Was the impreachment of President Clinton just?

[GeeWhiz]

You son.... are an idiot

I got an idea you will like. Why don't we knock on each door in the United States and ask everyone if they had sex. Then we can spend 70 million dollars of tax money on each American so we can see if they will lie about it in the Grand Jury. Then for each and every American that lied, we put them in jail. Is that more up to your speed Stephanie?

 

[Stephanie]

I got an idea you will like. Why don't we knock on each door in the United States and ask everyone if they had sex. Then we can spend 70 million dollars of tax money on each American so we can see if they will lie about it in the Grand Jury. Then for each and every American that lied, we put them in jail. Is that more up to your speed Stephanie?

I stand by my post above...

 

[manu1959]

Monica, I'm talking about Monica, the girl with the blue dress with the stain on it. That's the girl he said he didn't have sex with. Having sex with Monica is not a crime. Monica never filed any charges against Clinton for having sex with her.

The two people that got their panties up their ass was Linda Tripp and Ken the porn Starr, whom spent 70 million dollars to get a rap on Clinton which is lying about having sex with Monica. 70 million dollars for such dribble.

blow jobs are sex you twit.....still sexual harassment....

just say it was consensual and none of your business....why lie to a grand jury?

 

[manu1959]

I got an idea you will like. Why don't we knock on each door in the United States and ask everyone if they had sex. Then we can spend 70 million dollars of tax money on each American so we can see if they will lie about it in the Grand Jury. Then for each and every American that lied, we put them in jail. Is that more up to your speed Stephanie?

You must spread some Reputation around before neg reping that moron GeeWhiz again.

 

[GeeWhiz]

why lie to a grand jury?

Some people think lying about consensual sex is trival, nothing to spend 70 million dollars over.

Yet Libby, whom exposed an agent and lied about it to the Grand Jury is okay with you.

Priorities, priorities. Consensual sex isn't as severe as outing an agent and you guys are blue in the face over a Blow Job in contrast to our security put at risk via outing Plame.

Talk about screwed up, pun intented.

 

[Stephanie]

Some people think lying about consensual sex is trival, nothing to spend 70 million dollars over.

Yet Libby, whom exposed an agent and lied about it to the Grand Jury is okay with you.

Priorities, priorities. Consensual sex isn't as severe as outing an agent and you guys are blue in the face over a Blow Job in contrast to our security put at risk via outing Plame.

Talk about screwed up, pun intented.

What No Fitzmas!

The Man Who Said Too Much
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek

 

[GeeWhiz]

What No Fitzmas!

The Man Who Said Too Much
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek

Stephanie, Don't just post it here. Put your message on a sheet of paper and stand outside on the street corner, on a rainy day, and hold up your sheet of paper so that the cars passing by can see it. Do it for Libby, he needs you right now, go see him, and don't forget to wear a blue dress. Oh and don't tell Linda Tripp wear you put the blue dress, she might take it to show Ken Starr.

 

[Stephanie]

Stephanie, Don't just post it here. Put your message on a sheet of paper and stand outside on the street corner, on a rainy day, and hold up your sheet of paper so that the cars passing by can see it. Do it for Libby, he needs you right now, go see him, and don't forget to wear a blue dress. Oh and don't tell Linda Tripp wear you put the blue dress, she might take it to show Ken Starr.

:sleepy1:

 

[KarlMarx]

Well, little kiddies, I see we are slow on this thread. So, let's go slow, okay.

There are two people standing on the street corner. Got that children? street corner, not grand jury, street corner. For you boys and girls that understand the difference between street corner and grand jury you can move on, the rest of you stay behind the class until you understand the difference between street corner and grand jury.

For those of you whom made it this far, we have two people Joe and Bob on the street corner talking. "Hey, Bob did you have sex with that girl?" Joe asks.

"No," Bob replied.

"Well I happen to know you did," Joe said.

It's question and answer time all ye tiny minds.

Did Bob commit a crime lying to Joe?

Did Bob commit a crime having sex?

If you answer no to both questions then you have reached one rung of the ladder above the dittoheads. But if you can entrap Bob into a grand jury then you can get Bob in trouble. Aren't getting goosebumpy? I bet you can't wait to spend 70 million dollars just to get Bob into the Grand Jury, otherwise you'll all be pouting.

How about another scenario.

Junior screams, "fire, fire." Over 2600 soldiers died, millions of innocent Iraqis died and the deficit skyrockets through the roof.

"I just thought it would be fun to yell fire," Junior said, "even though I knew there wasn't a fire. Do you want to hear me fart?"

Bob lying about sex is not a crime, Junior yelling fire, when he knew all along there was no fire, is a crime. Double Standard.

Boys and girls I know Double Standard is a very big concept for you to understand. And don't listen to that guy with a bottle of Viagra heading to the Caribbean with other guys, no girls, just guys and he takes hillbilly heroin too. I forget his name, it's ush, ush, limp, limp, ush, limp, something like that. Any way he really loves his pills.

This is so lame.... you libs just won't get it.... it's not a mental block, it's simply stubbornness.
There's a fine line between stubbornness and stupidity, in this case it's difficult to make a distinction.

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 79, § 1621 of the United States Federal Code regarding perjury

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Subornation of perjury

Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

[red states rule]

Monica, I'm talking about Monica, the girl with the blue dress with the stain on it. That's the girl he said he didn't have sex with. Having sex with Monica is not a crime. Monica never filed any charges against Clinton for having sex with her.

