Henry Hyde Dies

Published November 29, 2007 in Conservatives.

Clearly one of the leaders in the raping of the constitution will have plenty of time to discuss his youthful indiscretion with the Almighty in the after life. Do not let the door hit you, sir.

35 Responses to “Henry Hyde Dies”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Ian
Nov 30th, 2007 at 2:31 am

Translation: Burn in hell.

But don’t you dare call out Oliver for wishing a dead man ill — after all he’s the bad guy not big ol’ Ollie!
2 C.S.Strowbridge
Nov 30th, 2007 at 3:45 am

“Translation: Burn in hell.”

Correct.

“But don’t you dare call out Oliver for wishing a dead man ill — after all he’s the bad guy not big ol’ Ollie!”

And correct again. Just because someone dies doesn’t mean they suddenly wonderful.

If you are a dickhead when you are alive, you’re a dickhead after you die.

So don’t be surprised when we says the same about you after you are gone.
3 Oliver Willis
Nov 30th, 2007 at 4:20 am

Death does not confer goodness on people. Henry Hyde was a bad person, just like Jerry Falwell was. That they’re six feet under does not change their activities on earth.
4 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am

Oliver, nobody says that you have to start loving a person when they die. But there is nothing wrong with NOT pissing on a person’s grave after they die.

Henry Hyde was not a “bad person.” Just because you have a raging boner for anybody that supported the impeachment of President Clinton, doesn’t equate to them being “bad.”

You were like “Damn” when Sean Taylor died of his gunshot wound. Why? He was a thug.
5 C.S.Strowbridge
Nov 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am

“Oliver, nobody says that you have to start loving a person when they die. But there is nothing wrong with NOT pissing on a person’s grave after they die.”

Yeah, but it’s fun.

“You were like “Damn” when Sean Taylor died of his gunshot wound. Why? He was a thug.”

Proof?
6 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 8:33 am

Yeah, but it’s fun.

Yeah well, that’s just more evidence that you have some issues.

As for proof, he was busted for a DUI and he brandished a gun at somebody and beat on a guy while his buddy chased another guy with a baseball bat.

Now, to be honest, I don’t think Taylor was a ‘thug.’ I was using the term as an illustration to show how stupid Oliver is being by calling Henry Hyde a “bad person” because he happened to support Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
7 bill l.
Nov 30th, 2007 at 9:21 am

Hyde didn’t just happen to support Clinton’s impeachment, he led the committee in charge of it. This would be the man who was embroiled for years in a savings and loan scandal and who defended scum-of-the-Earth, Oliver North for his role in Iran/Contra. Clinton had to answer for his lies…about blowjobs…but Hyde never felt he should pay for his illegal financial activities (he never did, and no, he was never acquitted either), nor did he feel that the players, especially the aforementioned North, should pay for their deadly shenanigans. Then there’s the whole “I can screw around but shame on you, Mr. President” thing.

While I don’t feel nearly as strongly about Hyde as OW obviously does, I still think he was a typical GOP hypocrite and all around ass.
8 C.S.Strowbridge
Nov 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am

“As for proof, he was busted for a DUI”

DUI is a serious crime. It has nothing to do with being a thug.

“and he brandished a gun at somebody”

Allegedly.

That case was pushed back so many times and eventually he plead to a lesser crime and paid a fine.

“and beat on a guy while his buddy chased another guy with a baseball bat.”

Got any details? Or was that part of the assault case from above that disappeared.

“Now, to be honest, I don’t think Taylor was a ‘thug.’”

So… you lied to make a point. How Republican of you.

“…calling Henry Hyde a “bad person” because he happened to support Bill Clinton’s impeachment.”

First of all, he didn’t just support it, he led the way. Secondly, that was hardly is only crime.
9 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 10:49 am

Hyde didn’t just happen to support Clinton’s impeachment, he led the committee in charge of it.

That’s what happens when you’re the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which coordinates impeachment proceedings.

This would be the man who was embroiled for years in a savings and loan scandal

As were many members of Congress including many Democrats.

Clinton had to answer for his lies…about blowjobs

Ah yes. A trip down Democratic Fantasyland lane. One where the only thing Bill Clinton ever lied about was somebody sucking his dick. How much are you guys charging for the trip these days?

Allegedly.

That case was pushed back so many times and eventually he plead to a lesser crime and paid a fine.

No it was not ‘allegedly.’ He pled no contest to two misdemeanors in exchange for the prosecutors to drop felony charges. He didn’t just pay a fine. He was sentenced to 18 mos probation.

Got any details? Or was that part of the assault case from above that disappeared.

Actually, it didn’t disappear as I pointed out and the victim in the case was filing a lawsuit against Taylor for $15K.

So… you lied to make a point.

Yeah, and the point was made and now you guys are fumbling. Again.

First of all, he didn’t just support it, he led the way.

Once again, when you’re the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, you’re obligated by the rules of Congress and the constitution to ‘lead the way.’ Go take some American civics lessons.

Secondly, that was hardly is only crime.

Well only a complete and utter moron would consider the support of Bill Clinton’s impeachment a “crime” so I won’t even bother to ask what other “crimes” you’re talking about.

The bottom line is, Henry Hyde is a politician and like many politicians who have served as long as him, he’s going to have some things throughout his career that would be a blemish on their overall record. This goes for Democrats and Republicans.

The only reason why Oliver claims Hyde is a “bad person” is because he’s a Republican. If you people would just ADMIT THAT, instead of attempting all this bullshit rationalizing, I wouldn’t have to call you out on such nonsense.
10 Ian
Nov 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Why is it that Democrats always defend the bad guys? Sean Taylor did clean up his act after he had his child, but he still was a thug before that.

Why is it that anytime an NFL star dies always violence is involved?

But instead of Ollie and CS, I won’t bash the man because I feel sorry for him and his family.
11 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Okay, I won’t speak for Oliver. The only reason I will claim Henry Hyde is a bad person is because of the blemishes that appear on his overall record. Will that be sufficient? You do realize that simply saying “many Democrats did it too” will never exonerate Hyde?

All said and done, however, I do think it’s unfair to avoid the entirety of his record just to go after him for his hypocrisy during the Lewinsky Affair. Or his cheerleading for Oliver North.

He did support the Brady Bill and assault weapon bans. He was a champion of family medical leave.

And hey, even though the Hyde Amendment bans Medicaid from funding abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger, this is, at least, less crazy than your modern-era fundie Republican who wouldn’t even allow those conditions.

So let’s hear it for Mr. Hyde.
12 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm

“Why is it that anytime an NFL star dies always violence is involved?”

This doesn’t make sense, unless you’re trying to say that when an NFL star dies during his career, violence is involved. Because plenty of past NFL stars have died of natural causes or of accidents.

But wait, that doesn’t make sense either. Korey Stringer and Thomas Herrion died of medical conditions. Marquise Hill died of a jet ski accident.

So that leaves you with: Sean Taylor and Darrent Williams.

Are you trying to make a point or just trafficking in cheap rhetoric?
13 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

The only reason I will claim Henry Hyde is a bad person is because of the blemishes that appear on his overall record. Will that be sufficient? You do realize that simply saying “many Democrats did it too” will never exonerate Hyde?

It doesn’t exonerate Hyde, but it also doesn’t mean he’s a “bad person.” Good people sometimes do bad things. It happens.

I guess I just find essentially celebrating a person’s death to be in pretty poor taste and certainly not “fun.”
14 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

I guess I just find essentially celebrating a person’s death to be in pretty poor taste and certainly not “fun.”

Thing is, I agree with you–I can’t see myself “celebrating” Hyde’s death. But you’re not being completely honest, here.

You were like “Damn” when Sean Taylor died of his gunshot wound. Why? He was a thug.

That is, you’re opposed to “celebrating,” but you’re not really opposed to going after somebody whose life you consider unseemly, even if only facetiously. And Oliver was hardly “honoring” Taylor by saying “Damn,” he was expressing either shock–”Damn, Sean Taylor died?!”–or disappointment–”Damn, Sean Taylor didn’t make it.”
15 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

That is, you’re opposed to “celebrating,” but you’re not really opposed to going after somebody whose life you consider unseemly, even if only facetiously. And Oliver was hardly “honoring” Taylor by saying “Damn,” he was expressing either shock–”Damn, Sean Taylor died?!”–or disappointment–”Damn, Sean Taylor didn’t make it.”

Well the fact that I was being facetious means I wasn’t “going after” anybody. The point is, using Oliver’s brand of Pretzel Logic, one could only conclude that Taylor was a “bad person” and that being happy he was no longer on this earth would be the appropriate response.

Again, it goes back to pathetic and petty partisanship. Hyde is deserving of scorn in Oliver’s view because he was a Republican, nothing more. Like I said, if he would just come out and say that instead of attempting to rationalize it by saying stupid shit like Hyde “raped” the constitution, I wouldn’t say a word.
16 Oliver Willis
Nov 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Henry Hyde is a bad person because he actively sought to pervert the constitution by impeaching Bill Clinton because of a sexual affair. The way you whitewash it its as if poor little Henry had no choice in the matter. Bull. I don’t think he’s a bad guy because he’s a Republican. I think he’s a bad guy because he was a leader in an episode that fucked over the U.S. constitution. No longer were the sort of activities done by Dick Nixon considered the sort of thing one would describe as “high crimes”. No, high crimes now are a middle aged guy stupidly getting his jollies off with an intern. It debases the constitution and it debases America, and Henry Hyde was a leader in that.

Sean Taylor certainly had bad behavior, and maybe his thuggishness led to his death, but Sean Taylor never fucked over the US Constitution. That equation is yet another stupid instance of conservative “balance”.
17 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Henry Hyde is a bad person because he actively sought to pervert the constitution by impeaching Bill Clinton because of a sexual affair.

Oh please. Give the histrionics a rest will you with regard to the constitution, ok? You can write it off as a “sexual affair” but the fact of the matter is, the President of the United States of America swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He didn’t. He lied - once before a judge and another time before a grand jury. (Cue “What about Bush?!?!?” from the usual gaggle of idiots at this point)

Now whether or not you think it’s over a trivial matter like whether or not he was sticking it to an intern, is irrelevant. He still did it. He was found in contempt of court for doing so.

As for the constitution, the last time I checked, it was still there. The country hasn’t suffered because Clinton was impeached. The constitutional provisions outlining impeachment proceedings were all followed. In the end, Clinton was not convicted in the Senate and life went on.

That equation is yet another stupid instance of conservative “balance”.

No Oliver, the only stupidity here is being displayed by you with your childish rants about “fucking over the constitution.”

You’re turning 30 in a week. Grow up already.
18 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

“the President of the United States of America swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He didn’t. He lied - once before a judge and another time before a grand jury.”

Well, you know, these things happen. Any career politician will ultimately have a blemish on their records. Good people sometimes do bad things.
19 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Also, I would say that the country has indeed suffered from the Clinton impeachment.

Congress impeached the President for lying, yes, but it was about a sexual affair and the fallout from that action was to lock the government into a single-track mode of playing Gotcha with Bill Clinton. The fallout was to watch Americans lose even more faith in government as it became increasingly clear that the impeachment had little to do with “honesty and integrity of the office” and more to do with taking down the President.

The fallout is that today, impeachment of presidents who lie about things like war or torture–and who don’t do so under oath because they never allow themselves to be sworn in–remains “off the table,” because God Knows we wouldn’t want to go through that trouble again.
20 Trumpit
Nov 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Hyde also repeatedly raped poor women who wanted to terminate their pregnancy by his imposition of the Hyde Amendment to most spending bills. The Hyde Amendment cut off funding for abortions for medical clinics, etc. He was horrible man who did more much more harm than good. I won’t let the thought of that evil, worthless man cause me to puke up my lunch. Rot in hell, HH!
21 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

The fallout is that today, impeachment of presidents who lie about things like war or torture–and who don’t do so under oath because they never allow themselves to be sworn in–remains “off the table,” because God Knows we wouldn’t want to go through that trouble again.

Nonsense. It’s not happening because the Democrats don’t have any balls. Not because of the Clinton impeachment.
22 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Right. What is it they’re afraid of? That Bush will yell at them? That Cheney will call forth his minions of the undead? They’re afraid that the public, weary from the last impeachment, will turn on them for starting another impeachment.

(They’re stupid and wrong for thinking this. I won’t dispute that. But this is a direct result of the 1996-2000 Congress abusing impeachment against Clinton.)
23 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Spider, sorry but such excuses don’t cut it. Saying that the current Congress won’t go forward on impeachment because it may hurt them politically is essentially agreeing that their position is based on cowardice. That’s not a result of anything that happened in the past. The impeachment proceedings were almost 10 years ago.
24 Trumpit
Nov 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Hyde was the only member of the congress sued for “gross negligence” in an S&L failure. Hyde utilized his political clout and refusal to settle as a way to escape payment and give the impression that he was discharged. - Wikipedia

He was a crook, too. Don’t RIP, you piece of sewer sludge.
25 SaveFarris
Nov 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Unlike Oliver, I’ll be a gentleman and hope & pray that the situation over at Hillary’s NH Headquarters ends peacefully and without incident.
26 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

So we agree that they’re being cowards, you just won’t admit that the Clinton impeachment has anything to do with it.

I contend that political tools such as impeachment and filibuster become less likely to occur when either side abuses them, specifically because of concern of public reaction. The impeachment was ten years ago, but the important measurement is that it was one president ago.
27 Jay
Nov 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

It’s not a matter of me ‘admitting’ anything. You say it has to do with the Clinton impeachment. I disagree. The whole “the public doesn’t want another impeachment saga” meme is a media creation.

As for filibustering, both sides have been doing it all the time. It was Democrats who decided to use it to keep from having votes on judicial nominees. Think that’s going to prevent the GOP from doing the same thing should a Democrat be elected President next year? Hell no.
28 SpiderJ
Nov 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

The whole “the public doesn’t want another impeachment saga” meme is a media creation.

It’s strange, Jay, that you fail to read what I’m saying when I’m actually agreeing with you.

I KNOW it’s not real. I KNOW that the Dems are being stupid and cowardly for falling for it.

But the “another impeachment” meme wouldn’t even EXIST if there hadn’t been a Clinton impeachment. The media wouldn’t be able to create any sort of momentum with “The public isn’t ready for another impeachment after the horrible Andrew Johnson incident.”
29 Ian
Nov 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Am I understanding this correctly? It is the Republicans fault that the Democrats have their panties in a wad about impeaching Bush?

Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard.
30 Oliver Willis
Nov 30th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Yes, silly me, thinking we ought to go to the constitutional option of impeaching a sitting president for actual high crimes versus an extramarital affair. I’ll plainly state that I don’t know that President Bush has committed an impeachable offense. It’s likely, but I don’t know. But the Republicans, led by Hyde, made the threshold for that charge “diddling the intern”. A disgrace, and so are the people who will defend it to their graves.
31 C.S.Strowbridge
Nov 30th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

bill l.: “Hyde didn’t just happen to support Clinton’s impeachment, he led the committee in charge of it.”

Jay: “That’s what happens when you’re the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which coordinates impeachment proceedings.”

So he didn’t just support it like you said. So you admit you lied. Again.

Thank you.

(In case you are too stupid to get my point, there is a difference between passive support and active participation.)

bill l.: “Clinton had to answer for his lies…about blowjobs”

Jay: “Ah yes. A trip down Democratic Fantasyland lane. One where the only thing Bill Clinton ever lied about was somebody sucking his dick. How much are you guys charging for the trip these days?”

No one who watched the proceedings could possibly think this was about anything more than sex.

Okay, sex and the desire to get Clinton no matter what the costs.

“No it was not ‘allegedly.’ He pled no contest to two misdemeanors in exchange for the prosecutors to drop felony charges. He didn’t just pay a fine. He was sentenced to 18 mos probation.”

The crimes you accused him of were felonies. He wasn’t convicted of felonies in the end. Therefore, he only allegedly committed those crimes.

Now, what did he plead guilty to? I be it was a lot less serious the Hyde’s crimes. (And I mean that literally this time.)

Me: “Secondly, that was hardly is only crime.”

Jay: “Well only a complete and utter moron would consider the support of Bill Clinton’s impeachment a “crime” so I won’t even bother to ask what other “crimes” you’re talking about.”

It’s a metaphor. I’m not surprised you were to stupid to pick that up.

His other ‘crimes’ include adultery and the destruction of a marriage, hypocrisy over that same issue, and the S&L scandal… which actually might be a real crime.
32 C.S.Strowbridge
Nov 30th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Ian: “Why is it that Democrats always defend the bad guys? Sean Taylor did clean up his act after he had his child, but he still was a thug before that.”

I’d ask for proof, but I know you can’t give any.

“Why is it that anytime an NFL star dies always violence is involved?”

Two points:

1.) You are lying.
2.) You are using the fact he was the victim of a violent crime as proof that he was a thug.

Interesting.

No wait, not interesting… fucking retarded.
33 C.S.Strowbridge
Nov 30th, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Oliver: “Henry Hyde is a bad person because he actively sought to pervert the constitution by impeaching Bill Clinton because of a sexual affair.”

Jay: “Oh please. Give the histrionics a rest will you with regard to the constitution, ok? You can write it off as a “sexual affair” but the fact of the matter is, the President of the United States of America swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He didn’t. He lied - once before a judge and another time before a grand jury.”

And those questions were about sex, asked by people who were trying to subvert the will of the people in an attempt to get rid of a democratically elected president any way they could.

Clinton should not have lied, but the people running the show were doing far worse things. This includes Hyde, who ran the show.
34 Ian
Nov 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Ian: “Why is it that Democrats always defend the bad guys? Sean Taylor did clean up his act after he had his child, but he still was a thug before that.”

Retardo: “I’d ask for proof, but I know you can’t give any.”

***

You idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Taylor#Legal_troubles
35 C.S.Strowbridge
Dec 1st, 2007 at 1:22 am

“You idiot.”

You are calling me an idiot and then bringing up what I already covered. Does the term projection mean anything to you?

Jesus Christ, you should have run away this time. It would have saved you some dignity.

Wiki has him with one DUI, which is was acquitted and it has nothing to do with being a thug; missing one mini-camp, when he wasn’t even under contract, which again has nothing to do with being a thug, and one incident over some allegedly stolen ATVs that ended with a small fine, community service, and perhaps probation, (although none is mentioned on Wiki).

Where is your fucking proof he was a thug?

We can prove Hyde was an asshole. Where’s your proof Taylor was a thug?

Oliver Willis

Henry Hyde Dies

35 Responses to “Henry Hyde Dies”

Leave a Reply

Tag Cloud

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories