Jump to content

ABC Right Wing Fantasy


Guest Radagast

Recommended Posts

So you don't  dispute he is a lying adulterer who disgraced the white house and ignored Bin Laden because he was too busy chasing interns around the oval office to get BJ's ??

The White House was disgraced long before Clinton by Tricky Dick Nixon who resigned in disgrace and ran away with his tail betwen his legs and by an amnesiac 'B' actor who couldn't remember his treasonous act of selling weapons to an enemy state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
Convicted ??  Hitler and Stalin weren't convicted, I guess they were innocent too.  Drink Up, defeatocrat.

Patriot you are exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of coming up with something intelligent or even remotely connected to what is being discussed, you bring up two people who have nothing to do with the post. But just in case you forgot, in this country we have a two party system. It may not be the best idea but it's worked for two centuries. Stalin and Hitler came from one party systems where they were the deciders. Don't you think that if Clinton were guilty of anything, the republican majority would have found him guilty. You know it's really sad when all you can do is criticise the ones who don't agree with you. Thankfully, you and your ilk are in the minority. Try doing some research for once in your life or is it too difficult. If you are having problems there are intelligent persons who post on this site that can help you if you ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patriot you are exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of coming up with something intelligent or even remotely connected to what is being discussed, you bring up two people who have nothing to do with the post. But just in case you forgot, in this country we have a two party system. It may not be the best idea but it's worked for two centuries. Stalin and Hitler came from one party systems where they were the deciders. Don't you think that if Clinton were guilty of anything, the republican majority would have found him guilty. You know it's really sad when all you can do is criticise the ones who don't agree with you. Thankfully, you and your ilk are in the minority. Try doing some research for once in your life or is it too difficult. If you are having problems there are intelligent persons who post on this site that can help you if you ask.

I'm sorry, but I seem to remember Clinton losing his license to practice law; just something from my limited research.

If the CEO of a large corporation did what Clinton did with an intern, you would be screaming for his head on a platter, and Patricia Ireland of NOW wouldn't be the least bit complicit in saying its not that big a deal. It appears your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
I'm sorry, but I seem to remember Clinton losing his license to practice law; just something from my limited research.

If the CEO of a large corporation did what Clinton did with an intern, you would be screaming for his head on a platter, and Patricia Ireland of NOW wouldn't be the least bit complicit in saying its not that big a deal.  It appears your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

He certainly did lose his law license. But he can apply for reinstatement at any time now. Since he is not intending to practice law again, I'm sure he is not to concerned. But losing his law license and being convicted in the senate are two entirely different issues. Nixon also lost his license to practice law permanently. Do you think that what Nixon did was as bad as Clinton. If you were around then you will remember that Nixon was told, by both Republican and Democratic Senators that if he did not resign, he would be impeached. There were no Senators at the white House encouraging Clinton to resign. And that is because, while having sex with an intern and lying about it may not be the smartest thing a person can do its not an impeachable offense. If you read the Federalist Papers you'll find that this issue was discussed for weeks before it was decided that no, it wasn't an impeachable offense. And the reason was that some of the founding fathers owned plantations and would, on occasion have a liason with one of their female slaves. I believe it was established a couple of years ago that Jefferson had fathered a child. It took 200 years but the family has finally acknowledged one of the decendents. And as far as a CEO of a Company doing it to a female employee that CEO is accountable to the stock holders. They are not elected by you and I. Maybe a better anology would have been if a senator or congressman or woman had done the same thing what would have happpened. We could ask a few of them both republican and democrat that question wouldn't you say? But in reality I think what you are trying to accomplish is old news. Besides you and a few others does anyone really care?

Link to post
Share on other sites
He certainly did lose his law license. But he can apply for reinstatement at any time now. Since he is not intending to practice law again, I'm sure he is not to concerned. But losing his law license and being convicted in the senate are two entirely different issues. Nixon also lost his license to practice law permanently. Do you think that what Nixon did was as bad as Clinton. If you were around then you will remember that Nixon was told, by both Republican and Democratic Senators that if he did not resign, he would be impeached. There were no Senators at the white House encouraging Clinton to resign. And that is because, while having sex with an intern and lying about it may not be the smartest thing a person can do its not an impeachable offense. If you read the Federalist Papers you'll find that this issue was discussed for weeks before it was decided that no, it wasn't an impeachable offense. And the reason was that some of the founding fathers owned plantations and would, on occasion have a liason with one of their female slaves. I believe it was established a couple of years ago that Jefferson had fathered a child. It took 200 years but the family has finally acknowledged one of the decendents. And as far as a CEO of a Company doing it to a female employee that CEO is accountable to the stock holders. They are not elected by you and I. Maybe a better anology would have been if a senator or congressman or woman had done the same thing what would have happpened. We could ask a few of them both republican and democrat that question wouldn't you say? But in reality I think what you are trying to accomplish is old news. Besides you and a few others does anyone really care?

