappings.


That is why when Joe Wilson blurted out loud about the president, it was so jarring. Wilson is a very nice guy, very earnest, conscientious, hardworking and unfailingly polite. He is not one to do this sort of thing. He is not a protester, a demonstrator, a conscientious objector or a nonviolent resistor.


So when he blurted out what many other Republicans probably were thinking, he crossed an invisible but firm line of decorum on the House floor. Under House rules, you are prohibited from casting aspersions on the motivations of your colleagues. There is even a procedure for punishing those who do. You can be stripped of your right to speak for the rest of the day on the floor if your words are taken down and ruled out of order.

 

[paperview]

And it finishes:

"...In our nation's rituals, we treat the president with the respect befitting the office, no matter who the current occupant might be.

Some may question why we treat the office of the president with such respect, when sometimes our presidents in the their personal or professional lives perhaps weren't worthy of that respect.


After all, America was founded as a reaction against monarchy, we pride ourselves on our democratic impulses, and we have ably resisted the temptation to crown a king for more than 200 years.

I guess it is because the office of the president is one of the unifying symbols of our country, and we place our best hopes and worst fears in the lap of the occupant, hoping that whoever resides in the Oval Office will resist partisan temptation and do the best for all of our citizens, regardless of party or philosophy.
We treat the office of president with the utmost respect because we hope that the president will return the favor.

 

[AllieBaba]

the president is the commander-in-chief, the leader of the country, and in many unspoken ways treated as a king.

And THIS is one of the reasons why our country is the state it's in right now.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the article:

Here, I'll help:

"...We stand when the president enters the room, no matter who the president is. He has his own tune when he goes anywhere. When he gives a speech, his seal is on the lectern. The president is treated with royal respect, even though he is overtly not a royal.


Ever since George Washington declined to become a king, we have established traditions that give the president all the kingly trappings.


That is why when Joe Wilson blurted out loud about the president, it was so jarring. Wilson is a very nice guy, very earnest, conscientious, hardworking and unfailingly polite. He is not one to do this sort of thing. He is not a protester, a demonstrator, a conscientious objector or a nonviolent resistor.


So when he blurted out what many other Republicans probably were thinking, he crossed an invisible but firm line of decorum on the House floor. Under House rules, you are prohibited from casting aspersions on the motivations of your colleagues. There is even a procedure for punishing those who do. You can be stripped of your right to speak for the rest of the day on the floor if your words are taken down and ruled out of order.

I don't think it's casting aspersions on MOTIVES to call someone a liar when he's, well, lying. Calling him a liar speaks nothing to his motives. It just points out the obvious. Which is that he was lying.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah RIIIIGHT, kind of like how a democrat (clinton) lied under oath and the righties proclaimed that perjury (which clinton did NOT commit) was a high crime and he deserved to go to jail.

yet when a righty (scooter) is tried and convicted of perjury the righties scream and cry that his punishment is too harsh.

LOL

Or how about when democrats spoke out against bush and were called tratorous and un-American

However, now that conservatives are speaking out against obama it's the patriotic thing to do.

BTW I wonder what republcians said about the jeers directed at W back then and if they are even remotely close to what the righties are saying now??

President Clinton did lie under oath. YOUR belief or disbelief in that FACT is irrelevant. DNA trumps you entirely.

The "evidence" that Scooter Libby's incorrect statements were "lies" is ridiculous and it required a "trial" in DC to obtain a conviction. He shouldn't have been convicted and shouldn't have been tried and shouldn't have been "charged" in the first place.

I happen to agree (but only for very strict technical reasons) that Pres. Clinton's lie under oath failed to qualify as "perjury," but the distinction is razor thin. He was still deliberately lying IN a Court proceeding and that pretty much does obstruct justice.

I deem the rest of your post to be mere babbling by you.

