| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Main Stream Media Bias? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 16 2004, 09:18 AM (526 Views) | |
| anon_persona | Apr 17 2004, 04:53 AM Post #16 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
The adultery, although a felony, was not the contention made for imeachment. It was perjury - lying in court, that was the greater crime. If you think it's about the adultery (the sexual act) you totallt missed the point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 17 2004, 05:50 AM Post #17 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
PERSONAL OPINION Surok you and I come from the same time period. Hearing a "60's radical" say the President should (deserves?) to live by a separate set of laws/torts than the rest of us is hysterical. We must all be getting older. END OF PERSONAL OPINION |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 17 2004, 07:58 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Ensign
|
Age falls upon us all, I guess. But I am in no way saying that the President can/should live by a separate set of laws. I am saying that in the end Clinton committed a sex act in the Oval Office and then lied about it. There are an awful lot of men out there who would have lied if they were in the same position and with their wife watching. The opinion I found most prevalent (including among women, which surprised me) was "Sex is sex and business is business. Get off it and move on." His popularity and approval ratings indicated that the majority of Americans made the same distinction and cared not one bit. I might feel differently if he wasn't being hounded over every possible indiscretion or illegality the opposition thought they could come up with at a cost of millions of dollars to the American people, and then the best they could come up with was a bj and a lie. I never said I did not find his behavior reprehensible on a personal level, because I did. I just cannot see hounding someone to impeachment over that. As I said, the best case against him would have been a charge that he did it while on the clock. It's not the same as trying to sabotage the opposition as the Nixon campaign did, then state on tape that they could come up with a million dollars to make it go away, then fire the special prosecutor because he did his job (my favorite bumper sticker from the Watergate era: "Impeach the Cox Sacker"). If they could have proved travelgate or one of the other serious charges, well then he would have had to go or at least be sanctioned. What we ended up with was a joke which did not even affect his popularity based on his approval ratings. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 17 2004, 09:23 AM Post #19 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Why is it you lefties have such a problem with breaking the law. I don't care if someone lies about sex or giving missile technology to the Chinese... and then gets others to lie as well, and then tries to OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. He was guilty. Period. Add in the Jones investigation (he was fined $90,000 and barred from practicing law for five years), Whitewater (sent TWELVE PEOPLE TO JAIL), and you get the picture. You'd lie, too? Why. Lack of scruples or morals? I just don't understand why you Kool-Aid drinkers support such a scumbag as Clinton. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 17 2004, 09:58 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Ensign
|
Neither. Lack of nerve. Besides, I said it wouldn't be me in the first place.
Why is it that only you "righties" have a problem with this? Because it is more than the "lefties" that don't - based on his approval numbers, most of America didn't. Don't blame it on the left. I said his behavior was despicable on a personal level, but that's all it was - personal, and nobody's business. I think you are still burnt over Nixon and carrying a grudge. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 17 2004, 10:17 AM Post #21 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Kool-Aid drinkers? Oh YEAHHHHHH! Serously, Wild Cherry Pepsi. Can't beat it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 17 2004, 11:22 AM Post #22 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Let's see if that defense will work for the average joe who's being sued for sexual harassment...
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Intrepid2002 | Apr 17 2004, 01:28 PM Post #23 |
|
UNGH!
|
What's so draconian about the term "budget cut"? I bet you 9 times out of 10 an editor of a NEWScast going over copy would choose "budget cut" over "reduction in the budget increase", REGARDLESS OF WHAT HIS POLITICS WAS. :rolleyes: So you really think Hannity or some right wing newscaster would say, "reduction in the budget increase"? Yeah they might, those wingers are rather flowery with their words, aren't they? Even if they are the wrong ones.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 17 2004, 01:40 PM Post #24 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Calling a 'reduction in a budget increase' a 'budget cut' is a lie designed to make it seem that there will be less funds available for that budget category than there was the previous year. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 17 2004, 05:11 PM Post #25 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Nixon? Why? He did the honorable thing and resigned. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 18 2004, 09:23 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Ensign
|
AB:
Touche Dwayne: If Lewinsky had charged him with sexual harassment you would have a point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 18 2004, 10:21 AM Post #27 |
|
Admiral
|
Yes, and the downward spiral which is humanity continues. But this is to be expected, is it not? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 18 2004, 01:16 PM Post #28 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Incorrect, the place I work for has a 0 tolerance for things like this. Even if the hearsey doest make formal charges yet it is common knowledge that the harassing went on. the person doing the harassment would lose their job. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 18 2004, 01:48 PM Post #29 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Bill Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment - not Monica Lewinsky. The issue of Lewinsky came up in the discovery phase of the trial as a means to establish a pattern of behavoir. When her name was brought up, Bill Clinton was like, "Lewinsky who?" and denied everything. Bill Clinton does not have the right to lie in court even if he or you thinks it's a personal matter! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 18 2004, 05:15 PM Post #30 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal rant Oh, so you would also think Clinton guilty of sexual harassment if Lewinsky had just filed a complaint ...
It was lucky for him that she "found" that career as a purse designer after he had her booted from the White House. :rolleyes: I know that "business is business", Surok. I also know that there is a huge number of talented women who have the ability to get to the White House without having to go to their knees to do so. NOW (and the rest) whitewash of Clinton's behavior for political expediency severely harmed their credibility. The average joe DOES get sued (and fired) for consensual sexual relationships at work all the time. If the President is exempt, then the average joe should be as well. I also find it ludicrous it is believed that women need to be "protected" from hearing a man relate a story about Seinfeld at work because of "sexual harassment", but the same people believe that a 22 year old would not feel one ounce of pressure when dealing with the most powerful man in the world. TRUE sexual harassment of both men and women certainly exists, but lets find a rational middle ground rather than "it depends on who the parties are" policy. It might surprise you that I don't think he should have been impeached for it either. I also don't give a rat's ass that it was adultry. As Grandma Wichita used to say, you know the true intent of people when you know how they behave in private. In private, Bill Clinton repeatedly treated women badly. Instead of mumbled "i don't approve of his behavior, but ... from those on the left, he should have been publicly called to task on his treatment of her (and several others) by women's groups and the leadership of his own party. End of personal rant |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:13 PM Jul 11