But he was under oath as the result of a political witchhunt. I know that's denied over and over, but there are just way too many arrows pointing in that direction. They should have left it alone. He shouldn't have been under oath in the first place. I would guarantee you something....there isn't a president in the last 90 years who wouldn't have lied about something if under oath.
I don't mind hard jabs at any president, as long as it's at policy accompanied with productive alternative ideas. But when it gets personal, degrading and disrespectful? It's uncalled for and inexcusable.
no my friend. He had been accused of sexual harrassment by a democrat and he was under oath giving a deposition in that case where this democrat was sueing him.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I disagree, both with the military policy and with proposing that the president should be too. If this were the rule, we'd have WAY more than 44 presidents in our history.
if you had ever been in the military, you would not be so quick to disagree with the policy... for the military.
we do agree that the president isnt military and should not be subject to the UCMJ
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I'm a conservative and, for man supposedly on the "other side of the aisle" when it comes to ideological issues, I like Bill Clinton. And I endorse this message.
as one who never did like him, after living two years with the guy we currently have... gemme back the guy from Hope...
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
no my friend. He had been accused of sexual harrassment by a democrat and he was under oath giving a deposition in that case where this democrat was sueing him.
And she chose this particular time to accuse him......why? Hmmm.....
We can go round and round on this, I know that. I'm still gonna say, "Witchhunt" and you're still gonna say, "He lied!"
if you had ever been in the military, you would not be so quick to disagree with the policy... for the military.
we do agree that the president isnt military and should not be subject to the UCMJ
Admittedly, I'm not military but I've read the reasonings behind it and I don't agree, but I also admit that I tend to see these issues a bit more liberally than most. Can you explain the reasoning behind the policy?
well she was a democrat... and he did some pretty nasty things...
so err.. well...
at the end of the day it doesnt matter. that was soooooo 1990! LOL!
I just don't think it should have escalated to the point it did. I believe if he had been the owner of Bob Smith Chevrolet, not a soul in any justice department anywhere would have ever heard a word about it.
Admittedly, I'm not military but I've read the reasonings behind it and I don't agree, but I also admit that I tend to see these issues a bit more liberally than most. Can you explain the reasoning behind the policy?
there are several and all worth considering.
first you have to understand that in the military, our lives are very much dependant on the mindset of the guy standing next to us.
That is the starting point of the policy. Second, you have to know a bit about miltary life. it is rough. there are always extended periods away from loved ones and divorce is already very high.
if a military guy has an afair with another military mans wife, he puts other guys in danger.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
