Ah, Hillary's Hypocrisy

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's been a manufactured controversy over here in the US recently about some federal prosecutors being fired, as is allowed by law.
But the dems and media have jumped on this as a chance to portray the Bush administration as obstructing justice and the like, blowing it completely out of proportion it a blatant attempt to hurt Bush, facts and objectivity be darned.

The hypocrisy, however, is coming from Hillary Clinton, who wants the US attorney general to resign because of this, even though she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

Here's a link to Hillary's demand Gonzales resign:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2948538&page=1

And a story about how she's a filthy hypocrite:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784


As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

I know, let's get the Clintons back in power! Wouldn't that be a great idea? :no:

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hillary_clinton_tries_to_woo).

[Tribesman]

Wow the Presidents wife has the power to sack all political appointees .:dizzy2:
Come on Rabbit , you can do better than that .
How about a nice article saying that it was really Hillary who told the FBI to burn Waco because she hates guns and god:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


There's been a manufactured controversy over here in the US recently about some federal prosecutors being fired, as is allowed by law.

Hmmmmmmmm....hypocrisy is it , now I wonder who was ranting about Chavez being a dictator because he fired some judges as he allowed to by law ?:whip:

[ShadeHonestus]

Wow the Presidents wife has the power to sack all political appointees .:dizzy2:
Come on Rabbit , you can do better than that .
How about a nice article saying that it was really Hillary who told the FBI to burn Waco because she hates guns and god:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hmmmmmmmm....hypocrisy is it , now I wonder who was ranting about Chavez being a dictator because he fired some judges as he allowed to by law ?:whip:

Ah the great over simplification and emoticon rebuttal of tribesman at it's best. However I do think this one is down a few ":dizzy2: 's" . You need to up that :daisy: to keep your flame cred.


Honestly, who didn't know it was going to be an unwashed open season on republicans as soon as the democrats took both houses? You can't see your dribble for your spew as any republican rebuttal or retort to past offences by those same very democrats is greated with shock and horror, smoke and mirrors and something about the environment. Wake up and smell 2nd mid-term election fallout as it has always been a precursor for politics to lay fault of the next administration squarely on the shoulders of the previous. Republicans did it, Democrats are doing it...circular, circular, feel it, doing the bull dance...feeling the flow..

What I can't stand are those who refuse perspective...now that's :dizzy2: x 50

[CrossLOPER]

Clinton is superior.

[ShadeHonestus]

Clinton is superior.

In many ways :2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hillary_clinton_tries_to_woo).

I for one am sold.

[Husar]

Ah the great over simplification and emoticon rebuttal of tribesman at it's best. However I do think this one is down a few ":dizzy2: 's" . You need to up that :daisy: to keep your flame cred.
Tribesman is one of my favourite posters here, maybe it's because he softens up a debate with short and flammatory comments, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what he says is wrong, does it? You don't always need to write 20 pages to have a point.

On the topic, well, I don't care that much about Hilary, I always wanted Bill Clinton to stay, he was such a lovely guy compared with Bush.:dizzy2:

[ShadeHonestus]

Tribesman is one of my favourite posters here, maybe it's because he softens up a debate with short and flammatory comments, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what he says is wrong, does it?

Oh he's one of mine as well, don't get me wrong, I just like to call him on his style.



You don't always need to write 20 pages to have a point.


Absolutely agree, in fact Tribe can throw out 50 accusations in 3 sentences, I swear. That is of course part of his style and appreciated, even if once you wade through 49 you find that one that has truth. :2thumbsup:



That's nothing compared to her latest gambit.


Iowan's prefer their politicians in the past tense...

[Tuuvi]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hillary_clinton_tries_to_woo).
So she's getting more votes by not running? wha? :dizzy2:

[Marshal Murat]

"This was an unexpected moment, and it took a lot of courage on her part," said Miami resident Brian Highland, a former supporter of Arizona Sen. John McCain. "I've been a staunch Republican all my life, but now that Hillary's dropped out of the race, she's definitely got my vote."

