I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I shall petition him immediately to increase his ceiling figure to $350,000.

Or would you prefer they give back 100K?

Your choice.

---

Oh I am totally against limits for genuine cases. We need to weed out frivolous suits, not limit genuine ones.
Perhaps Mr. Santorum was upset because they didn't get the amount they wanted so want to make sure nobody else gets more than they did ;)


Bob Barr, who wrote the "Defence of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far...a defender of marriage indeed... does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I shall petition him immediately to increase his ceiling figure to $350,000.

Or would you prefer they give back 100K?

Your choice.

---

Oh I am totally against limits for genuine cases. We

need to weed out frivolous suits, not limit genuine ones.


I believe I have witnessed many "genuine" cases become frivolous when the juries award hilariously large amounts.

Bob Barr, who wrote the "Defence of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far...a defender of marriage indeed... does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?

---

Please explain the relevancy of this?

He has had three heterosexual marriages, and this renders his authorship of the DOMA questionable...how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

I havent read the thread, however...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...

---

Shouldnt be hard, not rare.

Shouldnt be hard to get the dirt on their rivals either... again, not rare.


You really cant get anywhere in politics unless your a hypocritical, cold hearted bastard... no matter which side you profess to represent.

---

Just so... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?

---

I DON'T KNOW. but i think it might count as "till divorce do we part... i do."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

He has had three heterosexual marriages, and this renders his authorship of the DOMA questionable...how?

---

an argument could be made that bob parr definitely loves marriage more than the average guy does, since he keeps gettin' married. once more and he might qualify as a serial marrier (because, of course, 3 is the magic number, and 4 is magic plus). :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Bob Barr, who wrote the "Defence of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far...a defender of marriage indeed... does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?

---

Please explain the relevancy of this?

He has had three heterosexual marriages, and this renders his authorship of the DOMA questionable...how?

---

how can he say that gay marriage is destroying marriage? he doesn't take the vows seriously. I wonder how many people that are against gay marriage and want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" are divorced..... look at the divorce rate. Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.

---

the u.s. is a hyperconsumerist society, so try seeing it from that perspective. they're not destroying marriage, they're just returning a defective product for a refund.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.

---

the u.s. is a hyperconsumerist society, so try seeing it from that perspective. they're not destroying marriage, they're just returning a defective product for a refund.

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.

---

the u.s. is a hyperconsumerist society, so try seeing it from that perspective. they're not destroying marriage, they're just returning a defective product for a refund.

---

Had I attended this thread properly, that line would've been mine.:angry:

:lol:

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg

---

Silly Rat.

A blowjob isn't enough to get you impeached.

Clinton was impeached, but not for the blowjob; in any case, he wasn't removed from office, ergo (the line of thought goes) he wasn't actually impeached.

I give Busyman 10 minutes to respond to this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg

---

Silly Rat.

A blowjob isn't enough to get you impeached.

Clinton was impeached, but not for the blowjob; in any case, he wasn't removed from office, ergo (the line of thought goes) he wasn't actually impeached.

I give Busyman 10 minutes to respond to this post.

---

The House voted to impeach him. Without the Senate it couldn't go through.

Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury to a grand jury and I think obstruction of justice.

Looking underneath that, he lied about a blowjob.:ermm:

There was a gentlemen recently that was banned from Home Depot. He was doing some calculations for a client, and used Home Depot pencil that was lying around to do them. He bought some lumber and inadvertently walked out with the aforementioned pencil. A worker met him in the parking lot and gave him a letter saying he was banned from Home Depot.

He stole that pencil. The bastard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg

---

Hell, I'll do it if that's all it would take to remove him from office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sid Hartha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg

---

Hell, I'll do it if that's all it would take to remove him from office.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Silly Rat.

A blowjob isn't enough to get you impeached.

Clinton was impeached, but not for the blowjob; in any case, he wasn't removed from office, ergo (the line of thought goes) he wasn't actually impeached.

I give Busyman 10 minutes to respond to this post.

---

The House voted to impeach him. Without the Senate it couldn't go through.

Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury to a grand jury and I think obstruction of justice.

Looking underneath that, he lied about a blowjob.:ermm:

There was a gentlemen recently that was banned from Home Depot. He was doing some calculations for a client, and used Home Depot pencil that was lying around to do them. He bought some lumber and inadvertently walked out with the aforementioned pencil. A worker met him in the parking lot and gave him a letter saying he was banned from Home Depot.

He stole that pencil. The bastard.

---

Slow.

Makin' me look bad, B.


Yeah, heard about that poor fella at Home Depot; a contractor, for fuck's sake!

