Bill Clinton is still recovering from heart surgery and may not be up to full strength yet. Not sure what his father brings to the table. Of all the former president's Jimmy Carter would be the most logical. This may be payback for past actions by the ex-President.
I still have to wonder why its a problem with the ISP. Why aren't the sites that are doing this sued.
I note you've not commented at all in my prior posts on this subject matter, where you might find I'm not that far from solutions you may --- shudder --- even agree with. Try reading and commenting there. Fair enough, tell me the names of the threads or post a link and I'll take a look see.</font
You say that this is vomited on you. Okay maybe it is. But you never refuted it. If we are part of a international community and under an obligation to help out in disasters, then *where* was the help from the other side when *we* (US) had disaster (hurricane)? Did anyone even offer to help? Nope!!!! Po
You missed the point! Yes Starr put him on the stand. But did he tell him to lie? I think not. Ball's in "Slick Willie's" court. After nearly three years of legal pressure put on by Starr. Clinton should have never been on the stand because unless you're on Ken Starr's sh!t list then you don't go befor
You claimed, in a post I read before, not to be a liberal, only "a Democrat". Liberalism is in these days is only a label to be used by Republicans to show their opponent is out of the mainstream. It has absolutely no political relevence anymore.
Another interesting post by terpfan1980 and drmiler, who simply blow the topic off with drivel and no substance. You just label liberal and leave.
This is pure BS! Clinton did himself in! Kenneth Starr may have started it, but did they ever get *anything* else on "Slick Willie"? Nope! Only lying under oath. So hence the statement he did himself in. I don't care how you slice this up or spin it. It still comes down to what I said. I could give a rat's butt if he had oral sex
When did the Repbulican Convention have "hate speech". Wasn't it the Democratic Convention who had to tell it's attendees not to to turn it into a Bush hate fest? There's revisionist history if I have ever seen it. The Democrats were criticized ahead of time by Republicans who said it would be filled w
Your right, you do have the right to object. Just like we have the right to ignore your ojections. You seem to forget something. Foreign policy is in place because *we* want to deal with you. If it ever comes to the point where we no longer wish to deal with you or becomes more trouble than it's worth, then the policy goes by the
I have no idea what this has to do with compassion. They are not trying to challenge the vote or get it overturned in any way. The are simply trying to make sure that future elections in this country. We have an election in Ohio that would not have been overturned but has been filled with questions. We have two consecutive votes in Florida that have been questioned, one of which decided the whole election of 2000, and we have screwy results in Wash
Josh, you should have yours
How about getting a blow job from an intern under the desk in the oval ofic, then lying to the entire world about it? I'd say that kind of tarnished the reputation of the Office a little. As I stated earlier, the disrespect began well before Kenneth Starr got a hard on to find whatever he could.</font
come on whoman whats this got to do with "respecting the office"? so we only have to respect the office when a Republican is in power?
Lack of respect for the office began Jan 21, 1993. Republicans are getting the barbs thrown back that were aimed at President Clinton well before Whitewater and zippergate even hit. The Republicans complain about Clintons plurality against a strong 3rd party opponent. Their candidate only received 37% of the vote in 1992. If you want to argue that 53% of Americans voted against the President, note that 63% of the public voted against their
What I have problem with is that Bush through a hissy fit because the media spiked the "stingy" statement as being specifically levelled at the US when it was not. So he got in his "I'll show you" mode and we are sending $350 million, which will be a fraction of the total price for the logistics to get it all there. 12000 troops, cargo planes are not going to be cheap. Its an overreaction to a perceived sl
Excuse my ignorance, but is boyscouts and girl guides limited to Christians only ? A legitimate question No, my Cub pack had a Jewish scout. In the cub scouts the only religious qualifications was a chapter in which the scout was asked to go to church, synagogue or temple at least once.</fo
This is a pure crock of dung. If what you say is true then *why* did they reinstate the rule from 2 months ago about any leader accused of a crime must step aside. Your theory holds about as much water as a sieve. Which is to say *none*. They pulled it because the ca ca was hitting the fan. The ru
And they say liberals don't like to spend other peoples money. And the thin skinned conservative reaction not being called stingy is to go overboard and now spend billions by sending our military instead of pooling with the UN and other countries. Where's the fiscal conservatives now?
You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. In very poor taste.
I'd say gay marriage. Why? Because both red and blue states have said NO! to gay marriage. that would be true, but do the red states want the compromise to allow civil unions with equal strength in law?
I asked how we could find common ground and all you can tell me is that one side is wrong. I brought up the SSN point but made no comments about President Bush's program, only that if there is to be a privatization, we would need to ensure the funds already invested. So I ask again, is there no common ground?
The surprising thing is you reported this a month after it was news, and on the same day that they pulled it off the table! Why did they pull it off the table? Because it was a nightmare of hypocricy for them. They insisted the original rules be instituted to punish Democrats when Repubs were in the m
Social security needs to be fixed without causing those who have paid into the system without losing what they have put in. Congress and the government have robbed from the system long enough. There needs to be a guarentee that if the system is replaced that the money will still be there that has already been invested. Its clear that investment in the private sector will bring about more money, but if it means throwing that money out of the door it
the reason for separation of church in state is that in order to have a true freedom of religion, there cannot be an official religion of the state. Additionally, to have our government involved in projects that favors one religion over another tells those left out they are not wanted or they are different. It sets them up for ridicule for being different.