Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

Hello, I am a Dem. I just wanted to say that Clinton was wrong when he lied under oath about having consensual sex with another adult.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

Yes, Scalia is a Rep. And Ruth Badar Ginsburg is a Dem. See the way it works is that a president of the US gets to nominate who he wants to the USSC. This results in the nomination of Dems by Dem Presidents and the nomination of Reps by Rep Presidents. Of course, occassionally one switches sides on you after being appointed (e.g., Souter).

I don't see what one has to do with the other. If you have any example of Dems on this board acting other than how I have characterized them, feel free to cite it.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

What consequences should he have suffered for that crime? Should Clinton have faced a criminal penalty? And if not, why not.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

Does my statement erode your blanket generalization about the differences between the Reps and Dems on this board?

eta: Yes, I'm sincere in my condemnation of Clinton's act.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

No it doesn't because all you are willing to say is that it was wrong, when in fact, it was a crime. You are minimizing what he did. He didn't just do something wrong. He commited a crime. But Dems cared more about retaining the power of the presidency than they did about doing the right thing.

Bob Kerrey - What an Asshole
 

Either you are making up odd things and attributing them to Kerrey, in which case I decline to argue with you, or you should read the op-ed piece bilmore linked to by Kerrey in the WSJ, which should disabuse of your silly ideas about what he thinks.

I see. And Clarke has made statements that have been misreported by others, and you guys blame Clarke for that too. It all comes together now.

Tim Roemer - What a Timmy
 

Agreed. I was embarassed by the behavior of many of those on the commission. This commission has the potential to do something valuable for all of us but instead has degenerated into a partisan joke.

That isn't as bad as the multiple "Dr. Clarke" references by Kerrey.

Yep.

Bob Kerrey - What an Asshole
 

In fairness, Kerrey's rather odd behavior at the hearing (odd in the sense that it seemed to contradict his earlier statements, writings, and whatnot) was confusing. I have seen it characterized, in blogs, as his VP audition.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

Well, in addition to being impeached but not removed, he paid a fine/sanction/whatever and had some bar troubles.

Are you suggesting that those were insufficient consequences? Do you think that he should have done time? If so, would Eglin be sufficient? Danbury? Or Atlanta, with the really bad criminals?

Bob Kerrey - What an Asshole
 

You are being too fair. You posted a link to something he wrote on the subject, and she obviously didn't bother to read it before calling him anti-American.

She's taking her cues from Senator Frist. ("He's a perjurer. OK, well I don't know of any basis for that, but if there are contradictions between what he said before and what he's saying now, he's a perjurer.")

Bob Kerrey - What an Asshole
 

I said I haven't had time to read it, yet. All I have read/seen are the transcript and the news stories and the news clips. I said it is possible that I intepreted what he said differently than how he meant it. But if so, then he wasn't clear in what he said at the hearing. Sounds like from what you are saying he clarified things in the WSJ editorial.

Yeah and Bush lied.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

I'm sorry - what was it you said originally? Oh yeah --

Wow, splitting hairs IS fun!!

You conclude (from nothing) that I'm unwilling to say it was a crime, ergo, I am minimizing what he did. I did no such thing. I never said whether I thought it was a crime. Sorry if I didn't respond to your question directly, at the precise moment you asked it. But life is unfair.

I am impressed, though, by your ability to simultaneously change both what you said in a previous post AND twist I said in a previous post. Brava!

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

I'm one of those psycho libertarians and I'd like to take issue with Panda's assertion that Billy Bob lied about having sex with that woman. Blow jobs and cigar dildos are not "sex." They just aren't. Ask any HS cheerleader. Whole thing was total bullshit.

BR(yes, I am sincere)C

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

Well, here's one from Atticus that I recall. There are others, but I see that you've already dragged someone else into the high weeds to argue about Clinton, so other than observing that you've adroitly shrunk the size of your blanket to a place more comfortable to you, I'll leave it at that.

Oh, forgot to add:

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me Yes, Scalia is a Rep. And Ruth Badar Ginsburg is a Dem. See the way it works is that a president of the US gets to nominate who he wants to the USSC. This results in the nomination of Dems by Dem Presidents and the nomination of Reps by Rep Presidents. Of course, occassionally one switches sides on you after being appointed (e.g., Souter).

Whiff.


etft -- T.S.

Bob Kerrey - What an Asshole
 

You have your timing wrong. I posted my comments based on the hearing yesterday.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...4290#post84290

Bilmore posted the editorial today in response to my comments. Moreover, I have stated several times that I was basing my conclusion on what was said at the hearing. That is how it came across to me.