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.

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.

No worry about feeding the animals this winter.

Lots of straw.

On this I agree :) .
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.
No, we don't know that. No point in what if's or speculation.
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.
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

Bush has been in office 7 years.























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

What a joke.

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.

Hmmm :hmm:

I am starting to think you are Ron Paul;)

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

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/feat.../bushboys.html


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

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?

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

Because there are statements being made that are wrong maybe?

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%.

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.

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

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.;)

Aww aintchew sweet! :up: