ROFLMAO - a must read!

[dems4me]

Dems isn't really stupid. She just plays that part on the forums.

Thanks for defending me I think

 

[2ndAmendment]

Thanks for defending me I think

You are welcome. But cut the crap with, "I like Clinton, or you won't be invited for the 4ht of July."

 

[dems4me]

You are welcome. But cut the crap with, "I like Clinton, or you won't be invited for the 4ht of July."

hadn't planned on wearing the t-shirt

 

[Larry Gude]

You're a piece of work...

...to be honestly making an argument based on the law. People throughout history have stood on the very same ground that you are;

It's the law.

My argument is; Does that make it right, in your opinion?

My take is that it, to you, does. Care to refute that?

QUOTE]

Having a consensual affair with someone other than your own spouse is not right, in my opinion, to one's spouse. But it's not something that's an affront to humanity like slavery or deprivation of civil rights are. As such it's not something that should codied in law against.

If you want to make a legal argument, you'd best keep the law in mind, not what you personally think is right or wrong.

...here you are talking nothing but law and then you throw in...

If you want to make a legal argument, you'd best keep the law in mind, not what you personally think is right or wrong

...as though I'm the one throwing my legal status around.

Bill Clinton debased this nation, our public discourse and our politics to a modern low and he could not have done it without people with attitudes like yours; it's JUST sex.

Again, is his oath office also optional? His sworn duty to provide for the common defense? To whom do we, should we, expect a President to be honest with? Loyal to?

His well known and constant dishonesty to the people closest to him is of a pattern and it has consequences. It does not happen in a vaccuum as in 'other than that, what a great leader he is."

You seem to be perfectly comfortable that all his various escapades have zero bearing on his job performance, how he makes decisions and what he, the President of the United States of America, represents.

It amazes me that, somehow, Clinton can simply, la de dah, lie to and cheat and manipulate those closest to him and, miraculously, he wouldn't even think of doing it to us, we the people becasue, aw shucks WE'RE the ones he'd be honest and caring about.

That is an intellectual disconnect and then your view falls back on the good old 'well, of course, I'd never do it personally...'

That's not an affront?

Slavery didn't bother people much 200 years ago. Nor did limited civil rights. In fact, they were very much in favor of both. You can use a word like 'affront' now, in this time and place, but the idea, disconnecting right and legal, is as old as man.

Were you a winey, insecure kid or confident? Just curious.

I'm still winey and insecure.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's...

You know I have no sense of humor. Just ask Sharon or catt.

...funny.













...just kidding.

 

[dems4me]

Dems isn't really stupid. She just plays that part on the forums.

Y'all'd have me no other way on here

 

[mainman]

Y'all'd have me no other way on here

I'm sure theres a few different ways Aps would like to have you...

 

[dems4me]

I'm sure theres a few different ways Aps would like to have you...

 

[cattitude]

I'm sure theres a few different ways Aps would like to have you...

Maybe, but Dems told me she's moving on...Aps is way too old for her.

 

[SkinkTyree]

Bill Clinton debased this nation, our public discourse and our politics to a modern low and he could not have done it without people with attitudes like yours; it's JUST sex.

Again, is his oath office also optional? His sworn duty to provide for the common defense? To whom do we, should we, expect a President to be honest with? Loyal to?

His well known and constant dishonesty to the people closest to him is of a pattern and it has consequences. It does not happen in a vaccuum as in 'other than that, what a great leader he is."

You seem to be perfectly comfortable that all his various escapades have zero bearing on his job performance, how he makes decisions and what he, the President of the United States of America, represents.

It amazes me that, somehow, Clinton can simply, la de dah, lie to and cheat and manipulate those closest to him and, miraculously, he wouldn't even think of doing it to us, we the people becasue, aw shucks WE'RE the ones he'd be honest and caring about.

That is an intellectual disconnect and then your view falls back on the good old 'well, of course, I'd never do it personally...'

That's not an affront?

Slavery didn't bother people much 200 years ago. Nor did limited civil rights. In fact, they were very much in favor of both. You can use a word like 'affront' now, in this time and place, but the idea, disconnecting right and legal, is as old as man.

Were you a winey, insecure kid or confident? Just curious.

I'm still winey and insecure.

Slavery and civil rights bothered a lot of people 200 years ago. A large chunk of the population opposed those institutions and policies. It divided our country, literally. It was a significant contributing factor to this country's only civil war. And people demonstrated en masse for their voting rights and civil rights. In the end, right won out and those things which should have been done earlier (abolishing slavery, allowing women and blacks the right to vote) were done.

But no one in their right mind is going start a war or organize mass demonstrations if one person--whether it be Bill Clinton the President or Joe Smith the plumber--had an affair or wasn't honest about having that affair. To try to connect the two scenarios is ludicrous, and by that I don't mean the rapper Bill O'Reilly has an unhealthy obsession about.

