Clinton Two faced

[foraker]

You've never answered any of mine, fool. You catch up with all the questions put to you first and then we'll talk about me answering questions. Please return to your paranoid delusional fantasies.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Of course you think Bubba is so great and wonderful and spethal, I'm sure.

 

 

What is it about conservatives with this "if you criticize Bush then you must LOVE Clinton!" Everything works in opposites with you guys. If you disagree with the war then you must love terrorists and hate America. On and on. There's just no other possible views but a) your own, and b) the extreme, extreme opposite.

 

Pot, kettle, black.

 

I won't be voting for Hillary in 2008 if you must know. At this point the only support I have for any political movement is seeing corruption get exposed.

 

Yeah, right. As the election day looms near, and you have a choice between the "R" and the "D", you'll pick the "D", and rationalize why you are doing it.

 

As for the "black-white" issue, I call bullshit. I see everything in shades of gray. Bush is not the worst president, nor the best - he's mediocre. So was Clinton. And that's where historians will put them. Both did some good things, and both did some not so good things. If you can't see that for the guy you oppose, well, then it's YOU who are seeing the world in black and white.

 

 

 

 

 

[Seahawks]

You've never answered any of mine, fool. You catch up with all the questions put to you first and then we'll talk about me answering questions. Please return to your paranoid delusional fantasies.

 

That what I thought, a bunch of hot air.

[foraker]

You've never answered any of mine, fool. You catch up with all the questions put to you first and then we'll talk about me answering questions. Please return to your paranoid delusional fantasies.

 

That what I thought, a bunch of hot air.

 

I'm telling you. Answer my previous questions and I'll answer yours. Go back through all the posts where I put to you some good serious questions and get back to me on them. I'll be more than happy to answer yours. Since you obviously aren't going to do that...well....have fun talking to yourself.

[Seahawks]

You've never answered any of mine, fool. You catch up with all the questions put to you first and then we'll talk about me answering questions. Please return to your paranoid delusional fantasies.

 

That what I thought, a bunch of hot air.

 

I'm telling you. Answer my previous questions and I'll answer yours. Go back through all the posts where I put to you some good serious questions and get back to me on them. I'll be more than happy to answer yours. Since you obviously aren't going to do that...well....have fun talking to yourself.

 

Since your too dumb (Due to glue) to figure it out I'll answer it for you. He can fire them when ever the hell he wants.

[StevenSeagal]

 

Yeah, right. As the election day looms near, and you have a choice between the "R" and the "D", you'll pick the "D", and rationalize why you are doing it.

 

Shades of gray huh? I guess you know me better than I know myself! I'll be voting for the Revolutionary Communist Party candidate, actually.

 

As for the "black-white" issue, I call bullshit. I see everything in shades of gray. Bush is not the worst president, nor the best - he's mediocre. So was Clinton. And that's where historians will put them. Both did some good things, and both did some not so good things. If you can't see that for the guy you oppose, well, then it's YOU who are seeing the world in black and white.

 

So the assertion here is that Clinton and Bush are equally mediocre, but since you are a "conservative", how dare I or anyone suggest that Bush is worse lest I be a commie sympathizer who wants to take your guns, turn you gay, and have the terrorists win. If Bush is so 'mediocre' why are you so reactionary to any criticism by anyone other than fellow conservatives as "whining" and fishing for nothing?

 

Clinton made plenty of mistakes and was mediocre for sure, and while I could list many reasons I think Bush is infinitely worse, one single reason suffices: his go-it-alone attitude and refusal to compromise (ironically, that same "decisiveness" that some use to qualify his character) or listen to anyone has perhaps irreversibly destroyed the social fabric of not only this country but has alienated this country from the rest of the world. He's employed a PR apparatus that has driven a wedge right down the middle of this country and brainwashed both left and right into thinking we're red and blue, a convenient tactic to quietly forge ahead with his own agenda while the citizenry fights among itself. His ardent supporters would have you believe that those who dislike Bush, which at last count numbers about 70% in the US and probably 90%+ in the remainder of the world- those people changed, they changed for the worse, they're the ones who don't get it, and Bush and his miniscule group of supporters are the ones who've stayed pure. That sort of arrogance is so blatant I don't know how anyone can't see it. At least Reagan spoke to the country as a whole, and people listened. Same with Clinton, and Bush Sr. This president is without equal in my lifetime for his divisiveness and hypocracy. He's not even a conservative- look at his budgets. We're in debt up to our ass. Do you deny what he is- an opportunistic egomaniac surrounded by elitist interests? Do you think this man is making this a better country?

 

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Yeah, right. As the election day looms near, and you have a choice between the "R" and the "D", you'll pick the "D", and rationalize why you are doing it.

 

Shades of gray huh? I guess you know me better than I know myself! I'll be voting for the Revolutionary Communist Party candidate, actually.

 

As for the "black-white" issue, I call bullshit. I see everything in shades of gray. Bush is not the worst president, nor the best - he's mediocre. So was Clinton. And that's where historians will put them. Both did some good things, and both did some not so good things. If you can't see that for the guy you oppose, well, then it's YOU who are seeing the world in black and white.

 

So the assertion here is that Clinton and Bush are equally mediocre, but since you are a "conservative", how dare I or anyone suggest that Bush is worse lest I be a commie sympathizer who wants to take your guns, turn you gay, and have the terrorists win. If Bush is so 'mediocre' why are you so reactionary to any criticism by anyone other than fellow conservatives as "whining" and fishing for nothing?

 

Clinton made plenty of mistakes and was mediocre for sure, and while I could list many reasons I think Bush is infinitely worse, one single reason suffices: his go-it-alone attitude and refusal to compromise (ironically, that same "decisiveness" that some use to qualify his character) or listen to anyone has perhaps irreversibly destroyed the social fabric of not only this country but has alienated this country from the rest of the world. He's employed a PR apparatus that has driven a wedge right down the middle of this country and brainwashed both left and right into thinking we're red and blue, a convenient tactic to quietly forge ahead with his own agenda while the citizenry fights among itself. His ardent supporters would have you believe that those who dislike Bush, which at last count numbers about 70% in the US and probably 90%+ in the remainder of the world- those people changed, they changed for the worse, they're the ones who don't get it, and Bush and his miniscule group of supporters are the ones who've stayed pure. That sort of arrogance is so blatant I don't know how anyone can't see it. At least Reagan spoke to the country as a whole, and people listened. Same with Clinton, and Bush Sr. This president is without equal in my lifetime for his divisiveness and hypocracy. He's not even a conservative- look at his budgets. We're in debt up to our ass. Do you deny what he is- an opportunistic egomaniac surrounded by elitist interests? Do you think this man is making this a better country?

 

 

 

 

You've only succeeded in proving my point. Enjoy your hate-filled myopia.

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

 

Since your too dumb (Due to glue) to figure it out I'll answer it for you. He can fire them when ever the hell he wants.

 

Clinton was legally allowed to get his cock sucked whenever he wanted also. But a partisan witch hunt was launched to find out all the spicy details in hopes of uncovering a bigger scandal. In the course of said investigation, Clinton lied to investigators- an indisputable crime. For which he was impeached.

 

Now you can debate the motivation for the investigation into the US attorneys scandal all you want. Yes the pres can fire them anytime he wants. But partisan interests (yes I said it, partisan) felt there was more to it than that. In the course of this so far, they've found out that political retribution was involved- not illegal necessarily, but on the margin of being unethical, and certainly a marker of the justice department being marginalized by the executive branch in an attempt to consolidate further executive power. Personally, given the level to which Bush has attempted to go it alone and immunize himself from any oversight, these are things I'm glad to know are going on. And, oh by the way- in the course of the investigation, his AG LIED TO INVESTIGATORS! And Congress. That's illegal, last I checked. So do we forget about it since it was just a partisan witch hunt by liberals (oops there's republicans participating too, they must be liberals in disguise)? Or would that make the blowjob incident seem petty also?

[Seahawks]

 

Since your too dumb (Due to glue) to figure it out I'll answer it for you. He can fire them when ever the hell he wants.

 

Clinton was legally allowed to get his cock sucked whenever he wanted also. But a partisan witch hunt was launched to find out all the spicy details in hopes of uncovering a bigger scandal. In the course of said investigation, Clinton lied to investigators- an indisputable crime. For which he was impeached.

 

Now you can debate the motivation for the investigation into the US attorneys scandal all you want. Yes the pres can fire them anytime he wants. But partisan interests (yes I said it, partisan) felt there was more to it than that. In the course of this so far, they've found out that political retribution was involved- not illegal necessarily, but on the margin of being unethical, and certainly a marker of the justice department being marginalized by the executive branch in an attempt to consolidate further executive power. Personally, given the level to which Bush has attempted to go it alone and immunize himself from any oversight, these are things I'm glad to know are going on. And, oh by the way- in the course of the investigation, his AG LIED TO INVESTIGATORS! And Congress. That's illegal, last I checked. So do we forget about it since it was just a partisan witch hunt by liberals (oops there's republicans participating too, they must be liberals in disguise)? Or would that make the blowjob incident seem petty also?

