Clinton responsible for Warrantless Wiretapping?

[SUBMAN1]

Nice. Program has been in place during the 1990's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/warrantless_wiretapping_latest/

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Nice try on their part, but wiretapping has been in place since Nixon went into office. I used to work for AT&T during the 1970's and '80's, and we were wiretapping back then just as we are now.

It's not Clinton's fault. These people are just trying to pin the blame on him and walk away from the scene of the crime. Nixon is the first one who did major wiretapping schemes (not something you'd read about everyday), not Clinton.

[Skybird]

Yep, Nixon's the name I also remember in this context.

[SUBMAN1]

Nice try on their part, but wiretapping has been in place since Nixon went into office. I used to work for AT&T during the 1970's and '80's, and we were wiretapping back then just as we are now.

It's not Clinton's fault. These people are just trying to pin the blame on him and walk away from the scene of the crime. Nixon is the first one who did major wiretapping schemes (not something you'd read about everyday), not Clinton.Nixon only did it in relation to his campaign. This is constant wiretapping on a daily basis for both drug enforcement and terrorists activities.

Kind of different.

It just irks me that a lot of liberals out here blame this on the Bush admin when it has been going on for a while. This is again, one less thing to blame on Bush. He may have screwed up on the Mexican thing, but the more time goes on, all this crap I keep hearing him get nailed on was never started by him. If you were over here, you'd know what I am talking about. This is in relation to the current string of wiretaps of course - they have been in place since the mid 90's.

-S

[Zachstar]

Dude why are you defending a sinking ship.

If you want Bush to not face jail then a good thing to do is let people FORGET about it.

Bush will be out of office soon enough and everyone will forget. I sure hope nobody is going to let some recent hot air think bush is going to be impeached or anything.

Clinton got away with having sex. Bush will get away for starting a stupid war. Ms. Clinton will get away with being a *****. Unless Ron Paul lays the smack down and thats the bottom line!

[Reaves]

Clinton got away with having sex. Bush will get away for starting a stupid war. Ms. Clinton will get away with being a *****. Unless Ron Paul lays the smack down and thats the bottom line!

I thought he got in trouble for lying about not having sex with 'that woman' not actually doing the deed.

But then again, we'd have no politicians if that was the case!!!

:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Dude why are you defending a sinking ship.

If you want Bush to not face jail then a good thing to do is let people FORGET about it.

Bush will be out of office soon enough and everyone will forget. I sure hope nobody is going to let some recent hot air think bush is going to be impeached or anything.

Clinton got away with having sex. Bush will get away for starting a stupid war. Ms. Clinton will get away with being a *****. Unless Ron Paul lays the smack down and thats the bottom line!I honestly think Clinton has no chance. Bush / jail, no chance either. Clinton has too much baggage, I think maybe one in 10 people I know only partially like her. On the Bush thing, not sure why jail would be an option?

-S

[sonar732]

Don't forget...

Oral Sex isn't sex. :roll::hmm::o

I'd like to see my wife's reaction to that if I attempted that excuse. :rotfl::rotfl:

[Zachstar]

I can give you multiple reasons why Bush needs to be jailed and sent off to face an international trial. But then id have to talk about a bunch in his little party. It isn't worth it to debate a sinking ship.

I've accepted that the scumbag will be out of office soon enough. I sure hope Ron Paul replaces him tho. We need him!

[Stealth Hunter]

Don't forget...

Oral Sex isn't sex. :roll::hmm::o

I'd like to see my wife's reaction to that if I attempted that excuse. :rotfl:

I found myself curiously aroused by that post for some strange reason... and that's never happened before...:huh:

JUST KIDDING.:rotfl:

EDIT:

Tell that to the Catholic Church!

[August]

I thought he got in trouble for lying about not having sex with 'that woman' not actually doing the deed.

Yeah, lying under oath in a court of law to be exact. Less illegal but more damning in my book is him addressing the nation on the subject and lying right to our faces. Literally waggling his finger in the collective faces of the American people in phony outrage.

[Peto]

I thought he got in trouble for lying about not having sex with 'that woman' not actually doing the deed.

Yeah, lying under oath in a court of law to be exact. Less illegal but more damning in my book is him addressing the nation on the subject and lying right to our faces. Literally waggling his finger in the collective faces of the American people in phony outrage.

That's always kind of bothered me too. Still, sex is a topic best handled by families and I don't really think he owed me an explanation for doing the wild thing in the office. And no one got killed. Bush lied about many things and thousands have died. My son having been wounded twice makes "a little" more personal--I admit that.

I'll let you all decide which scenario I think is worse.

[August]

I'll let you all decide which scenario I think is worse.

This thread isn't about Bush, it's about Clinton. As has been argued many times on this forum, the (apparent) sins of one president do not mitigate or excuse the sins of another.

[SUBMAN1]

Besides, I have yet to see proof Bush lied anyway. :D All assumptions.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Besides, I have yet to see proof Bush lied anyway. :D All assumptions.

-S

If Bush lied about anything regarding Iraq, so did much of the world's intelligence agencies. So did much of the 90's Democrat Party which repeatedly asserted that Saddam had WMD programs. This "Bush lied" crap doesn't fly. And G.W. Bush is not going to jail. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:That is just plain stupid. That is merely infantile fantasies of the left.

[Zachstar]

Im moderate. Middle not left

[Sea Demon]

Im moderate. Middle not left

Yeah....me too. :roll:

[bradclark1]

Nice. Program has been in place during the 1990's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/warrantless_wiretapping_latest/

-S
The fuss is the level of expansion under Bush. If you going to run a bash Clinton thread at least say the whole thing. It's no revelation either, back then the Republicans tried blocking. It made the news enough. Blame it all on Clinton. Lied about a blow job too. Now thats a real serious issue that deserves attention. :roll:

[August]

Lied about a blow job too. Now thats a real serious issue that deserves attention. :roll:

That's an all too common attitude among Democrats. Lying is ok as long as its your man doing it right?

[Tchocky]

Lied about a blow job too. Now thats a real serious issue that deserves attention. :roll:
That's an all too common attitude among Democrats. Lying is ok as long as its your man doing it right?
Well, it seems that mountains can be made out of blowjob-shaped molehills, regardless of party affiliation.

[Sea Demon]

Nice. Program has been in place during the 1990's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/warrantless_wiretapping_latest/

-S
The fuss is the level of expansion under Bush. If you going to run a bash Clinton thread at least say the whole thing. It's no revelation either, back then the Republicans tried blocking. It made the news enough. Blame it all on Clinton. Lied about a blow job too. Now thats a real serious issue that deserves attention. :roll:

Yes. Lying under Oath.....Perjury is a serious matter that deserves a tremendous amount of attention. The Senate should have taken impeachment the whole way. The Lie being told under oath is utterly irrelevant.

[August]

Yes. Lying under Oath.....Perjury is a serious matter that deserves a tremendous amount of attention. The Senate should have taken impeachment the whole way. The Lie being told under oath is utterly irrelevant.

Don't you realize that stuff only counts when Repubicans do it?

[Tchocky]

Repubicans
...

[August]

Repubicans ...

Ooops I forgot the L. What would I have done without you to point that out Tchocky?

[NEON DEON]

Nice. Program has been in place during the 1990's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/warrantless_wiretapping_latest/

-S
The fuss is the level of expansion under Bush. If you going to run a bash Clinton thread at least say the whole thing. It's no revelation either, back then the Republicans tried blocking. It made the news enough. Blame it all on Clinton. Lied about a blow job too. Now thats a real serious issue that deserves attention. :roll:

Yes. Lying under Oath.....Perjury is a serious matter that deserves a tremendous amount of attention. The Senate should have taken impeachment the whole way. The Lie being told under oath is utterly irrelevant.

They did take is serious. Unfortunately for the Repubicans the charge was defeated 45 to 55 and Clinton was never found guilty of perjury. Sorry about that.

[Sea Demon]

They did take is serious. Unfortunately for the Repubicans the charge was defeated 45 to 55 and Clinton was never found guilty of perjury. Sorry about that.

Clinton was barely acquitted in the Senate. He was found guilty in the House before it went to the Senate, and was duly impeached in the House. That is forever logged in the House of Rep's records. Read Clinton's words below for yourself after all of the proceedings:

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

He sounds pretty resigned, acknowledges wrongdoing, and was pretty much disgraced as a President from that point on. Oh yeah, and he was disbarred. Sorry about that. :)

[bradclark1]

Lied about a blow job too. Now thats a real serious issue that deserves attention. :roll:

That's an all too common attitude among Democrats. Lying is ok as long as its your man doing it right?
I believe in putting things in perspective. Who's business is it to anybody but Hillary's? Congress sure as hell didn't need to know. How many millions was spent on that? What was the danger to national security? The running of this country came to a near standstill because congress wanted to know if Clinton was getting it on with some woman. You think thats the roll of goverment? No wonder we are so screwed up as a nation.

[NEON DEON]

They did take is serious. Unfortunately for the Repubicans the charge was defeated 45 to 55 and Clinton was never found guilty of perjury. Sorry about that.

Clinton was barely acquitted in the Senate. He was found guilty in the House before it went to the Senate, and was duly impeached in the House. That is forever logged in the House of Rep's records. Read Clinton's words below for yourself after all of the proceedings:

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

He sounds pretty resigned, acknowledges wrongdoing, and was pretty much disgraced as a President from that point on. Oh yeah, and he was disbarred. Sorry about that. :)

First off it takes 2/3s in the Senate which means barely would be 66 to 34. Barely in your mind is quite interesting. You want to see someone almost get knocked out of office then go back to Andrew Johnson. Now that was barely :p

Second the Congress does not and can not put the President on trial they vote for impeachment only. The trial is in the senate.

So---- No the House did not find Clinton Guilty.

No where in Clinton's apology did he say he committed perjury. Maybee you should read it again.


This time use Webster's Dictionary as opposed to SeaDeamons. :p

[August]

I believe in putting things in perspective. Who's business is it to anybody but Hillary's? Congress sure as hell didn't need to know. How many millions was spent on that? What was the danger to national security? The running of this country came to a near standstill because congress wanted to know if Clinton was getting it on with some woman. You think thats the roll of goverment? No wonder we are so screwed up as a nation.

