A challenge to Luke Wyatt

lustylad's Avatar
....republicans have consciences and ultimately will not support wrong. so Nixon lost republican support and he felt shame himself. dimocrats merely protect their own and don't care about right or wrong and Clinton has no shame.... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
+1

Exactly! Dimotards feel NO SHAME. They have NO MORALS.

If a Republican had behaved like Clinton, he would have been forced out of office and treated like a pariah. Yet the Dims treat Bubba Clinton like a rock star and make him a marquee speaker at their conventions. Can you imagine how they would have ranted and railed if Dick Nixon had been invited back to speak at the 1976 and 1980 RNC conventions?

Slick Willy should have checked into sex addiction rehab and never been released!!!
I B Hankering's Avatar
I have a nickname for you. It's IB Segueing. Every issue you jump from one thing to the next, One second its Monica then you jumped to Paula. That's your way of avoiding the truth. Typical. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator perjured himself in the Paula Jones case, dumb-ass. You're just too dimwitted to have ever realized that it was Paula Jones and not Monica Lewinsky who dragged him in front of the Grand Jury. You are exactly like your fearless leader, hildebeest, dumb-ass: "easily confused."
LexusLover's Avatar

Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator perjured himself in the Paula Jones case, dumb-ass. You're just too dimwitted to have ever realized that it was Paula Jones and not Monica Lewinsky who dragged him in front of the Grand Jury. You are exactly like your fearless leader, hildebeest, dumb-ass: "easily confused."
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Wasn't Paula Jones claiming "non-consensual" sex?

And rather than claiming consent Bill just denied any sex at all?
lustylad's Avatar
I don't think I can bring myself to vote for him, but here's the case for Trump:


The Case for Donald Trump

The alternative is President Hillary Rodham Clinton.


By William McGurn
July 18, 2016 7:25 p.m. ET


What’s the best case for Donald Trump?

The question comes in the week Republicans here will formally nominate him for president, and the answer is not complicated. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence gave it as his reason for signing on as Mr. Trump’s VP: The alternative is President Hillary Clinton.

This is the reality of choice in a two-party democracy. Still, many have a hard time accepting it. So even as Mr. Trump handily dispatched 16 more-experienced rivals, his shortcomings and unfitness for office have become a staple of conservative fare.

Yes, Mr. Trump elevates insult over argument. Yes, he is vague and contradictory about the details of his own proposals. And yes, he often speaks aloud before thinking things through. It’s all fair game.

Even so, in this election Mr. Trump is not running against himself. Though you might not know it from much of the commentary and coverage, he is running against Mrs. Clinton.

On so many issues—free trade, the claim that Mexico will pay for a border wall, his suspiciously recent embrace of the pro-life cause—Mr. Trump gives reasons for pause. But he still isn’t Mrs. Clinton. That’s crucial, because much of the argument for keeping Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office at all costs requires glossing over the damage a second Clinton presidency would do.

Start with the economy. There is zero reason to believe a Clinton administration would be any improvement over the past eight years, from taxes and spending and regulation to ObamaCare. If elected, moreover, Mrs. Clinton would be working with a Democratic Party that has been pulled sharply left by Bernie Sanders.

Mrs. Clinton’s flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is illuminating. As President Obama’s secretary of state, she waxed enthusiastic. But when it came time to take her stand as a presidential candidate, she folded. Mr. Trump has made his own protectionist noises, but if this same trade agreement had been negotiated by a Trump White House, who doubts that he would be telling us what a great deal it was for American workers?

Or what about social issues? Mrs. Clinton has loudly repudiated the moderating language her husband ran on in 1992, notably on abortion. In sharp contrast, she is the candidate who touts the Planned Parenthood view of human life, who sees nothing wrong with forcing nuns to provide employees with contraceptives, and who supports the Obama administration’s bid to compel K-through-12 public schools to open girls’ bathrooms to males who identify as female.

In short, Mrs. Clinton is the culture war on steroids.

Which leaves foreign affairs. Here again, the initiatives where she was front-and-center do not inspire confidence: the Russian reset and Benghazi. More to the point, while she now apologizes for her 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, what she ought to be apologizing for is her admission that her 2007 opposition to the surge in Iraq was dictated not by any military concerns but because she was worried about facing antiwar candidate Barack Obama in the Iowa Democratic primary.

