Phan In Phlorida wrote:What does a BJ in the Oval Office constitute, a high crime or a misdemeanor?

In Georgia, I think oral sex is still a felony (even with a spouse).

My wife tells me it is in NJ as well.

Disco Stu wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:What does a BJ in the Oval Office constitute, a high crime or a misdemeanor?

In Georgia, I think oral sex is still a felony (even with a spouse).

My wife tells me it is in NJ as well.

That's what she told me, too.

zing?

Phan In Phlorida wrote:What does a BJ in the Oval Office constitute, a high crime or a misdemeanor?

In Georgia, I think oral sex is still a felony (even with a spouse).

A dumb reason to go through impeachment proceedings?

Bakestar wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:What does a BJ in the Oval Office constitute, a high crime or a misdemeanor?

In Georgia, I think oral sex is still a felony (even with a spouse).

My wife tells me it is in NJ as well.

That's what she told me, too.

zing?

What a burn! Neither of us get head from my wife!!! You sure told me!

all you politically inclined observers of all things american and politics, how rate you doonesbury these days?

I ask because I still marvel at Trudeau's ability to crack me up after 20+ years.

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Because you don't impeach people for having low approval ratings?

Why not? If everyone hates him and doesn't want him as vice president, what BETTER reason is there?

I think my point was misinterpreted...I am saying that if you choose to impeach him for crimes that he was a part of there should be no fear of political backslash based on the fact that close to everyone does not like him.

My old congressman, Jim Saxton, is retiring.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20071109_N_J_s_Congressman_Saxton_to_retire.html

Going to be quite a battle for that seat. I pity all of you in the area for the number of ads this means you're going to have to sit through.

Abolish

t----s

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBjXr5CWUI[/youtube]

Phan In Phlorida wrote:What does a BJ in the Oval Office constitute, a high crime or a misdemeanor?

In Georgia, I think oral sex is still a felony (even with a spouse).

Good Lord, do people still think that's why he was impeached?

Warszawa wrote:I have not heard or seen one American wondering about the priorities of Congress. I have seen quite a few question the priorities of another governmental branch (or two).

I would suspect they are represented in that 89% part of the disapproval ratings for Congress.

VoxOrion wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:What does a BJ in the Oval Office constitute, a high crime or a misdemeanor?

In Georgia, I think oral sex is still a felony (even with a spouse).

Good Lord, do people still think that's why he was impeached?

I was being facetious as a sort of inderect reference to a reply a few posts earlier in the thread.

If I were to seriously make a point on this "issue of the past", I would think the more apt question would be... should such a civil suit (one not based on a prior criminal charge or proceeding) against a sitting president been allowed to proceed during his presidency? It was unprecedented, and most certainly for political motives.

But I have no intent on rehashing this particular topic.

I kind of figured you weren't serious, but most people I run into seem to see it the way you glibly described (and many others who do understand the facts insist on framing the issue around oral sex anyway). If I say the word "perjury" people's eyes glaze over and they have no idea what I'm talking about. I also think most people think impeachment means removal from office, and don't understand that Clinton was indeed impeached.

My response wasn't intended to comment on the right/wrong/whatever of the case. I suspect that argument has run its course a billion times over, and no one has anything new to add.

VoxOrion wrote:I kind of figured you weren't serious, but most people I run into seem to see it the way you glibly described (and many others who do understand the facts insist on framing the issue around oral sex anyway). If I say the word "perjury" people's eyes glaze over and they have no idea what I'm talking about. I also think most people think impeachment means removal from office, and don't understand that Clinton was indeed impeached.

My response wasn't intended to comment on the right/wrong/whatever of the case. I suspect that argument has run its course a billion times over, and no one has anything new to add.

No, we need a new thread to discuss the Clinton Impeachment.

we need a huge "Pinocchio" administration thread.

The Red Tornado wrote:we need a huge "Pinocchio" administration thread.

...or a "pistachio administration" thread... I likes me them pistachios!

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:we need a huge "Pinocchio" administration thread.

...or a "pistachio administration" thread... I likes me them pistachios!

So you're saying you're a Bush supporter?

Lawsuit filed against Faux News parent News-Corp... News-Corp tried to suborn perjury to protect Giuliani

"A senior executive in the News Corp. organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani's presidential campaign,"' according to the complaint. "This executive advised Regan to lie to, and withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik."

they just offer both sides, not only the left like the mainstream media does.