How can Palin be Pro-TARP and yet Anti-Bailout?

[MasterKiller]

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002551/

[Drake]

Because she's effin hot?

[taai gihk yahn]

she's so cute when she's trying to seem all serious and knowledgeable-like...

[David Jamieson]

Well it depends on which one of the thousands of magazines she reads daily tells her what.

some tell her pro-tarp, others tell her anti-bailout.

It can get pretty confusing in that mind of hers you know.

What with Russia just being "over there" and all... :D

[Syn7]

Because she's effin hot?

ew... if you like whiney whitegirls who'll undoubtedly look like a pear with toothpicks sticking out of it before 50... yeah, so hot...

[Drake]

ew... if you like whiney whitegirls who'll undoubtedly look like a pear with toothpicks sticking out of it before 50... yeah, so hot...

Don't judge me.

[MasterKiller]

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/10/30/18/enhanced-buzz-3121-1288476415-14.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

Well, Bristol Palin did better on Tuesday night's voting than the Democrats did. :D

[Syn7]

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/10/30/18/enhanced-buzz-3121-1288476415-14.jpg

wtf??? so shes going to exploit her daughters fifteen minutes for an election now??? classy sh!t:o

[jdhowland]

wtf??? so shes going to exploit her daughters fifteen minutes for an election now??? classy sh!t:o

Yep. No ethics whatsoever. It's all about her.

[BJJ-Blue]

Do you guys really think Sarah Palin herself had that poster made? :rolleyes:

It's obviously done by a supporter of hers as a joke. You liberals have no sense of humor.

[Drake]

She is MUCH hotter than her daughter.

[MasterKiller]

It's obviously done by a supporter of hers as a joke. You liberals have no sense of humor.

LOL. I believe it was made by a detractor for humorous purposes.

And for the record, I would eat Cheerios out of O'Donnel's and Palin's poop holes.

[BJJ-Blue]

And for the record, I would eat Cheerios out of O'Donnel's and Palin's poop holes.

I worked with a guy who had some funny lines like that.

'She is so hot I'd suck her dads ****' and 'She is so hot I'd eat the peanuts out of her ****' were the best/worst two I heard him utter. Of course his nickname at work became Peanut. ;)

[MasterKiller]

I worked with a guy who had some funny lines like that.

'She is so hot I'd suck her dads ****' and 'She is so hot I'd eat the peanuts out of her ****' were the best/worst two I heard him utter. Of course his nickname at work became Peanut. ;)

At work, when I say a woman is Cheerios worthy, everyone knows what I mean.

[BJJ-Blue]

At work, when I say a woman is Cheerios worthy, everyone knows what I mean.

Ah, so you're 'That Guy'. ;)

[Syn7]

Do you guys really think Sarah Palin herself had that poster made? :rolleyes:

It's obviously done by a supporter of hers as a joke. You liberals have no sense of humor.

nobody thinks that its supposewd to mean both palins are running... i think you are showing a serious lack of intellect by assuming we dont get the poster...

clearly they are using mini palins fifteen minutes to make old wh0re palin look better...

and shes as goodlooking as she is smart... not to mention you would have to sew that ugly mouth shut in order to be around her and not throw her into oncomming traffic...


do you really think that we wont see more of bristol than we will of other siblings??? dont be so naive, palins gonna milk every inch she can get from any source she can exploit...


anyways, im so tired of all this tea party sh!t... infact american politics are such a carny act... we only pay attention because its all over most of our news channels andf papers... really tho, british politics affect canadians more than US politics do... we work in a much different way over here... if it wasnt for trade, we wouldnt really have any connection, aside from listening to american politicians b!tch about how canadians arent secure enough and how we endanger americans with our ignorance of the terrorist menace...

[Drake]

She makes me feel kinda funny. Like when I used to climb the rope in gym class.

[MasterKiller]

nobody thinks that its supposewd to mean both palins are running... i think you are showing a serious lack of intellect by assuming we dont get the poster...

clearly they are using mini palins fifteen minutes to make old wh0re palin look better...

and shes as goodlooking as she is smart... not to mention you would have to sew that ugly mouth shut in order to be around her and not throw her into oncomming traffic...

I think she's dumb as a box of rocks, but saying someone is ugly is not a good way to win a political argument.

All you really have to do is post one of about 100 youtube videos of her opening her mouth to discredit her. No need to get that personal.

Or you could post this:
http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/nailin-paylin-sarah-palin-porn-parody-sequel.jpg

[Syn7]

cant help it... i really do find her to be annoying on all levels... and she aint nuthin nice to look at...

[MasterKiller]

Another McCain decision that irks Bush: his choice of Sarah Palin as his '08 running mate. This doesn't make it into the Bush book, but the New York Daily News' Tom DeFrank writes that the former president, like his former strategist Karl Rove, has told friends that he doesn't think Palin is qualified to be president and blames McCain for giving her a national platform. "Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking told DeFrank.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101108/pl_yblog_upshot/in-new-memoir-bush-reignites-feud-with-mccain-admits-strain-with-cheney-over-libby

[BJJ-Blue]

Another McCain decision that irks Bush: his choice of Sarah Palin as his '08 running mate. This doesn't make it into the Bush book, but the New York Daily News' Tom DeFrank writes that the former president, like his former strategist Karl Rove, has told friends that he doesn't think Palin is qualified to be president and blames McCain for giving her a national platform. "Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking told DeFrank.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101108/pl_yblog_upshot/in-new-memoir-bush-reignites-feud-with-mccain-admits-strain-with-cheney-over-libby

President Bush was on the Rush Limbaugh Show today and he completely denied saying that.

[dimethylsea]

President Bush was on the Rush Limbaugh Show today and he completely denied saying that.

He said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq too. He should have been given the treatment Saddam got. He could have been an awesome president if he had only done what he said he would in the campaign. As it is.. he is without question going to be one of the top contenders for worst US President EVER.

[BJJ-Blue]

As it is.. he is without question going to be one of the top contenders for worst US President EVER.

You go ahead and tell yourself that.

It's laughable you say that with the current President presiding over national debt and unemployment rates MUCH higher than they were under Bush.

[B-Rad]

Bush gets too much blame for our economic situation. It really was a team effort, he just happened to be sitting in the chair when it all went down, and obviously did nothing the prevent it. He's just one of many politicians on both sides responsible. Still should be a war criminal though.

[BJJ-Blue]

Bush gets too much blame for our economic situation. It really was a team effort, he just happened to be sitting in the chair when it all went down, and obviously did nothing the prevent it. He's just one of many politicians on both sides responsible.

He did try and prevent it in 2004. Congress refused to act, the Democrats played the race card (because the chairman of Fannie Mae was African-American), and Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd said Fannie and Freddie were not in any trouble. See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

As to it being partially Bush's fault, can you please tell us what relevant legislation Bush signed into law and how said legislation caused the mess we are in now?

[David Jamieson]

Bush gets too much blame for our economic situation. It really was a team effort, he just happened to be sitting in the chair when it all went down, and obviously did nothing the prevent it. He's just one of many politicians on both sides responsible. Still should be a war criminal though.

he began with a huge surplus left to him like a gift from the previous admin. Dems under Clinton.

Bush was a puppet to an agenda that he liked, but didn't have the savvy to run himself and so Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell et al ran teh show for him and he would nod when they did something and choke on pretzels when it got all too much.

I knew Bush was a fraud and useless when Powell left. Powell never bailed on anything in his Life but for some reason, he bailed on George W Bush.

I respect Powell for that. I'd respect him more if he called it like it is, but he got out when he knew he should because there were the wrong people at the helm of the country and it would be extremely damaging to his chances to further serve the country he loved if he stuck with them.

So, out of that whole pack of loons and frauds, who is getting asked to make speeches? Who is getting invited into international think tanks? what's that? none of them because they are despised by virtually the whole world? Go figure.

P.S don't post up some lame conservative christian group from stinkbutt down south who wanna listen to W babble. Jeez, I don't even think his book is gonna be of much interest to anyone.

lol, you darn right it was Bushes fault, the recession, the trade problems, the lack fo diplomatic relations, the two wars, the terrorist attacks that they were warned about and did nothing about, the whole wmd fiasco, the lying, the stealing, the cheating. Yes, all that falls squarely on the shoulders of those who made it happen in the Bush administration of 2000-2008.

[BJJ-Blue]

he began with a huge surplus left to him like a gift from the previous admin. Dems under Clinton.

First off, there was no surplus. There was PROJECTED surplus. Second, Bush took over facing a recession, ie the Dot-Com bubble had burst on Clinton's watch and he had to clean that mess up.


lol, you darn right it was Bushes fault, the recession,...

Let me guess, you still can't point to ANY legislation Bush signed into law that caused this mess.

[Lucas]

One time i took over management of a resturaunt with a bad reputation, that was deserved because they had bad management, poor quality service and under standard product. I came in, i worked hard, i slowly got that place on track and eventually the bad rep started to disolve, our service and standard was way up and we provided what we claimed and started to develop a good customer base to work with.

however it was quite a timely process. it was difficult for me as the new management to have to constantly defend myself and my resturaunt from its previous management, bad practices and bad company. I couldnt fix everything over night. It took me some time. But when questioned i was able to show what I was doing to change things around and get the shop back to where it was supposed to be.

the funny thing is, sales were way down, and unfortunately that year i took over didnt look to great because I had to make some SERIOUS adjustements to the entire structure of the way business was being handled. That resulted in loss for that year, because I had to spend money, and adjust the way we were spending money in general. During that adjustment period things didnt look so great. BUT when all was said and done i saved that place from closing. when you look back at the entire ordeal, there was a period during that transition where people assumed I was at fault for things that had been in place before i ever even stepped foot on the property. Simply because I was the man in charge and things werent where they should be. Unfortunately I dont perform magic and left my genie in my bottle at home, so it came down to good ol fashioned planning, acting, and waiting for the good practices to catch us up and remove the bad label that had settled there over the past few years before i appeared.

as they say hindsight is always 20/20

luckily i had full power and no one there to c0ck block my changes. I hit a few road bumps, because no one is perfect.

whats my point? i dont know, but i did get all that bad rap put on my head, just because I was the man on the job at that time. was it fair? no. could i change peoples perceptions? not right away, no. But eventually i did.

The fact is when you are the man with the job, the 'mob' that is the public doesnt care if you started, finished or were even involved in the mess. they only want answers and action from you to fix it. thats how it works. thats the way it works when you are a leader of any sort. and guess what, you dont argue back like the jokers calling you the sh!t face, you smile and nod and work your ass off to fix the issue.

[David Jamieson]

Or in Bush's case, Run away for hundreds of days of vacation, deny pretty much everything, ignore the rest, lie, cheat and steal, then quietly fade away. :p

lol at people who defend that guy. He's robbed you, would rob you again and would have no qualms about putting you in harms way while making sure he isn't.

the very definition of disreputable.


and Lucas, the picture you paint of the restaurant manager you were is like a picture of the president Obama is.

policy? lol. what a friggin joke. Go down and into the weeds avoiding ever have to deal with the fact that the Bush admin was a huge failure and he is likely the WORST president ever to be in that office.

An utter disgrace and a foul human being all round. And there is zero, zip, nada that will change mine or billions of opinions on him that are just like that.

Nobody likes the dude and what he did except for, greedy people who threw in with him and hicks who don't know any better.

[BJJ-Blue]

lol at people who defend that guy.

Of course I defend him. When NOT ONE of his detractors can point to ANY legislation he signed that caused the mess, I see no reason not to defend the man.

[BJJ-Blue]

and Lucas, the picture you paint of the restaurant manager you were is like a picture of the president Obama is.

No it isn't. If Lucas had been like Obama, sales would have went down, food costs would have went up, and Lucas would still be blaming the previous manager.

[David Jamieson]

No it isn't. If Lucas had been like Obama, sales would have went down, food costs would have went up, and Lucas would still be blaming the previous manager.

Yes it is. Bush was terrible and Obama is much better but you republicans are anti american and try to interfere or stop anything president Obama tries to do because you are a bunch of self righteous, greedy racists.

It's that simple.

YOu got a huge tax break from Obama, more than anything Bush gave you.

You are now coming out of a recession that you republicans and neo cons said was gonna spiral into a great depression! It didn't, it's not and it's getting better because of the plan that Obama implemented and stuck to.

George Bush and the republican party screwed up all of America through the first decade of the new millenium.

Obama will correct most of the hard feelings and has already put in a lot of effort towards developing solid foreign policy which is something that Bush was a failure at.

So long as NONE of the current crop of republicans ever sees the oval office, it should be ok for the next ten years. :p

[BJJ-Blue]

Yes it is. Bush was terrible and Obama is much better but you republicans are anti american and try to interfere or stop anything president Obama tries to do because you are a bunch of self righteous, greedy racists.

Yet again. :rolleyes:


YOu got a huge tax break from Obama, more than anything Bush gave you.

We did? Please cite the legislation. ;) And if you actually can do that, please also show that it was bigger than Bush's tax cuts.


George Bush and the republican party screwed up all of America through the first decade of the new millenium.

Say it all you want, but it's all bs until you actually show us how.


So long as NONE of the current crop of republicans ever sees the oval office, it should be ok for the next ten years. :p

LMFAO!!! Give the Democrats that much time and unemployment will reach 100%. :eek:

[Syn7]

hey it could be alot worse... they could be putting sharron angle and her wonderful tactful racial opinions in the forefront instead... she is such a douche lol... "i dont know that you're all latino, some of you look sort of asian to me" classic... the best part is, she doesnt understand what is so offensive about her "completely reasonable and unbiased opinions"... wtf was she thinking urging latinos not to vote as a means of positive action for change... "if you wetb@cks don't vote, i'll win for sure... don't worry, i'll roll thru crumbin', there will be lots of leftovers for 'you people'!!!!!!!"


but then i cant take anyone, who publically supports teabagging, very seriously at all...

oh i can just think of all the puns and insults... almost too easy... maybe we can mix in some "if you touch my junk i'll have you arressted" in there too... TSA style bee-eye-itches!!!!!!!

[Syn7]

Yet again. :rolleyes:



We did? Please cite the legislation. ;) And if you actually can do that, please also show that it was bigger than Bush's tax cuts.



Say it all you want, but it's all bs until you actually show us how.



LMFAO!!! Give the Democrats that much time and unemployment will reach 100%. :eek:





blue.... trickle down is bullsh!t and you know it... anyone who believes thats the best way to keep people happy and fed are too naive to have this conversation with... theres a seriously fundamental difference in thought there, its really pointless in even arguing about it... at this level, that is... maybe for practice, i guess...

[Syn7]

honestly guys, i would be terrified if either side of the isle had free reign for any prolonged length of time... a cant stand these douchebag liberal pus$ies just as much as these bible thumping conservative thieves... we are all lucky that both sides are pretty much equal in power... two party system is better than a one party system forsure... but i think we run our affairs with more representation to the individual and familly unit, here in canada... the parliamentary system is better in so many ways... yes it has many flaws... but i also like that we have more than two parties... there are four competative tickets in canda... with two more on the rise, one of which will probably have a seat next term...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p73S2dMarRw


"Why would I care if it's a Democrat or a Republican robbing me??? I'm just trying to avoid the robbery!!!" - Quotes from Cenk

[BJJ-Blue]

blue.... trickle down is bullsh!t and you know it... anyone who believes thats the best way to keep people happy and fed are too naive to have this conversation with... theres a seriously fundamental difference in thought there, its really pointless in even arguing about it... at this level, that is... maybe for practice, i guess...

Actually it's not BS, it worked beautifuly in the 1980s. There is a reason you liberals call it "The Decade of Greed". And it's not because we had 10% unemployment and record foreclosures.

As to having a conversation with me, let's try it. Perhaps you can do what NO ONE else has done. Please cite what legislation GW Bush signed into law that caused the mess we are in. Cite the legislation and then explain how said legislation caused the mes. Should be simple for someone such as yourself.

[BJJ-Blue]

honestly guys, i would be terrified if either side of the isle had free reign for any prolonged length of time...

This part I do agree with. Look, I'll be honest here. I don't like not having a choice when I vote. And I can't vote Democrat, period. Right now they are socialists. That's not always been the case. They used to really be for 'the working man'. My father grew up a Democrat. He didn't leave the Party, it left him. And millions of other working people too. How can you be for the 'working man' when all you want to do to him is raise his taxes? Or regulate his company so much they offshore his job? How do those policies help the working man?

Are the Republicans perfect? NO! But to someone who believes in small Government, individual rights, and low taxes, they are the ONLY choice I currently have. I want the Democrats to move to the center so that I'll have a real choice every November.

[MasterKiller]

Actually it's not BS, it worked beautifuly in the 1980s. There is a reason you liberals call it "The Decade of Greed". And it's not because we had 10% unemployment and record foreclosures..

You do realize that the S&L crisis contributed to the 10% unemployment in the early 1980s, right? I mean, it's almost an indentical scenario to what is going on today. The estimated total cost of resolving the S&L crisis was more than $160 billion.

[BJJ-Blue]

You do realize that the S&L crisis contributed to the 10% unemployment in the early 1980s, right? I mean, it's almost an indentical scenario to what is going on today. The estimated total cost of resolving the S&L crisis was more than $160 billion.

Again, like I said, no one is perfect. And to me that does include the guys with (R)s next to their names.

However, the Fed raising interest rates to fight inflation was the primary cause of the 1982 recession. Reagan knew raising the rates would have a bad effect on the economy (and to the GOP in the 1982 mid-term elections), but it had to be done to beat the record inflation he inherited. He made a decision to do whats best for the country no matter what the polls said. And it worked. From 1983 on we had economic growth, low unemployment, low interest rates, and no inflation.

[Syn7]

Actually it's not BS, it worked beautifuly in the 1980s. There is a reason you liberals call it "The Decade of Greed". And it's not because we had 10% unemployment and record foreclosures.

As to having a conversation with me, let's try it. Perhaps you can do what NO ONE else has done. Please cite what legislation GW Bush signed into law that caused the mess we are in. Cite the legislation and then explain how said legislation caused the mes. Should be simple for someone such as yourself.

ok... how many times do i have to tell you, im not a liberal... you keep assuming i am... just like you keep asuming im all for obama simply because i said you cant judge so soon... i also said its not fair to c0ckblock the guy then proclaim to the world that he cant get any pus$y... thats whats happening to obamas policies right now... but for the record, obama seems like a nice guy and all, i do think he meant well at first but i dont think he has the strength or backbone to maintain his position and the position of his biggest supporters... but just like any other politician at this level, he`s been bought and paid for...

second, i never said bush created the "mess we are in" let alone suggested that any one piece of legislation created these problems... its naive to think one thing is the sole cause... so your question is not only short sighted, but its either purposefully worded in such a weasel fashion, or you simply dont have a handle on this stuff... i dunno which is true, dont even tell me, i dont care...

but since youre so clever and so well informed, why dont you tell me and everyone else here what EXACT piece of legislation did cause "the mess we are in"....???

[Syn7]

This part I do agree with. Look, I'll be honest here. I don't like not having a choice when I vote. And I can't vote Democrat, period. Right now they are socialists. That's not always been the case. They used to really be for 'the working man'. My father grew up a Democrat. He didn't leave the Party, it left him. And millions of other working people too. How can you be for the 'working man' when all you want to do to him is raise his taxes? Or regulate his company so much they offshore his job? How do those policies help the working man?

Are the Republicans perfect? NO! But to someone who believes in small Government, individual rights, and low taxes, they are the ONLY choice I currently have. I want the Democrats to move to the center so that I'll have a real choice every November.

so basically you are saying that far right is ok, but far left is not? i think they are both scary... but do you really believe that there are more moderates on the right than on the left???

ps- gotta love those idiots that are offended by those terms, right and left...

[BJJ-Blue]

i also said its not fair to c0ckblock the guy then proclaim to the world that he cant get any pus$y... thats whats happening to obamas policies right now...

Seriously?!?!

He got Obamacare signed into law, he owns GM, he bailed out Chrysler, and he did the Stimulus. He had a supermajority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate when he took over. That's a flimsy excuse.


second, i never said bush created the "mess we are in" let alone suggested that any one piece of legislation created these problems... its naive to think one thing is the sole cause... so your question is not only short sighted, but its either purposefully worded in such a weasel fashion, or you simply dont have a handle on this stuff... i dunno which is true, dont even tell me, i dont care...

Maybe you misunderstood my question. I'm not asking for just ONE piece of legislation, I'm asking for ALL legislation. Of course I don't think one thing caused it. It was decades in the making actually. But if you could tell us how Bush caused it, great. I've been hearing that charge for over 3 years now, and I'd like just one person to explain how it's Bush's fault.


but since youre so clever and so well informed, why dont you tell me and everyone else here what EXACT piece of legislation did cause "the mess we are in"....???

I've never said it was one piece of legislation. And I've also explained it in my own words before. And yes, I'm the ONLY ONE who has done this. When I make assertions, I back them up. I don't simply name call, curse, etc to get threads locked so I don't have to back my assertions up.

Do you want me to explain it again or show you where I have explained this before? I'll be glad to. I enjoy rational debate, and if you want to have one I'm all for it.

[Syn7]

I'm not asking for just ONE piece of legislation, I'm asking for ALL legislation. Of course I don't think one thing caused it. It was decades in the making actually. But if you could tell us how Bush caused it, great. I've been hearing that charge for over 3 years now, and I'd like just one person to explain how it's Bush's fault.

then maybe you should ask someone that said it...

[BJJ-Blue]

so basically you are saying that far right is ok, but far left is not? i think they are both scary... but do you really believe that there are more moderates on the right than on the left???

Not at all. I said the Republicans are the lesser of two evils at the moment.

I'll even explain. The Democrats are led by socialists. Socialism has ALWAYS failed. Also, I'm big into individual rights and responsibility. The Democrats are 180 degress off from me on that. I don't want the Gov't telling me what I can and cant eat. I don't want the Gov't telling business owners that they can't allow smoking in their establishments. I dont like Gov't telling me I must wear a seatbelt in a car or a helmet when riding a bike. I don't want Gov't telling me what cars are acceptable and what cars must be taxed more.


ps- gotta love those idiots that are offended by those terms, right and left...

I don't like them myself either. I use them because most everyone discussing politics does and they all know the meaning of them. I use the spectrum John A. Stormer came up with. I'll illustrate:

Fascism
Communism-------------------------------------------------------------------------Anarchy
Dictatorship

Now none of those are ideal, but I believe we should be governed alot closer to the 'right' than the 'left'. The 'left' in that example is total Gov't control, while the 'right' is total indivdual freedom. Which do you feel we should be closer to?

[BJJ-Blue]

then maybe you should ask someone that said it...

I tried that. It didn't work.

You're more rational and easy do debate/discuss with than that person is, so I thought you might give it a shot.

[Syn7]

I tried that. It didn't work.

You're more rational and easy do debate/discuss with than that person is, so I thought you might give it a shot.

not touchin it...

i wont talk about alot of stuff here... its just not an argument i wanna have typing... too much typing....

[Drake]

I don't even know what she stands for, or what her viewpoints are. I just want to kill her husband and take his place next to her.

*disclaimer - I'm not going to kill anyone, so don't call Homeland Security on me*

[Syn7]

bottom line is that the republican model of small government and personal accountability and responsability on the part of the wealthy business owners is a failed concept... time and time again, whether liberal or conservative enough business leaders have shown to place the bottom line ahead of the interests of country and people... you say we need to trust our business leaders to steer us into prosperity... i submit that not enough are trustworthy and they will squeeze every last penny out of the working class before they jump ship and allow the hapless citizen to sink or swim on his own with the deck stacked against him...
and even have the nerve to blame everyone else but themselves...

sure, obamas bailouts were rediculous, but it was republican theology that made IT NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE... maybe we should have been looking at these corrupt business leaders alot closer than we were under bush... but the right wont have any of that if they have their say...


here are the facts... economic growth went down under reagan, down under bush sr, up under clinton, down under mini bush, and with obama, we'll see... personally, i think he's too much of a spineless pus$y crowdpleaser to make any real long lasting change... but we'll see...


republicans take credit for the roaring twenties, but dont see how that led to the crash in '29.... it happened again, then again, then again reagan did the same thing... took credit for the short term effects of their policy and then denied the long term consequences as "not my fault"... not to mention reagan committed treason with ollie north to support black ops, unwittingly or not flooded cali with cocaine thru the contra connection, and then got away with it... the last part being the worst to me...

so clinton is a bad man for getting his d!ck sucked by a woman that wasnt his wife then denied it, even tho he fixed bush and reagans mistakes... but ollie north is a good righteous patriotic american???? please...:rolleyes:

[Syn7]

I don't even know what she stands for, or what her viewpoints are. I just want to kill her husband and take his place next to her.

*disclaimer - I'm not going to kill anyone, so don't call Homeland Security on me*

you really think shes that hot aye?

[Drake]

you really think shes that hot aye?

I think it's the glasses that are doing it for me.

[Syn7]

I think it's the glasses that are doing it for me.

lol... you got some naughty schoolteacher thing i bet, huh...




bjj... go watch colin powell on larry king and listen to his opinion on obamas presidency... i think he put his case foreward very well... no appologies...

[BJJ-Blue]

here are the facts... economic growth went down under reagan,

Incorrect. Can you prove that assertion?


so clinton is a bad man for getting his d!ck sucked by a woman that wasnt his wife then denied it, even tho he fixed bush and reagans mistakes... but ollie north is a good righteous patriotic american???? please...:rolleyes:

Clinton wasn't in any trouble over a bj. That's a talking point. Clinton got in trouble for committing perjury. Clinton is actually the only US President to be disbarred, and it was for perjury. Had Clinton not lied under oath, he never would have been impeached. Of course if he told the truth, the sexual harassment suit filed against him wouldn't have gone very well for him.

[BJJ-Blue]

bjj... go watch colin powell on larry king and listen to his opinion on obamas presidency... i think he put his case foreward very well... no appologies...

I'll do that. Maybe today, but I may not be able to til tonight. I've heard about it, but I'll watch it for myself.

[GLW]

try getting your talking point correct at least.

Clinton did not commit perjury. This is because the legal definition of perjury is not simply lying under oath but also must include that the lie(s) told must be germane to the case. At the time Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, the prosecutor had not established any connection between Clinton, Lewinsky, and the case at hand. In short, what the prosecutor was doing was exploring - fishing.

He asked a question, got a lie under oath, figured out from external sources that it was probably a lie, and then went about setting up how the question and the lie tied in to the case. Had he been a competent prosecutor, he would have established relevancy FIRST and then asked his BJ questions. Done in that order, had Clinton answered the same way, he would have been guilty of perjury - as the groundwork would have tied the question and the lie into the proceedings.

So ...nope...not perjury.

His disbarment was for providing misleading testimony under oath. Again, misleading testimony is NOT perjury but it does violate the code of ethics that lawyers in Arkansas are supposed to adhere to. His disbarment in Arkansas was for 5 years IN Ark. and has expired now. The Supreme Court issue is another matter...

However, you REALLY should be more precise in your language. When you throw around terms like perjury, there is more there than simply lying under oath. To use such a statement to malign another implies a responsibility on your part to use the accusation correctly.

Now, you can abhor the man's ethics or lack thereof and be on solid ground. However, starting down that slope with abhorring a LAWYER'S ethics is a very slippery path indeed. Very few lawyers do NOT splice the language in such a way that they are adhering to the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.

Clinton was well aware of the grounds for perjury and of what was being asked of him and WHEN. He was also well aware that the prosecutor did not define what he meant in many key points which also allowed for legal wiggle room.

Dislike his ethics and say you thought he was an unethical a$$...fine...that is a supportable statement. Stating there was an instance of perjury is not. Then equating a disbarment on ethical grounds with being disbarred for commission of perjury (which did NOT happen) is in itself committing the same type of offense that Clinton was disbarred for 5 years in Ark. for.

[BJJ-Blue]

I don't play semantics. He lied under oath, PERIOD.

He was also disbarred, PERIOD.

Of course he also went on national television and lied to the American people as well, but I bet you've found a way to give him a pass on that too.

[MasterKiller]

I don't play semantics.

LOL. :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

LOL. :rolleyes:

Show us an example where I do.

[GLW]

Then you are a liar.

You used the word "PERJURY" There is a very definite meaning to the word. It does NOT mean simply "to lie under oath." There is more to it than that.

So, you either do not know the meaning of words you use, do not care to be precise in the language you use so as to avoid being misunderstood, you are using someone else's words as your own and have not given the statements you made much thought, or you are purposely trying to mislead of occlude in regards to the subject.

These things boil down to ignorance in the first case, apathy in the second, being easily led in the third, and violating the same ethical standards you decry Clinton for in the fourth.

Or is it a combination of two or more of the above.

In any case, such statements and your lack of care to explain yourself and to be sure you use words correctly means that your ability to participate in any discourse is severely limited. This should not be surprising since you post so frequently.

However, it does reveal that your posts are hardly worth reading since you do not care to use your language in a manner that makes your intent clear.

That is being precise and deliberate in your words...it is NOT semantics.

[Reality_Check]

Show us an example where I do.

Alrighty then...

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881464&postcount=568



So, does Senator McCain support the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You have yet to clearly state that he does or does not. It's a simple question. Please note, I am only asking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not bailouts in general.No offense, but I've explained this before. But I'll do it again.

McCain does not support a bailout.

There was no bailout. Those companies were purchased. See?

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881470&postcount=570


But Senator McCain calls it a bailout. If he believes it's a bailout, and his own words bear witness to that, then does he support a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

His senior economic policy advisor (Douglas Holtz-Eakin) also calls it a bailout.

"It's a bailout," senior economic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin corrected me when I used the words "rescue" and "takeover" in our conversation. "Crony capitalism," Holtz-Eakin proclaimed minutes later - a reference to the 50-plus stable of lobbyists Fannie (FNM, Fortune 500) has employed over the years to prevent congressional passage of reforms aimed at reining in the companies.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/08/news/economy/easton_freddie_fannie.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008090814

Also, there was Bear Stearns:

McCain talked about the Bear Stearns collapse saying the government's involvement “probably was necessary because of the ripple effect it might have had on other institutions. But it’s absolutely disgraceful when the guy whose the head of Bear Stearns sells stock and makes $60 million. That kind of thing has got to stop,” he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/02/politics/fromtheroad/entry3988454.shtml

So, he not entirely averse to government intervention, huh?

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881476&postcount=572


Well it's not. What the airlines get are bailouts. Basically no-strings attached money to survive. The airlines continue to lose money, and they keep the same guys on top and give them bonuses! This is different, those who screwed up were fired, they were held accountable. And there will be a change in their business plans, unlike the airlines. See the difference?

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881478&postcount=574


No disrespect, but I'm not asking what you think it is. I'm asking you if Senator McCain thinks it's a bailout, and if he supports it. Does he?

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881486&postcount=577


I don't know what he considers it. I'm just pointing out this is not how the Government does true bailouts. This one is different, no matter whats its referred to as.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881489&postcount=578


Can you not infer that from his various comments? Since he has called it a bailout, as has his senior economic policy advisor, then it is safe to assume that he considers it a bailout. Correct?

Anyway, regardless of the semantics, the original post I responded to stated he was against it. Clearly he is not. Making your post misleading. Do you agree?

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881492&postcount=579


He may use that term, I do not. Bottom line, no matter what it's referred to it is DIFFERENT than the S&L and airline bailouts of the past.

[BJJ-Blue]

Then you are a liar.

No, the liar is the one who got disbarred.

Look, had the guy been 100% honest, this would not have happened. Can we at least agree on that?

[BJJ-Blue]

Get real RC. That's not semantics. I clearly showed differences (like replacing upper management, having strings attached, etc). And I have stayed constant as well, I've been anti-Gov't intervention all along no matter if it was Bush, Obama, or McCain. I also clearly stated I had many policy differences with Senator McCain and that I held my nose when voting for him.

Back to the issue, I say things simply most of the time. A thief is a thief. Doesn't matter if it's larceny, theft, grand theft, Ponzi schemes, etc. Theft is theft. And lying is lying, no matter what the legal definition of it is.

EDIT: RC, if you're going to dredge that deep, please post Post #580 from that thread as well. I notice you left that one out....

[Reality_Check]

Get real RC. That's not semantics. I clearly showed differences (like replacing upper management, having strings attached, etc). And I have stayed constant as well, I've been anti-Gov't intervention all along no matter if it was Bush, Obama, or McCain. I also clearly stated I had many policy differences with Senator McCain and that I held my nose when voting for him.

Back to the issue, I say things simply most of the time. A thief is a thief. Doesn't matter if it's larceny, theft, grand theft, Ponzi schemes, etc. Theft is theft. And lying is lying, no matter what the legal definition of it is.

Get real BJJ-Blue, you were clearly arguing the semantics of the word "bailout." You claimed that John McCain did not support the bailouts. I irrefutably showed that he considered them to be bailouts, and that he supported them. When confronted with that you replied:


He may use that term, I do not.

Hence: semantics.

[GLW]

and if wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

The issue was that YOU used a legal term that has very definite legal meanings AND very definite legal consequences.

So, to claim something is one thing when it is NOT is not semantics, it is wrong.

You made the claim to denigrate Clinton. "Clinton is actually the only US President to be disbarred, and it was for perjury" is NOT TRUE and will not be true no matter how much you want to claim it is.

This is just another of those throw away sound bite talking points that Fox News types are famous for. They throw them out there and eventually, regular folk are repeating them as if they are true.

But it is NOT true. Clinton's impeachment was foreshadowed early in his first term. He was essentially an impeachment looking for grounds on which to happen. There were Republican officials who said as much as early as 1993.

So, NOPE, I will not let you throw out an incorrect statement and then plea bargain down to an "At least you can agree.." statement.

Agreeing to such a thing after an erroneous statement such as what you wrote then allows you carte blanche to say that you got someone to AGREE that Clinton committed perjury later...and this is patently NOT the case.

There was NO perjury. When the question about Lewinsky was asked, the prosecutor was fishing and the question was actually inappropriate and should have been thrown out without an answer until the prosecutor had laid the groundwork.

Had the prosecutor done his job correctly, the groundwork would have been laid, the question would have been germane, and Clinton would have either answered truthfully or actually committed perjury....

So, nope...no free pass on imprecise and erroneous statements that ARE germane to your ideas and were thrown out gratuitously.

[BJJ-Blue]

Fine, you win.

Clinton is the only US President to be disbarred.

And that statement is 100% true. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

Get real BJJ-Blue, you were clearly arguing the semantics of the word "bailout." You claimed that John McCain did not support the bailouts. I irrefutably showed that he considered them to be bailouts, and that he supported them. When confronted with that you replied:

Since you will only post PART of the conversation and not the post I asked you to, I'll do it. FYI, I do not know how to quote from locked threads, so I had to cut-and-paste this:

"I need to see the specefics of this purchase. It was not a straight bailout obviously. I do know the first thing the Government did when they bought them was to fire the morons at the top who caused the mess in the first place. That's a good sign. The airlines get bailed out, and then they keep the same guys at the top (and usually give them bonuses). So it is already different than a bailout.

But that's not saying I support it. I need to see more info on the topic.

So like I said, McCain was against a bailout. This was a purchase."

Notice I clearly stated the differences. And I can do it again if you ask me to. Now if you can't tell the difference between a purchase and a bailout, I can't help you. But if you can, you'll see I was explaining it clealy, not playing semantics. Notice I also said I needed to see more info on the topic. And again, no matter if you call it a bailout, a purchase, or anything else, I'm completely against Gov't intervention when businesses fail. I've ALWAYS been consistant here, and that's my point.

[Syn7]

I don't play semantics. He lied under oath, PERIOD.

He was also disbarred, PERIOD.

Of course he also went on national television and lied to the American people as well, but I bet you've found a way to give him a pass on that too.

show me one president that hasnt knowingly lied to the public....



and why isnt obama cramming every single piece that was passed by congress before the change through the senate RIGHT NOW... lame duck... i mean come on... if he really believed he was right without condition he`d be pushing all this stuff thru... no... i dont understand what he`s waiting for??? does he really expect cohesion??? well, i know one thing forsure, if it was a republican president they would be cramming everything thru while they could... thered be like 400 tons of paperclips alone...;)

[Reality_Check]

Since you will only post PART of the conversation and not the post I asked you to, I'll do it. FYI, I do not know how to quote from locked threads, so I had to cut-and-paste this:

"I need to see the specefics of this purchase. It was not a straight bailout obviously. I do know the first thing the Government did when they bought them was to fire the morons at the top who caused the mess in the first place. That's a good sign. The airlines get bailed out, and then they keep the same guys at the top (and usually give them bonuses). So it is already different than a bailout.

But that's not saying I support it. I need to see more info on the topic.

So like I said, McCain was against a bailout. This was a purchase."

Notice I clearly stated the differences. And I can do it again if you ask me to. Now if you can't tell the difference between a purchase and a bailout, I can't help you. But if you can, you'll see I was explaining it clealy, not playing semantics. Notice I also said I needed to see more info on the topic. And again, no matter if you call it a bailout, a purchase, or anything else, I'm completely against Gov't intervention when businesses fail. I've ALWAYS been consistant here, and that's my point.

Clearly you have difficulty even now understanding that I do not, and did not, care whether or not you considered them bailouts. I asked, quite clearly, if John McCain did. Since he did, and he supported them, your original assertion that he was against bailouts was erroneous. Once I proved that, you fell back on your definition of bailout.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=881492&postcount=579


He may use that term, I do not. Bottom line, no matter what it's referred to it is DIFFERENT than the S&L and airline bailouts of the past.

You were arguing the meaing of bailout (it's not a bailout, it's a purchase). Which is the very definition of semantics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

se·man·tics
[si-man-tiks]
–noun ( used with a singular verb )

3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics

To sum up:

1. You said John McCain did not support the bailouts.
2. I proved that he both considered the actions bailouts, and supported them.
3. You claimed that since you didn't consider the actions to be bailouts, they weren't.
4. You were arguing the semantics of the word bailout.
5. You asked MK for an example of you 'playing semantics."
6. I supplied one.
7. You are once again arguing the semantics of the word "bailout."
8. Thus proving MK's point.
9. QED

[MasterKiller]

Fine, you win.

Clinton is the only US President to be disbarred.

And that statement is 100% true. ;)

At least he's not Nixon.

[Syn7]

At least he's not Nixon.

or Ford, for that matter... or Quayle(dumbest politician EVER)....

[BJJ-Blue]

and why isnt obama cramming every single piece that was passed by congress before the change through the senate RIGHT NOW... lame duck... i mean come on... if he really believed he was right without condition he`d be pushing all this stuff thru... no... i dont understand what he`s waiting for??? does he really expect cohesion??? well, i know one thing forsure, if it was a republican president they would be cramming everything thru while they could... thered be like 400 tons of paperclips alone...;)

They can't jam it through the Senate because they do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, even during the lame duck session.

[BJJ-Blue]

You were arguing the meaing of bailout (it's not a bailout, it's a purchase). Which is the very definition of semantics.

Do what?!?!

The words 'bailout' and 'purchase' have completely different meanings.

