Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Should Clinton have been impeached?

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:16:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At the time, there were many calls from Republicans and their supporters for President Bill Clinton to be impeached when it was revealed that he had had an extra-marital sexual relationship with a White House intern during his term in office.

Indeed, when it emerged that the intern concerned was Monica Lewinski, an overweight and aesthetically-challenged woman the right-wingers were baying for the President's blood.

Clearly, his relationship with Ms Lewinski was an error of judgement, he was the most powerful man in the world at the time and could have done a lot better than her: who, let's be candid here, had fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down and who clearly liked her food a little too much (although, famously, it wasn't just food that she was fond of gobbling on).

In not being more discerning in which of the office floozies to ask to drink his kids Clinton displayed a distinct lack of taste in women, but it was never any reason to impeach him, and it was right that he stayed on.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:30:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, he should have been impeached, but not for the Lewinsky affair. He should have been impeached for murdering tens of thousands of innocent Sudanese children. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:37:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 1:30:45 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Yes, he should have been impeached, but not for the Lewinsky affair. He should have been impeached for murdering tens of thousands of innocent Sudanese children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Way to end my lolz.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:38:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Eloping with a secretary has nothing to do with foriegn policy, money laundering, taxes, military strategy, federal law, economic crimes, or any other issue that is relevant to the Presidency. No, he should not have been impeached for that reason.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 2:04:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
He should have been impeached so that he could then be charged with crimes against humanity (such as the one J.Kenyon mentioned, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children he murdered), and executed. The affair he had is a good an excuse as any to impeach him.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 2:39:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 1:16:50 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At the time, there were many calls from Republicans and their supporters for President Bill Clinton to be impeached when it was revealed that he had had an extra-marital sexual relationship with a White House intern during his term in office.

Indeed, when it emerged that the intern concerned was Monica Lewinski, an overweight and aesthetically-challenged woman the right-wingers were baying for the President's blood.

Clearly, his relationship with Ms Lewinski was an error of judgement, he was the most powerful man in the world at the time and could have done a lot better than her: who, let's be candid here, had fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down and who clearly liked her food a little too much (although, famously, it wasn't just food that she was fond of gobbling on).

In not being more discerning in which of the office floozies to ask to drink his kids Clinton displayed a distinct lack of taste in women, but it was never any reason to impeach him, and it was right that he stayed on.

Sort of like, say, a sportsman should be thrown out of the team because he likes Justin Bieber songs?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:45:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 2:04:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
He should have been impeached so that he could then be charged with crimes against humanity (such as the one J.Kenyon mentioned, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children he murdered), and executed. The affair he had is a good an excuse as any to impeach him.

having an affair w/ your wife is worse than killing a bunch of innocent sudanese. There just foreigners. However, once he had an affair with his wife he was violating the sacred covenant of marriage. Think about it, he was supposed to be a role model. Now men thought it is okay to have blowjobs with other women.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:48:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 2:39:06 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/12/2011 1:16:50 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At the time, there were many calls from Republicans and their supporters for President Bill Clinton to be impeached when it was revealed that he had had an extra-marital sexual relationship with a White House intern during his term in office.

Indeed, when it emerged that the intern concerned was Monica Lewinski, an overweight and aesthetically-challenged woman the right-wingers were baying for the President's blood.

Clearly, his relationship with Ms Lewinski was an error of judgement, he was the most powerful man in the world at the time and could have done a lot better than her: who, let's be candid here, had fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down and who clearly liked her food a little too much (although, famously, it wasn't just food that she was fond of gobbling on).

In not being more discerning in which of the office floozies to ask to drink his kids Clinton displayed a distinct lack of taste in women, but it was never any reason to impeach him, and it was right that he stayed on.

Sort of like, say, a sportsman should be thrown out of the team because he likes Justin Bieber songs?
That violates nobody's rights. That violates no International Law. Commanding fire to be blown on innocents without making proper use of the world's richest and supposedly best intelligence agencies violates morality, and the consequences violate all the basic human rights.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:14:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 1:16:50 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At the time, there were many calls from Republicans and their supporters for President Bill Clinton to be impeached when it was revealed that he had had an extra-marital sexual relationship with a White House intern during his term in office.:

The impeachable offense was perjury (lying under oath). So technically, yes, that is impeachable. However, one has to also look at it in context -- namely, the legality of spreading gossip all over God's green earth and then having a committee designed to extract personal information from him. And if he lied about his own personal affairs, then he would be impreached. Under what authority is it any of our business to begin with? The question should have never been publicly asked to begin with which, in my mind, nullifies the impeachment. It should not have been admissible to begin with.

That kind of scandal should have never been made public to begin with. President Kennedy was the biggest whoremongerer ever to be in the White House, yet at that time there was a a lot of tactful discretion.

In essence, I don't care who the president is banging. I care how they run the country. Hilary should care who he's banging, not the hypocritical Newt Gingrich who was doing the exact same thing.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 8:34:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:14:15 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/12/2011 1:16:50 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At the time, there were many calls from Republicans and their supporters for President Bill Clinton to be impeached when it was revealed that he had had an extra-marital sexual relationship with a White House intern during his term in office.:

The impeachable offense was perjury (lying under oath). So technically, yes, that is impeachable. However, one has to also look at it in context -- namely, the legality of spreading gossip all over God's green earth and then having a committee designed to extract personal information from him. And if he lied about his own personal affairs, then he would be impreached. Under what authority is it any of our business to begin with? The question should have never been publicly asked to begin with which, in my mind, nullifies the impeachment. It should not have been admissible to begin with.

