The W
Views: 98543456
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.07 1144
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Liberals Will Enjoy This
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(1605 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (61 total)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1230/1759
EXP: 4900083
For next: 92787

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1261 days
Last activity: 28 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 7.5.03 1545.42
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1549.24
First off- there is no way in HELL Clinton would NOT have been pardoned after being found guilty at impeachment. Even so- I was one of the "censure" as a punishment crowd over tossing out of office.

But the fact is that he broke the law. Throwing out all of those arguments about Iran/Contra does not change the fact that Clinton abused power. Stay on topic :). Clinton used his power as President to break the law. No matter what any other president did- that was wrong and he deserved to be punished for it.

The Democratic Party has had some great men fill the office of President- I for one can't understand that party's incessant need to stand up for this particular slimeball.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1303/2104
EXP: 6558813
For next: 91877

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 1 day
#22 Posted on 7.5.03 1601.40
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1602.54
Clinton used his power as President to break the law.

This isn't true at all. Clinton was impeached for perjury - lying under oath. He was asked if he had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and he said no. That's something that hardly takes the power of the Presidency to do. You, I, or Martha Stewart could have done the same. Of course, you or I (maybe not Martha Stewart) would never have been put in that position.

I don't stand up for Bill - I have my issues with him as well, but I do stand up against the GOP acting like he was something more than just a run-of-the-mill slimeball and philanderer, which is hardly an impeachable offence.

(edited by MoeGates on 7.5.03 1702)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 916/1180
EXP: 2754099
For next: 115659

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3421 days
Last activity: 3415 days
#23 Posted on 7.5.03 1633.50
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1635.18
If anything, our President should be held to a higher standard when it comes to testifying to the truth before a court. Whether or not what he did amounted to a political "high crime or misdemeanor" is the other question which will be debated by political scientists, law professors and historians forever. In my uneducated legal opinion, the fact that the lie involved a sexual escapade he was trying to keep quiet would *perhaps* be enough to knock down the charge to the "misdemeanor" category, but constitutionally this would still be an impeachable offense. Yes, I do agree that you have to combine this with the fact that you *did* have many people "out to get" Clinton in order to explain why the trial took place. However, I think the Democrats' ability to play up that fact and emphasize that this was "only about sex" and not about fundamental United States laws and the integrity of the office of the presidency are the major things that saved his ass. That and the supposedly "good economy".

DMC

asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 1351/2241
EXP: 7197397
For next: 271544

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 283 days
#24 Posted on 7.5.03 1653.17
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1657.18
I think the Republican argument basically boils down to:

Bill Bennett: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Bill Clinton: Get the stones!

calvinh0560
Boudin rouge
Level: 48

Posts: 341/518
EXP: 801500
For next: 22048

Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 506 days
Last activity: 1 day
#25 Posted on 7.5.03 1656.06
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1659.02

    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    I think the Republican argument basically boils down to:

    Bill Bennett: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

    Bill Clinton: Get the stones!





I am sorry did I miss it when Bennett broke the law like Clinton did?
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 1352/2241
EXP: 7197397
For next: 271544

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 283 days
#26 Posted on 7.5.03 1714.56
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1718.55

    Originally posted by calvinh0560

      Originally posted by asteroidboy
      I think the Republican argument basically boils down to:

      Bill Bennett: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

      Bill Clinton: Get the stones!





    I am sorry did I miss it when Bennett broke the law like Clinton did?



Okay okay.. substitute in George W. Bush.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1415/4700
EXP: 21453680
For next: 382982

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#27 Posted on 8.5.03 0552.38
Reposted on: 8.5.10 0557.40

    Originally posted by MoeGates

    Republican thought - commiting a crime that gives money to our avowed enemy & gives arms to terrorists is OK if you make up some patriotic sounding bullshit. So OK, you'll get a presidential pardon and end up almost running a Pentagon project designed to spy on Americans. However commiting a crime because you don't want your wife to know you got a blowjob from a fat intern is so heinous you ought to be impeached.


I am never surprised by the Democratic ability to practice moral relativism...


    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    Okay okay.. substitute in George W. Bush.

Sorry, I missed where he broke the law...
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1046/2042
EXP: 6273312
For next: 119487

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2979 days
Last activity: 193 days
#28 Posted on 8.5.03 0847.03
Reposted on: 8.5.10 0847.23

    Originally posted by Grimis
    I am never surprised by the Democratic ability to practice moral relativism...


You say that as if moral relativism's a bad thing.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1421/4700
EXP: 21453680
For next: 382982

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#29 Posted on 8.5.03 0906.31
Reposted on: 8.5.10 0913.18

    Originally posted by vsp
    You say that as if moral relativism's a bad thing.

So you believe we should just punt or morality and do a complete free-for-all, even in the terms of legality clearly stated in these examples?
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1306/2104
EXP: 6558813
For next: 91877

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 1 day
#30 Posted on 8.5.03 0918.25
Reposted on: 8.5.10 0920.25
I'm never surprised by the Democratic ability to practice moral relativism...