That makes sense?
How does that work? You vote for someone that has dropped out?
:stop: :hanged:

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hillary_clinton_tries_to_woo).

Well, that's got me seriously reconsidering my support for her newest policy.

In all seriousness, I'd rather see Obama in there than her - she wants power and will do anything to get it. Obama doesn't seem so ruthless.


That makes sense?
It makes perfect sense. You can write in any candidate you want to on the ballot.


So she's getting more votes by not running? wha?
Well, if she gets more support by not trying to get support, it makes sense, doesn't it?

CR

[drone]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right? :inquisitive:

[ShadeHonestus]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right? :inquisitive:

Noooooo

Next thing you're going to tell me is that Grizzly Adams had a beard.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right? :inquisitive:

What are you talking about? The Onion, a joke? But that would mean I was just leading those poor sods on, wouldn't it, that I was having a bit o' fun with them, and that you, instead of joining in, had to be all serious and bring them back to reality, wouldn't it?

I don't know what craziness you're spouting. Clearly, the Onion is not a joke.

Crazed Rabbit

[CrossLOPER]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right? :inquisitive:
Slow posters are SLOWWWWWWWWWW.

[Marshal Murat]

It wouldn't be bad for her to do that poll and see if she would step down, if there were enough people complaining.

:404:

[Goofball]

There's been a manufactured controversy over here in the US recently about some federal prosecutors being fired, as is allowed by law.
But the dems and media have jumped on this as a chance to portray the Bush administration as obstructing justice and the like, blowing it completely out of proportion it a blatant attempt to hurt Bush, facts and objectivity be darned.

The hypocrisy, however, is coming from Hillary Clinton, who wants the US attorney general to resign because of this, even though she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

Here's a link to Hillary's demand Gonzales resign:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2948538&page=1

And a story about how she's a filthy hypocrite:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784



I know, let's get the Clintons back in power! Wouldn't that be a great idea? :no:

Crazed Rabbit

I see what you are saying, but here is where I see the difference:

From what I understand of the situation, Pres Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys in one fell swoop because he had taken office after an extended Republican hold on the Presidency, and basically wanted to clean house. While the move is definitely partisan, there's nothing really surprising there. Partisan politics are, after all, traditionally the American way of doing things when it comes to appointing not only your attorneys, but your judges as well. Clinton didn't pick and choose because he disagreed with the specifics of any particular cases, he just made a fresh start.

On the other hand, if the allegations are true, it appears that the Bush administration targeted specific attorneys because they wanted to prevent or stop specific investigations/indictments that would have reflected badly upon Republican interests. And that is definitely a no-no.

Again, assuming the allegations are true, you have no leg to stand on with your comparison between W.J. Clinton's actions and what is happening now. There is absolutely no similarity.

And as far as using this to call H. Clinton a "filthy hypocrite" goes, it's beyond laughable. She never fired any U.S. attorneys.

But hey, as long as it keeps Republican hate pointed Hillary, I'm happy. She's one of my least favorite contenders anyway.

[Marshal Murat]

It's the number replaced by Clinton that is insane.

The prosecutions the attorneys are trying to work on are ones that involve voter fraud that they don't want to reveal.

I think the article states that the prosecutors weren't doing their job, and for that they should be sacked.


Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

[Goofball]

It's the number replaced by Clinton that is insane.

The prosecutions the attorneys are trying to work on are ones that involve voter fraud that they don't want to reveal.

I think the article states that the prosecutors weren't doing their job, and for that they should be sacked.
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

Sorry, but you just proved my point. The Republicans sacked this guy because he wouldn't open an investigation against Democrats that the Republicans wanted open. And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the Washington election had gone the other way and the Republicans won by 100 votes, they would have sacked the guy if he did open an investication.