How about a senior military officer?? What if she had done the same thing?

More homework.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He certainly did lose his law license. But he can apply for reinstatement at any time now. Since he is not intending to practice law again, I'm sure he is not to concerned. But losing his law license and being convicted in the senate are two entirely different issues. Nixon also lost his license to practice law permanently. Do you think that what Nixon did was as bad as Clinton. If you were around then you will remember that Nixon was told, by both Republican and Democratic Senators that if he did not resign, he would be impeached. There were no Senators at the white House encouraging Clinton to resign. And that is because, while having sex with an intern and lying about it may not be the smartest thing a person can do its not an impeachable offense. If you read the Federalist Papers you'll find that this issue was discussed for weeks before it was decided that no, it wasn't an impeachable offense. And the reason was that some of the founding fathers owned plantations and would, on occasion have a liason with one of their female slaves. I believe it was established a couple of years ago that Jefferson had fathered a child. It took 200 years but the family has finally acknowledged one of the decendents. And as far as a CEO of a Company doing it to a female employee that CEO is accountable to the stock holders. They are not elected by you and I. Maybe a better anology would have been if a senator or congressman or woman had done the same thing what would have happpened. We could ask a few of them both republican and democrat that question wouldn't you say? But in reality I think what you are trying to accomplish is old news. Besides you and a few others does anyone really care?

You're right, Clinton was morally bankrupt, but it's old news and over with. Of more relevence is the fact that the CIA had Bin Laden identified and cornered in Afganistan in 1998 and asked for permission to take him out. Clinton said no. In hindsight, that was a monumental decision. If Clinton had said GO instead of NO, 9/11 probably would not have occurred and the war in Iraq wouldn't have occurred. I wonder, if Bush had been president in 1998, would he have said GO or NO ?? My guess is GO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right, Clinton was morally bankrupt, but it's old news and over with.  Of more relevence is the fact that the CIA had Bin Laden identified and cornered in Afganistan in 1998 and asked for permission to take him out. Clinton said no.  In hindsight, that was a monumental decision.  If Clinton had said GO instead of NO, 9/11 probably would not have occurred and the war in Iraq wouldn't have occurred.  I wonder, if Bush had been president in 1998, would he have said GO or NO ??  My guess is GO.

Coulda, woulda, shouldas and your wild ass guesses aren't worth the electrons they're printed with.

And there's also some pretty compelling evidence that Iraq was on the cowboy agenda long before 9/11 so your guess doesn't even have the benefit of a factual basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
How about a senior military officer??  What if she had done the same thing? 

More homework.

Although we appear to be mixing apples and oranges, That individual or any military individual is subject to the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice. And in all probability the individual would either be forced to resign, demoted to the next lowest rank or in severe cases be sentenced to prison. Usually though, they're given the opportunity to resign since most senior military officers have over 20-25 years service. However, once again, although what Clinton did was stupid it was not an impeachable offense. No matter how many examples you come up with it is always going to be the same answer. The final decision as to Clinton and his escapade is going to be left to the next generation to decide. Now on a lighter note, I want to read that book you talk about, but need to know if it is a current edition or an older version. It makes it easier to find it at the library. I do appreciate your posts. You are one of the few on here who can actually respond with facts. Which is why you will notice I don't criticize you like the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Coulda, woulda, shouldas and your wild ass guesses aren't worth the electrons they're printed with.

And there's also some pretty compelling evidence that Iraq was on the cowboy agenda long before 9/11 so your guess doesn't even have the benefit of a factual basis.

The fact that the CIA had BinLaden identified and cornered in Afganistan and Clinton said NO when asked for permission to take him out, is not woulda, coulda, shoulda. Except in the minds of Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BushBacker
The neo-cons who write on these post only know what they're told. They don't bother to research anything and believe what the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly say on their programs and take it as fact. And when confronted with the truth they quickly either condemn you or move on to something else. Thats how they play the game. No facts, half truths and innuendo. What Clinton did may have been wrong, but it wasn't illegal. And the plan all along was not to impeach him, but to keep him tied up so that he couldn't govern. Now before I go on yea I know he was impeached by the Congress. No big shock there since the congress is controlled by the republican party. But the real trial held by the republican controlled senate knew the facts and thats why he wasn't convicted. If you want to read the real story go to the library and check out Blinded by the Right. It's written by David Brock who used to be a neo-con until he saw what was really going on. He lays it out pretty good. I know that you will probably do that since you can read a book that doesn't contain alot of pictures. As I have tried in the past to get the neo-cons to do a little research, you see that it's literally impossible for them to do that. There are always two thruths. The one that they believe and the real truth based on the facts.

"What Clinton did "MAY" have been wrong" LOL A president commits adultery in the white house, takes advantage of his authority and commits sodomy on a young intern, lies to congress about it, lies to the american public about it, is empeached and disbarred and shamed in the eyes of the world. And the Kool-aid drinking defeatocrat says " it MAY have been wrong" !! I rest my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
"What Clinton did "MAY" have been wrong"  LOL  A president commits adultery in the white house, takes advantage of his authority and commits sodomy on a young intern, lies to congress about it, lies to the american public about it, is empeached and disbarred and shamed in the eyes of the world.  And the Kool-aid drinking defeatocrat says " it MAY have been wrong"  !!  I rest my case.

Please read the entire response and try to put in context. Clinton may have been wrong is agreeing that he was wrong. It was part of a broader response. Before responding maybe you should read a response more closely. But I noticed that you only found fault with Clinton. What about Nixon? Was he wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Please read the entire response and try to put in context. Clinton may have been wrong is agreeing that he was wrong. It was part of a broader response. Before responding maybe you should read a response more closely. But I noticed that you only found fault with Clinton. What about Nixon? Was he wrong?

Nixon wrong ?? Of course. So what.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nixon wrong ??  Of course.  So what.

If you wankers can't keep your blather in the present and can't get over Clinton you're just going to have to hear about Slick Dick and Ronnie RayGun selling weapons to an enemy state and developing convenient amnesia before Congress.

A classic case of people who live in glass houses.......................

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
Nixon wrong ??  Of course.  So what.

So what is correct. But you and your ilk keep bringing up Clinton and choosing to focus on him rather than the real issue and that is, 9/11 may have been prevented if the cowboy had spent less time being on vacation and a little more time reading his intelligence briefings. But that was then and now is now. I know you would like to give the cowboy a pass on all of this but the fact will always remain that he stood on the rubble of the WTC and said he'd get the ones who did this and then proceeded to attack a country that had no part of what happened on 9/11. And the worst irony is he isn't the least bit concered about actually getting Bin Laden. In fact, he says he doesn't think about him very much and has virtually disbanded the team charged with the responsability of catching him. It seems he's more concerned with taking away our rights then he is catching Bin Laden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
So what is correct. But you and your ilk keep bringing up Clinton and choosing to focus on him rather than the real issue and that is, 9/11 may have been prevented if the cowboy had spent less time being on vacation and a little more time reading his intelligence briefings. But that was then and now is now. I know you would like to give the cowboy a pass on all of this but the fact will always remain that he stood on the rubble of the WTC and said he'd get the ones who did this and then proceeded to attack a country that had no part of what happened on 9/11. And the worst irony is he isn't the least bit concered about actually getting Bin Laden. In fact, he says he doesn't think about him very much and has virtually disbanded the team charged with the responsability of catching him. It seems he's more concerned with taking away our rights then he is catching Bin Laden.

Speaking of Clinton, North Korea just conducted a nuclear bomb test. Guess who sold the North Koreans nuclear reactors when he was in office. Yup, you guessed it, that sodomite Clinton. The North Koreans swore they only wanted the reactors for "peaceful energy purposes", and Clinton bought that BS. Now we may be facing another war that Clinton could have prevented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of Clinton, North Korea just conducted a nuclear bomb test.  Guess who sold the North Koreans nuclear reactors when he was in office.  Yup, you guessed it, that sodomite Clinton.  The North Koreans swore  they only wanted the reactors for "peaceful energy purposes", and Clinton bought that BS.  Now we may be facing another war that Clinton could have prevented.

WHY don't you at least ATTEMPT to learn some FACTS before you blather. North Korea was extracting plutonium long before Clinton was elected POTUS.

YOU are the one blathering BS and I ain't buying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...