Let me explain: Say me and 2 friends open up a business and make it a public company. Say we do well for a few years and even grow and expand. Then a few years later we hit hard times and are headed for bankruptcy. If someone were to GIVE us money and say 'If you turn the business around with this money, pay me back', thats a BAILOUT. Now if someone were to BUY a controlling amount of shares, fire me and my friends (the upper management), and then run the business themselves, thats a PURCHASE. See the difference?

[Reality_Check]

Do what?!?!

The words 'bailout' and 'purchase' have completely different meanings.

Let me explain: Say me and 2 friends open up a business and make it a public company. Say we do well for a few years and even grow and expand. Then a few years later we hit hard times and are headed for bankruptcy. If someone were to GIVE us money and say 'If you turn the business around with this money, pay me back', thats a BAILOUT. Now if someone were to BUY a controlling amount of shares, fire me and my friends (the upper management), and then run the business themselves, thats a PURCHASE. See the difference?

No, you claimed that John McCain did not support the bailouts because they did not meet your definition of bailout ("He may use that term, I do not..."). Which is a text book case of arguing over semantics.

[BJJ-Blue]

No, you claimed that John McCain did not support the bailouts because they did not meet your definition of bailout ("He may use that term, I do not..."). Which is a text book case of arguing over semantics.

BUT YOUR STILL MISSING THE POINT! :rolleyes:

The point is I'm against Gov't intervention in failing private sector companies whether it's a purchase, a bailout, a gift, a loan, etc. Why you keep arguing over whether it fits the definition of bailout or a purchase is ridiculous because it's a moot point.

[MasterKiller]

BUT YOUR STILL MISSING THE POINT! :rolleyes:

The point is I'm against Gov't intervention in failing private sector companies whether it's a purchase, a bailout, a gift, a loan, etc. Why you keep arguing over whether it fits the definition of bailout or a purchase is ridiculous because it's a moot point.

I believe this was the point:


I don't play semantics.


Show us an example where I do.

[BJJ-Blue]

I believe this was the point:

No, because I wasn't arguing over the definition of "bailout" so I could support a bailout if I just replaced the word 'bailout' with a different word.

Once again:

The point is I'm against Gov't intervention in failing private sector companies whether it's a purchase, a bailout, a gift, a loan, etc. Why you keep arguing over whether it fits the definition of bailout or a purchase is ridiculous because it's a moot point.

[MasterKiller]

Dude, you are some piece of work.

[BJJ-Blue]

Dude, you are some piece of work.

Yeah, people who stay consistant are just not understood by liberals.

[MasterKiller]

Yeah, people who stay consistant are just not understood by liberals.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[BJJ-Blue]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I sleep fine. Consistantly. ;)

[David Jamieson]

Palin is a media darling and lamer than the lamest of lamos.

She stated in the last day or so that she hoestly believed she could beat Obama in an election.

Hey Sarah, you didn't, you can't and you won't. Now make your show about alaska and be happy. :)

[BJJ-Blue]

She stated in the last day or so that she hoestly believed she could beat Obama in an election.

Based on the November elections, I'd give her a decent shot. However, she does have a high negative opinion about her. I believe it's at 51%. But Obama's job approval rating is ~40%.

As for me, I'd like to see Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels, or Rick Perry run for President.


Hey Sarah, you didn't, you can't and you won't. Now make your show about alaska and be happy. :)

I'm sure does enjoy it, and the paychecks she's likely getting too. That shows ratings crushed CNN and MSNBC's ratings. :D It set a TLC Sunday night rating record as well.

[David Jamieson]

Palin is Gawker material and is in no way shape or form a serious and thoughtful politician.

Heck, she couldn't even finish a first term for cripes sake which in my book makes her a political milquetoast.

She can capitalize all she likes, just as long as she ain't making legislation!

[BJJ-Blue]

Palin is Gawker material and is in no way shape or form a serious and thoughtful politician.

But a community organizer who voted "Present" alot, drove unemployment up, set record national debt levels, presided over a Party's worst shellacking in decades, and cant speak without a teleprompter is a brilliant guy in your book.

[Drake]

Palin is Gawker material and is in no way shape or form a serious and thoughtful politician.

Heck, she couldn't even finish a first term for cripes sake which in my book makes her a political milquetoast.

She can capitalize all she likes, just as long as she ain't making legislation!

Keep talking about my woman and I'm going to cyber-shank you.

[Syn7]

They can't jam it through the Senate because they do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, even during the lame duck session.

test of wills man... make everyone sit thru the bullsh!t talking then... let them fillibuster till they fall over... play the game... its do-able... its not like theres no precedent...

[Syn7]

i love how palin says "as of now im not running... but if this country should need me, im willing to make that sacrifice for my country"... b!tch sounds like shes talkin bout going to war or something... no you dont have every intention of pushing for the nomination... no ofcourse not... only if we need you...:rolleyes:

[Drake]

i love how palin says "as of now im not running... but if this country should need me, im willing to make that sacrifice for my country"... b!tch sounds like shes talkin bout going to war or something... no you dont have every intention of pushing for the nomination... no ofcourse not... only if we need you...:rolleyes:

She can go to war. I have an extra seat in my humvee. Plenty of room. Plenty...of...room....

[BJJ-Blue]

test of wills man... make everyone sit thru the bullsh!t talking then... let them fillibuster till they fall over... play the game... its do-able... its not like theres no precedent...

I don't think the Democrats will try and jam things through is all. First off, it's quite unusual to try and jam things through in a lame duck session, and second the voters just refuted the Democrats big time at the ballot box just a couple of weeks ago so I doubt they would be stupid enough to even try it.


i love how palin says "as of now im not running... but if this country should need me, im willing to make that sacrifice for my country"... b!tch sounds like shes talkin bout going to war or something... no you dont have every intention of pushing for the nomination... no ofcourse not... only if we need you...:rolleyes:

Politicians say this one all the time. She isn't the first to say that, and she won't be the last.

[Reality_Check]

I don't think the Democrats will try and jam things through is all. First off, it's quite unusual to try and jam things through in a lame duck session, and second the voters just refuted the Democrats big time at the ballot box just a couple of weeks ago so I doubt they would be stupid enough to even try it.

You mean unusual in the way the Republicans impeached President Clinton in the lame duck session in 1998?

[BJJ-Blue]

You mean unusual in the way the Republicans impeached President Clinton in the lame duck session in 1998?

An impeachment is totally different than passing legislation.

As to that one, it didn't matter much anyway whether it was done before or after the midterms. The Senate elections in 1998 resulted in no change in number of seats held anyway.

[Reality_Check]

An impeachment is totally different than passing legislation.

As to that one, it didn't matter much anyway whether it was done before or after the midterms. The Senate elections in 1998 resulted in no change in number of seats held anyway.

It also resulted in a loss of 5 seats in the House. And impeachment of the President is so much less important than passing some legislation. :rolleyes:

Also, the elections in 1998 were seen as a repudiation of the Republicans fixation with the Lewinsky scandal. And what did they do after said repudiation, they went all in and impeached the President. I guess the Republicans back then were stupid enough to try it, huh?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/11/09/election.html


To put it another way, one day it was Clinton whose job was on the line. The next it was Gingrich. But the surprising election of 1998 did more than take a load off one man's shoulders and put it on another's till he dropped. It brought home that all year the governing majority in Congress has done just about anything but govern. From the moment in January that Monica Lewinsky became as famous as Michael Jordan, official Washington and its media auxiliary have been transfixed by the President's sex drive. And for a while, who wasn't? But in time most people moved back to matters nearer at hand--getting ahead, getting settled, getting more sleep, anything but "that." Somehow Congress did not hear. The tobacco deal collapsed; campaign-finance reform died; the patients' bill of rights was shelved. Through it all, the Republicans on Capitol Hill stayed on message. Too bad for them that the message was all Monica all the time.

On Tuesday, voters got the chance to send Washington their own message. It was two words: Shut up! So the election that was supposed to be another G.O.P. blowout ended with a gain of five House seats for the Democrats, no change in the Senate and the morning-after spectacle of dumbstruck Republicans.

[BJJ-Blue]

Also, the elections in 1998 were seen as a repudiation of the Republicans fixation with the Lewinsky scandal. And what did they do after said repudiation, they went all in and impeached the President. I guess the Republicans back then were stupid enough to try it, huh?

It's not about being smart or being stupid, it's about the rule of law. And they did follow the rule of law, even to the detriment of themselves.

[Reality_Check]

It's not about being smart or being stupid, it's about the rule of law. And they did follow the rule of law, even to the detriment of themselves.

There were no such noble intentions behind the Clinton impeachment ("we're following the law!"). Republicans saw a political opportunity to take down a sitting Democratic President. It was political opportunism at it's finest.

FYI, you are the one who brought up stupid, I was replying to that.


...second the voters just refuted the Democrats big time at the ballot box just a couple of weeks ago so I doubt they would be stupid enough to even try it.

[BJJ-Blue]

There were no such noble intentions behind the Clinton impeachment ("we're following the law!"). Republicans saw a political opportunity to take down a sitting Democratic President. It was political opportunism at it's finest.

That's complete bs. They didn't have near the numbers in the Senate to remove him from office with just the Republican Senators. They knew going in they were going to lose, but they followed their oaths and the rule of law no matter what it cost them politically.

[BJJ-Blue]

FYI, you are the one who brought up stupid, I was replying to that.

In 1998 the GOP lost 5 House seats. In 2010, the Democrats lost 60, and recounts are still going on and it may hit 65 seats.

[Reality_Check]

That's complete bs. They didn't have near the numbers in the Senate to remove him from office with just the Republican Senators. They knew going in they were going to lose, but they followed their oaths and the rule of law no matter what it cost them politically.

Okay, fine. Keep deluding yourself regarding Newt Gingrich's nobility. :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

That's complete bs. They didn't have near the numbers in the Senate to remove him from office with just the Republican Senators. They knew going in they were going to lose, but they followed their oaths and the rule of law no matter what it cost them politically.

Awesome way to spend $80 million of taxpayer money, huh?

[BJJ-Blue]

Okay, fine. Keep deluding yourself regarding Newt Gingrich's nobility. :rolleyes:

Newt was not one of the House Managers bringing the case against Clinton.

And at least the Republicans who voted for impeachment actually read the charges first. It's not like they said, 'We have to vote to impeach him first, then we will actually read the charges and see whats in there.'

[BJJ-Blue]

Awesome way to spend $80 million of taxpayer money, huh?

And had Clinton stepped down like Nixon did we would have saved the money.

Remember, he was disbarred. When a group of lawyers says you aren't honest enough to be a lawyer, that says something about you.

[MasterKiller]

Remember, he was disbarred. When a group of lawyers says you aren't honest enough to be a lawyer, that says something about you.

His license was only suspended for 5 years. That's not much of an indictment.

[BJJ-Blue]

His license was only suspended for 5 years. That's not much of an indictment.

It's more punishment than Senate Democrats gave him.

And again, he is the only US President to be disbarred.

[GLW]

Again, at least get it right.

the House Judiciary Committee started impeachment of Clinton on 4 counts: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

In the end, he was tried on 2 of the 4 : grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice.

As has already been shown, they could not make a case for perjury since the line of questioning when the lie under oath took place had not been established to be germane to the court case at hand. Perjury requires TWO pieces : (1) lying under oath and (2) the lie must be already proven to be about something that is germane to the legal matter of the trial.

Even though the vote broke along party lines, it has been essentially agreed upon by most legal experts that the second requirement for perjury was not met.

The second point was obstruction of justice. This too broke along party lines in the final vote...again, there were 5 Republicans who voted along with the Democrats.

This was their strongest case and they were either unable to prove it because it was not true, because Clinton was too shrewd, or because they were too incompetent.

Given how they had painted Clinton, the shrewdness is doubtful. So, it was either not true or they were incompetent. I would say it is a bit of each... but THAT IS an opinion. However, had they had anything there, they DID have options when he was out of office. Those were not used on these grounds so he was probably NOT guilty of obstruction....and it WAS shown that Starr went way beyond what was considered normal for an investigation.

Anytime you have a legal proceeding like this was..say it was a criminal court NOT of the Senate, and say you KNEW the political party affiliations and then the jury split the way it did, an impartial observer/judge would say that the jury was tainted with partisanship and there would be a call for a new jury.

The disbarment had other things going on....and it would appear that BJJ is NOT looking into those or the possibility of political payback and score settling that is highly probable.

He REALLY should get a new talking points book. The one he is using has some serious holes in it.

[Reality_Check]

Again, at least get it right.

the House Judiciary Committee started impeachment of Clinton on 4 counts: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

In the end, he was tried on 2 of the 4 : grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice.

As has already been shown, they could not make a case for perjury since the line of questioning when the lie under oath took place had not been established to be germane to the court case at hand. Perjury requires TWO pieces : (1) lying under oath and (2) the lie must be already proven to be about something that is germane to the legal matter of the trial.

Even though the vote broke along party lines, it has been essentially agreed upon by most legal experts that the second requirement for perjury was not met.

The second point was obstruction of justice. This too broke along party lines in the final vote...again, there were 5 Republicans who voted along with the Democrats.

This was their strongest case and they were either unable to prove it because it was not true, because Clinton was too shrewd, or because they were too incompetent.

