Getting a blow job in the oval office...

[Lumpy 1]

not so big a deal now is it? Compared to all this mess and the Bush years, yeah, I think I will take the President who lied about a BJ over the BS that congress, the senate, the president and the ineptitude of all these politicians.

Clinton is the only one worth a crap in I don't know how long.

If a blow job in the Oval Office brings back the 90's boom, I'll blow him myself.

.... Sheesh what a regrettable thing to say...

 

[code1211]

What Clinton did was wrong wrong wrong. He cheated on his wife, received sexual favors from a subordinate in the workplace, and he lied about it to the American people. He also probably committed perjury, though it would be difficult to prove in a court of law (and would never have been pursued if not for his political enemies). He shouldn't have been impeached, though-- I don't think lying about a matter not directly related to the public interest should constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. He suffered impeachment but escaped conviction not solely because of the pseudolegalistic analysis of events but because of their politics.

If Clinton had held any Private Sector, Chif Executive office in the land and was screwing an intern, he'd have been fired. If your name is accurate, you'd have been at the head (no pun intended) of the mob demanding his resignation if he worked at FOX News and did this.

Or DOW, or EXXON, or BP or, well, you get the point...

I was amazed that the National Association of Gals defended this behavior. This was the first important, obvious departure from ideals in favor of bare politicization by this obsolete front group. They were pouring gas on the political wich burning of Paula Jones.

One thing I'll say for this single action: It exposed the political left for what it is and if anyone was watching, they saw that the ideas professed and the action taken were vastly different things.

The holier than thou political Right had talked themselves into a corner and it was like watching a dog put his face in a fan.

The whole matter was high farce. The world started laughing at us during that period and really hasn't stopped since.

 

[JoeB131]

And that's kosher?

There is now an international treaty that says spooks are welcome in every country?

Really?

I didn't know about that..got a link?

You don't know about a lot of stuff, and frankly, I don't have time to link corrections to your profound ignorance. Personally, though, I think your problem is paranoia, and we have medicines for that now. Avail yourself of some.

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country. That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

Wouldn't know man, are you claiming to be an adult? All I see is a paranoid loon who repeats nonsense he read on HuffPo like it was gospel.

For the record, every embassy has an on-site CIA officer.

Oh, please, guy. Valerie plame was hardly a "spy". And frankly, she was outed by her own husband more than anyone in Bush's administration.

Hey, let's recap, shall we. Joe Wilson, who was against the war, made outlandish claims about what he found in Niger. Richard Armitage, who was against the war, told Robert Novak, who was also against the war, that the reason why this house-husband got a junket to Niger was because his wife was at the CIA, even though he had no experience in weapons or arms poliferation, and had never been in that country before. And there was his wife's name in "Who's Who in America!" Gosh, what a clever ruse, printing a "Spy's" name in a book anyone can get.

Patrick Fitzfong, master of pointless investigations, realized in about a week what had happened, but kept digging hoping he could net a bigger fish. Couldn't touch Bush or Karl Rove, but he got Scooter Libby for not remembering what he said to Tim Russert or when he said it.

 

[Sallow]

Oh there was ALOT to it. Even without the treason..Reagan violated the Constitution and the Law. The logical conclusion to the Iran Contra investigation was impeachment and removal from office. But Democrats being Democrats in the face of a popular President and with the Nixon debacle at their heels opted to make the President go on National tv and declare that he lied.

Which he did. And not very convincingly. He said he didn't "remember".

Well, there were a whole lot of problems with that statement.

Keep in mind, Lawrence Walsh never brought charges against Reagan or Bush personally. He prosecuted North and Poindexter, not for trading arms for hostages (which, by the way, wasn't illegal) or even diverting funds to the contras (which might have been, but there was no evidence Reagan knew about that) but for lying to Congress. And although he won convictions for that, they were thrown out by higher courts because the two men had received immunity and he introduced inadmissable testimony to prove his case.

