Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I mean, compared to how much blowjobs threaten america, WMD intelligence isn't even worth worrying about!

You haven't heard about teh BJMD, that's, the Blow Jobs of Mass Destruction? Then you're a terrorist - you're with us or you're against us.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing party's President. He succeeded.

And he still had >50% approval rating after all that, meaning the people thought it was pathetic. Chimp has about a 30% approval rating after getting away with all of his lies about WMD's, so firtunatley the Dems don't have to bother damaging your pres, he does such a good job himself.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing party's President. He succeeded.

And he still had >50% approval rating after all that, meaning the people thought it was pathetic. Chimp has about a 30% approval rating after getting away with all of his lies about WMD's, so firtunatley the Dems don't have to bother damaging your pres, he does such a good job himself.

You convinced me - I won't be voting for GW in 08!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing party's President. He succeeded.

And he still had >50% approval rating after all that, meaning the people thought it was pathetic.

And yet Gore was unable to secure a decisive win in 2000, even though he was sitting on top of the greatest bull market in history, low unemployment and the best budget forecasts in a generation.

The party in power stays in power during good times. This is (nearly) a universal truth. Gore's winning the election was a gimme. Bummer.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing party's President. He succeeded.

And he still had >50% approval rating after all that, meaning the people thought it was pathetic. Chimp has about a 30% approval rating after getting away with all of his lies about WMD's, so firtunatley the Dems don't have to bother damaging your pres, he does such a good job himself.

You convinced me - I won't be voting for GW in 08!!

Well, we know he will try to run

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing party's President. He succeeded.

And he still had >50% approval rating after all that, meaning the people thought it was pathetic.

And yet Gore was unable to secure a decisive win in 2000, even though he was sitting on top of the greatest bull market in history, low unemployment and the best budget forecasts in a generation.

The party in power stays in power during good times. This is (nearly) a universal truth. Gore's winning the election was a gimme. Bummer.

Gee, and here I thought we wee talking about Clinton and Starr doing him damage

And he still had >50% approval rating after all that, meaning the people thought it was pathetic.

I think I wrote that, not anything about teh party or about Gore. And that's even to address the BS about the 2000 election.

[Andy9o8 3]

You guys are too much. You tell us we're all full of shit for believing that the White House was out to discredit Joe Wilson for daring to (horrors!) dissent against the govt about the Iraq war by starting a whispering campaign to discredit him AND his wife Valerie Plame - because we don't have it on videotape or something like that - but you freely repeat the charge that Clinton is a rapist.

What consistency. What credibility.
Not.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Ok send your daughter to be a paige at the Klinton presdential library while Bill is hanging around.


On second thought don't do it, I would not want you to become a murderer.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You guys are too much. You tell us we're all full of shit for believing that the White House was out to discredit Joe Wilson for daring to (horrors!) dissent against the govt about the Iraq war by starting a whispering campaign to discredit him AND his wife Valerie Plame - because we don't have it on videotape or something like that - but you freely repeat the charge that Clinton is a rapist.

What consistency. What credibility.
Not.

I'm thinking Juanita Broaddrick might disagree with you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

Hey she was a black woman, so she must have deserved it from the first black president.


He just was trying to keep Dem ho's in line.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

You guys are too much. You tell us we're all full of shit for believing that the White House was out to discredit Joe Wilson for daring to (horrors!) dissent against the govt about the Iraq war by starting a whispering campaign to discredit him AND his wife Valerie Plame - because we don't have it on videotape or something like that - but you freely repeat the charge that Clinton is a rapist.

What consistency. What credibility.
Not.

Let's disect(sp?) this one. I believe the White House set out to discredit Joe Wilson. It's been proven that much of what he said were blatant lies. There was a lengthy, thorough investigation looking into the claim of the White House intentional outed Valerie Plame. Nothing was found to support that claim.

On the other hand:

Quote

Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned

[Andy9o8 3]

I'm sorry - how many times have criminal charges been filed against Clinton in all those jurisdictions? Please advise.

[NCclimber 0]

Oooo

Now your lawyering. Nice ploy.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Now your lawyering. Nice ploy.

You replace the common word "affair" with "quid pro quo" and blame HIM for lawyering?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,132]

>And yet Gore was unable to secure a decisive win in 2000 . . .

He did get popular support; far more people voted for him than for Bush. Bush won because we don't have popular elections for president, not because he was the people's choice for president.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>And yet Gore was unable to secure a decisive win in 2000 . . .