Given how they had painted Clinton, the shrewdness is doubtful. So, it was either not true or they were incompetent. I would say it is a bit of each... but THAT IS an opinion. However, had they had anything there, they DID have options when he was out of office. Those were not used on these grounds so he was probably NOT guilty of obstruction....and it WAS shown that Starr went way beyond what was considered normal for an investigation.

Anytime you have a legal proceeding like this was..say it was a criminal court NOT of the Senate, and say you KNEW the political party affiliations and then the jury split the way it did, an impartial observer/judge would say that the jury was tainted with partisanship and there would be a call for a new jury.

The disbarment had other things going on....and it would appear that BJJ is NOT looking into those or the possibility of political payback and score settling that is highly probable.

He REALLY should get a new talking points book. The one he is using has some serious holes in it.

This is an interesting rundown of the issue.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

[GLW]

Exactly....

[Syn7]

The law requires witnesses only to give technically true answers to questions under oath. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wily defendent who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment guarantees witnesses the right not to incriminate themselves. They are not obligated to volunteer more information than the questioner asks for, or to help the prosecution prove its case against them, or to offer unsolicited clarifications to ambiguous questions. Defendants have a constitutional right to fight vigorously for their defense; their only requirement is to answer the question accurately. It is up to prosecutors to fill in any gaps or dispel any confusion by asking follow-up questions.

In other words, our justice system is based on the adversarial process, in which it is up to prosecutors to prove their case, and defendants to prove theirs (namely, that the prosecution hasn't proven its case). Defendants are not obligated to help prosecutors, and prosecutors are not obligated to help defendants. So if a defendant resorts to evasive, misleading or incomplete answers, that is his right. Prosecutors must overcome any such attempts by asking follow-up questions.




they dropped the ball at the same time clinton was clearly smarter in his answers than star was in his questioning...

BJJBLUE: how can you not call this whole thing opportunism? so what, they outed and kept the lewinski scandal in the public eye, its all they wanted to talk about, nothing else... they pushed for answers knowing the pres wouldnt cop to this and were hoping to catch him lying enough to get him out of office... plain and simple... its shrewd, its legal, it was a somwhat decent tactic in theory, even if they couldnt make their case.... its pure political opportunism, by definition...

[BJJ-Blue]

BJJBLUE: how can you not call this whole thing opportunism? so what, they outed and kept the lewinski scandal in the public eye, its all they wanted to talk about, nothing else... they pushed for answers knowing the pres wouldnt cop to this and were hoping to catch him lying enough to get him out of office... plain and simple... its shrewd, its legal, it was a somwhat decent tactic in theory, even if they couldnt make their case.... its pure political opportunism, by definition...

It MAY well have been opportunism, but had Clinton not lied (semantics or not, he lied), the impeachment never would have happened.

[GLW]

Correct that...

THAT impeachment would never have happened.

The neocon group and the leftover Gingrich crowd were looking for impeachment grounds from Dec. 1, 2002 onward... YES, that IS just after the election and BEFORE he was sworn in.

They spent more time and money investigating Clinton than any president in history.

Yet with all that, all they could come up with was Lewinsky. Now, either old Bill was that crafty, they were that incompetent, or there was not much else to find.

I doubt the crafty. I CAN see the incompetent. I can also see the latter since they had tried to do the same thing in Ark. with no success.

But, was it WORTH it? doubtful regardless of which side of the aisle you are on.

[BJJ-Blue]

Correct that...

THAT impeachment would never have happened.

The neocon group and the leftover Gingrich crowd were looking for impeachment grounds from Dec. 1, 2002 onward... YES, that IS just after the election and BEFORE he was sworn in.

Get real. The last President impeached was Johnson, in 1868. So it's not like we have impeachments all the time. And you may have forgotten the last 6 or so of the Bush years. Liberals were constantly calling for his impeachment. One of the few things I say Pelosi did right was not listening to those fools.

Remember, Clinton was disbarred, so there were improprieties.


But, was it WORTH it? doubtful regardless of which side of the aisle you are on.

I don't judge things based on (R) or (D).

Was it worth it politically? Of course not. Was it worth it as a matter of the rule of law? Of course. You cannot have the President committing perjury, or whatever term you want to call it. I expect honesty from a President, not 'it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is'.

[Reality_Check]

Remember, Clinton was disbarred, so there were improprieties.

He was not disbarred, as was already stated on this thread, his license was suspended for 5 years. He resigned from the Supreme Court bar. He was never disbarred. Since you're such a fan of semantics, you should try to get this stuff right.


I don't judge things based on (R) or (D).

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Just like you don't argue over semantics and just like you don't use the "but they do it too" argument. :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

He was not disbarred, as was already stated on this thread, his license was suspended for 5 years. He resigned from the Supreme Court bar. He was never disbarred. Since you're such a fan of semantics, you should try to get this stuff right.

I'm not a fan of semantics at all.

Actually he was disbarred:

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html

And he did resign his license, you are correct on that. However, he was facing disbarrment when he did it. So it would be like someone getting caught stealing at their job and the company letting them resign rather than firing them. Fired or not, that person is still a thief.


Just like you don't argue over semantics and just like you don't use the "but they do it too" argument. :rolleyes:

That's bs and you know it.

I have a feeling you're referring to a conversation we were having in a thread that was locked. If that's it, I'll again explain the differences since you missed it. Just ask. I hope this one doesn't get locked though. People have a habit of calling me names in political threads and getting them locked. :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

You cannot have the President committing perjury, or whatever term you want to call it. I expect honesty from a President, not 'it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is'.

He should have just refused to testify under oath like Bush & Cheney. Live and learn.

[GLW]

You maybe should read up on the Andrew Johnson impeachment.

A great many historians would argue that Johnson's impeachment was politically motivated because he was not willing to punish the south for something like then next 40 years. He was actually taking Lincoln's words and desires to heart and mor in favor of uniting the nation again.

As for Clinton, the partisanship exhibited in the US and the lengths that some are willing to go to to achieve their political goals have gotten more and more ruinous and sordid since the Nixon years.

The politicization of the concept of impeachment has moved so far away from the idea of protecting the Constitution and the fabric of the foundations of the US form of government as to be laughable.

Would you seriously equate Nixon's actions with Watergate and other probable crimes as being of lesser degree than Lewinsky and all of that? Yet, even when Nixon resigned, a move to impeach him was NOT certain.

And Nixon was being considered for impeachment for just cause from 1972 with wiretapping, abuse of power, a cover up....and the only lesson they took away from that one was to say "Sorry folks"

That was a lesson that Reagan learned well. The Iran Contra affair was easily an impeachable offense. However, Reagan said "Sorry" and let the flunkies plead guilty.

But of course, Clinton's lie - which was not perjury at all - is WORSE than Iran Contra.

Hmm... seems a very strange yardstick indeed.

But of course, you will claim that Reagan was not responsible for Iran Contra and that it was not that bad... which will be another great example of your inability to actually have LIVED through an historic time and have paid no attention to it or understood it.

Did you watch any of the Watergate hearings? Iran Contra? I watched BOTH and the evidence was ****ing.... I then watched and listened to Clinton's....nowhere close to it.

Seems that one side has either not figured out when someone should REALLY be impeached (As in too forgiving) while the other will use any means honest or not to achieve their aims. How Rovian.

[Reality_Check]

Actually he was disbarred:

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html

And he did resign his license, you are correct on that. However, he was facing disbarrment when he did it. So it would be like someone getting caught stealing at their job and the company letting them resign rather than firing them. Fired or not, that person is still a thief.

You should really read your sources more closely.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/11/news/mn-2733


Former President Clinton, facing the possibility of being barred from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has resigned instead, his lawyer said Friday.

"Former President Clinton hereby respectfully requests to resign from the bar of this court," his lawyer, David Kendall, said in a two-page letter to the high court's clerk. Kendall did not elaborate on why Clinton decided to resign.

Clinton's resignation from the Supreme Court bar will have little practical impact. Clinton has not practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to argue any cases in the future.

On Oct. 1, the Supreme Court suspended Clinton from practicing before the court and gave him 40 days to show why he should not be disbarred.

You article was dated October 1, 2001. The one to which I linked was dated 11/11/2001.


That's bs and you know it.

I have a feeling you're referring to a conversation we were having in a thread that was locked. If that's it, I'll again explain the differences since you missed it. Just ask. I hope this one doesn't get locked though. People have a habit of calling me names in political threads and getting them locked. :rolleyes:


And I'm still waiting to find out why you consider Eric Cantor's actions to be acceptable, but what Jim Wright did was wrong, considering that Eric Cantor said what he did in a private meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu not in the meeting with Secretary Clinton as you stated.

[BJJ-Blue]

He should have just refused to testify under oath like Bush & Cheney. Live and learn.

Yes, I believe he could have done that. Of course then he would have hurt his chances of beating the sexual harrassment lawsuit against him. See how it all comes down to someone's bad character biting them in the butt. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

RC,

Cantor was invited there by the US Secretary of State. Yes, he had a private meeting with Netanyahu while there. Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, an ally of ours. It's completely different that some Congressman and Senators going down to visit a Soviet-backed dictator on their own accord. And Kerry, Harkin, etc were not invited to visit the dictator by the US Secretary of State, or by anyone else in the Reagan Administration.

[BJJ-Blue]

You maybe should read up on the Andrew Johnson impeachment.

A great many historians would argue that Johnson's impeachment was politically motivated because he was not willing to punish the south for something like then next 40 years. He was actually taking Lincoln's words and desires to heart and mor in favor of uniting the nation again.

I have read up on it, and you are right. Johnson was impeached for being 'too soft' on the South. And yes, Johnson was following Lincoln's strategy. IMO, Lincoln was assassinated by morons. They were Southern sympathisers who killed the man who was on record as saying he would not punish the South, and was going to help rebuild it and move forward.


Would you seriously equate Nixon's actions with Watergate and other probable crimes as being of lesser degree than Lewinsky and all of that? Yet, even when Nixon resigned, a move to impeach him was NOT certain.

Yes I would. Perjury, or lying under oath, is a felony. A felony is a felony. And a felony sounds like a "high crime or misdeameanor" to me.

Again, it's got ZERO to do with sex. He was only asked about affairs because his defense to a sexual harrassment suit was basically, 'Im happily married so why would I harrass some woman for sex'? Had Clinton been being sued by say an ex business partner in a failed restaurant, his sex life would have not been an issue and thus he could not have been asked about it. Of course since it was a sexual harrassment suit, his sex life was definately an issue.


That was a lesson that Reagan learned well. The Iran Contra affair was easily an impeachable offense. However, Reagan said "Sorry" and let the flunkies plead guilty.

No way. The Democrats despised Reagan. He was honest, conservative, and very successful. They would have loved anything to tear him down. Do the words "October Surprise" mean anything to you?


But of course, you will claim that Reagan was not responsible for Iran Contra and that it was not that bad... which will be another great example of your inability to actually have LIVED through an historic time and have paid no attention to it or understood it.

I had no desire to understand it. Since I knew about Kerry, Harkin, etc promising a Soviet backed dictator they would do everything they could to stop Reagan and help the dictator, I honestly didn't give a **** how Reagan beat those guys.

Of course I do love liberals on Iran-Contra. On one hand they say Reagan was a doddering, old fool who was already suffering the effects of Alzheimers during his final years in office. But when you mention Iran-Contra, suddenly Reagan is this criminal mastermind who engineered it all and left zero evidence tying himself to it.


Seems that one side has either not figured out when someone should REALLY be impeached (As in too forgiving) while the other will use any means honest or not to achieve their aims. How Rovian.

Calling for your own President to face impeachment, and even war crimes trials, for fighting terrorism is scraping even lower in the barrel than I've ever seen in my life.

[Reality_Check]

RC,

Cantor was invited there by the US Secretary of State. Yes, he had a private meeting with Netanyahu while there. Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, an ally of ours. It's completely different that some Congressman and Senators going down to visit a Soviet-backed dictator on their own accord. And Kerry, Harkin, etc were not invited to visit the dictator by the US Secretary of State, or by anyone else in the Reagan Administration.

I was talking about Speaker Jim Wright. He sent a letter yet somehow that was not okay in your book. Why is that?

[MasterKiller]

No way. The Democrats despised Reagan. He was honest, conservative, and very successful. They would have loved anything to tear him down. Do the words "October Surprise" mean anything to you?.

Hey, not everyone is lucky enough to have a 444-day hostage situation end literally 5 minutes after you are inaugurated.

[GLW]

or to have the then president of the hostage retaining country admit repeatedly that the fix was in BEFORE the election and there was an arms for hostages deal...and then to have no one connect the dots from what Bani Sadr said then all the way to Iran Contra a few short years later.

[GLW]

You grow tiresome. I say this mainly because you admit one thing – WHEN it is proven to you. Then, a screen or two later, you go back to your pre-admission talking point. Got Alzheimer’s or just a major refusal to refuse to use a well worn talking point.?
“Yes I would. Perjury, or lying under oath, is a felony. A felony is a felony. And a felony sounds like a "high crime or misdeameanor" to me. “
As shown before, there was legally NO PERJURY. Lying under oath is not even a misdemeanor. So, not it is NOT either one.


“Again, it's got ZERO to do with sex. “
And when did I say it did? Sex was a nice lurid topic to immediately get a certain demographic of American non-thinkers to take a Pavlovian response. It was NEVER about sex. Rather it was about a several year crusade to take down a president that the right wing neocons were against…AT WHATEVER COST FOR WHATEVER REASON. And as has been repeatedly show, it was not even about PERJURY since that crime was never committed.

“I had no desire to understand it. Since I knew about Kerry, Harkin, etc promising a Soviet backed dictator they would do everything they could to stop Reagan and help the dictator, I honestly didn't give a **** how Reagan beat those guys. “
You have got to be kidding. You don’t CARE if Reagan broke the law or subverted the Constitution as long as he won. That is the very definition of the Ends justifying the means.
Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s. That much is true. But, you show your distinct ignorance of what Alzheimer’s is or how it affects people. First, there are times that a person suffering from it are totally lucid. Second, even when not, they may be quite charming and act in ‘normal’ ways…and if they are extreme in attitude already, it can be quite hard to distinguish the disease from their normal behavior.
At best, Reagan was out of touch with the operations of his administration. That translates as FUNCTIONALLY INCOMPETENT. He delegated everything and did not do judicious oversight of his underlings. That can be – and was in this instance, CRIMINAL.
At worst, he was lucid enough to violate the Constitution. He may very well have been in on the discussions and approved it all. He may very well then have forgotten due to his illness. Or, he may not have been aware but, using his acting background, it is quite feasible he presented the affectation of one who understands what he is agreeing to.
So, the gamut of mentally unfit for the job all the way up to being involved in the crimes is quite possible. And ALL of the possibilities there reveal a person who could be impeached or if not that, removed from office for medical reasons.

But even that is not the real issue. The REAL issue is that you are more than willing to give St. Reagan a pass to have subverted Congress and the Constitution. That reveals your level of hypocrisy to then complain later that a non-crime by Clinton subverted the presidency to an extent greater than a provable subversion of Congress and the Constitution that led to prison sentences.

“Calling for your own President to face impeachment, and even war crimes trials, for fighting terrorism is scraping even lower in the barrel than I've ever seen in my life.”

Seeing as how every one of our allies lists waterboarding as a war crime and seeing how our own officials have said the same thing, your shock and awe is amusing.

You really do need to get a life if you stand by that statement.

First, while I will say now that G.W. Bush should have been impeached, I doubt you will find that on this thread before now. Even so, I make that statement based upon his various lies and upon his admission that he authorized the use of techniques that ARE torture. The only reason they are not called the traditional name…like Water Torture – is because we are in a time where dishonest people try to soften their meaning and fool people by using misleading language.

Waterboarding IS Waterboarding TORTURE. Simple. To authorize the use of TORTURE is a war crime. Simple.

Your hypocrisy is amazing.

Now, to enlighten you, there are now legal scholars warning Bush to only do his book tours in the US. NOT because he would get a nasty reception in Europe…though he probably would. Nope…it is because if he sets foot in man of those other nations, he might be open to arrest for war crimes.

[BJJ-Blue]

I was talking about Speaker Jim Wright. He sent a letter yet somehow that was not okay in your book. Why is that?

Dude, he was telling a Soviet-backed dictator he was going to thwart the President of the United States on foreign policy!!!

[BJJ-Blue]

Hey, not everyone is lucky enough to have a 444-day hostage situation end literally 5 minutes after you are inaugurated.


or to have the then president of the hostage retaining country admit repeatedly that the fix was in BEFORE the election and there was an arms for hostages deal...and then to have no one connect the dots from what Bani Sadr said then all the way to Iran Contra a few short years later.

They released the hostages becuase the knew Reagan was no Jimmy Carter and he wasn't playing around. We need another one like Reagan in the White House that terrorists fear.

Oh, are you guys actually saying their was an October Surprise conspiracy? If so, you're dead wrong. Even Reagan's enemies admitted that. They had at least one Congressional investigation that found NOTHING. Even the liberals digging for dirt admitted as such:

“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.” -Speaker of the House Tom Foley

[BJJ-Blue]

“Yes I would. Perjury, or lying under oath, is a felony. A felony is a felony. And a felony sounds like a "high crime or misdeameanor" to me. “
As shown before, there was legally NO PERJURY. Lying under oath is not even a misdemeanor. So, not it is NOT either one.

So if lying under oath is not a felony or a misdeameanor, what is it? :confused:



Rather it was about a several year crusade to take down a president that the right wing neocons were against…AT WHATEVER COST FOR WHATEVER REASON. And as has been repeatedly show, it was not even about PERJURY since that crime was never committed.

So explain this one: Knowing Clinton had already "triangulated" after the 1994 elections and signed into law welfare reform, deregulated, and cut capitol gains taxes, why in the world would they impeach someone who was moving towards them politically?


You have got to be kidding. You don’t CARE if Reagan broke the law or subverted the Constitution as long as he won. That is the very definition of the Ends justifying the means.

Well first off, the liberals were committing treason imo. So yes, if Reagan had to 'play dirty' to combat the other side playing dirty, I'm not losing sleep over it. Dude, the bottom line is that if liberals in Congress had not been trying to make secret, backroom deals with Soviet-backed dictators, none of this would have happened in the first place.


Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s. That much is true. But, you show your distinct ignorance of what Alzheimer’s is or how it affects people. First, there are times that a person suffering from it are totally lucid. Second, even when not, they may be quite charming and act in ‘normal’ ways…and if they are extreme in attitude already, it can be quite hard to distinguish the disease from their normal behavior.
At best, Reagan was out of touch with the operations of his administration. That translates as FUNCTIONALLY INCOMPETENT. He delegated everything and did not do judicious oversight of his underlings. That can be – and was in this instance, CRIMINAL.
At worst, he was lucid enough to violate the Constitution. He may very well have been in on the discussions and approved it all. He may very well then have forgotten due to his illness. Or, he may not have been aware but, using his acting background, it is quite feasible he presented the affectation of one who understands what he is agreeing to.
So, the gamut of mentally unfit for the job all the way up to being involved in the crimes is quite possible. And ALL of the possibilities there reveal a person who could be impeached or if not that, removed from office for medical reasons.

LMFAO!!!

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. The lengths you people will go to to smear the man who destroyed the USSR and freed hundreds of millions of people from Communist dictatorship is pathetic. Maybe instead of looking for ways to besmirch the man, you should ask anyone who lived in the USSR or Eastern Europe under the Soviet regime what they think of Ronald Reagan, the man they call the "Great Liberator".


But even that is not the real issue. The REAL issue is that you are more than willing to give St. Reagan a pass to have subverted Congress and the Constitution. That reveals your level of hypocrisy to then complain later that a non-crime by Clinton subverted the presidency to an extent greater than a provable subversion of Congress and the Constitution that led to prison sentences.

Not at all. There was no evidence tying Reagan to it. And despite the liberals trying to use Iran-Contra and the October Surprise against him, they had nothing on him.


You really do need to get a life if you stand by that statement.

How so? I simply believe we have the right to interrogate foreign nationals wearing no uniforms and waging war against the United States, her allies, and her citizens.


Waterboarding IS Waterboarding TORTURE. Simple. To authorize the use of TORTURE is a war crime. Simple.

Your hypocrisy is amazing.

Whatever. I'd say beheading journalists, crashing planes into buildings, and blowing up women and children with suicide bombers is worse, but to each his own.

[Reality_Check]

Dude, he was telling a Soviet-backed dictator he was going to thwart the President of the United States on foreign policy!!!

But it's okay to tell an ally that he's going to thwart the President of the United States on foreign policy?


Show me where in The Constitution it says that members of Congress are responsible for directly dealing with foreign heads of state, despite the wishes of the President....


I asked to be shown where it says members of the House are responsible for direct dealing with heads of state of foreign nations.


I just find it hard to believe our system of government would have it set that not only is it the President's right to have face-to-face individual policy discusions with foreign heads of state, but all 435 House members and all 100 Senators could as well. It just doesn't make sense.

I guess you find it less hard to believe it when done by a Republican.

[GLW]

“So if lying under oath is not a felony or a misdeameanor, what is it?”

Legally…as shown to you already NOTHING. Lying under oath, while probably unethical, is NOT illegal unless it meets the grounds put forth to define it as perjury. NONE of the answers Clinton gave met the grounds of perjury. This was proven to you before and you agreed. But, it is obvious you can’t recall what you said 5 minutes ago let alone 3 or 4 days ago.

“Well first off, the liberals were committing treason imo. So yes, if Reagan had to 'play dirty' to combat the other side playing dirty, I'm not losing sleep over it. Dude, the bottom line is that if liberals in Congress had not been trying to make secret, backroom deals with Soviet-backed dictators, none of this would have happened in the first place.”

What total bull sh!t. This is the stuff of conspiracy theories. Want to talk treason, hit up on Nixon first. There are recently released recordings from LBJ where he is documented as saying that after the ’68 election and before the swearing in, Nixon was throwing monkey wrenches into the Vietnam peace talks. In the view of a number of analysts and historians, had this not happened, there could have been an agreement with North Vietnam before LBJ left office. Nixon would have gotten to execute it and it would have been a dual credit. From those documents, it is highly probable that the solution in1968 would have left South Vietnam intact and been a better solution than what ended up happening with the fall of Saigon. LBJ is on phone records discussing this and being quite angry. He is also the one who stated very clearly that the actions could be construed as treason but he would not pursue them as he felt the end result would be more demoralizing to the country and he could not see how Nixon could get in and NOT end things up given where they were in the negotiations.

The war continued on for oh…almost 6 more years.

Or how about the conducting of foreign policy at odds with what Carter as PRESIDENT was doing with Iran – you were probably to young to understand that. Considering that this was done NOT for the sake of the country but rather for the winning of the 1980 election and that the actions being undertaken were later to be repeated as the Iran Contra scandal, such actions could be construed as treason and demonstrably affected the lives of a minimum of 444 citizens.

In regards to Reagan, you have a poor memory. The great man who wanted to classify CATSUP as a vegetable for school lunches so they would be closer to balanced meals.

You have obviously never had to deal with Alzheimer’s patients. Been there done that. Seen them from the beginning of symptoms all the way to the end. It is HIGHLY possible. But of course, you wish to remember what you wish about that time. It was not all that great actually. Jobs were for a good period of that time NOT all that plentiful. Heaven help you if you were on the east coast. In Texas, engineering and accounting jobs were stagnant. A family where one was an accountant and the other an electrical engineer had their taxes go up…Creative history is what has been done there. But, people liked him because he could tell a story and connect – well duh…he was a bloody actor.

“How so? I simply believe we have the right to interrogate foreign nationals wearing no uniforms and waging war against the United States, her allies, and her citizens.”

Where is this right either spelled out or NOT denied under the Geneva Convention that we signed on to? A person can be a soldier, bystander, or mercenary. If a soldier – the path is clear. Bystander – clear also. Mercenary – well generally the law of either the country capturing them or where they are captured is used. The Geneva Convention pretty much says those who signed on do not torture…so where is this a right?

More importantly, you have revealed an important fact about yourself. A very large willingness to be moral only when it serves your purpose. And if that is not enough, ALL of the experts in the areas of interrogation have said that the methods use are not effective…AND in fact, they did NOT work in the cases here where they were used. The simple fact is that they were used for shock and fear factors….and the end result is that they made our own military less safe from this time forward. And THOSE are the paraphrased words of a large number of experts in the field.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that being a supporter of the US Constitution is easy. It is not. You have to support the rights of people you find morally reprehensible. You have to first sign on to the idea that your ethical system does NOT allow you to justify heinous actions on the grounds of “Look what THEY did!”

So sorry that living up to the ideals of the Constitution is so hard…perhaps you should choose an easier document. However, I doubt even the Magna Carta would be easy enough for you.

[BJJ-Blue]

But it's okay to tell an ally that he's going to thwart the President of the United States on foreign policy?

Congressman Cantor did not say that.

[BJJ-Blue]

Or how about the conducting of foreign policy at odds with what Carter as PRESIDENT was doing with Iran – you were probably to young to understand that. Considering that this was done NOT for the sake of the country but rather for the winning of the 1980 election and that the actions being undertaken were later to be repeated as the Iran Contra scandal, such actions could be construed as treason and demonstrably affected the lives of a minimum of 444 citizens.

Dude, there was ZERO EVIDENCE of the October Surprise. ZERO. Even Tom Foley admitted it. Why you are hanging on to this is beyond me.


In regards to Reagan, you have a poor memory. The great man who wanted to classify CATSUP as a vegetable for school lunches so they would be closer to balanced meals.

What business is it to the Federal Government that school children eat balanced meals? IMO, that's the parents responsibility, not the Governments.


You have obviously never had to deal with Alzheimer’s patients. Been there done that. Seen them from the beginning of symptoms all the way to the end. It is HIGHLY possible.

Yeah, Alzheimers patients are known for their criminal masterminds. :rolleyes: Pardon me for not knowing that one.


In Texas, engineering and accounting jobs were stagnant.

No they weren't. The 1980s was where high tech really started taking off in Austin. TI, IBM, Motorola, and Sematech were started or grew big time in the 1980s.


A family where one was an accountant and the other an electrical engineer had their taxes go up…

Incorrect. Prove it.


