Impeachment does not equal being thrown out of office. Clinton was indeed impeached.
You should have read the papers more closely. They were very successful in having Mr. Clinton impeached. They were rather less successful in having him convicted in the Senate on the charges, but the impeachment came off with hardly a hitch.
I would then submit that the presence of numerically more posters with attitudes similar to cricetus than with attitudes similar to the now departed Brutus is what has a number of people (on both “sides” of the political debates) on edge. Just as the Right appears to be marching across the landscape overwhelming any calls for caution in the general political landscape of the U.S., on this board some members of the Left tend to take a somewhat scorched earth approach to discussion and, having more members, they are more likely to incinerate more earth.
I wasn’t responding to the OP, but the post above mine about “the nastiness” of the left. But anyone who supports them are sons of bitches and deserve nothing from me but contempt.
Switch the sides, and might the person be called a bigot? What’s the difference, then? Would one admit to being an anti-right or anti-conservative bigot? How is such a view any different from hating, say, homosexuals or socialists?
WRS
I personally don’t think so, but I don’t claim to speak for all Liberals. I was asked for an opinion about why our resident righties seem to be a bit worked up and you have my response.
George Bush tries to silence his critics. Are some of the Conservatives just following his lead? Do they want free speech “zones” and then other areas where we must show only positive attitudes and respect? Do they really think, as some suggested during the campaign, that that’s they way it’s always been? (I’m just asking…)
I can see Excalibre’s point about hijacks – if the topic truly is hijacked for the purpose of bashing or baiting especially. If there is a lot of political nastiness on the part of the Liberals – as well there may be – it’s probably because so many of us are outraged at what this Administration is doing to our country. We are not angry at all Republicans or all Conservatives. At least I’m not.
But so many Conservatives at SDMB don’t want us to express our anger. They seem to take it personally.
It’s perfectly legitimate to hate people for wanting to fuck up the world, which you might believe of socialists or the current right-wing. Generally, I would support fiscal conservativism and there’s nothing wrong with it, though it’s hard to find in today’s political spectrum. But there comes a time when in the histories of countries where the differences go beyond abstract political ideas and to the point of supporting or opposing evil persons who do visible and measurable damage to the country. This is such a time. Conservatives, if they were true to their cause, would hate the current adminstrations wastefulness and lack of regard for the constitution and personal freedom. It’s not about liberal vs. conservative anymore.
Well I guess I owe **Eve ** an apology.
Eve, please accept my apology. I stand corrected.
Thanks to **Tom **, **Rev ** and WRS for correcting me kindly.
No. You are more than welcome to express your anger. Just not where it is unwelcome, which means in threads and forums that have nothing to do with your anger.
WRS
I would say that there are several reasons. All this is IMHO of course though I’ll say ‘fuck’ if that helps keep it in the pit. The first reason I think is that a lot of folks who really ARE ‘conservative’ on this board (as opposed to those merely branded that way) are uncomfortable with Bush and the direction the republican party is taking. Especially a fiscal conservative would be uncomfortable with how things are going. This doesn’t, however, put them in the camp of the Bush bashers necessarily, who often times have some rather odd ideas about things like the economy. Of course, any deviation from the party line Bush is evil, big business is evil, CEO’s are evil, trade protection is good, socialism rulez!!, etc automatically throws the poster back in the ‘You love Bush’ camp. As I said…its quite an uncomfortable position, especially when you have rammed down your throat constantly that you support Bush…even when you don’t.
The next thing I’d say is that, at least in GD, cites are the god of the board. No cite and your opinion is worthless basically (unless you achieve the upper reaches of board godhood, in which case you occationally get a pass on this :)). And by and large I agree (though frankly I don’t have the time to research like some of you folks…gods almighty)…if you are going to debate you should have solid facts to back it up. Problem is that sometimes (most of the time IMO in that forum) the ‘facts’ are subjective, and open to interperatation depending on your view point…i.e. there IS no right or wrong, only your view point on the subject. In addition, in many (most) cases the right wing viewpoint is dismissed out of hand. Cites from right wing sources are scorned or simply dismissed because they ARE from right wing sources without reguard to the content. Left wing sources however are not similary dismissed out of hand, and in fact are used frequently. In addition, some of the sources considered ‘mainstream’ by some on this board…well, again, ‘mainstream’ is a subjective interperatation depending on your viewpoint. So…think about it. You are a conservative attempting to debate an issue that is purely subjective…and the ammo you want to use to ‘prove’ your case is dismissed without reguard, while the other sides is using similar data (from your perspective) but getting a pass because the majority of posters agrees with that data because it matches their world view.
Next there is the feeling that you are outnumbered constantly on this board if you are a true conservative poster. Look at some of the threads in GD sometime, especially the really juicy controversial ones. You’ll have a conservative poster come in and get jumped by the ‘usual crowd’ (I define this as the ones who spout pure party line rhetoric, not necessarily just a contrary position…you guys know who you are, or you should by now), and also get piled on by the more reasonable posters who are also opposed to your view point. Sometimes in those threads its like watching a pack of wolves pull down an, er, elephant (:))…they just keep nipping at him and nipping at him, here a cite, there a cite, everywhere a cite cite…but cites from a stacked deck IMO.
Finally, there is the hostility thing. I think this is a lesser ‘problem’ for most conservative posters, though I myself have felt it (and I consider myself fairly mild as a poster)…and I’ve lashed out on occation when I felt particularly harried. But some level of hostility should be expected when talking about politics, so I don’t really think that this is a major reason, despite what manhattan gave as a reason he left.
Anyway, thats my take on it. Feel free to tear it to shreads and flame me without mercy…I’m used to it. 
-XT
snrk 
I sorta wondered as I clicked submit - “Is he gonna know the difference?” Then I thought to myself, “Of course he will - even those people who failed high school civics learned the difference when it happened.” Clearly I was wrong.
Sheds some light on the value of his contributions to political discussions, though.
Hey Excalibre, fuck you.
As much as the topic interests me, the little woman seems to think arguing with fatheads* on the Internet is a poor way to spend an evening. So I leave you for spaghetti and meatballs and one or two episodes of Band of Brothers. So pardon my outburst and continue in good humor. The evening Martini just tasted nasty for some reason and now I’m out of sorts.
*No illusions that I’m not one or my own contributions are thinheaded.
Bravo, xtisme! Bravo!
I’m going to save your post. That was absolutely brilliant!
WRS
Brutus has departed???
Did I miss the memo?
Hey, you learn something new every day. What was the point of what you just posted, though? You don’t still think you’re right, do you?
hee hee hee
Didn’t renew in April.
Thank God.
Er, they did impeach him.
I remember when that happened. My very first reaction was “Who the fuck does he think he is”. It was a stupid thing to say, during the days of oil “shortages” and stagflation.
It’s hard to have sympathy for the conservative whiners, though. The Republicans control the administrative and legislative branch of the government. Of course most of the news stories are going to be about them-- they’re the ones taking most of the action. If the Dems were in power, I suspect we’d have more anti-Democrat GD threads like: Hey, look what that idiot Kerry did today!
There’s some serious shit going on, what with the war in Iraq and the detentions at Gitmo. The Bush administration has been extremely secretive about it’s actions, so people speculate. How the hell are we supposed to know what’s going on at Gitmo? I’m not all that inclinde to believe, on face value, the testimony of those detainees that have been released, but there isn’t any good info from the other side to counter it.
I did switch sides. I used to be a rightwing Republican in good standing. I diagnosed the symptoms of cognitive dissonance early enough to take action. That’s how I wound up “over there”. Here’s my "qualifications:
Middle of the road moderate over all
Fiscal conservative (don’t break the bank or spend what isn’t there).
Social liberal, with a dash of libertarianism (government has responsibilities to the weak as well as the powerful, but should not unduly interfere with private life).
Religious laissez faire (to each his own).
Defense semi-hawk (strong on the military and defense, against preemptive or preventive strikes).
Believe morality begins with the self.
Am “pro gun”
The current Republicans, who have claimed to be conservative are not conservative.
They are fiscally liberal, spending like drunk sailors. Start a war, and give a tax cut to the rich.
They are social liberals in that they are interfering in private lives of citizens, and for the wrong reasons.
The chickenhawk faction (current administration) believes in the NeoConservative philosophy (preemptive war, bullying, invading but were all draft dodgers during Nam)
They are anti-science (dogma stands in the way of research, ID, anti-evolution creationist, etc)
The extreme right republican wing is christian reconstructionists or dominionists, bent on creating a theocracy based on their own heretical viewpoints and intolerant of everyone else.
They are sticking their noses in “teh gays” bedrooms and accusing them of destroying marriage and the fabric of society. One of these accusers is an admitted horse fucker (literally - Horsley - how apt). We don’t call for the execution of preachers and Republicans - they call for our execution (literally. do some searching on Rushdooney, North, Dominionist sometime).
They talk about rights and turned Terri Schiavo into a circus sideshow, and demanded a worse “judge activism” than they were supposedly fighting against.
They talk about freedom and want to deny it as much as they can (Patriot Act).
They think unlawful detainment and torture (Gitmo) is hunky dory, despite various words from the Supreme Court that it ain’t so good.
They let Bin Laden slip through their fingers, and then invaded Iraq based on outright lies. Then they tried to bury FBI and CIA reports that called bullshit on it.
They are liars and hypocrites, and can’t even keep the lies straight. Even worse, they think we are all stupid.
How can anyone defend them?