Hamlette
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:32 PM
Original message |
they impeached Clinton for lying, not the sex, how about Bush's lies? |
|
We didn't know the levee would fail, there are WMD in Iraq...I think we should be pushing this angle. I mentioned it to the Rush fan at work today, "if you thought Clinton should be impeached for lying, why don't you think Bush should be...and mentioned the levee comment."
She went ballistic. Tons of irrational mumbling, talking herself into circles. She kept saying "the mayor this and the governor that" and I just kept repeating "I'm talking about bush. We can talk about those people on another day. Today we're talking about Bush." She finally walked away. She had no good answer. I'm gonna keep asing "them".
Try it, it was sort of fun.
|
NYCGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:33 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Yes, but the difference (other than the stupidity of impeaching someone |
|
for sex) is that Clinton didn't tell the truth UNDER OATH.
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. of course, the REAL difference is that clinton's a democrat |
|
exact same scenario but with clinton being a republican and they'd have given him the congressional medal of honor.
|
Hamlette
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. then you say: "so its okay for the prez to lie to the whole world as long |
|
he is not under oath? Or does it have to do with the fact that he is a republican and Clinton is a Democrat?" Bugs 'em. I'm into full pissed off mode and taking on the few repugs in my office. F 'em. It's fun and they deserve it.
|
NYCGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. No, I didn't say that. But unless we can get Bush under oath, it's going |
|
to be a hard sell to try and impeach for lying.
|
Hamlette
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. I didn't mean that YOU said it, and I'm not talking impeachment |
|
I'm talking beating them over the head with their hypocracy. Keep bringing it up, make them face it.
We're not going to impeach him unless we take the house and the senate in 2006. We need to hold up a mirror to all republicans and call them out.
|
aresef
(270 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:34 PM
Response to Original message |
2. He doesn't have to care about the laws, he's a Republican! |
HysteryDiagnosis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:36 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Bush's lies create revenue for GOP donors.... therefore they don't |
|
register. Sorry, but that is the way it is.
|
nookiemonster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:38 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Deflecting blame and protecting "their" leader allows them to avoid scrutiny too.
Or, so they think.
:evilgrin:
|
justiceischeap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 08:40 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Well the same problem applies now as did then |
|
The Congress is stacked, that is what pushed the process through for Clinton and what will keep it from happening to Shrub.
|
abluelady
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-09-05 09:20 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I do when I can. Fortunately, I am able to stay away from those types of people. But truth be told, they don't know anything. They just voted for Bush and like him they can't admit they make mistakes.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |