Gingrich acknowledges affair during Clinton impeachment

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » March 9, 2007 3:19 pm

The problem with term limits (and I'm in favor of them) is too many people think their senator, representative, whatever is doing a good job and the other guy is the one causing all the problems.

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » March 9, 2007 3:19 pm

Wino you know wrote:
buffettbride wrote:What does that have to do with anything?

IT'S ABSOLUTELY AMAZING HOW MANY POLITICIANS CAN'T KEEP THEIR JOHNSON IN THEIR PANTS.

Well they can't. If they'd just stay zipped up when their s'posed to.

I still don't know what that has to do with you. Is your junk not in your pants Garry?

Nole Pirate · Post by **Nole Pirate** » March 9, 2007 3:22 pm

Term Limits? I thought we voted every two years for a House member and 6 for a senator? Throw them out on there but if you don't like it. Institutional knowledge means nothing.

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 9, 2007 3:25 pm

buffettbride wrote:I still don't know what that has to do with you. Is your junk not in your pants Garry?

Never mind.
Have a nice day.

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 9, 2007 3:27 pm

Nole Pirate wrote:Term Limits? I thought we voted every two years for a House member and 6 for a senator? Throw them out on there but if you don't like it. Institutional knowledge means nothing.

I don't like Teddy-the-red-nosed-Senator, but, thanks to 1.4 million idiots in Massachusetts, HE STAYS!

a1aara · Post by **a1aara** » March 9, 2007 3:28 pm

The Religous Right motto-Do As I Say..Not As I Do.

Nole Pirate · Post by **Nole Pirate** » March 9, 2007 3:34 pm

a1aara wrote:The Religous Right motto-Do As I Say..Not As I Do.

I am assuming that you don't like generalizations do you? Oh never mind we all throw them around, just many take offense when one is thrown there way.

BTW I am not offended but then again I am not part of the religous right. I just find it funny that most hate generalizations but they throw them around all the time themselves.

moeron · Post by **moeron** » March 9, 2007 3:45 pm

Hypocrites for Gingrich. Hey!!! That has a ring to it. Screw me? Screw You. That's a good slogan.

SchoolGirlHeart · Post by **SchoolGirlHeart** » March 9, 2007 3:51 pm

LIPH wrote:The problem with term limits (and I'm in favor of them) is too many people think their senator, representative, whatever is doing a good job and the other guy is the one causing all the problems.

which is why Teddy (among others) keeps getting reelected.

if they knew they had to return home and live under their own laws, maybe they'd be a tad more humble.....

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » March 9, 2007 3:55 pm

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
LIPH wrote:The problem with term limits (and I'm in favor of them) is too many people think their senator, representative, whatever is doing a good job and the other guy is the one causing all the problems.
which is why Teddy (among others) keeps getting reelected.

if they knew they had to return home and live under their own laws, maybe they'd be a tad more humble.....

Kennedy's are also not known for keeping their winkies in their britches.

SchoolGirlHeart · Post by **SchoolGirlHeart** » March 9, 2007 4:00 pm

Wino you know wrote:
Nole Pirate wrote:Term Limits? I thought we voted every two years for a House member and 6 for a senator? Throw them out on there but if you don't like it. Institutional knowledge means nothing.
I don't like Teddy-the-red-nosed-Senator, but, thanks to 1.4 million idiots in Massachusetts, HE STAYS!

hey, now...... I have lots of friends and relatives in MA that I don't consider idiots....

trouble is, Teddy is a powerful guy, so they keep electing him because he keeps doing pretty good things for the state.... a new guy wouldn't have nearly the power..... which is one reason for term limits.... force em to go HOME........

Caribbean Soul Man · Post by **Caribbean Soul Man** » March 9, 2007 4:05 pm

moeron wrote:Screw me? Screw You. That's a good slogan.

already been used...
They'd get Newt for plagiarism

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 9, 2007 4:05 pm

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:trouble is, Teddy is a powerful guy, so they keep electing him because he keeps doing pretty good things for the state.... a new guy wouldn't have nearly the power..... which is one reason for term limits.... force em to go HOME........

A classic example of people depending on the government to take care of them.

Sadly, Teddy Boy and many others like him ARE home.
Washington, D.C. is THEIR home.
Yes, term limits are BADLY needed, and force these clowns to go to A home. (Somewhere else).

