Quote Originally Posted by The Redneck
That wasn't whitewater. Whitewater was a land deal of some kind that was investigated and reported on four at least 6 years, even though they could never find any wrongdoing. That's why the conservatives decided to impeach the president for having an affair.
Wrong on both counts. 14 of Clinton's associates were convicted, although he let them take the fall for himself.
And Clinton was not impeached for having an affair either. He was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.
So wait a minute, clinton is still guilty even though we found evidence of "associates" doing things. Look had there been any way that clinton was involved in criminal activity, any one of these associates would have gladly taken a plea deal to testify against clinton. Or is he a Sith lord brainwashing them to the point where they are willing to spend years in jail rather than testify to clinton's guilt? I really don't think Clinton knows the jedi mind trick.

We don't do guilt by association in this country.

which pisses me off everytime some dumb conservative says that all christains are conservatives.I'm a christain and I'm liberal at that.
Maybe it's just that we have a hard time seeing how a Christian would support a faction so blatantly hostile towards Christians and Christianity.
Democrats aren't hostile to religion. They support some things Christians disagree with and some they agree with. heck most Catholics vote Democrat (at least here in St Louis), and probaby 85% or more of Democrats attend church on a regular basis.

Even the Ventura quotes mentioned by others. Saying that you don't believe in Christianity is not anti-christian any more than saying that I don't believe that Muhammad is a prophet somehow automatically makes me hostile to Islam. No, it makes me not a muslim to say I don't believe in Muhammad. Further, reporting that someone said something anti-muslim is not anti-muslim. It's doing you job. If you interview somebody and he says something about religion (esp. in the case of Ventura, something he was asked by Playboy, who was doing the interview), then you pretty much have to print the answer. Even if the answer is going to offend you. As far as Ventura, the authenticity thing may have been from other parts of his campaign. He had a reputation at the time of "shooting from the hip", saying what he really thought (about lots of things, not just religion). He was anti-death-penalty, and anti-jailtime for nonviolent drug abusers. In fact this is what ventura said about drugs
Nobody's ever been able to explain to me why we waste prison cells on drug addicts.
So at least some of the "blunt, maverick" comments could have been on other issues.

And if you want to talk about "slandering" presidents, if the media was liberal, why did all the charges by Republicans about Bill Clinton get so much coverage?
So much coverage? Hell, the friends of Gray Davis accusing Schwartzenegger of groping got more coverage than Mr. Fluffy Bunny's accusers--including CBS deliberately sitting on the credible rape accusation still standing against him. The LA Times brags that it had 9 reporters in Little Rock--but it had 27 on the groping 'story'.
Which is why Jennifer Flowers is a household name.

The "groping thing" lasted maybe a week. Clinton's accusations went on for probably at least 8 months.

Other than the memo CBS thing, there hasn't been any slander of Bush by the media.
And the other AWOL stories, and the Harken stories, and the attempts to link him to Enron, accusations that he was "rolling back" policy by delaying one of Clinton's last-day executive orders, claims that Bush's cousin 'won' Florida for him by accurately calling the state for Bush 5 hours after the polls were closed, etc., etc., etc.
[/quote]

Amazingly I've never heard any of these charges. You must be reading some pretty far-left papers.