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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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...