Clinton's impeachment was not about an affair it was about lying under oath. You can try and trivialize it by referring to what he lied about but that in no way defends the fact that he lied under oath.
Hey I was just eliminating the topic of lying about affairs because we all know that's a huge problem throughout.
Having said that, I wish our only major concern was such an issue. With today's economy, Clinton's issues seem downright trivial.
I've said before that I think we give Presidents way too much credit for the economy. I don't blame Bush 100%, and I don't blame Obama 100% for a slow (if any) recovery. There are many more factors at work.
I don't care about Clinton. Read the post. Getting snickery over Clinton lying under oath has nothing to do with what the conserva-cins are doing with health care. Again, show me one example of the kind of lying, fear-mongering, and gross exaggeration that the Democrats are propagating, since you claimed both sides are doing the same thing.
Side point - Lying under oath IS unacceptable, but what is equally unacceptable is refusing to go under oath in the first place because your such a giant goddamned liar that every word out of your mouth is a lie.
Easy MacRoss. I was saying that Clinton's problems were downright trivial compared to today.
As for both parties fear mongering, just read what Robert F. Kennedy has to say about vaccinations. I could give several more examples if requested. (Comparing modern day nuclear reactors to Chernobyl when we have nothing like the flawed RBMK design comes to mind.)
As for both parties fear mongering, just read what Robert F. Kennedy has to say about vaccinations. I could give several more examples if requested.
Wow, that has such a huge reflection on the CURRENT incarnation of the Democratic leadership. If you have to reach back to the 60's, then you are really reaching for straws. I am not saying that the Dems poop roses, but the party as a whole uses a lot less fear-mongering/misinformation/outright lies to drum up support. Sure, there are idiots in the party that have stepped over the line, but the Dems aren't making these tactics as their modus operandi. In fact, they often get ousted from/shamed by the party rather than elevated.
As for both parties fear mongering, just read what Robert F. Kennedy has to say about vaccinations. I could give several more examples if requested.
Wow, that has such a huge reflection on the CURRENT incarnation of the Democratic leadership. If you have to reach back to the 60's, then you are really reaching for straws. I am not saying that the Dems poop roses, but the party as a whole uses a lot less fear-mongering/misinformation/outright lies to drum up support. Sure, there are idiots in the party that have stepped over the line, but the Dems aren't making these tactics as their modus operandi. In fact, they often get ousted from/shamed by the party rather than elevated.
One point of clarification. Robert F. Kennedy is advocating an anti-vaccine message at this very moment. I guess I should have included "Jr."
And for the record, when I was saying that both parties will guilty, I was thinking more of using filibusters and other procedural rules when desired.
Oh, so you expected people to imply something about your argument that you didn't state, and aren't just changing your argument when you were so obviously wrong and painting with a gigantic brush. Okay. You're never wrong. You called it.
Uh. I was just clarifying what I said. I didn't mean to offend you. Sheesh.
My original argument that "both parties do this" was after HungryJoe posted: Did you hear that GOP congresstypes all agreed to refuse to go to a scheduled floor debate on global warming, causing the debate to be delayed?
The discussion was then about filibustering.
Both parties have filibustered and use rules to their advantage. That's all I was saying, and that is what I was clarifying.
I think the think GTM was talking about is more along the lines of the GOP obstructionism over extending unemployment benefits. It was a popular piece of legislation. Everyone supported it, but the GOP saw fit to try and screw with it for weeks, costing thousands of people who would have retained their benefits if the bill passed quickly to lose their benefits entirely.
My original argument that "both parties do this" was after Hungryoe posted: Did you hear that GOP congresstypes all agreed to refuse to go to a scheduled floor debate on global warming, causing the debate to be delayed?
The discussion was then about filibustering.
Yeah, that was really clear, since you didn't quote and that post of mine was ten posts before yours. No one said anything about your post being about filibustering until now.
Rove has a right to refuse to testify under oath until he's subpoenaed. If someone asked you to testify voluntarily about a sensitive subject, you would also be within your rights to refuse until subpoenaed. It doesn't mean you're a lying sack of shit. (I'm not saying Rove is a good guy...just that this specific action doesn't really demonstrate anything.)
If he lies under oath, he is subject to perjury. Legally, he can only take the 5th to avoid incriminating himself, not to avoid revealing sensitive info. His other refuge would be Privilege; if the info they want is covered by some sort of privilege, then he doesn't have to answer with it. He is still not legally permitted to LIE, and there are ways to get the court to review a claim of privilege to determine whether it is valid.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet about how the justice system works.
