DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Richpo64 on November 30, 2007, 10:18:31 AM
-
Henry Hyde, RIP
By Rich Lowry
Thursday, November 29, 2007
We haven't lacked recently for congressmen who have disgraced Congress. Now, we've lost one who ennobled it.
Henry Hyde has died at age 83. He represented a suburban Chicago district in the House for 32 years before retiring last year in failing health. When political commentators lament the passing of a Golden Age in Congress, they usually are inventing an imagined past. But Henry Hyde really did embody a set of political qualities that have become rare in an age of hyperpartisanship and YouTube debates.
He had principles, but was never a fanatic. He was partisan, but never a bomb-thrower. He defended traditional values, but never was preachy. He was respected by both sides because he knew that respect must be given to be received. He was eloquent in a way few American politicians are, and deeply literate. But he enjoyed his cigars and -- once a stand-up comic -- leavened all he did with a keen sense of humor.
One of his most extraordinary qualities was that he was persuasive and persuadable. In the mid-1980s, he doubted the need to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. After traveling to the South for field hearings, he changed his mind and worked to convince Reagan administration officials to support the reauthorization.
Hyde came to his famous pro-life views in a characteristic way -- he considered the evidence. When he was serving in the Illinois legislature in the 1970s, a colleague asked him to co-sponsor a bill liberalizing abortion law. He hadn't thought about the issue, and read a book called "The Vanishing Right to Live" by Charlie Rice that convinced him of abortion's evil. He opposed the Illinois bill and, when elected to Congress, shepherded to passage legislation forbidding the federal funding of abortion. The Hyde Amendment has stood for decades as the most consequential piece of pro-life legislation ever to pass Congress.
The pro-life cause became one of the pillars of Hyde's public life. He once told incoming congressmen, in the political axiom he lived by, that they "need to be at least as clear on the reasons why they would risk losing as they are on the reasons why they wanted to come here in the first place." His staffers recall left-wing lioness Maxine Waters later repeating exactly the same advice to freshmen congressmen -- and attributing it to Hyde.
Hyde grew up a New Deal Democrat in an Irish-Catholic family in Chicago. He thought Republicans were "a bunch of bankers, bloated bondholders and economic royalists." The cause of anti-communism prompted him to rethink his attitude toward the GOP. He became a committed Cold Warrior, and during a career studded with legislative achievements, it was his work on national security of which he was most proud.
He will be remembered for leading the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, a cause he undertook more out of duty than of zeal (during the controversy, it was revealed that he had had an affair 30 years previously). He thought he had no choice but to champion impeachment given President Clinton's offenses against the rule of law: "It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit."
Right, center or left, we need more representatives who love Congress the way Hyde did -- as a magnificent expression of our experiment in self-government -- and do all that they can to make it an institution worth loving. "When I cross the river for the last time," he told friends not long ago, echoing Gen. MacArthur, "my thoughts will be of the House, the House, the House."
In a speech in the midst of the impeachment fight, he had proclaimed, "We vote for our honor, which is the only thing we get to take with us to the grave." Henry Hyde departs with his honor intact, honed during decades of public service and acknowledged by all. RIP
http://www.townhall.com/ (http://www.townhall.com/)
Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years .
-
<<He defended traditional values, but never was preachy.>>
Hilarious. People with only a little bit more on the ball than your average mollusc will remember how Henry the Hypocrite excoriated the Great Presidential Blow-Job, only to be exposed himself as an adulterer, liar and hypocrite. The hilarious part was when the lying prick finally WAS busted, he tried to pass it off as a "youthful indiscretion." (He had been in his forties at the time.)
Liar, hypocrite and fraud. No wonder he's a Republican hero. He had it all.
-
I knew someone like Mike would respond this way. Thanks for once again showing us what communists/socialists are really are.
Oh, and as far as being preachy, the Honorable Mr. Hyde has nothing on you little man.
-
Mikey,
I don't recall Hyde lying under oat about his indiscretions. I don't think he even went on national television and wagged his finger at the American people and said he did not" have a relationship with that woman"
So I'm not sure what he was hypocritical about.
Let's let the man rest in peace.
Let's let those who mourn his passing mourn.
-
<<I was knew someone like Mike would respond this way. >>
Thanks, BT, you knew I wasn't dumb enough to fall for that fascist bullshit, didn't you? I'm glad it was no surprise.
<<Thanks for once again showing us what communists/socialists really are.>>
Yeah, we're people who don't like sappy fascist BS get in the way of the truth.
<<I don't recall Hyde lying under oat about his indiscretions. I don't think he even went on national television and wagged his finger at the American people and said he did not" have a relationship with that woman">>
No, he only betrayed an oath of fidelity he took before God and his wife and then claimed to be shocked and horrified at Clinton's antics. Till it turned out that Clinton's antics weren't really all that different from his own.
<<Let's let the man rest in peace. >>
I guess that 's up to the Good Lord if there is one, otherwise he's just vanished into oblivion, but the issue is not really how Henry the Hypocrite is resting but what kind of hypocritical BS we his survivors are compelled to listen to about him. Why not let the rest of us rest in peace without being subjected to a torrent of fulsome crap about what a great gentleman he was. Gentlemen don't attack other gentlemen for their sexual indiscretions, least of all when they themselves have done worse in secret.
-
Why not let the rest of us rest in peace without being subjected to a torrent of fulsome crap about what a great gentleman he was.
This is a public forum. Posts are not moderated before they appear on the board.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. As far as i know Hyde was never indicted or charged for the same offense.
-
The big deal was that Clinton was impeached by Congress for lying about a blow job.
Hyde had a mistress for a goodly long while in secret. Luckily for him, the democrats did not set him up with a Monica type and then threaten her with jail time, as thoug it was somehow illegal to give Bill a BJ.
Hyde expressed outrage at Clinton's brief fling, whereas he had has his own rather more involved fling and had gone unpunished.
And threin lied rhe hipocresy alleged to previousdly.
-
XO
How was Clinton set up?
Did they not vet interns?
And as previously stated numerous times, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Does it matter what he lied about?
If so, why?
-
The big deal was that Clinton was impeached by Congress for lying about a blow job.
Bzzzzzz, wrong, thanks for playing. The correct answer (unless Xo is ready to show the Articles of Impeachment that reference "blow job") is he was impeached by Congress largely for lying under oath about <*it doesn't matter*>. Could have been about stock options, could have been that his notes were inconsistent with his sworn testimony. What it was about, was about lying under oath. Simple as that
Now, people can be outraged at his severe moral deprivation and treating women as mere sex toys to fulfil whatever whims he might have, but that's not why he was impeached. And pretty much most rationally minded folks know that.
-
"When the time comes, as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God -- and a terror will rip your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there'll be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world -- and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, 'Spare him, because he loved us!'"
Congressman Henry Hyde
-
Of COURSE it matters what he lied about. If he lied to conceal theft of funds, or selloign secrets to the enemy, that would have been important.
I have described in great detail how Monica (who certainly did not feel abused, and who was notorious since high school for giving men in positions of authority blow jobs) was discovered by a woman named Goldberg, and despite her lackluster grades was put into the White House.
You don't want to believe it, don't, But that does not make it less true.
They needed to threaten Monica over a period of many, many hours with actual time in prison to reveal her famous blowjob. She was quite happy to have been of service
Hyde was a panderer to sanctimonious Catholics for many many years.
Clinton did not try to have Hyde impeached or removed from office for his indescretions, nor did Clinton ever try to do stuff like this, so I would name Clinton guy with the higher moral turf here. Not that either of them were even close to superior in this matter.
I am sure that there have been worse Congressmen than Hyde, but there have also been far better. Within every Hyde there was a little Jekell tryijng to slip out, as it were.
-
<<"When the time comes, as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God . . . >>
What? No masses being said for your soul? Nobody praying for you? Nobody saying Kaddish? Geeze, man, what did you do, alienate EVERYbody you ever knew?
BTW, I don't think it's the end of the world that Bill lied about a fucking blow job. It was nobody's God-damn business and he should never have been asked about it in the first place. Compare Bush and his lies about WMD, which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Hyde could hardly have been outraged - - he was cynically taking advantage of his own deceptively concealed sexual transgressions to cloak himself in a phony aura of moral superiority from which he delivered his holier-than-thou condemnation, never realizing that he was about to be revealed as a lying hypocrite himself. Sweet.
-
Of COURSE it matters what he lied about. If he lied to conceal theft of funds, or selloign secrets to the enemy, that would have been important.
Actually what is the "important" part regarding impeachment is not what he lied about, but that he did it under oath. What you're referring to is the subjective, the immorality of whatever act, which isn't impeachable. If he had lied to conceal theft of funds or sold secrets to oh, let's say China, unless they were caught, and thru investigation it was determined there was some form of egregious criminal act, that too wouldn't be impeachable. If they lied under oath that they sold secrets to.....China, that WOULD be
Again, the common denominator here being the LYING UNDER OATH part
-
I have described in great detail how Monica (who certainly did not feel abused, and who was notorious since high school for giving men in positions of authority blow jobs) was discovered by a woman named Goldberg, and despite her lackluster grades was put into the White House.
A retired New York City insurance executive who was one of President Clinton's top contributors recommended Monica S. Lewinsky for her job as a White House intern, a former Clinton campaign official and Government investigators said.
The executive, Walter Kaye, contributed $347,000 to the Democratic National Committee and Democratic candidates, was an overnight guest at the White House and helped Ms. Lewinsky obtain her White House position. Mr. Kaye, who lives on Park Avenue, was friendly with Ms. Lewinsky's mother, Marcia Lewis, author of a book about the opera stars Luciano Pavarotti, Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras.
In a one-page blurb for her book, ''The Private Lives of the Three Tenors,'' Ms. Lewis said:
''How did the author, a glamorous Beverly Hills reporter, formally with Hollywood Reporter, get all the inside dope? She denies rumors she and (Placido) Domingo were more than friends in the 80's but read the book and see what you think.''
There is nothing in the book to support any such rumors, however.
A reporter was turned away today from Mr. Kaye's apartment in Manhattan by a person who said that no one inside wanted to speak to journalists.
Mr. Kaye has been one of the President's most stalwart backers, having also contributed to his legal defense fund. He also donated to a legal fund established by Susan McDougal, the Clintons' former business partner, who was convicted of fraud in 1996 as part of the Whitewater case prosecuted by the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr. A friend of Mr. Kaye, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Kaye was questioned months ago by Mr. Starr's office about his financial support of Ms. McDougal's legal case.
Mr. Kaye was also close to Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former Clinton campaign official said.
''He was very tight with Hillary,'' the official said.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E7DD143BF930A15752C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
-
I liked Bill Clkinton, becauase he was good for the country and I liked his style.
I disliked Henry Hollier-Than -Thou Hyde, because I disagreed with damn near everything he did. Mostly if was as though he was some sort of VGatacan delegate to the government and he was an anti-choice nut, and of course, hge was an asshole, because he effing well knew that there was NO change of impeaching Clinton and he went and did it anyway just because he liked publicity or perhpoas out of spite. He did no one one damned bit of good by cooperating on the stupid impeachment.
So, no, he wasn't any sort of noble in my book, ad nho, I do not mourn his passing even a teensy bit. I was happy to see him leave the government, and as far as I was concerned he could live on to reach 200> Clinton was set up by a bitch named Lucinda Goldberg, and f*cked over by a hateful trator named Linda Tripp. Of course her father wanted to see her as a WH intern, but he was used too.
-
BTW, I don't think it's the end of the world that Bill lied about a fucking blow job. It was nobody's God-damn business and he should never have been asked about it in the first place.
Well at least we know where Tee stands on sexual assault & harrasment cases. Screw the woman, both judicially & literally
-
<<Well at least we know where Tee stands on sexual assault & harrasment cases. Screw the woman, both judicially & literally>>
Riiiiight. Bill Clinton"sexually assaulted" and "harrassed" Monica. He's a dangerous sexual offender.
ROTFLMFAO. Really. Where you guys come up with this crap I don't know, but the fantasy and science-fiction gaming industry is just dying for people with an imagination like yours. The scary thing, though, I don't know if it's imagination or if you really live in that alternate conservative universe of yours.
-
<<Well at least we know where Tee stands on sexual assault & harrasment cases. Screw the woman, both judicially & literally>>
Riiiiight. Bill Clinton"sexually assaulted" and "harrassed" Monica. He's a dangerous sexual offender.
That wasn't the issue. The issue is how a suspect in a Sexual harrasment case, at least in Tee's book, should not even be asked about inappropriate sexual advances towards other women. As I said, per Tee, screw the woman
-
Clinton was set up by a bitch named Lucinda Goldberg, and f*cked over by a hateful trator named Linda Tripp. Of course her father wanted to see her as a WH intern, but he was used too.
Goldberg knew Tripp, this is true. But your claim that Goldberg got Lewinsky the job is false.
I didn't see any mention of Lewinsky's father in the NY Times account. So i'm not sure who used him.
-
<<The issue is how a suspect in a Sexual harrasment case, at least in Tee's book, should not even be asked about inappropriate sexual advances towards other women. As I said, per Tee, screw the woman>>
Only in sirs' fantasy world was Clinton a "suspect in a sexual harrassment case," since Monica never claimed to have been sexually harrassed and no charges were ever laid. I'd lay claim to being offended by the "Tee says, Screw the woman" lies, but hell, I have considered the source. Always good for a laugh.
-
Perhaps Tee needs to Google Paula Jones
-
<<The issue is how a suspect in a Sexual harrasment case, at least in Tee's book, should not even be asked about inappropriate sexual advances towards other women. As I said, per Tee, screw the woman>>
Only in sirs' fantasy world was Clinton a "suspect in a sexual harrassment case," since Monica never claimed to have been sexually harrassed and no charges were ever laid. I'd lay claim to being offended by the "Tee says, Screw the woman" lies, but hell, I have considered the source. Always good for a laugh.
MT you really don't know anything about the case at all do you?
Monica never complained , Paula Jones and seven others did.
2. Paula Jones/President Bill Clinton
Staying in the realm of the government, President Clinton himself came under fire for alleged sexual harassment. Paula Jones was a state employee when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. In 1991, she claimed that Clinton exposed himself and asked her for oral sex in a hotel room. Clinton denied all allegations.
After several rounds of filing, Jones's lawsuit was dismissed for failing to state a claim. During the appeals process, a settlement was reached. Jones dropped her suit against Clinton in exchange for $850,000. However, she never received an admission of guilt or an apology.
Jones's allegations paved the way for investigating the President's sex life. The Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment of President Clinton were big follow-ups to the Paula Jones case
https://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article14380.html
Clinton chose (a) to hire one of Washington's highest-priced lawyers with, at the time he was hired, precious little experience in sexual harassment law, and (b) to spend in excess of $4 million in legal fees for what should otherwise have been a routine case costing him less than $100,000. In the process, Clinton has placed his presidency in peril. And for what? While it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, it didn't have to be this way.
................................
He stalled and delayed, waiting over three years before he deposed Jones. By then, she had changed lawyers, and taken all those "potentially embarrassing depositions from bimbos" we had warned him about. Moreover, giving Jones's lawyers all this time to research Bill's past is exactly what led to Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Jane Does 1 through 4, and a grand jury investigating Clinton for perjury, suborning perjury, and the obstruction of justice.
