American SDMB Conservatives: Go Reclaim Your Party!

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Evil One]
You wound me, rjung.

I think this result will be a good thing if the proper lessons are learned by both political parties. Personally, I am pro-choice. I don’t want the government in my bedroom on inside my TV telling me what I can or can’t watch. I think that more money needs to go to education. I think the top ten percent of the country can afford to pay a little bit more in taxes. The democrats can help me here.

But…

I also want a strong national defense and terrorism policy. I disagree with affirmative action and I think that part of our national health insurance problem could be solved with tort reform.

Moderates from both parties can get together and compromise on many of the issues facing the country today…but the further left the democrats go, the quicker they will be out of power again.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of this. I am wary of education spending, though, as by itself, it does squat. And while I agree that the top 10% can of course pay more in taxes, I’m struck with the question, should they. There is no easy answer. At least for me.

102

[QUOTE=magellan01]
The rant was there though. It is still there.
[/quote]
:rolleyes:

I have never claimed that Clinton was impeached for sex, so that strawman is pretty useless.

However, as demonstrated to the satisfaction of reasonable people, the “law” was merely the pretext for the political attempt to get rid of him by way of impeachment.

103

Perhaps we need a Clinton corollary to Godwin’s Law.

104

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
:rolleyes:
I have never claimed that Clinton was impeached for sex, so that strawman is pretty useless.
[/QUOTE]

That’s rich. Nice strawman construction on your part. I never said you claimed that Clinton was impeached for sex, as you clearly imply here. If you think I did, feel free to point it out. Nice try, though. No, I claimed—quite correctly—that you were the one who introduced his impeachment into this thread. I then added that I took the opportunity to offer the clarification that should be offered each time it is brought up.

To save you some scrolling, here is the precise passage:

See? Your bringing up his impeachment gave me the opportunity to offer the clarification that is so often missed by many here. That is what I thanked you for.

105

[QUOTE=magellan01]
That’s rich. Nice strawman construction on your part.
[/QUOTE]
No. It is not a strawman. As you have gone to some trouble to point out, no one on this thread has even mentioned the “impeached for sex” issue. So you were introducing a random thought for what purpose? Either to imply that I or someone was holding that belief or simply to hijack the thread with a bit of contentious irrelevance.

Now, if you are through violating the rules and picking silly private fights, why don’t you simply confine your comments to the topic of the thread?

106

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No. It is not a strawman. As you have gone to some trouble to point out, no one on this thread has even mentioned the “impeached for sex” issue. So you were introducing a random thought for what purpose? Either to imply that I or someone was holding that belief or simply to hijack the thread with a bit of contentious irrelevance.
[/QUOTE]

The strawman I was referring to was you implying that I claimed you said something—which I never siaid you said—just so you can show that you din’t say it.

And the thought was not random. You’re the one who brought up Clinton’s impeachment—you—intimatiing that the republicans did something wrong. I corrected the picture, pointing out that he broke the law. If you don’t like the real picture that’s your problem, not mine. In the future, maybe you shouldn’t bring it up again. Because if you do, I will. And you can then warn me or ban me or do whatever the hell else you want.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Now, if you are through violating the rules and picking silly private fights, why don’t you simply confine your comments to the topic of the thread?
[/QUOTE]

I’m picking fights?! That’s more comedy gold from you. You’re on a roll. Maybe you should hit the road with Emo. You know, fuck it—after all, as you can see from my very first post in this thread, I certainly came in here looking for a fight. :rolleyes:

107

[QUOTE=magellan01]
And the thought was not random. You’re the one who brought up Clinton’s impeachment—you—intimatiing that the republicans did something wrong. I corrected the picture, pointing out that he broke the law. If you don’t like the real picture that’s your problem, not mine. In the future, maybe you shouldn’t bring it up again. Because if you do, I will. And you can then warn me or ban me or do whatever the hell else you want.
[/QUOTE]
I did not “intimate” that the Republicans did something wrong, I stated it.