Rove has a right to refuse to testify under oath until he's subpoenaed.
The fact that he was not subpoenaed and grilled is my primary beef.
Yeah, their whiny bitching that "If we subpoena his, he's just going to lie or claim privilege!" is retarded. If the information is privileged, then it's privileged whether he is under subpoena or not. Suck it up. They just need to subpoena him and get it over with.
Rove has a right to refuse to testify under oath until he's subpoenaed.
The fact that he was not subpoenaed and grilled is my primary beef.
The fact that he lied in the first place is my primary beef. The fact that he wasn't subpoenaed is my secondary beef. Ostrich is my tertiary beef. Beef is my quaternary beef.
Oh, and from the same shameful display at noon yesterday, Todd Adkin botched the pledge. Want to know what makes progressives and liberals go nuts? The fact that you sanctimonious assholes villainize (sp?) intellectuals and then DO THIS.
The problem is that all of these guys are relying on secondary sources to tell them what to think. Or they are the secondary sources and they are trying to get people to think the bill is bad. If everyone could just read the bill and understand it, none of this would be a problem!
Too bad it is the size of Jupiter and has about as much gravity.
God...I'm listening to clips from the teabagger rally yesterday...they're calling it a rebellion, telling people to scare lawmakers, telling people to go into all the offices and harass lawmakers, saying that they may be able to kill reform for the next decade like it's a good thing. This is after whipping up the mob of morons with more god-type fearmongering...I just...the rage....it's too much....can't type....
God...I'm listening to clips from the teabagger rally yesterday...they're calling it a rebellion, telling people to scare lawmakers, telling people to go into all the offices and harass lawmakers, saying that they may be able to kill reform for the next decade like it's a good thing. This is after whipping up the mob of morons with more god-type fearmongering...I just...the rage....it's too much....can't type....
MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute "to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform." Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. "It's a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform," MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.
So... If Democrats go after lawmakers who do not support Nationalized Healthcare it's good but if Republicans go after lawmakers who do support Nationalized Healthcare it's bad?
God...I'm listening to clips from the teabagger rally yesterday...they're calling it a rebellion, telling people to scare lawmakers, telling people to go into all the offices and harass lawmakers, saying that they may be able to kill reform for the next decade like it's a good thing. This is after whipping up the mob of morons with more god-type fearmongering...I just...the rage....it's too much....can't type....
MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute "to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform." Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. "It's a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform," MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.
So... If Democrats go after lawmakers who do not support Nationalized Healthcare it's good but if Republicans go after lawmakers who do support Nationalized Healthcare it's bad?
Big diff: Teabaggers were going into people's offices and harassing them. Twelve people were arrested outside of Nancy Pelosi's office for because they were being loud, harassing, and behaving like idiots. MoveOn is pursuing political action, the generally approved method of reform. MoveOn > Teabaggers.
Big diff: Teabaggers were going into people's offices and harassing them. Twelve people were arrested outside of Nancy Pelosi's office for because they were being loud, harassing, and behaving like idiots. MoveOn is pursuing political action, the generally approved method of reform. MoveOn > Teabaggers.
So you are oppossed to the following:
First out of the gate - 9 Protesters backing a universal health care system briefly occupied Sen. Joe Lieberman's office this morning.
Protesters were arrested, one by one, and dragged out of his office amid chants of "Everyone in and noone out, universal healthcare now!" and "Represent Connecticut, not AETNA!"
Big diff: Teabaggers were going into people's offices and harassing them. Twelve people were arrested outside of Nancy Pelosi's office for because they were being loud, harassing, and behaving like idiots. MoveOn is pursuing political action, the generally approved method of reform. MoveOn > Teabaggers.
So you are oppossed to the following:
First out of the gate - 9 Protesters backing a universal health care system briefly occupied Sen. Joe Lieberman's office this morning.
Protesters were arrested, one by one, and dragged out of his office amid chants of "Everyone in and noone out, universal healthcare now!" and "Represent Connecticut, not AETNA!"
As usual, you have a problem reading for comprehension. I said that there was a big difference between what the teabaggers did and what MoveOn is doing. If, in your original post, you tried to contrast the teabagger protestor's actions to the pro-health care protestor's actions, your post would have made more sense. However, as usual, you didn't have the logical discrimination to see that MoveOn's actions are different than either set of protestor's actions.
