Clintons Women

With the release of Clintons book the women that he had "connections" with are all up in arms feeling hard done by.
i have no sympthy for these women. they where old enough to accept responsibility for their own actions.
they knew clinton was a married man and yet they still did what they did for whatever motive.
I don't approve of people cheating on their spouses, marriage is a total commitment for me and i think it is taken with little seriousness too much these days, so i am not defending Clinton. My point about these women is if you play with fire don't be surprised if you get burnt and don't look to blame someone else for your own actions

Damn straight. Unless he coherced them with his "power" or something, they have nothing to complain about.

TD

yep totally agree with ya there, cheating is wrong and cannot be justified, these birds knew what the risks were so any consequence was a result of their own actions.

Try this on for size, then see what you think about old Bill.

http://chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2004 - 16:51
Try this on for size, then see what you think about old Bill.

http://chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

---

i'm sure in your mind this is all true and Clinton is guilty without trial or even charge.
It has never been denied that Clinton hasn't led a monogomous marriage, even though some of the events in your link happened pre marriage.
The finger of suspition is enough evedence surely.... yet no charges ever raised. :rolleyes:

Personally i believe in the innocent until proven guilty addage and none of this has ever been proven other than hearsay

Quote:

---

Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

---

Oh how i love the "a source close to said" stories

amazing what can be found with a quick search

this woman is no longer around fortunately for Bush

Well, you are a Clinton fan, after all.

I'll leave this thread to you. ;)

He was president. He was Incapable of lying. He did not have sex with that woman!
You are all to quick to accuse. Monica should have swallowed then there would be nothing to say about it. :ghostface: Any other nation would have praised Clintons actions and would have supplied him with as many maidens he wished.
:clap: :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2004 - 19:26
Well, you are a Clinton fan, after all.

I'll leave this thread to you. ;)

---

I was pointing out that this is nothing but hearsay. Obviously you believe it because clinton is a democrat, yet you menttion nothing about the Bush story...which has to be untrue.

You proved with your constant reference to the impeachment that the finger of accusation is enough to condem even if the person is found not guilty. Did you have ancestors in Salem?

:D Just wait untell Hillary is elected.Ican hear them saying it now....."8 more Years.....8 more Years!"

Yes she will run in 2008 it looks like.And yes she will win. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@27 June 2004 - 22:59
:D Just wait untell Hillary is elected.

---

If that day ever comes that will be the day that I move out of this country. :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+27 June 2004 - 21:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 27 June 2004 - 21:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@27 June 2004 - 22:59
:D Just wait untell Hillary is elected.

---

If that day ever comes that will be the day that I move out of this country. :frusty: [/b][/quote]
ah time to return an offer..... i will personally fly you out..... no charge :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@27 June 2004 - 20:59
:D Just wait untell Hillary is elected.Ican hear them saying it now....."8 more Years.....8 more Years&#33;"

Yes she will run in 2008 it looks like.And yes she will win. :D

---

i suppose they will have to make the parking spaces at the whitehouse wider when that happens :unsure:

Screenshot taken just in case :lol:

Right after the election will be the best time because you’ll still have money because it won’t take her long to put the economy down the crapper :D

:D She will win.I mean come on guys.We will be making history by voting for her.Us men have been running this place for over 200 Years.What could a Female do that is any worse?

Listen to another line she could use(taken from Reagan).....

"Are you better off then you were 8 Years ago?"

And the answer will be hell no. :P

Trust me.She has this wraped up in 2008 and it is going to be fun to watch. :D

How are you liking your new career as a seer FC?

Is the pay good?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@28 June 2004 - 00:57
How are you liking your new career as a seer FC?

Is the pay good?

---

:lol: :P :lol:

Not too bad.

:lol: :P :lol:



It has already began.....

http://www.hillary.org/

And check this out.....

Hillary Clinton top Democratic 2004 choice

But she was smart about it.We all know deep down that Bush will get re elected.I will admit it should be a little close.But I have my Money on him being around 4 more Years.

Unless somebody else comes forward before 2008 she should have this.If she does not win that is ok.She will go down as the first that tryed and will lead the way for others.A Women will be leading us sometime in the next 20 Years.


