hey your a little POed at this aren't you.
You failed to mention the general news sources
for the masses of the American people
who can only catch the evening news with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings.
As well as Headlines news.
Yes Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy are right
wing but there audiences are relatively small
and limited in their influence. Where as ABC NBC and CBS take up the majority of the Market.
I "failed" to mention the networks because they aren't opinion shows.
Now I watch the impeachment hearings and when
the commentators kept telling me how the presiding
Supreme Court Judge had designed his own robe with stripes on the sleeves for this occasion I wondered
how important it was toward the actual hearings.
Rendquist looked like an idiot in that self-designed outfit.
It made a goofy trial even goofier.
The point that Clinton had an affair when he ran
on family values and honesty should be enough
to make anybody mad. But the fact that he lied under oath about the affair is the reason he was impeached.
No, he was impeached because the GOP hates to lose.
Bob Barr checked into impeachment proceedures before anybody ever heard of Monica.
They were always going to impeach him, they just needed to fabricate a "crime."
You seem to think that the affair was the issue.
Why do you think Clinton's sex life is your business?
We live in a country where selling arms to terrorists is OK,
but getting some tongue from a gal at work is a serious crime?
When you should be angry that a political party
and ideology that tries to come across as a party that
protects the weak and poor should have lashed out at a person in power who not only abused his official
office and had the nerve to lie to our faces on TV should get away with it with out any consequences.
I should be angry?
Why should I be angry?
Because Clinton had an affair?
The reason he lied about it is because YOUR party
made it a big story.
Oral sex became dinner conversation for the family because YOUR party wanted it that way.
People saw thru that charade and Clinton left office with a higher approval rating than Saint Reagan.
If a CEO of a large corporation had done what
he had then lawsuits would abound.
But the President is not a CEO. He is a person who should be held to the highest of standards.
Morally and legally. He takes an oath to uphold the laws of the Country.
When he lies under oath he should be imprisoned not praised and protected. His party did this.
The Republicans and right wingers only followed the moral and legal obligations to exposed and punish him.
The only reason he admitted it was because the evidence was irrefutable not circumstantial.
The GOP thought they finally, finally, finally had him, after dozens and dozens of tries,
but they couldn't make it stick and the voters sided with Clinton. That's what pisses you off.
And shove all that morality crap.
The last Republican president who didn't give or get a pardon to save his ass was Eisenhower.
Like a lot of loons, you want to forgive the killers and execute the jaywalkers.
But the general media did everything in their powers to downplay the fact that he broke the law.
Yeah, the media was Clinton's best friend during
because they refused to print any unfounded salacious rumors, right?
They kept saying that oral sex is not really sex.
No, the law says oral sex is not "sexual relations."
You want to change the law? Go ahead.
All Clinton did was play by the rules and he was right to do it.
That the affair between the most powerful man
in the world and a young lady who worked for him was consensual.
That the reason he lied was because he did not want to embarrass himself and his family. That the cost of the
investigation was tying up resources and wasting millions of Dollars when the fact that the cost and time was
so extensive was the fact that the executive branch did everything possible to delay and confuse the investigators.
Instead of chasing Clinton's zipper, the FBI could've been chasing bin
Laden's suicide bombers.
But no, because of your party's obsession with Clinton's sex life, bin Laden snuck thru.
Now you might argue technically that the President is entitled to bend the laws.
No, I wouldn't argue that.
All of them have done it in the passed and will
continue to do so.
Reagan funneled illegal money to people fighting communism.
Nixon had people break in and still the strategies of the other political party.
Kennedy had numerous affairs and boasted about them to foreign dignitaries.
I believe you have crystalized the issues better than I could have.
Reagan (and Bush) and Nixon broke real laws.
Whereas Kennedy and Clinton had an eye for the ladies.
You can't see the difference there?
You don't know the difference between a felony and a sin?
None however lied while under oath in a criminal investigation.
Reagan testified he had no idea what went on with Iran-Contra and George Bush
testified that he was "out of the loop" when his hand-written diary said he wasn't.
Plus, Nixon and Reagan and Bush all used pardons to escape a REAL inquiry.
If you want to defend Clinton than maybe you should
change the laws of the Country to allow people
who are rich, powerful and Democratic to ignore the very laws that we must live by as commoners.
That's too stupid for a response.
If you want to argue that perjury is not grounds
for impeachment or is even a crime
than we as a country are hypocrites and have been for 200 plus years.
Perjury is defined as lying about something that matters.
If I testified that I had pepperoni pizza, but it was really Canadian bacon,
I haven't committed perjury because who gives a damn what my pizza was?
That's why Clinton didn't commit perjury. The whole country knew he was asked those questions
so the GOP and their whore court could remove a President elected by the voters.
That the law of the land should be ignored when
it might be embarrassing or undesirable to our cause...
We teach our kids better than that.
No, we teach our kids that if you commit serious crimes, you pardon
the guilty to prevent the truth
from coming out, then we bury their presidential papers so clues don't get out.
If you had any legitimacy to your argument, you'd be on my side.
Clinton's affair, to you, is worse than arming Hezzbollah.
That's insanity and the voters know it.
The argument that a the news media is not biased
toward the left is an outright lie though.
Dan Rather attended a fund raiser for the Democratic party that his daughter had organized.
Larry King was the MC at Reagan's Library dedication.
The reason I made that list of 50-60 right-wing nutjobs was so people like you
couldn't claim "all the media is leftist liberals," but you do it, anyway.
CNN is ran by somebody who was married to the wonderful Jane Fonda.
Ted Turner started CNN, but it's now owned by TIME-Warner/AOL.
They gave tons of money to elect the idiot who some call President.
Most of the journalist in the major news organizations
are registered Democrats.
Something like 78% of them.
The fact that Clinton was Governor of a state
that was ranked in the bottom 5 states in just about
ever category that makes up state rankings yet still managed to win the presidency over a president
that had just one a war should tell you something.
Why would you want to go back to 1992 for that argument?
Could it be because you're afraid to mention Clinton's record from 1993-2000?
But just for the sake of it, how did a nonsense governor from a small backwards loser state,
who the GOP said was a skirt-chasing, draft-dodging, drug-smuggling KGB agent
whip two American war heroes in fair - I repeat - fair elections?
But you can not be reasoned with.
The ability to define a person based on actions not on words is beyond you.
Evidence does not sway you.
You must reach a higher understanding on your own.
Yeah, crazy Ol' BartCop thinks selling weapons to terrorists, then stonewalling
then committing perjury about it, then pardoning the guilty to bury their crimes forever is worse
than Clinton messing around with Monica.
I can't be reasoned with.
Well, Good luck on your site.
Kenneth E. Jones
I must say, for a ditto-monkey, you have some manners.
If you'd like to refute anything I've written, I'll print it.