And how this all violated his oath of office to protect and defend this country escapes me. Are you then saying as well Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Warring Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson also violated their oaths because they too allegedly were unfaithful and lied about their infidelities (whether it be by admission or omission)? I just am at a loss to comprehend how this somehow constitutes a violation of the oath of office, so if you could perhaps explain to me the angle in which you are coming at so I can at least properly respond.

I expect the President to be truthful to us about matters of national importance (for example, rationales for sending us to war...). When it comes to private matters, I'd like him to be honest, but I don't demand it. Honestly, I was disappointed when the President wasn't truthful to us about his affair on national TV, but I didn't feel grossly violated as a U.S. citizen. And if you did, I would suggest you take a good look at where you priorities lay.

The only damage done to this country was by those who choose to make a mountain out of a molehill and attempted through flawed legal reasoning to argue some crime had been committed. What could have been just a few funny late night show jokes ended up being an entire year in which this was made the nation's number one priority. The world was not offended by President Clinton's actions; rather most of the world was laughing at the fact members of our Congress tried to made out to be a grave, impeachable offense. Bluntly speaking, we looked like a bunch of puritians. And had we let this private matter resolve itself privately, maybe in 1998 we could have done something other than debate the importance about being candid on one's blowjobs.

Again, the fact that your outrage on this is so strong eight years out, after everything we've been through since, has left me puzzled. Whiney and insecure? No. But definetly puzzled.

 

[FromTexas]

Again, the fact that your outrage on this is so strong eight years out, after everything we've been through since, has left me puzzled.

The outrage may have very little do with the events and Clinton himself at this point since its gone and done already. The outrage probably has a lot more to do with the fact a large proportion of the country just closed their eyes and keeps believing its just about sex while they raise him on a pillar for doing... what?! What exactly was the great accomplishment of Bill Cinton?

The only thing people tend to boil an argument down to is a surplus. Which had nothing really to do with Bill Clinton.

 

[dems4me]

The outrage may have very little do with the events and Clinton himself at this point since its gone and done already. The outrage probably has a lot more to do with the fact a large proportion of the country just closed their eyes and keeps believing its just about sex while they raise him on a pillar for doing... what?! What exactly was the great accomplishment of Bill Cinton?

The only thing people tend to boil an argument down to is a surplus. Which had nothing really to do with Bill Clinton.

CRUD, Did I start all this :shrug:


















as y'all were...

 

[SkinkTyree]

The outrage may have very little do with the events and Clinton himself at this point since its gone and done already. The outrage probably has a lot more to do with the fact a large proportion of the country just closed their eyes and keeps believing its just about sex while they raise him on a pillar for doing... what?! What exactly was the great accomplishment of Bill Cinton?

The only thing people tend to boil an argument down to is a surplus. Which had nothing really to do with Bill Clinton.

Clinton didn't stare down the Soviet Union and their missiles like JFK did. He didn't weather us through a depression and a world war like FDR did. He didn't keep this country going through a bloody civil war like Lincoln did.

So you are partially correct in saying Clinton didn't really do anything "great." Nothing of a huge magnitude happened during his presidency which allowed for him to showcase his leadership skills.

But even so, his eight years in office can rightly be described as being "good." The economy was strong, this country was respected by others, our budget got balanced, and limited engagements such as Kosovo and Desert Fox aside, it was a relatively peaceful time for us. And sure, it can be argued there were contributing factors to these successes, such as the technology boom and Alan Greenspan and the like. But to totally divorce Clinton from these things wouldn't be fair either.

You mentioned the budget surplus. Now, in the end, it is the job of the President to submit the proposed budget to Congress and see to it it gets passed. Bill Clinton made it a goal to balance the budget, but he wasn't going to do it while sacraficing the programs which people liked (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security). And things came to a head in 1995 during the budget showdown, and Clinton maintained his priorities and in the end he won that battle. And the amount of things he was able to do despite having an unfriendly congress for 6 of his 8 years is admirable.

And most people liked the job he did, as high as 60 percent during the time in which he was being impeached. I think a lot of people liked his forward thinking and planning for the next century, and I think the world liked the tone he presented as we emerged from the Cold War a lone super power.

I think the greatest damage to his legacy wasn't created by any of his own doing but rather by the missteps of his sucessors. The boom we had was temporary and it's going to take some doing to get us back to where we were.

I don't expect--and I don't personally believe--Clinton to be placed on Mount Rushmore, or his face planted on any money. He was a good president with a very inspiring background story, nothing more and nothing less.

I think we get ourselves into trouble when we start aggrandizing Presidents to be much more "great" than they actually were to the point of revisionist history. I can only think of President Reagan being lauded as the person who singlehandedly "won" the Cold War, which is just an incredible insult to any Eastern European who had been painstakingly fighting for democracy years before Reagan ever took office.

 

[Ken King]

From a legal perspective, allow me to interject.

Black's Law Dictionary (which is the premier authority of the definition of law terms in the legal circle, defines "perjury" as the following:

"the willful assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence, either upon oath or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, whether such evidence is given in open court, or in an affidavit, or otherwise, such assertion being material to the issue or point of inquiry and known to such witness to be false."

Given that definition, it's quite doubtful Clinton committed perjury, and as such that is likely why he was neither charged with perjury in any criminal proceedings, nor was he convicted of the perjury charge in the impeachment proceedings.

To wit:

Clinton's denial of the Lewinsky affair did occur under oath; however, it occurred during a civil proceeding, namely the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. There was no "crime" as this was not a criminal indictment. Now, I don't know if you are aware, but it is possible for perjury to still be committed in civil proceedings, but this instance did not stand legal mustand.

I disagree; it is a fact that Clinton willfully and knowingly provided false, evasive, and misleading responses, under oath, to discovery orders in the civil suit to questions that had been deemed material by that court in an effort to obstruct the judicial process. These actions by Clinton certainly meet the requirements for perjury as you have provided the definition for.

The fact that Judge Wright chose to find Clinton guilty of civil contempt without ever uttering the term perjury in her decision does not indicate that his false, misleading, and evasive sworn testimony did not rise to that level. I could only speculate as to why Judge Wright did not press for a perjury charge. I suspect this was due to the fact that, while it was indeed a violation of the discovery order, Clinton did come out and admit to the falsehoods and those false, misleading and evasive statements bore little impact to the outcome of that civil proceeding.

Also of significance, at least for me, is that Judge Wright held off until after the impeachment proceedings to make this ruling. I wonder how it would have impacted the impeachment if the ruling had been rendered in a more expeditious manner or immediately upon discovering that his testimony in the civil suit was in contradiction to his Grand Jury testimony, could it have swayed any of the Senators in how they voted on the articles of impeachment? I think it just might have, unfortunately we will never know.

And just so you know, I vehemently defended the President on these forums right up until the point when he publicly admitted to being less than truthful with his testimony in the Jones' case.

 

[vraiblonde]

And just so you know, I vehemently defended the President on these forums right up until the point when he publicly admitted to being less than truthful with his testimony in the Jones' case.

Indeed you did. And I'll never forget the day that Clinton confessed. Ahhh.....that felt REALLY good!

Greco-Roman wrestling, anyone?

 

[Kerad]

Just a reminder...Bill Clinton is NOT the current President. He's been a private citizen for over 6 years now.

If everyone would apply the same scrutiny to the current administration...maybe we would get somewhere.

I know...I know. Doubtful. But just...MAYBE.

 

[vraiblonde]

Just a reminder...Bill Clinton is NOT the current President. He's been a private citizen for over 6 years now.

George Washington is not the current President.

Abraham Lincoln is not the current President.

John F. Kennedy is not the current President.

What's your point? Feeling a little defensive about your boy Willie Jeff? Uncomfortable with scrutiny of his legacy?

Well GTF over it. He's a former President, and therefore a historical figure. We'll talk about him if we want and YOU can just continue to pretend that history begins when you wake up in the morning and ends when you go to sleep that night. That's what liberals do.

 

[SamSpade]

George Washington is not the current President.

Abraham Lincoln is not the current President.

John F. Kennedy is not the current President.

What's your point? Feeling a little defensive about your boy Willie Jeff? Uncomfortable with scrutiny of his legacy?

Well GTF over it. He's a former President, and therefore a historical figure. We'll talk about him if we want and YOU can just continue to pretend that history begins when you wake up in the morning and ends when you go to sleep that night. That's what liberals do.

I'll probably GTF over with it when they stop *referring* to him as President Clinton - or Gore as Vice-President. They usually do this in articles and news in the first mention of the title - as in "the former Vice-President Al Gore" but then repeatedly use VP as his title. Poor Dan Quayle gets no such treatment.

 

[Kerad]

George Washington is not the current President.

Abraham Lincoln is not the current President.

John F. Kennedy is not the current President.

What's your point? Feeling a little defensive about your boy Willie Jeff? Uncomfortable with scrutiny of his legacy?

Well GTF over it. He's a former President, and therefore a historical figure. We'll talk about him if we want and YOU can just continue to pretend that history begins when you wake up in the morning and ends when you go to sleep that night. That's what liberals do.

I am very comfortable with Bill Clinton's "legacy". You can say whatever you want about him...doesn't bother me. I just think it's really funny how the righties react to him.

Also funny: how certain people get bent out of shape when someone "bashes" the current President...but bring up Bill Clinton, and the hypocrisy shines brightly.

Have a great Saturday.

 

[ylexot]

I'll probably GTF over with it when they stop *referring* to him as President Clinton - or Gore as Vice-President. They usually do this in articles and news in the first mention of the title - as in "the former Vice-President Al Gore" but then repeatedly use VP as his title. Poor Dan Quayle gets no such treatment.

Are you sure about that with Quayle? I haven't seen mention of him since...President Bush Sr! It is customary to continue the use of the term "President" when referring to ex-Presindents. Not sure about VP. Thus, it is still President Bush Sr. and President Carter.