On Jan 25, 7:06*pm, 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
news:c5dhp3ligp3u2si905etgab7v4cu5f1870@4 ax.com...
and marital infidelity?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...4/NEWS05/80124...

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...publicanHypocr...

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean the Bozo's Bin?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.
Pretty much sums it up.

I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say
the right thing.

It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and
their main henchman in the process was George Tenant.


If you believe that, then you must believe Bush is even dumber than I
think he is.

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 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.
It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.
Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of
Dicsussion.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,

I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

Just answer the question - it's simple.

Did all those people lie about the WMDs?

If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below,
then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.

I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President
Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs?

Yes or no.

I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home?

Hello?

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk
wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.
It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.
Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have
mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of
Dicsussion.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,

I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

Just answer the question - it's simple.

Did all those people lie about the WMDs?

If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below,
then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.

I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President
Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs?

Yes or no.

I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home?

Hello?


They all said what they believed at the time. The issue is the word TIME.
When did he have these things, and how close was he to actually having them
ready to use? "Moments from turning the last screw", as the CIA put it when
debating where Pakistan was in its nuke program.

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

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

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

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4a x.com...
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@ 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.

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


Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course
not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:54:37 -0500, BAR wrote:

hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.


Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

When a rapist is on trial he is allowed to to lie about his actions,
after all it is just about sex.

You are discussing the lying as though it were wrong, but you're doing so
with one who has no compunctions about same.
--
John H