Home Depot owes him a blowjob, I think.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

The House voted to impeach him. Without the Senate it couldn't go through.

Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury to a grand jury and I think obstruction of justice.

Looking underneath that, he lied about a blowjob.:ermm:

There was a gentlemen recently that was banned from Home Depot. He was doing some calculations for a client, and used Home Depot pencil that was lying around to do them. He bought some lumber and inadvertently walked out with the aforementioned pencil. A worker met him in the parking lot and gave him a letter saying he was banned from Home Depot.

He stole that pencil. The bastard.

---

Slow.

Makin' me look bad, B.


Yeah, heard about that poor fella at Home Depot; a contractor, for fuck's sake!

Home Depot owes him a blowjob, I think.;)

---

I only missed it by 5+ hours.:ermm:

The contractor is guilty of stealing and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Just being a contractor shouldn't let him off.:dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Slow.

Makin' me look bad, B.


Yeah, heard about that poor fella at Home Depot; a contractor, for fuck's sake!

Home Depot owes him a blowjob, I think.;)

---

I only missed it by 5+ hours.:ermm:

The contractor is guilty of stealing and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Just being a contractor shouldn't let him off.:dry:

---

Hmmm.

Very convincing line of reasoning.:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I only missed it by 5+ hours.:ermm:

The contractor is guilty of stealing and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Just being a contractor shouldn't let him off.:dry:

---

Hmmm.

Very convincing line of reasoning.:P

---

It sure degraded Clinton in the eyes of many...or was it that we enjoyed the Clinton years and some people had to be "upheavalED" about something 'cause he's was a 2-term Democratic President?:O

1. He lied to Congress!!!!!

2. But what did he lie about?

1. Getting bj from someone other than his wife.

2. Well that's just crazy. You don't lie about stuff like that especially to the world. Now America will fall apart and stuff.

:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Hmmm.

Very convincing line of reasoning.:P

---

It sure degraded Clinton in the eyes of many...or was it that we enjoyed the Clinton years and some people had to be "upheavalED" about something 'cause he's was a 2-term Democratic President?:O

1. He lied to Congress!!!!!

2. But what did he lie about?

1. Getting bj from someone other than his wife.

2. Well that's just crazy. You don't lie about stuff like that especially to the world. Now America will fall apart and stuff.

:ermm:

---

The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.

My only point.

That we will always disagree about Clinton and his activities is of no moment here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.

---

Oh so now My views are assumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.

---

Oh so now My views are assumed.

---

Yes-after mine come yours.

I though you knew that.

I have a distinct memory of you posting to the effect that because Clinton was not removed from office, he hadn't been impeached.

I can't be fussed to do a search for the exact post, so you don't have to hurry, you have plenty of time to do an edit.:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress

---

the objective relevance of impeachment is still open to debate, though. plenty of presidents have been directly responsible for fairly heinous unethical/illegal actions and never been impeached. in practice, the impeachment option boils down to whether or not congress wishes to take issue with the president's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress

---

the objective relevance of impeachment is still open to debate, though. plenty of presidents have been directly responsible for fairly heinous unethical/illegal actions and never been impeached. in practice, the impeachment option boils down to whether or not congress wishes to take issue with the president's actions.

---

You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

It sure degraded Clinton in the eyes of many...or was it that we enjoyed the Clinton years and some people had to be "upheavalED" about something 'cause he's was a 2-term Democratic President?:O

1. He lied to Congress!!!!!

2. But what did he lie about?

1. Getting bj from someone other than his wife.

2. Well that's just crazy. You don't lie about stuff like that especially to the world. Now America will fall apart and stuff.

:ermm:

---

The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.

My only point.

That we will always disagree about Clinton and his activities is of no moment here.

---

Technically, he was not impeached. Only THE HOUSE voted to impeach him. I read how impeached (by the House) and impeached (GTFO) are used the same way.

Laws and actions don't get passed by 1 side.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D

---

actually, no, not specifically. generically speaking, i guess he could be included, if someone were to make a case for it. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

the objective relevance of impeachment is still open to debate, though. plenty of presidents have been directly responsible for fairly heinous unethical/illegal actions and never been impeached. in practice, the impeachment option boils down to whether or not congress wishes to take issue with the president's actions.

---

You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D

---

He wasn't impeached either.

His crimes were particulary heinous in comparison to Clinton's....especially when considering the subject matter.

One was a simple witch hunt....in which Clinton got himself in trouble based on something totally unrelated to Paula Jones.

One was a clear abuse of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Oh so now My views are assumed.

---

Yes-after mine come yours.

I though you knew that.