FC B)

*sigh*

Waffling already.

NOT a good sign.

:P I like Bill Clinton. Hell, I would have swallowed&#33; I don&#39;t give a crap that he screwed around. And I would really love to see Hillary Clinton running the show. Women in power, it has to be a good thing.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by krissybear@28 June 2004 - 10:18
:P I like Bill Clinton. Hell, I would have swallowed&#33; I don&#39;t give a crap that he screwed around. And I would really love to see Hillary Clinton running the show. Women in power, it has to be a good thing.

:D

---

hoping you are female :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+28 June 2004 - 13:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 28 June 2004 - 13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-krissybear@28 June 2004 - 10:18
:P I like Bill Clinton. Hell, I would have swallowed&#33; I don&#39;t give a crap that he screwed around.&nbsp; And I would really&nbsp; love to see Hillary Clinton running the show. Women in power, it has to be a good thing.

:D

---

hoping you are female :lol: [/b][/quote]
You being the Clinton fan that you are I’m not the least bit surprised by that comment :D

Hillary will not be President.

It will not happen.

Vid-

I believe I&#39;ve mentioned impeachment in precisely one thread. I couldn&#39;t care less about it at this point, and don&#39;t believe I&#39;ve harped on the subject.

Let me put it another way:

Clinton/bimbos is much more on your mind than Clinton/impeachment is on mine.

Juanita Broaddrick would be a mite offended at your characterization of "hearsay".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2004 - 13:58
I believe I&#39;ve mentioned impeachment in precisely one thread. I couldn&#39;t care less about it at this point, and don&#39;t believe I&#39;ve harped on the subject.

---

I accept this J2 and appologise if you took the brunt of the rant. it has been mentioned quite a lot on other threads by the few hard core Bush supporters and i finally had to make a point about it.

No problem, vid.

I do have a problem with Clinton&#39;s apologists, but rarely do I run into anyone who outright rejects his past as mere hearsay.

Do you feel the same way about Michael Jackson?

They both paid off; I see no discernable difference.

Mind, this is not to harp; I just find it incredible that anyone would/could blow off all that is well-known, and not even denied, in any substantive sense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2004 - 21:54
would/could blow off

---

J2 far be it from I to critique your writing but given the subject of discussion I think that you could have phrased that better :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+28 June 2004 - 22:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 28 June 2004 - 22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 June 2004 - 21:54
would/could blow off

---

J2 far be it from I to critique your writing but given the subject of discussion I think that you could have phrased that better :P[/b][/quote]
Hank-

Did you mean "...far be it from me...? :)

I think my phraseology was, after due consideration, appropriate. ;)

It may not be appreciated, though.

Actually, the fact vid and I are so contentious about the Clinton "legacy" is, in itself, not unhumorous. :lol:

Good night, good sirs. :P

With celebrity the case become complex because there enters the element of "gain". I am not saying that a famous person is always blameless but they do become targets and settlements are often taken to make things "go away"....." i will bear scars for life but a few million will help me sleep better"
In the jackson case in particular i take into account what i would do.

I am a father and if anyone sexually abused any of my children i would want them to go to prison (because i am not allowed to burn off their genitals with a blowlamp) i would not "settle" the case for money....even millions.

One astonishing example of a celebrity target was the woman that tried to claim boy George was the father of her child.

I tend to get suspicious of cases that happened "years ago" but nothing was done at the time with celebrities, especially when money comes into it.

I don&#39;t reject the past as hearsay because i think it is impossible it happened but the story doesn&#39;t offer hard evedence and in a court that&#39;s needed. i pointed to the "sources close to the victim" part....this is hearsay.... they are not witnesses.
If you pointed to a link that listed convictions i would have sat up.
I posted a similar story about the woman that filed a suit against Bush...not because i believe the events of the story, but to show that anyone even your beloved Bush can fall victim.

Quote:

---

I do have a problem with Clinton&#39;s apologists, but rarely do I run into anyone who outright rejects his past as mere hearsay.

---

would you by this theory classify yourself as a Bush appologist?

