President Bush to be impeached by IL General assembly

[Stephanie]

How anyone can still defend a MAN, let alone our President of the United States (President Clinton)that was impeached for lying under oath, and obstruction of justice...
And also a 50 some yr old MAN taking advantage of a 21 yr old intern, the same age as HIS daughter, how you all can justify this, is beyond me. The lying is a crime, but that he used a 21 yr old WOMAN doesn't seem to bother a whole lot of people. It makes me sick to hear you people defend this 50 plus yr old adult,(billy) with a young FEMALE who was infatuated with a high powered figure.(oh, I heard it all before, she was an adult)? Where the hell was the FEMMENIST for Monica Lewinsky??? Not a word in her defense??? Integrity doesn't seem to be the norm of today. This MAN... committed adultery, betrayed his family, looked right into the TV cameras and lied to the American people, and you sick ass people still defend him... It has truly become a sick, sick culture, when you start making excuses for betrayal of a persons family,trust and morals in a human being.
As far as I'm concerned, you who stand up for him have no more morals, than he.
Bill Clinton will go down in history, as he should be known as, the President of the United States, to be impeached, and to be the second worst President next of Carter as the Worst President, he sat on his ass and allowed us to be attacted by terrorist, and did nothing, just like Carter... AND THEN THERE HAPPENED 9/11

 

[jillian]

A vein just popped in my forehead. Personal morality is a federal matter, when it breaks the law. I love how Democrats won't let this die. I would be perfectly willing to forget Clinton if it weren't for Democrats trying to wedge this into everything that Bush does. It is always said that, "At least Clinton just got a blowjob." Sorry to break your heart, but that blow job was illegal. Check Article 134 of the UCMJ. This is the law that makes it illegal for an officer of the United States Military to engage in fraternization with those under his/her command. Since Clinton was the Commander-in-Chief of the military, his actions were illegal. It was a federal matter of the highest regard. If it wasn't, why did he continue to lie, even when caught beyond reasonable doubt?

Actually, I was thinking of things like reproductive choice and gay marriage when I talked about personal morality not being something the federal government should interfere with.

And, frankly, I think the Clinton thing was bogus...sorry. No one bothered Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy or Bush I about the people "under their command" .... (Eisenhower's was actually his Aide de Camp)... What Clinton did was with a consenting adult and wan't anyone's business.

Republicans tortured him for 8 years... Spent about 10 times more money investigating him than they did investigating 9/11. And, gee, which is worse, fooling around with a grown woman or violating the Constitution? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Republicans really shouldn't be so thin-skinned or try to use it as an excuse for not making Bush accountable for what an investigation is likely to disclose were illegal acts. He isn't above the law.

 

[jillian]

How anyone can still defend a MAN, let alone our President of the United States (President Clinton)that was impeached for lying under oath, and obstruction of justice...
And also a 50 some yr old MAN taking advantage of a 21 yr old intern, the same age as HIS daughter, how you all can justify this, is beyond me. The lying is a crime, but that he used a 21 yr old WOMAN doesn't seem to bother a whole lot of people. It makes me sick to hear you people defend this 50 plus yr old adult,(billy) with a young FEMALE who was infatuated with a high powered figure.(oh, I heard it all before, she was an adult)? Where the hell was the FEMMENIST for Monica Lewinsky??? Not a word in her defense??? Integrity doesn't seem to be the norm of today. This MAN... committed adultery, betrayed his family, looked right into the TV cameras and lied to the American people, and you sick ass people still defend him... It has truly become a sick, sick culture, when you start making excuses for betrayal of a persons family,trust and morals in a human being.
As far as I'm concerned, you who stand up for him have no more morals, than he.
Bill Clinton will go down in history, as he should be known as, the President of the United States, to be impeached, and to be the second worst President next of Carter as the Worst President, he sat on his ass and allowed us to be attacted by terrorist... AND THEN THERE HAPPENED 9/11

Why would "feminists" feel badly for Monica? She's a grown woman. And part of being a grown woman is you get to make your own dumb-ass decisions, same as dumb-ass men. She wasn't a child.

Where's your disdain for the piece of garbage, Linda Tripp, who befriended her and violated her trust so she could help her publisher buddy? I figure what she did was a lot worse than what any of the other players did.

And, no...worst president in history is gonna be the "decider".

And pssssssssssst... Clinton had something like a 60 to 70 percent approval rating when he left office. So given that Bush's is at 32% right now, seems the same folk who didn't like Clinton are still defending Bush's failures.

 

[jillian]

and he got found guilty under Article 134 of the UCMJ?

No. Nor was he charged under it.

 

[Stephanie]

Why would "feminists" feel badly for Monica? She's a grown woman. And part of being a grown woman is you get to make your own dumb-ass decisions, same as dumb-ass men. She wasn't a child.

Where's your disdain for the piece of garbage, Linda Tripp, who befriended her and violated her trust so she could help her publisher buddy? I figure what she did was a lot worse than what any of the other players did.

And, no...worst president in history is gonna be the "decider".

