"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:57:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:tcdnp318b456aadm8h4lkdp83r8l6hinsp@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@4a x.com...
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:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5 ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_oj ...
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


Work backwards, John. He perjured himself because he was asked a question.
The question was asked because someone needed ammunition. The question
should never have been asked, particularly because the loudest proponent
of
the question was Gingrich, who was equally guilty AT THE VERY TIME THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED.


Backwards my ass. He perjured himself, regardless of your 'reason'. Your
implication remains horse****.
--
John H


It's obvious that he committed perjury. That is not my point. How many
repetitions do you need before you understand that we agree on the perjury
issue?

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:18:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:57:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:tcdnp318b456aadm8h4lkdp83r8l6hinsp@4ax .com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@4 ax.com...
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:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4e ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9fl ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_o ...
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


Work backwards, John. He perjured himself because he was asked a question.
The question was asked because someone needed ammunition. The question
should never have been asked, particularly because the loudest proponent
of
the question was Gingrich, who was equally guilty AT THE VERY TIME THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED.


Backwards my ass. He perjured himself, regardless of your 'reason'. Your
implication remains horse****.
--
John H


It's obvious that he committed perjury. That is not my point. How many
repetitions do you need before you understand that we agree on the perjury
issue?


Good. Sex wasn't the issue. Perjury was.

QED
--
John H

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:18:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:57:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:rgenp3hlev85bolg14p383icee66l7jr0i@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:tcdnp318b456aadm8h4lkdp83r8l6hinsp@4a x.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70 ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4 ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9f ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2 ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ ...
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


Work backwards, John. He perjured himself because he was asked a
question.
The question was asked because someone needed ammunition. The question
should never have been asked, particularly because the loudest proponent
of
the question was Gingrich, who was equally guilty AT THE VERY TIME THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED.


Backwards my ass. He perjured himself, regardless of your 'reason'. Your
implication remains horse****.
--
John H


It's obvious that he committed perjury. That is not my point. How many
repetitions do you need before you understand that we agree on the perjury
issue?


Good. Sex wasn't the issue. Perjury was.

QED
--
John H


They asked him about sex because he committed perjury? How can you be guilty
of lying about a question that hasn't been asked yet?

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:17:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

What part of QED do you not understand?
--
John H