Democrats Behaving Badly

Post Reply
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Democrats Behaving Badly

#1

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 13, 2011 4:19 pm

For balance completeness.



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Democrats Behaving Badly

#2

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri May 13, 2011 4:23 pm

That Gary Hart guy sure needs to keep his mouth shut



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14350
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Democrats Behaving Badly

#3

Post by Reality Check » Fri May 13, 2011 4:37 pm

I am proud to say I was never was on the Edwards train.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 13633
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#4

Post by kate520 » Fri May 13, 2011 4:46 pm

I'm not proud to say I fell for the handsome face, the pretty hair and the right words mouthed There are shameless groupies in politics, too. Power attracts. I sometimes think the temptation is too much for any human to resist. Maybe at first, but the relentless pressure never really lets up.


Patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel.
Samuel Johnson
April 7, 1775

poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#5

Post by poutine » Fri May 13, 2011 4:48 pm

I am proud to say I was never was on the Edwards train.I hated his guts from Day 1. The "two Americas" line was all well and good but it did sound awfully socialist and rich-hating. It's bad enough that Republicans tar Democrats with those labels with no justification. With Edwards the slurs would be accurate.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25004
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Democrats Behaving Badly

#6

Post by Foggy » Fri May 13, 2011 4:49 pm

All the statutes of limitations have passed on any crimes I may or may not have committed. [-X So there!


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Democrats Behaving Badly

#7

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 13, 2011 4:49 pm

Don't blame me. I always wanted the perennial POTUS candidate, Mr. Gaffe-O-Matic himself, the current VP.



Res Ipsa
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Democrats Behaving Badly

#8

Post by Res Ipsa » Fri May 13, 2011 4:50 pm

FDR set a bad example by being photographed smoking.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22718
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#9

Post by bob » Fri May 13, 2011 4:57 pm

Andrew Jackson committed bigamy, and killed a man over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his "wife."


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Democrats Behaving Badly

#10

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 13, 2011 5:01 pm

Andrew Jackson committed bigamy, and killed a man over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his "wife."Which wife?



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#11

Post by poutine » Fri May 13, 2011 5:03 pm

Stephen A. Douglas supported slavery. I also believe he repeatedly called Abraham Lincoln a "n***** lover" during the 1860 presidential campaign but I could not verify this online, and will have to do so with my Lincoln biography that's sitting at home.



User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Democrats Behaving Badly

#12

Post by esseff44 » Fri May 13, 2011 5:05 pm

Jimmy Carter admitted to 'lusting in his heart.'



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Democrats Behaving Badly

#13

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri May 13, 2011 5:10 pm

Stephen A. Douglas supported slavery. I also believe he repeatedly called Abraham Lincoln a "n***** lover" during the 1860 presidential campaign but I could not verify this online, and will have to do so with my Lincoln biography that's sitting at home.*scratches head* I don't remember all that maybe I'm reading the wrong biographyhttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51d0g7VufEL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22718
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#14

Post by bob » Fri May 13, 2011 5:16 pm

Andrew Jackson committed bigamy, and killed a man over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his "wife."Which wife?Exactly!Sekrit Stuffs!
Jackson "married" his wife before she was officially divorced from her first husband. She and Jackson remarried after the divorce was finalized.Yes, technically, she committed bigamy, not Jackson. But he helped! And fought lots of duels to defend her honor. She and Jackson were legally married when Jackson killed that guy.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#15

Post by June bug » Fri May 13, 2011 5:28 pm

And then there's Bill Clinton... ?(



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Democrats Behaving Badly

#16

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 13, 2011 5:57 pm

And then there's Bill Clinton... ?(The schmuck.



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#17

Post by poutine » Fri May 13, 2011 6:00 pm

Bill Clintons relationship with his intern was morally much much worse than Ensigns "amour fou" .Well, Clinton's affair was possibly a slightly more egregious abuse than Ensign's. Clinton was President and Lewinsky was younger, while Ensign was only a Senator and Hampton was older.





But Ensign's cover-up was worse than Clinton's. Clinton lied during a deposition when he was interrogated about his affair, which people believe many if not most others in the same circumstances would do, even though it's wrong. However, Ensign bribed people, deleted emails, instructed his staff to delete emails, and bullied some companies into hiring the husband as a lobbyist. He committed serious federal offenses, as did those of his staffers who failed to stand up to him. People will wind up in jail because of all this.



