What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did not in
a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

Correct, that was the lying.

The perjury was when he made false statements to a federal judge. He was
sanctioned and disbarred form the Supreme Court.


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

I said ILLEGAL.

Perjury is ILLEGAL. He lied about getting the blow job.


I didn't ask whether or not perjury was illegal. I asked if it was illegal
for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want.

Would you like to answer the question I asked, instead of the one I did NOT
ask?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch



Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now is
it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I could've
written my question more clearly.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comcast. 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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

You're responding to someone else with that comment.


Yes. It's called an inline response. I left the post above it, so you
could see to whom who I was responding. Is your name Bucko? If so I
apologize for the confusion.



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

I said ILLEGAL.


It depends on many factors, and how the courts decide on a case by
case basis.


Sounds like you know more than you're telling. What factors might make it
illegal?


If the president has sex with a 2 year old boy, I'm pretty sure that
would be considered illegal. If the president has sex with a
subordinate, that also might be considered illegal.


2 year old boy: Agreed


Subordinate: You seem to know more than you are telling. Is it illegal to
have sex with a subordinate, or not? Legal? Not legal?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:20:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comcas t.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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

You're responding to someone else with that comment.


Yes. It's called an inline response. I left the post above it, so you
could see to whom who I was responding. Is your name Bucko? If so I
apologize for the confusion.



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

I said ILLEGAL.


It depends on many factors, and how the courts decide on a case by
case basis.


Sounds like you know more than you're telling. What factors might make
it
illegal?


If the president has sex with a 2 year old boy, I'm pretty sure that
would be considered illegal. If the president has sex with a
subordinate, that also might be considered illegal.


2 year old boy: Agreed


Subordinate: You seem to know more than you are telling. Is it illegal to
have sex with a subordinate, or not? Legal? Not legal?


Read what I wrote and you won't have to ask stupid follow-up
questions.


It's not a stupid question at all. You said:

"If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might be considered
illegal."

You used the words "might be", so you must have some sort of information to
back up your belief. Or, maybe you don't.

Whattya got? Anything at all?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:19:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch



Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now
is
it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I
could've
written my question more clearly.


End it with a question mark?



A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form I
wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:25:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form I
wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree.

Wait a minute. I just included a couple typos in a joke about sex
before the Mass. Why didn't you point out those typos?
Like I'm pointing out your "student of our native" typo.
I think it's because you just like me.
Or maybe you don't like bad jokes and don't bother reading them.

--Vic

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:24:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:20:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:e6gkp3dsbv8d37q718vo4bgef5unnngu32@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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

You're responding to someone else with that comment.


Yes. It's called an inline response. I left the post above it, so you
could see to whom who I was responding. Is your name Bucko? If so I
apologize for the confusion.



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

I said ILLEGAL.


It depends on many factors, and how the courts decide on a case by
case basis.


Sounds like you know more than you're telling. What factors might make
it
illegal?


If the president has sex with a 2 year old boy, I'm pretty sure that
would be considered illegal. If the president has sex with a
subordinate, that also might be considered illegal.


2 year old boy: Agreed


Subordinate: You seem to know more than you are telling. Is it illegal
to
have sex with a subordinate, or not? Legal? Not legal?


Read what I wrote and you won't have to ask stupid follow-up
questions.


It's not a stupid question at all. You said:

"If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might be
considered
illegal."

You used the words "might be", so you must have some sort of information
to
back up your belief. Or, maybe you don't.

Whattya got? Anything at all?


I said, "If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might
be considered illegal."

My belief is that it might be considered illegal. What's to back up
besides your overworked colon?


Here's where I'm going with this: Throughout the period when the fake saints
were tormenting Clinton, all sorts of legal experts commented on the
proceedings. I don't recall any of them saying that having sex with a
subordinate was illegal.

Add another factor: The fake saint with the biggest mouth didn't believe
that what Clinton did was improper. How do we know this? He did it himself
at the very time he was posing as a saint:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2937633&page=1

Logically, we can conclude that Gingrich and the other fake saints had no
purpose other than to appear holy, and to waste their time and our money. No
other conclusion holds any water.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...

A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form I
wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree.


You asked how to write a question that was clearer. I suggested that
you should try ending questions with a question mark. I made no
comment other than that about your deficient writing skills.

What is a "student of our native"? LOL!


It's called a typo.

Now, onward:

Verson 1) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone
they want, wherever they want.


Version 2) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone
they want, wherever they want?


