DaVinci

And those people will still do it. A law will not prevent them from getting angry and striking out. But it could prevent a calm parent from using it when they feel it is needed....Such as playing in traffic.

I don't like his views on the second at all. He seems to be a really honest kind of guy. He was in AZ some mths back and the people out here loved him. His lack of voting record will help him more than hurt him I think since he can make statments and not have any real history to fight. So he can pretty much make his stands on the trail without past performance being thrown in his face...Like the GOP did with Kerry.

I would be fine if the US stopped handing out money to everyone and took care of its own. The US gets bashed for EVERYTHING it does. The US gives money and they didn't give enough.

"Hi davinci! Do you think a guy that admitted he did something that was illegal is guilty?" davinci: "Yes, I mean hell, *he admitted it*!" "Oh, OK...You are right, he did. Never mind."

Ya lost me at: This could turn into WWIII. But it will be just a continuation of centuries of fighting over who has the coolest invisible friend. If you wanted to compare the most likely chance of WWIII it will be over religion since most countries know that war on that scale does not really do anything good for the country. However, religious extremist from all religions will readily kill for "God" as they have shown over the last several thousand years.

You ignore it since you feel it makes your side less "validated" in your outrage against the other side. Lets try this...Next time there is a thread about Bush, how about you only make statements you can prove, or at least add IMO? And when in a disagreement how about not making any attacks on the poster?

I have been in reality. The people who are living outside of reality are those that do not think he lied under oath, or that it is not perjury. Or that since the crime was so small and over something so silly that it is not a crime. While at the same time as they willfully ignore this case, they turn the table and make accusations that have not been proven in other situations since they deem the "crime" large enough to punish without trial, confession, or even proof. He admitted to lying under oath. Would you call lying under oath a crime? I would no matter what crime they are lying about and no matter what party they are from. I do feel punishment should fit the crime, which is why I don't think Clinton should have been removed. Many in Congress felt the same way.

He was fined and disbarred. He admitted to lying under oath. What would you call lying under oath? As for not being removed. Hell, I don't think he should have been removed for getting a BJ. Maybe not even for lying under oath. But to claim he did not lie under oath AFTER HE ADMITTED TO IT, and after being fined and disbarred for lying under oath. Is rather silly.

The Dems could say he was guilty. In fact *I* would as well. I would have no issue with anyone saying he was guilty in that situation. I *DO* take issue with one group claiming one guy did nothing wrong even though he admitted it, while making all kinds of claims against a guy that has not been found guilty nor admitted to anything. I also take issue with the line of thinking that even if it was wrong that since it was not *really* bad it just didn't even happen.

OK, but we all can agree that it will not happen. It would not even be an issue now except you and others ignore he admitted to it. But at the same time attack Bush for things you can't back up. What are the chances that you will only debate using facts?

You will, of course, tell us how many are not? Fact is you, nor I, nor he know. But we all make assumptions. About the letter, YES, it supports the President. But many of you are using that to ignore that it ALSO is asking for people of all parties to support the troops. Bipartisanship requires BOTH sides, and it seems this group is trying. Why pick out a seperate issue to slam them and try to invalidate the other reason?

Well he DID admitt to it. And he did get fined and kicked out of the Bar. Can you prove any of your claims against Bush (like him admitting it)? Nope, didn't think so.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/senate.earmarks/index.html "The days of lawmakers slipping pet projects into spending bills at the last minute are ending after the Senate approved a new rule Tuesday forcing members to disclose requests for those "earmarks." The earmarks would have to be posted on the Internet at least two days before legislation comes up for a vote. The new disclosure requirements -- part of an ethics and lobbying overhaul that's expected to come up for a final vote later this week -- passed 98-0." Nice, but what I don't get is this part, "The disclosure rules, proposed by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, were originally opposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who backed language with a narrower definition of what constituted an earmark. But after a procedural vote to shelve DeMint's proposal failed last week -- with nine Democrats breaking ranks -- Reid and the Democratic leadership changed course and backed the new requirements." Why oppose it? The House passed a measure by a 430-1 vote to ban lawmakers from accepting gifts and free trips from lobbyists and discounted flights on private planes. On January 9, the House approved that measure by a vote of 299 to 128. The House voted January 10 to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. While I don't agree, they did it. Also it is almost exactly the same as the bill that was voted down several times. The issue has been tax breaks for small businesses. "Senate Democratic leaders have already signaled they will accept changes designed to shield small businesses from adverse consequences of higher labor costs." If they had agreed to that before, this would have passed years ago. http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/01/17/student.loans.ap/index.html Even with a little back peddle..Now only certain loans are going to be affected. "During last year's campaign season, Democrats did not spell out that the cut they were talking about passing in the first 100 hours of the new Congress would only affect need-based loans". Still I think a good thing. The best way to help the poor is to make education available. Passed the House by a 255-170 vote on January 12. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/stem.cell.ap/index.html The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures. But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush's promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again. While I think Bush should not veto it...I find it hard to give credit for a bill that passed once already. Other stuff... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/12/senate.ethics/index.html I like this :"The Senate on Friday approved a measure stripping taxpayer-funded pensions from members of Congress who are convicted of serious ethics offenses, such as bribery and conspiracy." But I say it should apply to the people currently on pension...Like James Traficant, and Cunningham. Over all they seem to be doing what they said. Now to see if it does good.

You keep just ignoring that he pleaded out one day before he left office. "In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[10] Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote: "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [11] In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [12]"

Try jumping one in

Based on that he takes a hit in my book.

Admitting you did it = Good. Lying under oath = Bad. Your posts show otherwise. In response to how you and others wish to assume quilt in one case without proof and assume innocence after the proof says otherwise. Again nothing but an emotional response and an accusation without proof. And Bush 1 for at least 8 years...Then there was Reagan...And on and on.

Nice try a redirect. But admitting you lied under oath is a good sign you did it. An emotional reply from you. YOU are the one wanting to crucify Bush for something you can't prove while defending Clinton for something he admitted to doing.

The left is the only one making ANY comparisions. "No one died when Clinton lied!" All I and others have said is Clinton lied under oath. Also, I SUPPORT the idea of impeachment. I just hope that if found innocent the left will stop making accusations that were found wrong. And I have said that if it is found he did it, then I would JOIN you asking for punishment.

Yes, but also remember that OTHER agencies said the same thing and even the CIA said it before Bush took office.

Got some links? Why do people who are in politics not do everything to avoid even the hint of wrong doing in business?

So even though *I* didn't design the field, *I* should be punished?

Yes. True, but admitting guilt is a good sign. The fact he has not even been charged says a good bit. But you are right, I guess we should just shoot the people we THINK are guilty! Thats it, ignore the people who ADMITTED GUILT and shoot first when it fits your mood.

Incorrect. Unformed did http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2614782#2614782

No, I define guilt as did he do it, and can it be proven. YOU are the only one here with a sliding scale based on how YOU feel about the level of the crime. Just to state some facts: Guilt is a black/white, on/off, 1/0 issue. Either you did or did not do something. Level of punishment varies depending on the seriousness of the offense. GUILT does not adjust based on how bad you think the crime was. Lack of proof means you cannot prove guilt. Evidence that proves guilt, does mean they are guilty. Now you may think that a crime is not equal to another, and you would be correct. Which is why we don't kill people who run red lights. But they are guilty and the fact the crime is not "big" does not mean they are innocent. So using logic, Billy is guilty even though his offense is not the worst thing ever. Bush is innocent till you can provide proof. Charge him, provide proof, and if found guilty, then he will be guilty. And as I said before if guilty I will stand by you and others to see punishment. Also, I am not trying to prevent impeachment either. I say impeach him and have a nice trial and see what shakes out. If found guilty I want punishment based on the level of crime. But to claim that a crime as not being big, or not being AS big as an imaginary set of proof to another crime, so it is not really a crime is wrong.