Why did Clinton choose a defense which ended up jeopardizing his presidency? Who knows? Maybe it was guilt. Or arrogance. Or paranoia. Maybe all three.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n2_v30/ai_20856047
-
IIRC, the "lying under oath" accusations did not involve the Paula Jones case but arose out of the Lewinsky affair. When I said that the underlying incident (a consensual BJ) was trivial and Clinton shouldn't have been subjected to questioning about it, sirs leapt in with his usual absurd bullshit, claiming I was insensitive to the plight of women victims of sexual abuse and harassment, which of course I proceeded to give the ridicule it deserved.
Now sirs' defenders are leaping in with ANOTHER case, and trying to transfer my remarks to the Paula Jones case, since they obviously failed to support sirs' ridiculous accusations in the context in which they arose. In other words, if my words are sound in their original context, then give them a false context by dragging them into a completely different legal case, thereby "proving" how insensitive Tee is to the plight of . . . .
Don't you guys ever get tired of your intellectual dishonesty? [not including sirs in this this time, he didn't involve himself in trying to put my words in false context] Because I can tell you, it's getting very tiring to me. I like to debate issues, I think you just really debase the quality of the debate when you take words deliberately out of context and turn an issue-based debate into an discussion of your sophistry.
-
IIRC, the "lying under oath" accusations did not involve the Paula Jones case but arose out of the Lewinsky affair. When I said that the underlying incident (a consensual BJ) was trivial and Clinton shouldn't have been subjected to questioning about it, sirs leapt in with his usual absurd bullshit, claiming I was insensitive to the plight of women victims of sexual abuse and harassment, which of course I proceeded to give the ridicule it deserved.
Now sirs' defenders are leaping in with ANOTHER case, and trying to transfer my remarks to the Paula Jones case, since they obviously failed to support sirs' ridiculous accusations in the context in which they arose. In other words, if my words are sound in their original context, then give them a false context by dragging them into a completely different legal case, thereby "proving" how insensitive Tee is to the plight of . . . .
Don't you guys ever get tired of your intellectual dishonesty? [not including sirs in this this time, he didn't involve himself in trying to put my words in false context] Because I can tell you, it's getting very tiring to me. I like to debate issues, I think you just really debase the quality of the debate when you take words deliberately out of context and turn an issue-based debate into an discussion of your sophistry.
No ,he was under oath because Paula Jones dragged him into court.
That was the case he was fighting when he was asked about his other pecadillos.
-
Patiently awaits Tee having his eureka moment.
-
Perhaps Tee needs to Google Paula Jones
Precisely. This attempt at "don't look here, look over there", is pretty lame
-
<<No ,he was under oath because Paula Jones dragged him into court.>>
Yikes. Then I owe you an apology. And BT. Because I was wrong on the context. I was sure that he denied sex with Monica when he was under oath in Monica-related proceedings.
But even so, questions about sex with Monica were clearly out of line in a case involving sexual harrassment of Paula, unless there was a similar pattern of abuse in both cases, which there obviously wasn't, since Monica's case even according to Monica was consensual. So my comments about the irrelevancy of the question even in a case involving sexual abuse and/or harrassment were NOT dismissive of sexual assault victims and sirs' comments on my "screw the woman" attitude are still ridiculous.
-
Clinton signed into law the very expansion of the scope of questioning regarding the history of harassment defendants to much fanfare from womens groups earlier in his presidency.
hoisted by his own petard so to speak.
-
<<No ,he was under oath because Paula Jones dragged him into court.>>
Yikes. Then I owe you an apology. And BT. Because I was wrong on the context. I was sure that he denied sex with Monica when he was under oath in Monica-related proceedings.
But even so, questions about sex with Monica were clearly out of line in a case involving sexual harrassment of Paula, unless there was a similar pattern of abuse in both cases, which there obviously wasn't, since Monica's case even according to Monica was consensual. So my comments about the irrelevancy of the question even in a case involving sexual abuse and/or harrassment were NOT dismissive of sexual assault victims and sirs' comments on my "screw the woman" attitude are still ridiculous.
There have never been any court cases brought by Monica.
I would bet that she would rather not be so well remembered as she is.
-
<<There have never been any court cases brought by Monica.
<<I would bet that she would rather not be so well remembered as she is.>>
I know that Monica never sued, which is why I used the phrase "Monica-related proceedings," which could encompass, for example, legislative inquiries, special commissions, committee investigations, etc.
The scope of questioning in sexual assault or harassment cases may well have been expanded, although as I understand legal reform in that area it tends more to restricting questioning about the woman's sex life. But even if the questioning were expanded legally, I have a very hard time seeing how - - in the absence of allegations of a pattern of similar-fact abuse - - questions about sex with Monica were relevant to Paula Jones' lawsuit.
-
- - in the absence of allegations of a pattern of similar-fact abuse - -
This was absent?
-
If I recall Paula Jones, she was brought (ALLEGEDLY) by state troopers to a motel and the President exposed himself to her, whereas Monica's story was that she pursued Bill and they got together by mutual consent in a darkened office for sex. No real pattern consistent across the two cases.