I make no appologise for Clinton, i don&#39;t approve of adultery, but then i don&#39;t judge either. Should we ever debate his policys i will gladly agree on any failings. I may think he was possibly the finest president of the 20th century but i have never said he was perfect. He certainly did more good than harm.
I am not anti Bush because he is a republican, had a different candidate been offered i may well vote for that repbulican candidate. I am anti Bush jnr because i do genuinely feel he is the most dangerous president on the world playing field that we have ever had and domestically he does little to help the majority of Americans.

Quote:

---

I just find it incredible that anyone would/could blow off all that is well-known, and not even denied, in any substantive sense.

---

Had he denied it would you believe him? sometimes the best way to draw less attention is to practice restraint. If he had pushed the point no doubt the phrase "he doth protest too much" would arise.
Please don&#39;t take this as "shrugging off" but in any criminal case the onus is to prove guilt...innocent until proven guilty so he didn&#39;t have to prove his innocence. rumours can become more well known than facts. Sometimes rumours become so well known they are taken as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2004 - 19:54


I do have a problem with Clinton&#39;s apologists, but rarely do I run into anyone who outright rejects his past as mere hearsay.

Do you feel the same way about Michael Jackson?

---

Does this apply to Bush Jr. also?

Certainly there are episodes in his past ( and arguably, present) that cast shadows on his moral character, yet you are staunchly silent regarding them.

Clinton got a hummer and then lied about it.
Applying the same level of outrage and attempt at punishment to the US&#39;s male population in general would result in the inprisonment of millions.
Ironically j2, this would lead to your worst nightmare.

Hilary probably would be elected President, as the only legal voters left would be women. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@28 June 2004 - 23:20
would you by this theory classify yourself as a Bush appologist?

I make no appologise for Clinton, i don&#39;t approve of adultery, but then i don&#39;t judge either.

---

These two things prompt me to respond, vid.

As a Conservative, I must say Bush has been remiss on several fronts, but that is beside the point.

The anti-Bush sentiment on this board is so all-encompassing and virulent there has never (allow me please to repeat myself: NEVER) been an inch of slack granted him.

You graciously (you think) offer to debate "Clinton" on the merits, hinting that you&#39;ll let the "negative" chips fall where they may, as long as your opponent will grant whatever positives may exist.

No such willingness or quarter is even hinted at when Bush is the subject.

Having no "elbow-room" to argue Bush&#39;s positives (Because, hey: there are none, right?), I guess you might conclude I am an apologist, because to be as negative as the rest of you wouldn&#39;t make for much of a thread, would it?

None of you seem willing to believe there are two competing choirs in this church, even though one is admittedly much bigger than the other, so I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for passing on the pleasure of preaching to yours.


As to the other point:

To contend that "...I don&#39;t judge..." is totally preposterous, so I suggest you or anybody else who wants to bleed in the presence of this "shark" never, ever utter such foolishness again, or I&#39;ll be forced to take you to task over it. :D

J2 first point raised.

it just hapeenes that the threads raised on this board have been subjects where yes i do feel Bush has been less than successful. Yes i don&#39;t sing his praises often but then I do genuinely feel he is doing a bad job. That said i have never tried to make a case about Bush lies, i gave him the benefit of the doubt that he acted with the intelligence he had at the time and i believe in one thread i actually took my hat off to him for not trying to pass the buck. It doesn&#39;t happen often but it has happened where i took his side and to suggest that i would never concede his successes is a bit strong.

I am not offering debate on Clintons term i just said should we ever debate i would concede failures, but then we both have different ideas as to what is good and bad.
I do agree that the Anti Bush side is overwhelming but that should tell you just what is thought about him. It doesn&#39;t make any side more rightious because there is a majority just make the opinion louder. i did make a post about judging peoples political beliefs being unjust because they may be doing well out of a leader that you hate. Even when i dissagree the strongset i still respect the other point of view.

2nd point.

"i don&#39;t judge" perhaps that was the wrong phrase, probably "i don&#39;t care" would be closer....i don&#39;t care what any public figure gets upto in his personal life, as long as he/she does his/her job. personal lives are of no concern to me, i have a belief in live and let live...Freedom...hold on...isn&#39;t that the "american way"? :D

To your last, with proper disrespect to the media which won&#39;t allow us to judge anything on it&#39;s own merits, or accept (as you say) that some things are, in some minds, off-limits-

Here is how I view his sexual....proclivities:

This wasn&#39;t as simple as getting "laid on the side".

He did it in the Oval Office.

For the "thrill" of it, which, I&#39;m sure, was a perk for young, dumb Monica, too.

While he was on the phone with a foreign leader, according to reports.

Apparently, therefore, nothing, no one, no place is sacrosanct to him; he defiled the institutional and physical offices of the President of the United States.

Never mind the dumb twit who copped his joint and her stained dress.

If this means nothing to you, then, never mind what page we&#39;re supposed to be on,
we&#39;ll never agree, and what we have is indeed an insoluble difference of opinion.

To say, absent the stain, he would have gotten away with it is to miss the point entirely, as it is to say the impeachment issue was a sidelight.

He was also a perjurer (that means he lied, vid), and that was the causative factor in the legal proceedings; the thing he chose to lie about was a mere adjunct to the lie-that is to say, if you lie to a Grand Jury, and are found out and charged thereby, the circumstances which caused you to lie recede into irrelevancy.

As to his "serial" activities while he was Governor in Arkansas, what is there to say, except that, as the Chief Executive in the state, he was more than willing to use his power to threaten the State Police and any other agency in his purview if they didn&#39;t act as his enablers; he was apparently equally as adept at using rewards as he was threats in his endeavors.

There were many in the Gennifer Flowers mold, who would fuck for money, jobs, or just the kick of "doing" the Governor of Arkansas, but, for me, the Juanita Broaddrick story is quite enough; she did object, but who to complain to?

They were all in Clinton&#39;s back pocket.

The guy is a real piece of work; a real Arkansas good ole&#39; boy.

He sold his soul to Don Tyson (of Tyson Foods fame), and before long, the rivers in Arkansas ran white with chicken feathers, because if you were FOB (a Friend Of Bill) you, too, had the run of the state.

This is your man, vid.

The greatest President, I think you said?

Well i guess that i must be wrong to not care about his sex life and only care about his political results.
Where he did it was irrelevent to the fact, i said i don&#39;t approve of adultery, why would i be more shocked because he did it in the whitehouse? he was president..



Again you state he was a perjurer, yet he was found not guilty.... again i state that the finger of accusation is not proof of guilt.
Below is an essay about the impeachment. i don&#39;t need to debate it because he was aquitted which means the statement that he was a perjurer is false in the eyes of the law ( which is what counts).


Many people don&#39;t realize this, but President Clinton was not impeached for his statements to the Paula Jones grand jury. He was impeached for his statements to Kenneth Starr about what he said to the Paula Jones grand jury.


source

This essay, written for Usenet in December 1998 -- after the House impeachment vote, but before the Senate&#39;s vote -- tried to explain that notion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Examination of Clinton&#39;s impeachment charges
Lis Riba, December 1998


People keep using the President&#39;s actions in the Paula Jones case as examples of why he should be impeached. However, the House did not find enough evidence to impeach Clinton on those charges. Therefore, they are moot for the time being.

Instead, let&#39;s look at the first charge he was actually impeached for.

Excerpt from Article I

"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights ac tion brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action."
Keep in mind that Clinton was not impeached over his testimony in the Paula Jones case. This is his interview with the Office of Independent Counsel we&#39;re talking about (the videotape which was aired in September) and not his testimony in the Paula Jones case.

Now, the first thing you may notice in this charge is that nowhere does it say *which* statements are considered perjurious. Makes it a bit harder to defend when the charges are so vague. Normally, perjury convictions point to specific testimony which are lies.

Instead, we have to look at the Starr Report [2] and the Judiciary Committee Report [3] to get some idea of what statements they claim are lies.

1. The nature and details of his relationship:

a. In Clinton&#39;s testimony, he claimed that his relationship with Lewinsky began in early 1996; she claimed it started in late 1995. By the federal definition of perjury[4], the testimony has to be relevant to be perjurious. He&#39;s already admitted that they did have a relationship. Does it make any difference when the relationship began?