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 9, 2007 4:08 pm

Caribbean Soul Man wrote:
moeron wrote:Screw me? Screw You. That's a good slogan.

already been used...
They'd get Newt for plagiarism

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » March 9, 2007 4:13 pm

Wino you know wrote:Mr. Bill was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH- not for getting a "Lewinsky" from Ms. Lewinsky. I don't give a damn if he's screwing Little Orphan Annie, but I do give a damn if the President of the United States commits perjury.

You might note that Clinton was not convicted by a Republican-majority Senate. Accused of perjury, not convicted.

I would then suggest that you review the current President's State Of The Union address to ALL of US in January, 2003, and contrast his remarks of fear-mongering, of us living with the "threat of a mushroom cloud"... contrast THAT to the GUILTY verdict that Scooter Libby (read: fall guy) perjured himself in a case (cover-up) of trying to silence a key detractor, who believed there was NO evidence of WMD in Iraq.

Libby, someone who was complicit to the fervent efoort to SILENCE a viewpoint by someone who did not believe there was a case for this invasion of Iraq.

A bogus case for war, detractors be damned ..vs... an extra-marital affair.

Please tell me which one, you feel, is more significant...

Crazy Navy Flyer · Post by **Crazy Navy Flyer** » March 9, 2007 4:36 pm

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

Caribbean Soul Man · Post by **Caribbean Soul Man** » March 9, 2007 4:37 pm

Lightning Bolt wrote:
Wino you know wrote:Mr. Bill was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH- not for getting a "Lewinsky" from Ms. Lewinsky. I don't give a damn if he's screwing Little Orphan Annie, but I do give a damn if the President of the United States commits perjury.
You might note that Clinton was not convicted by a Republican-majority Senate. Accused of perjury, not convicted.

I would then suggest that you review the current President's State Of The Union address to ALL of US in January, 2003, and contrast his remarks of fear-mongering, of us living with the "threat of a mushroom cloud"... contrast THAT to the GUILTY verdict that Scooter Libby (read: fall guy) perjured himself in a case (cover-up) of trying to silence a key detractor, who believed there was NO evidence of WMD in Iraq.

Libby, someone who was complicit to the fervent efoort to SILENCE a viewpoint by someone who did not believe there was a case for this invasion of Iraq.

A bogus case for war, detractors be damned ..vs... an extra-marital affair.
Please tell me which one, you feel, is more significant...

just a couple of observations here - not to get in a pi$$ing match over but important enough to point out...

Clinton didn't get himself in all that trouble over an affair, he had plenty of those and wasn't to concerned about hiding it during his days as Gov.

The point most people choose to ignore is that the reason he was "under oath" in the first place was because he had been accused of a crime and when the alledged victim (Paula Jones) finally had her day in court to seek justice (and the law is supposed to apply to all of us no matter who we are or what our job may be - the very foundation of our judicial system), Mr Clinton in all his high-minded integrity chose to deny Ms. Jones any opportunity of justice by lying under oath in sworn grand jury testimony. He chose to save his own butt, thereby making a mockery of the justice system. If we are to pretend we have a system of justice based on the rule of law, this act could not go unnoticed or unaddressed. But to say "it was just a lie about an affair" is really an insult to all of us who depend on that very same system for justice if we are done wrong by somebody - no matter who they are.

I don't have the text of President Bush's state of the union in front of me but as I recall, he said something along the lines that we had reason to believe the Iraqi's were trying to buy yellow cake uranium from the country of Niger. This is actually supported in the full report from Amb. Wilson. He concluded that while there was evidence the Iraqi's had tried to purchase uranium, that he had found no evidence that they were successful. This would seem to bolster the argument, not refute it.

Once again, it was the best intel available at the time. Hillary saw ALL the intel when Bill was still in office. That's why she voted to go to war as well. They all saw it and all believed it. Either that or she was part of that same vast right-wing conspiracy

East Texas Parrothead · Post by **East Texas Parrothead** » March 9, 2007 4:38 pm

We ran this in today's paper.

Crazy Navy Flyer · Post by **Crazy Navy Flyer** » March 9, 2007 4:38 pm

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Crazy Navy Flyer · Post by **Crazy Navy Flyer** » March 9, 2007 4:40 pm

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002