-
If I recall Paula Jones, she was brought (ALLEGEDLY) by state troopers to a motel and the President exposed himself to her, whereas Monica's story was that she pursued Bill and they got together by mutual consent in a darkened office for sex. No real pattern consistent across the two cases.
There are so many I lose track of which one he groped where.
Which one claims she was fondled in the oval office against her will?
What was Jennifer Flowers complaint?
Why did one woman goto jail rather than testify about Bill's real estate deals?
Bills pattern is to use people callosly , "because he can".
-
If I recall Paula Jones, she was brought (ALLEGEDLY) by state troopers to a motel and the President exposed himself to her, whereas Monica's story was that she pursued Bill and they got together by mutual consent in a darkened office for sex. No real pattern consistent across the two cases.
Ok , if so, then why didn't he say so when asked?
If he had not purjured himself , he might have won his case just as well and he wouldn't have lost his license to practic law in Arkansass.
At least in Arkansass they have some standards.
-
<<Which one claims she was fondled in the oval office against her will?>>
She was the last one to come out of the woodwork. REALLY good-looking babe. Tall, slim, blonde, great hair and real WASP patrician look. Mighta bin Irish. Wish I could remember her name. And phone number (just kidding!)
<<What was Jennifer Flowers complaint?>>
Gennifer Flowers didn't have any complaints. As she told Penthouse magazine, Bill "eats pussy like a champ." Sounds kind of consensual to me.
<<Why did one woman goto jail rather than testify about Bill's real estate deals?>>
Because she's a woman of honour and won't rat out a friend or even a former friend? There was never any suggestion of sex between them, and recalling this lady's picture, she really didn't seem to be Bill's type.
<<Bills pattern is to use people callosly , "because he can".>>
Bill's pattern is to have sex with women who find him attractive and irresistible, and there seem to be an awful lot of those.
-
<<Ok , if so, then why didn't he say so [that Monica and he had consensual sex] when asked?>>
Because it was nobody's God-damned business? Because he doesn't kiss and tell?
<<If he had not purjured himself , he might have won his case just as well and he wouldn't have lost his license to practic law in Arkansass.>>
In his shoes, I woulda told them to go fuck themselves before I answered that question.
<<At least in Arkansass they have some standards.>>
Yeah, I know, with big flourescent bulbs at the top.
-
Which one claims she was fondled in the oval office against her will?
Kathleen Wiley
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/daily/willey10_031098r.jpg)
-
Yesssss. Kathleen Wiley. Thanks, BT.
-
<<Which one claims she was fondled in the oval office against her will?>>
She was the last one to come out of the woodwork. REALLY good-looking babe. Tall, slim, blonde, great hair and real WASP patrician look. Mighta bin Irish. Wish I could remember her name. And phone number (just kidding!)
<<What was Jennifer Flowers complaint?>>
Gennifer Flowers didn't have any complaints. As she told Penthouse magazine, Bill "eats pussy like a champ." Sounds kind of consensual to me.
<<Why did one woman goto jail rather than testify about Bill's real estate deals?>>
Because she's a woman of honour and won't rat out a friend or even a former friend? There was never any suggestion of sex between them, and recalling this lady's picture, she really didn't seem to be Bill's type.
<<Bills pattern is to use people callosly , "because he can".>>
Bill's pattern is to have sex with women who find him attractive and irresistible, and there seem to be an awful lot of those.
Bill haveing this habit relates to the beleiveabiity of the charges , I thnk it likley that he would have beaten the rap without the purjury , but the purjury being done he owes the penalty for it. Martha Stewat was locked up for lieing to a federal investigator and nothing elese ,how should purjury have such lessor penalty?
-
<<Bill haveing this habit relates to the beleiveabiity of the charges , I thnk it likley that he would have beaten the rap without the purjury , but the purjury being done he owes the penalty for it. Martha Stewat was lcked up for lieing t a federal investigatorand nothing elese ,how should purjury have such lessor penalty?>>
It's all pretty selective in terms of prosecution. George W. Bush lied to Federal investigators looking into his insider trades and was never even prosecuted. The lead counsel to the S.E.C. which was investigating was an old Bush family lawyer.
-
>>George W. Bush lied to Federal investigators looking into his insider trades and was never even prosecuted.<<
I suppose this is because there are no democrats out there who would like to take down the Bush's" or is it that there was no evidence of a crime?
You really don't have to answer. The BDS response is well documented.
-
<<Bill haveing this habit relates to the beleiveabiity of the charges , I thnk it likley that he would have beaten the rap without the purjury , but the purjury being done he owes the penalty for it. Martha Stewat was lcked up for lieing t a federal investigatorand nothing elese ,how should purjury have such lessor penalty?>>
It's all pretty selective in terms of prosecution. George W. Bush lied to Federal investigators looking into his insider trades and was never even prosecuted. The lead counsel to the S.E.C. which was investigating was an old Bush family lawyer.
I remember this , not much of a lie as I recall , a minor misreporting.
I really didn't favor locking Martha Stewart up either , her infraction seemed minor to me.
