patrick.net

curious2 says

Meccos says

Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law...

has since changed his position on it. The only major party still holding onto it - and spending your tax dollars clinging to it - is the party of John's orange Boehner.

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

Also whats worse was Clinton was never for DOMA... he only signed it to gain political clout to help him in his re-election campaign.

Meccos says

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

I thought this particular thread was about Republicans allegedly not caring about anyone other than their own children, but whatever.

You're right Clinton had not favored DoMA, in fact in 1992 he campaigned on nearly the opposite, saying same-sex couples should be eligible for the same federal legal treatment as opposite-sex couples including tax filing etc. It's a bit like Obama campaigning in 2008 against Hillary's Plan, then signing his own name onto it so now it's called Obamacare. It's an interesting piece of history that, as far back as 1992, voters already elected a President who had campaigned in favor of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

chanakya4773 says

Funny thing is that We justify sadam hussain hanging for killing innocent civilians while bush killed 10 time more to get to him.

Civilian dead include everything from car accidents, insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence. Sectarian killings (Iraqi vs Iraqi) and countless criminal killings were unattributable to our forces. If it makes you feel better we did a great job "eliminating" 25,000 - 35,000 insurgents, killers thugs and murders. They wont be killing anyone, anywhere, anytime soon.

You seem to forgotten Saddams invasion or Iran and Kuwait... how many millions were killed ?

curious2 says

You're right Clinton had not favored DoMA, in fact in 1992 he campaigned on nearly the opposite, saying same-sex couples should be eligible for the same federal legal treatment as opposite-sex couples including tax filing etc.

Strange how when Billy Bob fliped flopped this past month.. so now history is being rewritten.

Meccos says

Wrong, it wasnt just because he with-held information. The only reason he got off was because of the technicality of the definition of "sexual relations".

So Clinton was acquitted on the technicality that he did not perjure and the technicality that there was no case against him. That's one hell of a technicality. Sort of like how the Duke Lacrosse team got off on the technicality that they didn't actually rape anyone and the charges were completely fabricated.

Meccos says

Funny thing is although he claimed he did not have "sexual relations" during the trial he later recanted and publicly apologized.

Wrong again. Clinton apology for having an inappropriate relationship (i.e., blowjob) with Lewinsky, not for committing perjury or lying. And quite frankly, the only reason Clinton had to apologize is because America is a dumb country that cares more about the private sex lives of politicians than the policies they make.

http://www.7r4e5Wg4PDI

I particularly like the part when Clinton points out that the lawsuit was purely political and was dismissed, and the part where Clinton asks us to get our asses out of the gutter so we can handle important issues like national security. Had we listened, 9/11 would not have happened. Funny how obsessing over unimportant shit can prevent important shit from getting done. Actually, it's not funny.

Meccos says

speaking of Clinton,... you started this post about gay marriages and how repubs only change their mind when it affects them personally. Do tell us how you feel about Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law

Yes, and that was bad policy along with Don't Ask Don't Tell, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, his administration stance on commercial encryption, his failure to reform health care, and a host of other things I could go into detail about.

However, none of that is criminal activity or worthy of impeachment.

So you're point is what?

Oh, and by the way, you haven't answered the questions I posed. Are they too uncomfortable to answer?

Meccos says

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

Also whats worse was Clinton was never for DOMA... he only signed it to gain political clout to help him in his re-election campaign.

Oh, I get it now. You are a Clinton hater and this whole discussion about the dismissed political impeachment process that had absolutely no merit was just the only way you thought you could attack Clinton.

See, this is exactly why I find the whole impeachment bullshit ridiculous. It was the 1990s equivalent of the Birther movement, a completely fabricated allegation that people with an utterly irrational hatred of the president cannot let go of no matter what evidence is brought to light.

curious2 says

Meccos says

Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law...

has since changed his position on it. The only major party still holding onto it - and spending your tax dollars clinging to it - is the party of John's orange Boehner.

The Democrats are pussies who don't support civil rights until the popular support is great enough that it won't cost them politically. LBJ was like that on racial issues, and Clinton and Obama were like that on gay issues.

The Republicans, however, are actively evil and working against human and civil rights issues. This makes them exponentially worse.

curious2 says

Meccos says

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

I thought this particular thread was about Republicans allegedly not caring about anyone other than their own children, but whatever.

Exactly. This thread was started to illustrate the utter hypocrisy that Republican politicians exhibit where they oppose the basic human and civil rights of minorities until one of their own kids becomes a member of that minority.

You can see it in Rob Portman ceasing his gay bashing after his son comes out of the closet. You can see it in Dick Cheney who would have bashed gays if his daughter didn't come out. You can see it in the Palin family who would take away the right to have an abortion in early pregnancy but when their daughter gets knocked up, it's a private matter.

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your position on a topic because you learned something or matured as a human being. There is something grossly wrong about creating draconian laws and then brushing them aside when they become a burden on your own family. And that is something we should not tolerate in politicians.

chanakya4773 says

Nice Try to fucking justify 40,000 dead Iraqis...go tell this to the parents of all those dead kids and lets see if they agree with you

Imagine if there was a much more powerful country which bombs USA and your hometown.They kill million civilian people while they also get rid of all the gang bangers/killers/thugs and murders.and then justify their mass murder by saying that they got rid of all bad people ...so hurray.

Exactly what I would have said. It's amazing how republican voters will bend over backwards to rationalize the utter evil committed by their politicians. Hmmm, what would Jesus do? Who would Jesus torture? Would Jesus kill a million civilians to get a few guilty persons? If only the Christian right actually believed in half the shit Jesus said.

Dan8267 says

So Clinton was acquitted on the technicality that he did not perjure and the technicality that there was no case against him.

The technicality was that someone decided "sexual relations" does not include oral sex, sticking a cigar up someone's vagina and fondling other private areas that most, if not nearly all americans, would consider "sexual relations". Just because he was not found guilty of something, does not mean he is not really guilty of it. Plenty of politicians get away with breaking the law, this is no different.

Dan8267 says

Yes, and that was bad policy along with Don't Ask Don't Tell, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, his administration stance on commercial encryption, his failure to reform health care, and a host of other things I could go into detail about.

However, none of that is criminal activity or worthy of impeachment.

So you're point is what?

You rant about repubs changing their minds about gay marriage and yet you fail to even mention the very president who signed DOMA into law. Worse of all, he wasnt even for DOMA, but he signed it anyways for POLITICAL reasons. These are all things you rightfully accuse the right of doing, but the accusations are solely on the right... Not one mention in your numerous comments on this thread until you are force to acknowledge it... there is no bias here at all right?

Dan8267 says

This thread was started to illustrate the utter hypocrisy that Republican politicians exhibit where they oppose the basic human and civil rights of minorities until one of their own kids becomes a member of that minority.

Right, as I have many times mentioned before, there is hypocrisy from repubs. However why is it so hard for you to admit that there is the same similar hypocrisy from the left? And when someone points it out, why are you sooooo defensive about it?

Dan8267 says

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your position on a topic because you learned something or matured as a human being.

I agree with you. We are all entitled to change our minds if our minds have truly changed. And if that is the case, how do you not know that the personal experience of these repubs with their family members being gay did not enlighten and allowed them to come to a better understanding of gay marriages?

Clinton signing DOMA, however, was no change in mind. He was against it, but signed it anyway for political purposes. This is even worse than what you claim the repubs of doing. At least one can argue that their personal experience with a gay family member truly helped them to understand the issue and changed their way of thought. Clintons only argument was that he wanted to be re-elected.

Meccos says

The technicality was that someone decided "sexual relations" does not include oral sex

It is not Clinton's fault that the Republicans asked the wrong question and didn't have the brains to follow up with a "and by sexual relations you meant?" like any decent lawyer would have done. A person on trial has no ethical or legal obligation to answer questions in a way that would maximize damage to his reputation particularly when the answer and the question are irrelevant to the trial.

And my analysis has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. I'd say the exact same thing no matter who was on trial. You cannot honestly say the same thing.

Meccos says

You rant about repubs changing their minds about gay marriage and yet you fail to even mention the very president who signed DOMA into law.

Because that had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This thread was about Republican congressmen flipping 180 degrees on policy as soon as their own children are the ones discriminated against. What the fuck does that have to do with the Clinton administration?

Meccos says

Worse of all, he wasnt even for DOMA, but he signed it anyways for POLITICAL reasons. These are all things you rightfully accuse the right of doing, but the accusations are solely on the right... Not one mention in your numerous comments on this thread until you are force to acknowledge it... there is no bias here at all right?

You are so full of shit here. First off, the very fact that you are harping on Clinton signing DOMA shows that your whole intention is to make Clinton look bad no matter what. It's not that you are upset over anything Clinton did. You just hate Clinton and no matter what he does, it's the wrong thing. This is absolutely no different than the Republicans today bashing everything Obama does even when Obama proposes the Republican's very own policies like the individual mandate in health care.

Second, complaining about Bill Clinton signing DOMA especially without agreeing with it would be a perfectly good criticism of the Clinton administration. However, it is irrelevant to both this thread and the perjury tangent you spun off. That is why I didn't even think to mention it until you brought it up. It's completely irrelevant to both discussions.

Third, I do call bullshit on the left all the time. In fact, KarlRoveIsScum made me an honorary Tea Party Lunatic. You can't get more right wing than that. Perhaps you and the other troll should battle it out to determine if I'm a flag-burning, tax-wasting, terrorist coddling pinko or a racist Tea Party lunatic that gets his talking points from Darth Scaletta. Clearly, I can't be both.

In fact, one might just conjecture that the reason you think I'm so far left-leaning and the reason KarlRoveIsScum thinks I'm so far right-leaning, is that you both are perfect examples of the batshit crazy polarization of politics in America that makes it impossible for anyone but extremists to be heard.

Fourth, I do have a bias, one I freely admit. I'm bias towards the truth, no matter how unpleasant it is. You want me to accept that the universe was create when a giant space turtle ejaculated on a shoe? Fine, prove it and I'll accept it. That's how open minded I am. You can convince me of anything if you have proof, but you can convince me of nothing without proof.

http://www.K1eeZr2WKKE

And, as I've said many times, the truth is most often orthogonal to the entire left-right line. In fact, the very notion of separating politics into left and right is literally so one-dimensional and indicates a simple and childish view of the world.

That said, we are stuck with just two parties in this country. One party has been taken completely over by nutjobs. And everyone else, no matter how different their politics are, has taken refuge in the other party. The only thing that Democrats agree on is that things would be worst with those batshit crazy Republicans in charge. And the Republicans have only themselves to blame for this truth. It was the Republicans who purged their own party of any rational or moderate politicians, what Republicans call impure or Rinos (Republicans In Name Only). It was this very purse over the past 20 years that has made the Republican Party the batshit crazy party and the Democratic Party, the inept, internally bickering, do-nothing party that it is.

So perhaps trolls like you and KarlRoveIsScum should start being so religious about politics and start being religious about rationality, facts, and objectivity. And, by the way, objectivity doesn't mean presenting both sides of the story when one side is bullshit. For example, evolution vs creationism.

Speaking of drone strikes, here is an interactive that shows all the drone strikes in Pakistan.

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

Dan8267 says

It is not Clinton's fault that the Republicans asked the wrong question and didn't have the brains to follow up with a "and by sexual relations you meant?" like any decent lawyer would have done. A person on trial has no ethical or legal obligation to answer questions in a way that would maximize damage to his reputation particularly when the answer and the question are irrelevant to the trial.

Exactly, this is exactly the technicality I suggested, to which you clearly have nothing else to say but the lawyers did a bad job.

Dan8267 says

Because that had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This thread was about Republican congressmen flipping 180 degrees on policy as soon as their own children are the ones discriminated against. What the fuck does that have to do with the Clinton administration?

Because Clinton did the same 180... What was worse with Clinton is that he didnt even believe DOMA but signed it anyway, for purely political reasons. At least with some of the repubs you can make the argument that their opinions have honestly changed because of their personal experience. THe point of me even stating this is to prove that you are so biased that you rant about these repubs (who can arguably have good reason to change their stance on this subject), but you do not even mention and now defend Clinton for doing the same thing for an completely inexcusable reason.

Again, let me state this again since you never seem to answer this question. .. All I have been saying is that both the left and the right do stupid crap and are hypocrites. You very easily point out the faults of the right, but cant seem to admit the same shit flows on the left. Why do you get soooooooo defensive when someone points out the faults on the left??? You being the independent you claim you are, I would imagine you would just agree and move on, instead of being such a staunch defender of these crooks.

Meccos says

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

In some countries, a female having lunch with an unrelated male is "sexual activity". It's one of those things that depends a lot on context. Rubbing someone's feet is that sexual, or not? Well depends on who's doing it, how they react, and who's watching.

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

And just because a person is found guilty doesn't mean that person did commit the crime, either.

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

As your reading comprehension skills are obviously deficient, I'll repeat myself. I have no doubt that Clinton had lots of sexual activity with lots of women. That doesn't make Clinton guilty of perjury as the dumb-ass Republicans using the courts in contempt did not ask, "Did you have sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky?". Had the conniving Republicans asked, "Did you donkey punch Monica Lewinsky?", Clinton could also have truthfully answered "no" even though a donkey punch would most likely be construed as sexual activity.

Meccos says

Exactly, this is exactly the technicality I suggested, to which you clearly have nothing else to say but the lawyers did a bad job.

Actually, I've added quite a bit explaining to you that a defendant, even Clinton, has no legal or ethical obligation to provide answers outside the scope of the questions asked in questioning. Any fucking lawyer worse his salt will tell his client, answer the question asked and nothing more, and keep your answers short. This is exactly what Clinton did.

The Republicans were violating the ethics of the court system by attempting to entrap the president and by fishing for materials that had nothing to do with the case being heard and only would serve as political propaganda in the next election. The court would have been in its right and in its duty had it disbarred all the prosecutors for their unethical actions.

But I'll add something else. The prosecutors committed a crime by failing to disclose evidence (the Lewinsky cum-stained dress). This is a fucking serious offense.

The government has a continuing duty to disclose evidence after a request for disclosure has been made. It must promptly disclose additional evidence whenever it discovers it, even during trial.
...
The defendant is guaranteed the right to a fair trial. The government must follow the law and respect the rights of the defendant. If it fails to do so, it commits misconduct. There are many different types of misconduct. One of the most common is the withholding of evidence.

If the government fails to disclose relevant information, the court may impose a punishment on the party

The act of violating full disclosure laws goes against the very founding principles of this nation, and there is no excuse for it. All the Republican lawyers should have been disbarred and jailed for contempt of court and obstruction of justice. The only victim in this case was Clinton.

So Meccos, now that I've answered every single one of your questions several times, do you think you could grow a pair and answer these questions honestly and sincerely?

Or are you too afraid?

Dan8267 says

but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

"Well tell them to stop doing that shit, and we wont bomb them!"
G.W. Bush

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

"Well tell them to stop doing that shit, and we wont bomb them!"

G.W. Bush

The retard Bush was lying when he said that. Notice that we don't bomb, torture, or assassinate Syrian President Bashar Al-assad, who is way the fuck worse than Saddam was.

Bush chooses his targets like any other predator. He picks the weakest ones. Bush and Obama don't have the balls to go after Al-assad, but they have no problem attacking a near defenseless country.

Dan8267 says

So Meccos, now that I've answered every single one of your questions several times, do you think you could grow a pair and answer these questions honestly and sincerely?

Or are you too afraid?

Hahahah you have answered about 10% of my questions. Feel free to browse through the MULTIPLE questions which you havent answered. I refuse to waste my time to link each one again. In regards to your question, why would I be afraid to answer your silly questions?

Dan8267 says

1. What punishment should Clinton get for his answers about Lewinski?

2. What punishment should Bush get for his lies about Iraq having WMDs?

3. What punishment should Bush get for starting the Iraq war?

4. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for using torture?

5. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for illegal wiretapping?

6. Is there anything else that Clinton should be punished for?

1. he should have been impeached
2. he should have been convicted of war crime and sentence to whatever punishment fits that conviction
3. same answer as #2
4. same answer as #2
5. whatever the courts would consider fair for illegal wiretapping
6. what other laws did he break?

Silly questions... the question you should have asked is do you think these idiots should have been convicted for these crimes first...