Nobody in Congress cared a hoot about him cheating on Hillary. They felt for some reason that Clinton lying, under oath, in a court of law, constituted obstruction of justice and perjury, both impeachable offenses. Ultimately they let him off the hook for political reasons even though it was pretty clear he had done exactly that.

The usual political obfuscations are one thing ,but in my book the President of our country is supposed to be trustworthy and lying under oath, REGARDLESS of the subject, is just not acceptable. It's pretty clear that the man was/is a sexual predator and i find the Democrats willingness to ignore that fact just because he's one of their own to be hypocritical.

[Zachstar]

My god yet another round of Clinton lied and nobody died disscussion.

Clinton was not found guilty. END OF STORY Newsflash: He is no longer the president.

Can we move on to the other parts?

[Sea Demon]

First off it takes 2/3s in the Senate which means barely would be 66 to 34. Barely in your mind is quite interesting. You want to see someone almost get knocked out of office then go back to Andrew Johnson. Now that was barely :p

Second the Congress does not and can not put the President on trial they vote for impeachment only. The trial is in the senate.

So---- No the House did not find Clinton Guilty.

No where in Clinton's apology did he say he committed perjury. Maybee you should read it again.


This time use Webster's Dictionary as opposed to SeaDeamons. :p

I find it utterly amazing how some people can schill for Clinton like they do. Clinton admits wrongdoing, and is in some sort of "got caught in the cookie jar" type of posture, and some people continue to try and clean up his rotten image. :nope: :D Utterly amazing. Of course he doesn't come out and spill it for you, but nevertheless, he is a liar and a cheat. It's hilariously fallacious to say he's an honest man. History will tell you you're wrong every time. Ask his wife...oh yeah...she's got integrity problems herself. Never mind. And you're wrong about the House. Their vote will stand for eternity in the Congressional record as a successful impeachment vote. Clinton will go down in History as a disgraced President despite all the rhetoric from Clinton lovers. All his lying, cheating on his wife, getting impeached, trial, Chinagate will always be a part of his historical record. And there is absolutely nothing you can do to clean it up. So continue on...it matters not.

P.S. Just wait until/if his wife is the Democratic nominee. You ain't seen nothing yet. ;)

[Sea Demon]

Clinton was not found guilty. END OF STORY Newsflash: He is no longer the president.

Can we move on to the other parts?

Actually he was acquitted of wrongdoing.......barely. But impeached in the House of Representatives. He has admitted wrongdoing when he got caught with his pants down (no pun intended). His wife is running on his record.....curiously, so tell her he's no longer the president.

And you're free to move onto any topic you'd like. :88)

[Sea Demon]

i find the Democrats willingness to ignore that fact just because he's one of their own to be hypocritical.

I find it totally lacking in intellectual honesty. :yep:

[Sea Demon]

Clinton lied and nobody died disscussion.


Clinton was less than honest about global terrorism and alot of people died. ;) His inaction, and sweeping under the rug policies allowed for 5 major attacks during his tenure. But nice try.

I give him credit for one thing though. At least he admitted Saddam was a potential threat who had WMD's. Or am I not supposed to mention that.

[Zachstar]

Clinton was not found guilty. END OF STORY Newsflash: He is no longer the president.

Can we move on to the other parts?
Actually he was acquitted of wrongdoing.......barely. But impeached in the House of Representatives. He has admitted wrongdoing when he got caught with his pants down (no pun intended). His wife is running on his record.....curiously, so tell her he's no longer the president.

And you're free to move onto any topic you'd like. :88)

You see here in dis country we have to have a guilty verdict before dat guy is guilty. It's kind of the way we works. Sorry to wreck your deal on that one.

And no I did not like him either. I have to admit tho that he was a fun president compared to Bush. Maybe Obama will be an interesting president if he wins. Hillery will make me puke I'm sure.

As for his wife running on his record. I think he is doing more to harm her in the polls than anything so you ought to be quite thankful that is the case.

[Sea Demon]

You see here in dis country we have to have a guilty verdict before dat guy is guilty. It's kind of the way we works. Sorry to wreck your deal on that one.


You're absolutely correct. Nevertheless, his impeachment in the House forever stands. And his own words after the fact are a part of history. These are things history will never allow to go away.

[Zachstar]

And who will care honestly? If that somehow implies he was guilty of anything.

When someone brings up the impeachment in conversation I never hear. He lied he commited a crime!, the house got him!

It's.... The sex aspect of it.

You can't get the cell phone generation to understand and support spaceflight like people used to do. Much less talk about old useless politics.

Hopefully its more of a tire of this triangle of crap.

Bush Clinton Bush Clinton but supposedly Bush Clinton are big buddies now and all that crap.

We need new people. Ron Paul or Obama in my view.

[Fish]

Im moderate. Middle not left

Yeah....me too. :roll:

:roll: :-? :nope:

[August]

My god yet another round of Clinton lied and nobody died disscussion.

Clinton was not found guilty. END OF STORY Newsflash: He is no longer the president.