Actually, President Clinton signed an affidavit that he "didn't have sex with that woman". Remember, Republicans spent more than forty million dollars of taxpayer money and thousands of man hours to get "something" on Clinton. Something, anything. Even today, some Republicans believe the Clinton's were charged with a felony over Whitewater and that was why he was impeached. But no. It was just a blowjob. The Special Prosecutor finally came to his senses and the affidavit was never used. So yes, he signed an affidavit and lied, but it was never used in court.

Funny Newt said that at exactly the same time, he was having an affair, but, except to his wife and kids and sister and employees and the family of the woman he was having the affair with, he never lied.

Now, did Bush lie? Except for Iraq and WMDs and yellow cake and a few other tiny white lies, so small that they hardly count, I was say no.

Was Newt being tried when he lied?

Was Bush even lying, much less deliberately and with full knowledge under oath?

Nope.

 

[T-Bor]

it was 1 of many warnings to the democraps. who ignored them all. and well, here we are

Namvet huh? Shame the gooks missed you.

 

[paperview]

And THIS is one of the reasons why our country is the state it's in right now.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the article:

Here, I'll help:

"...We stand when the president enters the room, no matter who the president is. He has his own tune when he goes anywhere. When he gives a speech, his seal is on the lectern. The president is treated with royal respect, even though he is overtly not a royal.


Ever since George Washington declined to become a king, we have established traditions that give the president all the kingly trappings.


That is why when Joe Wilson blurted out loud about the president, it was so jarring. Wilson is a very nice guy, very earnest, conscientious, hardworking and unfailingly polite. He is not one to do this sort of thing. He is not a protester, a demonstrator, a conscientious objector or a nonviolent resistor.


So when he blurted out what many other Republicans probably were thinking, he crossed an invisible but firm line of decorum on the House floor. Under House rules, you are prohibited from casting aspersions on the motivations of your colleagues. There is even a procedure for punishing those who do. You can be stripped of your right to speak for the rest of the day on the floor if your words are taken down and ruled out of order.

I don't think it's casting aspersions on MOTIVES to call someone a liar when he's, well, lying. Calling him a liar speaks nothing to his motives. It just points out the obvious. Which is that he was lying.

He wasn't lying
and no matter HOW MANY times Bush the Lesser LIED in front of Congress, Members of Congress STILL did not call him a liar.

It was an asshole thing to do.

& He's in line to be censured for it.

 

[paperview]

it was 1 of many warnings to the democraps. who ignored them all. and well, here we are

Namvet huh? Shame the gooks missed you.

Dude, I despise namvet - but that's not cool. Really.

 

[Liability]

Yeah RIIIIGHT, kind of like how a democrat (clinton) lied under oath and the righties proclaimed that perjury (which clinton did NOT commit) was a high crime and he deserved to go to jail.

yet when a righty (scooter) is tried and convicted of perjury the righties scream and cry that his punishment is too harsh.

LOL

Or how about when democrats spoke out against bush and were called tratorous and un-American

However, now that conservatives are speaking out against obama it's the patriotic thing to do.

BTW I wonder what republcians said about the jeers directed at W back then and if they are even remotely close to what the righties are saying now??

President Clinton did lie under oath. YOUR belief or disbelief in that FACT is irrelevant. DNA trumps you entirely.

The "evidence" that Scooter Libby's incorrect statements were "lies" is ridiculous and it required a "trial" in DC to obtain a conviction. He shouldn't have been convicted and shouldn't have been tried and shouldn't have been "charged" in the first place.

I happen to agree (but only for very strict technical reasons) that Pres. Clinton's lie under oath failed to qualify as "perjury," but the distinction is razor thin. He was still deliberately lying IN a Court proceeding and that pretty much does obstruct justice.

I deem the rest of your post to be mere babbling by you.

Actually, President Clinton signed an affidavit that he "didn't have sex with that woman". Remember, Republicans spent more than forty million dollars of taxpayer money and thousands of man hours to get "something" on Clinton. Something, anything. Even today, some Republicans believe the Clinton's were charged with a felony over Whitewater and that was why he was impeached. But no. It was just a blowjob. The Special Prosecutor finally came to his senses and the affidavit was never used. So yes, he signed an affidavit and lied, but it was never used in court.

Funny Newt said that at exactly the same time, he was having an affair, but, except to his wife and kids and sister and employees and the family of the woman he was having the affair with, he never lied.

Now, did Bush lie? Except for Iraq and WMDs and yellow cake and a few other tiny white lies, so small that they hardly count, I was say no.

Signing an "affidavit" IS swearing to a fact under oath, genius.

 

[Liability]

it was 1 of many warnings to the democraps. who ignored them all. and well, here we are

Namvet huh? Shame the gooks missed you.

I wonder how many liberals on this Board will join me in condemning you for that double dose of rancid nasty crap you just vomited over the USMB?

EDIT!

I am pleased to note (I had not seen it just a moment ago) that paperview jumped on the rancid post even before I saw it.

Kudos to paperview.

 

[Polk]

it was 1 of many warnings to the democraps. who ignored them all. and well, here we are

Namvet huh? Shame the gooks missed you.

You're an asshole. Disagreement with someone does not justify calling for their death.

 

[del]

Democrats booed Bush? Was this before or after:

WMD's not found
Good Job Brownie

Just curious?

what difference does it make? it's just as boorish as the asshat from SC last night. i'm sick of people on both sides saying, "but, but,but they did it too!" like some whining fucking three year old.

grow up.

The difference is that Obama didn't lie. The health care plan does exclude immigrants.

However, any sick person, citizen or not, can go to an emergency room. By law, they can't be denied. Americans are not "a-holes" turning away a sick person no matter who they are.

Unless, is that what Republicans are saying? Is it? Could you tell a parent with a sick child that the kid will just have to die? Is it that easy? I couldn't do it.

And you, with a dirty potty mouth, calling me names? Don't you know name calling is, well, childish?

Here, this is something you will understand. "Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you, like glue".

say what?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

it was 1 of many warnings to the democraps. who ignored them all. and well, here we are

Namvet huh? Shame the gooks missed you.

You're an asshole. Disagreement with someone does not justify calling for their death.

not to mention the guys a racist.

 

[jeffrockit]

Yeeeeeeahhh...

Republicans Booed Mr Obama this time around too.

Nobody complained about that. Period.

People only commented on the jackass that stood up and called Mr Obama a liar.

1st: He remained seated
2nd: He said quote "That's A Lie" not "You are a Liar"

Seems you heard and saw it differently than everyone else but your version makes it more exciting. Libs usually have a flair for the dramatic!

 

[paperview]

Yeeeeeeahhh...

Republicans Booed Mr Obama this time around too.

Nobody complained about that. Period.

People only commented on the jackass that stood up and called Mr Obama a liar.

1st: He remained seated
2nd: He said quote "That's A Lie" not "You are a Liar"

Seems you heard and saw it differently than everyone else but your version makes it more exciting. Libs usually have a flair for the dramatic!

He SAID, or rather heckled: YOU LIE.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yeeeeeeahhh...

Republicans Booed Mr Obama this time around too.

Nobody complained about that. Period.

People only commented on the jackass that stood up and called Mr Obama a liar.

1st: He remained seated
2nd: He said quote "That's A Lie" not "You are a Liar"

Seems you heard and saw it differently than everyone else but your version makes it more exciting. Libs usually have a flair for the dramatic!

Very true....Libs live in fantasyland and they do have to have a vivid imagination and delusions of grandeur.

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe it just me...

But I thought we weren't supposed to bring up Bush.

But, but Bush did it

 

[namvet]

It should be pointed out as well, Wilson clearly violated the RULES of the Senate.

His ass SHOULD be busted. Hard.

wilson/palin 012

Now I KNOW you have to be a dem plant.

lol.

he should have flipped off that street walking whore behind Osama.

 

[Mr. Capitalism]

That isn't even remotely the same reaction. There were groans. There was no "heckling" at all. It isn't even vaugely similar.