White House mum on Karl Rove

Yes you are right mis use of words. I am sorry.

My wording was flawed. I used "impeached" when I should have said "convicted". To continually characterize this as a lack of understanding of the Constitution and government on my part is vexing.

On the whole, I would agree that Americans would benefit from better education regarding both their own government and the governments of other countries.

Being impeached is unimportant if you are aquitted. Especially not legally.

Lying in court is unimportant if you are aquitted. Especially not legally.

Murder is still important even if you are aquitted. Even if it's not legally (criminally anyway).

If you are fond of the legal definition of impeachment, you should not care that Clinton was impeached because he was aquitted and you are fond of such legal things. If you are fond of the vague/common terms, then it is also unimportant that he lied about a bj because he wasn't thrown out of office for it.

It takes a big person, and wise person to admit when they are wrong/flawed/incorrect. I do want to say sorry to you for the last post none of that was at all directed at you. I didn’t think you would pay any thing to it till I seen this post. You already posted saying it was the wrong word usage. He just kept using your name. So in that contexts so did I. I am sorry if I offended you in doing so.

I have two close friends. One I have known for 20 years. He has no idea of any of this. The other does. I try and tell him and he said what does that mean to me? I tell him it’s his government and he tells me, “So?”. This is sad. His family is all that way. Most people I know is that way. Other then the Conspiracies people and they are just nuts. Had to cut ties with a good friend because of that, his wife even left him and went back home (the UK). I don’t know if the real problem is the lack of knowledge and education or the lack of caring about out government and how it runs.

Bullshit.

Because you get away with something does not make it unimportant. No more than your own getting away with murder example is ok.

In any event, Clinton did NOT get away with it. He was found in contempt of court, ordered to pay $90,000 USD, and had his license to practice law revoked. The fact that he was allowed to continue to function in the rule of President of the United States does not mean nothing happened. The court just felt that his crime was not signifigant enough to warrent his removal, not that it wasn't important.

Then chill out with the STFU implication of "if you don't like it, then don't read it" garbage



You marginalized Arcadia by equating her/his intelligence (based on one misunderstanding) with your perceived "amercan r toopid" attitude. I could very easily say that your atrocious grammatical skills are indicative of the lack of education within the United States (i.e. amercan r toopid). I wouldn't do that because it is mean and unnecessary to lump a person into a perceived group's deficiency in proving a point. You could have corrected her definition of impeachment without doing that. Just because you didn't attack her/him directly, it doesn't mean that you can justify attacking her/him indirectly. Also, you could be ESL. I wouldn't go as far to assume or to chastize you for it, or equate you to a group that I had an agenda against.




Nope, I love %. It is my favorite right next to *, @, and ^.



This isn't in any way relevant too the conversation. I wouldn't ever have a conversation with you about this topic. It is fine just here under your high-horse.




Lather-Rinse-Repeat

I appreciate the effort to use gender-neutral pronouns. It reflects a sensitivity that I appreciate. But we can go with "her" for the sake of convenience.

At any rate, I accept Lupo's apology, and I'm sorry if I got a little prickly. I think the discussion about Clinton is a little off track anyway, except for the original purpose of comparison with what Bush might potentially face (and there's no evidence that he was involved).

Yeah, I wasn't sure... been out of the forums for a while, and I am just now learning the current forum superstars. Although I did just find out that we are having a baby in Jake's thread!

As has been pointed out, the people who revoked his license did that independently of those who aquitted him. Frankly, I don't know where the 90k comes from. You don't aquit AND fine. Regardless, the whole thing was unimporant enough or the words you use, "not significant" enough to do anything significant enough about. Maybe if I rephrased it to "Lying about a BJ is not significant". Or even, "You place far too much significance on the fact he lied about having a BJ, as he was aquitted of that".

Further, are you implying lying about murder (to save yourself from prison or just because you're evil) is like lying about a BJ (which can be horribly embarrassing, but the act of receiving one would hardly land you in jail)?

In your post you put a quote from me:



You then stated


I then replied with



To which you said:



What that is the conversation that you were making. So what is it? Come on can you really say you were not posting to my post about conversation being dead in the US? Can you really say my argument is not on that topic and not relavent to this topic? Can you then tell me if I am wrong and show me how?

