posted on December 21, 2000 01:47:31 PM new
It's not just GW - it's the whole GOP. Six years ago the New Republicans took over. We as a nation looked on in horror as at first the extremist fundamentalist agenda tried to overturn our laws to suit themselves. Then for six long years, the GOP did nothing but dirty shenanigans.
First, the New Republicans decided that the only legislation that they would allow to go through their fingers was Special Interest legislation. Period. So any bills and meaningful legislation brought up by a Democrat -- no matter how badly it was needed for this country, the New Republicans simply blocked it, delayed it, or killed it in committee. Whenever a much-needed Consumer-Protection bill would come before congress, the New Republicans made sure that the bill was killed. Then they turned around and came out with a mock bill that was so watered down and so weak that it was a joke and unenforceable. They did that just so they could take credit for being "Pro-Consumer".
As if we weren't aware of it! As if voters were not watching and reading about what they were doing!
We gave them the benefit of the doubt on investigating Clinton. Year after year it dragged on and its sole purpose was to rake mud over the President's name. No facts, no truth, but lots of innuendo and outright lies and even worse whispers.
We the voters made a point to show these New Republicans just how much that we did not appreciate their antics by re-electing Clinton in an overwhelming majority. So the New republicans simply tried heaping more mud on the President and we supported our President so wrongly accused by bolstering his approval polls. And in six years, the ONLY educational legislation that the New Republicans came up with themselves was a bill that would have made it mandatory that a sticker be placed in all public school textbooks that read, "Evolution is only a Theory".
We saw that and we noticed how much the New republicans only cared for their Special Interests and not a damn for any other person in the country.
Notable Quotes:
"Charity? Are there no Work Houses? Are there no Prisons?
-Scrooge, from A Christmas Carole by Charles Dickens
"Charity? Are there no Work Houses? Are there no Prisons?
-Newt Gingrich and the New Republican Party Platform
We, as a nation, were appalled again and again as voters were simply ignored by the GOP. The old republican party made its differences with the democrats clear in the past, but they did try to work together for the common good. Not so with this New Republican congress! Not only did they shoot down any legislation that came from the Democratic party that was pro-consumer, they even shot down the ones that came from within their own party! Their message was clear: Voters: Go To Hell!
Then, when they went to Impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob, Americans were so outraged that these New Republicans not only did every conceivable nasty, unethical, highly immoral thing to make Clinton look bad, but they also used our Constitution disrespectfully as a mere political tool to hurt the President. This not only outraged Clinton supporters, but also many Conservatives as well! And the polls showed it too.
Well, enough is enough. We finally sent these New Republicans a message loud and clear by tossing them out of office and loosing seats when they should by all rights have picked up some more. It was at this point that the New republicans became aware of a bigger threat to their grip on power in this country than the Democrats -- it was the American Voters themselves!
Yes, We the People, the Voters had stood up to them and won. Now we are the Enemy, because we have the legal authority to throw them out of power if we so choose collectively! And that was when these New Republicans decided to declare war on us and do whatever it took to stay in a majority and in power. Most Americans will agree that if someone impartial could go look at every ballot cast in every election in every state this last election cycle, what would be found is massive ballot box stuffing by the GOP, every conceivable illegal voting act committed to get their candidates elected. Because as sure the sun sets each day, by rights every one of those New Republicans up for election would have been voted out, let alone vote GW IN!
Bottom Line: Voters were circumvented and their one chance to bring unity and harmony to this country was Usurped by the GOP and the New Republicans. And those who blindly support them are looked upon with such disdain that they often cry about it in these forums . . . wondering just why everyone is so down on them and their party.
posted on December 21, 2000 03:37:52 PM new
Borillar, I get it. You really don't mean anything you just wrote. You just want to see if you can get an award for what could become the Round Table's longest thread. Like this wasn't on purpose!
posted on December 21, 2000 06:06:02 PM new
Who's angry at GW?