Can we move on to the other parts?

He may no longer be the president but he has a chance of getting back into the white house therefore it remains valid.

[Zachstar]

What do you think Mr Clinton is going to become the new Dick Cheney in the Clinton Presidency? I think his wife is more shrewd when it comes to politics and the only thing he becomes is towed along.

Him being in the white house means nothing. It's his wife being in again that can cause major issues for this country.

Did you hear about this supposed plan to send her husband and Daddy Bush on a mission to supposedly repair the damage in international relations? Hopefully just a rumor now...

L
O
L

:rotfl:

[August]

Did you hear about this supposed plan to send her husband and Daddy Bush on a mission to supposedly repair the damage in international relations? Hopefully just a rumor now...

No they did propose such a plan but Bush Sr. basicly told them to sfuff it:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/elder-bush-nixes-clinton-trip-idea/

[Zachstar]

Ah good to hear that mess is over. The last thing the world needs is to see MORE Bush/Clinton.

Go Obama for the Dems GO Ron Paul for the general!

[August]

Ah good to hear that mess is over. The last thing the world needs is to see MORE Bush/Clinton.

Here's a scary thought. If Hillary wins there will have been either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House for a quarter of a century.

[Zachstar]

And I was having a good morning till you posted that thought.

*PUKE* :shifty:

And I just read that Clinton got a large jump in support recently.

The horrors of the pre-fusion age. Gah

[bradclark1]

Nobody in Congress cared a hoot about him cheating on Hillary. They felt for some reason that Clinton lying, under oath, in a court of law, constituted obstruction of justice and perjury, both impeachable offenses. Ultimately they let him off the hook for political reasons even though it was pretty clear he had done exactly that.

The usual political obfuscations are one thing ,but in my book the President of our country is supposed to be trustworthy and lying under oath, REGARDLESS of the subject, is just not acceptable.
Everything was down party lines. The whole thing was a job plain an simple. Forty billion dollars was spent on that. Thats $40,000,000,000!
But it's worth it to get a Democrat huh. Pure stupidity.
In your book is an illusion. There isn't a politician on that hill who isn't a lying scumbag. But I guess in your book there is lying and there is lying. What would be the difference between the two? They are both spelled the same, they each mean the same, so what exactly is the difference? It's okay here but not there? Should we make it law that every time a politician says something they should raise their right hand and be put under oath? Get real!

It's pretty clear that the man was/is a sexual predator and i find the Democrats willingness to ignore that fact just because he's one of their own to be hypocritical
The guy is dirt. The "Democrats :roll: " don't deny that. I don't believe the term sexual predator was used but your personal opinion on it doesn't matter. The "Democrats :roll: " think it's pretty darn stupid to bring a country to a virtual stand still and spend $40,000,000,000 over a blow job.
Not hypocrisy just aversion to stupidity.

[Zachstar]

Good post! :up: There are times to move on and just accept that the bad president soon to be out is not worth the effort anymore.

[Sea Demon]

And I just read that Clinton got a large jump in support recently.

The horrors of the pre-fusion age. Gah

I hope you're wrong. But, I gotta admit, it's going to be fun rehashing the criminal Clinton administration again if she gets the nod. And it will get ugly. There is alot there.

[Sea Demon]

Good post! :up: There are times to move on and just accept that the bad president soon to be out is not worth the effort anymore.

Go to the Democratic Underground and tell those kooks that. They're still talking about some fantasy impeachment over there. I have a feeling they'll still be screaming for it next December when Bush is packing the U-Haul. How funny. :p

[Zachstar]

No its not funny. What Bush/Clinton have done to this country isn't funny in the least bit. If he gets charged I will laugh. Tho it wont mean anything since our real problem wont be fixed by a show trial.

Seriously! If Clinton gets the nomination and Ron Paul somehow does not I WILL write in him in the general election. No it isn't throwing my vote away.

The only one I MIGHT take a chance to show my support on is Obama. Hes got his scumbag qualities but atleast he is a TINY step in the right direction.

[Zachstar]

Now that you mention DU. I used to post on that forum a great deal until i figured it went to hell just like Free Republic did. (What a sticking hellhole it is now) I was stunned at how many outrageous posts they made there (In particular this one where they were giving praise to these eco nuts that were attacking a whaling ship like pirates) that only fed the agenda of the only side. When I pointed it out I got called a freeper and received a barrage of crap from people who seem to think animals are better than humans and that these pirates where heros. Thankfully tho there were others who did the same as me. This is showing that there is SOME hope in DU if they can stop with the side crap and focus on the issues.

I went there today and to my surprise a poll there revealed that a good amount that voted stated that they whould not support a democratic candidate regardless who it is. Perhaps some of them might even consider Ron Paul. :hmm:

Ron Paul is the best hope for America and I hope they realize that once Clintion wins the nomination.

