Did Clinton actually lie?

[micro 0]

Quote

>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.

I'm glad we can agree on some things.
As to the DZO comparison, that's something we don't agree on. The Office of the Presidency simply cannot be compared to the job of a DZO... It is the OFFICE of the presidency that is important. Clinton wasn't just some schmo in there. If a DZO want's to drizzle his dizzle in his office, that's cool by me. None of my business.

I don't know how else to describe this situation than that. Bill Clinton as Bill Clinton, I don't give a rat's ass what he does... now, the PRESIDENT, whoever it is, I care very DEEPLY what THAT person does... and it DOESN"T have to be slick willy. I'd be just as pissed off if W banged some chick in Air Force One. AND, for the record, I AM troubled about W's dealings about Iraq. So there.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,107]

>It is the OFFICE of the presidency that is important.

Why?

In the original constitution, the president is merely the head of the executive branch. He's the one guy who they call when they need one guy to do something (like negotiate treaties with other leaders, or mobilize troops in a hurry.) The real power lies with congress. Which is how the founding fathers wanted - they'd had enough of monarchies.

All this fawning over the "sanctity of the office of president" is giving the office way more credit than it deserves. He's not a king. He doesn't even lead the government. He's merely an elected official, who constitutionally has far less power than the US congress. We should not hold him to a higher standard than we hold the real leaders of the US.

>Clinton wasn't just some schmo in there.

He was just some schmo, the same way any elected official is. We are best led by elected schmos - not sanctimonious kings.

[micro 0]

Quote

>It is the OFFICE of the presidency that is important.

Why?

In the original constitution, the president is merely the head of the executive branch. He's the one guy who they call when they need one guy to do something (like negotiate treaties with other leaders, or mobilize troops in a hurry.) The real power lies with congress. Which is how the founding fathers wanted - they'd had enough of monarchies.

All this fawning over the "sanctity of the office of president" is giving the office way more credit than it deserves. He's not a king. He doesn't even lead the government. He's merely an elected official, who constitutionally has far less power than the US congress. We should not hold him to a higher standard than we hold the real leaders of the US.

>Clinton wasn't just some schmo in there.

He was just some schmo, the same way any elected official is. We are best led by elected schmos - not sanctimonious kings.

Who said anything about sanctimonious kings? Not I! The way you talk about the office of the president, he's not much more important that the man who takes your order at Wendy's! If he wasn't so damned important, why all this hullabuloo?

As for your comments about congress, I agree that they should be held to the SAME STANDARD. Get the fucking crooks, loosers, boozers, adulterers and cheats out of there, too! Republicans and Democrats alike.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,107]

>The way you talk about the office of the president, he's not much
> more important that the man who takes your order at Wendy's!

That's exactly how it _should_ be. The president is just a man elected to do a job in the US government. He is not a ruler, or an emperor, or a king. He's a citizen serving his country, just as a park ranger or an FBI agent does. We often forget that and give him a lot more power and influence than he deserves.

In an ideal world, our president would be a smart, capable businessman who gives up an excellent job as a VP at Microsoft (for example) for four years to serve as president. He'd tear his hair out for those four years trying to do what's best for the US, then go back to his job when he was done. He would bring to the job the experience of how businesses work - not how to fundraise, or how to play politics, or how to evade campaign-finance laws. He'd be elected on the basis of his competence, not his connections, the favors he is owed or the power his family/party/PAC yields.

Never happen now, of course. But that was the original idea.

> If he wasn't so damned important, why all this hullabuloo?

Because people enjoy power. It's pretty seductive. There is something in many people that wants power, and presidents since Washington have schemed and plotted to get more power than the constitution gives them. There is also something in many people that really wants a warrior king rather than an elected bureaucrat leading the country. They want to feel protected and strong, and they want to look up to the leader of the pack. Thus they allow these power grabs when they happen. (That's also why war is very good for presidents.)

Compare the news coverage over what the president says to what the speaker of the house says. The speaker leads a far more important section of government than the president - but many people want ONE leader to hate/love/follow.

But you're right, there is no intrinsic reason for all this hullabaloo.

[miked10270 0]

Just as an aside - Arkansas "State Quarter design has been finalised I think the technology they're putting in their coins is wonderful.
Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

He didn't get convicted of perjury.

Thanks for validating my point. I did already mention in my first post that to many others he did lie, which you really go on saying as well, so thank you for validating my second point.

Quote

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 didn't ask about wrong or right counselor. I asked who did more damage. One is a black or white question, the other can be answered in shades of grey. The question allows for both president's actions to be either right or wrong.

Quote

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.

Again, you misunderstood and so did Micro. I was refering to the attraction women tend to have to men in powerful positions.

As to Micro's question about the children. I think I would have a harder time explaining to my children why the Office was used to kill thousands of people without valid reason, or try to explain why the Office was used for clearly illegal actions like B&E than to explain why a guy got head in there.

I have one final question about this:

Quote

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.

Since both President and Vice-president can classify and de-classify information with the wave of a hand, I would think the President can grant a security clearance with the wave of his hand as well. If this is not teh case, a SS agent should be fired for allowing a person without the appropriate clearance to enter the Oval Office.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>The way you talk about the office of the president, he's not much
> more important that the man who takes your order at Wendy's!

That's exactly how it _should_ be. The president is just a man elected to do a job in the US government.

I tend to disagree, bill. Here's why: "In an ideal world, our president would be a smart, capable businessman who gives up an excellent job as a VP at Microsoft (for example) for four years to serve as president."

There is quite a difference between the person who takes your order at Wendy's and a VP of a major company. The key difference is discretion. The person taking orders at Wendy's really has no discretion. He or she does as told, and that's it.

A VP has some pretty hefty control over the direction of a company. In reality, the US government is nothing more than a large corporation that has a certain powers that no other corporation has.

Unlike Microsoft, a POTUS can force people to pay it - you have no choice. There is no Apple to compete. Unlike Microsoft, the US can send folks to war. Can force people to pay it, etc.

Like a corporation, you can picture the voting publuc as shareholders (most of whom don't vote, anyway). Congress is like the Board of Directors who make decisions. The POTUS is the CEO - the head of a large bureacracy, and the POTUS needs to have the ability to exercise sound judgment.

A POTUS needs to be a person of sound judgment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[micro 0]

Quote

A POTUS needs to be a person of sound judgment.

This, to me, sums up a lot of what this whole thing comes down to.

Did Clinton excercise sound judgement by getting head from an intern in the Oval Office, then lying about it in an official investigation?

It's the kind of thing a high schooler would do, really. "hey, let's hump on my parents bed!"

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

A POTUS needs to be a person of sound judgment.

It has been a while since the American publix has elected one with sound judgement if we go by the qualifications you have listed.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

A POTUS needs to be a person of sound judgment.

It has been a while since the American publix has elected one with sound judgement if we go by the qualifications you have listed.

On that you and I tend to agree, my friend.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[dorbie 0]

It's not just about whether he lied about Lewinski in the well published questions (although clearly he did, see lawrocket's 1st post), it's also about whether he lied giving a deposition in the Paula Jones suit earlier which was the whole point of the line of questioning. In the deposition he also lied and was disbarred as a result. The questioning was relevant initially because it was a sexual harrassment lawsuit and relevant subsequently because the investigation was probing his sworn deposition.

It's very American to boil everything down to a single issue usually the wrong one, this fiasco is no exception.

[billvon 3,107]

>A POTUS needs to be a person of sound judgment.

I agree. I wasn't really speaking to the level of competence required, but rather the "grandeur" of the position. I think we've gotten way too wound up in claiming that our president is "the leader of the free world." He's really not; he's a federal employee.

>Unlike Microsoft, a POTUS can force people to pay it

Congress, not the president, levies taxes.

>Unlike Microsoft, the US can send folks to war. Can force people to pay it, etc.

The US congress - not the president - can declare war, per the US constitution. It is an oft-ignored part of the constitution lately, but we gave that power to the legislature, not the president. That was part of my point. We seem to want to give the president far more power than he was allocated by the Founding Fathers. I think it's time to start steering away from president-as-king and back towards president-as-employee.

[Andy9o8 2]

Many good points above, but:
I still maintain that Nixon's, Reagan's and Bush-2's lies were crimes of state that threatened the Republic, whereas Clinton's lies were not.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think it's time to start steering away from president-as-king and back towards president-as-employee

Change "president" to "government" and you have my full support!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[micro 0]

Quote

>A POTUS needs to be a person of sound judgment.

I agree. I wasn't really speaking to the level of competence required, but rather the "grandeur" of the position. I think we've gotten way too wound up in claiming that our president is "the leader of the free world." He's really not; he's a federal employee.

>Unlike Microsoft, a POTUS can force people to pay it

Congress, not the president, levies taxes.

>Unlike Microsoft, the US can send folks to war. Can force people to pay it, etc.

The US congress - not the president - can declare war, per the US constitution. It is an oft-ignored part of the constitution lately, but we gave that power to the legislature, not the president. That was part of my point. We seem to want to give the president far more power than he was allocated by the Founding Fathers. I think it's time to start steering away from president-as-king and back towards president-as-employee.

While I can see where you're coming from Bill, I think to some degree you're setting up a false dichotomy vis a vis the pres as king vs the pres as employee.

He will always be seen by the American people -and the world- as the leader of this country. No, he ISN'T a king, but I think it's important for a people to have a person, one person to look to for guidance and leadership, even though he doesn't hold ALL the power. He should be a person of discipline and sound judgement, Lawrocket said. Since that is as it is, he will never just be another employee.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

think we've gotten way too wound up in claiming that our president is "the leader of the free world." He's really not; he's a federal employee.

I agree. A POTUS is not deserving of a saint status. But, a POTUS is entitled to some higher respect.

Quote

>Unlike Microsoft, a POTUS can force people to pay it

Congress, not the president, levies taxes.

Actually, the POTUS collects it. The IRS is a part of the Executive Branch. Congress makes statutes. Executive branch makes regulations and enforces the statutes and regulations. The executive branch is the fist behind the legislative brain, and with the authority to decide how, when and where the fist will land.

Quote

>Unlike Microsoft, the US can send folks to war. Can force people to pay it, etc.

The US congress - not the president - can declare war, per the US constitution.

Well, my point is made. We know the POTUS can, because the POTUS did. Lots of them have.

Quote

We seem to want to give the president far more power than he was allocated by the Founding Fathers. I think it's time to start steering away from president-as-king and back towards president-as-employee.

I absolutely agree, though this is nothing new.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's exactly how it _should_ be. The president is just a man elected to do a job in the US government. He is not a ruler, or an emperor, or a king. He's a citizen serving his country, just as a park ranger or an FBI agent does. We often forget that and give him a lot more power and influence than he deserves.

You're off the boat, both in current times and historically, Bill.

The President is not the Wendy's fry cook for the executive branch. He is the lead politician of the 1st World, now that the USSR is no more. No other head of state comes close to the same level of influence, currently.

The Framers made his role equal to Congress, not grossly subordinate. If the role didn't matter, why lobby GW so hard to be the first one? Because the first attempt at a government failed badly. They overreacted to their fear of monarch and created a spineless POS government. The Constitution was not that same mistake.

In modern times it is unquestionable that the President is the leader. He submits the starting point document for the budgetary process. He leads his party, much more so than the Majority Leader or the House Speaker does. And he has carved out many new powers that probably he shouldn't have.