Ted RE..<<<<Bush is an alcoholic....he has a problem with drinking. <<<<<<<<<<<
There is a difference between having alcoholism and having a drinking problem. Alcoholism is the disease. A drinking problem is when you habitually drink alcohol to excess. GW isn't currently drinking alcohol to excess. He hasn't had a alcoholic drink in 15 yrs. He can drink water, fruit juices, anything he wants without a problem as long as it isn't alcohol. Bush doesn't currently have a drinking problem because he can control his disease. Its the disease you can't get rid of.
<<<<<<<<<Who died and made you king <<<<<<<<
I didn't know I was king. But I also haven't checked the mail yet. The law states that he should be able to control his impulses. I had nothing to do with passage of those laws. Why are you insisting Bill should be able to break laws whenever he wishes. He is subject to the same laws as you and I.
Clinton and Bush are two different people with 2 different problems and 2 different levels of support. When they deal with their problems is their business<<<<<<<
It is our business if they break the law. GW dealt with his problem, Bill didn't. GW broke the law, with his DWI. He paid the fine, and he dealt with his problem. Bill has yet to deal with his problems, and as long as we enable him, he will continue to do so.
<<<<I will never defend Clinton's dealings with Lewinsky. But frankly, I can handle that better than the snickering of his opponents over the issue. What is that saying from the Bible: " Let he without sin cast the first stone". <<<<<
You can;t handle the snickering of the opponents?????
What did you expect? A commendation. A medal of Honor perhaps. Get real. If Bill can't withstand the scrutiny, he shouldn't have been there. AT the very least, the dems. shouldn't have bought sex issues into play with the Clarence Thomas Hearings. The Dems. accused Thomas of sexual harassment because he said a dirty joke and because he harassed Hill by asking her out for a date several times. Now you have the nerve to say Bill should have been allowed to have state troopers ask Paula up to his room so he could ask for a blow job, without any criticism. Bill signed into law some sexual harassment laws, and he signed into law a bill allowing prosecutors to ask a defendant about his past in sexual harassment cases. Later when he himself is asked those very questions, Bill is astounded that they would ask those very same type of questions. If he didn't like those types of questions; he shouldn't have been pandering the feminist vote by lobbying for and signing into a law a bill that demands the prosecutors do just that.
Is he, or is he doing a tit for tat?<<<<<<<
What is the difference. He is doing it. |