[August]

Everything was down party lines. The whole thing was a job plain an simple. Forty billion dollars was spent on that. Thats $40,000,000,000!
But it's worth it to get a Democrat huh. Pure stupidity

Your figure is just a tad off... Starr spent $7 million investigating Clinton. Another $40 million was spent investigating Hillary and her crooked Whitewater pals. So even if you put them together thats nowhere near $40 billion. :roll:

BTW that's still less than what was spent investigating Reagan ($48.5 million) over the Contra scandal.

http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/A1dstarr2.html

In your book is an illusion. There isn't a politician on that hill who isn't a lying scumbag. But I guess in your book there is lying and there is lying. What would be the difference between the two? They are both spelled the same, they each mean the same, so what exactly is the difference? It's okay here but not there? Should we make it law that every time a politician says something they should raise their right hand and be put under oath? Get real!

What is the difference? One is a felony and one is merely a dishonorable action. C'mon Brad what's you're basicly saying here is that you think an elected official lying under oath in a court of law is ok by you depending on what he lies about. Having read your posts for several years now i find it hard to believe that...

The guy is dirt. The "Democrats :roll: " don't deny that.

Yeah that's why he's still such a big shot in the Democratic party right? Commanding millions per year in speaking fees and that's why he's out stumping for Hillary at various Dem campaign rallies, because you all think he's dirt... :roll:

I don't believe the term sexual predator was used but your personal opinion on it doesn't matter.

Then you have quite the selective memory Brad. Google it yourself..

The "Democrats :roll: " think it's pretty darn stupid to bring a country to a virtual stand still and spend $40,000,000,000 over a blow job.
Not hypocrisy just aversion to stupidity.

That's a common Dem misdirection. This was never, ever, about a "blow job". That's a common Dem tactic to squash the unpleasant truth by making it a subject too dirty to talk about in polite company. It was all about Bill lying under oath in a sexual harrassment trial, which is exactly what he did.

[Zachstar]

Gezz man this is why the dems are all over yall. You do not give up about that.

You do realize you are only fueling the Clinton supporters right? Call it reason but its reason over a closed and dead topic. They take it as they usually do and becomes ever more willing.

Attacking candidiates and their family isn't going to win this one. Clinton will take the nomination unless both republicans and democrats get seriously better candidates on the front lines.

Yes even republicans need to support Obama. Obama is THE only chance you will have at not facing a skilled political monster that will lay waste to any of the republicans except Ron Paul (Ron Paul can only win on a different style unrelated to the usual political crap) You may think that people like Rudy and Mccain can shove off her attack dogs but they have a couple of serious flaws and one that is politics.

#1 They are Male
#2 They support you know what...

Be shocked at that if you like but Clinton being a woman has a strong shield AND torpedo system she can use to lay waste to them while avoiding fallout. For any attempt to go after her will result in more and more people going to her support. This is somthing that has to be figured in as a setback for them every time an ad plays and clinton gets to mark it as an advantage every time they show an ad.

Anything dug up on her past is viewed as gold digging against a woman. She will dig up everything and anything against the republican with little fallout whatsoever.

If Clinton easily wins the nomination (as it is kinda starting to look like will happen as she stands a good chance to take Iowa AND NH) then get ready for a sickening campaign followed by her being the president for ANOTHER 4 years of buisness as usual in the white house.

It's sad but it's currently shaping up to be the perfect election for Clinton. These stupid debates about HIS time in office only gains her more time and points.

[bradclark1]

Your figure is just a tad off... Starr spent $7 million investigating Clinton. Another $40 million was spent investigating Hillary and her crooked Whitewater pals. So even if you put them together thats nowhere near $40 billion.
Okay, I'll take the foot out of my mouth now. Must of been thinking of McDonalds hamburgers or something. Seven million is still an expensive blow job.
What is the difference? One is a felony and one is merely a dishonorable action. C'mon Brad what's you're basicly saying here is that you think an elected official lying under oath in a court of law is ok by you depending on what he lies about. Having read your posts for several years now i find it hard to believe that...
What I think is I think I'm a kind of honourable straight laced kind of guy. But if I was asked that question in front of the whole world even if it were true I would say no myself. The embarrasment factor would be too great. For the record I've never cheated in 28 years nor been in a court besides to fight a speeding ticket. To me there are limits in the publics right to know in personal issues even when one is in public life. Then I look at the accusers and can probably give a good guesstimation that half or more are guilty of cheating on their spouse themselves while holding office. This was nothing but an assination attempt pure and simple.
I think it's disgusting that a political party virtualy stops a nation out of vindictiveness to try and chop an individual over such a "crime". I think it was a more serious crime in the level that the Republicans took this to.
Yeah that's why he's still such a big shot in the Democratic party right? Commanding millions per year in speaking fees and that's why he's out stumping for Hillary at various Dem campaign rallies, because you all think he's dirt...
You have the habit of any disagreement in a political debate it's "You Democrats". It's your if you're not Republican you are a Democrat thing. I tagged myself as the "Democrats" so you could identify. The simple answer on Clinton I think is #1. He wasn't ever found guilty of anything. #2. The Republicans tried pounding on him so hard they screwed themselves and turned the publics perception of him. So blame "yourselves".
Then you have quite the selective memory Brad. Google it yourself.. You'll have to show me.
That's a common Dem misdirection. This was never, ever, about a "blow job". That's a common Dem tactic to squash the unpleasant truth by making it a subject too dirty to talk about in polite company. It was all about Bill lying under oath in a sexual harrassment trial, which is exactly what he did.
Get real. Those darn Dems again. The court dropped the sexual harrassment case because of no proof. So yeah, it's all about a blow job.

