(01-19-2012 09:20 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:16 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:14 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I respect your candor, but I personally think perjury about *Anything* should be an impeachable offense.

It's illegal no doubt and we have a judicial system to deal with it. I just have a higher standard as to what meets high crimes and misdemeanors. Perjury in a civil case just doesn't meet that in my eyes.

The judicial system cannot be (and should not be) the proper forum to resolve disputes about presidential conduct, most especially so while that particular president is still in office.

That theory goes out the window the moment Jones v Clinton was filed and he was deposed under oath.

(01-19-2012 09:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Scumbag Frothy, Gingrich, and Romney:

Claim to support freedom when talking about SOPA.

All support the NDAA indefinite detention without trial or the right to a lawyer.

yup. Freedom is fine as long it involves cat videos.

(01-19-2012 09:20 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Santorum goes idiot. I want to hear boo's. He just caim out in support of SOPA, wants to restrict Internet.

Some of you really need your ears checked.

Romney talks but nothing comes out. BTW, has Ron Paul talked in the last 30 minutes?

(01-19-2012 09:23 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:20 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The judicial system cannot be (and should not be) the proper forum to resolve disputes about presidential conduct, most especially so while that particular president is still in office.

That theory goes out the window the moment Jones v Clinton was filed and he was deposed under oath.

1. The lawsuit was over a dispute that occurred before Clinton was president. Not on-point to the perjury case.

2. If the SC had decided Clinton-v-Jones in Clinton's favor, would you then have supported impeachment in this case? If so, fair enough, but I think you are one in a million. If not, Jones-v-Clinton has no bearing on the discussion, even from your own point-of-view.

(01-19-2012 09:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:20 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Santorum goes idiot. I want to hear boo's. He just caim out in support of SOPA, wants to restrict Internet.

Some of you really need your ears checked.

Some of us also need to learn to spell, haha.

He said he supports government enforced restrictions on the internet. He went full retard.

The reason Callista does not care about having an "open marriage" with Newt is because SHE IS A FREAKING CYBORG ROBOT.

Newt Gingrich is not for small government. He's a progressive in conservatives clothing. As much or more than Romney.

(01-19-2012 09:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:23 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:20 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The judicial system cannot be (and should not be) the proper forum to resolve disputes about presidential conduct, most especially so while that particular president is still in office.

That theory goes out the window the moment Jones v Clinton was filed and he was deposed under oath.

1. The lawsuit was over a dispute that occurred before Clinton was president. Not on-point to the perjury case.

2. If the SC had decided Clinton-v-Jones in Clinton's favor, would you then have supported impeachment in this case? If so, fair enough, but I think you are one in a million. If not, Jones-v-Clinton has no bearing on the discussion, even from your own point-of-view.

1. But the lawsuit was filed while he was President in 94.

2. Yes I would, but at the same time the SC made the correct decision in Clinton v. Jones and would be horrified if they had ruled that the President was completely above the reach of the Judicial Branch.

(01-19-2012 09:35 PM)surfernmemphis Wrote:  The reason Callista does not care about having an "open marriage" with Newt is because SHE IS A FREAKING CYBORG ROBOT.

I'd hit it.

(01-19-2012 09:33 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:20 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Santorum goes idiot. I want to hear boo's. He just caim out in support of SOPA, wants to restrict Internet.

Some of you really need your ears checked.

Some of us also need to learn to spell, haha.

He said he supports government enforced restrictions on the internet. He went full retard.

When it comes to property rights. Said straight up he was against sopa.

So if I'm understanding Santorum's position he'd throw grandma and grandpa in jail if they've been here illegally.

(01-19-2012 09:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:35 PM)surfernmemphis Wrote:  The reason Callista does not care about having an "open marriage" with Newt is because SHE IS A FREAKING CYBORG ROBOT.

I'd hit it.

no doubt

Terrific answer by Paul on immigration and the incentives the Federal government has put in for people to come here illegally. And I love the troops on the border point. Agree 100000%

(01-19-2012 09:36 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:33 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:20 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Santorum goes idiot. I want to hear boo's. He just caim out in support of SOPA, wants to restrict Internet.

Some of you really need your ears checked.

Some of us also need to learn to spell, haha.

He said he supports government enforced restrictions on the internet. He went full retard.

When it comes to property rights. Said straight up he was against sopa.

More to it than that.

"The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want."

I disagree.

(01-19-2012 09:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  1. The lawsuit was over a dispute that occurred before Clinton was president. Not on-point to the perjury case.

1. But the lawsuit was filed while he was President in 94.

But that doesn't go to the issue of whether a president can be impeached for actions taken before he took office. I think not. I do think, however, that he CAN be (judicial discretion comes into play here) rightly compelled to answer a civil complaint about such actions while holding office. That is the essential holding of Clinton-v-Jones, as I read it.

Good answer by Ron Paul about moving troops back home to protect our border and not Afghanistan's.

Romney just absolutely dressed down Newt. Just brutal.

Romney just blew-out his flip-flops on abortion.

Best answer Mitt has had on the pro-life issue.