[Marshal Murat]

No I just refuted it because he is a DEMOCRAT, and he was protecting his own crew.

The vote was in doubt.
There were suspicions, including the *sparkle magical tooth fairy warehouse vote sparkle*
It wasn't opened.
He didn't do his job.
He should be sacked.

I fail to see the problem.

[ShadeHonestus]

Goofball

You should also remember at the time of those political sackings, among them were U.S. attorneys that were investigating him and whitewater...among many other things. Don't forget his last second deal to rid himself of concern over future prosecution.


/sarcasm on
Bush should have fired them all and not just those in particular, the political issues would have been lost in the fold.
/sarcasm off

[Goofball]

Sorry, but you just proved my point. The Republicans sacked this guy because he wouldn't open an investigation against Democrats that the Republicans wanted open. And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the Washington election had gone the other way and the Republicans won by 100 votes, they would have sacked the guy if he did open an investication.No I just refuted it because he is a DEMOCRAT, and he was protecting his own crew.

I'll speak more slowly this time:

It appears that Bush fired specific U.S. attorneys because they were not doing what was in the interest of Republicans. The bit you quoted supported my point completely.

How is this difficult to understand?


Goofball

You should also remember at the time of those political sackings, among them were U.S. attorneys that were investigating him and whitewater...among many other things. Don't forget his last second deal to rid himself of concern over future prosecution.


/sarcasm on
Bush should have fired them all and not just those in particular, the political issues would have been lost in the fold.
/sarcasm off

Actually, you're correct. Except Bush should have fired them all at the beginning of his first term, then it would have not been suspicious at all. And he also shouldn't have fired guys who, as far as I can see from what has been written, had good work records.

[Tribesman]

And as far as using this to call H. Clinton a "filthy hypocrite" goes, it's beyond laughable. She never fired any U.S. attorneys.


But she did she did , can't you see it ?


By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint
plural so she did .

even though she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

it says she , so she did .


He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department
Look she is there again , but this time appointing not sacking .:yes:

So Goofball you are completely wrong with your "beyond laughable" line , its very laughable , not as funny as the "she ordered the Waco murders" one (I will have to see if I can find that again at townhall.com , its a real classic:laugh4: )
But really what is so sadly laughable is that the runup to the elections and all the mudslinging that goes with it is all over the airwaves , but the election is still ages away .
There are many months of this crap to come .

[Marshal Murat]

That wasn't me....


Anyway, how difficult is it to understand that some people don't DO their jobs? He didn't. If it was a Republican governor, the whole issue would have been exploded across the news networks as the attorney led a charge into the devious back-stabbing realms of the GOP. :charge:
The bit I quoted supports my point just as validly as yours. The attorney didn't prosecute the governor-elect for these fraudulent acts. Your telling me they fired a prosecutor who didn't prosecute a person because they are a Democrat?

They are sacking him because he didn't do the job he was hired to do! If your hired to drive a truck, but you don't drive it because you have 'other things' and then get fired for it, it's not the employers fault, it's yours!
The hubub is about nothing more than a political appointee being kicked out, and raising a immature fuss about how he was fired because of 'political partisan actions' rather than his own gosh darn fault!


some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse....But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

Are you saying he did his job there? That while it isn't proof, it certainly raised red flags in my head. If anything is the problem, it is the attorney for showing favoritism to a candidate of the same party! He should have been fired for not investigating it, because there was FRAUD. He shouldn't have worried about whether it was a Republican, Democrat, Green Peace, or Eskimo running.
The favoritism attitude projected by this attorney means that he is not only un-biased, but a partisan attorney who is trying to save someone of his own party from being kicked out. Are you saying that this was right? It's okay for someone to abuse the law system and his privileges like that?