That kind of scandal should have never been made public to begin with. President Kennedy was the biggest whoremongerer ever to be in the White House, yet at that time there was a a lot of tactful discretion.

In essence, I don't care who the president is banging. I care how they run the country. Hilary should care who he's banging, not the hypocritical Newt Gingrich who was doing the exact same thing.

Since he is a public figure he surrenders his rights the Supreme Court decided this long ago.
Osiris
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:15:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, he shouldn't have been. While many think what he did was morally wrong, getting a bj from some chick on the side while being married is not a heinous crime.
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:25:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:45:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
having an affair w/ your wife is worse than killing a bunch of innocent sudanese. There just foreigners. However, once he had an affair with his wife he was violating the sacred covenant of marriage. Think about it, he was supposed to be a role model. Now men thought it is okay to have blowjobs with other women.

Ha Ha! You're not serious right? There is nothing sacred about marriage. Drive thru weddings, wedlock, and a 50% divorce rate do not make marriage at all sacred. I think murdering people is just a little worse than getting a bj from some gross chick.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 4:09:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wonder if he were a republican would there had been even more support of him being impeached and disbarred. If he were a republican every feminist in the country would be calling for his head; but in this the feminists didn't say a word. Is silence consent; I mean is it okay with the feminists for dems to treat women as Clinton, or Gore, or Edwards etc. had, but not a republican? Double standards mean hypocrisy or no integrity.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 5:05:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What makes you think that feminists would have called for the head of an unfaithful President based solely on his party affiliation?

Beyond that, what makes you think that feminists are partisan?

Is there any difference between the feminist reaction to Clinton/Gore/Edwards and the high profile republicans caught in infidelity?

Also, hello Innomen.
Ryanconqueso
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 8:04:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 1:30:45 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Yes, he should have been impeached, but not for the Lewinsky affair. He should have been impeached for murdering tens of thousands of innocent Sudanese children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Right....but, the thousands of innocent civilians(some of which were children as well) slaughtered during, and continuing today, "the war on terror" in multiple countries, being the countries as a whole themselves, who aren't even involved with an actual waged war in the first place. Those casualties should go untouched. If we are to point fingers any president to be so bold as to go to war without being attacked by an established militant country should be outright impeached. I find that a lot of the "wars" America is involved in are entirely unnecessary, therefore is nothing more that blatant bullying. So yes I say put the bullies in their place.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 8:53:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since he is a public figure he surrenders his rights the Supreme Court decided this long ago.:

Can you please substantiate the assertion?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:02:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 4:09:32 AM, innomen wrote:
I wonder if he were a republican would there had been even more support of him being impeached and disbarred.:

Of course there would have been more support to impeach if he were a Republican.

If he were a republican every feminist in the country would be calling for his head; but in this the feminists didn't say a word. Is silence consent; I mean is it okay with the feminists for dems to treat women as Clinton, or Gore, or Edwards etc. had, but not a republican? Double standards mean hypocrisy or no integrity.:

It's also not okay for Bush to bomb countries, but when Obama does it you hear crickets chirping. Where's the outrage? Kucinich is the only Dem that I'm aware of who's so vocally opposing the Libya debacle.

Flip-flop... flip-flop..... flip-flop. Watch Maddow flip and then flop, euphemistically sucking Obama's cock. Pathetic.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 1:52:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm sorry innomen but your accusation is ridiculous. When have feminists ever thrown a fit about an unfaithful politician? The only time I can think of that happening is when faggol Larry Craig solicited gay sex in a public bathroom because they were pissed about his anti-gay hypocrisy (as many feminists are pro gay rights). Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Elliot Spitzer, Tim Mahoney, Paul Morrison, Dave Peterson, John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Vito Fossella, Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, James West... these are just a handful of examples of both Democratic and Republican politicians who have had publicly known affairs these past few years and yet I don't remember feminist outrage about a single one of those cases. Can you back up your statement and give an example of where feminists in particular made a big to-do about cheating husbands? Or is that just something women tend to get pissed off about in general?!
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 1:54:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whoops, I forgot to quote him.

At 4/13/2011 4:09:32 AM, innomen wrote:
I wonder if he were a republican would there had been even more support of him being impeached and disbarred. If he were a republican every feminist in the country would be calling for his head; but in this the feminists didn't say a word. Is silence consent; I mean is it okay with the feminists for dems to treat women as Clinton, or Gore, or Edwards etc. had, but not a republican? Double standards mean hypocrisy or no integrity.

I'm sorry innomen but your accusation is ridiculous. When have feminists ever thrown a fit about an unfaithful politician? The only time I can think of that happening is when faggol Larry Craig solicited gay sex in a public bathroom because they were pissed about his anti-gay hypocrisy (as many feminists are pro gay rights). Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Elliot Spitzer, Tim Mahoney, Paul Morrison, Dave Peterson, John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Vito Fossella, Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, James West... these are just a handful of examples of both Democratic and Republican politicians who have had publicly known affairs these past few years and yet I don't remember feminist outrage about a single one of those cases. Can you back up your statement and give an example of where feminists in particular made a big to-do about cheating husbands? Or is that just something women tend to get pissed off about in general?!
President of DDO