[NEON DEON]

The only way that a Republican makes it to the White House is if Obama is the Democratic candidate.

The first thing they will attack is Obama's perceived lack of patriotism. Always a favorite mud slinging tactic they will harp on Obama refusing to wear an american flag pin on his lapel and his failure to salute the flag (hand over heart) during the pledge of allegiance. Mix in a little sub conscious racism and distrust of people of muslim origin on the part of the American voter and poof! Another Republican in the White House. :damn: :damn:

[Zachstar]

This isn't 2004. Any such attack ads will be dismissed quickly as "Swiftboating". Only Mccain could gather the gall to launch such a low blow. And miss...

Try it against Clinton and youve lost.. Outright. She will have any candidate that dares try that made to look like such crap that they will more than likely run away crying.

The republicans are setting themselves up for a huge loss if they face Clinton and a beating from even Obama. They ought to really pour in the support to Ron Paul so they can restore faith that the party can actually complete.

I can see Obama VS Ron Paul being one of the closest and most desisive campaigns of all time.

I can see Clinton VS Rudy or Mccain, etc.. being one of the worst slugfests in election history. It will NOT be pretty or good for America. I can see lots of people voting for donald duck on this one. I will of course write in Ron Paul.

[NEON DEON]

This isn't 2004. Any such attack ads will be dismissed quickly as "Swiftboating".

As much as I would like to agree with that assessment, I find I Can't.

Mud slinging has been around too long as a successfull campaign tactic in the US to go away overnight.

Sure it may last till the candidates from each party are selected, but once the Reps and Dems square off I fear the gloves will come off. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate, then it will more than likely start from the Republican side since Clinton has made it clear that those tactics won't be a part of her campaign.

Maybe if whomever gets nominated for the Republicans comes out and clearly states that he will not use attack ads, It might happen. But, since I believe the Republicans are in the back seat, they will get desperate at some point and lash out.

[Zachstar]

And the moment they do they will have dropped their weak sheild.

[Iceman]

I thought he got in trouble for lying about not having sex with 'that woman' not actually doing the deed.

Yeah, lying under oath in a court of law to be exact. Less illegal but more damning in my book is him addressing the nation on the subject and lying right to our faces. Literally waggling his finger in the collective faces of the American people in phony outrage.

Doh...what a dipstick he was/is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urQFfXWRunw

[August]

Seven million is still an expensive blow job.
One last time Brad. It was not about a "blow job". No matter how many times you repeat such a disgusting falsehood it still does not make it true. Clinton could have actually told the truth (strange concept for him i know) and Starr would have been able to continue with the White Water investigation like he should have and maybe we wouldn't be facing the prospect of another Clinton in the White House.

This was nothing but an assination attempt pure and simple.
I think it's disgusting that a political party virtualy stops a nation out of vindictiveness to try and chop an individual over such a "crime". I think it was a more serious crime in the level that the Republicans took this to.
If he lies under oath on the witness stand in a court of law what else is he lying about would be my take on it but I do agree with you there is little to show for all that effort. I guess they don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing...


You have the habit of any disagreement in a political debate it's "You Democrats". It's your if you're not Republican you are a Democrat thing. I tagged myself as the "Democrats" so you could identify.
You tagged yourself and now you're talking about my habits? :roll:

The simple answer on Clinton I think is #1. He wasn't ever found guilty of anything. #2. The Republicans tried pounding on him so hard they screwed themselves and turned the publics perception of him. So blame "yourselves"
Screwed themselves right into the Whitehouse and control of both houses of Congress you mean.

You'll have to show me.
Naw. I'm not interested in playing go find games with you. Googling "Bill Clinton sexual predator" brought up over half a million hits. If you can't do that it's because you don't want to see what is out there, not because it doesn't exist...

Get real. Those darn Dems again. The court dropped the sexual harrassment case because of no proof. So yeah, it's all about a blow job.
No the court dropped the case because the judge felt Willey couldn't demonstrate damage from the harrassment, not because the harrassment didn't happen. But don't believe me, look it up. In any case, you obviously know that perjury on the witness stand has nothing to do with the merits of the case in which the perjury occured. Just ask Scooter Libby...

