by republicans when Hillary Clinton tried to fire some folks in the White House Travel Office?

Funny thing, these same republicans see nothing wrong with Todd and Sarah Palin's attempt to shit-can her former brother-in-law.

Same old republican double-standard bull-shit!

Four more years of the past eight?

No, thank you.

From what you are saying you must have been for impeaching Clinton for lying under oath. Is that correct?

But Sarah didn't do it . . . "her husband did it".

Do we really need any more political hacks sleazing their way into destroying America? McCain's choice either shows a Complete IGNORANCE IN JUDGMENT or an acceptance of creative petty abuse of power as a policy in a McCain Administration.

However the majority Republicans in the Senate decided they couldn't convict him of lying over a BLOW-JOB, so they voted along with the minority Democrats to acquit.

If the Palin's defense is that "her husband did it by abusing her Position/Office than wouldn't that make this a Conspiracy between them. " That would be even more damning for her than her directly accepting responsibility .

She obviously, however knew the "first dude" was using state resources (including her office, computers, e-mail accounts, telephones, and clerical staff) to further his (and her) personal vendetta against a state employee.

Or, are you claiming she's too stupid to know what her own husband (who was elected to nothing) was doing in her office?

Give me a fucking break!

I didn't ask you what Newt and his buddies did. I asked you if you agreed that Clinton should have been impeached and CONVICTED for lying under oath about a blow-job. I mean you are about strictly following the rule of law aren't you?

Having spent four years in Washington, and knowing the sleazy side of politics, I knew damned well the Senate (the richest, most selective, and most influential club in the world) would NEVER convict any president for things that the then Speaker of the House and many of the others who were screaming for impeachment, had either already done, or were doing themselves.

You didn't care either way? Tom, you are a liar.

You don't like the answer you got, so you start calling names?

Here's a hint: Don't ask a question if you're not prepared for any answer you might get. That's a kindergarten-level idea.

So, since I really don't give a rat's ass what you like or think, as Dick Cheney would say "Why don't you just go fuck yourself!"

You don't like being called on your lie I guess. You didn't care one way or the other on Clinton but you are hell bent to see Palin convicted. Doesn't wash Tom, doesn't wash.

As I said before, I didn't care because I knew politicians would never bust one another for a blow-job!

Do you have a reading/retention problem?

Is Larry Craig not still in the Senate? He's convicted of trolling in an airport rest-room because he pled guilty, but he's still in the Senate.

Don't assume that you know what other people (people you don't even know, and have never met) are thinking. It really makes you look stupid.

Why would ANYONE want to fire a trooper that drinks and drives, hunts without a license, tasers and 11 year old child, gets speeding tickets and makes death threats to citizens.

Your right, how dare her try to rid the state of a rouge cop.

So you didn't care either way but somehow now your since of ethics makes you care now? Yet you think that getting rid of a bad cop is a vendetta.

You sound very confused about your own feelings on ethics. Tasering children doesn't seem to be something that you would be concerned about. How about if he had tasered your child? Would it bother you then? How about a cop that made death threats, was caught on many occasions drinking and driving in his squad car, speeding. What would an officier have to do in order for you to call for him to be fired?

Si prega di cambiare il tuo nome. Sei troppo stupido per essere italiano.