Yeah, but isn't that the only one that matters? ;-)
"I don't think Clinton did any better or worse than Bush or Reagan, and lying under oath about screwing an intern (in my opinion) is not the worst thing in the world, and certainly not anything to be impeached over."
Are you sure that you are on the right forum? In order to deny a plaintiff her day in court, the POTUS lied under oath and conspired with others to do the same. That is classic definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." As you may know "high" refers to the office, not to the crime. And this was the least of his offenses that he SHOULD have been impeached over.
Well, he is a bit arrogant..."
So?
"...and he has told lies...for example, do you remember that he said he signed a patient's rights bill in Texas? He never did; he refused to do so. The governor of Texas is so weak that the Texas legislature can pass a law without the governor's signature. That's fine. I just don't like that he lied about it."
I'd take your word for it because you have never lied to me, but on this forum statements of 'fact' have to be backed up by evidence. Do you have a source for that other than your memory?
"I also don't like the fact that he took only fifteen minutes to review the record of someone about to be executed (his predecessor usually took a couple of days) and that the only person whose sentence he commuted was a serial killer."
You know for a 'fact' that he only thought about it for 15 minutes? And if it is fact, is that wrong? The person has been through a trial and a series of appeals. Especially in well publicized cases of heinous crimes, why do you need 'days' to decide that someone is deserving of the death penalty? Can you provide info on this 'serial killer' and the decision? I've never heard this accusation before.
"I lived in Texas the entire time he was governor and I was not impressed; I did not support Bush in the 2000 election..."
That seems quite evident. No further proof is required, but if you don't mind telling - Who did you vote for?
"and would have preferred Mc Cain, who I feel is a man of principle."
Principle? McCain? Only if you are not ascribing Republican principles to him. He is one of the most anti liberty Senators to carry the GOP label. He is a smoking nazi. He is in favor of gun control. He wrote the unconstitutional campaign finance reform law. The Democrats wanted him to run. What does that tell you about his 'principles'?
"Bush reminds me of a fraternity boy."
It's okay for clinton to get oral sex and force himself on women and lie about - AND GET DISBARRED OVER IT, and that's okay. But Bush reminds you of a 'fraternity boy'? As I said earlier, I am an established Bush basher - for his policies. Your complaints are merely sophomoric. I repeat my earlier question: Are you sure that you are on the right forum?
"As for their hatred of Bush, well...call it revenge."
Revenge? For what? For winning? Or are you one of those who don't understand the Electoral College and thinks he stole the election?
"That's the same thing they said about conservatives during the Clinton era."
Bush has the House and nominal control of the Senate and he is still giving the Dems a lot of what they want. Clinton fought Congress every step of the way and the few things that we got - Welfare Reform, for one - he promised to undo as soon as he could. Clinton didn't give the GOP anything.
I don't agree that the question should have even been asked. Personally, I don't care if he screwed Monica Lewinsky or not. Had it been Reagan or Bush instead of Clinton, I still wouldn't have cared.
I'd take your word for it because you have never lied to me, but on this forum statements of 'fact' have to be backed up by evidence. Do you have a source for that other than your memory?
"STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then they – but what gets lost there – wait a second, what gets lost there is that George Bush did oppose a patient's bill of rights in the state of Texas. And he did – and he's not for the Dingell/Norwood bill." Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10988
"But in reality, Bush fought both tooth and nail. He vetoed the patient's bill of rights when it first came up, in 1995, and then in 1997, faced with a likely veto-proof majority, he let it pass without his signature. Republican state senators on the floor of the state Senate complained that Bush's key staffer was trying to sabotage the bill." Source: http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/05/lies/index.html
You know for a 'fact' that he only thought about it for 15 minutes? And if it is fact, is that wrong? The person has been through a trial and a series of appeals. Especially in well publicized cases of heinous crimes, why do you need 'days' to decide that someone is deserving of the death penalty? Can you provide info on this 'serial killer' and the decision? I've never heard this accusation before.
"On June 27, 1998 Governor George W. Bush spared Henry's life because of overwhelming evidence proving that Henry was not in Texas when "Orange Socks" was murdered. Although Lucas confessed to killing her, work records and a cashed paycheck indicated he was in Florida at the time of the murder. Bush issued the reprieve on the recommendation of the state parole board. "I can only thank them for believing the truth and having guts enough for standing up for what's right," Lucas said from death row. "Henry Lee Lucas is unquestionably guilty of other despicable crimes which he has been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison," said Bush, in Brownsville for a conference of U.S.-Mexico border state governors. "However, I believe there is enough doubt about this particular crime that the state of Texas should not impose its ultimate penalty by executing him." Source: http://www.houseofhorrors.com/lucas.htm
Lucas had also gone through the lengthy Texas appeals process.
That seems quite evident. No further proof is required, but if you don't mind telling - Who did you vote for?
I wrote in John McCain.
Principle? McCain? Only if you are not ascribing Republican principles to him. He is one of the most anti liberty Senators to carry the GOP label. He is a smoking nazi. He is in favor of gun control. He wrote the unconstitutional campaign finance reform law. The Democrats wanted him to run. What does that tell you about his 'principles'?
It doesn't change my mind. I agreed with him on those issues.
It's okay for clinton to get oral sex and force himself on women and lie about - AND GET DISBARRED OVER IT, and that's okay. But Bush reminds you of a 'fraternity boy'? As I said earlier, I am an established Bush basher - for his policies. Your complaints are merely sophomoric. I repeat my earlier question: Are you sure that you are on the right forum?
Clinton lied about getting oral sex, sure. Nobody will argue with you on that...not even the Democrats. However, Bush has a couple of DUIs under his belt. Cheney has one too. I don't trust a man to run the country who has twice been sanctioned for driving while drunk. Sorry. Those are my "principles" rearing their ugly head. I'm the daughter of an alcoholic. I know how alcoholics are...I know all the lies and B.S. stories...and the excuses. I don't trust them.
Revenge? For what? For winning? Or are you one of those who don't understand the Electoral College and thinks he stole the election?
No, I think they feel it's revenge for the 8 year Clinton-hating orgy that distracted lawmakers on both sides from the business of running the country.
Bush has the House and nominal control of the Senate and he is still giving the Dems a lot of what they want. Clinton fought Congress every step of the way and the few things that we got - Welfare Reform, for one - he promised to undo as soon as he could. Clinton didn't give the GOP anything.
Yes he did. The GOP swept into power in the House in 1994 and that power has not yet been threatened. That's a huge gift.