You See, Congress had given them immunity hoping they would break bad on Reagan. Instead, they admitted the possibly illegal Contra part of the deal was entirely their idea, and they kept Reagan out of it to protect him from liability.

Eventually, Walsh ended up prosecuting Cap Weinberger for lying because he said he hadn't kept a diary, but in fact he had taken meeting notes. (Weinberger, for those playing along at home, had opposed the arms transfer deal.)

I'm not sure why the "Nixon Debacle" would have discouraged them. They got a sitting president to resign, one who had been elected by 60% of the electorate. The padded their congressional majorities in 1974 and took the white house in 1976. Nixon was a big win for them. They'd have been happy to repeat it if they could.

The reason they couldn't was, at the end of the day, he wasn't acting out of selfish reasons. He was acting out of the best interest of the country, and to save American lives.

He wasn't acting out of personal gain like Clinton was. That's what made what Clinton did impeachable.

That's ridiculous.

The Hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration..and Reagan admits that he was "briefed" on negotiations for their release.

When the **** did that happen?

Oh yeah..before the election. When he had no power or standing to do so. And, Iran was an "enemy" nation. That's treason, bub.

And he was acting out of self-interest. He wanted to be elected.

And Nixon debacle? Where the heck have you been? The Nixon thing tore the country apart. It isn't easy for people who want a stable government, the Democrats, to do something as destabilizing as impeachment. That was a hard sell.

For Republicans, who hate government when they aren't in power, no great shakes. Oh look..a hat dropped.

IMPEACH!

 

[code1211]

Nixon tried to subvert an election, and probably did. NOT a BJ- Nixon ruined respect for gov't, like RR and W...total disasters....Obamahhhhh...it's taking time for civility, service, and truth to come back into style...fact! if it does...bring back the Fairness Doctrine for God's sake, before it's too late. Rush, Fox, Savage etc. = Father Coughlin X 20.

You do know that his opponent was McGovern, don't you?

My dad had nver voted for any Republican in his life, but he voted for Nixon. He said he'd rather have a smart crook than an idiot for a president.

 

[JoeB131]

What Clinton did was wrong wrong wrong. He cheated on his wife, received sexual favors from a subordinate in the workplace, and he lied about it to the American people. He also probably committed perjury, though it would be difficult to prove in a court of law (and would never have been pursued if not for his political enemies). He shouldn't have been impeached, though-- I don't think lying about a matter not directly related to the public interest should constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. He suffered impeachment but escaped conviction not solely because of the pseudolegalistic analysis of events but because of their politics.

If Clinton had held any Private Sector, Chif Executive office in the land and was screwing an intern, he'd have been fired. If your name is accurate, you'd have been at the head (no pun intended) of the mob demanding his resignation if he worked at FOX News and did this.

Or DOW, or EXXON, or BP or, well, you get the point...

I was amazed that the National Association of Gals defended this behavior. This was the first important, obvious departure from ideals in favor of bare politicization by this obsolete front group. They were pouring gas on the political wich burning of Paula Jones.

One thing I'll say for this single action: It exposed the political left for what it is and if anyone was watching, they saw that the ideas professed and the action taken were vastly different things.

The holier than thou political Right had talked themselves into a corner and it was like watching a dog put his face in a fan.

The whole matter was high farce. The world started laughing at us during that period and really hasn't stopped since.

Well, I think it shows what their priorities were.

One Feminist said that she'd have done him herself because he kept Roe v. Wade legal.

Think about that, and why feminists are so disrespected today, even by women. They've essentially become a wholely owned subsidiary of the Abortion Industry.

Heck,let's take it one further. Any other politician would be removed from office or forced to resign for doing what he did. Weiner, Wu, Sanford, that guy from New York with the Craig's List ad, Bob Packwood, all accused of some sort of impropriaty, but they lost their jobs.

Clinton survived because the Democrats circled the wagons. Not sure why they felt the need to do so, the worst thing that would have happened was that Al Gore would have been president...

Oh... wait..

 

[Sallow]

Wouldn't know man, are you claiming to be an adult? All I see is a paranoid loon who repeats nonsense he read on HuffPo like it was gospel.

For the record, every embassy has an on-site CIA officer.

Oh, please, guy. Valerie plame was hardly a "spy". And frankly, she was outed by her own husband more than anyone in Bush's administration.

Hey, let's recap, shall we. Joe Wilson, who was against the war, made outlandish claims about what he found in Niger. Richard Armitage, who was against the war, told Robert Novak, who was also against the war, that the reason why this house-husband got a junket to Niger was because his wife was at the CIA, even though he had no experience in weapons or arms poliferation, and had never been in that country before. And there was his wife's name in "Who's Who in America!" Gosh, what a clever ruse, printing a "Spy's" name in a book anyone can get.

Patrick Fitzfong, master of pointless investigations, realized in about a week what had happened, but kept digging hoping he could net a bigger fish. Couldn't touch Bush or Karl Rove, but he got Scooter Libby for not remembering what he said to Tim Russert or when he said it.

What nonsense?

Yes or no. Foreign spies are allowed to operate in a country?

It's a simple answer.

Doesn't matter what the policy is.

If a spy gets caught..they are subject to execution. No matter who's spy it is..or what country.

And it doesn't matter what Joe Wilson said or not. It's illegal to identify members of the CIA.

 

[Lumpy 1]

not so big a deal now is it? Compared to all this mess and the Bush years, yeah, I think I will take the President who lied about a BJ over the BS that congress, the senate, the president and the ineptitude of all these politicians.

Clinton is the only one worth a crap in I don't know how long.

Lying about it is.... People go away to prison all the time for purjury.

Is a blowjob wrong? NO, its disrespectful to the Oval Office but, its not "wrong."

Lying to congress is tho....

Clinton was/is a coward.... If he had just been a man and allocated.....

"Is a blowjob wrong? NO, its disrespectful to the Oval Office but, its not "wrong." "

I suspect that you're not married..

 

[code1211]

It never was a big deal.

It was the lying about it that offended.

But these days lies are the norm and truth is persecuted.

Equality of outcome and all that liberal jazz.

Agreed. Like Nixon before him, it wasn't the unethical conduct he performed, it was the lying and the cover up which was criminal. It was the perjury which caused President Clinton to be disbarred. He not only lied about his involvement, but sullied the name of Paula Jones when she accused him of sexual harassment.

Paula Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Paula Jones case precipitated Bill Clinton's impeachment. Charges of perjury and obstruction of justice charges were brought based on statements he made during the depositions for the Paula Jones lawsuit. The specific statements were about the nature of his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, with whom he denied having a sexual relationship.

Just like Nixon before him? Are you nuts?

Nixon was a sociopath and probably a psychopath as well. He ordered the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Nobody knew about it. And this is after he promised to end the war. He expanded it. Nixon was probably responsible for a million or so additional deaths in the region. He also ordered the illegal break in to a political opponent's office. That's huge.

There's absolutely no equivalence here.

Sounds a little like the Big 0 bombing Pakistan, doesn't it?

 

[Sallow]

Agreed. Like Nixon before him, it wasn't the unethical conduct he performed, it was the lying and the cover up which was criminal. It was the perjury which caused President Clinton to be disbarred. He not only lied about his involvement, but sullied the name of Paula Jones when she accused him of sexual harassment.

Paula Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just like Nixon before him? Are you nuts?

Nixon was a sociopath and probably a psychopath as well. He ordered the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Nobody knew about it. And this is after he promised to end the war. He expanded it. Nixon was probably responsible for a million or so additional deaths in the region. He also ordered the illegal break in to a political opponent's office. That's huge.

There's absolutely no equivalence here.

Sounds a little like the Big 0 bombing Pakistan, doesn't it?

If congress has a problem with it..they should order it stopped.

 

[JoeB131]

[
That's ridiculous.

The Hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration..and Reagan admits that he was "briefed" on negotiations for their release.