He should be fired for this negligence on his part.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Clinton on whether homosexuality is immoral: "that's for others to decide" (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-ducks-answer-on-whether-homosexualty-is-immoral/)

https://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6800/emotwtcae8.gif

[ShadeHonestus]

Clinton on whether homosexuality is immoral: "that's for others to decide" (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-ducks-answer-on-whether-homosexualty-is-immoral/)

https://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6800/emotwtcae8.gif

Well of course, either answer would cost her votes and as long as she doesn't make too big of a soundbyte for CNN or Fox, she'll keep them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sorry, but you just proved my point. The Republicans sacked this guy because he wouldn't open an investigation against De
mocrats that the Republicans wanted open. And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the Washington election had gone the other way and the Republicans won by 100 votes, they would have sacked the guy if he did open an investication.

Dead people voted in that election. People voted twice. People who shouldn't have voted at all voted. There was voter fraud, there is no doubt about that.

Yet that fellow did absolutely nothing to investigate it, as was his job, as he should have done. It matters not if he was harming republicans or democrats by investigating or not doing so; he was harming democracy. He did not do his job. Is that so hard to comprehend?

I'll take that bet here in WA any day of the week.

Trying to argue on that point is maybe the worst attorney you could pick to support.


She never fired any U.S. attorneys.
She benefited politically from it, as did some of her associates, and now has the gall to accuse Bush of doing that when he didn't.

Though, I never said she fired the attorneys. But I guess it's easier for some to just set up strawmen and hack away.


Clinton on whether homosexuality is immoral: "that's for others to decide"

Gotta love someone who lets polls decide their morals.

Crazed Rabbit

[ShadeHonestus]

Gotta love someone who lets polls decide their morals.


Better yet, someone who lets polls speak their morals. She won't speak of them herself.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

wasn't there something funny about GWB and some high court judges getting him elected in the first place... oh i can't remember..... /sc off

its a tad rich for the republicans to care about the voting system and voter fraud now isn't it....

[Tribesman]

Though, I never said she fired the attorneys. But I guess it's easier for some to just set up strawmen and hack away.

Ahem :thumbsdown: that would be bollox then would it ? or was it another cwazy wabbit who wroted it.?......she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.
.......she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

hmmmmm...notice the words she had fired:oops:

[ShadeHonestus]

She was too busy taking vacations with Chelsea at the tax payers expense to have an input...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ahem that would be bollox then would it ?

Nope, I said she and her husband had every attorney fired, not that she did it herself. You seem to be forgetting the crucial words 'and her husband'.

"We are the president", remember?

Anyways, here ya go tribesy: http://www.starfall.com/

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

Nope, I said she and her husband had every attorney fired, not that she did it herself. You seem to be forgetting the crucial words 'and her husband'.

"We are the president", remember?

Anyways, here ya go tribesy: http://www.starfall.com/

Crazed Rabbit

"May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit..."

C'mon CR. That is just pure mental midgetry on your part.

Are you saying she had something to do with the firing or not?

Either way, you have no point.

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?

[ShadeHonestus]

C'mon CR. That is just pure mental midgetry on your part.

Are you saying she had something to do with the firing or not?

Either way, you have no point.

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?


There is a problem with this theory and that is the fact she was a very assertive first lady, both when he was governor and president. Is there any real doubt there? In fact many on both sides of the aisle put their marriage as one which was political in nature, not merely a product of fancy. Other, much more quiet first ladies have garnered more attention than you're willing to give the extremely political animal we know and love as Mrs Clinton. She served as the chair of presidential task forces for goodness sake and has a very long list of political involvement, domestic and foreign. To believe that she had zero input, zero influence, zero deciding power is a stance of midgetry. She wasn't at home baking muffins while Bill ran the country...

[Goofball]

There is a problem with this theory and that is the fact she was a very assertive first lady, both when he was governor and president. Is there any real doubt there? In fact many on both sides of the aisle put their marriage as one which was political in nature, not merely a product of fancy. Other, much more quiet first ladies have garnered more attention than you're willing to give the extremely political animal we know and love as Mrs Clinton. She served as the chair of presidential task forces for goodness sake and has a very long list of political involvement, domestic and foreign. To believe that she had zero input, zero influence, zero deciding power is a stance of midgetry. She wasn't at home baking muffins while Bill ran the country...

My wife is very assertive and has a very strong personality. Do you think my clients should be able to blame her if I turn down their loan applications?

Hillary may have had influence, but can ultimately bear no responsibility for any actions of the President. She could harp at Bill all day long, but she was not "the decider."

[ShadeHonestus]

Hillary may have had influence, but can ultimately bear no responsibility for any actions of the President. She could harp at Bill all day long, but she was not "the decider."

No official responsibility outside of official recommendations she did make throughout the administration while serving in official capacities. Does your wife serve any official capacity at your work? If so and depending on how close to your capacity, she could have culpability.

[Tribesman]

Are you saying she had something to do with the firing or not?

Either way, you have no point.

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?

Thats a lot of words Goof , it is easier to just write bollox since that fully sums up Rabbits attempt at making a point :yes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

wasn't there something funny about GWB and some high court judges getting him elected in the first place... oh i can't remember..... /sc off


And you believe that bunk. You obviously dont know how are system works. SCOTUS or no SCOTUS Bush would have been elected.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?

You seem to be assuming that she needs to be fully responsible for those firings to be a hypocrite.

A baseless assumption, in my opinion, as her explanation of the 1993 events and her condemnation of these much less events make her a hypocrite. 'Routine' when her hubby does it, an evil machination for political reasons when Bush does it. Hmmm...


Thats a lot of words Goof , it is easier to just write bollox

For you, I don't doubt it. That's your common response to just about everything - such ingrained habits make an observer wonder if the specimen is capable of producing any other response.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

EDIT: Or, to put it another way - :flowers: BG

[Fisherking]

Dose anyone remember what she said about the 1100 FBI files they couldn't find but showed up on her desk?

[ShadeHonestus]

Dose anyone remember what she said about the 1100 FBI files they couldn't find but showed up on her desk?

Oh come on, its obviously less tin hatty to think the Saudi royal family controls the American Ruling class through top secret society BBQ's than thinking a politician like her would have anything to do in the white house but fluff the pillows.

I forget which one is more tin hatty, the Saudi control or the beliefs that the Jews control us completely hence our backing of Israel which is the root of all evil in the Middle East.

Maybe Camp David is really a double top secret playground for excellent Arab-Jew relations that is kept under wraps as the conflict is just a farce to control american politics.


But really, Mrs Clinton involved in the administration of her husband (despite all the official positions and well known public assertions of policy) is really a whacky idea.


[edit] I almost forgot :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :wall:

[Fisherking]

That was not a part of the cookie baking defence now was it?

Which one of them I wonder thought the Commandant of the Marines would look good passing out the canapés? I know Bill asked, but do you think he really has that much of an eye for fashion and style?

[Tribesman]

EDIT: Or, to put it another way - BG
Aw come on Banquo you know Rabbitte says that is his favourite word in debates when people are talking crap .
If its good enough to describe excrement in the Dail it is certainly good enough for the excrement that is rabbits "point" here .
And lets face it there is no merit whatsoever in rabbits "point" .

[Banquo's Ghost]

Aw come on Banquo you know Rabbitte says that is his favourite word in debates when people are talking crap .

In case members are now thoroughly confused, this is the said Rabbitte (http://www.labour.ie/patrabbitte/), not our esteemed conservative poster.


If its good enough to describe excrement in the Dail it is certainly good enough for the excrement that is rabbits "point" here .
And lets face it there is no merit whatsoever in rabbits "point" .

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/aslanngrae/house_of_cards_lead.jpg

You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

(It was the quantity of the description that brought the edit, rather than the quality. :bow:)

[Tribesman]

(It was the quantity of the description that brought the edit, rather than the quality.
OK understood , so if I think something is a lot of bollox I don't really have to write bollox lots of times:2thumbsup:

[ShadeHonestus]

That was not a part of the cookie baking defense now was it?