You're going to have to explain yourself a little better than just throwing out some buzz-words and a smug comment (hey, I know it's the Republican way, but you can take a break here

(edited by MoeGates on 8.5.03 1018)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1047/2042
EXP: 6273312
For next: 119487

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2979 days
Last activity: 193 days
#31 Posted on 8.5.03 0958.58
Reposted on: 8.5.10 0959.01

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by vsp
      You say that as if moral relativism's a bad thing.

    So you believe we should just punt our morality and do a complete free-for-all, even in the terms of legality clearly stated in these examples?



I believe that what the President did with Monica was, quite frankly, none of the American public's business. My name's not Monica, Bill, Hillary or Chelsea, so I fail to see why I needed to know about l'affaire Lewinsky in the first place. I'm sure it's not the first illicit hummer given in the White House, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Likewise, I believe that Clinton's perjury was not in the context of any issue that has the slightest relevance to my life or to Clinton's role as President, but over a ridiculous moral issue that was pursued because Ken Starr had nothing else that would stick. Hell, we've had Presidents who lied about IMPORTANT things (cough cough "not in the loop") and didn't face impeachment proceedings.

By the letter of the law, was Clinton's lying about Lewinsky perjury? Yes. What actual harm was done? About as much as if he'd been caught jaywalking, smoking in a non-smoking zone, or making prank phone calls to Tom DeLay's house late at night asking if his refrigerator was running. If you're going to impeach a President, do it over something meaningful -- and if Starr had evidence of anything meaningful, he'd have hired skywriters to broadcast it.

So yes -- I could care less about legislation of morality, as long as nobody's getting hurt.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1422/4700
EXP: 21453680
For next: 382982

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#32 Posted on 8.5.03 1004.11
Reposted on: 8.5.10 1009.48

    Originally posted by vsp
    I believe that what the President did with Monica was, quite frankly, none of the American public's business. My name's not Monica, Bill, Hillary or Chelsea, so I fail to see why I needed to know about l'affaire Lewinsky in the first place.

I agree with this in the context of the personal decision he made. But....


    Originally posted by vsp
    By the letter of the law, was Clinton's lying about Lewinsky perjury? Yes. What actual harm was done? About as much as if he'd been caught jaywalking, smoking in a non-smoking zone, or making prank phone calls to Tom DeLay's house late at night asking if his refrigerator was running. If you're going to impeach a President, do it over something meaningful

...if Bush, for example, jaywalked, lied under oath, did 60 in a 55, you'd have Democrats from here to Endicino screaming for his head on a platter. Perjury is important. Has there been lying in the White House? Yes. Should it have been punished? Probably. Bu that doesn't make it right.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1048/2042
EXP: 6273312
For next: 119487

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2979 days
Last activity: 193 days
#33 Posted on 8.5.03 1028.34
Reposted on: 8.5.10 1028.37

    Originally posted by Grimis
    ...if Bush, for example, jaywalked, lied under oath, did 60 in a 55, you'd have Democrats from here to Endicino screaming for his head on a platter. Perjury is important. Has there been lying in the White House? Yes. Should it have been punished? Probably. But that doesn't make it right.


If Bush lied under oath about jaywalking, would the Democrats push for impeachment if they had a Congressional majority, as the Republicans had in 1998? Possibly. I doubt that the modern Democratic Party would have the cojones to be one-third as aggressive as the Tom DeLays of the world are, but the sentiment would certainly be there.

Would they be justified in doing so, over an issue that picayune? No. That's a standard that I do apply both ways. I do not latch onto "right" and "wrong" as if they were absolutes, or as if everything that I feel is "wrong" is equally wrong or equally punishable regardless of the circumstances.

Interesting tangent here to recent sodomy-law discussions, many of which are on the books but not regularly enforced, with a similar "is anyone REALLY hurt when the act occurs?" question surrounding them.
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 1356/2241
EXP: 7197397
For next: 271544

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 283 days
#34 Posted on 8.5.03 1033.10
Reposted on: 8.5.10 1033.15

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Sorry, I missed where he broke the law...


No you didn't. Drunk driving, remember? Sure, it was a Democratic hatchet man that dug it up, but it doesn't make it any less true.

So we've got the first president to ever enter office with a record, but at least he didn't lie about a blowjob. He was drunk and driving and he could have killed someone, but that's not as bad as having SEX, so it's cool. Granted, Bush didn't do that in office, he did it during that lost decade of his 30s. But he did it. And if you're wondering what's more dangerous - drunk driving or receiving head, just ask a cop for a judgement call.

Sweep it under the rug, it's okay. Because it's your guy. And if that's not playing fast and loose with your vaunted moral absolutes, I don't know what is.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 671/2210
EXP: 6827766
For next: 88162

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#35 Posted on 8.5.03 1046.52
Reposted on: 8.5.10 1059.01

    Originally posted by asteroidboy

      Originally posted by Grimis
      Sorry, I missed where he broke the law...


    No you didn't. Drunk driving, remember? Sure, it was a Democratic hatchet man that dug it up, but it doesn't make it any less true.

    So we've got the first president to ever enter office with a record, but at least he didn't lie about a blowjob. He was drunk and driving and he could have killed someone, but that's not as bad as having SEX, so it's cool. Granted, Bush didn't do that in office, he did it during that lost decade of his 30s. But he did it. And if you're wondering what's more dangerous - drunk driving or receiving head, just ask a cop for a judgement call.

    Sweep it under the rug, it's okay. Because it's your guy. And if that's not playing fast and loose with your vaunted moral absolutes, I don't know what is.



Wow, I have not a jot of love for either Clinton or Bush but your argument misses a few key points.

1. Bush was convicted several years before ever coming close to the presidency. This information was available at the time the public were asked to vote for him. On top of which theres every chance he has now learned from his mistake. Clinton's offence was commited during his term in office.

2. Clintons offence was not 'getting head' it was commiting perjury.

3. While commiting perjury is unlikely to cause direct harm as drink driving may, the idea that it should be overlooked in certain circumstances can set a very dangerous legal precedent.
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 1358/2241
EXP: 7197397
For next: 271544

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 283 days
#36 Posted on 8.5.03 1116.12
Reposted on: 8.5.10 1116.26

    Originally posted by dMr
    Wow, I have not a jot of love for either Clinton or Bush but your argument misses a few key points.

    1. Bush was convicted several years before ever coming close to the presidency. This information was available at the time the public were asked to vote for him. On top of which theres every chance he has now learned from his mistake. Clinton's offence was commited during his term in office.

    2. Clintons offence was not 'getting head' it was commiting perjury.

    3. While commiting perjury is unlikely to cause direct harm as drink driving may, the idea that it should be overlooked in certain circumstances can set a very dangerous legal precedent.



1. Yup, I said that it happened before he became prez.

2. Read the post again. I said the crime was lying about getting head. There's no doubt that Clinton lied about it.

3. Perjury is "unlikely" to cause as much direct harm as drunk driving? Yeah, I'd said that's pretty unlikely. More like impossible. And I never said anything about overlooking it. Yeah, he lied, but Repubs sure did harrumph a lot about the honor and dignity of the office being besmirched, to steal a line from William Regal. All I'm saying is that it's just a tad hypocritical to install a millionaire playboy and tout him as the paragon of virtue. I'm sure he's cleaned up his act. But we seem much more willing to forgive and forget with Bush.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1424/4700
EXP: 21453680
For next: 382982

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#37 Posted on 8.5.03 1233.41
Reposted on: 8.5.10 1233.58

    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    Sweep it under the rug, it's okay. Because it's your guy. And if that's not playing fast and loose with your vaunted moral absolutes, I don't know what is.

I honestly did forget about that....regardless, if he did it while in office than that is certainly something that would warrent impeachment.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 917/1180
EXP: 2754099
For next: 115659

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3421 days
Last activity: 3415 days
#38 Posted on 9.5.03 1128.33
Reposted on: 9.5.10 1129.04
"Interesting tangent here to recent sodomy-law discussions, many of which are on the books but not regularly enforced, with a similar "is anyone REALLY hurt when the act occurs?" question surrounding them."

Ah yes, the Wiccan Rede. "An it harm none, do what ye will." But can we get a definition of harm, and an explanation of why we should accept your definition at all, you conservative Puritan? Physical harm, emotional harm...can one act be seen as "harmful" by some and not by others? Why should you push your subject view of morality on me?

Forget it, man, I say it is ok to torture babies with hot water and kill old ladies because they no longer serve a purpose--what do you say about that?

DMC
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1314/2104
EXP: 6558813
For next: 91877

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 1 day
#39 Posted on 9.5.03 1201.43
Reposted on: 9.5.10 1203.48
I'd say old ladies and babies are "someone."

I personally don't completely subscribe to that particlar creed, but I think your argument really boils down to "you have to draw the line somewhere or we'll end up eating our young." My point is that liberals (or at least me) still advocate drawing the line somewhere, just in a very different place than you.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 919/1180
EXP: 2754099
For next: 115659

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3421 days
Last activity: 3415 days
#40 Posted on 9.5.03 1231.01
Reposted on: 9.5.10 1234.34
Yes but when someone wants to know exactly where you draw the line and, more importantly, *why*, the question becomes very muddled. I am a firm believer in the divine source hypothesis for the legitimization of moral laws. The only way moral rules make any kind of sense at all is because they are derived from an ultimate, personal *moral being* who holds those who break them responsible. All other justifications for morality ultimately fail, including the very weak notion that we should not "hurt" others.

DMC
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: For consideration
Next thread: What's wrong with you Canadians, anyhow?
Previous thread: If The President speaks, you don't get paid
(1605 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Liberals Will Enjoy ThisRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.283 seconds.