Creative history is what has been done there. But, people liked him because he could tell a story and connect – well duh…he was a bloody actor.

And tens of thousands waited for hours to see him lie in state.

And I'd rather have an actor lead the nation than a community agitator.


Where is this right either spelled out or NOT denied under the Geneva Convention that we signed on to? A person can be a soldier, bystander, or mercenary.

I'm pretty sure people killing Americans while not wearing any uniform are none of those 3 you listed. Maybe Drake can chime in to settle it though.


You seem to be laboring under the delusion that being a supporter of the US Constitution is easy. It is not. You have to support the rights of people you find morally reprehensible.

I'm not under the delusion it's easy. And you are right, it is not easy. You're also correct on that last sentence too, and for Obama those he finds norally reprehensible are those who have found success in this country.


So sorry that living up to the ideals of the Constitution is so hard…perhaps you should choose an easier document. However, I doubt even the Magna Carta would be easy enough for you.

I'm not the one passing/signing bills FORCING Americans to buy health insurance.

I'm not the one trying to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

I'm not the one trying to dictate what cars Americans can and can't drive.

I'm not the one trying to limit free speech by imposing campaign finance reform.

I'm not the one who acts like the 10th Amendment isn't really there.

[Reality_Check]

I'm not the one trying to limit free speech by imposing campaign finance reform.

You mean like President George W. Bush did when he signed McCain-Feingold into law in 2002?

[Reality_Check]

Congressman Cantor did not say that.

I notice that you ignored the 2nd half of my post.



Show me where in The Constitution it says that members of Congress are responsible for directly dealing with foreign heads of state, despite the wishes of the President....


I asked to be shown where it says members of the House are responsible for direct dealing with heads of state of foreign nations.


I just find it hard to believe our system of government would have it set that not only is it the President's right to have face-to-face individual policy discusions with foreign heads of state, but all 435 House members and all 100 Senators could as well. It just doesn't make sense.

I guess you find it less hard to believe it when done by a Republican.

[BJJ-Blue]

You mean like President George W. Bush did when he signed McCain-Feingold into law in 2002?

Yes. And I was against that legislation as I felt it was unconstitutional. And thankfully the Supreme Court agreed.

See, I'm consistant. ;)

Of course I see you left the other ones alone and just mentioned this particular one. Are the others I mentioned ok in your book?

[BJJ-Blue]

I notice that you ignored the 2nd half of my post.

No, I already covered that. But just for you, I'll post it again.

Cantor was invited there by the US Secretary of State. Yes, he had a private meeting with Netanyahu while there. Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, an ally of ours. It's completely different that some Congressman and Senators going down to visit a Soviet-backed dictator on their own accord. And Kerry, Harkin, etc were not invited to visit the dictator by the US Secretary of State, or by anyone else in the Reagan Administration.

[Reality_Check]

No, I already covered that. But just for you, I'll post it again.

Cantor was invited there by the US Secretary of State. Yes, he had a private meeting with Netanyahu while there. Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, an ally of ours. It's completely different that some Congressman and Senators going down to visit a Soviet-backed dictator on their own accord. And Kerry, Harkin, etc were not invited to visit the dictator by the US Secretary of State, or by anyone else in the Reagan Administration.

You keep saying that Eric Cantor was invited by Secretary Clinton. I have yet to see any evidence of that invitation.

So, when Newt Gingrich spoke to the Israeli Knesset and undermined President Clinton's foreign policy, that was okay? Or when Denny Hastert undermined President Clinton's foreign policy with respect to Colombia (telling a foreign military to bypass the Executive Branch altogether), that was okay? Or when Tom Delay undermined President George W. Bush's foreign policy while on a tour in the Middle East (even going so far as to speak to the Palestinians, who aren't allies), that was okay? None of them were invited by the then Secretaries of State of anyone else in the respective Administrations.



Try this:

Can you name ONE time where Republican members of Congress went behind a Democrat President's back and met with foreign leaders to try and circumvent the President's foreign policy?

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/27/news/mn-53884

"Igniting a controversy at home, House Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Israeli parliament Tuesday that Congress supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reasons for rejecting a U.S. plan to break a 14-month stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations."

...

"White House spokesman Mike McCurry said Gingrich’s “impromptu cheering from the sidelines” was likely to harden Israel’s negotiating position further, making it tougher for the U.S. government to play its customary role as mediator in the Middle East conflict."

...

"According to published reports, Gingrich went further in a private meeting in the prime minister’s office. These reports said he urged Netanyahu to defy the U.S. peace plan."

...

"Before leaving Washington, Gingrich had referred to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as “an agent for the Palestinians.” The comment did not make much of a splash at the time, but it took on a new life after Gingrich’s speech in Israel."



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/part3.html

At the same time Congress was attaching human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs and negotiating a formal end-use monitoring agreement with the Colombian defense ministry, other lawmakers were secretly assuring Colombian officials that they felt such restrictions were unwarranted, and would work to either remove the conditions or limit their effectiveness.

One example of this was a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

Cable (see page 15 of PDF = page 31 of cable):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/col52.pdf



How about a Republican Congressman and a Republican President?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DF133FF936A15754C0A9659C8B 63

"DeLay Is to Carry Dissenting Message On a Mideast Tour

Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, never tires of reminding people that he is just a former pest exterminator from Sugar Land, Tex. But beginning this weekend, he will travel to the world's most complex and troubled region, meet with prime ministers, speak to a foreign parliament and, by his presence, remind the Bush administration to pay heed to its right flank as it seeks to make peace.

As he travels next week through Israel, Jordan and Iraq, he will take with him a message of grave doubt that the Middle East is ready for a Palestinian state, as called for in the current peace plan, known as the road map, backed by the administration and Europe.

...

He said he had been working hard to persuade the White House to support his plan, and intended to bring it up in separate meetings with Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers. He will also address the Israeli Parliament and meet with King Abdullah of Jordan.

...

His persistent skepticism about Mr. Bush's peace initiative indicates that the president may yet have to wrestle with his right flank in pursuing a plan that ultimately calls for a Palestinian state."

And yet you justified Newt Gingrich's behavior, even though he wasn't invited.


I will say Gingrich dealing with the duly elected PM of Israel is different than Kerry (and the other Dems) dealing with a Soviet-supported, unelected dictator refusing to have open elections.

[GLW]

“Dude, there was ZERO EVIDENCE of the October Surprise. ZERO. Even Tom Foley admitted it. Why you are hanging on to this is beyond me.”
Not true. The US law enforcement will never know if there was evidence. The timeline:
Ayatollah Khomeini takes power
Bani Sadr is “elected” or selected to be the new president of Iran.
Bani Sadr initially takes the Ayatollah’s hard line stance with the US.
Bani Sadr determines that the hard line stance is actually NOT in Iran’s best interest (in his opinion) He also decides that some of the domestic policies are a bit too much.
Bani Sadr is ousted from Iran essentially by decree from the Ayatollah.
Bani Sadr flees to France. Takes residence in a safe house somewhere in Paris (reputedly).
Bani Sadr makes it known to new sources that he met with US officials BEFORE the 1980 election to agree on arms for hostages.
There were some released documents from what was at one time the USSR that corroborated a lot of Bani Sadr’s claims of having met with US officials from the Reagan camp.
Bani Sadr has death threats from Iranians.
Bani Sadr offers his documents to the US government concerning the arms for hostages and meetings. His only requirement is that the come to get them from him in France. His stated reason is that with the death threats, it could be potentially fatal for him to attempt to travel to the US.
The US refuses to travel to him and asks him to come to the US….essentially saying they don’t really want the documents.

Of course, all of this WAS reported – on the back pages of many US media sources…as in reported but buried.

So, the story you adhere to is the ‘Official’ story and as such, should be taken with a grain of salt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GLW
In regards to Reagan, you have a poor memory. The great man who wanted to classify CATSUP as a vegetable for school lunches so they would be closer to balanced meals.
“What business is it to the Federal Government that school children eat balanced meals? IMO, that's the parents responsibility, not the Governments.”
THAT is not the issue. The government has a program that interacts with the schools for lunches and such. In a cost cutting measure, he was willing to claim that Catsup was a vegetable….
But, you again reveal a lot about your own character and ability to care about things like children. I hope you do not claim to be a Christian with such attitudes.


“Yeah, Alzheimers patients are known for their criminal masterminds. Pardon me for not knowing that one. “
Reagan couldn’t have masterminded a game of scrabble. He very well could have authorized a program to do any number of things… As a person with Alzheimer’s, he could have gone from an extreme of being malleable to suggestion all the way to being so overtly fanatical on a subject as to becoming the uber-Cold Warrior. You miss the point again. I am not at all sure if you do this to maintain your closed mind or if you are truly obtuse. But, to state it simply, a person with even the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s is capable of very dangerous things and should never be in a position of power like he was.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GLW
In Texas, engineering and accounting jobs were stagnant.
“No they weren't. The 1980s was where high tech really started taking off in Austin. TI, IBM, Motorola, and Sematech were started or grew big time in the 1980s.”
Austin was not like the rest of the state. The attempt to foster a southwest Silicon valley had other issues. But, how did the non-tech sector of the Austin economy fare? Not well. How about Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, not that well.
“Incorrect. Prove it. “
Dense…and stupid of you. I personally experienced that….and No, I will NOT give you my tax returns from the 80s… But yours were probably from the part time job area…

“And tens of thousands waited for hours to see him lie in state. “
Nonsequitor…


“And I'd rather have an actor lead the nation than a community agitator.”
Resorting to attack ad hominem. A typical logical fallacy that is a resort of one who cannot support their position logicall.

“I'm pretty sure people killing Americans while not wearing any uniform are none of those 3 you listed. “
You are incapable of defending your own ideas about the legality of torture. My issue is with your lack of logic, historical perspective, and lack of understanding of simple things like the Geneva Convention…or the basic moral compass that the US USED to possess in regards to being able to categorically say that “As Americans, we do not resort to torture because it makes us less than we want to be morally and ethically”

“for Obama those he finds norally reprehensible are those who have found success in this country. “
Assuming facts not in evidence. You are speaking to MY points. Address them and not your OPINION about what Obama may or may not believe.

“I'm not the one passing/signing bills FORCING Americans to buy health insurance. “

But you ARE comfortable with people going bankrupt when they can’t afford insurance or with people being dropped from their coverage for no reason or because they actually USED the product they purchased.


“I'm not the one trying to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.”

Totally off topic…but also without merit. Someone come to your home recently and try to take your gun….


“I'm not the one trying to dictate what cars Americans can and can't drive.”

Off topic. Also, if you don’t like regulation, feel free to go back and drive a Corvair….no seatbelts and so on. Disprove how we would not all be better off had we left the fuel standards that had when Carter left office…but of course, you would not know about those types of things…like Carter putting in solar power for the White House and Reagan having it all removed.


“I'm not the one trying to limit free speech by imposing campaign finance reform. “

Assuming that such thing WOULD limit free speech. How much are you heard in the din of money? So, you DO think that a corporation is a person. Sorry, off topic but also a specious argument.


“I'm not the one who acts like the 10th Amendment isn't really there.”

The PEOPLE can then vote for any power they wish to be allocated to the state or federal government. Again, you are assuming things not provable and not in evidence.

If you want to go down this road, read up on US government and Constitutional law….

Coming from a person who does not know the defining characteristics of perjury, you should understand why your statement about anything to do with the Constitution is laughable.

[BJJ-Blue]

You keep saying that Eric Cantor was invited by Secretary Clinton. I have yet to see any evidence of that invitation.

So why isn't Sec of State Hillary Clinton saying that? Why isn't President Obama saying that?

The only people upset by this are Al Jazeera and the liberals on this board. I guess we can all see who you stand with.


So, when Newt Gingrich spoke to the Israeli Knesset and undermined President Clinton's foreign policy, that was okay? Or when Denny Hastert undermined President Clinton's foreign policy with respect to Colombia (telling a foreign military to bypass the Executive Branch altogether), that was okay? Or when Tom Delay undermined President George W. Bush's foreign policy while on a tour in the Middle East (even going so far as to speak to the Palestinians, who aren't allies), that was okay? None of them were invited by the then Secretaries of State of anyone else in the respective Administrations.

And yet you justified Newt Gingrich's behavior, even though he wasn't invited.

Ok then, show me letters like the 'Dear Commandante' letter or other such proof. Until then, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

And yes, Gingrich was meeting with the elected leader of a US ally. Kerry, Harkin, etc were meeting with a Soviet-backed dictator. Do you not see a big difference here?

[BJJ-Blue]

Of course, all of this WAS reported – on the back pages of many US media sources…as in reported but buried.

So, the story you adhere to is the ‘Official’ story and as such, should be taken with a grain of salt.

LMAO!!!

Congressional investigations found NOTHING. What more do you want? :rolleyes:


THAT is not the issue. The government has a program that interacts with the schools for lunches and such. In a cost cutting measure, he was willing to claim that Catsup was a vegetable….
But, you again reveal a lot about your own character and ability to care about things like children. I hope you do not claim to be a Christian with such attitudes.

The issue is that the Gov't has no business in children's diets. It's up to the parents. Show me in the Constitution where it states the Federal Gov't is responsible for school children eating balanced meals.

