39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On 2007-07-16 13:00:16 -0400, sechumlib said:

I'd hate to have to count the number of presidents who were adulterous.
Some that immediately come to mind are Jefferson, Jackson, Harding, FD
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon.

Not to mention Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, whom I conveniently forgot.

On 2007-07-16 14:01:10 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:

"Hatunen" wrote in message
..
I have seen it said that at one point Warren Harding's secret
service men kept Mrs Hardng at bay outside the oval office while
the prez hid his mistress, Nan Britton, in a closet.

Did he lie about it to the SCOTUS, Congress, and go on National TV and lie
to every single person alive in the U.S. at that moment?

He wasn't asked by people who just wanted to catch him at something
they could persecute him about. In those days, voyeurs didn't go quite
as far as they do today and life was (arguably) better in that respect.

Now, will you please quit repeating, rerepeating and rererepeating
yourself and go back to your hole?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:58:32 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .

I expect there has been similarly broad lying by presdent in the
past, but probably on different subjects.



I know of no president, other than Clinton, who deliberately and repeatedly
lied to the citizens of this county.

I know of no president, that when caught with DNA evidence linking him to a
crime tried to change the meaning of a word in the English language

I know of no ther president, save for perhaps Richard Nixon, who displayed
such a lack of integrity as did Clinton.

You are aware, aren't you, that Clinton hasn't been president for
some six-plus years now? Isn't it about time you changed dead
horses?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hertz Dount" wrote in message
news:2qqdnc4U_9Z0IgbbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net...

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:57:51 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said:

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means.

Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff
you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that
Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political
impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They
are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is
involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and
simple.

The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't
interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start
ignoring
them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do
that.
May you be stronger than I am.

I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like
that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment
to get a clue as to what's really meant.

Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill
Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a
serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman
they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that
case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush.


You have no hope because you think it is perfectly acceptable for a
president to lie.

Please quote where I said, or implied, any such thing.

You think is is perfectly acceptable for a
president to be adulterous.

No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot
of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered
the press into being less protective.

You have no hope
because you fail to realize that anyone that would lie on the scale
that
Clinton did, and do what he did *IN THE WHOTE HOUSE* has no morals at
all.
None. Yet you continue to perceive him as some kind of Knight in
Shining
Armor.

Do you honestly thing Clinton has been the only president who
ever lied while President? You are sijmply too naive for words.

All I ask is that you stop spouting legal nonsense.

Lied to the SCOTUS, Congress and every citizen of the U.S.,
intentionally,
deliberately and repeatedly. Yes, I think he is the only President to
lie
on the scale that buffoon, I mean Clinton did.

I expect there has been similarly broad lying by presdent in the
past, but probably on different subjects.



I know of no president, other than Clinton, who deliberately and
repeatedly
lied to the citizens of this county.

I know of no president, that when caught with DNA evidence linking him to
a
crime tried to change the meaning of a word in the English language

I know of no ther president, save for perhaps Richard Nixon, who displayed
such a lack of integrity as did Clinton.

Honu

The U-2 spy plane incident during the Eisenhower administration comes to
mind.

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/dl/...documents.html

Hertz Dount wrote:

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-12 14:20:29 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:


"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-12 09:33:48 -0400, "Hertz Dount"
said:

I shudder at the thought of an amateur like Obama or a
vacilator like Billary gaining office.

Somehow, I can't see how any Democrat in the field could possibly be
worse
than the last few Republicans.


Okay, then elect one...you'll see how bad it can be when we turn the
country
over to terrorists and illegal aliens.

I suggest you see your therapist as soon as possible about your paranoia.


I have no paranoia. Look at the democratic candidates...none of them are
prepared for leading the country in the crisis we find ourselves in!

Give me a break; Obama is nothing more than a pretty boy in a suit, and
Billary is the Jane Fonda of the 21st century. Neither will have what it
takes to stand up to the job.

So which of the Reps is any better?
--
Lars T.

