RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:01:13 PM

herfacechair

Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeterJay

So Bill got a BJ. Big deal. GW has us in a war that we will never win. Saddum Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

It is not about his getting a BJ. It is about the senior law enforcement officer of the land encouraging others to break the law. Mainly, perjury and obstruction to justice.

We will win this war. In fact, we ARE winning this war. The terrorists know that. So they are doing their best to outlast the patience of the west. They are using the media as a tool. All they need now are people to work for them in the west. People that dissent the war and try to get us to stop what we are doing in Iraq are working in favor of our enemies.

Also, anybody that talks about Saddam and 9/11 misses the point about asymmetrical warfare. Saddam was part of an asymmetrical threat against the United States. All he needed was a group to deliver his completed products into our borders. Al-Qaeda and other international terror groups gave him plausible deniability.

We had to eliminate one piece of that threat to make sure that it did not materialize.

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to PeterJay)

Post #: 21

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:03:58 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I have re-read HR 525 and I did it just to insure I wasn't drunk right now. And indeed it was referred to committee, that was the vote, the house did not vote to impeach shit, as you may read it for yourselves.

I could be wrong, my faults are legion, but I found no resolution of impeachment. No vote was taken on the question.

Now unless Robert's Rules of order (either for public, congressional or judicial proceedings has also changed while I was drunk.......)

It just didn't happen in that sense

He was no more impeached than Reagan or Dubya, those ignorant and worthless fuckwads (if this is the meaning of impeachment you look for, I will certainly acceed that, and say that Clinton stands among quality peers in that regard)...

********NB:

Once again, unless there is an HR that I am unaware of, in which case I will gladly withdraw my assertions.

Sincerely,

Ron
Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to pinkee)

Post #: 22

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:04:35 PM

ToGiveDivine

Posts: 650
Status: offline

Bush got bad intelligence (add your own pun, but you know what I mean) - the same bad intel that Kerry got and the rest of the government. Even the smartest men will screw up with bad intel.

Could Bush have handled the post-war better - definitely; but he was worried if he sent too many troops he'd be attacked by the left for it - so he sent too few and got attacked by the left for it.

Had it been Kerry, and he decided to invade Iraq (bear with me - it's hypothetical yes, but not impossible) then the right would have slammed him for whatever he did.

Now, my moral is - whoever is President doesn't matter, politics are going to screw things up until we have someone get elected that doesn't give a crap about politics, their party, special interests, or their voting base. (Now, that is more impossible than my Kerry hypothesis above)

Anyway, I wasn't done bashing Clinton - what a selfish bastard. Making Monica satisfy his needs - hows come he wasn't down on his knees "thanking" her for giving him the time of day.

Poor girl, she got such a bad rep; she needs our pity, not scorn. She didn't get her satisfaction in the deal - new motto everyone "Eat Monica" - come on guys, on line up on your knees; let's give back to a girl that deserves some relief!!!!!

(in reply to herfacechair)

Post #: 23

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:07:21 PM

herfacechair

Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Bush will leave at the end of his second term. And no, he has not checkmated himself.  Both Iran and Korea would have developed their programs with or without our going into Iraq.

Now, think about this for a second.

Saddam had every intentions of doing the same thing. Even the inspection teams that we sent in confirmed this. Add to this the fact that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are walking on thin ice.

Imagine, if you will that we never went into Iraq. That they succeeded in getting sanctions lifted. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fall to radical rule. Iran develops nukes. Iraq completes its WMD program.

George Bush did the right thing. He has done nothing that warrants impeachment.

This is Hollywood fantasy or worse, Kissenger's domino theory!!!!! and look where that got the US.

There have been ample threads on this. Bush lied lied lied. Clinton got his dick sucked. I guess you think Clinton having his dick sucked is worse.

No, it is reality. The radicals have stated repeatedly that they intend to unite the world under the banner of Islam. The threats that I have mentioned are true and have been reported in the news and have been written about.

George Bush did not lie. For example, if weapons are reported in location A, someone reports said weapons in location A, launches a war after weapons were moved from location A to location B, that does not make the first report a lie.

As far as your assumption about what I thought about Clinton's BJ, please read the post I made on the subject. THAT reflects what I think about that matter.

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 24

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:12:07 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

the attorney general blew clinton? Get the fuck outta here....I gotta go into detox, I am missing some serious shiot!!!!!!