As for my religion, it does teach charity. However, it also states clearly, 'If a man shall not work, he shall not eat'. I'm not against helping those who help themselves, but subsidizing poverty is against my beliefs and it's only exacerbated the problem.


But, to state it simply, a person with even the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s is capable of very dangerous things and should never be in a position of power like he was.

But a community agitator with a racist pastor and friends who bombed the Pentagon as President is good for the country, right?

As to Reagan and Alzheimers, you're so all over the map it's a waste of time continuing the discussion on that issue with you.


Austin was not like the rest of the state. The attempt to foster a southwest Silicon valley had other issues. But, how did the non-tech sector of the Austin economy fare? Not well. How about Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, not that well.

You said this : "In Texas, engineering and accounting jobs were stagnant." and you were wrong. Just give Reagan some credit and you won't make incorrect statements like that again.


Dense…and stupid of you. I personally experienced that….and No, I will NOT give you my tax returns from the 80s… But yours were probably from the part time job area…

Call all the names you want, you're still wrong. Reagan CUT taxes, and all working Americans kept more of their hard-earned money than they did under Carter.

Oh, you don't have to use your tax returns. Just post some data proving your assertion. Or are you like Jamieson and just make assertions, but won't back them up with facts or sources?


Nonsequitor…

Call it what you will, but people don't wait for hours to see a man lie in state that they didnt respect/admire/believe in/etc. The man was loved by most Americans, no matter how much hatred liberals like you spew about him. Look at his two landslide elections (including the most lopsided victory in modern American history) if you don't believe how much the American people liked Reagan.


Resorting to attack ad hominem. A typical logical fallacy that is a resort of one who cannot support their position logicall.

BS. What I said is true, and what you said was disproven by two election landslides.



You are incapable of defending your own ideas about the legality of torture. My issue is with your lack of logic, historical perspective, and lack of understanding of simple things like the Geneva Convention…or the basic moral compass that the US USED to possess in regards to being able to categorically say that “As Americans, we do not resort to torture because it makes us less than we want to be morally and ethically”

How so? I clearly have stated I don't think it's torture multiple times on this board. Does it suck to be waterboarded? I'm sure it does. But it's not torture.



Assuming facts not in evidence. You are speaking to MY points. Address them and not your OPINION about what Obama may or may not believe.

It's not an opinion at all. Just listen to what he says. And look at his policies; he clearly promised to not raise taxes during a recession and now he wants to, and just on the highest achievers in this country. I stand by my statement 100%.



But you ARE comfortable with people going bankrupt when they can’t afford insurance or with people being dropped from their coverage for no reason or because they actually USED the product they purchased.

I'm not getting into the specifices of healthcare because it's way too big to do here. But in a nutshell, I believe it's each American's responsibility to feed, clothe, insure, etc themselves and their family. It's not the Government's, ie the taxpayer's, responsibility.


Totally off topic…but also without merit. Someone come to your home recently and try to take your gun….

If you want the conversation to end, keep avoiding reality. The list of anti-2nd Amendment legislation proposed/passed by the left is quite long.


Off topic. Also, if you don’t like regulation, feel free to go back and drive a Corvair….no seatbelts and so on. Disprove how we would not all be better off had we left the fuel standards that had when Carter left office…but of course, you would not know about those types of things…like Carter putting in solar power for the White House and Reagan having it all removed.

No it isn't off topic. When talking about the Constitution and rights, what I said fits right in.

And I'm not free to drive with no seatbelt. If I do, I can be arrested, fined, and put in jail. And Democrat Ann Richards signed that one into law.


Assuming that such thing WOULD limit free speech. How much are you heard in the din of money? So, you DO think that a corporation is a person. Sorry, off topic but also a specious argument.

Actually the Supreme court has said it did limit free speech and that corporations are people in legal terms pertaining to rights granted under the Constitution. And yes, I do agree with those decisions.


The PEOPLE can then vote for any power they wish to be allocated to the state or federal government. Again, you are assuming things not provable and not in evidence.

What? The Constitution is the law of the land no matter elections say.


Coming from a person who does not know the defining characteristics of perjury, you should understand why your statement about anything to do with the Constitution is laughable.

Whatever. You're the one who said something to the effect of, 'lying under oath is not a crime'. :rolleyes: I guess they make you take that oath just for ***** and grins.

[Reality_Check]

So why isn't Sec of State Hillary Clinton saying that? Why isn't President Obama saying that?

Maybe because the only one saying it is you. I haven't seen Eric Cantor say he was invited by Secretary Clinton.



Ok then, show me letters like the 'Dear Commandante' letter or other such proof. Until then, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

And yes, Gingrich was meeting with the elected leader of a US ally. Kerry, Harkin, etc were meeting with a Soviet-backed dictator. Do you not see a big difference here?

You seem to forget that Newt Gingrich said that what he did was wrong. Nor did you address the actions of Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert. You also clearly didn't click through my links (again), one of which was the cable from our diplomatic corps in Colombia complaining that Dennis Hastert was undermining their efforts. And Dennis Hastert wasn't speaking to the elected leaders, he was speaking to the military.

[GLW]

“Congressional investigations found NOTHING. What more do you want? “
--------------------------------
Actually, they found nothing in the 9/11Commission as well. The also allowed key witnesses to testify while NOT under oath.
However, more to the point in this one, I actually read Bani Sadr’s statements about negotiating successfully on arms for hostages in 1981 just after he left Iran and long before the Iran Conta affair was said to have started. In fact, there was an LA Times report on the arms deals in 1986 in regards to freeing other hostages.
Given the fact that this entire thing blew up in the Reagan admin’s face and led to criminal prosecutions… AND the fact that Bani Sadr was saying it in 1981 or so with DETAILS makes it all the more probable.
---------------------------------
“However, it also states clearly, 'If a man shall not work, he shall not eat'. “
-------------------------------------
BS. You are producing that same old “They won’t work” line. Ok, so, why should a child in grade school not eat? What job are they to get? High School? What about the fact that if you look at ALL of the jobs that are available in the US this minute vs. ALL of the unemployed – and this is NOT considering anything as esoteric as being UNDER employed…From the recent OMB statistics, if all of the jobs were taken and we had ZERO jobs open, there would still be 8 out of 10 of those currently unemployed who could not find a job.
So, the “They won’g get a job” line is BS. I have been a social worker before I got an engineering degree. I DID have those who were trying to game the system. From my sample size of around 2000 or more cases, I can say that the system gamers were from 1 out of 10 to 2 out of 10. So, those that came for help and truly needed it were between 8 and 9 out of 10 cases. Most did NOT want to be there and did NOT want to be on welfare, food stamps, or any sort of program. They wanted help to get back on their feet. The actual data from those who get assistance and those who give it tends to bear out these numbers as well
So, please explain what type of data or actual experience with this stuff YOU have.

“But a community agitator with a racist pastor and friends who bombed the Pentagon as President is good for the country, right?”
Again, this is BS and an obvious unexamined Fox “News” talking point. The friend was someone who was at a community organizing event. The location of such an event is immaterial since they are held where they are held and are usually open to many. I get invites to such things from various groups all the time…and most I have never met but do know that at least on one issue, we have a common interest.
As far as the pastor, also old news. You will carry that baggage around and frankly if it made a difference to the rank and file American, the election would have gone differently in 2008. So, this again is a distraction and not to any germane point.
You seem to do a lot of that. Wonder why you can’t seem to stick on point. Mind wandering a lot, is it?

-------------------
“As to Reagan and Alzheimers, you're so all over the map it's a waste of time continuing the discussion on that issue with you.”
----------------------
Not all over the map. I speak from actual experience with Alzheimer’s disease with relatives and also as a caregiver in psychiatric treatment facilities. I have seen all levels of functioning and had such patients quite capable of deceiving many. I have also seen them manipulated and used.
You seem to ignore the simplest question as to what may have happened. He was definitely not with all oars after his assassination attempt for a good while. That was early in his first term. He had a reputation of delegating most things to underlings from his time in Ca. So, did he delegate and approve on lucid days? Did he delegate and then get manipulated into approval on non-lucid days? Was he aware of what he was doing all the time? Only a doctor examining him constantly at the time would be able to tell. But, the simple truth is that he was the guy in charge.
----------------------
“You said this : "In Texas, engineering and accounting jobs were stagnant." and you were wrong. Just give Reagan some credit and you won't make incorrect statements like that again.”
----------------
I was not aware that AUSTIN was all of Texas. Engineering and accounting and other jobs WERE stagnant in most of the other major cities in Texas. The job growth was very specific in certain areas…geographic and skill set. The second half of Reagan’s terms saw the beginning of outsourcing overseas in a big way…and jobs begin to disappear. By 1989, the Return on Investment (ROI) of Shell Oil was NEGATIVE and the jobs that had stopped growing in such sectors began the slide into layoffs. Tech and professional people from the end of Reagan’s term for the next 5 years were not leaving jobs due to none being around and were walking scared due to layoff round after round. These STARTED in the last half of Reagan’s second term.

[GLW]

“Call all the names you want, you're still wrong. Reagan CUT taxes, and all working Americans kept more of their hard-earned money than they did under Carter.”
I was assigning a judgment on your words and actions. Dense and stupid of you does not equate with saying you are stupid…
-------------

“Oh, you don't have to use your tax returns. Just post some data proving your assertion. Or are you like Jamieson and just make assertions, but won't back them up with facts or sources?”
----------------------
I have already said that I personally saw it. It hit two income professional households with no children. There was actually a description of the tax laws… the first one was the removal of all interest payments EXCEPT for mortgage….this made itemizing tax returns impossible for a great number of people. When the tax changes went in, the Houston Chronicle did an article on those who would have lower, higher, and unchanged taxes. My taxes were in the higher and the income level was NOT out of the middle class bracket. Had I made about 5 times more money, I would have gotten lower rates.
Nonsequitor means that what you posted is a red herring – there only to distract and it has nothing to do with the facts at hand. Having trouble keeping your thoughts, are you?
An ad hominem attack proves NOTHING. Should by chance you arrive at a true ending, your argument has no bearing on it. It is the very definition of fallacy.

---------------------------
“How so? I clearly have stated I don't think it's torture multiple times on this board. Does it suck to be waterboarded? I'm sure it does. But it's not torture.”
-----------------------------
Based upon what? Your OWN definition? Would you like to submit to it and say that AFTER. Seems one of your sainted right wing ideologues did that …and came out saying he was wrong and did agree with the rest of the world in that it IS torture.

------------------------
“And look at his policies; he clearly promised to not raise taxes during a recession and now he wants to, and just on the highest achievers in this country. I stand by my statement 100%.”
---------------------------
Are you making over $250,000 a year? If so, you will go back to the pre-Bush tax giveaway rates for the rich. If not, you will see your taxes lower. THOSE are the facts if you would look further than Faux News.
----------------
“I'm not getting into the specifices of healthcare because it's way too big to do here. But in a nutshell, I believe it's each American's responsibility to feed, clothe, insure, etc themselves and their family. It's not the Government's, ie the taxpayer's, responsibility.”
--------------------
Sorry, but you aren’t getting into any specifics on anything. Your ties to this country’s past is gone. You do not know what things were like even 50 years ago.
Your view of what America should be is a society devoid of compassion and with no sense of community. You have no responsibility for your fellow man. You seem proud of that fact. Yet you can talk about “Your church” Your hypocrisy is boundless.

------------
“ The list of anti-2nd Amendment legislation proposed/passed by the left is quite long. “
--------------
Produce it. Then show how it was supported by which people like Obama, and which Senators and Congressmen. There are tons of proposed pieces of legislation and better than 90% of it all NEVER makes it out of committee. Again, you are showing your ignorance of how the system works.
--------------------

“And I'm not free to drive with no seatbelt. If I do, I can be arrested, fined, and put in jail. And Democrat Ann Richards signed that one into law.”
---------------------
You can drive that way….and you can pay the fine. The law actually has meant that a large number of traffic deaths have been avoided. But that is unimportant in your world. What car do you want that you can’t get? I know people who customize just about anything…..and do.
-----------------------
“Actually the Supreme court has said it did limit free speech and that corporations are people in legal terms pertaining to rights granted under the Constitution. And yes, I do agree with those decisions.”
------------------------
Do you know WHY that case got there and how corporations got personhood? THAT was a mistake from a Supreme Court case back around the 1880’s or 1890’s. Also, that aspect of the can be changed either at the state level or federal with new state laws or a Constitution amendment.
------------
“What? The Constitution is the law of the land no matter elections say. “
-----------------------------
Amendments can be repealed. The Supreme Court can strike things down. You are still fighting the Civil War…and losing. There are always State vs. Federal jurisdiction cases on the docket.
--------------
“Whatever. You're the one who said something to the effect of, 'lying under oath is not a crime'. I guess they make you take that oath just for ***** and grins. “
------------------

No, many legal scholars have put that definition out. The oath is to affirm that the person giving testimony knows that should they lie about something that is germane to the case, they CAN and WILL be prosecuted for Perjury. However, the lie has to be proven to be in an area that has already been set up as being pertinent to the case. So, lying under oath is NOT illegal if it does not get into that area of being pertinent or germane to the case.

You are WRONG….period on that.
__________________