39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On 2007-07-16 09:17:49 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:


"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-16 06:11:47 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:

IN THE WHOTE HOUSE

Oh, there.


And your point is????

That you can't spell.

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-16 09:17:49 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:


"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-16 06:11:47 -0400, "Hertz Dount"
said:

IN THE WHOTE HOUSE

Oh, there.


And your point is????

That you can't spell.


Coming from someone who thinks 39% is a majority, that is funny!

Honu

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


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
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.

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

On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said:

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

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.

Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous
seems to me to be purest bull****. 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. Many
of the people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at
adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a
blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the
religious leaders who scream loudest about adultery.

Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and
they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time
for us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this
foible.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:00:16 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said:

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

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.

Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous
seems to me to be purest bull****. 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. Many
of the people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at
adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a
blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the
religious leaders who scream loudest about adultery.

Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and
they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time
for us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this
foible.

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.

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

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


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..
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.


Honu



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

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said:

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

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.

Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous seems
to me to be purest bull****.


because like him, you have no morals or conscience.

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. Many of the
people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at
adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a
blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the religious
leaders who scream loudest about adultery.

Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and
they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time for
us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this foible.


So adultery, perjury, sodomy are all fine your book? Oh yeah....you are a
liberal...

Honu

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:00:16 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said:

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

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.

Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous
seems to me to be purest bull****. 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. Many
of the people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at
adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a
blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the
religious leaders who scream loudest about adultery.

Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and
they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time
for us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this
foible.

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?

Honu

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

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
...
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.



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

"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
m...
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