"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.

"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.