Hey, Laura Bush defends Bush going around the courts to get hs probably illegal wiretaps, so it’s settled — right? I think its interesting that the media refuses to ask the President why exactly he decided that he’s king and doesn’t need a warrant to spy on American citizens in America — especially when 52% of people see such crimes as impeachable.
>> Al Gore’s speech on Monday is going to strongly separate the Democrats (pro-America) from the Tepidcrats (pro-craven political power). The only chance of Democrats winning and restoring traditional democracy to America, is for the tepid wing of the Democratic party (Lieberman, Clinton, etc.) to lose their death grip on the party.
>> Arlen Specter even says that breaking the law is an impeachable offense. It’s sad that someone has to even say such an obvious thing.
It’s impeachable, you just can’t find anyone with enough spine to convict.
See Bill “Perjury” Clinton for an example…..
He broke the law, right?
Does anyone here deny that he lied to a federal judge under oath.
I thought not….
I’m amazed at the deference folks give Laura Bush. She is doing nothing and has done nothing, but being her husband’s spokeswoman. She is not an elected official, nobody voted for or against her. She does not speak on topics or work as Nancy Reagan or Hilary Clinton did, save to say that “Reading is good.” (Duh.) I’d pay credence to her if she said the opposite of what she is supposed to say, like that her husband is a criminal or that reading is bad. (For the sake of actually hearing Laura Bush express an opinion and thinking, I’d pay money to hear her tell us why universal literacy is bad or unneeded and why she thinks so.)
I keep wanting to say, “Who gives a damn what she thinks?” but the problem is that we have no idea what she thinks. She keeps saying what George Bush Jr. thinks. Why not ask Scott McClellan, who is paid to say what George Bush Jr. thinks? So, ultimately, who gives a damn what she says? There’s nothing worth reporting about it, since it’s what Scott McClellan and George Bush Jr. have already said.
I don’t recall Clinton being found guilty of perjury Pedro. Perhaps you should check again.
you just can t find anyone with enough spine to convict
Nothing less than I would expect from a majority RNC congress.
Doesn’t the former Vice President find it even slightly amusing that he’s able to cross the country giving speeches about how the current Administration is stifling dissent? Does he even get the irony?!?
Oh, I forgot one other thing, ‘pidge.
Next, peedro will accuse you (and me) of “defending Bill Clinton for lying” just because we called him on his b.s.
“I think the American people expect the United States government and the president to do what they can to make sure there’s not an attack by foreign terrorists,” Mrs. Bush said just before landing here to begin a four-day stay in West Africa.”
Is there any limit to presidential power when it comes to protecting American citizens from another terrorist attack? The Right has answered resoundingly no. Stopping another terrorist attack trumps all else in their minds, it trumps the law, the Consitution, our way of life, our own freedom. Nevermind that giving the president unlimited powers will not make us any safer even as it makes us less free. Nevermind that when a president claims he has the authority to violate a constitutional law he threatens more than a terrorist with a bomb or WMD ever could. Bush has taken this country to a place where fear trumps principle, where an illusion of safety trumps real freedom. And yet Pedro goes on and on about Clinton …
Don’t bother, ‘pidge.
I tried long and hard to get peedro to turn loose of his delusion. He’s convinced that he, and only he, determines who is guilty of what.
In peedroWorld, “cited for civil contempt” translates to “convicted of perjury.”
When the fire breathing conservatives are on the losing side of an argument, they always start bashing Clinton, no matter the subject. He’s been out of office for almost 6 years and they still haven’t gotten over it.
Bush has taken this country to a place where fear trumps principle, where an illusion of safety trumps real freedom
Bush hasn’t taken this country there. It’s just that some of us recognize that freedom is much better enjoyed, while you are alive.
Remember what (George C. Scott playing) Patton said?: “You’re not supposed to die for your country… You’re supposed to make the other sumbitch die for his country.”
The Founding Fathers didn’t expect this nation to commit suicide rather than tap some overseas phone calls.
And as for fear, sissy boy, tell us how you’ve fought for your nation…
Shoot, when did you ever stand up for a noble cause?
When were your freedoms in danger?
How about someone you know?
A real person you’ve heard of?
I heard Al Gore say that “hundreds” of prisoners, if not more, have died in American torture chambers “around the world”
Do you really think that’s true?
Do you really think that if it were true, that only he would know about it?
Do you think that only liberals would object?
Have you lost your mind, for once and for all?
Still no one denying that he lied under oath to a federal judge.
I didn’t say he was convicted of it, in fact, no one had the stones to. I said he committed it…..
Main Entry: per·ju·ry
Pronunciation: ‘p&r-j&-rE, ‘p&rj-rE
Function: noun
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing
Anyone denying that he did what is described as “perjury” above….?
Anyone?
Bueller…?
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Well, yes, mostly. The thing is that Bush-bashing is fun. They have made him in their eyes to be this great monster, determined to rule over all as lord and master, torturing anyone and everyone he feels like, simply because he is evil. Personally, I think my freedoms are in danger when I walk out of a McDonalds with a double cheeseburger, straight into a PETA rally. I worry about the rights of every human being to have the opportunity to be born, really… But I’m not allowed to say such things. It makes me a Faschist.