In addition, sometimes it can be a matter of judgement in determining when a relationship started. Technically, my relationship with my fiance began in October, 1994, when I asked him if he wanted to start "going out." However, we usually mark our anniversary as December, 1994, when we had our first date. So, when did our relationship start? When I first asked him out or when we had our first date? Is either one *wrong*? If I said our relationship began in October, and he says it started in December, would one of us be lying?

When people say that the issue is perjury, not sex, Michael Moore likes to answer by eliminating sex from the equation. Let&#39;s substitute the word golf for sex. The president is accused of lying about playing golf with Lewinsky. "She says they first played golf in November, 1995. He claims they didn&#39;t start until early 1996." Mind you, he&#39;s answering these questions in 1998 -- over two years after the events in question -- so how clearly can you recall exact dates?

b. The Judiciary Committee also counts as perjury the fact that Clinton claimed he was alone with Lewinsky "on certain occasions" and they had "occasional" telephone sex. They call use of the word "occasion" an intentional lie and claim 20 sexual encounters and 17 phone conversations in more than a year are greater than "occasional." Webster&#39;s Collegiate Dictionary defines "occasional" as an event "occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals." So how often is something that&#39;s "occasional"?

Again with the golf analogy. "He&#39;s lying when he said they played golf on occasion, because they actually played golf twenty times."

c. In his OIC testimony, Clinton said he believed that the definition of sexual relations in the Paula Jones case did not include oral sex. The Judiciary Committee thinks that&#39;s a lie.

During the Judiciary hearings, they played some videotape at the start of the Paula Jones trial. There was a lot of debate over the definition of sexual relations. At one point, the judge commented that "I&#39;m not sure Mr. Clinton knows all these definitions, anyway."

So the question is whether Clinton "understood" that the definition of sex included oral sex and lied about it, or whether he honestly thought the definition only meant intercourse. Now, how do you prove that in a court of law? How can you prove what a person thought?

Golf: "He testified that they never played golf. In fact, they did play miniature golf several times. He says he thought that when they asked about golf, miniature golf wasn&#39;t included. He&#39;s lying because he knew golf meant miniature golf as well."

d. Other issues involving the "nature and details of his relationship" fall under the question of whether he touched her and where. Since there were no witnesses to their sexual encounters, this is purely his word versus hers. The best you could do here is have them both reveal every last detail of their sexual encounters and then compare the blow by blow detail. But it still comes down to whose words you believe with no way to prove them.

2. Prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him:

The President was not impeached over his testimony in the Paula Jones case, but for what he said to the OIC *about* his Paula Jones testimony. Apparently, they didn&#39;t believe his explanations for why he said what he said. Again, there&#39;s no specifics about which statements fall into this category, but it seems to be more of the same.

3. Prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge:

Again, he&#39;s accused of lying in his explanations of what happened during the Paula Jones case, not for lying in the Paula Jones case itself. According to most reports, at the time of the Paula Jones trial, the President&#39;s lawyer did not know that there actually had been a relationship. So the lawyer held up Monica Lewinsky&#39;s affidavit, in which she said there had been no sexual relationship, and said that meant "there is no absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form." The grand jury thought Clinton should have corrected his lawyers comments and asked Clinton why he didn&#39;t speak up about it. Clinton said he wasn&#39;t paying attention.

That&#39;s the lie they&#39;re charging him with here. He claimed he wasn&#39;t following all the exchanges between his lawyer and the other lawyers, while the Judiciary Committee said he was paying attention. How do you prove whether someone is paying attention. The Judiciary Committee report says that Clinton was looking at his lawyer at the time, so he must have been paying attention. But there have been many times when I have sat and stared at a lecturer, and my eyes glaze over, my mind wanders elsewhere, and I lose all track of the outside world. I&#39;m still looking straight at the person, and outside observers may think I&#39;m absorbing every word, but I&#39;m thinking of something else entirely. And again, the standard of perjury is relevance. Is this really relevant?