Are you telling me that YOU believe version 2 to be easier for you to
understand, the only difference being the presence of the question mark?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:19:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did
not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch



Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now
is
it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I
could've
written my question more clearly.


End it with a question mark?



A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form I
wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree.


Jeez, where's Harry when you need him?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:36:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:24:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:20:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:jogkp3p47ftc2rejgkri7pps2b19dak52s@4ax. com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:e6gkp3dsbv8d37q718vo4bgef5unnngu32@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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

You're responding to someone else with that comment.


Yes. It's called an inline response. I left the post above it, so
you
could see to whom who I was responding. Is your name Bucko? If so I
apologize for the confusion.



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

I said ILLEGAL.


It depends on many factors, and how the courts decide on a case by
case basis.


Sounds like you know more than you're telling. What factors might
make
it
illegal?


If the president has sex with a 2 year old boy, I'm pretty sure that
would be considered illegal. If the president has sex with a
subordinate, that also might be considered illegal.


2 year old boy: Agreed


Subordinate: You seem to know more than you are telling. Is it
illegal
to
have sex with a subordinate, or not? Legal? Not legal?


Read what I wrote and you won't have to ask stupid follow-up
questions.


It's not a stupid question at all. You said:

"If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might be
considered
illegal."

You used the words "might be", so you must have some sort of information
to
back up your belief. Or, maybe you don't.

Whattya got? Anything at all?


I said, "If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might
be considered illegal."

My belief is that it might be considered illegal. What's to back up
besides your overworked colon?


Here's where I'm going with this: Throughout the period when the fake
saints
were tormenting Clinton, all sorts of legal experts commented on the
proceedings. I don't recall any of them saying that having sex with a
subordinate was illegal.

Add another factor: The fake saint with the biggest mouth didn't believe
that what Clinton did was improper. How do we know this? He did it himself
at the very time he was posing as a saint:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2937633&page=1

Logically, we can conclude that Gingrich and the other fake saints had no
purpose other than to appear holy, and to waste their time and our money.
No
other conclusion holds any water.


You sound like you may know more than you are letting on. Would that be
"holy"
water?




Assuming the sexual incident was not illegal, there was no *****legal*****
reason for the fake saints to ask about it. Do you disagree? If so, please
explain why?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:38:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form I
wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree.


You asked how to write a question that was clearer. I suggested that
you should try ending questions with a question mark. I made no
comment other than that about your deficient writing skills.

What is a "student of our native"? LOL!


It's called a typo.

Now, onward:

Verson 1) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone
they want, wherever they want.


Version 2) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with
anyone
they want, wherever they want?


Are you telling me that YOU believe version 2 to be easier for you to
understand, the only difference being the presence of the question mark?


I'm beginning to believe the critics here who claim you are a severe
alcoholic.




Why do you say that?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:36:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:24:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:20:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:jogkp3p47ftc2rejgkri7pps2b19dak52s@4ax .com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:e6gkp3dsbv8d37q718vo4bgef5unnngu32@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@c omcast.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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

You're responding to someone else with that comment.


Yes. It's called an inline response. I left the post above it, so
you
could see to whom who I was responding. Is your name Bucko? If so I
apologize for the confusion.



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

I said ILLEGAL.


It depends on many factors, and how the courts decide on a case
by
case basis.


Sounds like you know more than you're telling. What factors might
make
it
illegal?


If the president has sex with a 2 year old boy, I'm pretty sure
that
would be considered illegal. If the president has sex with a
subordinate, that also might be considered illegal.


2 year old boy: Agreed


Subordinate: You seem to know more than you are telling. Is it
illegal
to
have sex with a subordinate, or not? Legal? Not legal?


Read what I wrote and you won't have to ask stupid follow-up
questions.


It's not a stupid question at all. You said:

"If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might be
considered
illegal."

You used the words "might be", so you must have some sort of
information
to
back up your belief. Or, maybe you don't.

Whattya got? Anything at all?


I said, "If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might
be considered illegal."

My belief is that it might be considered illegal. What's to back up
besides your overworked colon?


Here's where I'm going with this: Throughout the period when the fake
saints
were tormenting Clinton, all sorts of legal experts commented on the
proceedings. I don't recall any of them saying that having sex with a
subordinate was illegal.

Add another factor: The fake saint with the biggest mouth didn't believe
that what Clinton did was improper. How do we know this? He did it
himself
at the very time he was posing as a saint:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2937633&page=1

Logically, we can conclude that Gingrich and the other fake saints had no
purpose other than to appear holy, and to waste their time and our money.
No
other conclusion holds any water.


You sound like you may know more than you are letting on. Would that be
"holy"
water?




Assuming the sexual incident was not illegal, there was no *****legal*****
reason for the fake saints to ask about it. Do you disagree? If so, please
explain why?

Do you want the POTUS to leave himself open to black mail? I don't care
which side of the aisle he sits on.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:36:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:24:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:c7hkp39u6qtp0uluasbq95ii0vld5nl3v6@4ax. com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:20:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:jogkp3p47ftc2rejgkri7pps2b19dak52s@4a x.com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:e6gkp3dsbv8d37q718vo4bgef5unnngu32@ 4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@ comcast.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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

You're responding to someone else with that comment.


Yes. It's called an inline response. I left the post above it, so
you
could see to whom who I was responding. Is your name Bucko? If so
I
apologize for the confusion.



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

I said ILLEGAL.


It depends on many factors, and how the courts decide on a case
by
case basis.


Sounds like you know more than you're telling. What factors might
make
it
illegal?


If the president has sex with a 2 year old boy, I'm pretty sure
that
would be considered illegal. If the president has sex with a
subordinate, that also might be considered illegal.


2 year old boy: Agreed


Subordinate: You seem to know more than you are telling. Is it
illegal
to
have sex with a subordinate, or not? Legal? Not legal?


Read what I wrote and you won't have to ask stupid follow-up
questions.


It's not a stupid question at all. You said:

"If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might be
considered
illegal."

You used the words "might be", so you must have some sort of
information
to
back up your belief. Or, maybe you don't.

Whattya got? Anything at all?


I said, "If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might
be considered illegal."

My belief is that it might be considered illegal. What's to back up
besides your overworked colon?


Here's where I'm going with this: Throughout the period when the fake
saints
were tormenting Clinton, all sorts of legal experts commented on the
proceedings. I don't recall any of them saying that having sex with a
subordinate was illegal.

Add another factor: The fake saint with the biggest mouth didn't believe
that what Clinton did was improper. How do we know this? He did it
himself
at the very time he was posing as a saint:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2937633&page=1

Logically, we can conclude that Gingrich and the other fake saints had
no
purpose other than to appear holy, and to waste their time and our
money. No
other conclusion holds any water.


You sound like you may know more than you are letting on. Would that be
"holy"
water?




Assuming the sexual incident was not illegal, there was no
*****legal***** reason for the fake saints to ask about it. Do you
disagree? If so, please explain why?

Do you want the POTUS to leave himself open to black mail? I don't care
which side of the aisle he sits on.


That's an interesting point, but that's not why the fake saints asked him
the infamous question. You know that.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:52:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:36:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:24:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:c7hkp39u6qtp0uluasbq95ii0vld5nl3v6@4ax. com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:20:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:jogkp3p47ftc2rejgkri7pps2b19dak52s@4a x.com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:e6gkp3dsbv8d37q718vo4bgef5unnngu32@ 4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@ comcast.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.

That weren't perjury, Bucko!

You're responding to someone else with that comment.


Yes. It's called an inline response. I left the post above it, so
you
could see to whom who I was responding. Is your name Bucko? If so
I
apologize for the confusion.



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

I said ILLEGAL.


It depends on many factors, and how the courts decide on a case
by
case basis.


Sounds like you know more than you're telling. What factors might
make
it
illegal?


If the president has sex with a 2 year old boy, I'm pretty sure
that
would be considered illegal. If the president has sex with a
subordinate, that also might be considered illegal.


2 year old boy: Agreed


Subordinate: You seem to know more than you are telling. Is it
illegal
to
have sex with a subordinate, or not? Legal? Not legal?


Read what I wrote and you won't have to ask stupid follow-up
questions.


It's not a stupid question at all. You said:

"If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might be
considered
illegal."

You used the words "might be", so you must have some sort of
information
to
back up your belief. Or, maybe you don't.

Whattya got? Anything at all?


I said, "If the president has sex with a subordinate, that also might
be considered illegal."

My belief is that it might be considered illegal. What's to back up
besides your overworked colon?


Here's where I'm going with this: Throughout the period when the fake
saints
were tormenting Clinton, all sorts of legal experts commented on the
proceedings. I don't recall any of them saying that having sex with a
subordinate was illegal.

