Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush
Understandably, Clinton nostalgia goes mainstream. You don't hear much about Nixon nostalgia, do you? I'm future-nostalgic for 2006 and 2008, when we can thow out the cronies and get this country back on track.
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 12:52 PM |
| 
18 Comments:
That's not really a fair fight, is it?
I'm positive that Nixon will be regarded as a better president than George W. Bush when historians break out the icebag and try to frown over such distinctions.
I was never a Clinton supporter, but he at least seemed to have a brain inside of his head, and agile political instincts.
Well, it's been said elsewhere, but the difference between Nixon and bush is that Nixon was a pro. The sad thing was that he was done in by his baser instincts. With bush, all you've got is a pissy empty suit.
Nixon was sort of a greek tragedy- bush is just a joke. The problem is, we'll all be paying for the punchline for years to come...
History will show that Bush was a great president.
Clinton revisionists aside, that man was an ass clown. Enjoy that impeachment.
-Censored
"Poll [9 of ten from the plaintiffs bar agree]: Clinton outperformed Bush"
I'll forego the obvious Lewinski tie in...
"History will show that Bush was a great president."
Sure, maybe in the bar room bund- with all your 'wingers crying and moaning into their beers as if the bush years were some kind of Golden Age.
But back in real life, the historians will have a field day. Because everything is going to come out as one rat after another gets out while they can.
Really, is there anybody out there, well, anybody rational, that is, who still thinks a blow job is such a bad thing?
Anybody?
You wingers are so cute! Like blind puppies kind of cute.
Clinton was NOT impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for LYING on a deposition. Just remember he was FINED and DISBARRED for his lying on a deposition.
To claim anything else is to be dishonest.
Dave
right. He lied about getting a blowjob.
I think the words you are looking for are "the President provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case."
Strikes me as more than a fib about a hummer. Of course, that'd be the history part.
-Censored
Integrity time...
A) Lied during a deposition.
B) Authozeid illeagal wiretapping.
In both cases the executive impeded justice in discovering the truth.
So why does A get impeached but B does not?
If you really F'n care about justice then B should be impeached. Period.
The LAW is CLEAR on this point.
And don't even try to tell me how the law applies to A and not B. Look up integrity before you try to do that.
Where is the case law and related statues that prevent the executive branch from gathering foriegn intelligence?
Just because you claim something to be true does not make it so. There have been numerous qualified legal opinions issured in regars to the NSA intelligence gathering. The most damning one to your case is the ones from within the FISA court that ruled the survallence does not fall within the FISA court perview. You know the same court that administers the judicial aspects of the FISA laws.
Dave
Chris, yes he lied about getting a blowjob on a deposition. This not about him lying to his wife or to his buddies at the bar. The fact if he had not lied on a deposition where one is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, there would have been no impeachment. Why is that so hard to understand for so many.
Personally if some gets a hummer good for them.
Dave
It isn't hard to understand that Clinton lied to a grand jury. He did.
Why is so hard to understand that what he was lying about was trivial? He should have never been on the stand in the first place.
Why is is so hard to understand that, maybe, just maybe, outing an active cia operative who is working on issues critical to the security of the country and lying about it, is worse than lying about a BJ to keep your marriage whole?
Well gosh Chris.
Credible claims that person in a position of power who's accused of abusing that power by sexually harrasing an employee isn't something that should be investigated?
I'm not tracking.
BTW - anyone see this?
http://www.startribune.com/784/story/434693.html
Looking more and more like you folks are out of touch.
-Censored
Clinton lied, but did he commit perjury? Besides the fact that the Senate acquitted him, which means he didn't by our legal system, this page presents an interesting argument that based on the legal definitions that were submitted by the Paula Jones team, Clinton didn't commit perjury (example: " For critics to prove perjury, they must somehow enter Clinton’s head and prove that he did not intend to sexually gratify Ms. Lewinsky. Which, of course, is clearly impossible. Clinton may have even made a mistake by interpreting the definition too narrowly, but that is not the same thing as lying.")
Obviously, this isn't going to change anyone's mind, but it is an interesting piece of legal piecemealing.
Wow, we're still talking about whether Clinton lied about a blowjob? I guess we should put a new post up.
The Minnesota Poll - funny, I thought Scott Johnson discredited that poll countless times. In any case -- I'm not surprised, and it shows we can't sit on our laurels.
I was never a huge Clinton fan, but eight years of peace and prosperity not seen in any other era is a heck of a legacy.
Post a Comment
<< Home