I have a distinct memory of you posting to the effect that because Clinton was not removed from office, he hadn't been impeached.

I can't be fussed to do a search for the exact post, so you don't have to hurry, you have plenty of time to do an edit.:P

---

Your memory is very bad. It may be possible that someone said that, but it wasn't me. And any edited post gives a date and time of edit..

If you wish to make accusations back them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Yes-after mine come yours.

I though you knew that.

I have a distinct memory of you posting to the effect that because Clinton was not removed from office, he hadn't been impeached.

I can't be fussed to do a search for the exact post, so you don't have to hurry, you have plenty of time to do an edit.:P

---

Your memory is very bad. It may be possible that someone said that, but it wasn't me. And any edited post gives a date and time of edit..

If you wish to make accusations back them up.

---

Either way he was not impeached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Either way he was not impeached.

---

Oh I am happy to say he was impeached.... but the fact is he was aquitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Either way he was not impeached.

---

Oh I am happy to say he was impeached.... but the fact is he was aquitted.

---

How was he acquitted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Oh I am happy to say he was impeached.... but the fact is he was aquitted.

---

How was he acquitted?

---

The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D

---

He wasn't impeached either.

---

I didn't say he was.

I would have thought that was clear by my lack of note.:huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Either way he was not impeached.

---

Oh I am happy to say he was impeached....

---

Okay, you two.

Which is it to be?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

How was he acquitted?

---

The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50.

---

Boy, you sure have your facts in order.

Been carting that tidbit around since you mis-posted, way back when?

I recall your putting things more-or-less as Busyman is doing now.

You must split that hair even more finely in order to continue your disagreement, I think.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Boy, you sure have your facts in order.

Been carting that tidbit around since you mis-posted, way back when?

I recall your putting things more-or-less as Busyman is doing now.

You must split that hair even more finely in order to continue your disagreement, I think.:D

---

Again your memory is incorrect.....again I say back it up if you are going to accuse.

Busy is saying he was not impeached because the senate didn't convict, and I can see his point on this but it is dependent on the definition of "impeach".
I am saying say he was impeached but found not guilty. I am not splitting any hairs on this. He went through the impeachment process and was acquitted. Get over it.

Anti clintons keep saying "clinton was impeached" but keep omitting the fact that he was found not guilty.
On the latter Busy was also correct that it was a witch hunt. Let's be honest about that. When republicans ask how can anyone support clinton, "after all he was impeached", they should really ask how can anyone support clinton after we tried to impeach him but failed.

Oic.

Actually fuck it everyone's correct.

When people say, "Well Clinton was impeached." The answer should be, "So what!!"

Impeachment is a process...almost interchangable with indictment (spelling:unsure: )....or for us lesser politically inclined folk, charged.

Clinton was impeached, Andrew Johnson was, and so was Nixon.

None were convicted. So fuck it. (Nixon did resign to avoid it)

vid you're correct. j2 you're correct. I wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

j2 you're correct. I wasn't.

---

Thank you.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

j2 you're correct. I wasn't.

---

Thank you.:D

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Impeachment is a process...almost interchangable with indictment (spelling:unsure: )....or for us lesser politically inclined folk, charged.

---

partly right. the common definition of impeach: to accuse. the definition as concerns the U.S. president is: to complete the impeachment process and vote to approve the Articles Of Impeachment. some people might refer to the process leading up to the vote as impeachment, but it really isn't impeachment until they hold the vote and it succeeds.

as far as the Nixon case goes, he was not impeached. the House Of Representatives carried the hearings to the point that they drew up the Articles Of Impeachment that they needed to vote upon, at which point Nixon decided to dodge the impeachment by resigning. then Gerald Ford pardoned him, to eliminate the possibility of a criminal trial. the resignation and pardon each had a very distinct purpose -- one to block Congress and the other to block the courts.

Clinton and Jackson are the only two who have been impeached, as Congress did vote upon their Articles Of Impeachment and approved them, in both cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Impeachment is a process...almost interchangable with indictment (spelling:unsure: )....or for us lesser politically inclined folk, charged.

---

partly right. the common definition of impeach: to accuse. the definition as concerns the U.S. president is: to complete the impeachment process and vote to approve the Articles Of Impeachment. some people might refer to the process leading up to the vote as impeachment, but it really isn't impeachment until they hold the vote and it succeeds.



Clinton and Jackson are the only two who have been impeached, as Congress did vote upon their Articles Of Impeachment and approved them, in both cases.

---

I think you meant Clinton and Johnson (Andrew), but, if you are willing to posit this as the definitive word on the matter, I'm with you.

Case closed.

yes, my mistake. andrew johnson not andrew jackson.