Add another factor: The fake saint with the biggest mouth didn't believe
that what Clinton did was improper. How do we know this? He did it
himself
at the very time he was posing as a saint:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2937633&page=1

Logically, we can conclude that Gingrich and the other fake saints had
no
purpose other than to appear holy, and to waste their time and our
money.
No
other conclusion holds any water.


You sound like you may know more than you are letting on. Would that be
"holy"
water?




Assuming the sexual incident was not illegal, there was no *****legal*****
reason for the fake saints to ask about it. Do you disagree? If so, please
explain why?


Now you are putting question marks where they DON'T belong.



You're right.

Now, please explain the mystery described above. Why did the fake saints ask
the infamous question? Prurient interest?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch



Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now
is it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I
could've written my question more clearly.


Your question is impossible to answer. First of all, you are leaving out a
whole bunch of contributing factors, including the stupid woman (forget her
name) that Monica confided in and became a potential blackmail threat.
People in positions of responsibility .... even lowly enlisted military
people with access to classified information ... are subject to
investigation if the potential for a security leak exists.

Stop playing lawyer. You'd make a lousy one.

Eisboch

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:48:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch



Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now
is it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I
could've written my question more clearly.


Your question is impossible to answer. First of all, you are leaving out a
whole bunch of contributing factors, including the stupid woman (forget her
name)

Linda Tripp

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:48:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did
not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch



Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now
is it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I
could've written my question more clearly.


Your question is impossible to answer. First of all, you are leaving out
a
whole bunch of contributing factors, including the stupid woman (forget
her
name)

Linda Tripp

Thank you.

Eisboch

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:48:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


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

I said ILLEGAL.

Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch


Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now
is it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I
could've written my question more clearly.

Your question is impossible to answer. First of all, you are leaving out a
whole bunch of contributing factors, including the stupid woman (forget her
name)

Linda Tripp


Now that was one ugly woman, and she wasn't very attractive, either.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:08:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:48:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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

I said ILLEGAL.


Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did
not
in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury.

Eisboch



Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now
is it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I
could've written my question more clearly.


Your question is impossible to answer. First of all, you are leaving out
a
whole bunch of contributing factors, including the stupid woman (forget
her
name)

Linda Tripp

Thank you.

You're welcome.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:59:32 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:12:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:00:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Red Flounder" wrote in message
...
and marital infidelity?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...1240414/&imw=Y

Damn Democrats can't keep it in their pants apparently.

Compared to last year's Republican gay sex adventures, it's nothing.
Really.

It doesn't? Did the "last year's Republican gay sex adventures" cost
the taxpayers $9 million?
Tell me how much it cost taxpayers to manage these assholes:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Hypocrites.jpg

Aany of those felonies? Did any cost $9 million? How much did
Congressman Jefferson cost us?
The legal matters on that page cost taxpayers a total of $42 million
dollars. Thanks for asking. Now you can deal with the actual facts that
are
important, rather than the ones which are not.

So? The total cost of the clinton impeachment for the American public
was about 40 Million, for *one* liberal scumbag.

Now you know.
Thank you for helping me make my point. Now, explain to Bill that the
severity of a crime has nothing to do with the cost of prosecuting the
crime.

The fact that it was the POTUS, and was impeachment, means the crime
was severe, so it cost a lot. Your point failed.

You'd think that after seven years of incredible disasters perpetrated
on us by the Bush Administration, the jack-offs of the world would have
moved on from Bill Clinton's sex life.

But, no. I suppose that's what makes a Jack Goff a jack-off.

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.

Meanwhile, we now have a president who lied us into a war, and lied 4000
Americans dead, and lied 40,000 Americans wounded, and lied $1.5
trillion blown on a trumped up war.

I doubt Bush and Cheney will be punished by the system for their crimes,
but perhaps a few of their facilitators can be after next January.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:05:49 -0000, 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.

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.


snerk A jackoff by any other name...is a JG2U.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
m...
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.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

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 Bush's
lies.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

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

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comcast. 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.

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

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

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.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Jan 25, 4:55*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:38:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form I
wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree.

You asked how to write a question that was clearer. I suggested that
you should try ending questions with a question mark. I made no
comment other than that about your deficient writing skills.

What is a "student of our native"? LOL!

It's called a typo.

Now, onward:

Verson 1) *I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone
they want, wherever they want.

Version 2) *I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with
anyone
they want, wherever they want?

Are you telling me that YOU believe version 2 to be easier for you to
understand, the only difference being the presence of the question mark?

I'm beginning to believe the critics here who claim you are a severe
alcoholic.

Why do you say that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


When my kids were younger I told them not to use that tone it sounded
rude, they insisted they did not mean to sound rude. Stay with me
here;) I told them that I did not care, it was my perception that they
sounded rude so as subordinates it was up to them to figure out what
it was they were doing and stop it anyway, until then they would be
grounded when I heard that tone. BTW, did not take them long to
figure it out. Iirc, till about the first friday night dance;) Pardon
the spelling, I hope you can thrash through on context.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 4:55 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:38:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form
I
wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree.

You asked how to write a question that was clearer. I suggested that
you should try ending questions with a question mark. I made no
comment other than that about your deficient writing skills.

What is a "student of our native"? LOL!

It's called a typo.

Now, onward:

Verson 1) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with
anyone
they want, wherever they want.

Version 2) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with
anyone
they want, wherever they want?

Are you telling me that YOU believe version 2 to be easier for you to
understand, the only difference being the presence of the question mark?

I'm beginning to believe the critics here who claim you are a severe
alcoholic.

Why do you say that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


When my kids were younger I told them not to use that tone it sounded
rude, they insisted they did not mean to sound rude. Stay with me
here;) I told them that I did not care, it was my perception that they
sounded rude so as subordinates it was up to them to figure out what
it was they were doing and stop it anyway, until then they would be
grounded when I heard that tone. BTW, did not take them long to
figure it out. Iirc, till about the first friday night dance;) Pardon
the spelling, I hope you can thrash through on context.

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


What "tone" are you referring to?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Jan 25, 8:30*pm, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... Bush shot back, tough ****.
Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the
oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot
back or democrats who will not? duh, math is constant, one and
one is always two...

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

JimH wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
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?

...................thousands died, and for nothing.....................

..............on 9/11.


And since, and all while George W. Bush was captain of the ship.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, 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.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... Bush shot back, tough ****.
Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the
oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot
back or democrats who will not? duh, math is constant, one and
one is always two...

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


Oil: Which time period are you referring to? Examples: "today", or "the
last 48 hours", that sort of thing.

I've been hittin' the Red Rose tea pretty hard for the past hour, so I'm
pretty ****ed up. I'm not following what you are connecting to the "oil
going up" idea. Can you clarify?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Jan 25, 9:06*pm, hk wrote:
JimH wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
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?

...................thousands died, and for nothing.....................

..............on 9/11.

And since, and all while George W. Bush was captain of the ship.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And all planned while Clinton was in office. And who really knows how
much Clinton knew, but Bush let him and Berger off the hook, letting
them destroy the info, unchanllenged..

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

JG2U wrote:
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.


You righties are just piling the b.s. higher and higher.

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 9:06 pm, hk wrote:
JimH wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
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?

...................thousands died, and for nothing.....................

..............on 9/11.

And since, and all while George W. Bush was captain of the ship.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And all planned while Clinton was in office. And who really knows how
much Clinton knew, but Bush let him and Berger off the hook, letting
them destroy the info, unchanllenged..

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


It's great that this issue is so simple, and there's no need for you to
bother reading much of anything about the last 30 years' worth of our
country's history.

Don't you agree that it's great?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

On Jan 25, 9:10*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, 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.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... * *Bush shot back, tough ****.
Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the
oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot
back or democrats who will not? * * *duh, math is constant, one and
one is always two...

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

Oil: Which time period are you referring to? Examples: *"today", or "the
last 48 hours", that sort of thing.

I've been hittin' the Red Rose tea pretty hard for the past hour, so I'm
pretty ****ed up. I'm not following what you are connecting to the "oil
going up" idea. Can you clarify?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

pfffffttttt...

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"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

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for
the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the
facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi
field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological
weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents,
including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical
or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is
exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United
States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear
scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy
warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at
sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment
needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear
weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials
to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 9:10 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, 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.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... Bush shot back, tough ****.
Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the
oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot
back or democrats who will not? duh, math is constant, one and
one is always two...

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

Oil: Which time period are you referring to? Examples: "today", or "the
last 48 hours", that sort of thing.

I've been hittin' the Red Rose tea pretty hard for the past hour, so I'm
pretty ****ed up. I'm not following what you are connecting to the "oil
going up" idea. Can you clarify?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

pfffffttttt...

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


Great. You type these things and hit the "send" button before making sure
you can explain them. You must be embarrassed, although you will pretend
that you somehow "won".

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

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

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

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comcas t.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.