Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment

[Old Trapper]

Of course, that applied to Bill Clinton, not the pervert we now have in office:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...-could-be-removed-on-moral-grounds-2018-08-07

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/380566-mellman-evangelicals-meet-partisanship

"Twenty years ago, evangelical leaders could hardly have been more appalled.

Arguing that character counts, Rev. Franklin Graham asserted that if a president “will lie to, or mislead, his wife ... what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”

The late Billy Graham’s son was referring to President Bill Clinton.

Evangelical leader Gary Bauer reported his distress about the scandal then dominating the headlines: “I walk around my home with the TV remote in my hand for fear that [my children] will come in the room when a story about the president comes on. [Thanks to Clinton] our kids have been taught that fidelity is old-fashioned, that adultery is the norm.”

Focus on the Family founder Jim Dobson lamented, “As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James, the question is posed, ‘Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.”

These and other evangelical leaders wanted Clinton impeached, convicted and removed from office.

Their position, they asserted, was based on fundamental values. As one leader wrote, “Most evangelicals consider what Bill Clinton did … an undermining of … the moral and biblical principles on which [our Constitution] is based … evangelicals are values-based voters, values based on biblical morality … evangelicals believe in moral absolutes.”

AND THEN CAME TRUMP, AND OUT WENT MORALS

 

[Rune]

The party of the lie, it is all they have.
The entire existence of the party is a lie,
Somehow the one percent has talked almost half the country into voting against itself
and retards like tsuked, and Darth Anal think it is "winning"

Never has so much stupidity been so plain to see.

 

[mak2]

I was born and raised in an uber conservative area by evangelicals. I have no idea how my Mother and nearly all my friends and relatives can be Trumpsters. I truly don't get it.

 

[Flash]

Of course, that applied to Bill Clinton, not the pervert we now have in office:

AND THEN CAME TRUMP, AND OUT WENT MORALS

Very true. Republicans attacked Clinton and Democrats defended him. Now, Democrats attack Trump and Republicans defend him. Sounds like politics.

 

[Old Trapper]

Very true. Republicans attacked Clinton and Democrats defended him. Now, Democrats attack Trump and Republicans defend him. Sounds like politics.

Sounds like hypocrisy to me which is not politics.

 

[hvilleherb]

I got a nice tax cut from Trump. Not so much from Bill Clinton.

 

[domer76]

Very true. Republicans attacked Clinton and Democrats defended him. Now, Democrats attack Trump and Republicans defend him. Sounds like politics.

I don’t give a damn how many whores Trump fucked and paid off. Clinton was competent. Trump is a bumbling baboon.

 

[Cypress]

Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment

It was never about morals.

It was about the fact they hated Bill Clinton...with a passion.

 

[Cypress]

Very true. Republicans attacked Clinton and Democrats defended him. Now, Democrats attack Trump and Republicans defend him. Sounds like politics.

That's not the way I remember it.

I do not know anybody (except for Trump supporters) who defends cheating on a spouse.

What I recall is that Liberals maintained that a president should not be impeached for lying about a blowjob with a consenting female. And that would be my exact opinion whether the president is Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

 

[countryboy]

Of course, that applied to Bill Clinton, not the pervert we now have in office:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...-could-be-removed-on-moral-grounds-2018-08-07

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/380566-mellman-evangelicals-meet-partisanship

"Twenty years ago, evangelical leaders could hardly have been more appalled.

Arguing that character counts, Rev. Franklin Graham asserted that if a president “will lie to, or mislead, his wife ... what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”

The late Billy Graham’s son was referring to President Bill Clinton.

Evangelical leader Gary Bauer reported his distress about the scandal then dominating the headlines: “I walk around my home with the TV remote in my hand for fear that [my children] will come in the room when a story about the president comes on. [Thanks to Clinton] our kids have been taught that fidelity is old-fashioned, that adultery is the norm.”

Focus on the Family founder Jim Dobson lamented, “As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James, the question is posed, ‘Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.”

These and other evangelical leaders wanted Clinton impeached, convicted and removed from office.

Their position, they asserted, was based on fundamental values. As one leader wrote, “Most evangelicals consider what Bill Clinton did … an undermining of … the moral and biblical principles on which [our Constitution] is based … evangelicals are values-based voters, values based on biblical morality … evangelicals believe in moral absolutes.”

AND THEN CAME TRUMP, AND OUT WENT MORALS

Lol, one of your commie brethren already regurgitated this issued talking point. This thread is a dupe, not unlike you.

 

[Flash]

That's not the way I remember it.

I do not know anybody (except for Trump supporters) who defends cheating on a spouse.

What I recall is that Liberals maintained that a president should not be impeached for lying about a blowjob with a consenting female. And that would be my exact opinion whether the president is Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

I did not say they defended cheating on a spouse. I said Democrats defended Clinton and thought it was a "vast right wing conspiracy." They distinguished between his job as president (high ratings) and his personal life (scumbag) and opposed impeachment. Now Republicans are defending Trump and opposing his impeachment. Both wanted the investigation to end:

"The call for the special counsel to resign hit many essential buzzwords: “tainted,” “collusion,” “favoritism,” “conflict.” I'm not talking about Sean Hannity's latest monologue about Robert S. Mueller III. I'm talking about a 1994 New York Times editorial about Kenneth Starr."