And pssssssssssst... Clinton had something like a 60 to 70 percent approval rating when he left office. So given that Bush's is at 32% right now, seems the same folk who didn't like Clinton are still defending Bush's failures.

I didn't expect anything more from you, my dear..

 

[jillian]

I love how you hmmm, like we never had 9/11, and were just suppose to be sitting around and having all these INVESTIGATIONS. Jill I like you, but you need to grow up dear... The real world is ugly, we saw that on 9/11. I don't know where you live dearey, but we all better hope that another 9/11 is not on it's way, while you all discuss Billy Clinton's legacy, and Presidents Bush's decision making????????

You can keep defending Bush. That's your right. But Clinton never had this

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/31435.htm

And instead of "shaking the trees" after getting it, he did nothing and instead used the subsequent attack to justify trying to effectuate the agenda set forth here, which has nothing to do with the WOT:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I like ya, too, girl, but doesn't make me think that the BS they did to Bill was any less B.S. And I suspect where I live is far more a terrorist target than where you are.

Thing is, did you notice that the places that really ARE terrorist targets voted against Bush? I think there's a reason for that.

 

[Stephanie]

You can keep defending Bush. That's your right. But Clinton never had this

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/31435.htm

And instead of "shaking the trees" after getting it, he did nothing and instead used the subsequent attack to justify trying to effectuate the agenda set forth here, which has nothing to do with the WOT:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I like ya, too, girl, but doesn't make me think that the BS they did to Bill was any less B.S. And I suspect where I live is far more a terrorist target than where you are.

Thing is, did you notice that the places that really ARE terrorist targets voted against Bush? I think there's a reason for that.

Not necessarily dear, we have the oil pipeline up here.... So we are under as much a terrorist threat as anywhere. In case you haven't been reading CNN or Msnbc?
You hate Bush, I thought Bill Clinton was a fluff president, and a sleeze ball, we'll leave it at that for now...

 

[jillian]

Not necessarily dear, we have the oil pipeline up here.... So we are under as much a terrorist threat as anywhere. In case you haven't been reading CNN or Msnbc?
You hate Bush, I thought Bill Clinton was a fluff president, and a sleeze ball, we'll leave it at that for now...

Fair enough... but I think Bush is an incompetent. So we can leave it at that, hon.

Have a good day... off to work for me, now!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why would "feminists" feel badly for Monica? She's a grown woman. And part of being a grown woman is you get to make your own dumb-ass decisions, same as dumb-ass men. She wasn't a child.

Where's your disdain for the piece of garbage, Linda Tripp, who befriended her and violated her trust so she could help her publisher buddy? I figure what she did was a lot worse than what any of the other players did.

And, no...worst president in history is gonna be the "decider".

And pssssssssssst... Clinton had something like a 60 to 70 percent approval rating when he left office. So given that Bush's is at 32% right now, seems the same folk who didn't like Clinton are still defending Bush's failures.

But the feminist discourse on sex in the workplace is to reduce it to a simple analysis of the power arrangement. WHoever has the most power MUST be an abuser. She was only convinced she wanted suck him off by his power games. This is the official, though ludicrous, feminist position. Just like all sex is rape.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Actually, I was thinking of things like reproductive choice and gay marriage when I talked about personal morality not being something the federal government should interfere with.

Republicans tortured him for 8 years... Spent about 10 times more money investigating him than they did investigating 9/11. And, gee, which is worse, fooling around with a grown woman or violating the Constitution? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

So some morality issues are out of bounds, but some aren't? I bet you had no problem with government interference in "reproductive choice" when the USSC was writing Roe v. Wade. When President Clinton signed the Marriage Protection Act, no one got pissed. How about the death penalty. Should the government be invovled in this issue of personal morality? Rape, murder, pedophilia, and perjury are all issues of "personal morality." Should the federal government stop prosecuting these crimes, simply because some think it is not the place of the federal government to regulate acts of "personal morality?"

Show me where President Bush has violated the Constitution.

 

[Hobbit]

So some morality issues are out of bounds, but some aren't? I bet you had no problem with government interference in "reproductive choice" when the USSC was writing Roe v. Wade. When President Clinton signed the Marriage Protection Act, no one got pissed. How about the death penalty. Should the government be invovled in this issue of personal morality? Rape, murder, pedophilia, and perjury are all issues of "personal morality." Should the federal government stop prosecuting these crimes, simply because some think it is not the place of the federal government to regulate acts of "personal morality?"

Show me where President Bush has violated the Constitution.

Well, if you take every third letter of the Constitution, it says:

tppohnetendtoareeuosbsuieudeirqlyodohooenpmeenaeaasutbsnoirtueenuoetodndtlhiotuoohnetefec

Which I'm sure translates in some language as "Anybody named George W. Bush is to be considered a traitor to our nation and shot."

Dang, I really wish NewGuy was still here to take all these Constitution questions. I miss that guy.

 

[Dr Grump]

Should the government be invovled in this issue of personal morality?

Where it only has an effect on the person making the decision and nobody else? No the govt should not be involved....