On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:04:26 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person.
How do you pick and choose dishonesty?
My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually
dishonest people I've ever seen with his wife a close second.

I wouldn't dispute that about Bill. He's the consummate politician, and
there is something fundamentally dishonest about that.

It's the nature of politics I think.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.
It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.
Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of
Dicsussion.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
\\



I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.

"Kippered" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis@4ax. com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comc ast.com...
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote:


Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially
hard
to
understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying.
Believe
it
or
not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your
buddy
find
nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some
probably think it's right cool. But it isn't.

Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was
guilty
of
one, but we was not guilty of the other.

Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I
did
not
have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if
a
blow
job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer.


I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they
want,
wherever they want.

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your original
statement stands as true.


Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it
now.

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.

Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.


"It" is also about WHY he was asked. You know why. The fake saints needed a
bit of theatre, for political reasons.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..



I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.


Pretty much sums it up.

Eisboch

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.


Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is trying to convince you that lying
is wrong!

Unreal!
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.
It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.
Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of
Dicsussion.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
\\



I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.

Now is where Tom should come back and ask you to answer his question.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:01:23 -0500, JG2U wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:21 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat
chick.

Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again.
Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath"
about
sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch
hunt
to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk.

It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they
could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they
were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold
have been no impeachment. Period.

Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would
have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the
Repubs
could do was nail him because he lied about sex.

I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They
won't be about sex or lying about sex, either.

Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of
Liberal
lies.

You forgot this:

That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected.

Remember this video?


Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.

Bush was pushed into it by Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq. And now they lie and say it was Bush.
Shame on them.

================


Bush's statements, in chronological order, we

snip

So? As I said, the libs were beating the war drum for Iraq and Sadam
back in 1998, long before Bush even got into office. Watch this
instructive video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

You'll learn something.

The liberals here should be using that video to calibrate their new TV
sets.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

"JG2U" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:21 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk
wrote:

JG2U wrote:
News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a
fat
chick.

Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again.
Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath"
about
sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch
hunt
to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk.

It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they
could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they
were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold
have been no impeachment. Period.

Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would
have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the
Repubs
could do was nail him because he lied about sex.

I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They
won't be about sex or lying about sex, either.

Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of
Liberal
lies.

You forgot this:

That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected.

Remember this video?


Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.

Bush was pushed into it by Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq. And now they lie and say it was Bush.
Shame on them.

================


Bush's statements, in chronological order, we

snip

So? As I said, the libs were beating the war drum for Iraq and Sadam
back in 1998, long before Bush even got into office. Watch this
instructive video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

You'll learn something.


I've seen that.

One day, Saddam had a nuclear facility. The next day, he didn't. I'm sure
you remember how and when this truth came to be.

Then, he had one again, and it was important to deal with it. And then, like
before, it became unimportant. If Saddam had a future, his nuclear facility
might've become important again. Same with Iran, although we and other
sellers of technology seem to have learned our lesson after we helped
Pakistan build nuclear weapons and gave them aircraft with which to deliver
them.

So, at least with regard to nuclear weapons, let's not have any double
standards. If it upsets you that he wanted to own that kind of WMD, you have
to view his efforts in the context of history. And that, unfortunately,
means you need to get to the library.

You will now be tempted to ask me if I think it was good that Saddam was
striving to own nuclear weapons. Please don't. It's a dumb question.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis@4ax .com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@com cast.com...
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote:


Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially
hard
to
understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying.
Believe
it
or
not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your
buddy
find
nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some
probably think it's right cool. But it isn't.

Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was
guilty
of
one, but we was not guilty of the other.

Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I
did
not
have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if
a
blow
job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer.


I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they
want,
wherever they want.

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your original
statement stands as true.


Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it
now.

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response.


"Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question
only for political gain."

No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and
immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his
behavior is horse****.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H