Your second paragraph reminds me of the harangues of Lyndon Johnson..........
Screaming at the top of his lungs 'We are winning the war of attrition!!!!'

I don't care what words are used to package incoherent dogma, it doesn't make the outrageous supposition any truer. Cite a quantity of facts before asserting the third paragraph, drunken people may believe the falsehood of that.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to herfacechair)

Post #: 25

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:13:27 PM

WhipTheHip

Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I never thought the impeachement of Clinton was about Monica. I thought it was about lieing to the courts.

And yes, I think that had he not resigned Nixon should have been impeached.

I liked Regan because he got the troops some equipment and money for training. Have you ever had to go out as an adult and use sticks for rifles and pine cones for grenades during Military Training? I have. really sucked. was fun only because you got to throw things at people LOL

Clinton was put on the spot during a deposition, and told a non-material, white lie. This did not rise to the level of perjury for a variety of reasons. Clinton never should have been deposed in the first place. The Supreme Court erred when it concluded such a civil trial would not distract the president from doing his duites as president. Most people who lie in depositions or even in court to protect themselves are seldom charged with any crime. The US Constition says people have the right against self-incrimination. For this reason, people are not generally prosecuted for lying. Yes, this was a civil trial, but the Monica Lewinsky case was not material because this was a case of CONSENSUAL activity and had no bearing on what's her face's allegation of NON-CONSENUAL sexual harrassment. Monica was the initiator, hence her case had zero relevance to the case being tried. The law establislished by this case is no one can sustain a civil suit if they have anything to hide, even things that have no relevance to the suit at hand. If you can't weather a tell all deposition that discloses your darkest secrets, you have to settle any lawsuit against you. It amazes me that anyone in the bdsm community would sympathize with this situation. This means you can be forced to admit you are into bdsm in any civil lawsuit brought against you, and if you lie about this immaterial fact at a depo, you can be charged with perjury. This is crazy.

_____________________________

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 26

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:14:45 PM

herfacechair

Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have re-read HR 525 and I did it just to insure I wasn't drunk right now. And indeed it was referred to committee, that was the vote, the house did not vote to impeach shit, as you may read it for yourselves.

I could be wrong, my faults are legion, but I found no resolution of impeachment. No vote was taken on the question.

Now unless Robert's Rules of order (either for public, congressional or judicial proceedings has also changed while I was drunk.......)

It just didn't happen in that sense

He was no more impeached than Reagan or Dubya, those ignorant and worthless fuckwads (if this is the meaning of impeachment you look for, I will certainly acceed that, and say that Clinton stands among quality peers in that regard)...

********NB:

Once again, unless there is an HR that I am unaware of, in which case I will gladly withdraw my assertions.

Sincerely,

Ron
Ron

No bill specifically calling for impeachment itself is needed. Impeachment describes a process:

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPEACH

quote:

Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty.

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 27

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:15:54 PM

WhipTheHip

Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

Wikipedia entry under IMPEACHMENT

IMPEACHMENT

The removal of a peach from a tree or:

This is about a step in the removal of a public official; for challenging a witness in a legal proceeding, see witness impeachment.
In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement.Impeachment occurs rarely enough for various in a country to misunderstand its nature. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict.

The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

< Message edited by WhipTheHip -- 10/6/2006 2:21:22 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to WhipTheHip)

Post #: 28

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:23:15 PM

WhipTheHip

Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

Clinton was impeached. Do a Google search for "Clinton Impeachment House Representatives Andrew Jaackson"

_____________________________

(in reply to WhipTheHip)

Post #: 29

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:23:49 PM

herfacechair

Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline

mnottertail: the attorney general blew clinton?

That is not what I said.

mnottertail: Get the fuck outta here....I gotta go into detox, I am missing some serious shiot!!!!!!

Nuff said.

mnottertail: Your second paragraph reminds me of the harangues of Lyndon Johnson.......... Screaming at the top of his lungs 'We are winning the war of attrition!!!!'

One, even the terrorists that we are fighting over there admit that we are kicking their asses in battle. Two, the Vietnamese knew that we were winning. We won every major battle in Vietnam. The last of our combat units redeployed out of Vietnam months before the fall of Saigon. Leave it to the Democrats to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

mnottertail: I don't care what words are used to package incoherent dogma, it doesn't make the outrageous supposition any truer. Cite a quantity of facts before asserting the third paragraph, drunken people may believe the falsehood of that.

I did. You failed to address the facts that I DID present. Once again -

“I gotta go into detox, I am missing some serious shiot!!!!!!” - Ron

Not a bad idea.

< Message edited by herfacechair -- 10/6/2006 2:45:31 PM >

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)

Post #: 30

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:25:49 PM

pinkee

Posts: 487
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkee

Ron, of course You are correct. Clinton was never impeached. No U.S. President has ever been impeached. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton both went through impeachment proceedings, but were acquitted.

pinkee

He was impeached. The House decides impeachment, and the senate decides whether the impeached president is innocent or guilty. The fact that he was acquitted does not change the fact that he was impeached by the house.

Second, people say that if it were not for this, Clinton would have done a better job with going after Bin Laden. Not true. He was sleeping at the wheel before this incident. Even if were true, then it would show that he was NOT a good leader in the first place and should have stepped down. A real leader would not remove his eyes from the ball because of something like this. Or would have stepped down and let someone else handle security while he faced the music.

Thank you, faceherchair. i was not clear; the presidents who faced impeachment were acquitted...but it is true that once the House has voted, they have been "impeached".

i would just add that Bill Clinton's womanising/abuse of power is known to have first occurred while he was governor, and continued unabated while he was president. However, it is true that the House voted to impeach on perjury charges, not sexual harrassment.

pinkee

< Message edited by pinkee -- 10/6/2006 2:26:41 PM >

(in reply to herfacechair)

Post #: 31

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:26:15 PM

WhipTheHip

Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

A formal accusation
Impeachment is the act of formally accusing a public official of crimes or serious misconduct. Under the Constitution, the power to impeach lies with the House of Representatives. The Senate conducts any trial that might result from an impeachment.
An official found guilty of impeachable offenses is subject to removal from office and disqualification from holding other federal posts.
Over the years, the House has issued articles of impeachment against 15 federal officials [complete list], 14 of whom went to trial in the Senate. In seven of those cases, the Senate voted to convict.
No president has ever been convicted in an impeachment trial, but two have come close.

_____________________________

(in reply to WhipTheHip)

Post #: 32

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:36:08 PM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

I vote that we ask the moderators to merge this entire thread with the, "Are Politics Becoming A Limit"" thread.

(in reply to WhipTheHip)

Post #: 33

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:38:24 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine

Had it been Kerry, and he decided to invade Iraq (bear with me - it's hypothetical yes, but not impossible) then the right would have slammed him for whatever he did.

It's doubtful Kerry would have invaded Iraq since there was no evidence of WMD and the term WMD was made up by ther Bush administration, who made up the evidence as well and who decided an invasion of Iraq would take place before 9/11.

Your premise is wrong. Bush fucked up in Iraq, Kerry wouldn't have because he wouldn't have been there!

(in reply to ToGiveDivine)

Post #: 34

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 2:56:24 PM

herfacechair

Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine

Had it been Kerry, and he decided to invade Iraq (bear with me - it's hypothetical yes, but not impossible) then the right would have slammed him for whatever he did.

It's doubtful Kerry would have invaded Iraq since there was no evidence of WMD and the term WMD was made up by ther Bush administration, who made up the evidence as well and who decided an invasion of Iraq would take place before 9/11.

Your premise is wrong. Bush fucked up in Iraq, Kerry wouldn't have because he wouldn't have been there!

Before you saw my first post, you had no evidence of my existence. Does it follow that I did not exist prior to my first post? In the military, there are emergency evacuation and destruction procedures for our sensitive weapons. This is military common sense. Not unique to the United States or the rest of the West.

Saddam had since the fall of 2002 to move his WMD. That is an ETERNITY when it comes to emergency evacuation procedures.

According to Saddam's former general, Retired General Georges Sada, WMD was moved out of Iraq. This fact was backed by Kuwaiti and Israeli news reports.

Even the last head inspector that we sent to Iraq refused to rule out the possibility that they were moved out of Iraq. The inspectors only inspected a small percent of Iraq. Applying the results of that limited search to the entire country is simply irresponsible.

Seeing no evidence of a weapon does not mean that said weapon does not exist. In fact, Sarin and Mustard gas WERE discovered in Iraq post invasion. Both are WMD.

Bush did not fuck up with Iraq. Failing to go into Iraq would have been a major fuck up.

