Dem corruption starts now.

I couldn't agree more with you Asherman. I once had to go to bat for Nancy Pelosi, if you can imagine a such a distasteful task. But a freezer full of cash isn't the Sunday poker game brand of corruption.

Beware of these sainted folks who suddenly get religion. Care to review the facts, Dr Mengele and "suddenly fair and balanced" Asherman?

Notice how Bill, the paragon of sainthood as long as it's his "special interests" so he can blow his own horn, has, in two postings, managed to zero in on Democratic misdeeds when there are copious examples of Republican problems that he could have highlighted.

You two could easily replace Sean Hannity and not miss a beat.

I highlight those regularly as well, ya dope. Click on my pic, read some of my posts if you're capable and learn that I'm independent, and my views only tend towards the right on certain subjects and mimic noone's. Meanwhile, give me stem cell research, address global climate change, support women's rights with a vengeance, pro-choice, civil unions, eco-friendly, Pro-immigrant, pro-free trade, anti-prohibition, have NO religion, would genuinely like to replace the entire House of Representatives with an internet platform to the people, the IRS with a national sales tax that's, gasp, progressive, just happen to believe humans in other countries are human too and don't deserve to be **** for the crime of being born on the wrong side of some arbitrary line in the sand, and wouldn't be mind if you'd learn WTF you are talking about or STFU or at least grow-TFU. You've been around here long enough you should know this if you absorbed anything but fringe-left-wing-trash designed by idiots to entertain idiots. You may also notice I hold their fringe-right-wing counter-parts in = distain and have a tendency to treat rightwing nuts with the same disdain you earn. Now go learn something from a legitimate source so you can become more than a petty annoyance.
(For good's sake, look at what you quoted)
(You'll notice I don't yet have Asherman's quiet class to ignore ignoble fools as he does)
(should probably work on that )

I believe the Democrats made a conscious decision to go after the Republicans with what they viewed as their own medicine. They knew their politicians had problems, such as the Clintons, but somehow they had no shame, no guilt, and their attitude was that everybody does it, and they could find crooks in the Republican Party to point to. They therefore circled the wagons and defended one of the most corrupt administrations ever, and then set about to have their revenge for enduring 8 years of the Clintons. They were successful, at least marginally enough to gain back their power. We heard nothing but the Republican Party was a culture of corruption ever since Bush took office. Yet, there seems to be little interest in corruption now in their own party. Its as if corruption is no longer an issue. It was not an issue when Clinton was there and it is not an issue now. It will only be used when the Democrats fire up their guns again in the presidential race, and they will try to play the same game if they need to.



I hope you are correct, Asherman, but I am not so sure. I do agree that individual character is of utmost importance. As I warned you before, however, you will hear more about what I referred to as "public morality" vs "private morality." Movie stars have this mindset as well. They can lie, cheat, and steal, whatever, but as long as they contribute tons of money to a charity, then their conscience is clear. Politicians can tax us to the hilt, and give it to the poor, and they are moral, and they figure anything they do privately is none of our business. The end justifies the means. This is very dangerous, in my opinion.

There used to be some conscience concerning moral issues, but not so much anymore. It used to be at least an issue that we had common ground with, but it is becoming more difficult to share that common ground, which helped hold our country together. Some things need to be more important than party, and I would think a sense of right and wrong should be one of those. Many politicians simply have no shame and continue to dare you to try throw them out. Example, William Jefferson, and apparently his own party is going to facilitate him in doing that. Just as they did with Bill Clinton.

Pretty strong language, Bill for a NO religion kinda guy - "For good's sake". I'll bet Foxy's done fainted away.

But I can understand your distress. I quoted you.

Let me see if I can identify all of the errors you've made:

(1) The fact that 228 congressmen and assorted other experts held the opinion that Clinton committed perjury in his grand jury testimony only adds to the list a whole lot of people who might have been wrong. A fact is no less true because it is believed by a single person, and a falsehood is no less false because it is believed by a multitude.

(2) You place a great deal of reliance on the fact that 228 congressmen voted for the first article of impeachment, yet you somehow ignore the fact that 206 congressmen voted against that article. If the 228 are experts on lawmaking, then the 206 are as well (I would imagine that there were as many non-congressional experts opposed to impeachment as there were in favor, so that's a wash). So the operative number is not 228 (the number of votes in the majority), but rather 22 (the difference between the experts in the majority and the experts in the minority). That is certainly a far less formidable number, so I'm not surprised you failed to note it.

(3) As I mentioned before, the articles of impeachment were the equivalent of a bill of indictment. The "experts" in the Senate, who acted as the judges in this case, were much less impressed by the argument that prevailed by a mere 22 votes in the House. Only 45 senators voted to convict on the first article of impeachment -- not even a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds majority needed to convict. But I suppose you don't consider the 55 senators who voted against conviction as being "expert" enough to mention.

(4) Your citations to various online legal resources are of little use if you can't understand them, and you have amply demonstrated that you don't.

(5) It is truly ironic that you would proclaim that the members of the House of Representatives are experts in the law, and follow that up immediately with a post that criticizes one of those members of the House. But you can't have it both ways: either the members of the House are fine, upstanding citizens who are experts on the law, or else they're people like William Jefferson (or Bob Ney or Duke Cunningham, criminals who voted in favor of impeachment). Which is it?

This from the person who first brought up Clinton's name in this thread. What a hypocrite.

What the hell are you doing up so late Joe? I think you've made it clear that there is no resource that I can find online that will satisfy you that you are mistaken, no matter how many I bring to bear. I'll continue to believe the only reason Clinton wasn't convicted is because the punishment didn't fit the crime in the eyes of the judges, though he was guilty, just the same. Been fun, and thanks again for the ongoing Logic lessons.

Joe,

I mentioned President Clinton only to make the point that a politician's private life should not be casually made a part of a political battle. The Democrats believed, and still do, that the whole affair revolved around the President's sexual conduct. Republicans believed, and still do, that if the President had not committed perjury the whole scandal would have been a tempest in a teapot. Politicians, even Presidents, are human and from time to time do things they know that they shouldn't. When such behavior is not illegal or misfeasance of office, it should be viewed more with compassion than constant condemnation.

In the course of performing their duties and responsibilities, secrecy and dissimulation are frequently necessary to effective leadership. That sometimes entails the use of spin and even outright lies. This aspect of political leadership is accepted and practiced by the entire diplomatic community around the world as every nation jockeys to serve its own best interests. To think otherwise can lead to great difficulties. The world was quick to believe Saddam had terror weapons because he had used them in the past, and he fostered that illusion even after the weapons had shrunk to minimal levels. Looky where that got him ... and us. President Carter, a man whose integrity I greatly admire, made truth his guiding star and thereby failed to achieve most of his foriegn policy objectives; he was "run" by the bad guys. More sophisticated and realistic Presidents were less transparent and much more effective in serving the interests of the United States. We don't elect politicians to do our bidding, but to use their best judgment, management and leadership skills to serve the whole nation's best interests. We might disagree with the public policy stance of our leadership, but unless they violate their oath of office, commit felonies while in office, or use their positions to undermine our system of government, we should be patient until a new representative can be elected. We should assume the fundamental dedication to the Constitution and the Country until there is proof of malfeasance, and hold loyalty to our country above the propaganda spread by our enemies.

I believe that my views are consistent, and applied pretty evenly across the political spectrum. However, I'm a conservative Republican and hold strong Federalist points of view. I believe that Jeffersonian notions tend to be counter-productive to the effective governance of the country. I believe that the People of the United States still fundamentally benevolent capitalists, with a recently acquired taste for limited socialism. I believe that in large measure the Democratic Party has been captured by radicals who are more loyal to the idea of a one world socialist utopia, than to the traditional values of our country. It is the difference between the two political philosophies that drove me from the Democratic Party, and that has convinced me that the nation's best interest lies with the GOP. Show me otherwise, and who knows.

The United States has changed a whole lot since the Great Depression and WWII. Technology and the ways in which modern warfare is waged has provided tremendous strains on our system that have had to be adjusted to meet the challenges. Old evils have been addressed, but will probably remain to haunt us for generations to come. The end of Jim Crow and the modern acceptance of women is a good thing. Legal constraints that mitigate the often destructive behavior of business has benefited the whole people. Interlocking world communications, travel and trade contain promise, but also complicate effective government and economies. The People of the U.S. have enjoyed relative peace and an enviable prosperity for over fifty years. We have become addicted to pleasures, unwilling to to take risks, and impatient for the neat solution of problems that can't be simply and happily resolved in an hour. We've become drunken with political correctness and idealism that is far removed from the reality of human existence. We crave stability in a world where that is unlikely to occur. Many of us, mostly older people I suspect, miss the certainties of our childhood. Oh how nice it was when our enemies were so obliging as to wear black hats and have "evil" tattooed on their foreheads. We miss the small communities we grew up in where everyone knew everyone else, and where crime and troubles happened elsewhere. We played risky childhood games, outdoors from dawn to dusk without adult supervision. To fall and break an arm ended at the hospital and not in the courtroom. Truman could cuss out a reporter for having the temerity to criticize the Presidential daughters musical abilities. Eisenhower was dull, but predictable. JFK called upon our better natures to reform the world, and spread American Democracy and values around the world. The world shifted and changed almost before we were aware of it, and many Americans remember those more innocent times fondly.

Asherman, any president that respects this country and its citizens is not going to cavort with interns in the oval office, while serious work needs to be done. Most of us would grant more leniency if he had just had the decency to have a discreet fling with a woman more his age in a hotel. That was only the tip of the iceberg, but that should have been enough to kick the lout onto Pennsylvania Ave. and lock the gate behind him. And when you live in the people's house, sorry, you need to be a little better than somebody residing in the fleabag motel down the street.

cutting brush in the Oval office or cutting brush in Crawford when there's important work to be done is inexcusable and yet you defend bush.

grow up.

and guess what else? bush heads to Crawford to cut brush for weeks at a time.... at least a blow job only lasts ten minutes. That's a cigarette break.

Nancy Pelosi's "most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history" continues by trying to appoint William Jefferson to the Homeland Security panel, after she decided he was too crooked to be on the Tax Committee. I guess she figures if somebody bribes him with money he can hide in his freezer, if he is only looking after Homeland Security, that would not amount to a hill of beans. Now taxes, that would be something different, because that would be meddling with something truly important, HER money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601672.html

By the way, where is the indictment for this guy?