"Calls for Mueller's removal echo complaints about another special counsel, Kenneth Starr"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...counsel-kenneth-starr/?utm_term=.667fe45de693

 

[MAGA MAN]

I was born and raised in an uber conservative area by evangelicals. I have no idea how my Mother and nearly all my friends and relatives can be Trumpsters. I truly don't get it.

I explained it to you months ago as simply as I could.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ves-boinking-porn-stars&p=2186685#post2186685

 

[Old Trapper]

Lol, one of your commie brethren already regurgitated this issued talking point. This thread is a dupe, not unlike you.

So you, in your usual ignorant way, are saying it is "fake news"? Of course, if that were so a liar like you could prove it to be so.

 

[Airstrip One]

That's not the way I remember it.

I do not know anybody (except for Trump supporters) who defends cheating on a spouse.

What I recall is that Liberals maintained that a president should not be impeached for lying about a blowjob with a consenting female. And that would be my exact opinion whether the president is Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

So, perjury is okay?

 

[Airstrip One]

Lol, one of your commie brethren already regurgitated this issued talking point. This thread is a dupe, not unlike you.

Do you value morality?

 

[Old Trapper]

I did not say they defended cheating on a spouse. I said Democrats defended Clinton and thought it was a "vast right wing conspiracy." They distinguished between his job as president (high ratings) and his personal life (scumbag) and opposed impeachment. Now Republicans are defending Trump and opposing his impeachment. Both wanted the investigation to end:

"The call for the special counsel to resign hit many essential buzzwords: “tainted,” “collusion,” “favoritism,” “conflict.” I'm not talking about Sean Hannity's latest monologue about Robert S. Mueller III. I'm talking about a 1994 New York Times editorial about Kenneth Starr."

"Calls for Mueller's removal echo complaints about another special counsel, Kenneth Starr"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...counsel-kenneth-starr/?utm_term=.667fe45de693

The point of the article, which all are ignoring, is the support of the "Evangelicals" for Trump which was not the case in Bill Clintons sordid affairs. Making it about Republicans v Democrats is a red herring in spite of the reality that all mentioned are Republicans.

 

[Flash]

The point of the article, which all are ignoring, is the support of the "Evangelicals" for Trump which was not the case in Bill Clintons sordid affairs. Making it about Republicans v Democrats is a red herring in spite of the reality that all mentioned are Republicans.

The thread said "Right Wing Repugnants." We did not know that term was limited to evangelicals.

However, my point is that such attitudes are not limited to evangelicals but to group loyalty. We defend our group and attack the other. We take the moral high ground even when what our side did was the same as the other side---but we pretend it was "different" and we are superior. The Democratic attitude toward the Starr investigation mirrors the Republican attitude toward the Mueller investigation. Party loyalty and behavior is the same for both sides even though both can't stand to admit it.

 

[Old Trapper]

The thread said "Right Wing Repugnants." We did not know that term was limited to evangelicals.

However, my point is that such attitudes are not limited to evangelicals but to group loyalty. We defend our group and attack the other. We take the moral high ground even when what our side did was the same as the other side---but we pretend it was "different" and we are superior. The Democratic attitude toward the Starr investigation mirrors the Republican attitude toward the Mueller investigation. Party loyalty and behavior is the same for both sides even though both can't stand to admit it.

I believe that was a point I made in an earlier post, and in earlier threads. And I apologize for the misleading title to the thread. My reference of thought was in regards to the hypocrisy of the pseudo-Evangelicals, and their moral hypocrisy. As I pointed out in other places before the election, a group that claims to be carrying the mantle of Christ cannot then ignore any of the commands given by that very same personage. How then do they stand on any moral grounds and condemn abortions, homosexuality, etc. They cannot for they have accepted the fact that there is no moral basis to their choices.

There is one very significant difference between the two politically though. No one can now deny that it is the Democrats that represent the people, and the Republicans that support the aristocratic elite.

 

[CFM]

Of course, that applied to Bill Clinton, not the pervert we now have in office:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...-could-be-removed-on-moral-grounds-2018-08-07

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/380566-mellman-evangelicals-meet-partisanship

"Twenty years ago, evangelical leaders could hardly have been more appalled.

Arguing that character counts, Rev. Franklin Graham asserted that if a president “will lie to, or mislead, his wife ... what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”

The late Billy Graham’s son was referring to President Bill Clinton.

Evangelical leader Gary Bauer reported his distress about the scandal then dominating the headlines: “I walk around my home with the TV remote in my hand for fear that [my children] will come in the room when a story about the president comes on. [Thanks to Clinton] our kids have been taught that fidelity is old-fashioned, that adultery is the norm.”

Focus on the Family founder Jim Dobson lamented, “As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James, the question is posed, ‘Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.”

These and other evangelical leaders wanted Clinton impeached, convicted and removed from office.

Their position, they asserted, was based on fundamental values. As one leader wrote, “Most evangelicals consider what Bill Clinton did … an undermining of … the moral and biblical principles on which [our Constitution] is based … evangelicals are values-based voters, values based on biblical morality … evangelicals believe in moral absolutes.”

AND THEN CAME TRUMP, AND OUT WENT MORALS

Of course, you left wingers argued that it was a private matter. Why is it now a public one?

 

[Legion]

I was born and raised in an uber conservative area by evangelicals.

So you say.