 

Your facts are pretty good. Clinton though was under oath. AG was not.

 

And ultimately it doesn't matter cause they can be fire at any point for any reason.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Seahawks

[foraker]

 

What you say:

 

Clinton was legally allowed to get his cock sucked whenever he wanted also. But a partisan witch hunt was launched to find out all the spicy details in hopes of uncovering a bigger scandal. In the course of said investigation, Clinton lied to investigators- an indisputable crime. For which he was impeached.

 

Now you can debate the motivation for the investigation into the US attorneys scandal all you want. Yes the pres can fire them anytime he wants. But partisan interests (yes I said it, partisan) felt there was more to it than that. In the course of this so far, they've found out that political retribution was involved- not illegal necessarily, but on the margin of being unethical, and certainly a marker of the justice department being marginalized by the executive branch in an attempt to consolidate further executive power. Personally, given the level to which Bush has attempted to go it alone and immunize himself from any oversight, these are things I'm glad to know are going on. And, oh by the way- in the course of the investigation, his AG LIED TO INVESTIGATORS! And Congress. That's illegal, last I checked. So do we forget about it since it was just a partisan witch hunt by liberals (oops there's republicans participating too, they must be liberals in disguise)? Or would that make the blowjob incident seem petty also?

 

What he hears:

 

blah blah blah.... Yes the pres can fire them anytime he wants. blah blah blah

[Seahawks]

What you say:

 

Clinton was legally allowed to get his cock sucked whenever he wanted also. But a partisan witch hunt was launched to find out all the spicy details in hopes of uncovering a bigger scandal. In the course of said investigation, Clinton lied to investigators- an indisputable crime. For which he was impeached.

 

Now you can debate the motivation for the investigation into the US attorneys scandal all you want. Yes the pres can fire them anytime he wants. But partisan interests (yes I said it, partisan) felt there was more to it than that. In the course of this so far, they've found out that political retribution was involved- not illegal necessarily, but on the margin of being unethical, and certainly a marker of the justice department being marginalized by the executive branch in an attempt to consolidate further executive power. Personally, given the level to which Bush has attempted to go it alone and immunize himself from any oversight, these are things I'm glad to know are going on. And, oh by the way- in the course of the investigation, his AG LIED TO INVESTIGATORS! And Congress. That's illegal, last I checked. So do we forget about it since it was just a partisan witch hunt by liberals (oops there's republicans participating too, they must be liberals in disguise)? Or would that make the blowjob incident seem petty also?

 

What he hears:

 

blah blah blah.... Yes the pres can fire them anytime he wants. blah blah blah

 

Sniff some glue. At least Seagal can put a couple sentences togather. Your just a dumb ass.

[StevenSeagal]

 

You've only succeeded in proving my point. Enjoy your hate-filled myopia.

 

 

How did I prove your point?

 

"Hate filled?" I strongly disapprove of Bush's policies, attitude, and style of governance, and I feel his manner of operation has caused damage to this country. I can't wait for someone else- R or D, or better yet, I- to lead this country into a new era. I am far from alone in this thinking. Why is that "hate"?

 

Your reactionary response to my post in fact is reinforcing exactly what I'm saying. You can't even articulate your point in a better manner than STFU. HOw bout trying again only counter my points about Bush's damage to the social fabric of the country and world with evidence proving me wrong.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

You've only succeeded in proving my point. Enjoy your hate-filled myopia.

 

 

How did I prove your point?

 

"Hate filled?" I strongly disapprove of Bush's policies, attitude, and style of governance, and I feel his manner of operation has caused damage to this country. I can't wait for someone else- R or D, or better yet, I- to lead this country into a new era. I am far from alone in this thinking. Why is that "hate"?

 

Your reactionary response to my post in fact is reinforcing exactly what I'm saying. You can't even articulate your point in a better manner than STFU. HOw bout trying again only counter my points about Bush's damage to the social fabric of the country and world with evidence proving me wrong.

 

I haven't told you to STFU. I reserve that response for Kevboner and V7.

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

Can I at least have a "STFU n00b?"

[Seahawks]

Can I at least have a "STFU n00b?"

 

STFU nOOb. Hows that?

[archenemy]

"Knee jerk attack mode" is talking about Clinton to divert attention away from current government corruption as if that has anything to do with it. Unless of course you deny there's any corruption in the current administration, in which case you have your head in the sand.

 

I don't think Clinton is two-faced. But you and your ilk certainly are.

