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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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?


Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin.
But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who
lied to get his war started.


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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


You just crossed the line of any future consideration to credibility in your
posts.
You have absolutely no knowledge of your accusation.

Eisboch

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



Actually, I wasn't dissing Reagan at all. The implied point was that all
presidents inherit nightmares from their predecessors.

Just about the most intelligent post you've made in a year.

Eisboch

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:19:31 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do
with this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama.

Eisboch

Well, in a way, Reagan was at the start. In 1982, Reagan removed Iraq
from the list of terrorist sponsoring countries, and started arming both
Iraq and Iran during the Iraq/Iran War. Many consider the debt Iraq
accrued during that war, the reason for the invasion of Kuwait. When you
play geopolitical chess, the end game is sometimes problematic.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:28:51 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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?

Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin.
But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who
lied to get his war started.

Unfortunate. It would appear that you can't give a honest answer to
an honest question.

Thought better of you actually.

Oh well...

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:28:51 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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?
Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin.
But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who
lied to get his war started.

Unfortunate. It would appear that you can't give a honest answer to
an honest question.

Thought better of you actually.

Oh well...


It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.

--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4ax .com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4 ax.com...
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:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5ikn ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ ...
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.


Gingrich's guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on your horse****
implication.
--
John H


My implication is perfect. Gingrich went after Clinton for only one reason:
To make political hay because he needed to at the time. Nobody gave a damn
about Clinton's sex life. Clinton simply provided them with a tool to use
against him. That was his biggest mistake.


Other than the fact that his sex life was sleazy, unethical, and immoral,
no one gave a **** about it.

But, he perjured himself. That's what gave 'them' the tool to use.
--
John H

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:22:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
m...

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


"hk" wrote in message
news:6MOdncJnI4ue2AbanZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast .com...



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.


I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting
the Pakistan nightmare.

There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do with
this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama.

Eisboch



Actually, I wasn't dissing Reagan at all. The implied point was that all
presidents inherit nightmares from their predecessors. You know that, and so
does Tom. Any other conclusion suggests a dependency on children's books for
knowledge of recent history.


You've become a joke, and you just don't get it.
--
John H

On Jan 26, 1:42*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:dppmp3pdv23mnd9vi1mb8icepan7qciei7@4ax .com...





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

"hk" wrote in message
m...

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.

I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the
Pakistan nightmare.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, with my tin hat firmly pulled down I have always thought just
the opposite. Regan set up Carter with some kind of back room deal or
threat to Iran...