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.

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.
--
Mackerel Snapper

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.

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.

Of which was he guilty? Wouldn't lying be a subset of perjury?


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

John H

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:24:53 -0500, Kippered wrote:


Of which was he guilty? Wouldn't lying be a subset of perjury?

He was guilty of lying. Perjury is a crime, and in this country, to be
guilty, one needs to be convicted. Clinton was never convicted of
perjury.

On Jan 26, 7:13*am, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:24:53 -0500, Kippered wrote:
Of which was he guilty? Wouldn't lying be a subset of perjury?

He was guilty of lying. *Perjury is a crime, and in this country, to be
guilty, one needs to be convicted. *Clinton was never convicted of
perjury. *

OJ was not convicted either...

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.

"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.


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

I said ILLEGAL.

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


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

I said ILLEGAL.

Well there's ILLEGAL and there's IMPROPER.
Example.
Guy is tired of his wife putting him off on sex every weekend until
after Mass at church on Sunday.
She starts this every Saturday. "Oh honey, we're going the Mass
tomorrow. It wouldn't be proper."
So this guy goes to see the priest and asks him, "Father, is it
IMPROPER to have sex with my wife before the Mass?"
Priest says, "No son, it not IMPROPER. Just don't block the aisles."

--Vic

"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

"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.