When the **** did that happen?

Oh yeah..before the election. When he had no power or standing to do so. And, Iran was an "enemy" nation. That's treason, bub.

And he was acting out of self-interest. He wanted to be elected.

And Nixon debacle? Where the heck have you been? The Nixon thing tore the country apart. It isn't easy for people who want a stable government, the Democrats, to do something as destabilizing as impeachment. That was a hard sell.

For Republicans, who hate government when they aren't in power, no great shakes. Oh look..a hat dropped.

IMPEACH!

Uh, guy, Reagan was breifed on what CARTER was doing to get the hostages out. Presidential candidates are given full breifings on a number of policy matters, especially during the lame duck session after they win.

Look, a special prosecutor investigated this bullshit and called it bullshit. Only paranoid loons still think it's true. YOu have less credibility than some tin-foil hatted paranoid who thinks there are aliens in Area 51. (Oh, wait, you probably think that, too!)

Frankly, Clinton wasn't fit to carry Nixon's luggage... but Democrats impeached him anyway. And Nixon resigned because he felt that if it went full out, the Soviets might try to pull something in the confusion.

Clinton, on the other hand, was happy to drag us through two years of crap because he wasn't man enough to admit he cheated on his wife. It never had to go to impeachment. He could have stopped it day one by simply paying Paula Jones, which is what he ended up doing, anyway.

Now, given how feckless Obama is, Clinton is taking on a new luster...

 

[Sallow]

[
That's ridiculous.

The Hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration..and Reagan admits that he was "briefed" on negotiations for their release.

When the **** did that happen?

Oh yeah..before the election. When he had no power or standing to do so. And, Iran was an "enemy" nation. That's treason, bub.

And he was acting out of self-interest. He wanted to be elected.

And Nixon debacle? Where the heck have you been? The Nixon thing tore the country apart. It isn't easy for people who want a stable government, the Democrats, to do something as destabilizing as impeachment. That was a hard sell.

For Republicans, who hate government when they aren't in power, no great shakes. Oh look..a hat dropped.

IMPEACH!

Uh, guy, Reagan was breifed on what CARTER was doing to get the hostages out. Presidential candidates are given full breifings on a number of policy matters, especially during the lame duck session after they win.

Look, a special prosecutor investigated this bullshit and called it bullshit. Only paranoid loons still think it's true. YOu have less credibility than some tin-foil hatted paranoid who thinks there are aliens in Area 51. (Oh, wait, you probably think that, too!)

Frankly, Clinton wasn't fit to carry Nixon's luggage... but Democrats impeached him anyway. And Nixon resigned because he felt that if it went full out, the Soviets might try to pull something in the confusion.

Clinton, on the other hand, was happy to drag us through two years of crap because he wasn't man enough to admit he cheated on his wife. It never had to go to impeachment. He could have stopped it day one by simply paying Paula Jones, which is what he ended up doing, anyway.

Now, given how feckless Obama is, Clinton is taking on a new luster...

Nixon was never impeached.

No Republican president has ever been impeached.

When you can accurately post something historical true..start again.

But at this point you've made a great many grave errors.

 

[JoeB131]

What nonsense?

Yes or no. Foreign spies are allowed to operate in a country?

It's a simple answer.

Doesn't matter what the policy is.

If a spy gets caught..they are subject to execution. No matter who's spy it is..or what country.

And it doesn't matter what Joe Wilson said or not. It's illegal to identify members of the CIA.

Everyone does it.. doesn't matter if it's legal or not, and usually, most countries don't execute spies. They either imprison them or throw them out if they are attached to an embassy.

Again, if it was illegal to identify Valerie Plame, then why wasn't anyone actually CHARGED with that.

You make all these claims about supposed crimes, but no one was ever charged with the crimes you describe. Usually, some underling gets charged with some tangental matter.

Clinton was charged with a crime- perjuring himself in court. The Senate acquitted him, but he pled guilty when he left office and forfeitted his law license.