And for the last time, the impeachment was NOT about sex. It was about perjury and obstruction of justice. What part of this do the liberals have a hard time accepting?
posted on December 21, 2000 06:18:12 PM new
yes
The impeachment was not about sex.
but
It was not about perjury.
It was not about obstruction of justice.
posted on December 21, 2000 08:06:16 PM newbnjrazd said, " What part of this do the liberals have a hard time accepting?"
I'll tell you . Liberals are brought up with a sense of respect for one another and a sense of decency. To ask the President of the United States of America about his sex life was wrong - flat out. It had nothing to do with running this country. Asking Clinton about his sex life was a nosey, busy-body question at least and a unethical political ploy at worst. Maybe not the worst thing. The question should never have been asked in the first place.
Did Clinton lie? The answer is legally NO! Did he split hairs in a nasty way? Yes, he did. But what can you expect from a Witch-hunting GOP who would do anything, ruin any innocent lives in order to accomplish their goal of raking mud on Clinton?
That the government did it at the behest of a reactionary ultra-conservative GOP should have shocked every citizen of America. Apparently it did not -- you are proof of that, bnjrazd. It should have shocked you that anyone in America could been asked such a question. Since they got away with unlawfully hounding the President for 6+ years, now they can do the same to anyone in any legal investigation anywhere in America at any time and under any irrelevant circumstances.
I spent half my youth outside of the USA which gives me a unique view and it makes me sick to see how spoiled and stupid many Americans are in allowing the GOP to set such a legal precedence. That you actually condone the taking away one of our precious liberties that was fought so hard for and so much blood spilled over just so that you can enjoy that freedom, and now it is GONE! You conservatives deserve to live in a society without any liberties whatsoever!
" . . . the impeachment was NOT about sex.
That's right. It was about how far the American people were willing to go to allow one political party to desecrate our US Constitution.
posted on December 22, 2000 01:13:28 AM new
Political extremists of the opposing party disagreed with the President's views. Those extremists first decided to impeach the President, and then set about to find some basis to do it. They investigated and investigated and investigated, and came up short. Finally, they engineered a trap. The President fell into it, and he was impeached.
That's the story of Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and the story of Bill Clinton's as well.
posted on December 22, 2000 09:00:50 AM new
njrazd - I agree totally with your post.
This wasn't just about sex. It was a president who was accused of sexual harrassment when he was Governor of Arkansas by an employee of the state. A suit was brought against him. Some obviously feel we should have just trampled over the civil rights of another because it involved our president. President or not, he stills has to obey the laws that apply to all Americans and be held accountable for his actions. He is not above the law.
This was not about some busybody asking inappropriate questions about his personal sex life. It ended being personal when he violated the rights of another American when she brought suit and he lied.
This isn't the same thing as if there had just been the private sexual thrusts and no accusations. I think we're all aware that a lot of our presidents have had affairs, but our president then lied to us. He lied to the courts under oath....and oath he had sworn to uphold. He shook his finger at the camera (our nation) and said, "I did not have sex with that woman". (ML)
I could understand a man who was ashamed of his behavior and I could understand how he would not want this to come out and hurt his family or political career. But IMO when he lied under oath, not just as an ordinary man, but as our President, the leader of our country that's where I drew the line. What an example that is to our children when the President lies to a court.
Had he just come before our nation, taken responsibility for his actions, and apologized for his human failings, this issue would have quickly been put behind him.
He chose the path he took, and he has suffered the consequences.
[i]Clinton Is Found to Be in Contempt on Jones Lawsuit
By JOHN M. BRODER and NEIL A. LEWIS
(April 13, 1999) A federal judge held President Clinton in contempt of court for willfully providing false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.[/i]
posted on December 22, 2000 09:41:02 AM newDid Clinton lie? The answer is legally NO! Did he split hairs in a nasty way? Yes, he did
Well he more answered a question with "Define Sex."
I think it was more than just the sex though. Like a possibility of security breech or things of that nature, by having intimate 'encounters?' with people that don't have security clearance. Just a thought.
posted on December 22, 2000 09:47:10 AM newIt was a president who was accused of sexual harrassment when he was Governor of Arkansas by an employee of the state. A suit was brought against him.