The context of this discussion was that yoiu claimed that an intention to impeach a president was, ipso facto an “extreme” position.
I pointed out that the intention was not extreme in and of itself, although it had been turned into a political weapon by the Republicans, rendering it less effective as a Constitutional tool.

You appear to believe that you can raise an issue as “extreme” without anyone responding to the accuracy of the matter and then pretend that someone else raised the issue.

The Republicans of the 105th Congress specifically used impeachment as a political weapon, using a rather minor technical violation of a law, (one that as Voyager noted, is rarely even prosecuted in the case of a criminal trial, much less in a deposition), after they spent the better part of four years failing to find something serious. You have done nothing to disprove that statement. Your “sex” issue was simply a last gasp effort to try to make some sort of “I told you so” point that had no relevance to the issue that you raised.
I am hardly going to warn you or threaten you with banning for being an incompetent debater who distorts what has been posted on a thread or throws odd red herrings into the discussion.

If you ever do get warned or banned, it will be over your persistent habit of making all exchanges of discussion into personal feuds.

108

[QUOTE=JXJohns]
When the Reps ran the Congress during the Clinton era, things were pretty good. Throw in a little gridlock here and there and poof, predicted budget surpluses. As a good Republican, I assumed that in 2000, if they able to run both the Congress and the Presidency, things could really get done. Roll back a few tax increases, get a better hold on spending, leave my guns alone to the point of even getting rid of some pesky gun control legislation (1994 AWB) etc. So I went into the new millennium with high hopes.

9/11 hit and screwed up everything. It seemed as though those who I once trusted to run my country stepped aside and let the “neocons” take control. Maybe “they” were in control the whole time, but things went downhill from there.

Then in 2004 the best that the Democrats could offer was “vote against Bush and in doing so, you’ll elect a flake from Mass for the next four years.” At that time, I said thanks, but no thanks, plugged my nose and voted for the Bush again, lesser of two evils and all that. The problem is however that when one votes for the lesser of two evils, they are still left with evil.

Sorry for the rambling. At 36 years old, my memories of a Democrat Congress and Presidency bring back images of the passing of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban and the “largest tax increase in US history”. I guess we’ll see what happens now. I read the 100 day Pelosi agenda, and I am not ashamed to say that there were several things that I liked. Like I said, we’ll see.
[/QUOTE]

Ditto for your whole post (I’m even 36 years old too), except the Nancy Pelosi part. I can’t like her yet, except she’s supposedly fiscally conservative. We’ll see. I’m pretty sure she’s a gun-grabber, but maybe the Dems know better than to try.

109

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I did not “intimate” that the Republicans did something wrong, I stated it.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, you did. My sincere apology. You were quite clear. You didn’t just intimate it, you stated it. That oh-so-important point changes everything. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The context of this discussion was that yoiu claimed that an intention to impeach a president was, ipso facto an “extreme” position.
[/QUOTE]

Extreme as compared to the new Speaker and her stated goals for the party. Someone who is already on the left side of her party.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I pointed out that the intention was not extreme in and of itself, although it had been turned into a political weapon by the Republicans, rendering it less effective as a Constitutional tool.
[/QUOTE]

Impeachment is and has been a largely political weapon. To say that the Reps turned it into one is disengenuous in the extreme.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You appear to believe that you can raise an issue as “extreme” without anyone responding to the accuracy of the matter and then pretend that someone else raised the issue.
[/QUOTE]

I gave reasons, why I used the words extreme. Someone then offered empirical evidence. Throughout, words were put in my mouth. I pointed that out more than once.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The Republicans of the 105th Congress specifically used impeachment as a political weapon, using a rather minor technical violation of a law, (one that as Voyager noted, is rarely even prosecuted in the case of a criminal trial, much less in a deposition), after they spent the better part of four years failing to find something serious. You have done nothing to disprove that statement.
[/QUOTE]

Why would I want to disprove it? Impeachemnt is and has always largely been a politicalal weapon.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Your “sex” issue was simply a last gasp effort to try to make some sort of “I told you so” point that had no relevance to the issue that you raised.
[/QUOTE]

