Impeach Cheney...?

[red states rule]

Extremists push Dem candidates to the far Left during the primary season. Perhaps in the future, as the country moves closer to a national primary, that effect will be minimized on both the Left and Right.

hat chocie do theDems have right now?

Hillary and Obama

Two big government socialist libs

 

[Larkinn]

Wait a minute now...

Last I heard it was a Democrat Congress...

So, I guess the ***** is with them, not like their not trying to find, ANYTHING...

I say go for it....Congress approval rating is already in the toilet, so if the Dems start impeachment, especially since we have troops out in the field, more better for the Republicans in 08....

No, they aren't trying to find fact. They are moving slowly and not doing very much. Yes, I have a beef with them moving so slowly as well, but its a government investigation, and then Democrats have been in less than a year now. You think it moves from opening an investigation to impeachment in what...9 months? Hardly, unless its an obvious and egregious crime.

I do not know about that. You have to remember you are talking about the far left - the same people who belive that marriage is out dated (except for homosexuals) To get a vote, the Dems will do anything for them

mmm more lies. Give me the name of a Democrat in Congress who wants to get rid of marriage.

And in 2004 Bush won because the Liberals were to STUPID to run someone against him that people could trust and feel safe in voting for.

I know, people really hated Kerry. How many people voted for him again?...oh right, almost as many as voted for Bush.

Did Dems have anyone the people could trust and feel safe in voting for in 04?

Or in 08 for that matter?

Funny how you just skipped over '06. I think they had, you know...one or two then.

hat chocie do theDems have right now?

Hillary and Obama

Two big government socialist libs

And the 8 other Democrats who are running, who you conveniently left out.

 

[red states rule]

No, they aren't trying to find fact. They are moving slowly and not doing very much. Yes, I have a beef with them moving so slowly as well, but its a government investigation, and then Democrats have been in less than a year now. You think it moves from opening an investigation to impeachment in what...9 months? Hardly, unless its an obvious and egregious crime.



mmm more lies. Give me the name of a Democrat in Congress who wants to get rid of marriage.



I know, people really hated Kerry. How many people voted for him again?...oh right, almost as many as voted for Bush.



Funny how you just skipped over '06. I think they had, you know...one or two then.



And the 8 other Democrats who are running, who you conveniently left out.

How does it feel knowing VP Cheney has a higher approval number then Harry Reid?

No wonder libs are in a tizzy

 

[Care4all]

The thing with Clinton...

Is I don't think he would of ever been impeached...

If he had just stood up, admit his *screw up*(bun intended) , and finally told the truth for the first time in his life...

He's the one who chose to lie, and get everyone around him involved in his lie...

What was the purpose or reasons for Clinton telling the whole world the truth about his sexual affair with Monica, thus the impeachment would not have happened in your opinion?

 

[red states rule]

What was the purpose or reasons for Clinton telling the whole world the truth about his sexual affair with Monica, thus the impeachment would not have happened in your opinion?

Because Clinton had Monica file a false affidavit



I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonaffidavitperjury.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What was the purpose or reasons for Clinton telling the whole world the truth about his sexual affair with Monica, thus the impeachment would not have happened in your opinion?

Are you serious? He was not Impeached becuse Monika gave him a blow Job. Nor would he have been if he had admitted it. He was IMPEACHED because he LIED under oath to a Judge in a case about himself for the express purpose of protecting himself.

And I do not mean protection from his wife. His affairs with Monika were important to establish the idea of a pattern Clinton had established in regards women working for him or under his authority.

Whats even stupider about the whole thing is even when he was FORCED to tell the truth the Judge didn't rule in favor of Paula Jones. He lied for no reason.

Quit with the " it was all about sex" party talking points. It was about a sitting President committing Perjury to a sitting Judge in a case directly effecting that President. THAT would be the " High Crimes and Misdomeaners" he committed. AND he was GUILTY as charged. The democrats and a portion of the republicans played politics.

My personal opinion is we would have been better served if they had found him Guilty and then made the decision that the stain of the Guilty verdict would be his punishment. The Constitution says the only way to remove a President is through Impeachment, IT DOES NOT say the Senate MUST remove him if found guilty.

 

[red states rule]

The Clinton Memorial is to open this July 4th is DC

 

[Care4all]

Are you serious? He was not Impeached becuse Monika gave him a blow Job. Nor would he have been if he had admitted it. He was IMPEACHED because he LIED under oath to a Judge in a case about himself for the express purpose of protecting himself.

And I do not mean protection from his wife. His affairs with Monika were important to establish the idea of a pattern Clinton had established in regards women working for him or under his authority.

Whats even stupider about the whole thing is even when he was FORCED to tell the truth the Judge didn't rule in favor of Paula Jones. He lied for no reason.

Quit with the " it was all about sex" party talking points. It was about a sitting President committing Perjury to a sitting Judge in a case directly effecting that President. THAT would be the " High Crimes and Misdomeaners" he committed. AND he was GUILTY as charged. The democrats and a portion of the republicans played politics.

My personal opinion is we would have been better served if they had found him Guilty and then made the decision that the stain of the Guilty verdict would be his punishment. The Constitution says the only way to remove a President is through Impeachment, IT DOES NOT say the Senate MUST remove him if found guilty.

Woe Nellie!

You have just had a real tissy fit for NO APPARENT REASON.... I guess I just "bring that on" by simple posting, for you?

Paraphrased, Stephanie posted that if he had just told the truth in the first place, he would not have been impeached and that she didn't give 2 hoots about his sex life.

So that is why I asked her:

Originally Posted by Care4all
What was the purpose or reasons for Clinton telling the whole world the truth about his sexual affair with Monica, thus the impeachment would not have happened in your opinion?

And as far as your post?



And you tell me that I have no right to judge Libby and the Plame affair the way I do...?

Clinton's lies were involved in a "Civil" proceeding, later he was acqutted. (Which you say is all bullshit and partisanship)

And

Libby's lies were involved in a "Criminal" investigation, later he was convicted.
(Which you again say it is all bullshit and partisan partisanship)

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT believe in our Justice system whatsoever, you only believe in your own opinion, huh?

Come to think of it, didn't you also claim that Pelosi broke the Law by going on her Foreign trip to Iran? Oh, but in this case the Law never charged her with such, but you and gunny and someone else INSISTED SHE BROKE THE LAW.....? but, again, she was never charged with such and then you come around and tell me that Libby/the VP/Rove/Armitage... did not out an agent and break the Law, because they were not charged for it?

a little fickled, no?

So, do you, or do you not, believe in the fairness of our Justice system?

 

[red states rule]

Care, did you miss this?

Because Clinton had Monica file a false affidavit

I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.


Hey, I posted the new Clinton Memorial - I am happy his legacy is secure

 

[JeffWartman]

Dems numbers are in the pits because they are pushing for surrender in Iarq, higher taxes, increasing the amount of pork, wanting government run health care, going with another pay raise, and wanting to silence politcal speech they do not agree with

Doesn't it feel odd to be programmed, and not have a mind of one's own?

 

[Larkinn]

How does it feel knowing VP Cheney has a higher approval number then Harry Reid?

Lmao. Let me guess...you searched peoples approval ratings and finally managed to find a Republican who had higher approval numbers than a Democrat?

Congratulations on that blatant display of partisan hackery.

originally posted by retired
Quit with the " it was all about sex" party talking points. It was about a sitting President committing Perjury to a sitting Judge in a case directly effecting that President. THAT would be the " High Crimes and Misdomeaners" he committed. AND he was GUILTY as charged. The democrats and a portion of the republicans played politics.

Wha? Democrats and a portion of the Republicans? They made him say, under oath, whether he had consensual sex with another woman. I see no justification for making him do that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lmao. Let me guess...you searched peoples approval ratings and finally managed to find a Republican who had higher approval numbers than a Democrat?

Congratulations on that blatant display of partisan hackery.



Wha? Democrats and a portion of the Republicans? They made him say, under oath, whether he had consensual sex with another woman. I see no justification for making him do that.

I see your playing word games like any good liberal in an attempt to obfusicate.

Clinton was compelled by LAW to answer questions in a court case where in a woman had accused him of specific crimes, having to do with sexual harrassment and sexual favors to keep her job. Congress did not compell him to testify to ANYTHING.

He LIED under oath to a JUDGE, about a question that was completely in line with the case and establishing potential patterns of behavior to support the accusers claim. But then you already know all this and are hoping you can just dazzle your way out of it with fancy foot work.

 

[JeffWartman]

Are you saying Clinton did not kamke her file the false affidavit and did not lie under oath?

Reread what I quoted from you and try again with a question.

 

[red states rule]

Reread what I quoted from you and try again with a question.

So how is it "programmed" to tell the truth about what the Dems want to do?

Oh, that is being to judgemental!!!

 

[JeffWartman]

So how is it "programmed" to tell the truth about what the Dems want to do?

Oh, that is being to judgemental!!!

Because it's not true.

It's just as untrue as if I said Republicans want to put every middle class person in a homeless shelter, come in to your house and check to make sure you're not having the "wrong" kind of sex, and search your house without a warrant.

Don't be a fool. Anyone can make up extreme generalizations.

 

[red states rule]

Because it's not true.

It's just as untrue as if I said Republicans want to put every middle class person in a homeless shelter, come in to your house and check to make sure you're not having the "wrong" kind of sex, and search your house without a warrant.

Don't be a fool. Anyone can make up extreme generalizations.

What is not true?

Dems numbers are in the pits because they are pushing for surrender in Iarq, higher taxes, increasing the amount of pork, wanting government run health care, going with another pay raise, and wanting to silence politcal speech they do not agree with

 

[Superlative]

What is not true?

Dems numbers are in the pits because they are pushing for surrender in Iarq, higher taxes, increasing the amount of pork, wanting government run health care, going with another pay raise, and wanting to silence politcal speech they do not agree with

Why are the Republicans numbers lower?

 

[red states rule]

Why are the Republicans numbers lower?

Lets see, Pres Bush and VP Cheney has HIGHER numbers the Harry Reid

Yea, Dems are doing damn good

 

[JeffWartman]

What is not true?

Dems numbers are in the pits because they are pushing for surrender in Iarq, higher taxes, increasing the amount of pork, wanting government run health care, going with another pay raise, and wanting to silence politcal speech they do not agree with

The point that you don't understand is that the Republicans and the Democrats are nothing more than Dumb & Dumber.

 

[red states rule]

The point that you don't understand is that the Republicans and the Democrats are nothing more than Dumb & Dumber.

At least some Republicans are getting a little smarter as the Dems move further to the left