Today this same woman supports the nuclear deal with Tehran and offers an Islamic State strategy that sounds tough but is not materially different from Mr. Obama’s. This is the “hawk” we’re always hearing about?

Nor is the case against Mrs. Clinton limited to policy. It’s as much about personnel, which goes much further than the activist nominees she would almost certainly nominate for the Supreme Court.

When presidents enter office, they bring with them about 6,000 people. From the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and White House assistants down to the lowliest Justice Department lawyer, Mrs. Clinton would fill her government with people who get up each day looking to tax, spend, regulate—and use the federal government to stomp on anyone in their way.

At a time when so much of American “law”—from the Health and Human Service’s contraceptive mandate, to the Education Department’s “Dear Colleague” letters on transgender policy, to the National Labor Relations Board’s prosecution of Boeing for opening a new plant in South Carolina instead of in Washington state—is decided by faceless federal bureaucrats, Mrs. Clinton would stuff these federal agencies from top to bottom with Lois Lerners and Elizabeth Warrens.

Welcome to 21st-century American liberalism, which no longer even pretends to produce results. Whatever the shortcomings of Mr. Trump’s people, non-progressives simply do not share the itch to use the government to boss everyone else around. On top of this, an overreaching President Trump would not be excused by the press and would face both Republican and Democratic opposition.

Fair enough to argue that Mr. Trump represents a huge risk. But honesty requires that this risk be weighed against a clear-eyed look at the certainties a Hillary Clinton administration would bring.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case...ump-1468884328
Third alternative, don't vote for either of them, back Gary!!!!
JD Barleycorn's Avatar
Them why did so many republicans vote not guilty? What was he guilty of by the way? Originally Posted by MT Pockets
A good example of twisted liberal logic. Why didn't any democrats vote for impeachment or conviction. He was guilty of perjury, and convincing others to lie for him. He also destroyed military equipment. If you recall when Linda Tripp testified the world cut away because the US navy was attacking Iraq with cruise missiles. The captain of the task force admitted that he got orders from on high to launch missiles at the same time as Tripp got out of the car.
MT Pockets's Avatar
A good example of twisted liberal logic. Why didn't any democrats vote for impeachment or conviction. He was guilty of perjury, and convincing others to lie for him. He also destroyed military equipment. If you recall when Linda Tripp testified the world cut away because the US navy was attacking Iraq with cruise missiles. The captain of the task force admitted that he got orders from on high to launch missiles at the same time as Tripp got out of the car. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
The Dems knew he did not break a law and the Rep's mostly voted guilty because he was a Dem. This was payback for Nixon. Also it helped them win the next election. We both know a Republican can not win on merit, they only win by slandering.
I B Hankering's Avatar
The Dems knew he did not break a law and the Rep's mostly voted guilty because he was a Dem. This was payback for Nixon. Also it helped them win the next election. We both know a Republican can not win on merit, they only win by slandering. Originally Posted by MT Pockets
Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator committed perjury under oath, dumb-ass: that's not "slander" it's "breaking the law", you fuckin' retard!
MT Pockets's Avatar
Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator committed perjury under oath, dumb-ass: that's not "slander" it's "breaking the law", you fuckin' retard!
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Well the jury is in. Not guilty!

The retard here is the one that thinks the laws only apply as they see fit. So tell me when did he do this what did he say?
I B Hankering's Avatar
Well the jury is in. Not guilty!

The retard here is the one that thinks the laws only apply as they see fit. So tell me when did he do this what did he say?
Originally Posted by MT Pockets
You are truly one "#Grubered", Kool Aid sotted dumb-ass, dumb-ass.




The list displayed above is mostly accurate, although some of the claims deserve extra clarification:

Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator can no longer practice law in front of the highest court ... Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's license was suspended in Arkansas ... and while Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator did face the possibility of being barred from arguing in front the U.S. Supreme Court, Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator resigned before the ruling was handed down.

On his last day in office in 2001, Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license in order to head off any criminal charges for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator has been eligible to seek reinstatement of his license since 2006, but as of 2013 he had not applied to do so. (SNOPES)
MT Pockets's Avatar
You are truly one "#Grubered", Kool Aid sotted dumb-ass, dumb-ass.


Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Close but no cigar!

He agreed to the Arkansas deal to keep from being charged with contempt actually and the SC never gave a reason.