[bradclark1]

quote]One last time Brad. It was not about a "blow job". No matter how many times you repeat such a disgusting falsehood it still does not make it true. Clinton could have actually told the truth (strange concept for him i know) and Starr would have been able to continue with the White Water investigation like he should have and maybe we wouldn't be facing the prospect of another Clinton in the White House.[/quote]
It was an assasination attempt therefore it was about a blowjob even if your selfrightiousness and prejeduce doesn't want to see it.
As far as Starr, what, four or five years he tried. Pal, if you can't do it in that amount of time there isn't anything there.
If he lies under oath on the witness stand in a court of law what else is he lying about would be my take on it but I do agree with you there is little to show for all that effort. I guess they don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing...
I told you my guess on why. All that effort, yeah that one way to call it. All that effort to take him down failed. An assasination attempt by party lines that the swing against was from your own party.
You tagged yourself and now you're talking about my habits?
Am I wrong? Read your posts. It's all "You Democrats".
Naw. I'm not interested in playing go find games with you. Googling "Bill Clinton sexual predator" brought up over half a million hits. If you can't do that it's because you don't want to see what is out there, not because it doesn't exist...
I'm not going to hunt for your accusations. You make it, you show it.
No the court dropped the case because the judge felt Willey couldn't demonstrate damage from the harrassment, not because the harrassment didn't happen. But don't believe me, look it up. In any case, you obviously know that perjury on the witness stand has nothing to do with the merits of the case in which the perjury occured. Just ask Scooter Libby...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey Yeah you can really believe what this person says. Harrassment is illegal. If it was there he'd have been burnt.
Blow job vs. Libby. What was more damaging? Like I said put it in perspective.

[August]

As far as Starr, what, four or five years he tried. Pal, if you can't do it in that amount of time there isn't anything there.

So you're saying that the Iran Contra scandal was pure smoke as well? Remember they took 8 years to investigate that one with similar result.

Blow job vs. Libby. What was more damaging? Like I said put it in perspective.
Well in Libbys case they already knew who made the leak before they even talked to him so what damage exactly are you referring to?, since we're talking about perspective I mean...

Never mind.

The bottom line here Brad is that we're never going to agree and further discussion is rather pointless I think. We both know that the Clintons are pure sleaze and we also know that if they were Republicans the Dems would have done gone after them just as hard if not harder. The telling difference between the two parties is that the GoP wouldn't be excusing their actions like the Dems and you are doing now, they'd be right there along with the Dems in demanding their political heads on a platter just like they did with Larry Craig or Mark Foley.

[Tchocky]

No worry about feeding the animals this winter.

Lots of straw.

[bradclark1]

The bottom line here Brad is that we're never going to agree and further discussion is rather pointless I think.
On this I agree :) .
We both know that the Clintons are pure sleaze
I'll go Bill is a dirtbag. Hillary hasn't ever been charged with anything with the exception of being a Clinton. Guilty by association? And no I don't want her to be president.
we also know that if they were Republicans the Dems would have done gone after them just as hard if not harder.
No, we don't know that. No point in what if's or speculation.
The telling difference between the two parties is that the GoP wouldn't be excusing their actions like the Dems and you are doing now,
I'm not excusing his extramarital affair. I'm saying it was none of our business and it was used by the Republicans in an improper manner. Put him on trial for treason and I'd be all for it.
they'd be right there along with the Dems in demanding their political heads on a platter just like they did with Larry Craig or Mark Foley
A hetrosexual affair between two consenting adults vs. attempts to pick up teenage boy's, or lewd conduct in a men's bathroom.
Perspective:
o- A mental view or outlook.
o- The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole.
o- Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view.
o- The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance

[Enigma]

Bush has been in office 7 years.























.....and all Republicans can talk about is Bill Clinton. :rotfl:

What a joke.

[Zachstar]

Thankfully tho SOME republicans who actually care about how far we have slipped into crap are talking about Ron Paul.

And with the same thing happening on the democratic side who are tired of watching their supposed anti-war congress bow down to Bush time and TIME again. Yet act like they are anything with these 30 second days in congress to block bush apointments bullcrap.

You've got an interesting mix of people who are serious about our freedoms and our economy.

So I will say this to anybody who wants to continue this Bill Clinton debate. Get ready for 4 more years of Bush/Clinton buisness as usual. While you are supposedly kicking ass here. Clinton is kicking your ass in the polls.

[NEON DEON]

Thankfully tho SOME republicans who actually care about how far we have slipped into crap are talking about Ron Paul.

Hmmm :hmm:

I am starting to think you are Ron Paul;)

[August]

Bush has been in office 7 years.

....and all Republicans can talk about is Bill Clinton. :rotfl:

What a joke.

Wow talking about Bill Clinton in a Bill Clinton thread. Imagine that. :roll:

[NEON DEON]

Well since republicans are so good at tossing around unproven crap about Democrats I thought I would reciprocate:D

George's Martha Stewart act.


"The secret memo augured ill for Harken's fledgling venture. To compound matters, that same month, Harken's own financial advisers at Smith Barney produced a hand-wringing report voicing alarm at the company's rapidly deteriorating financial condition. (A former company official told Mother Jones that Harken owed more than $150 million to banks and other creditors at the time.) Since Harken wasn't producing anything, it was hard to find a revenue stream, unless you count the river of fees, stock options, and salaries running into the pockets of Junior and other top Harken executives. Junior, as a member of Harken's restructuring committee, could not have been ignorant of the report, since the board had met in May and worked directly with the Smith Barney consultants.
In June 1990, Junior suddenly unloaded the bulk of his Harken stock -- 212,140 shares -- for a tidy $848,560. A former business associate says that Junior's motivation was his desire to buy an expensive new house in Dallas, for which he wanted to pay cash. The June 1990 transaction was an insider stock sale, and security laws required that it be reported no later than July 10, 1990. But Junior filed no such report, at least not then.
Then, in August, Iraqi troops marched into Kuwait, and Harken shares plummeted 25 percent. Junior would have lost $212,140 if he'd waited to sell his shares until then. Still, he didn't file his SEC disclosure until seven months later, in March 1991 -- well after U.S. troops had finished fighting and the gulf war had moved off the front pages. Harken stock rebounded briefly, but quickly collapsed again. Were government secrets discussed, directly or indirectly, that would have given Harken Energy a leg up in exploiting the Bahrain deal? The White House won't say. If Junior traded on exclusive, nonpublic, insider information, he committed a gross violation of SEC rules. Taken together, the company's critical need for success in its Bahraini deal and a possible oil embargo to be imposed by his father provided Junior with strong motivation to bail out of Harken stock before the public discovered either piece of news. (SEC spokesman John Heine says he is unaware of any enforcement action pending.)"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html


Character my arse!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[August]

Well since republicans are so good at tossing around unproven crap about Democrats I thought I would reciprocate:D

George's Martha Stewart act.

Why don't you reciprocate in your own thread and stop trying to derail this one? :yep:

[NEON DEON]

Well since republicans are so good at tossing around unproven crap about Democrats I thought I would reciprocate:D

George's Martha Stewart act.

Why don't you reciprocate in your own thread and stop trying to derail this one? :yep:
:huh:
:nope:

It is all about character.

If you can justify yourself unloading on Clinton based on nothing proven, then hay you should say the same of a republican too. Can you do that? I don't think so.

Unless of course you want to shoot for a double standard.

Got the connection?

[August]

Well since republicans are so good at tossing around unproven crap about Democrats I thought I would reciprocate:D

George's Martha Stewart act.
Why don't you reciprocate in your own thread and stop trying to derail this one? :yep: :huh:
:nope:

It is all about character.

If you can justify yourself unloading on Clinton based on nothing proven, then hay you should say the same of a republican too. Can you do that? I don't think so.

Unless of course you want to shoot for a double standard.

Got the connection?

Proven!?! :o You're saying he didn't commit perjury? What did they disbar him for then I wonder?

[Zachstar]

Was he found guilty? Blame your congress for not finding him 100 percent guilty and stop with this crap please.

[August]

Was he found guilty? Blame your congress for not finding him 100 percent guilty and stop with this crap please.

Nothing is forcing you to participate in this thread so why not mind your own business? :D

[Zachstar]

Because there are statements being made that are wrong maybe?

[NEON DEON]

Well since republicans are so good at tossing around unproven crap about Democrats I thought I would reciprocate:D

George's Martha Stewart act.
Why don't you reciprocate in your own thread and stop trying to derail this one? :yep: :huh:
:nope:

It is all about character.

If you can justify yourself unloading on Clinton based on nothing proven, then hay you should say the same of a republican too. Can you do that? I don't think so.

Unless of course you want to shoot for a double standard.

Got the connection?

Proven!?! :o You're saying he didn't commit perjury? What did they disbar him for then I wonder?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying and exactly what the US Senate said. He did not commit perjury.

Yes he was disbarred from trying cases in the Supreme Court of the U.S. of which he never did anyway.

That was because he failed to answer a subpoena from the Arkansas Supreme court while he was the President. The Arkansas Supreme court found him in contempt but that was just all show because the only peops that can do that to the Prez and have it stick is Congress and the Senate. In essence making the legislative branch the judicial branch when speaking of legal matters while the President is in office.

So then the US Supreme court did there thing and disbarred(automatic when disbarred by a State Supreme Court) the President from
trying cases in the Supreme court despite the fact he was never obligated to show in Arkansas because he was President. Clinton is still able to practice law and his license to practice law was never revoked. The judicial branches had a chance to pursue after his term of office was over but they aggreed to a five year suspension of his law license instead based on the Arkansas contempt charge.

FYI

Bill Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 65%. You would have to go back to IKE to get that kinka of rating for a President leaving office.

George Bush's current approval rating is 33%.

[August]

Yes he was disbarred from trying cases in the Supreme Court of the U.S. of which he never did anyway.

Still they don't do that without a reason my Friend. I agree that all Clinton got was a slap on the wrist, but it was a slap nonetheless. The man is a crooked, sexual harrassing, sheister. You know it, I know it, and if he wasn't a Democrat you would be calling for his political head on a platter.

[NEON DEON]

The man is a crooked, sexual harrassing, sheister. You know it, I know it, and if he wasn't a Democrat you would be calling for his political head on a platter.

Now you are telling me what I know.:huh: :nope:

I never called for Ronnie's head on a platter during Contra. I did not go spastic after Ford pardoned Nixon.

Stop trying to tell me what I know. :p

The man is a crooked, sexual harrassing, sheister..

If I were you, I would add the words "I believe" to the front of that statement lest you be accused of slander.

Of course being accused of slander means nothing unless you are given----


DUE PROCESS



BTW:

I think you would make a great Vigilante.;)

[August]

BTW:

I think you would make a great Vigilante.;)

Aww aintchew sweet! :up: