I don’t think that is correct. I seem to recall that the law states that a victim is allowed to question the accused about other employees and relationship in order to show a pattern of behavior, which is supposedly of critical value to the victim in sexual harrassment cases. In fact, I think that it was Clinton who beefed up the law allowing for the very thing at the urging of women’s groups.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I remember around 1980 or so the local Republican party in Oklahoma being taken over by the adherents of Jerry Falwell and their ilk, and this seemed to be part of a nationwide tide. I have to hand it to them, they had a hell of a political machine. But the Republicans were my party, dammit, and how the hell did religion end up equating to politics and vice versa? A fanatical devotion to any political ideology makes me very, very nervous.
This kick in the ass is the best thing that could have happened to the Republican party, if they’re smart enough to know it. I’m wondering if they’re finally starting to come to a smattering of well-needed humility.
Theocon, huh? I like it. Did you make it up yourself?
Darn, I take a few minutes to compose a thread, and when I finally do, I find that it’s turned into the “Clinton-Blow Job-Impeachment” thread.
Excellent post.
By the way, who are you and what did you do with elucidator?!!! 
I would defy anyone to say what a “conservative” is by reading the posts in this thread. The innocent reader might conclude from reading this thread that conservatives hate Rick Santorum (post 3), oppose the war in Iraq (post 15), support solar energy (post 14), decry the fundamentalist stranglehold on the Republican Party (post 25), and applaud the Democratic victory (post 10).
Has the world gone topsy-turvy, or is it that “conservative” and “liberal” are labels that have become basically meaningless, particularly when we talk about Congress?
Because I am a Moderator, you get off without an official Warning, this time, but it is against the rules to play games with other posters’ quotes and the next time you do this you will get a Warning.
[ /Moderating ]
I’ve said precisely the same thing any number of times, it has been my long-standing position. Personally, I am a radical, I make no bones about that, but I am an American radical, first, last and always. No true American can believe that his preferences trump the will of the people, and the fulcrum of governance properly belongs in the middle, to ensure that progress can be made prudently, supported by a consensus of the people. Imposed change is the business of tyrants, and I am their sworn enemy.
And today, I am one happy sumbitch! What did I do with elucidator? I got him drunk as a skunk! Amazing how pleasant a hangover can be when you’re in a really, really good mood!
What you’re seeing is typical rodent behavior when confronted with a nautical emergency.
Why?
If it will make you happy, I think that a CEO who lied on a deposition regarding a case of sexual harrassment should be held to the standards of the law in the state where it occurred. I also think that a civil suit that is not directly related to the performance of a president should be held in abeyance until the president leaves office. However, even if the President was tried and found guilty of the crime of lying on a deposition in a civil suit, I don’t think that rises to the level of High Crimes that should require his removal from office: smack him on January 21 at the end of his term.
And given that the whole issue arose solely as a partisan-funded attempt to remove him, I still find the whole sordid mess to be a stain on the Republican controlled House.
What a nasty and silly hi-jack. What does the Clinton impeachment have to do with this Op? I know you are a mod, but why don’t you both stop. Have not you all beat this poor dead horse too many times already?
Jim
I am in total agreement with you, luci. It all comes down to whether the Democrats have a quiet little backroom sitdown with their far-left element and offer them a heaping cup of STFU along with thier pastries. If Pelosi is smart, she’ll nominate all of the chairpeople who have been demonized by the republicans…and quietly inform them that they are on a very short leash. That way, the fearmongering is disproven, moderation rules and the republicans look silly.
Another smart move would be to resist the urge to spend, pay the deficit down and take over the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
If they stay calm, the democrats are in good shape for 2008. If they manage to take the White House, another opportunity will present itself. If the democratic president and congress take security and terrorism seriously and prevent another terror attack on America, they will go a long way toward getting rid of the “soft on terror” albatross. However, if another attack happens on the democratic watch, it will be devastating to them for at least a generation.
And the other articles that failed to pass–but were introduced, anyway–were about an unsupported allegation of lying and “abuse of power.” They simply failed to pass those articles because they could see the writing on the wall that the electorate was unhappy.
The only reason any of that stuff made it to the floor of Congress was that Scaife and several of his buddies in Congress were looking to find ways to oust Clinton.
Say what you will, but it was a raw power grab that had nothing to do with the law (except as an excuse).
The use of force was authorized to compel Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions which he was, in fact, reluctantly doing. Bush simply lied about a lack of compliance and used that lie to launch an invasion.
I am aware that apologists can mess around with ways to defend Bush’s actions. That doesn not mean that he is exempt from impeachment (except that having politicized the process 100%, the Republicans can now use their own perfidy to hold off future investigations into the actions of the president).
As to the validation by the voters: voters are quite capable of going along with unlawful actions when it suits them (particularly when they have arrived at their views through lies), but that only makes it politically ill-considered to begin an impeachment process, it does not make the actions lawful.
My goodness, some of you fellows are not in a very good mood today. Can’t imagine why, I feel positively ducky!
What do you think of my points above, luci?
I wasn’t playing games. I placed the portion I changed in brackets in order to indicate that it was not part of the original quote. Seriously. Are you not aware of this convention?
Okay, I just reviewed the link you provided and I see your point. But it seems that what it boils down to is a difference of interpretation. Here is the portion of the rule in question:
[QUOTE]
…but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
(bolding mine)
I’m of the opinion that what I substituted for your little rant did not change its meaning. It was not responsive to the question, so I categorized it for what it was: “Blah, blah, blah”. I think even “blah, blah, fucking blah” would have been a reasonable equivalent, but would be a scootch closer to a breaking of the rules and worthy your wrath.
I just previewed and saw that you decided to answer the question. I’m glad to see that you agree that the laws should be obeyed. And they were. Should they be changed? Maybe so. Like many other laws.
And I’ll give you points for using the word “stain” in your opinion, inadvertent as it may have been. Gold. Pure gold.
I think you are cringing from a radical left boogyman who simply does not exist. And if anybody is looking good today, its Mr. Dean, who insisted on and pushed for a broad strategy (the “fifty state” meme) that has proven correct, even as it was resisted from self-declared “centrists” Dems who didn’t want to win *too * much, just enough.
Fuck that shit.
When I was on a jury for a criminal case, a witness lied through his teeth, under oath, and got caught. I started a thread asking our legal Dopers how often witnesses lied, and how often they got charged with perury. The answer was all the time and hardly ever. Given the cost in money and in attention to the real important issues of the time (like terrorism) it’s total bullshit to say that the Pubbies just had no choice but to try for impeachment.
As for Bush, perhaps you could get him in a conspiracy to violate the FISA - but we’ve got more important things to worry about than getting back at him in that way.
I never said they “had no choice.” I said that Clinton broke a law and that this was the basis of the impeachment. They, of course, could have ignored it. I’m sure that they did not do so for political reasons, but the impeachment itself was not based on political differences with the President. It was about a law broken by the President. If the GOP was going to impeach Clinton based on political considerations, they would have done so early in 1995 when they had more members than in 1998 and when Clinton was hugely unpopular.
Huh. When did conservatives start regarding Pelosi as a moderate? I thought they considered her a key player in that very same “demonized far-left element” that you’re advising her to keep on a leash.
Why, you yourself said just last February:
And the previous August:
Did Pelosi get more conservative since February, or did you get more liberal, or are you just more willing to dance with her now that she’s calling the tune, or what?
What exactly would be the “Libertarian” position on immigration?