That was the amount Clinton was fined for perjury by Susan Webber Wright, the judge in the Paula Jones case. The fine was not imposed or mandated by Congress. Wright had dismissed the lawsuit, calling it not even close, but she took the perjury very seriously indeed.

But I would tend to agree that lying under oath about one's private sexual activities isn't in the same ballpark as lying about breaking into the opposition party's offices, lying about deals with South American death squads and mujahadin opium runners, or 'outing' covert operatives. All may be reprehensible behavior, but the magnitude of the consequences is much different.

It's a hypothetical baby, dear. And I wanted to get him a Shrodinger's cat for a pet, but all I could find was a cloud of probabilities.

Would you feel that way if the person that is lying under other is some one that sexually harassed or raped you? (No I am not implying Clinton Raped her I am just making a argument. No one ever as I know made that implication.)

Yes.

Both show that you don't respect the court, the judiciary process and rule of law, and the truth. In that respect they exactly the same.

The crime of the act may not be of equivilant levels of 'wrongness', but the crime of the perjury is.

Otherwise you in effect say that lieing is ok, even in a court of law, if it's only about 'little' stuff. But where does "little" stop? Adultery? Plagerism? Petty theft? Grand larceny? Rape?

The same logic would also suggest that me stealing 50 dollars from somebody isn't 'signifigant', because someone somewhere else stole $50,000 from investors.

I reject that entire line of thinking.

Well yes Perjury is a crime punishable with up to five years and $500,000 in fines, but just like every offense, the system allows a Court to determine what level of Punishment fits the crime. So perjuring yourself about a blow job may be less punishable than perjuring yourself about a criminal activity. (ultimately getting a blow job from a woman other than your wife is not illegal-well I dunno about some states).

lying under oath is never ok-thats why it is a felony.

If rape or any other violent crime were proven, that changes the equation, and I would have expected Clinton to rot in a Federal Pen.

Harassment covers a lot of ground. Coercive harassment is a form of rape, and ought to be dealt with as such. But making a pass at a state employee? No, I can't blame somebody for denying that, even under oath. I wouldn't bother to lie about it, but I'm not in politics.

Getting a BJ from your wife in some states is a crime. I think the dick head that wrote that law must not have had a wife that could give BJs.
Oh and I do remember a few states writing laws with jail time in the 1990s about infidelity. Also if you live as Husband & Wife & Wife/Husband they can send you to jail for living with some one as husband and wife with some one that is not leagly your spouse. Got to love the law.

Some fun Illinois Laws that are still on the books.
* You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.
* You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile.
* The English language is not to be spoken.

Problem is she felt it was more then just a pass. Are you telling me that the victom does not mater in this case?

Well, as long as he doesn't grow up to become Wigner's friend. I hear he is quite the Bohr!

Honestly? I don't know. I wasn't there. I've been pressured to have sex on multiple occasions, but my circumstances were different than Paula Jones. I still don't know if she was a victim or a vindictive shrew dug up for a partisan witch-hunt. Maybe she was both... you don't have to like somebody to acknowledge that they were victimized.

But again... I don't know. The judge dismissed the case. Was the perjury significant to that decision? Would it have turned out differently if he'd confessed about Lewinsky at that point?

I can't say. I will admit this much: I plan to arrange my life so that I'm never alone in a room with Bill Clinton. Unless I want to be.

LOL I would love to reply with something but I can't. I just keep LOL.

OK really, No one knows. I for one don't really care what he did or didn't do. The lieing under oth is the only problem for me. Other then that I say go get as many BJs and what ever you want. Really I think it's good he got some BJ, I mean when my wife gives me one I am not thinking about shooting any one.........well maybe but you know what I mean, no Iraq.

I was going to reply here, but I decided that sticking a sharp stick in my eye was a better idea - less painful.

I am off to the ER, wish me luck!!

You just did your daily forum search for "BJ"...

YOU FOOL NOBODY, MR. NASH.

What has Greg Evigan got to do with this?



Fooled ya!

Thanks for the suggestion, I fully agree, but I will use the variation of a red hot poker.