Clintons pujury has been skipped over as if it didn't matter , which makes the law seem capricious.
-
<<I remember this , not much of a lie as I recall , a minor misreporting.>>
He filed a report due immediately after the insider trade NINE MONTHS LATE. Then when asked for an explanation, he gave two different explanations, mutually exclusive. One of them had to be a lie. They were two totally different explanations.
<<I really didn't favor locking Martha Stewart up either , her infraction seemed minor to me.>>
Martha Stewart locked Martha Stewart up. She was offered a deal, admit to a lesser offence and no jail time would be asked for. She turned down the deal, against counsel's advice. The Feds weren't going to walk away from the case, and when they proved the case, the judge had no choice - - the jail time was mandatory.
<<Clintons pujury has been skipped over as if it didn't matter , which makes the law seem capricious. >>
Capricious indeed. Bush's lie to the SEC (a Federal offence) was also "skipped over" as if it didn't matter. The Commission counsel should have withdrawn and turned that investigation over to somebody else and he knew it, but he stayed on to be of service to the Bush family, his long-time clients.
-
>>He filed a report due immediately after the insider trade NINE MONTHS LATE. Then when asked for an explanation, he gave two different explanations, mutually exclusive. One of them had to be a lie. They were two totally different explanations.<<
I thought we were talking about Bush, not the Clintons.
-
This began as a thread on how great and wonderful Henry Hyde was, and it has been hijacked by Clinton haters
I suggest that Hyde was less than politically useful when he allowed the impreachment of Clinton to proceed when it was beyond clear that the Republicans did not have the votes to throw him out.
I further suggest that the Democrats in Congress at the moment have been wise not to begin impeachment of Juniorbush and is most despicable henchman, Cheney, because they realize that although justice indicateds that both these oafs are guilty as Hell, it is not worth the effort, or good for the welfare of the nation. Thgere is not time remaining to impeach Juniorbush and throw him out. Cheney could be another matter, as pretty much everyone hates him, and those that don't do not worship him, as is the case for Juniorbush.
So one cheer for the current Democrats, no cheers at all for Hyde.
-
While this thread was begun as a small testament to The Honorable Henry Hyde, it was hijacked by Clinton supporters when Mike said this:
>>Hilarious. People with only a little bit more on the ball than your average mollusc will remember how Henry the Hypocrite excoriated the Great Presidential Blow-Job, only to be exposed himself as an adulterer, liar and hypocrite.<<
-
I further suggest that the Democrats in Congress at the moment have been wise not to begin impeachment of Juniorbush and is most despicable henchman, Cheney, because...
....because impeacheable offenses now apparently don't require immediate intervention. The supposed breaking of Presidential/Executuve vows, circumventing the Constitution, and of U.S. law should be allowed to slide. Intetesting rationalization tact. Apparently if Bush/Cheney have acted in such a way to warrant impeachment, now because the Dems haven't called for such, is the right thing. Simply amazing
-
<<While this thread was begun as a small testament to The Honorable Henry Hyde . . . >>
nothing honourable about him
<< . . . it was hijacked by Clinton supporters when Mike said this:>>
>>Hilarious. People with only a little bit more on the ball than your average mollusc will remember how Henry the Hypocrite excoriated the Great Presidential Blow-Job, only to be exposed himself as an adulterer, liar and hypocrite.<<
Huh? I hi-jacked the thread? How? by adding my own "small testament" to the sanctimonious hypocrite in addition to yours?
-
>>Huh? I hi-jacked the thread? How? by adding my own "small testament" to the sanctimonious hypocrite in addition to yours?<<
You brought ole Slick Willy up, and once his name gets mentioned, the Clintonestas go nuts defended the bastard.
-
<<You brought ole Slick Willy up>>
Unavoidable. Henry Hypocrite's main act of rank hypocrisy - - the one he'll always be remembered for - - lay in his sanctimonious public censure of the Presidential BJ while he himself had, unbeknownst to the nation, carried on a long-term adulterous affair.
-
The Gentleman from Illinois
Henry Hyde, 1924-2007.
by Fred Barnes
12/10/2007, Volume 013, Issue 13
The first time I spoke to a pro-life group--it was the summer of 1993--I expected Illinois congressman Henry Hyde to be there. I was speaking in Milwaukee at National Right to Life's annual convention and my assumption was that when a major anti-abortion group gathered, Hyde's presence was required. But Hyde wasn't there. I had brought my daughter Sarah with me and I was disappointed she wouldn't get to hear Hyde, the great pro-life orator and the nation's leading defender of the unborn.
As luck would have it, when we were flying home and changed planes in Chicago, whom should we sit across from on the flight to Washington but Henry Hyde. We were thrilled. And Hyde, tall, stout, white-haired, and quite friendly, said he'd be glad to chat with us over coffee at Washington National Airport.
And he did, and told us a fascinating story. For several years, he had debated a liberal Republican from New Jersey named Millicent Fenwick on the House floor. She was a real character. She smoked a pipe. Her mother had died in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. Fenwick was an unswerving defender of a woman's right to have an abortion.
After an especially contentious debate, Fenwick confronted Hyde in a state of fury. She told him he shouldn't be talking the way he did about abortion. He was dividing the Republican party, even the country. He was stirring ugly passions. He must stop.
Hyde interrupted Fenwick's tirade to say he'd tell her a story he'd never told anyone in Washington, not even close friends. Then she'd understand why he believed so strongly in saving unborn children. His mother wasn't married when she'd gotten pregnant. But she didn't seek an abortion. And when he was a month old she'd left him on the doorstep of a family, who took him in and reared him. That, he told Fenwick, was why he opposed abortion.
Fenwick was thunderstruck. She walked away without saying a word and never debated the issue of abortion with Hyde again. At this point, Hyde paused in telling the story. He looked at me and then at my daughter. "Of course the story wasn't true," he said. He'd made it up on the spur of the moment. But it was for a worthy cause, and he had never regretted using it to silence Fenwick. We laughed and laughed and so did Hyde. My immediate thought--one that stuck with me up to the day Hyde died last week at 83--was simply, "What a wonderful man. What a great guy to have on your side."
Hyde was a cheerful politician with a great sense of humor and a wide range of interests. He once told me how much he enjoyed going to movies, usually on Saturdays, and listed all the movies he'd seen recently. I hadn't seen any of them.
He was a skillful legislator who got along with nearly everyone in Congress, including Democrats. This was true even after he led the effort, as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to impeach President Clinton. When he argued on the Senate floor for conviction, it was a historic moment. But his role in impeaching Bill Clinton wasn't Hyde's most important as a congressman.
Enacting, and later saving, the Hyde Amendment was. The measure was passed in 1976, two years after Hyde arrived in Washington, and is still the law of the land. It bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. The year before, there were 300,000 federally funded abortions. A conservative estimate is that the amendment has saved at least a million lives over the past three decades, but the number could be higher.
When Clinton became president in 1993, he urged repeal of the Hyde Amendment. His administration estimated that, absent Hyde's ban, federal funds would pay for 325,000 to 675,000 abortions annually. Only a shrewd concession by Hyde saved the ban.
Many pro-lifers insisted that any softening of the amendment should be strongly opposed. But Hyde found he didn't have the votes. By altering it to permit federal funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest, Hyde peeled off enough House members to preserve the amendment. It was a victory that shocked the pro-abortion lobby, spurred opposition to Clinton's health care plan (which would have paid for abortions), and prompted the defeat of the Freedom of Choice Act.
Hyde was an early convert to the pro-life movement. As a state legislator in Illinois--pre-Roe v. Wade--he'd been approached by a colleague to cosponsor a bill legalizing abortion. Hyde was inclined to back the bill. When he read it, however, he changed his mind. Hyde had never thought about the abortion issue. Once he did, rather than support the bill, he led the opposition in defeating it. When he won a House seat in 1974, he came to Washington an ardent pro-lifer.
I don't know whether Hyde was always eloquent on the moral imperative to save unborn children. But he certainly was when I first heard him at a platform hearing at the Republican convention in Dallas in 1984. The party had adopted a pro-life plank four years earlier, and Hyde argued for keeping it. Senator Lowell Weicker of Connecticut--another Republican in the Millicent Fenwick mold--urged it be dropped.
Until covering their debate, I'd paid little attention to the morality of abortion. I'd thought about abortion chiefly as a political issue or simply a medical procedure to be avoided if possible. But that wasn't what Hyde talked about. He said the Republican platform should oppose abortion without any exceptions, a position that seemed a bit extreme.
Hyde didn't run away from the hard cases: rape and incest. He said there was already one innocent victim in these cases, the pregnant woman, and abortion would only add a second. Aborting the unborn child would compound the horror of the crime that had been committed.
As I listened to Hyde, tears began streaming down my cheeks. This was embarrassing, unprofessional even, since I was sitting in the press section. I'd never thought of myself as a pro-lifer, but suddenly I did. A great man had persuaded me.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
? Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
-
So he's not only a hypocrite, but a liar and a hypocrite. Impressive.
-
I would think that would endear him to you Mike. Victory at all costs and all that.
-
Hyde didn't run away from the hard cases: rape and incest. He said there was already one innocent victim in these cases, the pregnant woman, and abortion would only add a second. Aborting the unborn child would compound the horror of the crime that had been committed.
=======================================================
Yeah, let's force the woman to spend the next eighteen years raising a child that is at once her own brother or sister and son or daughter. I imagine that he would like her to pay the expense as well, you know, just so God would not be all upset.
Henry Hyde can be best described as a man who OD'd on catechism.
-
<<I would think that would endear him to you Mike. Victory at all costs and all that.>>
Think again, Rich. "Victory at all costs" usually refers to a shooting war, like WWII. In a political campaign, most of us expect fairly honourable conduct in the race - - after all, we have to be able to trust the winner as he or she will be representing us and spending our money. Lying and hypocrisy are NOT good indicators of a good public servant.
<<Henry Hyde can be best described as a man who OD'd on catechism.>>
yeah? Did the catechism teach him to lie? Did it teach him hypocrisy? Did it teach him to fuck around behind his wife's back?
-
In a political campaign, most of us expect fairly honourable conduct in the race
And what planet are you from again? Is it close to Earth?
-
Really Mike, do you think your opinion concerning The Honorable Henry Hyde means anything to me? In fact, the hateful bile you attempt to cover him with only serves to make him shine all the brighter. The fact that you hate him enough to fire spittle all over your computer screen means the man must have done something right. If someone like you is against him, I am delighted to be for him.
-
<<Really Mike, do you think your opinion concerning The Honorable Henry Hyde means anything to me? In fact, the hateful bile you attempt to cover him with only serves to make him shine all the brighter. The fact that you hate him enough to fire spittle all over your computer screen means the man must have done something right. If someone like you is against him, I am delighted to be for him.>>
And OTOH, Rich, if someone like you is for him, then I just know he must be the scum of the fucking earth. A Zio-Nazi's embrace is reserved exclusively for the moral lepers of the planet.
-
Yeah, let's force the woman to spend the next eighteen years raising a child that is at once her own brother or sister and son or daughter. I imagine that he would like her to pay the expense as well, you know, just so God would not be all upset.
So, in your world, adoption does not exist?
-
So, in your world, adoption does not exist?
==================================================
And in your world, a raped woman is required to wait nine months for an adoption thjat might or not occur?
-
And in your world, a raped woman is required to wait nine months for an adoption thjat might or not occur?
Why wait? Most women who are going that route start the process early in the pregnancy, and allow the adoptive parents to be involved - indeed, many adoptive parents actually pay many of the expenses during pregnancy.
Although you never answered the question. You just assume that a woman who is raped will have to support a child for 18 years. Do you think that adoption does not happen?
-
Why wait? Most women who are going that route start the process early in the pregnancy, and allow the adoptive parents to be involved - indeed, many adoptive parents actually pay many of the expenses during pregnancy.
====================================================
Er... the reason the raped woman must wait nine months is because that is how long the rapist's seed within her requires to become an actual adoptable baby.
Adoption sometimes exists, for some people.
Not for everyone always.
If the raped woman wants to have the baby and have it adopted, that is just fine by me.
It's you guys that want to FORCE her to have the baby.
Or in your world, does a woman have no rights to not be pregnant?
-
Why wait? Most women who are going that route start the process early in the pregnancy, and allow the adoptive parents to be involved - indeed, many adoptive parents actually pay many of the expenses during pregnancy.
====================================================
Er... the reason the raped woman must wait nine months is because that is how long the rapist's seed within her requires to become an actual adoptable baby.
Adoption sometimes exists, for some people.
Not for everyone always.
If the raped woman wants to have the baby and have it adopted, that is just fine by me.
It's you guys that want to FORCE her to have the baby.
Or in your world, does a woman have no rights to not be pregnant?
This is the opposite end of the spectrum from Partial Birth Abortion.
At one end there are only a few hard core people who would insist that a rape victim must not end a pregnancy.
At the other end there are really few who are fine with the idea of the killing of the baby being leagal as long as its face is still hidden even if viable in ever other way and seconds from its first healthy breath.
Extremists run to these extremes in order to justify their unwillingness to compromise and their intrangedince at possession of the whole spectrum.
-
Just give people their rights. That is never extreme.
Everyone should have the absolute right to reproduce or not to do so, period. A fetus has no right to be born, period.
If men got pregnant, no one would make an issue of this.
The term "Partial Birth Abortion" is a stupid propaganda term and does not belong in any rational conversation.
-
Er... the reason the raped woman must wait nine months is because that is how long the rapist's seed within her requires to become an actual adoptable baby.
Funny, I know of a number of examples where the adoption was completely handled early in the pregnancy, with only the actual transfer of the baby to the new parents awaiting birth.
Adoption sometimes exists, for some people.
Not for everyone always.
There are many people that cannot adopt in this country and must go outside the country to adopt (my sister being one case, with two adoptions outside the US). They tried to adopt from within the US, but were unable to do so. Does this indicate a shortage of available adoptive parents? Seems to me it indicates the opposite.
It's you guys that want to FORCE her to have the baby.
I don't remember ever saying that. Care to provide a link to a quote?
Or in your world, does a woman have no rights to not be pregnant?
In your world, the baby has no rights?
-
Or in your world, does a woman have no rights to not be pregnant?
In your world, the baby has no rights?
In their world Ami, it's just a bunch of misorganized cells & protoplasm, they'll frequently refer to as a fetus
-
Just give people their rights. That is never extreme.
Everyone should have the absolute right to reproduce or not to do so, period. A fetus has no right to be born, period.
If men got pregnant, no one would make an issue of this.
The term "Partial Birth Abortion" is a stupid propaganda term and does not belong in any rational conversation.
If I assert my right to kill someone , maybe you, how would you argue with my right to kill?
Perhaps I have compelling reasons to avail myself of this right.
-
>>In their world Ami, it's just a bunch of misorganized cells & protoplasm, they'll frequently refer to as a fetus.<<
While that's true, I think that liberals/socialists simply aren't interested in anything that might take some effort or anything that might inconveniance them. So they wave it away as a bunch of cells which has no more meaning than a finger nail.
(http://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPictures/images/abortion-09-03.jpg)