Interestingly enough, this charge is repeated in Article III (the other article that was approved by the House) Article III, [5] "On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge." This is the same allegation. Should this be considered double jeopardy?

4. His corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence:

The president was charged with obstruction of justice in Article III. This accuses him of committing perjury in covering up the obstruction of justice. Again, this sounds like double jeopardy. Not only is he charged with obstruction of justice (and Article III includes charges of perjury) but he&#39;s separately charged with committing perjury about the alleged obstruction of justice.

So that&#39;s what I see when I look at Article I. Now, I don&#39;t think the President is above the law, but I am willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. The Judiciary Committee is making some pretty picayune charges (when the relationship started, how often is occasional) that are near impossible to prove (what he believed about the definition, whether he paid attention). Therefore, I just don&#39;t think they rise to the level of impeachable crimes.

Mind you, there are other issues as well. Frankly, I don&#39;t think Clinton should ever have been asked about his sex life in the first place, making everything that stems from that revelation suspect. I also have a lot of problems with the independent counsel and how he conducted the case. When the foundation is built on shaky ground (illegal evidence about something irrelevant) then it&#39;s harder to trust anything based on that. However, most of that is covered in David Chase&#39;s excellent post of December 24.

Understand?

Understand what?

Here&#39;s something I don&#39;t understand:

I remember when the liberals created the Independent-Counsel statute; they demanded it, because of Nixon/Watergate (It was one of the very first statutes Clinton renewed after his election in &#39;92).

I remember when liberals wrote very precise campaign-finance rules, because the Republicans kicked-ass in the &#39;94 mid-terms.

I remember when liberals legislated the creation of anti-sexual harassment laws for the workplace.

I remember when the liberals back-stopped adversarial press reporting, citing "Freedom-of-Speech".


I also remember how hard they all worked to ignore/defy/overcome all of this when it threatened to inconvenience Bill Clinton.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2004 - 14:37
Understand what?

Here&#39;s something I don&#39;t understand:

I remember when the liberals created the Independent-Counsel statute; they demanded it, because of Nixon/Watergate (It was one of the very first statutes Clinton renewed after his election in &#39;92).

I remember when liberals wrote very precise campaign-finance rules, because the Republicans kicked-ass in the &#39;94 mid-terms.

I remember when liberals legislated the creation of anti-sexual harassment laws for the workplace.

I remember when the liberals back-stopped adversarial press reporting, citing "Freedom-of-Speech".


I also remember how hard they all worked to ignore/defy/overcome all of this when it threatened to inconvenience Bill Clinton.

---

actually the "understand" was in the essay by Lis Riba which you could have checked on for the source.

I fail to understand where your rememberances has any bearing on the impeachment essay.
And i fail to see any difference in the defense plan as to what a republican party would have done.
The impeachment cost the taxpayer a lot of money for what was quite frankly nothing more than a witch hunt, and i am sure that the campaign for Bush&#39;s impeachment has been tackled in an aggressive manner also.

As to financing. I believe i have stated before i would like to see party contributions done away with to take out all influence from special interest groups. The tax payer pays for government, they work for us...not whoever contributes the most.
Obviously i have an idea of replacement for the need for large campaign funds but i doubt you would like it :D It is a simple idea so it would never happen.


PS...... what the heck are you doing back in the talk club ??????????????????? :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@2 July 2004 - 18:54
PS...... what the heck are you doing back in the talk club ??????????????????? :lol:&nbsp; :lol:

---

Sorry for the mis-understanding, vid; it&#39;s just that I&#39;ve had my fill of Clinton-reading, and, though we do not agree as to any aspect of Clinton, his achievements, or lack thereof, surely you can empathize with my feelings about him, as I must also with regard to your sentiments about Bush.

It is was it is; my problem (and yours, too) is that Bush is in office at the moment so I must suffer your slings and arrows comfortable in the knowledge that, whatever else Bush may be, he is most assuredly not a Democrat.

I have decided my presence in "The Talk Club" is proportional to the size of the boil that needs to be lanced.

This last one has drained quite nicely, and is beginning to heal thus. ;)