What is it about Democrat leaders
 

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

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@co mcast.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****.


You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition
belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He
didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe
Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude
that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of
Clinton's behavior.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:20:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 26, 9:01 am, JG2U wrote:


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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pfffffttt.... They won't care, even if you show them. These are after
all far left secular progressives, they are self indulgent, mostly
spoiled baby boomers with little intellectual integerity. If the the
truth does not fit, and in this case the truth is clear, they will
just change it as they have, on an institutional level from the top
down in the party. And selfish, non-thinking democrats will fall into
line anyway... It's just easier for them that way I guess. Truth is
hard.

You know, I'm not totally in line with all of the beliefs of either
party. There are some basic tenants of the conservatives and of the
liberals that I just don't believe in.


What difference does it make to you who either group rents to?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition
belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time.
He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY
believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only
conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his
opinion of Clinton's behavior.


The difference is Gingrich (who, BTW, I have little respect for) didn't
deny his affair under oath.

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition
belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time.
He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY
believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only
conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his
opinion of Clinton's behavior.


The difference is Gingrich (who, BTW, I have little respect for) didn't
deny his affair under oath.

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch



Then, you're OK with Reagan telling congress that Pakistan was not
developing nuclear weapons, while in fact he helped them get the materials
they needed, by hobbling the efforts of two agencies which were trying to
stop the transfer of those materials.

My point is, I just want to be sure you're being consistent. Sleaze is
sleaze.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:09:23 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:13:06 -0500, JG2U wrote:


Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of
one, but we was not guilty of the other.
You're correct, Einstein. One is lying in a court of law under oath,
the other is just lying.

And you're wrong, Clinton is guilty of both. Seems to be a pattern of
lying with the liberals, especially in this NG.
Cite? Before you tax yourself, in this country, you are innocent
until proven guilty. Clinton was *never* convicted of perjury.

President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan
D.Webber Wright for willfully failuring to truthfully testify under
oath.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...nton.contempt/

His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the
United States Supreme Court. He was also fined $90,000 for giving
false testimony.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...nton.contempt/

The definition of perjury is:

Perjury: Law. The willful giving of false testimony under oath or
affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a
legal inquiry.
How exactly wasn't he convicted of perjury if his license to practice
law was revoked and he was fined for not telling the truth?

Come on - you are smarter than that.


Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

You keep believing that it is all about sex.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

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.

When a rapist is on trial he is allowed to to lie about his actions,
after all it is just about sex.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

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.

Just answer the question - it's simple.

Did all those people lie about the WMDs?

If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below,
then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either.

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

I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President
Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs?

Yes or no.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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.

I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say
the right thing.

It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and
their main henchman in the process was George Tenant.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Jan 26, 12:01*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"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.

I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say
the right thing.

It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and
their main henchman in the process was George Tenant.

Ding, ding, ding.. and we have a winner...

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
m...



I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

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

Pretty much sums it up.

I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say
the right thing.

It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and
their main henchman in the process was George Tenant.


I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the
Pakistan nightmare.