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.
Maybe you don't care because you weren't the paintiff in the suit. His pattern of behavior is most cetainly relevant to the case. If it hadn't been, he wouldn't have been fined and disbarred.
""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 and your sources agree that he opposed the bills (and it sounds like I would too), but I don't see where he said that he supported them. If I missed it and it was a lie. It's wrong. I don't condone it.
"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."
It sounds like everyone agrees that this man did not do the killing that he confessed to and for which he was sentenced to death. If he wasn't sentenced to death for the other crimes that he was accused of and either confessed or was convicted of, why shouldn't the sentence be commuted from death to life in prison? He (the convict) sounds like a dispicable human (or sub-human), but under our criminal justice system, we don't execute people for crimes that they didn't commit.
You really are stretching to come up with valid complaints against Bush. And in case you missed it - I am not a Bush fan.
"I wrote in John McCain."
It doesn't surprise me.
"It doesn't change my mind. I agreed with him on those issues."
This doesn't surprise me either. That's why I questioned your presence here. McCain is hardly the ideal of conservatism.
"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."
I heard (possibly true) rumors of ONE DUI some years ago BEFORE he quit drinking, but now you have proof of TWO? I'd like to see it.
"Cheney has one too."
Proof please.
"I don't trust a man to run the country who has twice been sanctioned for driving while drunk.
If true, (and does time since a DUI and a change in lifestyle and behavior mean anything or are we condemned as 'sinners' forever) a DUI is a misdemeanor which doesn't rise to the level of impeachment (to borrow a phrase).
"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."
I'm the son of a drunk. So what? Since you are projecting your anger based on your experience, perhaps if you had someone cheating on you with every woman he could get his hands on, you'd be as angry at lying philanderers as you profess to be at lying drunks. Besides, Bush changed his behavior. Clinton didn't, hasn't, and likely never will. My principles tell me to trust a man who 'repents' more than one who doesn't.
"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.
Do you get your talking points from the DNC? That sounds so much like "The people's business" that clinton always claimed to be doing. It's BS. And besides, I rather like when the Congress is tied up and not passing laws. When they 'work', it generally costs us both freedom and money. Let them be tied up all year for all I care.
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."
That wasn't his intention so it was hardly a gift.