i knew about the sex scandel, but not about the blue dress. I was 8 or 9 years old when that happened so to me it`s more history than "news".

i dont care if the dress was red, blue or pink, this time period i assiosiate more with the fact that Milosovice`s genocidal warmachine was ethnicaly cleansing Kosovo, and that Clinton took one year time to actualy stop him, because he thought his opposition would see that as an attempted distraction.

the useless "fuss" created arround that scandle therefor probably costed lives in Kososvo.

Who cares what color the dress has?! what`s the point! awww the uselessness of this information! why!?
and why did it hinder him on doing his job as president?

(October 30, 2012 at 5:05 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: i knew about the sex scandel, but not about the blue dress. I was 8 or 9 years old when that happened so to me it`s more history than "news".

i dont care if the dress was red, blue or pink, this time period i assiosiate more with the fact that Milosovice`s genocidal warmachine was ethnicaly cleansing Kosovo, and that Clinton took one year time to actualy stop him, because he thought his opposition would see that as an attempted distraction.

the useless "fuss" created arround that scandle therefor probably costed lives in Kososvo.

Who cares what color the dress has?! what`s the point! awww the uselessness of this information! why!?
and why did it hinder him on doing his job as president?

Well, he was impeached by Congress for it. I imagine that would be quite distracting for anyone in such a position.

(October 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm)festive1 Wrote:

(October 30, 2012 at 5:05 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: i knew about the sex scandel, but not about the blue dress. I was 8 or 9 years old when that happened so to me it`s more history than "news".

i dont care if the dress was red, blue or pink, this time period i assiosiate more with the fact that Milosovice`s genocidal warmachine was ethnicaly cleansing Kosovo, and that Clinton took one year time to actualy stop him, because he thought his opposition would see that as an attempted distraction.

the useless "fuss" created arround that scandle therefor probably costed lives in Kososvo.

Who cares what color the dress has?! what`s the point! awww the uselessness of this information! why!?
and why did it hinder him on doing his job as president?

Well, he was impeached by Congress for it. I imagine that would be quite distracting for anyone in such a position.

That entire impeachment was a farce and based on a court asking a question about consensual sex. But that is typical of republicans, they don't want business regulated which caused the mess we are in, but damned sure want a big government telling you what you can and cannot do with your private parts.

These people seriously have no balls at all. They act like adultry should be a criminal act, but arn't willing to shoot cheaters on a soccer feild like the Taliban does.

So basically they refuse to accept that a relationship is a personal thing and should be left up to th e couple.

(October 30, 2012 at 6:12 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm)festive1 Wrote: Well, he was impeached by Congress for it. I imagine that would be quite distracting for anyone in such a position.

That entire impeachment was a farce and based on a court asking a question about consensual sex. But that is typical of republicans, they don't want business regulated which caused the mess we are in, but damned sure want a big government telling you what you can and cannot do with your private parts.

These people seriously have no balls at all. They act like adultry should be a criminal act, but arn't willing to shoot cheaters on a soccer feild like the Taliban does.

So basically they refuse to accept that a relationship is a personal thing and should be left up to th e couple.

Clinton's impeachment was for perjury, and as you know, perjury is lying under oath. It doesn't matter what the lie is about. It wasn't for having an affair.

Right. It was for lying about having an affair. Certainly a high crime.

(October 30, 2012 at 6:33 pm)whateverist Wrote: Right. It was for lying about having an affair. Certainly a high crime.

Wrong again. It was for lying under oath. It's called perjury.

(October 30, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Tino Wrote:

(October 30, 2012 at 6:33 pm)whateverist Wrote: Right. It was for lying about having an affair. Certainly a high crime.

Wrong again. It was for lying under oath. It's called perjury.

As if Clinton is the only man ever to lie under oath about cheating on his wife. I think most people would lie about having an affair, even under oath. And why the fuck was he being grilled about getting a BJ in the first place??? I never really understood that part.

(October 30, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Tino Wrote:

(October 30, 2012 at 6:33 pm)whateverist Wrote: Right. It was for lying about having an affair. Certainly a high crime.

Wrong again. It was for lying under oath. It's called perjury.

Just about anyone, we can keep putting them under oath and asking them every embarassing question we can think of and then pick through their answers with a fine toothed comb until we find a lie. I don't doubt for a second you could get me to lie under oath using those circumstances and we could probably get just about anyone like that. So, yeah, he committed perjury, but it was because he was in a perjury trap.

I may complain about Democrats, but at least when we criticize Bush or Reagan, we get them over legitimate policy. We get them over their deregulation of business that led to the stock market crash or we get them over starting the Iraq war or their lack of action to prevent 9/11 or their slow response to hurricane Katrina. The closest we have to a non-issue we criticize them over is their ties to Halliburton or oil companies, but even then, when you look at how those ties impact their foreign policy or their energy policy, it turns it into a real issue.

(October 30, 2012 at 6:51 pm)festive1 Wrote:

(October 30, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Tino Wrote: Wrong again. It was for lying under oath. It's called perjury.

As if Clinton is the only man ever to lie under oath about cheating on his wife. I think most people would lie about having an affair, even under oath. And why the fuck was he being grilled about getting a BJ in the first place??? I never really understood that part.

It started at least in part when Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. Monica Lewinsky was deposed for the investigation and originally denied having a relationship with Clinton, but confided in her co-worker Linda Tripp that she had, and had evidence of it. Eventually Newsweek and The Washington Post got wind of the story which whipped it up further. Then Clinton had a press conference where he denied the affair with Hillary at his side. Hillary blamed the vast right-wing conspiracy. After a few months Lewinsky got immunity and Clinton testified for a grand jury, denying sex again. Since the prosecutor already had evidence (the famous dress, etc) it was quickly determined to be perjury. Ultimately the impeachment trial was for both obstruction of justice and perjury.

I still don't see how having sex with interns effects one's ability to be president... Clinton wasn't the first, and I dare say he won't be the last.