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#18

Post by poutine » Fri May 13, 2011 6:34 pm

IMO it is / was a system fault that BC had (had he ??) to answer questions about his affair. He should have refused to answer questions.My point is the difference between a disgusting "affair" of blowjobs in the Oval Office and something I described as "amour fou". For the cover-up you are right, of course.Well, the bastards got him into that deposition based on Paula Jones' "he showed me his wee-wee" sexual harassment lawsuit. To this day I have no idea whether she was lying about those accusations or not. I just don't know. I don't think most courts would allow him not to answer the question, though. If he was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee, the issue of whether he was having an affair with an intern is relevant. He shouldn't have lied about it. As for the affairs, well, it does seem to me that Lewinsky was much more willing to get involved with Clinton than Hampton was willing to get involved with Ensign. It looks like Ensign all but stalked her until she gave in. I do hold her responsible for her own decisions, but if we are comparing Ensign to Clinton, I'm just observing that Ensign was a persistent bastard while Clinton was more of a passive and horny bastard who allowed his presidential glow work its charm on a 19 year old.



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#19

Post by TollandRCR » Fri May 13, 2011 6:50 pm

I know this always comes up when Clinton's testimony and speech are discussed, but nevertheless....To many a Southern boy and man, his statement "I did not have sex with that woman" was the truth.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Democrats Behaving Badly

#20

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 13, 2011 6:56 pm

I know this always comes up when Clinton's testimony and speech are discussed, but nevertheless....





To many a Southern boy and man, his statement "I did not have sex with that woman" was the truth."Sexual relations," actually. And the definition provided at the deposition was a definition of rape on federal property. Under the doctrine of mitior sensus Clinton did not commit perjury.





Problem is, he also didn't tell the "whole truth." There are times when a "yes" or "no" answer is not sufficient to answer a question truthfully.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25004
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Democrats Behaving Badly

#21

Post by Foggy » Fri May 13, 2011 7:01 pm

Democrats in the 110th Congress passed the health care reform insurance company corporate welfare law. ?(


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Democrats Behaving Badly

#22

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 13, 2011 7:03 pm

Democrats in the 110th Congress passed the health care reform insurance company corporate welfare law. ?(Yes, but after SCOTUS strips out the mandate we'll go to single payor. At least, that's my hope.





The 2012 election should be a bigger Democractic swamping than 2008 if the Tea Party continues to drag the Republican Party around by its ball. (Singular intended.)



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#23

Post by poutine » Fri May 13, 2011 7:03 pm

I know this always comes up when Clinton's testimony and speech are discussed, but nevertheless....





To many a Southern boy and man, his statement "I did not have sex with that woman" was the truth."Sexual relations," actually. And the definition provided at the deposition was a definition of rape on federal property. Under the doctrine of mitior sensus Clinton did not commit perjury.





Problem is, he also didn't tell the "whole truth." There are times when a "yes" or "no" answer is not sufficient to answer a question truthfully.The lawyers conducting that deposition were also not skilled enough to deal with a witness like Clinton. To this day, video excerpts from that deposition are played at lawyer seminars, mainly as examples of how not to ask a question, how to fail at asking follow-up questions, how to fail at nailing a witness down, etc.



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Democrats Behaving Badly

#24

Post by poutine » Fri May 13, 2011 7:10 pm

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes - (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or (3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."[/break1]washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/clintondep031398.htm]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 031398.htm



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Democrats Behaving Badly

#25

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 13, 2011 7:14 pm

Almost. The full definition was from [/break1]ibj.org/index.php/Federal_Rules_of_Evidence_-_Rule_413._Evidence_of_Similar_Crimes_in_Sexual_Assault_Cases]Rule 413, F.R.Evid., which provides:(a) In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.(b) In a case in which the Government intends to offer evidence under this rule, the attorney for the Government shall disclose the evidence to the defendant, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least fifteen days before the scheduled date of trial or at such later time as the court may allow for good cause.(c) This rule shall not be construed to limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule.(d) For purposes of this rule and Rule 415, "offense of sexual assault" means a crime under Federal law or the law of a State (as defined in section 513 of title 18, United States Code) that involved--(1) any conduct proscribed by chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code;(2) contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person;(3) contact, without consent, between the genitals or anus of the defendant and any part of another person's body;(4) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from the infliction of death, bodily injury, or physical pain on another person; or(5) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in paragraphs (1)-(4).



Post Reply

Return to “Congress”