No. You brought up his impeachment and stated it was solely a product of Republicans drunk with power. I corrected you. The fact IS that there was a crime committed. And as far as I know 100% of Presidents that have lied under oath in a lawsuit to which they were the defendant have been impeached. The relevance is that you were painting an incorrect and dishonest picture of the impeachment and the Reps role in it.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I am hardly going to warn you or threaten you with banning for being an incompetent debater who distorts what has been posted on a thread or throws odd red herrings into the discussion.
[/QUOTE]

If you want to get your panties in a wad over distortions and breaking the rules, you may want to slap yourself in the face with warnings and ban yourself. You have distorted both the truth and my words. You have now leveled a direct insult against me in GD:

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]

**Are there any rules on insulting other posters?
**Generally, you may not directly insult other posters. The strictness of this rule varies a bit by forum, but the basic rule is that you should attack what the other person says, not the other person.

The only exception is the forum called The BBQ Pit, where flaming other posters is permitted.
[/QUOTE]

Nice Moderation. I expect you to report yourself immediately, lest you would want the desriptor “hypocrite” attached to you in the future. This is particularly egregious, as it comes from a Mod, which says amuch about your “Moderating”.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
If you ever do get warned or banned, it will be over your persistent habit of making all exchanges of discussion into personal feuds.
[/QUOTE]

As you can see, even in this very thread, which on balance has proved quite contentious, there are examples proving your statement to be a lie. But maybe it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Oops, Make that: maybe it depends on what the meaning of “all” is.

And your banishment—which, despite your strong points, would be very likely on a less liberal board—would be due to your inabiliity to ever see or admit that you are wrong. Or given your latest showing of your colors, abuse your power.

110

Christ on a crutch magellan01, can you take it to the Pit?
There was a discussion going on here.

111

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Good point. Dean deserves a great deal of credit for scope of the Democratic victory here. And all those “we can’t handle all that winning people” deserve to lose a great deal of credibility.

112

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Impeachment is and has been a largely political weapon. To say that the Reps turned it into one is disengenuous in the extreme.
[/QUOTE]
Two presidents, thirteen justices, a senator, and a cabinet officer have all been impeached. In addition, one president resigned before articles of impeachment were drawn up, specifically because a conviction was certain based on actual crimes committed as perceived by a majority of both parties. Of that number, only the two presidents were impeached purely on a political motive. Two out of eighteen is not “generally” by most counts. Since the last move toward impeachment of a president in over 130 years had been for actual, documented crimes, (and the earlier one was universally recognized as a BAD THING to be avoided in the future), your claim that it is “largely a political weapon” is simply something you made up.

113

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Of that number, only the two presidents were impeached purely on a political motive.
[/QUOTE]

“purely” doe not equal “largely”. Nice job of trying to recast what I said and moving the goalposts, Oh Fair One. You even erected another strawman in the process. :rolleyes: So, I didn’t see you issue yourself a warning or ban yourself for breaking the rules as I mentioned in my last post. No surprise from He Who Will Never Admit He Is Wrong.

114

Administrator interjects:
Magellan01: I have looked into this situation – fairly quickly, I admit, since there are three pages of posts – and I do not see that tomndeb has violated either forum rules or board rules. There is a careful distinction between “You appear to have said…” and “You are…” He is not attacking you as a person, he is attacking what you said.

You, however, are responding by attacking him as a person. Such comments belong in the Pit, not here.

And, BTW, speaking as a poster, it’s pretty obviously that there are two different definitions of “impeachment” going on here: magellan01 is thinking of the only prior Presidential impeachment, while tomndebgb is thinking of the much larger picture, including a threatened Presidential impeachment that forced a resignation. So, from that perspective, both sides of that point are correct, just depends on perspective (or definition.)

115

Wait, wait… magellan01 is complaining of personal attacks? Against him???

Bwaaahaaahahaahahaahahahahaha!

116

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’ll take your word that there was no wrath, as I cannot get inside your head. The rant was there though. It is still there.

What you wrote did not answer the direct question I asked, so I regarded it as unresponsive, almost as germaine as a random series of letters strung together. It was uncommunicative, so I substitued similarly uncommunicative words to quickly make the point and then move on. I put them in brackets, thinking that the convention was universal. My infraction was not a deliberate one. When I explaiin myself you take further offense, and lay down a subtle threat (I assume of a Warning. Banning? :eek: ). I’ll try harder to not offend you in the future. I’ll do my best to knuckle under, Oh Great Arbiter.

In the meanntime, I’ll thank you for introducing Clinton’s impeachment into this thread. It cannot be clarified enough for some that he was impeached not for having sex, but for breaking the law.

Onward.
[/QUOTE]

He was impeached because of political reasons. Impeachment is a political process and it’s quite obvious to me that the considerations use in the decision to impeach or not are political. I don’t think anyone voted to impeach because they were outraged that Bill Clinton broke the law, else why don’t they charge Bill now? Answer: There’s no point in doing so (politically speaking).

117

Bill Clinton broke the law? Can someone cite the exact law for me? The Court judgment with the finding of guilt?

118

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Bill Clinton broke the law? Can someone cite the exact law for me? The Court judgment with the finding of guilt?
[/QUOTE]

Long story short: Clinton was acquitted in the senate, and in the courts he was fined and slapped in the hand.

Looking at the certified results, it was silly to impeach. (And that is the reason why you don’t see right wingers mentioning them).

The impeachment of Clinton was the classic “having the cart before the horse” maneuver. Silly to ignore it was done for political reasons.

Speaking of today, investigations first, they will remark on the eternal shame of the outgoing Republican congress that found it was crucial to put baseball players under oath for steroid use, but regarding cases were the administration and cronies could be inconvenienced by that, the republicans acted like enablers by turning more critical investigations into a joke.

After looking why the bastards demanded and got to testify without oaths in those “investigations”, it is silly not to expect that items will be uncovered in new investigations that will scream impeachment. But even then I do think impeachment will be set aside because the investigations will have the effect to shake the enablers that will remain in congress after this sorry president is gone.

I do think that just like Rumsfield, more resignations are coming. I see no impeachment, but certified proof of the administration’s mendacity brought to light.

Conservatives who think they have seen the worse already have something else coming up.

119

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Long story short: Clinton was acquitted in the senate, and in the courts he was fined and slapped in the hand.
[/QUOTE]
…i.e., he was disbarred by both the Supreme Court of Arkansas and the U.S. Supreme Court, though he resigned the bar before his disbarment by the U.S. Supreme Court became effective. And contrary to what many think, it wasn’t because he lied about Monica Lewinsky, it was because he lied about Paula Jones. (His lying in regard to his ten-year affair with Gennifer Flowers, and his on-tape encouragement of her to lie as well, never became a court matter, IIRC.)

Regarding his not being prosecuted since, this from the AP, dated Nov. 7, 2001:

*Former President Clinton asked to resign from the Supreme Court bar Friday, rather than fight suspension or disbarment related to the Paula Jones sexual harassment investigation.

The high court suspended Clinton Oct. 1 as a follow-up to suspension of his law license in his home state of Arkansas. The high court gave Clinton until Friday to say why he should not be permanently barred from appearing before the high court as a lawyer.

Clinton lawyer David Kendall, in a letter to the court clerk, linked Clinton’s request to the loss of his Arkansas law license.

On Jan. 19, a day before he left office, Clinton agreed to a 5-year suspension of the license and a $25,000 fine as part of a settlement that ended the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed not to prosecute Clinton after he left office.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

``In order to avoid the burden of litigation for all parties, to achieve an expeditious and definitive resolution, and in acknowledgment that his actions merited censure, former President Clinton agreed to the suspension and fine,‘’ Kendall wrote Friday.*

120

Since it is nonsense to expect a rich former president (of the recent era) going back to being a lawyer, the conclusion stands.