You are sitting their frothing at the mouth, but you haven't shown me one indictment for the terrible crimes you claim. Millions were spent investigating these things, and no charges brought for the serious matters.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Nixon was never impeached.

No Republican president has ever been impeached.

When you can accurately post something historical true..start again.

But at this point you've made a great many grave errors.

Articles of impeachment were drafted by the house, but they hadn't been voted on.

They would have gone through with them if Nixon hadn't resigned.

Your arguments keep getting weaker...

 

[Sallow]

[
Nixon was never impeached.

No Republican president has ever been impeached.

When you can accurately post something historical true..start again.

But at this point you've made a great many grave errors.

Articles of impeachment were drafted by the house, but they hadn't been voted on.

They would have gone through with them if Nixon hadn't resigned.

Your arguments keep getting weaker...

Articles of Impeachment have been drawn up for lots of Presidents.

What's your point?

http://bztv.typepad.com/altjfk/files/articles_of_impeachment_jfk.pdf
Articles of Impeachment | Democrats.com
GOP lawyer drafts Obama impeachment - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Too Tall]

not so big a deal now is it?

It wasn’t to the Senate at the time, either.

Yeah, it was the advent of the Age of the Moronic Partisan Republican – the president signs welfare reform into law and balances the Federal budget and he ends up impeached for being a democrat.

Bill Clinton, was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Details here: Clinton Articles of Impeachment

This is the history of the 'welfore reform' bill.

The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22)

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.

As far as balancing the budget is concerned, without the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, it would not have ever happened.

At first I considered you one of the more intelligent posters, but have now determined that you are merely another partisan hack.

 

[code1211]

And that's kosher?

There is now an international treaty that says spooks are welcome in every country?

Really?

I didn't know about that..got a link?

You don't know about a lot of stuff, and frankly, I don't have time to link corrections to your profound ignorance. Personally, though, I think your problem is paranoia, and we have medicines for that now. Avail yourself of some.

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country. That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

That is factually incorrect.

 

[Sallow]

What nonsense?

Yes or no. Foreign spies are allowed to operate in a country?

It's a simple answer.

Doesn't matter what the policy is.

If a spy gets caught..they are subject to execution. No matter who's spy it is..or what country.

And it doesn't matter what Joe Wilson said or not. It's illegal to identify members of the CIA.

Everyone does it.. doesn't matter if it's legal or not, and usually, most countries don't execute spies. They either imprison them or throw them out if they are attached to an embassy.

Again, if it was illegal to identify Valerie Plame, then why wasn't anyone actually CHARGED with that.

You make all these claims about supposed crimes, but no one was ever charged with the crimes you describe. Usually, some underling gets charged with some tangental matter.

Clinton was charged with a crime- perjuring himself in court. The Senate acquitted him, but he pled guilty when he left office and forfeitted his law license.

You are sitting their frothing at the mouth, but you haven't shown me one indictment for the terrible crimes you claim. Millions were spent investigating these things, and no charges brought for the serious matters.

So basically you are wrong..and are just to immature to admit fault.

Or you are a conservative.

Which is basically the same thing.

 

[Sallow]

You don't know about a lot of stuff, and frankly, I don't have time to link corrections to your profound ignorance. Personally, though, I think your problem is paranoia, and we have medicines for that now. Avail yourself of some.

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country. That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

That is factually incorrect.

Actually it isn't.

You can quibble about plausible deniability..but it's reasonable to assume something of this magnitude came directly from the White House.

 

[JoeB131]

So basically you are wrong..and are just to immature to admit fault.

Or you are a conservative.

Which is basically the same thing.

Uh, guy, you are the one making accusations of things never charged in court.

Your boy Clinton will forever be remembered as "Impeached for a blow job". You all are going to have to live with that, because I doubt anyone will remember him for anything else.

Reagan, on the other hand, will be remembered as one of the great presidents. No one is going to name an aircraft carrier after Clinton. A floating bordello, maybe.

The USS Bill Clinton. Offering Happy Endings?