Yellowbeard wrote:

In previous replies I read where someone was upset about the recent
pardon in Washington.
I will wait to see who else and how many more get pardonded. Like in
Jan 2001--- see link
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
Clinton claimed executive privilege for a subpoena of records back
then too.

Which one on the list even worked for the Clinton administration?

And why couldn't Shrubya wait till Jan 2009? Who is he going to pardon
then? Chuck Manson?
--
Lars T.

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-16 13:00:16 -0400, sechumlib said:

I'd hate to have to count the number of presidents who were adulterous.
Some that immediately come to mind are Jefferson, Jackson, Harding, FD
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon.

Not to mention Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, whom I conveniently forgot.


You conveniently forget a lot of things...

Honu

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-16 14:01:10 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:

"Hatunen" wrote in message
..
I have seen it said that at one point Warren Harding's secret
service men kept Mrs Hardng at bay outside the oval office while
the prez hid his mistress, Nan Britton, in a closet.

Did he lie about it to the SCOTUS, Congress, and go on National TV and
lie
to every single person alive in the U.S. at that moment?

He wasn't asked by people who just wanted to catch him at something they
could persecute him about. In those days, voyeurs didn't go quite as far
as they do today and life was (arguably) better in that respect.

Now, will you please quit repeating, rerepeating and rererepeating
yourself and go back to your hole?

So now you are accusing the US of being voyeurs?
You are really pathetic...

Honu

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:58:32 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..

I expect there has been similarly broad lying by presdent in the
past, but probably on different subjects.



I know of no president, other than Clinton, who deliberately and
repeatedly
lied to the citizens of this county.

I know of no president, that when caught with DNA evidence linking him to
a
crime tried to change the meaning of a word in the English language

I know of no ther president, save for perhaps Richard Nixon, who displayed
such a lack of integrity as did Clinton.

You are aware, aren't you, that Clinton hasn't been president for
some six-plus years now? Isn't it about time you changed dead
horses?


Why? You flog them when it suits your needs. Clinton will always be
a man withour morals, no matter how long it has been since his term of
office.

Honu

"Walt Tucker" wrote in message
...

"Hertz Dount" wrote in message
news:2qqdnc4U_9Z0IgbbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net...

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:57:51 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
news:evsl93pcunsc1dkaooq32ue9al5ar73s4l@4ax. com...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said:

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means.

Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff
you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that
Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political
impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They
are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it,
is
involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and
simple.

The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't
interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start
ignoring
them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do
that.
May you be stronger than I am.

I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like
that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment
to get a clue as to what's really meant.

Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill
Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a
serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman
they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that
case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush.


You have no hope because you think it is perfectly acceptable for a
president to lie.

Please quote where I said, or implied, any such thing.

You think is is perfectly acceptable for a
president to be adulterous.

No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot
of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered
the press into being less protective.

You have no hope
because you fail to realize that anyone that would lie on the scale
that
Clinton did, and do what he did *IN THE WHOTE HOUSE* has no morals at
all.
None. Yet you continue to perceive him as some kind of Knight in
Shining
Armor.

Do you honestly thing Clinton has been the only president who
ever lied while President? You are sijmply too naive for words.

All I ask is that you stop spouting legal nonsense.

Lied to the SCOTUS, Congress and every citizen of the U.S.,
intentionally,
deliberately and repeatedly. Yes, I think he is the only President to
lie
on the scale that buffoon, I mean Clinton did.

I expect there has been similarly broad lying by presdent in the
past, but probably on different subjects.



I know of no president, other than Clinton, who deliberately and
repeatedly
lied to the citizens of this county.

I know of no president, that when caught with DNA evidence linking him to
a
crime tried to change the meaning of a word in the English language

I know of no ther president, save for perhaps Richard Nixon, who
displayed such a lack of integrity as did Clinton.

Honu

The U-2 spy plane incident during the Eisenhower administration comes to
mind.

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/dl/...documents.html




Let's see....one is for National Security and the other is to lie about
being an adulterer and a sodomizer.

Pathetic that you cannto see the difference. One was to protect the
interest of the nation, and the other was to cover up a blowjob.

Honu'