| Website Owner  Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Gender:  Posts: 5,504 Country:  Thanks: 12
Thanked 70 Times in 62 Posts
 |  Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 Quote: |
Originally Posted by ridinhighspeeds Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 As you may know, the House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on whether to recommend impeachment of Bill Clinton to the full House of Representatives. In your view, should the House Judiciary Committee vote for or against impeachment?
To impeach Clinton?
Vote for impeachment 34%
Vote against impeachment 59% | For impeachment.
Do you think Clinton should or should not have been impeached? And why? | At the time, I was 100% for it. I hate the fact that a president blatantly lied to the public and lied under oath. I thought the "legal-eze" dodge (what "is" sex) was an incredibly poor excuse.
In retrospect, I think my view-point is more tempered. Impeachment is a heck of a process which has implications that I don't take lightly. I don't like how he was put on the spot in the first place. I don't see the reason in swearing in a President to interrogate him about his private sex life, and not swearing in oil executives on an issue of their inflated profits.
But Clinton was sworn in, and he lied...
So in current retrospect, I'm glad the impeachment proceedings went forth, but also glad that a relatively "amicable" solution could be found with an "acquittal" by the Senate and not ousting him from office.
No way should he have gotten off "scott free"...
Although, if he had been ousted from office, I don't know if I would have shed a tear either. A lot of frustration for the (in my opinion) pure b.s. which lead to the lie, but that doesn't excuse the lie either...
A LOT of frustration on this end over the lie...
Hopefully this answers your question.
If this doesn't answer your question, just let me know... | Just the answer I was looking for. Also I would like to thank you for bringing some interesting points. Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 On a slightly related note to the whole legal definition of "sex" thing, there was the Canada snafu last year involving whether or not a gay affair could be legally labelled as "adultery", and thus grounds for divorce on charges of "adultery". The point of contention being that some definitions require "sexual intercourse" for a charge of adultery, and the historical definition of "sexual intercourse" only encompasses penile-vaginal sex. Obviously same-gender sex would be excluded.
The Canadian high court eventually ruled a married person having a gay sexual affair was "adultery".
Something similar occurred in New Hampshire, and the courts ruled that a gay love affair for a married man WAS NOT "adultery" based on arguments similar to the above. I don't know if she got a divorce on other grounds, but the courts ruled it was not legal "adultery". http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...3/blanc150.htm
Just as a demonstration of where the whole "it was not sex" ideology / terminology can lead to... | Wow that's new news to me! |