Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Dec 1998 05:30:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
563 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote:
> Tim Courtney <tcourtney@nospam.avenew.com> wrote:
> > They are definitely impeachable offenses. Perjurs who aren't the president
> > get put behind bars, shouldn't he at least go to trial? I'm dissappointed
> > that its partisan, but I stand for impeachment. I'm glad for the five
> > democrats who decided to vote for I and III. The democrats should wake up and
> > see that what is wrong is wrong, the obsurd theory of relativity doesn't apply
> > here.
>
> I almost rolled out of my chair today when I saw a replay of some
> democrat talking about sexual McCarthyism (sp). It's amazing how many
> people want to focus in on the sex involved in this to the extent that
> they want to ignore the rest or say the rest was justified because it
> was "just about sex".
The biggest problem with the whole impeachment investigation, and the
eventual impeachment of the President, is that it was related to sex.
IF it was JUST about sex, he'd still be in office ... possibly with another intern
:P
Though as the leader of the country, he should be held to the same standard
as companies, the person is fired for sexual harassment, and involvement. Along
with the UCMJ.
>
> I personally don't give a damn who he screws or how unfaithful he is
> to his wife - that's between them. Even if you throw out the fact
> that he lied in the PJ case when he had the definition of sexual
> relations spelled out to him you still can't deny the fact that the
> man deliberately misled the grand jury, something he said he
> understood would be counted as perjury.
And to top it off, almost all of the Democrat pundants on the TV circuit,
were saying that LYING under oath is NOT impeachable? If I lie in a
civil OR criminal court of law, I'd be thrown in jail for lying under oath. Along
with the 115 that are currently in jail.
>
> Not that he is much different from many of the lying bastards on both
> sides of the fence in Washington, but the man is incapable of telling
> the truth.
When one lies to oneself, you don't know truth anymore.
>
> My democrat friends said when they elected him that his infidelity to
> his wife didn't matter then because he admitted it and said he
> wouldn't do it again, and besides what di that have to do with being
> President. Well, I guess it had a lot to do with it since he used
> every trick in the book available to him as president to delay and
> subvert this entire investigation for 8 months.
One argument that you could use, is that CHARACTER MATTERS. If
someone lies to me once, it's forgivable. If someone lies to me repeatedly,
they cannot be trusted.
>
> But he won't be convicted. No way 67 Senators will vote for it, so
> it'll be an even bigger waste of time.
You never know. If Clinton acts like he has in the past, the ball might roll
against him. The Senate is unlike the House, in that it's constantly running,
and deals with different subject matter. I don't think that you could definately
say that there won't be the votes.
>
> I can't wait for the Republicans to turn Livingston into a martyr,
> though, and you know they will since he tried to do it himself today.
Tried? He did resign. I believe he was going to NOT be the speaker,
and he's giving up his seat in a few months.
Truely, it is sad that Larry Flynt can have blackmail like this over Republicans,
but not be interested in Democrats, and also not to pay up when he said that
he would. (He ran ads offering $1,000,000 for any (provable?) information
about affairs with an elected congressperson).
--
Lee Jorgensen -- Custom Programmer
mailto://ljorgensen@uswest.net
Ban-Koe Systems, Inc.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) I'd put big money on him getting off. BIG money. Sad, but it will happen. (...) Didn't say he tried to resign. I said he tried to make himself a martyr, which he did. I have no more respect for him than I do Clinton, because, for me, the core (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) Republicans, (...) It is said that Larry Flint did not specify party affilation when making the offers, he got what he got (14 republicans, 1 democrat). It may mean that those that would accuse the democrates have nothing to gain because no (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) I almost rolled out of my chair today when I saw a replay of some democrat talking about sexual McCarthyism (sp). It's amazing how many people want to focus in on the sex involved in this to the extent that they want to ignore the rest or say (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