I’m a Faschist when I shrug after hearing that Bush is tapping people calling known Al-Qaeda members. Duh…
I’m a Faschist when I hear that Laura Bush and her husband happen to agree on most things. They ARE happily married… people who are happily married start to think alike. It happens, deal with it.
I’m a Faschist when I think that sometimes, war is a necessary thing (though it’s never good) and sometimes, you need to kill the enemy and break their toys. That’s how this country started, that’s why we have a Military, and that’s why we have one guy (the Commander-in-Chief) in charge of it.
Freedom, may be just another word for “nothin’ left to lose.”
That statement alone demonstrates you have no grasp on even the simplest facts of the matter.
Please read my post carefully. As you point out, people are often not convicted for things that they have done.
Clinton ADMITTED to lying under oath, thereby committing perjury. he was CONVICTED of civil contempt and subsequently disbarred.
Of course I am.
You made it up the first time I corrected you, but yet you persist. You’re still harboring this same ridiculous delusion. (Who is it that keeps squawking “Words have meaning! Words have meaning!” Maybe you should listen to that guy.)
Mr. Clinton was charged with perjury and a trial was held in the Senate. The Senate found him not guilty.
You can look it up.
Judge Wright cited Mr. Clinton for civil contempt. That’s not perjury.
So far no one has presented any evidence that ANY laws were broken….so if that is the matter at hand, please show us where bush claimed that right.
That’s funny you should make that case, Pedro. Do you know that GWBush lied (perjured) when he was placed under oath while governor of Texas? The fun thing is it involved Bush doling out special favors for corporate donors. He was never placed on trial, but it happened. Or how about Bush Sr. handing out pardons to avoid perjury prosection for Iran-Contra? Clinton was never convicted of perjury. He was acquitted or plead to other charges. He made misleading statements, true, but they were true according to the definitions of terms provided him by the opposition’s lawyers. What kills Clinton in my view, was he went on TV before the nation and lied his ass off. But then, Bush has done that plenty, about national crises adn matters important to the American electorate, but you still support him.
Now the matter at hand isn’t Bill Clinton’s personal peccadillos or Bush’s lack of credibility. It is whether or not a sitting president has the right to break laws passed by congress. It is a right Bush has claimed for himself over 500 times. You are saying Bush can do as he wishes.
Frank D is saying he pissed on himself so Bush can anally rape him if it would save his miserable life.
Hey mitterpidge, I guess it all depends on what the definition of IS is… right? Heh… “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
How long after that did he admit that he lied… UNDER OATH… perjury.
Honestly, the prosecutor didn’t have much of a right to ask him that, but he was asked, the defense didn’t object, and Clinton lied about it. By the time he fessed up, the whole attack was whether or not he got a bj, and everyone was all up in arms about defending the man’s right to have an affair on his terrifying, probably abusive wife.
But he lied, then admitted lying. Clinton was just a master at misdirection, the consummate politician. If he wasn’t so sleazy, I’d almost admire him.
And attacking someone else never EVER changes the facts. Just because someone may or may not be a bigger sleaze changes nothing. There can be more than one slimebucket in Washington. In fact, if they all suddenly turned honest, I’d be worried.
Let’s pin this down, if it is determined that Bush broke the law, Pedro, would you say he should be impeached?
Funny stuff…I love it…you guys panties all awad and frameone caps it w/ idiot. Comic Gold! Gold I tell you!
I don’t know why you guys argue with DrP and Frank_D - they are wrong and History will prove that out. (I am sure that they will continue to argue some finer points of how it is not lying about reasons for War when we really just needed the Oil or the Dollar was threatened or simple revenge because his Neo_Con buddies trashed his Pa for not taking care of Sadam when he had the chance).
Anyway Monica was hot back then…yummy…
Pretty good huh?
No rhetorical questions, didn’t have call anyone stupid….you should have frameone read this.
But if it is determined that bush broke the law (as president) then that charge should be examined by congress and put forth in the constitution.
And because I and many of my fellow republicans believe that, I also believe that he would not have announced to the world that he had been tapping into phone calls etc unless he believed he did so on VERY stable legal footing.
Yes.
Says paul the brave Phd student out there fighting on the frontier of freedom……doctoring philosophy to help save the free world…….
You big brave graduate student you…..!
LOL
“The Founding Fathers didn t expect this nation to commit suicide rather than tap some overseas phone calls.”
Don’t be such an idiot Frank. As someone said recently, maybe today, the Founding Fathers conceived of and wrote the Bill of Rights at a time when the country’s survival was vastly more precarious than it is today. And yet you would throw the Bill of Rights out the window because you’re afraid of dying in a terrorist attack. You are willing to do this even though you are 983 times more likely to be hit by lightning than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Now that’s cowardly, Frank. Just plain chickenshit.
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc530.html
Pedro –
Bush’s vesy stable legal footing was to argue that the president has the authority to break the law to protect national security. He doesn’t. You can misquote the Federalist papers now until the end of time and that won’t make it so. Idiot.
How many calls were tapped? On a human interest note, Pedro now ends all phone calls with “I love you George” in the hope that of all the phones to tap in the country his is the lucky one, and that somehow his adoration will find its way into President Bush’s ear, maybe even in the next morning’s daily intelligence brief.
ROFL, midder.
I’m also a film cricket, Dr. I’m also a film cricket.
ahhh, a film critic….it all comes to light now.
You can’t do, so you teach. You aren’t really a good teacher, so you sit back and criticise the product of others, much more talented people.
Yup, you are a real boon to our society. I am sure there is a special place in heaven for you brave souls, the film critic!
Your rants make more sense though. Don’t need any facts for your arguments it is all based on your opinion, the opinion of someone who couldn’t actually PRODUCE whaty you criticise.
I am starting to see some similiaritiies here now….
“Paul Malcolm: Protecting America, one screening at a time….”
LOL
Midderpidge, maybe that is why wingnuts hate the idea of Brokedown Mountain so much. Two male cowboys having a romance- maybe they are being forced to confront their lust for their cowboy, President Bush. That could explain the Reagan worship also.
Wow paul, based on metacritic, you aren’t really a GOOD critic either are you?
Well, what can you expect from LA Weekly….
Good luck on your “career”, I am sure your Phd will help with the next “Herbie the Love Bug” review………
How many times, frameone, you who have never been in your nation’s armed forces, never had any of your rights infringed, never had your life threatened in anyway, except maybe that time you tried to cut in line at “The Rocky Horry Picture Show” in Covina, CA in 1998, going to call me “chickenshit”?
It’s not working, fool.
I want to live. I do not to throw the Bill of Rights out the window.
The President can, does and will tap international phone calls to collect intelligence (not the kind you consistently fail to exhibit, the “spy” kind) to keep track of terrorist activities as best as the NSA can.
I am not — repeat, not — afraid. I am in support of the activities the President has engaged in, so far, to attempt to keep abreast of terrorist activities.
That doesn’t make me afraid.
Your fear, on the other hand, that Republicans will be “goose - stepping” through the streets, shipping ‘dissenters’ like Michael Moore off to some fictitious gulag, is low - grade, pulp fiction, nonsense
Buzz off, sissy boy.
8 years ago, and the guy still comes over the ‘non-event’ like it was the second ‘cumming’ (yeah, like an adolescent who just lost his virginity, get it moron?)
deepidiot =
Still no one denying that he lied under oath to a federal judge.
I didn t say he was convicted of it, in fact, no one had the stones to. I said he committed it& ..
Main Entry: per·ju·ry
Pronunciation: p&r-j&-rE, p&rj-rE
Function: noun
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing
Anyone denying that he did what is described as perjury above& .?
Anyone?
Bueller& ?
Res Ipsa Loquitur
You aksin’ me? How about “sure, it was prjury, now what?” But, if you want to put it in perspective, it is like “jaywalking” compared to “rape”, you simple sycophantic stick sucker.
Well mik, that is why americans won’t vote for democrats.
They admit that their president committed a felony in lying before a federa court, but they don’t have the honor to show him the door.
but thanks for your honesty. Quaker could use some of your fortitude….
Three errors of fact in just 18 words. That’s cookin’ even by your standards, peed’.
Quaker, Clinton was a liar, a fake, a phony and a fraud. He gave the appearance of someone who was playing the role of the President for 8 years.
He was accused of fathering illegitimate children, having a mistress escorted around Arkansas, while he was governor. He was charged with sexual assault and sexual harassment, on several occasions.
That doesn’t happen to good men. Period. Has it happened to you? It hasn’t happened to me.
Does it have to with celebrity?
Well, then, who else has it happened to?
Which other politician, or athlete, or entertainer, has even approached his reputation for salaciousness?
I never thought that a man that disgusting should even be in the White House, let alone br President.
Now, tell me how important it was that he was never found guilty of perjury.
Shorter Frank: It’s true because we kept repeating it.
Good heavens, Frank. What a muddle.
Accused. ‘Nuff said.
Ah, yes. The dragging out the fabulous Scaife-bribed highway patrolmen again. Excellent.
“Charged with…”? You don’t mean like in a criminal sense do you? I think you mean, “Several people with incentives to make stuff up said he did…” don’t you?
longer factcheck: Since I have no response, because there is none, I make a semi - clever comeback at Frank.
It won’t work, factcheck. Clinton was not fit to eat a urine cake from a White House men’s room…
I mean that “it was said by real people in public that”. See, Quaker, it was the Clinton era that taught us that if it can’t be proved in Court, or couched in legal terms, it has no reality.
I don’t believe that. I believe that if dozens of people are making accusations about someone, and each of those accusations possess a modicum of truth, then there is something going on.
If it happens once, there can be an error, or a single evil act.
But dozens of times. Sorry, I ain’t buying it.
And, who says “Scaife”, must say “Boros.”
That, of course, should be “Soros.” We’re not buddies or anything.