The two people that got their panties up their ass was Linda Tripp and Ken the porn Starr, whom spent 70 million dollars to get a rap on Clinton which is lying about having sex with Monica. 70 million dollars for such dribble.

The only way to respond to your rantings is to quote from the Scriptures.

Go from the presence of a foolish man, in whom thou perceivest not the lips of knowledge.

In other words, don't waste your time arguing with an idiot

 

[musicman]

Go from the presence of a foolish man, in whom thou perceivest not the lips of knowledge.

Ah - but, wasn't it the "lips of knowledge" that got all this trouble started?

Just kidding, RSR - sorry; I couldn't resist. Carry on the fight.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Consensual sex isn't as severe as outing an agent and you guys are blue in the face over a Blow Job in contrast to our security put at risk via outing Plame.

To bring you up to date on some history: Bob Novak did not "out" Valerie Plame in his column. Plame, along with other covert CIA agents, was "outed" long before the Bush Administration came to Washington by Aldrich Ames, who was their colleague at the CIA and was a spy for the USSR. That's why she was no longer employed as a covert agent and why everyone in Washington--politician and non-politician--knew she worked at the CIA long before Bob Novak mentioned it in his column. This was all a tantalizing non-story manufactured by the MSM who saw an opening to sock it to the hated Bush Administration.

 

[GotZoom]

Hey Whizzer...simple question for you.

Regardless of how trivial you think it might be, did Bill Clinton lie to the Grand Jury about having sex with Monica Lewinsky?

 

[CSM]

Hey Whizzer...simple question for you.

Regardless of how trivial you think it might be, did Bill Clinton lie to the Grand Jury about having sex with Monica Lewinsky?

Depends on the definition of the word "lie".

 

[GotZoom]

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie&x=0&y=0


lie1  /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
[lahy] Pronunciation Key -
Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly‧ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

 

[Mr. P]

Hey Zoomer, cheeseWhiz is just another shit stirring troll.

 

[GotZoom]

Hey Zoomer, cheeseWhiz is just another shit stirring troll.

Oh I know. I think it would be intersting to see how he doesn't answer the question.

Even money he doesn't even respond.

 

[Mr. P]

Oh I know. I think it would be intersting to see how he doesn't answer the question.

Even money he doesn't even respond.

It hasn’t responded to the Articles of impeachment yet either. It must still be reading.

Funny how facts get in the way of left wing BS, ain’t it?

 

[GeeWhiz]

When I first heard about the Monica, Clinton incident, I remember asking "What did Clinton lie about?" and someone answered, "Sex". After hearing that I asked, "are there really people wetting their pants just because someone had sex?" The majority on this thread answers my question.

What the poll on this thread inteprets to is that the majority on this thread feel that it was worth 70 million dollars of tax money just for a moral issue, not a criminal issue, a moral issue, because if Clinton didn't have sex there would be no lie.

The majority on this thread mantra went like this, "it's not about the sex, it's about the lie."

So if the lie was all that mattered to the majority on this thread, then it wouldn't matter if Clinton lied about what he had for breakfast, the majority on this thread would still spend 70 million dollars, just to lure Clinton into a Grand Jury and catch him lying about what he had for breakfast. The majority on this thread twisted logic doesn't change whether the issue was sex or breakfast.

Then the majority here on this thread would have a field day going back and forth about how awful it was that Clinton said he had Cherrios for breakfast, when he really had Wheaties, after all it's not about the breakfast, it's about the lie.

This moral posturing of the majority in this thread is so hypocritcal, it's proof that God doesn't exist, either that or the majority on this thread worships an inferior God.

I'm more inclined to believe the case is that majority on this thread worships an inferior God, because the majority on this thread throwing stones makes a mockery of God, as the results of the poll on this thread shows.

Truth be told, if I was the president then, Monica and myself would have been far more obscene than any of you can imagine. It certainly would have been far more than a measly Blow Job. And the God of the majority on this thread would still be inferior.

 

[CSM]

When I first heard about the Monica, Clinton incident, I remember asking "What did Clinton lie about?" and someone answered, "Sex". After hearing that I asked, "are there really people wetting their pants just because someone had sex?" The majority on this thread answers my question.

What the poll on this thread inteprets to is that the majority on this thread feel that it was worth 70 million dollars of tax money just for a moral issue, not a criminal issue, a moral issue, because if Clinton didn't have sex there would be no lie.

The majority on this thread mantra went like this, "it's not about the sex, it's about the lie."

So if the lie was all that mattered to the majority on this thread, then it wouldn't matter if Clinton lied about what he had for breakfast, the majority on this thread would still spend 70 million dollars, just to lure Clinton into a Grand Jury and catch him lying about what he had for breakfast. The majority on this thread twisted logic doesn't change whether the issue was sex or breakfast.

Then the majority here on this thread would have a field day going back and forth about how awful it was that Clinton said he had Cherrios for breakfast, when he really had Wheaties, after all it's not about the breakfast, it's about the lie.

This moral posturing of the majority in this thread is so hypocritcal, it's proof that God doesn't exist, either that or the majority on this thread worships an inferior God.

I'm more inclined to believe the case is that majority on this thread worships an inferior God, because the majority on this thread throwing stones makes a mockery of God, as the results of the poll on this thread shows.

Truth be told, if I was the president then, Monica and myself would have been far more obscene than any of you can imagine. It certainly would have been far more than a measly Blow Job. And the God of the majority on this thread would still be inferior.

Pretty shallow thinking to be making great leaps of judgement about whosegod is superior...

maybe you really are just a troll...