< Message edited by herfacechair -- 10/6/2006 2:59:24 PM >

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 35

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 3:05:21 PM

ToGiveDivine

Posts: 650
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine

Had it been Kerry, and he decided to invade Iraq (bear with me - it's hypothetical yes, but not impossible) then the right would have slammed him for whatever he did.

Then what was Kerry grandstanding on the Senate Floor about Saddam having WMD and what a danger he was.

Sorry, Kerry's a politician and therefore, a schmuck - maybe a better schmuck than Bush, but he would have made dumb mistakes on something else - because he's a politician
It's doubtful Kerry would have invaded Iraq since there was no evidence of WMD and the term WMD was made up by ther Bush administration, who made up the evidence as well and who decided an invasion of Iraq would take place before 9/11.

Your premise is wrong. Bush fucked up in Iraq, Kerry wouldn't have because he wouldn't have been there!

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 36

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 3:09:47 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

As a non-American, Nixon was the best President on foreign affairs since since the war.

Hello A/all,

I agree with this completely. He also betrayed the Republican party to get reelected. Through it all he was an anti-social pit bull, possibly paranoid, and did almost everything in life in order to consolidate his own personal power.

But he ended a stupid fiasco of a war. He reopened relations with China. He built friendships with other countries that we did not have relations with before. He oversaw a relatively good expansion of the US economy. He normalized to some degree our relations with the Soviet Union.

Nixon was one of the greatest American presidents of the 20th century, despite the fact that he had so many social flaws it boggles my imagination that anybody would ever elect him in the first place.

Reagan was the 1980s predecessor to what the Simian In Chief (who worships Reagan's policies) is. There is an interesting book, although I may have the title wrong (The Clothes Have No Emperor), which details Reagan's personality traits. When a video of him speaking was shown to people afflicted by Aphasia (might have the name wrong again, it is the inability to understand verbal messaages; only capable of understanding non-verbal queues) they howled with laughter at the great fraud on the screen. It was when his honeyed words dripped from his pie hole, that everybody thought he was a great leader.

I do have to give him some credit, his extreme efforts to expand the United States military may have shortened the Cold War by a week to ten days.

Just me, could be wrong, but there ya go.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 37

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 3:12:58 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Saddam had since the fall of 2002 to move his WMD. That is an ETERNITY when it comes to emergency evacuation procedures.

Where exactly did he move them to? Rented a storage unit outside of Houston?

Considering we had fly-overs and satellite surveillance over Iraq going back to before Desert Storm, I find it amazing that he was able to so handily get rid of them all.

Not to mention, UN Peacekeepers were there to make sure he destroyed them all.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to herfacechair)

Post #: 38

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 3:24:20 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

The highest law enforcement officer in the land would be the attorney general.

secondly it is cute to quote from the .net site but let us go to the constitution itself. That is the document under which we operate. If by the logic of the rather informal .net site then we would have to say that Andrew JOHNSON was impeached as well as Richard Nixon, at that point you could include Clinton, but not in any real legal or liable sense.

Your answerto the war of attrition is supposition, April 30, 1969 543,400 troops in Vietnam highest levels of the war. May 10th thru 20th was Hamburger Hill. As you say, nuff said.

The terrorists admit we are kicking their asses? Was that on Rush Limbaugh or what, I guess I missed both the Rumsfelt and Bush quotes. I can go on and on, the Tet offensive by example.............but you have yet to provide a cite or fact, only dogmatic diatribe. Leaving it to the democrats to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory is probably why the subsequent cambodian campaigns and withdrawls is why the Democratic dupes Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger comedic duo went to the peace table and ended the deal.

I have seen no facts you have presented and have addressed the void in the only way possible.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to herfacechair)

Post #: 39

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 - 10/6/2006 3:39:24 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

It is not about his getting a BJ. It is about the senior law enforcement officer of the land encouraging others to break the law. Mainly, perjury and obstruction to justice.

So what you are saying is that Monkeyboy is perfectly in his rights to break the law repeatedly as long as he doesnt encourage other people to?

He issues signing statements which indicate he is not bound to follow laws passed in Congress on things like torture, detainment, etc.

Snooping on private phone conversations is simply one law that he authorized to
be broken. Wait, authorizing the NSA and DHS to snoop on private phone conversations is technically encouraging other people to break the law!

So by your own arguments, the Simian In Chief both broke the law AND encouraged other people to do so.

The motto I try to live up to on message boards is "Think twice, post once."

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to herfacechair)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094