(November 15, 2014 at 10:27 pm)simplemoss Wrote: Why do all the threads in politics and the news section have some asshole named Heywood spewing shit and bubbling vomit all over every one of them?

Is everyone that disagrees with you an asshole Simplemoss? Perhaps you could say something constructive....maybe dispute the facts I presented. Your comment here is worthless.

At least Dumbasspaladin tries to make an argument.....which puts him a notch above you.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: They want you to think Clinton got impeached over a "blow job"....

I'm sorry, did he lie about something other than a blow job? Like lie us into a war?

Quote:Clinton wouldn't resign and the republicans had to go forward with the articles of impeachment.

No, they didn't "have" to. They could have censured the president and fined him $500.

Lying about a blowjob is not an impeachable offense.

Lying to Congress and tricking the nation into a war is.

So spare me your sanctimonious bluster about how you care so much about integrity when you voted for W Bush, didn't you?

(November 15, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: It hypocritical to call out just the republicans for refusing to negotiate when Obama did the same thing.

I'm under the impression that he compromised on just about everything.

Negative.

During the government shutdown he threatened to veto a resolution if he didn't get his way.....which is surprising because since he had the democrats on his side. He didn't need to use the veto threat....but he did anyways. He could have stayed abovet the bickering and made himself look good....but he didn't......maybe he thought the dems were going to cave.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 11:17 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 11:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: They want you to think Clinton got impeached over a "blow job"....

I'm sorry, did he lie about something other than a blow job? Like lie us into a war?

Quote:Clinton wouldn't resign and the republicans had to go forward with the articles of impeachment.

No, they didn't "have" to. They could have censured the president and fined him $500.

Lying about a blowjob is not an impeachable offense.

Lying to Congress and tricking the nation into a war is.

So spare me your sanctimonious bluster about how you care so much about integrity when you voted for W Bush, didn't you?

Sonnyboy....I set you straight on this several times now. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury....not because he told a lie about a Blowjob. The subject of the lie is incidental. He was being deposed by an attorney suing him for sexual harassment....and he was caught lying...under oath.....which is a serious crime.

Because of his crime his license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended and he was disbarred from arguing before the Supreme court.

You want to down play the fact that he committed the serious crime of perjury....and let people believe he didn't tell the truth about a blow job. Perjury is a serious offense....a felony in many jurisdiction. Perjury usurps the order created by the courts and results in miscarriages of justice. But that is okay....because Clinton is your guy.....you want to give him a pass.

Even though Bush's action have nothing to with Clinton's impeachment....and you are only bringing it up to change the subject. I will concede that if Bush lied under oath...if Bush perjured himself.....then yes he should be impeached.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: During the government shutdown he threatened to veto a resolution if he didn't get his way.....which is surprising because since he had the democrats on his side. He didn't need to use the veto threat....but he did anyways. He could have stayed abovet the bickering and made himself look good....but he didn't......maybe he thought the dems were going to cave.

Absolutely.

The GOP was WAY OUT OF LINE with their threat to destroy America if Obama didn't renegotiate a law already passed by Congress, signed in by the president, upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by the 2012 election. Paying the bills is not something Congress does as a favor to the president and the American people. It's their job.

What the GOP tried to do, having exhausted all legal and ethical means, was political extortion. "Give us what we want or we'll destroy America". It was frankly borderline treason and certainly political malpractice.

You think that's what our founding fathers had in mind, government by extortion?

If Obama had given an inch, it would set a precedent that extortion was an acceptable tool for a party out of power to get what they want anyway. I don't want to live in that America. I'm glad they didn't destroy America but I would much rather bring it all down than live in a nation run by the extortionists for the extortionists.

I'm glad for once in his presidency, he stood his ground. That was an important principle to fight for when opposing an unprincipled party.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I'm under the impression that he compromised on just about everything.

Negative.

During the government shutdown he threatened to veto a resolution if he didn't get his way.....which is surprising because since he had the democrats on his side. He didn't need to use the veto threat....but he did anyways. He could have stayed abovet the bickering and made himself look good....but he didn't......maybe he thought the dems were going to cave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOmILkT...HK&index=8

This is where Kyle talks about Obama compromising.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:32 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Absolutely.

The GOP was WAY OUT OF LINE with their threat to destroy America if Obama didn't renegotiate a law already passed by Congress, signed in by the president, upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by the 2012 election. Paying the bills is not something Congress does as a favor to the president and the American people. It's their job.

What the GOP tried to do, having exhausted all legal and ethical means, was political extortion. "Give us what we want or we'll destroy America". It was frankly borderline treason and certainly political malpractice.

You think that's what our founding fathers had in mind, government by extortion?

If Obama had given an inch, it would set a precedent that extortion was an acceptable tool for a party out of power to get what they want anyway. I don't want to live in that America. I'm glad they didn't destroy America but I would much rather bring it all down than live in a nation run by the extortionists for the extortionists.

I'm glad for once in his presidency, he stood his ground. That was an important principle to fight for when opposing an unprincipled party.

Translation: When my guy refuses to negotiate....its not obstruction....its taking the high road.

That pretty much some up your position....and your position is bunk. It only appeals to the lock stepping liberalzombies. Objective people blame both the democrats and the republicans for the government shut down. Lockstep liberaltards just blame their politcal enemies and hope if the lie long enough....there lie will magically become the truth.

Sorry sonnyboy...there are people who see thru your sham.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:19 pm)A Total Fucktard Wrote: Clinton was impeached for committing perjury

...about a blow job. The end.

Quote:Even though Bush's action have nothing to with Clinton's impeachment....

It underscores your hypocrisy if you are so sanctimonious about integrity regarding blow jobs but vote for a president who lies us into a war.

Quote:if Bush perjured himself.....then yes he should be impeached.

So did you vote for him in 2004, yes or no?

OK, two follow up questions:
1. Is lying us into a war OK if Bush wasn't under oath?
2. Is lying to Congress still OK? I'm no legal expert but I'm sure lying to Congress during a State of the Union address is pretty serious.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 11:36 pm)The Completely Discredited Fucktard Wrote: Translation: When my guy refuses to negotiate....its not obstruction....its taking the high road.

GOP obstruction by refusing to write bills and filibustering everything is not equal to refusing to give in to extortion.

By the way, are you OK with government by extortion?

(November 15, 2014 at 11:37 pm)DumbasstPaladin Wrote: So did you vote for him in 2004, yes or no?

OK, two follow up questions:
1. Is lying us into a war OK if Bush wasn't under oath?
2. Is lying to Congress still OK? I'm no legal expert but I'm sure lying to Congress during a State of the Union address is pretty serious.

Whether I voted for Bush or not has nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment. Bush's actions have nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment. Having lost the argument....you are trying to change the subject.

Sonnyboy....I'm not going to fall for your red herring.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 11:33 pm)Chad32 Wrote: This is where Kyle talks about Obama compromising.

Chad, who do you think is right and why? Mathews or that other guy whose name I don't know?

(November 16, 2014 at 12:15 am)Heywood Wrote: Whether I voted for Bush or not has nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment.

I'll have to take your refusal to answer my questions as a "yes" you voted for Bush and you don't want to answer my other questions because it will make you realize your hypocrisy, being so holy and outraged, OUTRAGED I tell you, over Clinton's complete lack of integrity with regard to his blow job but excusing Bush for lying us into a war because um mumble mumble mumble.

You're a hypocrite as well as a delusional idiot.

(November 16, 2014 at 1:28 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 12:15 am)Heywood Wrote: Whether I voted for Bush or not has nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment.

I'll have to take your refusal to answer my questions as a "yes" you voted for Bush and you don't want to answer my other questions because it will make you realize your hypocrisy, being so holy and outraged, OUTRAGED I tell you, over Clinton's complete lack of integrity with regard to his blow job but excusing Bush for lying us into a war because um mumble mumble mumble.

You're a hypocrite as well as a delusional idiot.

I don't believe Bill Clinton lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and I don't believe Bush did either. I think the intelligence both presidents depended on was flawed.

I do think...and have always thought....that weapons of mass destruction was simply an excuse. In order to sell the war Bush had to convince the American public that Iraq was a threat to us....hence the argument that me must invade them to stop them from manufacturing weapons of mass destruction....blah...blah...blah. I would even go as far to say that Bush lied....I can't prove it cause I don't know what went on in his head....but it seemed pretty obvious to me there was an ulterior motive behind the invasion of Iraq(it wasn't oil...it was about surrounding Iran).

Now even knowing this, I still supported the war for a couple of reasons:
1. We've had been in a quasi war with Iraq since 1991 and that needed to stop.
2. Saddam was a monster that we helped to create. We had a moral responsibility to remove him....even at the expense of shedding our own blood.
3. I thought the middle east would be a much better place with a democratic Iraq....and still think this.