GA Congressman calls for Bush impeachment

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/?section=cnn_topstories

Confirmed even more in this article. However nobody knows exactly whom was listened to or IF they were for sure. If they arent prosecuting you, your rights have not been violated. That is as far as the law goes...to prosecution. What do you want now...reparations? For what exactly?

Wow...that got tied together nicely didnt it?

The worst terror attack took place on friendly soil from people who were not Americans who had communications with those who wished to harm Americans that were outside the United States. This is a specific answer to a specific issue. Im pretty sure the feds dont care that you ordered pizza twice last week instead of cooking dinner, even though its pretty easy to pick that up on my two way radio without trying.

President Clinton is retired. Does all that rigamorole still smart so much that you have to continue pointing out the bad behavior of others during his term? There is bad behavior on both sides of the aisle any day of the week. Doesnt mean we all act that way.

 

History seems to be repeating itself.

 

Many people were filled with disgust for Clinton's sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.

He may have actually been hated by some, but you are living in a dream world if you believe he was castigated and demonized like Bush has been.

I don't remember Clinton being referred to as Hitler or called a fascist even once. Except for conspiracy theorists, he was not routinely referred to as a killer or murderer like Bush is on a daily basis.

I don't recall him being referred to as a traitor on the floors of the Congress as Bush has been. The odd thing about that is that a real case could actually have been made to refer to Clinton as a traitor had he allowed his Chinese connections to be investigated.

The left has lost all sense of decency when it comes to Bush. To say that Clinton was hated and treated with such disgust and disdain and contempt as Bush is boggles the mind. Start dealing with reality.

 

You didn't listen to Rush Limbaugh during that time frame, eh?

 

Yes. Impeachment is not for settling political scores. History has not been kind to those who have tried to do so.

 

You didn't listen to Rush Limbaugh during that time frame, eh? </font>[/QUOTE]I rarely hear Limbaugh, but you didn't address the rest of the post.

 

"To say that Clinton was hated and treated with such disgust and disdain and contempt as Bush is boggles the mind."

Forget Rush. He must have been living in a cave. Although Clinton was (and is) much more widely admired than Bush, there were many who hated him with unreasoning viciousness.

Which is not to say that there aren't those who think Bush is the devil incarnate; it's just that anyone who thinks there weren't those who regarded Clinton that way, is not living in the same universe as the rest of us.

If the argument is that more people are disgusted with Bush than with Clinton, I'd have to admit it's true.

 

Are you looking for a true litmus test of hate?I hardly think that should be left to Rush Limbaugh (why does he talk so loud anyway?).

Clinton was impeached. Bush wasnt. Has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Speak to your Representative if you feel any of this should change. For those of you in Georgia, that is Rep John Lewis. Now can we get back on topic?

 

What? About there being those that hate George W. Bush passionately? Yes those people exist.

Is the hatred more than there was toward Bill Clinton? I was not posting on politics boards during Clinton's presidency and discussing politics with a worldwide crowd, so I don't know the answer to that.

But I do know that Rush Limbaugh was vicious toward Bill Clinton during his presidency.

 

What? About there being those that hate George W. Bush passionately? Yes those people exist.

Is the hatred more than there was toward Bill Clinton? I was not posting on politics boards during Clinton's presidency and discussing politics with a worldwide crowd, so I don't know the answer to that.

But I do know that Rush Limbaugh was vicious toward Bill Clinton during his presidency. </font>[/QUOTE]No.

This:

"I don't remember Clinton being referred to as Hitler or called a fascist even once. Except for conspiracy theorists, he was not routinely referred to as a killer or murderer like Bush is on a daily basis.

I don't recall him being referred to as a traitor on the floors of the Congress as Bush has been. The odd thing about that is that a real case could actually have been made to refer to Clinton as a traitor had he allowed his Chinese connections to be investigated.

The left has lost all sense of decency when it comes to Bush."


Someone else said it, but you must be living in a cave now as well as when Clinton was president not to know this is true.

 

Actually, I live in what I would describe as a dog house.

As I said, I was not discussing politics to any great extent with anyone during the Clinton presidency and certainly not on the Internet. I didn't learn about discussing various subjects on Internet until someone directed me to this board.

Therefore, I cannot answer your other points either in the affirmative or the negative. My only knowledge of the viciousness of the debate during the Clinton presidency came from listening to Rush Limbaugh, and I don't recall the specific language that Rush used to describe Bill Clinton.

 

I was on the internet, and I did indeed see people refer to Clinton as a "Hitler", and a fascist.

You can find that kind of hatred even now.
A New York Post survey of readers sampling nearly 20,000 people ranks Bill Clinton second to Adolf Hitler as the most evil person of the millennium.

Hitler received 8.67 percent, or 1,664 votes, and Clinton received 8.47 percent, or 1,625, placing him well above mass-murdering Soviet leader Josef Stalin, who got 6.69 percent, or 1,284 votes.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17253

Which gives you some idea of the sort of unreasoning hatred Clinton inspired in a few people. Again, there are people with that kind of hatred for Bush, too.

How bad did it get?
Early in his first term, Clinton had approval ratings in the high 30s. They improved considerably in his second term.

Bush's experience has been quite the opposite, with high ratings early on, and much lower ratings in his second term, as bad as Clinton's were before his second term.


Interestingly, someone has actually done a study of the question, and attempted something like an objective analysis of the data:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/03/research_google.html