Funny the Bill shit was about being impeached but you are bringing other cases. I am not surprised.
I B Hankering's Avatar
Close but no cigar!

He agreed to the Arkansas deal to keep from being charged with contempt actually and the SC never gave a reason.

Funny the Bill shit was about being impeached but you are bringing other cases. I am not surprised.
Originally Posted by MT Pockets

You can't be serious. You're either younger than 27 or you're an immigrant. Everyone knows, or should know, that Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator was impeached because he committed perjury testifying in front of a grand jury in the Paula Jones case. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator had to forfeit his license to practice law because he committed perjury testifying in front of a grand jury in the Paula Jones case. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator surrendered his license to practice law and settled out of court with Paula Jones, because Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator knew he couldn't win the case in a court room -- because Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator admitted on national TV that he had actually done what he had under oath denied doing (i.e., committed perjury) in front of a grand jury in the Paula Jones case.
MT Pockets's Avatar
You can't be serious. You're either younger than 27 or you're an immigrant. Everyone knows, or should know, that Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator was impeached because he committed perjury testifying in front of a grand jury in the Paula Jones case. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator had to forfeit his license to practice law because he committed perjury testifying in front of a grand jury in the Paula Jones case. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator surrendered his license to practice law and settled out of court with Paula Jones, because Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator knew he couldn't win the case in a court room -- because Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator admitted on national TV that he had actually done what he had under oath denied doing (i.e., committed perjury) in front of a grand jury in the Paula Jones case. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
The problem is you jump from one tactic to the next. I understand its all you have. Like a quick change artist. Clinton did not lose his right to practice law until Jan 2001.

" 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.[26]

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....[26]

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[clarification needed] to end the investigation.[27] Based on this state bar suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar and allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment; Clinton chose to resign during the appeals period.[28]"

Why do you keep adding more and more shit to the pile. Just like Gowdy did. He lost on the Benghazi deal so he faked so emails to stir that shit up.
I B Hankering's Avatar
The problem is you jump from one tactic to the next. I understand its all you have. Like a quick change artist. Clinton did not lose his right to practice law until Jan 2001.

" 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.[26]

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....[26]

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[clarification needed] to end the investigation.[27] Based on this state bar suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar and allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment; Clinton chose to resign during the appeals period.[28]"

Why do you keep adding more and more shit to the pile. Just like Gowdy did. He lost on the Benghazi deal so he faked so emails to stir that shit up.
Originally Posted by MT Pockets
The facts of these cases have never changed. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator committed perjury in the Paula Jones case, and he was impeached by Congress for that incidence of perjury. The impeachment process is not a criminal or civil trial. The impeachment process merely determines whether a sitting president will or will not be removed from office. It was the judge in the Paula Jones case who determined the civil penalty Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator would suffer committing perjury; not Congress. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator lost his license to practice law and was forced to pay Paula Jones $800,000. That you do not understand the process and the intertwining relationships in this case is your problem.

Furthermore, hildebeest did violate federal laws and statutes governing the security of classified material when she willfully ignored those regulations and statutes and set up an insecure server in the basement of her home. Comey testified that anybody else who did what hildebeest did could expect to receive administrative punishment up to and including dismissal and criminal prosecution. FYI, Hildebeest is still being investigated for violating the FOIA, and Wikileaks has promised to continue dumping incriminating emails.
LexusLover's Avatar
[B]The problem is you jump from one tactic to the next. Originally Posted by MT Pockets
Your problem is you haven't read the Judge's opinion and orders.

He would have been disbarred by the Arkansas bar association/judicial system based on the Federal Judge's findings and rulings alone based on his perjury.

The technical situation in the U.S. Supreme Court are the terms they use to determine status. ..... if someone is no longer eligible to practice law in their "home" state, in this case
Arkansas, then a show cause order is issued for the person to show he or she as a license to practice law issued by a state and if they can't they the are struck from the rolls and the SCOTUS calls it being "disbarred" ... It would be the same if a person retired and place their state license on "dormant" status. SCOTUS would still call it .. "disbarred" unless they "resigned" ... Bill Clinton didn't have a choice ...

He committed perjury and was "lucky" he didn't get indicted by a Federal and/or State grand jury. And I mean lucky.

That doesn't even address the sexual harassment, which in many states is a crime .... not sure about Arkansas!