No more like Andrew Johnson but I guess I have to give you credit for a cheap political statement. :nope:

<golf clap>

:haha: Agreed!

Again, I'm ready for an honest King or Queen. I think one honest person could do more in a month that those nuts have done in a lifetime.

Tory loyalist! :O:

Agreed, however that's part of the point I was trying to make earlier. Why the heck would anybody want to re-elect an obvious crook. Surely they must have heard about his issues beforehand and if not, they shouldn't have voted to begin with. People that vote, but do not know who or why they are voting for them, probably do more harm than good in elections. If they are not sure and/or don't study the issues and where the candidates stand on the issues, let those making an intelligent, informed decision do the voting. Otherwise, they may well be casting a vote (as in this case)for the wrong person.

What political statement? Who was the last President to be threatened with impeachment? Andrew Johnson? I don't think so...

I responded to your three word question with a simple and unoffensive inquiry as to whether you had a particular person in mind, ie the most recent one threatened with impeachment. Now perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain to me how you could possibly see that as a "cheap political statement".

Personally I think you and the other liberals on this board have become so defensive now that you're side is in power and having to account for it's actions that you all see even the most innocuous things as a personal attack.

Now FWIW had you not gotten your panties in such a twist I would have told you that in my opinion Clinton should NOT have been removed from the Presidency, unless he was first convicted of perjury in a court of law AND sentenced to jail thereby making it impossible for him to finish his term.

But no, you were too eager to be insulted.

I don't have to account for anything, as I'm not an elected official. I'm also not such a blind partisan hack that I'd go through mental gynastics to defend one party or another's actions just because they're the actions of "my team". If people stopped thinking of things like sports fans of opposing teams and used the brains in their head, things may be better off.

Your response belies your claim of disassociation mookie. Or in other words if the shoe doesn't fit then why are you trying it on?

Perhaps your statements would have merit if I were a liberal and a Clinton lover. I happen to be neither. But I guess to you anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal.

August, when you label people, you lose the capability of understanding them fully and from being able to critically examine what they say. Just some free advice.

Uh huh. Dude, I simply asked you to clarify who you were talking about, and I did it in a totally neutral and inoffensive way. You just jumped to the conclusion that it was negative. Any time a Conservative mentions the word "Clinton" it MUST be negative, right?

So maybe you ought to follow your own advice Bud.

Because the ironic part is that, like I said, and you ignored, the only reason I asked was because I intended to use him as an example of who should NOT be expunged/impeached. Had you been actually reading my previous posts (instead of apparently scanning them for something to get insulted about) you'd have noticed that I was also defending Democrat Charlie Rangel against expulsion.

Think about it.