He did get popular support; far more people voted for him than for Bush.

Far more? Of the vote total, Gore recieved 1/2 of one percent more than Bush. 48.4% to 47.9%

My point was that considering the general well-being of the average American, the election should have been no-contest. Gore should've won in a landslide.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

>And yet Gore was unable to secure a decisive win in 2000 . . .

He did get popular support; far more people voted for him than for Bush.

Far more? Of the vote total, Gore recieved 1/2 of one percent more than Bush. 48.4% to 47.9%

My point was that considering the general well-being of the average American, the election should have been no-contest. Gore should've won in a landslide.

111 million people voted in the 2000 election.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/000505.html

0.05% of that is 5,550,000 people. Imagine having to buy just 1 beer for each one of those noble souls. Even with the cheap shit you drink, still not a trivial bar tab.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>And yet Gore was unable to secure a decisive win in 2000 . . .

He did get popular support; far more people voted for him than for Bush.

Far more? Of the vote total, Gore recieved 1/2 of one percent more than Bush. 48.4% to 47.9%

My point was that considering the general well-being of the average American, the election should have been no-contest. Gore should've won in a landslide.

111 million people voted in the 2000 election.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/000505.html

0.05% of that is 5,550,000 people. Imagine having to buy just 1 beer for each one of those noble souls. Even with the cheap shit you drink, still not a trivial bar tab.

What do those 5,550,000 people have to do with anything? What's your point?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

What do those 5,550,000 people have to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing! The US supreme court decided that in 2001.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Far more? Of the vote total, Gore recieved 1/2 of one percent more than Bush. 48.4% to 47.9%

My point was that considering the general well-being of the average American, the election should have been no-contest. Gore should've won in a landslide.

111 million people voted in the 2000 election.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/000505.html

0.05% of that is 5,550,000 people. Imagine having to buy just 1 beer for each one of those noble souls. Even with the cheap shit you drink, still not a trivial bar tab.

man, this is some really bad math, on so many levels.

5 million is 5%, not .05%. And you really mean .5%, which is 500,000. Which is not very far from the margin of victory in uncontested California. Had the election been driven by popular vote, Bush would have campaigned in California. The outcome may have been closer.

The reality is that .5% is a dead heat and probably within the margin of (unintentional) error with our election methods. If Nader hadn't run, or Florida voters were a little more careful, probably would have become a slight victory to Gore. But we don't decide elections on 'probably.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No one dies with a BJ.

sadly, not remote true. Lots of sexual assault victims die, most often by suicide. Others are messed up.

May not be relevent to this particular situation.

[billvon 3,132]

>Far more? Of the vote total, Gore recieved 1/2 of one percent more than
>Bush. 48.4% to 47.9%

If 543,000 more people do one thing than another, I'd think that qualifies as "far more."

>My point was that considering the general well-being of the average
> American, the election should have been no-contest. Gore should've won
>in a landslide.

Why? He was boring, wooden. A "brainiac." Bush was the folksy ranchy guy you wanted to have dinner with. That's what people vote for.

[Andy9o8 3]

Oh. Yeah.
I meant to say that.

(childish mocking voice) "on so many levels"



Hey, I was a government major. Leave me alone.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Far more? Of the vote total, Gore recieved 1/2 of one percent more than
>Bush. 48.4% to 47.9%

If 543,000 more people do one thing than another, I'd think that qualifies as "far more."

you can think that, but it doesn't make it true.

Just as having 200 people and having 99 do one thing and have 98 do another. (while 3 others scratch their ass) 1 person margin out of 200 is as even as it can be - one more person comes along and you might be tied at 99.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Far more? Of the vote total, Gore recieved 1/2 of one percent more than
>Bush. 48.4% to 47.9%

If 543,000 more people do one thing than another, I'd think that qualifies as "far more."

In comparing 51,003,926 to 50,460,110, I disagree. To me personally, $50K is a lot of money, but in the context of the federal budget, it doesn't even register. This is a subjective matter. If you think Gore's 00.5% margin over Bush is huge, then have at it.

Quote

>My point was that considering the general well-being of the average
> American, the election should have been no-contest. Gore should've won
>in a landslide.

Why? He was boring, wooden. A "brainiac." Bush was the folksy ranchy guy you wanted to have dinner with. That's what people vote for.

Why? Because the party in power gets to take credit for the good times... and in 2000 the times were historically good.