 

I don't like Bush and never had. Never liked his father either. But Clinton was a special piece of work - our first white trash president. So we've gone from that idiot to a guy with, how did Richards put it - "a silver foot in his mouth"?

 

Of course you think Bubba is so great and wonderful and spethal, I'm sure.

 

I thought Clinton was black.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I thought Clinton was black.

 

 

 

[chris]

Your facts are pretty good. Clinton though was under oath. AG was not.

Not true. President Clinton was under oath testifying to a Grand Jury. The A.G. was under oath testifying to a senate committee. Testifying to Congress also has a swearing in process, remarkably similar to a judicial proceeding. Lying in that testimony is also a criminal offense, and Congress is able to file charges against anyone who commits perjury when testifying to a Congressional Committee.

Perhaps you need to look farther than just the Constitution to develop your legal arguments.

[StevenSeagal]

Can I at least have a "STFU n00b?"

 

STFU nOOb. Hows that?

 

It's not as meaningful coming from you, asshat.

 

 

 

[Seahawks]

Your facts are pretty good. Clinton though was under oath. AG was not.

Not true. President Clinton was under oath testifying to a Grand Jury. The A.G. was under oath testifying to a senate committee. Testifying to Congress also has a swearing in process, remarkably similar to a judicial proceeding. Lying in that testimony is also a criminal offense, and Congress is able to file charges against anyone who commits perjury when testifying to a Congressional Committee.

Perhaps you need to look farther than just the Constitution to develop your legal arguments.

 

I didn't think they had gotten that far yet. I thought that were they are now in wanting to swear them in and they are taking the 5th. Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't think so. I'll have to check. Regardless it will not get to that point anyways. The dems will drop this soon as it only been done for political gain. They don't want a show down on this in the courts.

 

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

Your facts are pretty good. Clinton though was under oath. AG was not.

Not true. President Clinton was under oath testifying to a Grand Jury. The A.G. was under oath testifying to a senate committee. Testifying to Congress also has a swearing in process, remarkably similar to a judicial proceeding. Lying in that testimony is also a criminal offense, and Congress is able to file charges against anyone who commits perjury when testifying to a Congressional Committee.

Perhaps you need to look farther than just the Constitution to develop your legal arguments.

 

Oops. Seecocks ejaculated prematurely again.

[Seahawks]

Your facts are pretty good. Clinton though was under oath. AG was not.

Not true. President Clinton was under oath testifying to a Grand Jury. The A.G. was under oath testifying to a senate committee. Testifying to Congress also has a swearing in process, remarkably similar to a judicial proceeding. Lying in that testimony is also a criminal offense, and Congress is able to file charges against anyone who commits perjury when testifying to a Congressional Committee.

Perhaps you need to look farther than just the Constitution to develop your legal arguments.

 

Oops. Seecocks ejaculated prematurely again.

 

At least I can ejaculate, unlike you, who just shits his pants.

[archenemy]

Some folks are into that.

[chris]

Your facts are pretty good. Clinton though was under oath. AG was not.

Not true. President Clinton was under oath testifying to a Grand Jury. The A.G. was under oath testifying to a senate committee. Testifying to Congress also has a swearing in process, remarkably similar to a judicial proceeding. Lying in that testimony is also a criminal offense, and Congress is able to file charges against anyone who commits perjury when testifying to a Congressional Committee.

Perhaps you need to look farther than just the Constitution to develop your legal arguments.

 

I didn't think they had gotten that far yet. I thought that were they are now in wanting to swear them in and they are taking the 5th. Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't think so. I'll have to check. Regardless it will not get to that point anyways. The dems will drop this soon as it only been done for political gain. They don't want a show down on this in the courts.

Its because of the A.G.'s inconsistent and limp testimony to Congress - under oath - that this whole issue came about.

By the Constitution, congress can call for "heads of departments" - historically assumed to be Secretaries - to testify. All other staff of the executive testify with the permission of their President, directly or indirectly. In the past, Congress has subpoenaed executive staff members to testify when necessary - this action has been challenged and the Supreme Court upheld the Congressional power to do so.

 

Now we have another administration trying to use "executive privilege" to prevent staff from testifying to Congress. We even have a staff member trying to claim 5th amendment rights to avoid testifying - a new legal argument, since 5th amendment protection has only historically been used to protect someone already under oath, not to protect someone from taking an oath. If the President wants any of this to go to court, I don't believe even the current conservative Supreme Court would overturn the previous decision.

[joblo7]

Your facts .

 

At least I can ejaculate, unlike you, .

 

please, for the sake of humanity, dont spray outside your inflatable wife.the fucking planet is hurting enough.