micro 0 #51 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteREALLY? A form of adultery isn't seen by you as either right or wrong? Abusing his power AND his office isn't seen by you as being right or wrong? And you don't see how this relates back to his JOB? He's willing to take advantage of a much younger intern and you don't see how that relates back to his job, a man who at the time was the most powerful man in the world? How 'bout the perjury? Was that also neither right or wrong? He didn't perjure himself. Show me the conviction and I will gladly give you that point. I have my thoughts on adultery, but that is neither here nor there. I don't see how this relates back to his job. Did him getting a blowjob affect his job performance? many men use/abuse their "power" to get women to sleep with them. Cops, firefighters, soldiers, business men. Many women tend to be attracted to power, just look at how many women on these forums start salivating when uniforms are mentioned. Do you think they should all explain themselves in front of cameras and all the world to see? Do you think they should all be removed from their positions? Did he lie under oath? That's perjury. IMO, his CHARACTER affects his job performance, the kind of CHARACTER that would take advantage of an intern and use his OFFICE (oval and position) to get a blow job, affects the kind of president he would be and was. As for your last paragraph, just b/c many man ABUSE their power doesn't make it right. Does it? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #52 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion? Paying to clean up the mess is different from creating the mess in the first place. This is Bush's war. You're saying that all of those votes are just to clean up Bush's fuck up? It cost a whole lot less to continue the embargo and enforce the no-fly zones than the $trillion or so in treasure and 2656 dead American boys that Bush's incompetence has cost us. I notice you didn't answer the question. Yes I did. You just misinterpreted what I wrote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #53 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion? Paying to clean up the mess is different from creating the mess in the first place. This is Bush's war. You're saying that all of those votes are just to clean up Bush's fuck up? It cost a whole lot less to continue the embargo and enforce the no-fly zones than the $trillion or so in treasure and 2656 dead American boys that Bush's incompetence has cost us. I notice you didn't answer the question. Yes I did. You just misinterpreted what I wrote. How is that answering the question? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 September 5, 2006 Quote many men use/abuse their "power" to get women to sleep with them. Cops, firefighters, soldiers, business men. Many women tend to be attracted to power, just look at how many women on these forums start salivating when uniforms are mentioned. Do you think they should all explain themselves in front of cameras and all the world to see? Do you think they should all be removed from their positions? He was charged with sexual assault and his behavior with other subordinates becomes relevent. Or are you just ignoring that detail? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #55 September 5, 2006 QuoteDid he lie under oath? That's perjury. Did he get convicted? Isn't he innocent until that happens? QuoteIMO, his CHARACTER affects his job performance, the kind of CHARACTER that would take advantage of an intern and use his OFFICE (oval and position) to get a blow job, affects the kind of president he would be and was. I don't see that? To become president you have to be a lying slimeball, what does a blowjob have to do with that? What do you think has done more damage to America as a country and its place in the world: Clinton getting head while being president or Bush's conduct as president? What do you think the world cares more about? QuoteAs for your last paragraph, just b/c many man ABUSE their power doesn't make it right. Does it? Nope it doesn't make it right, just indicates that it is a pretty naturally occuring phenomenon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #56 September 5, 2006 QuoteDid he get convicted? Isn't he innocent until that happens? Did he lie under oath? Yes or no? QuoteI don't see that? To become president you have to be a lying slimeball, what does a blowjob have to do with that? I'm glad you hold such a high opinion of the highest office in the land. And you're grossly oversimplifying the actions of former President Clinton. QuoteWhat do you think has done more damage to America as a country and its place in the world: Clinton getting head while being president or Bush's conduct as president? What do you think the world cares more about? That's avoiding the issue. The question really should be, to stay on point here, was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? QuoteNope it doesn't make it right, just indicates that it is a pretty naturally occuring phenomenon. Natural? Hardly. Common, yes. EXCUSABLE? Not on your fucking life. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #57 September 5, 2006 >was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? No. Getting a blowjob is not damaging to the country, nor is lying about it. Engaging in a fruitless attempt to impeach someone for it - now THAT damages the country. >How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? The Oval Office was no more dishonored by that act than the Eloy Otters are dishonored by similar acts taking place in them. Bringing children into this is silly BTW. "Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #58 September 5, 2006 Quote That's avoiding the issue. The question really should be, to stay on point here, was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? Other than confirming to the world that we're rather prudish, no damage was done to the country. It did stop any progress in the last couple years, but 1) some would see that as good and 2) with the GOP in Congress, unlikely to make any headway regardless. Skydekker - he did suffer legal sactions by his state bar for the perjury, even if Congress wasn't going to make him the first President ever convicted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #59 September 5, 2006 The Oval Office was no more dishonored by that act than the Eloy Otters are enhanced dishonored by similar acts taking place in them. Quote Fixed it for ya And Bill WTF, you think that no harm was done to the prestige and honor of the presidency by Clinton and yet think our entire country has been ruined by bush? I know youre a smart guy but even you can't believe it is all so black and white. One side can do no wrong and the other can do no evil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #60 September 5, 2006 Quote>was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? No. Getting a blowjob is not damaging to the country, nor is lying about it. Engaging in a fruitless attempt to impeach someone for it - now THAT damages the country. >How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? The Oval Office was no more dishonored by that act than the Eloy Otters are dishonored by similar acts taking place in them. Bringing children into this is silly BTW. "Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children?" I'm speaking of the Oval Office figuratively for Heaven's sake. And it is NOT silly to refer to children. He sat in the chair of the President of the United States and, AS President. defiled that office w/ his behavior. Then he lied about it. You think I'm silly. I think you have your head in the sand. Nice to know the office of the presidency means so very little to you bill. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #61 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuote That's avoiding the issue. The question really should be, to stay on point here, was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? Other than confirming to the world that we're rather prudish, some in this country still believe in things like dignity, respect, faithfulness, honesty, oh, little things like that no damage was done to the country. It did stop any progress in the last couple years, but 1) some would see that as good and 2) with the GOP in Congress, unlikely to make any headway regardless. Skydekker - he did suffer legal sactions by his state bar for the perjury, even if Congress wasn't going to make him the first President ever convicted. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,584 #62 September 5, 2006 I think we're finding that different people have different opinions here. I'm pretty much with Bill (but we determined that on the last page or so). Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #63 September 5, 2006 >Fixed it for ya I'll go with your rewrite! >And Bill WTF you think that no harm was done to the prestige and >honor of the presidency by Clinton and yet think our entire country >has been ruined by bush? Well: a) I don't think it did much _further_ harm to the presidency. The USA is not defined by the private lives of our leaders. He was foolish to not manage his affairs better to avoid such a scandal; he should have been smart enough to know what sort of kerfluffle it would cause. b) I don't think the country is being "ruined" by Bush. By and large the US gets by despite the silly stuff our government does. But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #64 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuote>was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? No. Getting a blowjob is not damaging to the country, nor is lying about it. Engaging in a fruitless attempt to impeach someone for it - now THAT damages the country. >How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? The Oval Office was no more dishonored by that act than the Eloy Otters are dishonored by similar acts taking place in them. Bringing children into this is silly BTW. "Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children?" I'm speaking of the Oval Office figuratively for Heaven's sake. And it is NOT silly to refer to children. He sat in the chair of the President of the United States and, AS President. defiled that office w/ his behavior. Then he lied about it. You think I'm silly. I think you have your head in the sand. Nice to know the office of the presidency means so very little to you bill. The only solution to the desecration is to get the Brits to burn the place to the ground, just like 1814.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #65 September 5, 2006 QuoteI think we're finding that different people have different opinions here. I'm pretty much with Bill (but we determined that on the last page or so). Wendy W. Well, this IS SC, isn't it? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #66 September 5, 2006 Quote But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. I believe it's 2656 dead American boys as of today.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #67 September 5, 2006 Quote>Fixed it for ya I'll go with your rewrite! >And Bill WTF you think that no harm was done to the prestige and >honor of the presidency by Clinton and yet think our entire country >has been ruined by bush? Well: a) I don't think it did much _further_ harm to the presidency. The USA is not defined by the private lives of our leaders. He was foolish to not manage his affairs better to avoid such a scandal; he should have been smart enough to know what sort of kerfluffle it would cause. b) I don't think the country is being "ruined" by Bush. By and large the US gets by despite the silly stuff our government does. But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. Regarding point A) By getting his Wanker polished in the Oval Office, sorry... that pretty much took it out of the realm of PRIVATE life. That office is not his private bedroom and he may NOT do w/ it as he wishes. Also, sorry, but as POTUS, his private life just isn't as "private" as most people. It comes w/ the territory folks. True, he SHOULD be allowed a private life, but I sure as shit don't want a president who is so ineptly stupid as he was to have done something like that. (We won't even begin to discuss what I feel about GWB... he's not my favorites either) Point B... Hard to argue w/ that Bill. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #68 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuote But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. I believe it's 2656 dead American boys as of today. Makes me weep. And my wife's cousin, one of my favorite people in the whole world starts his second tour soon flying spec ops in a C-12 just north of Bahgdad sigh. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #69 September 5, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did he lie under oath? That's perjury. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did he get convicted? Isn't he innocent until that happens? He didn't get convicted of perjury. He was only held in contempt of court for offering "willfully false" testimony and sanctioned him $90k. "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false.." (taken from the judge's opinion - the same judge who dismissed the suit a couple of weeks before). Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO, his CHARACTER affects his job performance, the kind of CHARACTER that would take advantage of an intern and use his OFFICE (oval and position) to get a blow job, affects the kind of president he would be and was. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't see that? To become president you have to be a lying slimeball, what does a blowjob have to do with that? What do you think has done more damage to America as a country and its place in the world: Clinton getting head while being president or Bush's conduct as president? What do you think the world cares more about? And, here we have another of the circumstances that we see so very often wherein wrong is not wrong so long as I think someone else was more wrong. I will repeat - the inquiry should NOT be about blowjobs. The inquiry is about far larger topics, i.e., abuse of authority, breach in security, respect for the law by the Chief Executive, etc. - He got a blowjob. Nothing wrong with that. -He got it as a President. Nothing wrong with that. - He got it in the Oval Office - nothing wrong with that, so long as the person giving it had a proper security clearance to be there. - He got it from a low-ranking federal employee - Whoa! Big problem there. - Similar ranking federal employees aren't allowed in the Oval Office - WHOA!! There's a BIG violation of federal law right there - blowjob gives special access and special benefits. There's a HUGE problem beyond sucking a dick. - He lied about it under oath. Now there is a bigger problem that had he had integrity and fessed up would not exist. Now he is flouting the courts, something that an opposing party of mine went to jail for on Friday (the first time I ever had that happen). Too bad Mr. Morales lacked the foresight to allege a right-wing conspiracy for his failure to show proper respect for the court. Peasants go to jail for that - not high-ranking federal officials. - He got his cabinet to lie about it. Well, that's what separates him from Nixon, I guess. Nixon lied to cover up for his boys. Clinton got his people to lie to cover up for him. Can you see my problems with it that go beyond a mere blowjob? Come on. Say it. Clinton did some things wrong. Clinton lied. Clinton abused his position. Let's take other people out of it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for your last paragraph, just b/c many man ABUSE their power doesn't make it right. Does it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope it doesn't make it right, just indicates that it is a pretty naturally occuring phenomenon. Here we go again. I tend to believe that what's right is right even if nobody is doing it. I further believe that what's wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. I also tend to expect more from a president than I do from Joe Sixpack. It sounds like you are arguing that, "It's expected that people will have affairs. And it's furthermore a well-established American custom to lie about sex. Shouldn't an American President be in the lead about lying about affairs? He represents us, after all." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #70 September 5, 2006 Your post was very well written.... the only problem I have w/ it are these points... Quote-He got a blowjob. Nothing wrong with that. -He got it as a President. Nothing wrong with that. - He got it in the Oval Office - nothing wrong with that, so long as the person giving it had a proper security clearance to be there. Now, I have nothing wrong w/ BJs. I wish I rec'd them more often in fact. However, he got them from another woman and, as a public figure, as THE public figure, he should have realized that his private life has a big impact on the life of this country. It's amazing that so many people fail to acknowledge this FACT and instead use it to further polarize the country by simple-mindely blaming "right-wing prudes" for the ensuing maylee. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 September 5, 2006 And, let me add another thing: I think things like the Independent Counsel investigation that led to it are worrisome. The IC seems to be the opposite of the way things should work. The way things SHOULD work is, "There was a crime. We should investigate it." With Clinton, the IC was, "Looks like Clinton may have been involved in a crime. Let's investigate him and see if we can find one." That, friends, is not what I find satisfactory. It begins a list of problems: 1) Clinton abusing his position by granting access to an intern on the basis of sexual favors received; 2) Clinton lied in another matter; 3) An independent counsel investigating other things came upon the juciy tidbit occurring in another unrelated matter; Take away any of these three, and the deal doesn't happen. Nevertheless, it was set in motion by questionable judgment - questionable judgment by a man with access to "the button." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #72 September 5, 2006 What you've done is this: -He got a blowjob. Nothing wrong with that. -He got it as a President. Nothing wrong with that. - He got it from another woman not his wife/gf - He got it in the Oval Office - nothing wrong with that, so long as the person giving it had a proper security clearance to be there. That's another issue. See, viewed as "just a 'blowjob'" there is nothing wrong with blowjobs. But once the details start being mentioned, the worse it gets. That's my point about spin-doctoring. Heck, those troops being charged with murder killed people, which is what troops do in war, right? "It's about troops killing." No. It is not just about "troops killing." Nor was it "about a blowjob." To characterize either like that is to perform a grave disservice to the truth. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #73 September 5, 2006 >By getting his Wanker polished in the Oval Office, sorry... that >pretty much took it out of the realm of PRIVATE life. Nope. Assuming they took care to not do it with an audience, the only people who have any business sticking their noses into the issue are Clinton, his wife and Lewinsky. If a DZO has sex with a woman in the locked classroom of his DZ, that doesn't make it public. If you open a real estate office and "christen" it one night with your wife (doors locked and curtains down of course) that does not mean everyone in the world has a right to know where, exactly, you put your penis and whether you used any "props." >True, he SHOULD be allowed a private life, but I sure as shit >don't want a president who is so ineptly stupid as he was to have >done something like that. Here I agree. He should have been smart enough to know what a stink it would cause, and either not do it or not get caught doing it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #74 September 6, 2006 QuoteBut no, I really don't care if if my President engages in (particularly consensual sexual) activities I personally disapprove of. Whether it's hummers, or bondage, etc. To me it has nothing to do with his job performance. I realize that it's not the same for everyone, but that's how it is for me. As I recall, marriage is a binding of two people's bodies and spirits. Shouldn't he have checked with Hillary to be sure that it was OK with her. That would have been consensual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #75 September 6, 2006 > Shouldn't he have checked with Hillary to be sure that it was >OK with her. That would have been consensual. A consensual act means that the people involved in the act are OK with it. His wife, his kids, his dog and/or his Chief of Staff need not approve for it to be consensual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
micro 0 #60 September 5, 2006 Quote>was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? No. Getting a blowjob is not damaging to the country, nor is lying about it. Engaging in a fruitless attempt to impeach someone for it - now THAT damages the country. >How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? The Oval Office was no more dishonored by that act than the Eloy Otters are dishonored by similar acts taking place in them. Bringing children into this is silly BTW. "Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children?" I'm speaking of the Oval Office figuratively for Heaven's sake. And it is NOT silly to refer to children. He sat in the chair of the President of the United States and, AS President. defiled that office w/ his behavior. Then he lied about it. You think I'm silly. I think you have your head in the sand. Nice to know the office of the presidency means so very little to you bill. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #61 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuote That's avoiding the issue. The question really should be, to stay on point here, was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? Other than confirming to the world that we're rather prudish, some in this country still believe in things like dignity, respect, faithfulness, honesty, oh, little things like that no damage was done to the country. It did stop any progress in the last couple years, but 1) some would see that as good and 2) with the GOP in Congress, unlikely to make any headway regardless. Skydekker - he did suffer legal sactions by his state bar for the perjury, even if Congress wasn't going to make him the first President ever convicted. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #62 September 5, 2006 I think we're finding that different people have different opinions here. I'm pretty much with Bill (but we determined that on the last page or so). Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #63 September 5, 2006 >Fixed it for ya I'll go with your rewrite! >And Bill WTF you think that no harm was done to the prestige and >honor of the presidency by Clinton and yet think our entire country >has been ruined by bush? Well: a) I don't think it did much _further_ harm to the presidency. The USA is not defined by the private lives of our leaders. He was foolish to not manage his affairs better to avoid such a scandal; he should have been smart enough to know what sort of kerfluffle it would cause. b) I don't think the country is being "ruined" by Bush. By and large the US gets by despite the silly stuff our government does. But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #64 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuote>was Clinton's behavior damaging to this country? No. Getting a blowjob is not damaging to the country, nor is lying about it. Engaging in a fruitless attempt to impeach someone for it - now THAT damages the country. >How do you explain this to children, this dishonoring of the Oval Office? The Oval Office was no more dishonored by that act than the Eloy Otters are dishonored by similar acts taking place in them. Bringing children into this is silly BTW. "Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children?" I'm speaking of the Oval Office figuratively for Heaven's sake. And it is NOT silly to refer to children. He sat in the chair of the President of the United States and, AS President. defiled that office w/ his behavior. Then he lied about it. You think I'm silly. I think you have your head in the sand. Nice to know the office of the presidency means so very little to you bill. The only solution to the desecration is to get the Brits to burn the place to the ground, just like 1814.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #65 September 5, 2006 QuoteI think we're finding that different people have different opinions here. I'm pretty much with Bill (but we determined that on the last page or so). Wendy W. Well, this IS SC, isn't it? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #66 September 5, 2006 Quote But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. I believe it's 2656 dead American boys as of today.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #67 September 5, 2006 Quote>Fixed it for ya I'll go with your rewrite! >And Bill WTF you think that no harm was done to the prestige and >honor of the presidency by Clinton and yet think our entire country >has been ruined by bush? Well: a) I don't think it did much _further_ harm to the presidency. The USA is not defined by the private lives of our leaders. He was foolish to not manage his affairs better to avoid such a scandal; he should have been smart enough to know what sort of kerfluffle it would cause. b) I don't think the country is being "ruined" by Bush. By and large the US gets by despite the silly stuff our government does. But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. Regarding point A) By getting his Wanker polished in the Oval Office, sorry... that pretty much took it out of the realm of PRIVATE life. That office is not his private bedroom and he may NOT do w/ it as he wishes. Also, sorry, but as POTUS, his private life just isn't as "private" as most people. It comes w/ the territory folks. True, he SHOULD be allowed a private life, but I sure as shit don't want a president who is so ineptly stupid as he was to have done something like that. (We won't even begin to discuss what I feel about GWB... he's not my favorites either) Point B... Hard to argue w/ that Bill. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #68 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuote But Iraq is being ruined, and a war that he is responsible for initiating has so far resulted in the deaths of 2500 US soldiers and 40,000 Iraqis. That's a lot of families that have certainly been "ruined" no matter how you define the word. I believe it's 2656 dead American boys as of today. Makes me weep. And my wife's cousin, one of my favorite people in the whole world starts his second tour soon flying spec ops in a C-12 just north of Bahgdad sigh. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #69 September 5, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did he lie under oath? That's perjury. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did he get convicted? Isn't he innocent until that happens? He didn't get convicted of perjury. He was only held in contempt of court for offering "willfully false" testimony and sanctioned him $90k. "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false.." (taken from the judge's opinion - the same judge who dismissed the suit a couple of weeks before). Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO, his CHARACTER affects his job performance, the kind of CHARACTER that would take advantage of an intern and use his OFFICE (oval and position) to get a blow job, affects the kind of president he would be and was. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't see that? To become president you have to be a lying slimeball, what does a blowjob have to do with that? What do you think has done more damage to America as a country and its place in the world: Clinton getting head while being president or Bush's conduct as president? What do you think the world cares more about? And, here we have another of the circumstances that we see so very often wherein wrong is not wrong so long as I think someone else was more wrong. I will repeat - the inquiry should NOT be about blowjobs. The inquiry is about far larger topics, i.e., abuse of authority, breach in security, respect for the law by the Chief Executive, etc. - He got a blowjob. Nothing wrong with that. -He got it as a President. Nothing wrong with that. - He got it in the Oval Office - nothing wrong with that, so long as the person giving it had a proper security clearance to be there. - He got it from a low-ranking federal employee - Whoa! Big problem there. - Similar ranking federal employees aren't allowed in the Oval Office - WHOA!! There's a BIG violation of federal law right there - blowjob gives special access and special benefits. There's a HUGE problem beyond sucking a dick. - He lied about it under oath. Now there is a bigger problem that had he had integrity and fessed up would not exist. Now he is flouting the courts, something that an opposing party of mine went to jail for on Friday (the first time I ever had that happen). Too bad Mr. Morales lacked the foresight to allege a right-wing conspiracy for his failure to show proper respect for the court. Peasants go to jail for that - not high-ranking federal officials. - He got his cabinet to lie about it. Well, that's what separates him from Nixon, I guess. Nixon lied to cover up for his boys. Clinton got his people to lie to cover up for him. Can you see my problems with it that go beyond a mere blowjob? Come on. Say it. Clinton did some things wrong. Clinton lied. Clinton abused his position. Let's take other people out of it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for your last paragraph, just b/c many man ABUSE their power doesn't make it right. Does it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope it doesn't make it right, just indicates that it is a pretty naturally occuring phenomenon. Here we go again. I tend to believe that what's right is right even if nobody is doing it. I further believe that what's wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. I also tend to expect more from a president than I do from Joe Sixpack. It sounds like you are arguing that, "It's expected that people will have affairs. And it's furthermore a well-established American custom to lie about sex. Shouldn't an American President be in the lead about lying about affairs? He represents us, after all." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #70 September 5, 2006 Your post was very well written.... the only problem I have w/ it are these points... Quote-He got a blowjob. Nothing wrong with that. -He got it as a President. Nothing wrong with that. - He got it in the Oval Office - nothing wrong with that, so long as the person giving it had a proper security clearance to be there. Now, I have nothing wrong w/ BJs. I wish I rec'd them more often in fact. However, he got them from another woman and, as a public figure, as THE public figure, he should have realized that his private life has a big impact on the life of this country. It's amazing that so many people fail to acknowledge this FACT and instead use it to further polarize the country by simple-mindely blaming "right-wing prudes" for the ensuing maylee. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 September 5, 2006 And, let me add another thing: I think things like the Independent Counsel investigation that led to it are worrisome. The IC seems to be the opposite of the way things should work. The way things SHOULD work is, "There was a crime. We should investigate it." With Clinton, the IC was, "Looks like Clinton may have been involved in a crime. Let's investigate him and see if we can find one." That, friends, is not what I find satisfactory. It begins a list of problems: 1) Clinton abusing his position by granting access to an intern on the basis of sexual favors received; 2) Clinton lied in another matter; 3) An independent counsel investigating other things came upon the juciy tidbit occurring in another unrelated matter; Take away any of these three, and the deal doesn't happen. Nevertheless, it was set in motion by questionable judgment - questionable judgment by a man with access to "the button." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #72 September 5, 2006 What you've done is this: -He got a blowjob. Nothing wrong with that. -He got it as a President. Nothing wrong with that. - He got it from another woman not his wife/gf - He got it in the Oval Office - nothing wrong with that, so long as the person giving it had a proper security clearance to be there. That's another issue. See, viewed as "just a 'blowjob'" there is nothing wrong with blowjobs. But once the details start being mentioned, the worse it gets. That's my point about spin-doctoring. Heck, those troops being charged with murder killed people, which is what troops do in war, right? "It's about troops killing." No. It is not just about "troops killing." Nor was it "about a blowjob." To characterize either like that is to perform a grave disservice to the truth. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #73 September 5, 2006 >By getting his Wanker polished in the Oval Office, sorry... that >pretty much took it out of the realm of PRIVATE life. Nope. Assuming they took care to not do it with an audience, the only people who have any business sticking their noses into the issue are Clinton, his wife and Lewinsky. If a DZO has sex with a woman in the locked classroom of his DZ, that doesn't make it public. If you open a real estate office and "christen" it one night with your wife (doors locked and curtains down of course) that does not mean everyone in the world has a right to know where, exactly, you put your penis and whether you used any "props." >True, he SHOULD be allowed a private life, but I sure as shit >don't want a president who is so ineptly stupid as he was to have >done something like that. Here I agree. He should have been smart enough to know what a stink it would cause, and either not do it or not get caught doing it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #74 September 6, 2006 QuoteBut no, I really don't care if if my President engages in (particularly consensual sexual) activities I personally disapprove of. Whether it's hummers, or bondage, etc. To me it has nothing to do with his job performance. I realize that it's not the same for everyone, but that's how it is for me. As I recall, marriage is a binding of two people's bodies and spirits. Shouldn't he have checked with Hillary to be sure that it was OK with her. That would have been consensual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #75 September 6, 2006 > Shouldn't he have checked with Hillary to be sure that it was >OK with her. That would have been consensual. A consensual act means that the people involved in the act are OK with it. His wife, his kids, his dog and/or his Chief of Staff need not approve for it to be consensual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
