SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Enam Luf who wrote (586735)6/30/2004 7:07:10 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"I do believe, however, that much of the vehemence you see coming from the left is vengence resulting from the perceived unjust persecution of their hero, Bill Clinton"

Maybe. This was a bit of a turning point for me in the sense that I did not vote for Clinton, but gave him a fair shake. When I saw that people that are supposedly strongly for women's rights and that kind of thing basically say that it was ok for Bill, and the people bothered by his dishonesty and lack of integrity are just prudes. Very, very few dems were outraged by his shenanigans or dishonesty. I don't think as many repubs would have supported a Republican President in the same situation. I know I would have been disgusted. But with the dems it was just that you are an asshole if you were offended. It was just sex. blah blah blah.

And now there seems to be an outrageous amount of dishonesty used to slam Bush. It is not honest debate.

" I do not excuse him for breaking any laws and shamefully perjuring himself before Congress and the US public."

That is good. Most on this thread just use the tired old "it was only sex" bit, and ask as though what you hilite did not happen or does not matter.

Remember too as far as when this started. Clarence Thomas. He "supposedly" made a joke about a pubic hair in a coke can, and they wanted to run him out of town. The dems are doing the same type of things with other well qualified judges. Calling one of them (Pickard) a racist. When they KNOW HE IS NOT. Creepy.



To: Enam Luf who wrote (586735)6/30/2004 7:12:37 PM
From: Peter O'Brien  Respond to of 769670
 
The legal "inquisition" into B.C.'s sexual history
was empowered by a law that B.C. himself signed
and the then-Democrat-controlled Congress passed
in 1994.

So, obviously, Democrats weren't bothered by the prospect
of such "inquisitions" happening to people in the
private sector.