I think she was too busy, after baking the cookies, in firing those travel office personnel. Remember the clear and substantial evidence against her, yet the congress at the time decided not to prosecute despite the firings being purely political and for personal gain? Damn those republicans and their modicum of decency and perspective.

[Goofball]

I think she was too busy, after baking the cookies, in firing those travel office personnel. Remember the clear and substantial evidence against her, yet the congress at the time decided not to prosecute despite the firings being purely political and for personal gain? Damn those republicans and their modicum of decency and perspective.

I am completely floored that you can say that with a straight face. The Republicans have respect for "decency and perspective," do they?

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

Gimme a very large break.

[ShadeHonestus]

The Republicans have respect for "decency and perspective," do they?

Show it marked contrast to the feeding frenzy currently going on, even without the scent of illegality in the water.



How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

Oh do you mean his obstruction of justice under section 1503 or witness tampering under U.S. Code 1512. Oh wait you're referring to his confusion over what "sex" actually was, that damn perjury bit.



Gimme a very large break.

*breaks you off a piece of my kit-kat bar*

[Goofball]

Show it marked contrast to the feeding frenzy currently going on, even without the scent of illegality in the water.Show it marked contrast to the feeding frenzy currently going on, even without the scent of illegality in the water.

They are asking for restraint because it's one of their own in the hotseat. Make no mistake, if it was a Democrat, they'd be howling for blood.

I am simply pointing out that claiming that the Republicans are somehow more of a "high road" party than the Democrats is just plain silly. Both parties have shown that they will always use whatever tactics are available to them to achieve political advantage, no matter how dirty.

If you don't understand that then there is no point discussing American politics with you.



How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?Oh do you mean his obstruction of justice under section 1503 or witness tampering under U.S. Code 1512. Oh wait you're referring to his confusion over what "sex" actually was, that damn perjury bit.

No. I mean exactly what I said:

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

If you can't answer the question, just say so.



Gimme a very large break.
*breaks you off a piece of my kit-kat bar*

Thanks, but I prefer:
http://www.hjo3.net/hershey_skor.jpg

:beam:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you don't understand that then there is no point discussing American politics with you.



And if you dont understand Hillary was the most powerfull 1st lady in US history theres no use disscussing it with you either.:laugh4:

National Healthcare anyone? If she wanted people fired they were fired.

Everyone knows Hillary wears the pants in the Clinton family

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/HillaryClinton325.jpg

[drone]

Everyone knows Hillary wears the pants in the Clinton family
That's only because Bill can't keep his on. ~D

[ShadeHonestus]

They are asking for restraint because it's one of their own in the hotseat. Make no mistake, if it was a Democrat, they'd be howling for blood.


Actually they were quoted as saying to the effect that political witch hunts in the firings or hirings of those who serve strictly at the pleasure of the president was not an appropriate concern.



I am simply pointing out that claiming that the Republicans are somehow more of a "high road" party than the Democrats is just plain silly. Both parties have shown that they will always use whatever tactics are available to them to achieve political advantage, no matter how dirty.

If you don't understand that then there is no point discussing American politics with you.


Democrats take the high road on the other side, yet no call on them. The outrage of the minute investigations of Clinton and in the first 100 days we've already had investigations of staplers for their color being red or blue.




No. I mean exactly what I said:

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

If you can't answer the question, just say so.


If you can't understand what led to and subsequently surrounded the president being asked that question, then there is no point arguing anything past what the latest sound byte is with you.

Let alone the fact that he supposedly could recognize what is perjury and what isn't...but that is after the fact and a sideshow.

I could explain that for the 100000000 time, but its much more hip to say it was about sex and just the president not wanting to disclose a blow job. laughable.....