I never said Clinton wasn't a liar or scumbag. Indeed he betrayed many Americans and worse, those in his administration who put their faith and trust in him.
But the topic is impeachment. And no one gets fired because they were caught lying in divorce court about an affair.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,502
- 1
- 81
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 62,879
- 11,278
- 136
I voted "NO" only because it should never have gotten to that point.
While I feel that what he did was wrong, (the sleeping around/Monica BJ/etc.) the whole Clinton/Starr witchhunt should never have gotten as far as it did. It was none of anyone's business if the man was porking women other than his wife. That was between him and Hillary, and none of our business.
HOWEVER, once it got to the point of testifying in court...he SHOULD have admitted the relationship rather than lie about it. (but a BJ isn't quite "sex," but since it IS a sexual act, it's probably close enough to be lumped into the same bag.
While I think Clinton was a good president, possibly the best one since Kennedy, (who was also a "whoremonger," I lost a lot of respect for him personally over the whole "sex scandal" bullshit that was the cause of the impeachment...but it was NOT the world's business...it was between him and his wife.
While I feel that what he did was wrong, (the sleeping around/Monica BJ/etc.) the whole Clinton/Starr witchhunt should never have gotten as far as it did. It was none of anyone's business if the man was porking women other than his wife. That was between him and Hillary, and none of our business.
HOWEVER, once it got to the point of testifying in court...he SHOULD have admitted the relationship rather than lie about it. (but a BJ isn't quite "sex," but since it IS a sexual act, it's probably close enough to be lumped into the same bag.
While I think Clinton was a good president, possibly the best one since Kennedy, (who was also a "whoremonger," I lost a lot of respect for him personally over the whole "sex scandal" bullshit that was the cause of the impeachment...but it was NOT the world's business...it was between him and his wife.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,561
- 4
- 0
The Founding Fathers were specifically vague about impeachment. They did not specify that even a criminal conviction needs to be an impeachable offense.
What Bush and Nixon have done is far more of an impeachable offense then what Clinton did. Bush and Nixon screwed the country. Clinton screwed an intern.
If you don't know the difference......
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,133
- 219
- 106
I voted no only because it was a Sexual issue. Sorry having sex, taking a toke off of a bong... should be a private session...
Was it wrong to be doing it on the job. Of course, was it wrong to lie about certainly ... Was it worth getting impeached over? No...
When you lie about starting war; spending huge sums of money and killing over 4,000 of our onw... Hell YES! it's worth it and it should have been done much sooner.
All I can say is the country is whacked... But go figure. There is no logic to any of it. If I had to guess to why it's like it is? I'd say religion has a big play on it.
Got a better explainable? I'd like to hear it!
You really think the question as to whether or not Nixon should have been impeached is an indicator of the partisan makeup of a place? I mean I thought that the idea that Nixon should have been impeached was pretty much settled historical fact. That's not partisanship, that's just the acknowledgment of reality.
I think the real question as to if Clinton should have been impeached or not is a tough one. On one hand, you can't have Presidents feeling like they can lie and get away with it (not that they already don't do that), because that's obviously a big problem. On the other hand, impeachment is there to get rid of guys who are damaging the Constitution or doing really bad things to the country... and it's hard to see what Clinton did fitting that scope.
As far as the Bush thing, it's directly relevant. McCain has explicitly stated he will carry on the vast majority of Bush's policies.
The thing that many of you are missing is that he was being sued for sexual harrassment, and that was when he perjured himself. Is it so hard to believe that this guy was committing sexual harrassment his whole career? He was porking everyone he could get his hands on. I think the impeachment was justified, even though I think it was a needless distraction from running the the country. He was a decent president, but he should have done a "Jimmy Swaggart" and just admitted everything. Would have been a lot better for him and a lot better for the country....
Yes, but you need to understand that there is a strong case that the questioning was not proper, and you need to understand that the sexual harrassment trial was orchestrated for ulterior motives by a massive anti-Clinton force involving everything from the wealth of Richard Mellon-Scaife to the hgh-end right-wing lawyers, the 'elves', who were pulling the strings.
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, but Clinton was put in a bad situation few appreciate. Not the situation that he had had an affair and had to face that, that was his own doing and his own fault. But rather the situation that all the sex issues were used as a pawn by an ideological group who had an agenda harmful to the public of the nation and had used the sex issue as a weapon politically to harm his agenda.
He was faced with letting them get the political victory, with some very underhanded behavior, and all the harm it could cause, or lying to - if not for a stain - block them.
I'm not going to defend his lie or his lack of judgement on sex, but I am going to point out that the situation was more complicated than most probably are aware.
God damn you to hell.
Edit: On a side note, just so you don't get your little conservative panties in a bunch, I didn't like clinton's bombings, his lies, or his attitude. Impeachment was written on his forehead. But bush deserves far worse.
:thumbsup:
I've always thought if someone was to lie about something as stupid as that... what else could they be lying about.
So just because I don't tow your line I'm a Bush supporter?
And you wonder why the Democrat party smacks of elitism and can't seem to get a win.
You need to realize that I AM the independent that you need to be pulling for to vote for your candidates.
I'm pro-abortion.
I'm not religious.
I'm anti-partial birth abortion.
I have no problem with gay marriage.
I do not support the war in Iraq but I don't want to unilaterally withdraw and leave them fucked either.
I'm pro-universal health care.
But because I'm not 100% in lock step I am your enemy which is why the Democrat party left me behind and also why you can't seem to win the White House.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
your idea of what the 'Democrat party' is is a caricature. It seems like you're basing your voting habits off of the actions of rabid internet message board people as opposed to the actual party you would be voting for or against.
I'll give you a hint: if low tolerance of nonconformity is your issue then you should dislike the Republicans a lot more. There's a reason why party discipline is so strong in the Republicans and so weak in the Democrats, it's because the Democrats have a lot more people in the party with a much wider range of beliefs.
See that I'm not sure on.
For example, I am 100% sold on doing everything reasonably possible to save the environment. But I am also 100% sold on wind farms and especially nuclear power to power our nation. I do not believe we need to use less energy, I believe we have the means to produce more energy than we could ever need we just need the will to do it.
I am also not sold on global warming, though I generally agree with their aims I don't need a boogeyman to scare me into being a bit less of a pollutant to the world.
That said I'm not saying I should use less, I'm saying I need to use the same amount but from a cleaner product that can be disposed of in a cleaner way.
But if you try to tell a liberal that you think global warming might be bullshit and you are shouted down and ridiculed like you wouldn't believe.
The fact that we could have near endless energy from windfarms and nuclear power plants yet glorified hippies tell us that we can't do that because we need to use less rather than make more is the most insane thing I have ever heard in my life.
The fact that Obama is Ivy-League educated and tells me "we can't put our AC's on 72 degrees" rather than "we need to build more nuclear power plants and windfarms" makes me really questions his intelligence or common sense.
I want to be on board guys, I really do.
But you need to give me some common sense here.
I think this post perfectly describes what I'm talking about. Obama is not an opponent of nuclear power. His views of it are very common sense, he supports expanding it with the caveat that we need to figure out what we're going to do with the waste. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. In addition, his comment on air conditioning was a comment on foreign policy and the world's reaction to our energy consumption... and it was completely correct.
You also condemn faceless 'liberals' that I assume you believe comprise the Democratic party as well as 'glorified hippies'.
As I said before, your idea of the Democratic party is a caricature.
A situation entirely of his own making, I might add.
Craig, you're always attempting to get folks to cough up sympathy for the Clintons. Sorry, I've got none.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter