• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage 3...

Unless PD was on trial for sexual harassment, the two are in no way equal, much as mindless Clinton supporters would like them to be.

As a youth I raised pigs for the 4H. Yorkshires and Berkshires are different breeds of pigs but there is not doubt they are both pigs. Trying to say one pig is cleaner than the other is an exercise in futility.
 
Pete "Impeach Clinton" Domenici Acknowledges Love Child

As a youth I raised pigs for the 4H. Yorkshires and Berkshires are different breeds of pigs but there is not doubt they are both pigs. Trying to say one pig is cleaner than the other is an exercise in futility.

I'm betting at least two of your pigs were groped by Clinton on at least one occasion.

PD is no saint. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, he also isn't a sexual deviant accused I sexual harassment, assault, and rape.
 
I'm betting at least two of your pigs were groped by Clinton on at least one occasion.

PD is no saint. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, he also isn't a sexual deviant accused I sexual harassment, assault, and rape.

Do you really believe this was Domenici's first rodeo? Let me guess, you probably think Herman Cain was innocent too? Newsflash, they are all pigs.
 
Pete "Impeach Clinton" Domenici Acknowledges Love Child

Do you really believe this was Domenici's first rodeo? Let me guess, you probably think Herman Cain was innocent too? Newsflash, they are all pigs.

Don't know...don't care. Entirely likely that he has had more sexual relationships. We have yet to see any evidence that he was jacking of in front of a campaign staffer trying to romance her, and he was never caught lying under oath while on trial for sexual harassment, nor has he been accused of rape and sexual assault.
 
And PS, the impeachment was about a blow job, not perjury. Stop pretending.

Adultery isn't illegal. Lying under oath is, and he objectively and indisputably did that. Stop being ridiculous and stupid. Oh wait.
 
I thought Clinton made a number of errors and I think that every President has done things that were abominable. I always hope and I am always disappointed.

So, I'm always forced to decide if my rating is favorable or unfavorable. I must weigh the good against the bad, I must weigh the efforts and their results. My rating is favorable and yours is unfavorable. It's amazing that 2 rational beings, faced with identical information, can draw such opposite conclusions. The mysteries of life.

I don't have a desired outcome preference. Whomever is President, I pray they will be wise in their decisions because so many are affected. I'm not morally certain that our Presidents are subject to hidden influences, but you know, anything is possible.

Fair enough.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

You're right. After all, no conservatives ever portray any manufactured outrage toward Bill Clinton, who was president 20 years ago. :roll:
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit? Just what exactly did you think this meant?

Manufactured moral outrage over a man who participated in the same type of manufactured moral outrage 15 years ago. Have I pretty much nailed the gist of it?

Let me spell it out for you. The subject of the OP went after Clinton 15 years ago during the Monicagate fiasco feigning the same moral outrage that is being feigned now. You really didn't get that? Really?
 
Last edited:
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

Do you understand the difference between private morality and those that claim moral superiority but have affairs, especially those who politicize morality like GOP did against Clinton?

And PS, the impeachment was about a blow job, not perjury. Stop pretending.

So you are of the opinion that oral sex in the United States is illegal?

This is really a classic!
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

But when it comes to hypocrits you have to admit Conservatives are the kings.

nope. Being a hypocrit has no political boundry.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

Unless someone can explain to me why I should care, I'd like those ten seconds back please.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

So a guy whose administration that an independent UN report states knew about a genocide (that killed 800,000 people) and not only did nothing to stop it - but also got the UN to pull out those troops that were there?

And you give a man like that a 'mostly favorable rating'?


Additionally:

'The OAU, consisting mostly of African leaders and led by Stephen Lewis, a Canadian, attempts to rebuke the United States by asserting that the reason for not sending troops to Rwanda was that “nothing was at stake for the United States in Rwanda. There were no interests to guard. … I don’t know how Madeleine Albright lives with this,” said Lewis, trying to shift even more responsibility onto the United States.

Albright, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., defended herself.

“I screamed about the instructions I got on this,” Albright told ABC-TV’s Cokie Roberts. “I felt that they were wrong, and I made that point, but I was an ambassador under instructions.”'



Read more at U.N. seeks reparations for Rwandan genocide

So even Albright admitted that she thought her instructions were so wrong that she literally screamed against them.

And you still would give such a man a 'most favorable' rating as POTUS?

No offense, but I find that repulsive.

Let me ask you this - how many people would have had to have died in Rwanda before you would noticeably lessen your opinion of that dickhead Clinton?

1 million? 2? 5? Or even if the entire country hacked themselves to death and Clinton knew about it and did absolutely nothing to stop it - would even that lose him your 'most favorable rating'?

Or if Rwandans killing off each other completely is not enough?

How many times would he have to do the exact same thing (knowingly turn his back on massive genocide) for your rating of him to drop?

Hey...maybe I'm a bad person but I agree with not sending in US troops to Rwanda when it presents no national interest. Why didn't neighboring African countries send in aid? Why didn't the Canadians send a force?
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

Hey...maybe I'm a bad person but I agree with not sending in US troops to Rwanda when it presents no national interest. Why didn't neighboring African countries send in aid? Why didn't the Canadians send a force?

Because the Canadians knew their presense would only encourage the bad guys.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

well, i'm gonna go ahead and say the same **** i've bee nsaying for all my years on this rock.

cheaters are scum... cheating is a character flaw, a severe one.

there's is no need to defend one guys character flaw and excuse another's.... they are both scum, no matter what political party they affiliate with.

If you defend, or excuse, one parties scum and castigate another parties scum... well, the problem isn't only with the cheating scum, it's with you as as well... you, too, are scum.


Domenici is scum.. Edwards is scum.. Clinton is scum... Gingrich is scum.. JFK is scum..... etc etc etc etc.etc etc ........etc.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

well, i'm gonna go ahead and say the same **** i've bee nsaying for all my years on this rock.

cheaters are scum... cheating is a character flaw, a severe one.

there's is no need to defend one guys character flaw and excuse another's.... they are both scum, no matter what political party they affiliate with.

If you defend, or excuse, one parties scum and castigate another parties scum... well, the problem isn't only with the cheating scum, it's with you as as well... you, too, are scum.


Domenici is scum.. Edwards is scum.. Clinton is scum... Gingrich is scum.. JFK is scum..... etc etc etc etc.etc etc ........etc.

What is even more frightening is that these men were in a position of power and the idea they could pull these stunts and get away with shows their true IQ.

The highest mark of stupidity has be the former Gov Mark Sanford who thought he could sneak down to Argentina without anyone finding out. Not sneaking out to a local Motel 8 but country almost 5,000 miles away!
Edwards is a close second who cheated during his campaign for president. During the campaign whenever you fart the media and your opponent is ready to jump on it and there you are having a little on the side....Are you kidding me?
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

Hey...maybe I'm a bad person but I agree with not sending in US troops to Rwanda when it presents no national interest. Why didn't neighboring African countries send in aid? Why didn't the Canadians send a force?

He didn't just not send troops in. He got the UN to pull out the troops that were in there. His administration lied about knowing there was genocide taking place.

And he had a few month's earlier send U.S. troops into Mogadishu to try and stabilize the government. But it didn't go well - so he obviously got scared to help again...even though this time it was a gigantic genocide.

You think he did the right thing? That is your opinion,.

It is wrong, of course.

But it is your opinion and your are entitled to it.

I think he was a coward and an accessory to genocide.

It's one thing to not help innocent people from getting brutally butchered.

But it is another thing to try and get the world to not help these people as well.

Though both are pathetic to me.


LEt me ask you this:

How many people would have to be brutally murdered for you to think it was in America's best interests to try and stop it?

1 million? 2? 5?

Or is it because they are Africans that you do not give a crap?

Would it be different if they were Western Europeans?
 
Last edited:
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

Or is it because they are Africans that you do not give a crap?

Would it be different if they were Western Europeans?

Actually that has nothing to do with it.

He didn't just not send troops in. He got the UN to pull out the troops that were in there. His administration lied about knowing there was genocide taking place.

Which was cowardly. Which I agree with you on. If you're not going to intervene that doesn't mean you should supress information on what is taking place.

And he had a few month's earlier send U.S. troops into Mogadishu to try and stabilize the government. But it didn't go well - so he obviously got scared to help again...even though this time it was a gigantic genocide.
Of course....US soldiers were sent in a peacekeeping effort and it ended with dead soldiers. This is exactly why sending troops should always be measured at the cost in US lives. Soldiers typically join the military to defend and protect the United States. At what point is there mission to defend and protect all people of the world? At what point is the will of the people taken into account? What took place in Somalia horrified Americans.
I think he was a coward and an accessory to genocide.

As I mentioned earlier him covering the fact that genocide was taking place was cowardly and he should be judged by that. The idea of being an accessory....depends on your view of US interest and role in the world. So standing on the sidelines means the US is an accessory? Is that applied to all nations of the world including the neigboring countries of Rwanda? How about countries that actually were accessories to genocide like China and France as they sold arms and supplies to individuals that actually committed genocide?

LEt me ask you this:

How many people would have to be brutally murdered for you to think it was in America's best interests to try and stop it?

1 million? 2? 5?
It's not a number. I would prefer 0 be the number of individuals killed due to genocide. The United States is a country though not an arm of international peace. Sure...we typically are in that role but we don't fund our military and peopledon't join the service to act as the bank and military of international peacekeepr. It's pretty unfair to act like that's the purpose of the United States and United States military. If the US can intervene with minimal loss of US life like Libya, like Bosnia then sure. If the peacekeeping would require boots on the ground and a large presence for the foreseeable future try selling that to the US people. People bitch about paying taxes helping their own citizens. You think they want to spend 100's of billions a year and lose American lives to stop genocide overseas?

I'll defend Clintons actions of not intervening because he is a President accountable to his own people but I won't defend him hiding information.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

Actually that has nothing to do with it.



Which was cowardly. Which I agree with you on. If you're not going to intervene that doesn't mean you should supress information on what is taking place.


Of course....US soldiers were sent in a peacekeeping effort and it ended with dead soldiers. This is exactly why sending troops should always be measured at the cost in US lives. Soldiers typically join the military to defend and protect the United States. At what point is there mission to defend and protect all people of the world? At what point is the will of the people taken into account? What took place in Somalia horrified Americans.


As I mentioned earlier him covering the fact that genocide was taking place was cowardly and he should be judged by that. The idea of being an accessory....depends on your view of US interest and role in the world. So standing on the sidelines means the US is an accessory? Is that applied to all nations of the world including the neigboring countries of Rwanda? How about countries that actually were accessories to genocide like China and France as they sold arms and supplies to individuals that actually committed genocide?


It's not a number. I would prefer 0 be the number of individuals killed due to genocide. The United States is a country though not an arm of international peace. Sure...we typically are in that role but we don't fund our military and peopledon't join the service to act as the bank and military of international peacekeepr. It's pretty unfair to act like that's the purpose of the United States and United States military. If the US can intervene with minimal loss of US life like Libya, like Bosnia then sure. If the peacekeeping would require boots on the ground and a large presence for the foreseeable future try selling that to the US people. People bitch about paying taxes helping their own citizens. You think they want to spend 100's of billions a year and lose American lives to stop genocide overseas?

I'll defend Clintons actions of not intervening because he is a President accountable to his own people but I won't defend him hiding information.
As to the American people not supporting an intervention with troops that saves hundreds of thousands of lives?

I think more would be in favor of it then you might think.

But even if the vast majority were against it - if I was Clinton, I would send the troops in anyway. Even if the voters hated it..

I don't care.

You do what is right first - then you worry about what others think after.

IMO, that is the American way.

Not cowering in fear in a corner because they are worried a few US soldiers might get killed...while hundreds of thousands of innocent people are brutally slaughtered in a gigantic genocide.

If the latter is what America is really like - then I want no part of it.

I would gladly volunteer for any military intervention of such a genocide.

'Better to be dead and cool, then alive and uncool'.
 
Last edited:
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

Bill Clinton was my favorite President. Not my only one but his intelligence just awed me.

To be fair, Clinton got in trouble for the lie, not the blow-job. He did the wrong thing. He cost Al Gore the election and I was very interested in Al Gore as President. Certainly, the actions of individuals do not reflect moral bankruptcy of millions.

I will not judge all liberals by John Edwards or all Conservatives by Pete Domenici. While I don't know the back-story I will at least respect that the child was born and not aborted in secret. That would have been really repulsive. Personally, I support abortion although I feel it is over-used. But when an anti-abortion person participates in an abortion....well, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

First off.....Bill Clinton didn't cost Al Gore the election....the Supreme Court cost Al Gore the election....and even if you want to adhere to the belief that GWB actually won the election, it still wasn't Clinton that lost it for Gore...it was Gore and his horrible selection of Lieberman as a running mate that cost himself the election.

I don't condone Bill Clinton's actions at all....he was not my favorite but won me over during his terms...but I lost a lot of respect I had for him due to his moral indiscretions. But lets me fair. The Republicans were on a two year witchhunt....and all they could come up with after years of digging was a blowjob? Give me a break. ANY guy would have lied about it.

As for whether one's moral indiscretions reflect on the party overall....I would say no. But it tends to be more Republicans that try to claim the moral highground and get caught with their pants down and their hypocrisy exposed. True....there are conservative and liberal hypocrties though.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

He didn't just not send troops in. He got the UN to pull out the troops that were in there. His administration lied about knowing there was genocide taking place.

And he had a few month's earlier send U.S. troops into Mogadishu to try and stabilize the government. But it didn't go well - so he obviously got scared to help again...even though this time it was a gigantic genocide.

You think he did the right thing? That is your opinion,.

It is wrong, of course.

But it is your opinion and your are entitled to it.

I think he was a coward and an accessory to genocide.

It's one thing to not help innocent people from getting brutally butchered.

But it is another thing to try and get the world to not help these people as well.

Though both are pathetic to me.


LEt me ask you this:

How many people would have to be brutally murdered for you to think it was in America's best interests to try and stop it?

1 million? 2? 5?

Or is it because they are Africans that you do not give a crap?

Would it be different if they were Western Europeans?

How about we reverse that question on you. What is the min number of people suffering that you feel the us military should get involved with? Will you foot the bill for all this with your life, your families lives, and your money?
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

The Left is hanging their hat on what a FORMER senator did now. At least the Right is blaming Obama while he's still in office.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

The Left is hanging their hat on what a FORMER senator did now. At least the Right is blaming Obama while he's still in office.

Actually it is more about people who jumped on the bandwagon to condemn Clinton for his affair while they were doing the very same thing. We saw this with Gingrich.

Clinton was wrong but don't be pumping up your chest about it if you were doing the same exact thing with other women.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

The only evidence I see here is that Pete did the wrong thing 30 years ago. How that unfortunate fact translates into guilt for nearly half of the country is beyond reason.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

The only evidence I see here is that Pete did the wrong thing 30 years ago. How that unfortunate fact translates into guilt for nearly half of the country is beyond reason.



True, it should be about the individual hypocrite. But here in this forum everybody has to be lumped together in one group or another. You may not even find either group exactly a correct fit but people here believe you have to choose one side or another and you are responsible for any ills they commit.
 
Re: Former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico acknowledges having son outside marriage

How about we reverse that question on you. What is the min number of people suffering that you feel the us military should get involved with? Will you foot the bill for all this with your life, your families lives, and your money?
The US military should get involved with ANY mass genocide. What constitutes that? I have no idea. But off the top of my head - I would say 1,000. But maybe less - depends on the situation.
There is some genocide in every war - so getting involved in every single case is not practical.


And why would I have to sacrifice my families lives to save people 5000 miles away? That is a ridiculous question.

As for money? I would gladly pay what funds I can spare if I believed it would save an innocent human being from being slaughtered in a genocide. I already give about 20% of my net income to charity - so diverting that to directly save a life would be very cool.

And as for my life? I already said that I would volunteer in a mission to stop a genocide.

As I typed - 'Better to be dead and cool. Then alive and uncool.'

MUCH better.


Now let's hear your answer to all your questions?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom