RAO's All-Time Topic #2

[George M. Middius]

Scottie, quick question about politics, your favorite subject:

When the Republicans in Congress tried to impeach Clinton, was that
treasonous behavior?

[George M. Middius]

Bratzi vies with Scottie to be the spiritual successor to the Bug Eater.

> > Scottie, quick question about politics, your favorite subject:

> > When the Republicans in Congress tried to impeach Clinton, was that
> > treasonous behavior?

> It was not treasonous but it was stupid, in the way they went about it.

When you get that old-timey feeling of being fogged up and totally dim, do
you head for the toolshed like Krooger does?

"I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer..."
-- A. Krooger, Oct. 2003
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/b7b647bba0e08f2c

Keep at it, Bratzi, and one day you'll be dumb enough to lick Scottie's
ass for him.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 4, 7:33 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Nov 4, 10:12 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
>
> net> wrote:
> > Scottie, quick question about politics, your favorite subject:
>
> > When the Republicans in Congress tried to impeach Clinton, was that
> > treasonous behavior?
>
> No...it was their constitutional duty.

How would Kucinich's actions be considered different?

> As it is the psychotic Kucinich to introduce his resolution if
> he truly believes what he says.

I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to say here.

> But if he is doing this for political gain in time of war...
> that would be a different story.
>
> So we're faced with a sad choice....either he's nuts
> or he's a traitor.

Were the republicans 'nuts' when they impeached Clinton? Are you sure
that there are no other possible conclusions?

> Kucinich resolution stands a snowballs chance in hell, but what will
> be interesting will be Pelosi dancing around her campaign
> pledge and the vote should she allow it to come to the floor.

That "pledge" was not what you imply that it is. She said nothing
about cheney, now, did she. Can you ever control your rampant biases?
You're about as thoughtful as a pubescent teen when the testosterone
kicks in.

"House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has told her
caucus that the idea of impeaching President Bush isn't in the cards
if the party takes over the House in November's elections."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/13/MNG94IRGOO1.DTL

No wonder you whine about the MSM. You can't tell the difference
between fact and fantasy.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 4, 8:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> >> So we're faced with a sad choice....either he's nuts
> >> or he's a traitor.
>
> > Another possibility: he's correct.
>
> I'll bet his resolution doesn't gain majority support of the democratic
> party if Pelosi even lets it get to the floor for a vote.
>
> But if they know he's correct...aren't they violating their
> constitutional duty by voting against?

Why are we switching from your claim that "Kucinich is either a
traitor or he's nuts" to a position of "But it may not go to a vote,
and if it doesn't, then Kucinich is not correct, or there is
wrongdoing on the part of other Congressmen."

You always worry about what *might* happen.

'Discussions' by adults tend not to flit around from topic to topic
like a hummingbird in a flower garden, 2pid.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> 'Discussions' by adults tend not to flit around from topic to topic
> like a hummingbird in a flower garden, 2pid.

That's just Scottie's "motor racing" again.

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 Noi, 22:22, Bret Ludwig > wrote:


I agree Clinton and the
> current Bush absolutely deserve(d) impeachment-but not over ****ing an
> intern.

at any rate, for Clinton, it was only a blow job.
now, suppose it were a rape, would that rate?

as it was, it was about lying about it, under oath,
in a deposition in a sexual harassment civil suit filed by another
woman, Paula Jones.
Paula Jones' attorney was asking him about it.
The lie deprived Ms Jones of due process.

I think the result was fair, impeachment, then acquittal.
a political indictment, but no political conviction, pun intended.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 4, 9:44 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 4 Noi, 22:22, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> I agree Clinton and the
>
> > current Bush absolutely deserve(d) impeachment-but not over ****ing an
> > intern.
>
> at any rate, for Clinton, it was only a blow job.
> now, suppose it were a rape, would that rate?
>
> as it was, it was about lying about it, under oath,
> in a deposition in a sexual harassment civil suit filed by another
> woman, Paula Jones.
> Paula Jones' attorney was asking him about it.
> The lie deprived Ms Jones of due process.
>
> I think the result was fair, impeachment, then acquittal.
> a political indictment, but no political conviction, pun intended.

Well, if you're going to spend over 100 million dollars and spend
several years looking under rocks, you'd damned well better get
*something* out of it.

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Noi, 20:50, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:

>
> > as it was, it was about lying about it, under oath,
> > in a deposition in a sexual harassment civil suit filed by another
> > woman, Paula Jones.
> > Paula Jones' attorney was asking him about it.
> > The lie deprived Ms Jones of due process.
>
> > I think the result was fair, impeachment, then acquittal.
> > a political indictment, but no political conviction, pun intended.
>
> Well, if you're going to spend over 100 million dollars and spend
> several years looking under rocks, you'd damned well better get
> *something* out of it.

it would be worth that for the right conclusion.
of course, others would want to buy a preconceived 'result'.