Uh huh. And how long did it take this woman to lodge these so-called sexual harrassment claims. Yup, she was so outraged, she WAITED a few years until he was President of the United States. And of course she was completely financed by those wonderful folks who brought us Ken Starr. Pity, that other than a nose job and some dubious notoriety, she didn't collect enough to make it worth her while. Poor thing is reduced to posing nude for magazines to make a living. Excuse me if I (like a good portion of other Americans) cast a jaundiced eye on that big ado over nothing. Donny is right, a trap was set, and there was no way out.
It's old news, but like worrying a mouth canker, die hard republicans seem to derive some sort of masochistic pleasure from rehashing this non-issue over and over and over again. A more contemporary topic might be why GW found the need to hide his drunk driving arrest, and drug rehab not to mention the election fraud that his brother Jeb orchestrated on his behalf.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:01:39 AM new
I agree with KatyD--if the woman had really been all that outraged, put upon or harassed she wouldn't have waited until Clinton was President to say or do something about it.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:02:00 AM newLinda_K is the Rush Limbaugh of AW.
In several "topics" where she has posted comments and opinions for reason of opposition and/or clarity, she has wondrously and accurately, in a concise manner, hit the nail squarely on the head as she has just done here.
What a breath of fresh air to be able to sit and watch as someone squares away erroneous BS with such precision.
Anything said by others, excluding me, before or after she posts is relegated to the "babble" waste bin.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:09:34 AM newLinda_K is the Rush Limbaugh of AW.
Sarge inspite of our political and philosophical differences on some topics, LindaK has done nothing to warrant your malicious comparison to such a heinous character. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. The moderators are watching.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:12:27 AM new
Disregarding the whole impeachment thing, which was a pure partisan power struggle -- in all fairness to Paula Jones, the fact that she waited 3 years to lodge her claims do not make them false, or even cast a doubt on them. Who is to say what she "would have" done if it was true. You know and I know that President Clinton could very well have pulled out his thing in front of a woman; he does not, by his own admission, have a reputation for being a celibate.
Hmmm... oddly, I agree with sgtmike, I like Linda_K very much too.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:23:30 AM new
Might be, James. But that topic was covered in another thread, one of VeryModern's. If there is a full moon, this is all probably coincidental anyway.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:35:54 AM new
Such statement is a violation of the rules regarding the retention of the Linda_K Hammer Award.
"Katie, re the Rush thing -- good call!"
The rules committee has found that JamesO's comment is in violation and is he hereby issued a formal warning and given notice, that any future violation will result in his having to relinquish the award and all records regarding his having received the award will be excised.
posted on December 22, 2000 12:54:57 PM new
ROTFLMHO @ you guys. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
SgtMike - While I've not listened to Rush in a long time (and I'm NOT a Republican), it is probably correct that my thoughts on issues are probably 'old fashioned' and conservative. Hopefully not as conservative and reactionary as his.
I have enjoyed listening, for the last two - three years, to the FNC channel where I feel they offer a little less biased view of current political issues. I seem to usually be in agreement with a lot of what Bill O'Reily, Paula Zahn and sometimes Sean Hannity share. But in the past, I admit, that Rush has said things I have agreed with.
When I disagree with something someone has shared, or I see it differently, I try to state my disagreement in respectful manner. Because someone isn't in agreement with my opinions, doesn't make them wrong...they just came to a different conclusion. I try not to form an opinion on an issue based on who's saying it, but rather to look at both sides.
posted on December 22, 2000 01:47:35 PM new
Donny - Thank you for correcting me. Paula Jones, then a receptionist working a conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, says that a bodyguard working for then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton escorted her to a hotel room.
Still a woman who had a legal right to have her civil rights not be violated.
posted on December 22, 2000 01:50:57 PM new
Believe I was thinking of Kathleen Willey and her accusation of unwanted advances that Clinton had made to her in the room right outside the oval office.
