|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 87 of 404:
| 
Dec 29 20:51 UTC 2005 |
re #86 bad analogy, we're talking about people who are paid, not
slaves. Monica Lewinsky was on the payroll.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 88 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:52 UTC 2005 |
Sure, as long as he's not using the power of the executive branch to tap them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 89 of 404:
|
Dec 29 21:05 UTC 2005 |
So it's OK to bang slaves?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 90 of 404:
|
Dec 29 21:09 UTC 2005 |
Re #89, are you asking me?
|
twenex
|
|
response 91 of 404:
|
Dec 29 21:13 UTC 2005 |
No, that was a joke.
|
gull
|
|
response 92 of 404:
|
Dec 29 23:04 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:78: So basically, you assume that Clinton would have done
anything to protect his personal life, but give Bush the benefit of the
doubt by suggesting he might have good reasons for doing what he's
done. Your partisanship is showing.
Actually, the partisanship and hypocrisy in this whole issue is kind of
disgusting. Clinton was subjected to a long, multi-million-dollar
fishing expedition by a political party that was desperate to destroy
him. No allegation was too minor for them. They investigated a 20
year old failed land deal. They probed his private life. They
listened to 140 hours of testimony about his Christmas card list. They
conducted a Congressional investigation of his pet cat's fan club.
They picked that administration apart, top to bottom, and at the end of
it all they could come up with was that he'd gotten a blow job.
Now the same party is showing a marked lack of interest in
investigating serious allegations of wrongdoing by Bush. The same
people who castigated Clinton for getting a blow job are making excuses
for our current President. I kind of expected more from the party that
claims to represent morality and transparent government.
|
dpfitzen
|
|
response 93 of 404:
|
Dec 29 23:46 UTC 2005 |
I wonder if it was a matter of living in a glass house that people didn't hold
Clinton responsible for anything other than breaking the law when he lied to
authorities. Whatever the same people that got the facts as Pres. Bush want
now to say he lied. Our problem is not getting the facts and remembering them
correctly and in order. The Chicago Tribune started a series on judging the
case for war(editorials). It is very good reading you might also find
worthwile.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 94 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:36 UTC 2005 |
Re #93, um, we weren't talking about WMDs or Iraq. You've done a good
job of reiterating the standard Fox News talking points, I guess, but
they aren't really applicable to this subject.
|
tod
|
|
response 95 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:39 UTC 2005 |
re #93
Dude, your record skipped
We're talking about wiretaps
|
nharmon
|
|
response 96 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:46 UTC 2005 |
As a conservative, I share a lot of you people's disgust in the lack of
prying on the congress's part in regards to Bush's actions. I think that
a GOP-majority congress impeaching a sitting republican president would
show a hell of a lot of integrity and would do well to restore the
world's opinion of the United States.
|
twenex
|
|
response 97 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:55 UTC 2005 |
Re: #92. Disgusting, but hardly unexpected. Remember the sort we're dealing
with here.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 98 of 404:
|
Dec 30 01:36 UTC 2005 |
resp:93 - I think where the disconnect comes in is the argument over
whether it was anyone's business in the first place. Many feel that it
was not, and don't get over to the business of lawbreaking.
|
dpfitzen
|
|
response 99 of 404:
|
Dec 30 02:55 UTC 2005 |
R94 Yes the topic of discussion started out much different than it ended up
however starting about 80 or so you will read my reply applied to the current
discussion . Who lied and why. Which made me think of the article in the
Chicago Tribune which I thought some would find interesting. You are right
it was also discussed on Fox tonight. It is odd how the discussions change
the further they go isn't it?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 100 of 404:
|
Dec 30 04:11 UTC 2005 |
Not really. This item started about impeaching Bush. Naturally, the Clinton
impeachment entered the discussion. What was "unnatural" was your trying to
confuse the issue by using Fox/GOP talking points about Iraq in a discussion
where that was not the focus. Good luck distracting your neighbors from the
real issue, though.
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 404:
|
Dec 30 05:10 UTC 2005 |
Peach and Bush are a hot topic this week. *pause for canned laughter*
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 102 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:01 UTC 2005 |
*hands tod a can opener*
|
tod
|
|
response 103 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:27 UTC 2005 |
Mine's dented!
|
tsty
|
|
response 104 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:34 UTC 2005 |
.. tha;s why you were given a new one ....
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 105 of 404:
|
Dec 30 08:36 UTC 2005 |
Your canned laughter is dented? That's not funny.
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 404:
|
Dec 30 13:30 UTC 2005 |
re resp:92: Did you miss the part where I said I think Bush should be
impeached? Is that why you call my comments "partisan"?
Or maybe it's because I say Clinton's lies to the country were to
protect himself from his personal indiscretions, but Bush's may
possibly have been because he thinks he is benefitting the country.
(Though, as I added, I don't believe that myself.)
Sigh. I would have thought you of all people on Grex would be able to
catch the gist of comments. I am surprised you need a reminder summary
to help you to not reverse the intent of everything I've said.
It is true that I am a conservative voter. I'm strongly against
abortion. I prefer low taxes to big public projects such as free
national health coverage. I like the two serious Supreme Court
nominees that Bush has named. I even think ANWR should be open for oil
production. I despise the ACLU.
If I'd never posted in this item, or discussed any of my views about
Bush over the last three years, you could have reasonably concluded I'm
pretty partisan in favor of the Republican Party and the current
administration. Given what I've said here, writing at some length,
which I think has been pretty hard on Bush (whom I voted against in
2004, did you know that? I voted for Kerry), I really don't think I
fit the mold you put me in.
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 404:
|
Dec 30 15:43 UTC 2005 |
re #106 jep, why do you despise the ACLU? The ACLU only exists to
protect your constitutional rights. The ACLU's role is not political,
it does not endorse candidates. It has represented many conservatives,
such as Rush Limbaugh and the KKK. I cant understand why you'd despise
them unless you've been watching too much Fox News Channel.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 404:
|
Dec 30 16:34 UTC 2005 |
The reason may be that jep thinks the Bill of Rights in the Constitution
is too liberal.
|
tod
|
|
response 109 of 404:
|
Dec 30 16:54 UTC 2005 |
re #107
You sound like a neocon when you ask someone a leading question about their
Freedom.
|
richard
|
|
response 110 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:05 UTC 2005 |
Actually the one who needs to resign, or be fired, is attorney general
alberto gonzales, because he is the president's lawyer, and he advised
the president that he had the authority to break a federal law. If
Bush gets called into court over this, he'll just say he got bad advice
from his lawyers and he did. Gonzalez needs to go.
|
tod
|
|
response 111 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:07 UTC 2005 |
The point you're missing is that the only authority likely to call a POTUS
into court is the attorney general. Think JFK and all the dirt people had
on him and you'll get the picture.
|