I do not "support" protesting by harassment no matter what the protestors are trying to achieve. If you had said something along the lines of "Those nine people who were arrested outside Lieberman's office were no better than those twelve arrested outside Pelosi's office.", I would have agreed with you.
I do not "support" protesting by harassment no matter what the protestors are trying to achieve. If you had said something along the lines of "Those nine people who were arrested outside Lieberman's office were no better than those twelve arrested outside Pelosi's office.", I would have agreed with you.
At what point do you draw the line? Where does legitimate political protest end and harassment begin?
I do not "support" protesting by harassment no matter what the protestors are trying to achieve. If you had said something along the lines of "Those nine people who were arrested outside Lieberman's office were no better than those twelve arrested outside Pelosi's office.", I would have agreed with you.
At what point do you draw the line? Where does legitimate political protest end and harassment begin?
There's probably not a bright-line rule that everyone can agree on, but it's pretty obvious that it has gone too far when people barge into an office during a workday, make spectacles of themselves, disrupt work, and have to be forcefully extricated by uniformed officers. Teabaggers were told to scare lawmakers. That's completely unacceptable.
Teabaggers were told to scare lawmakers, by other lawmakers. That's completely unacceptable.
Fixed that for ya.
True. That's really bad. At least we can say that, even if the pro-health care types that harassed Lieberman were not told to by elected Democratic lawmakers.
Teabaggers were told to scare lawmakers, by other lawmakers. That's completely unacceptable.
Fixed that for ya.
True. That's really bad. At least we can say that, even if the pro-health care types that harassed Lieberman were not told to by elected Democratic lawmakers.
What Steve (again {probably intentionally}) failed to grasp about my above posts is that Elected GOP officials are telling people to use fear and intimidation as a weapon to fight against healthcare in addition to whipping up said ignorant mass into a fear/hate fueled frenzy by attempting to paint the bill as mandating abortion, killing grandma, taking away patients rights, and ultimately toppling democracy as we know it.
Comments
Having said that, I wish our only major concern was such an issue. With today's economy, Clinton's issues seem downright trivial.
I've said before that I think we give Presidents way too much credit for the economy. I don't blame Bush 100%, and I don't blame Obama 100% for a slow (if any) recovery. There are many more factors at work.
I don't care about Clinton. Read the post. Getting snickery over Clinton lying under oath has nothing to do with what the conserva-cins are doing with health care. Again, show me one example of the kind of lying, fear-mongering, and gross exaggeration that the Democrats are propagating, since you claimed both sides are doing the same thing.
Side point - Lying under oath IS unacceptable, but what is equally unacceptable is refusing to go under oath in the first place because your such a giant goddamned liar that every word out of your mouth is a lie.
As for both parties fear mongering, just read what Robert F. Kennedy has to say about vaccinations. I could give several more examples if requested. (Comparing modern day nuclear reactors to Chernobyl when we have nothing like the flawed RBMK design comes to mind.)
One point of clarification. Robert F. Kennedy is advocating an anti-vaccine message at this very moment. I guess I should have included "Jr."
And for the record, when I was saying that both parties will guilty, I was thinking more of using filibusters and other procedural rules when desired.
My original argument that "both parties do this" was after HungryJoe posted:
Did you hear that GOP congresstypes all agreed to refuse to go to a scheduled floor debate on global warming, causing the debate to be delayed?
The discussion was then about filibustering.
Both parties have filibustered and use rules to their advantage. That's all I was saying, and that is what I was clarifying.
Lighten up.
If he lies under oath, he is subject to perjury. Legally, he can only take the 5th to avoid incriminating himself, not to avoid revealing sensitive info. His other refuge would be Privilege; if the info they want is covered by some sort of privilege, then he doesn't have to answer with it. He is still not legally permitted to LIE, and there are ways to get the court to review a claim of privilege to determine whether it is valid.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet about how the justice system works.
Oh, and from the same shameful display at noon yesterday, Todd Adkin botched the pledge. Want to know what makes progressives and liberals go nuts? The fact that you sanctimonious assholes villainize (sp?) intellectuals and then DO THIS.
Too bad it is the size of Jupiter and has about as much gravity.
So... If Democrats go after lawmakers who do not support Nationalized Healthcare it's good but if Republicans go after lawmakers who do support Nationalized Healthcare it's bad?
I do not "support" protesting by harassment no matter what the protestors are trying to achieve. If you had said something along the lines of "Those nine people who were arrested outside Lieberman's office were no better than those twelve arrested outside Pelosi's office.", I would have agreed with you.