"Kippered" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis@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.


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

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your original
statement stands as true.


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

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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

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

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@com cast.com...
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote:


Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially
hard
to
understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying.
Believe
it
or
not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your
buddy
find
nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some
probably think it's right cool. But it isn't.

Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was
guilty
of
one, but we was not guilty of the other.

Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I
did
not
have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if
a
blow
job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer.


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

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your original
statement stands as true.


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

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response.


"Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question
only for political gain."

No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and
immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his
behavior is horse****.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

"Kippered" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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

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

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@co mcast.com...
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote:


Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially
hard
to
understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying.
Believe
it
or
not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your
buddy
find
nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and
some
probably think it's right cool. But it isn't.

Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was
guilty
of
one, but we was not guilty of the other.

Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I
did
not
have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives
if
a
blow
job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer.


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

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and
indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere
you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for
ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your original
statement stands as true.


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

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a
child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities.
Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you
disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response.


"Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question
only for political gain."

No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and
immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his
behavior is horse****.


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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


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


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

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


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


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

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch



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

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

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:47:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


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

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch

And if he denied it, not under oath? It would still be a dishonesty
issue. Personally, I find the dishonesty troubling, but then again, I
find the hypocrisy more troubling, but that's just me.

I wouldn't deny lying comes easy to Clinton, but, married people lying
about an affair, is, quite possibly, the most common lie out there.

wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:47:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


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

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch

And if he denied it, not under oath? It would still be a dishonesty
issue. Personally, I find the dishonesty troubling, but then again, I
find the hypocrisy more troubling, but that's just me.

I wouldn't deny lying comes easy to Clinton, but, married people lying
about an affair, is, quite possibly, the most common lie out there.

Does you wife need to ask you some questions so that you may lie to her?

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:11:50 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:47:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


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

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch

And if he denied it, not under oath? It would still be a dishonesty
issue. Personally, I find the dishonesty troubling, but then again, I
find the hypocrisy more troubling, but that's just me.

I wouldn't deny lying comes easy to Clinton, but, married people lying
about an affair, is, quite possibly, the most common lie out there.

Well hell, that ought to make it OK!
--
John H

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:47:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


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

It's the dishonesty issue, not the event.

Eisboch

And if he denied it, not under oath? It would still be a dishonesty
issue. Personally, I find the dishonesty troubling, but then again, I
find the hypocrisy more troubling, but that's just me.

I wouldn't deny lying comes easy to Clinton, but, married people lying
about an affair, is, quite possibly, the most common lie out there.


Lying = dishonest
Lying under oath to court system = dishonest and illegal.

Eisboch

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis@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.


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

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and
indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere
you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for
ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your original
statement stands as true.


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

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a
child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities.
Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you
disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response.


"Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question
only for political gain."

No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and
immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his
behavior is horse****.


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


How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too
full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****.
--
John H