(November 16, 2014 at 5:16 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm)A Hypocritical Fucktard Wrote: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice actions have nothing to do with Clinton's crime and subsequent impeachment.

Your objection has already been answered. It's about your hypocrisy as well as the hypocrisy of every Republican who called for the impeachment of Clinton and then looked the other way on W's dishonesty and crimes (or worse, continue to defend them as you have).

Don't speak to me about how you value integrity and I don't. I just care more about wars of aggression than I do about someone else's blow jobs.

You are using your disdain for wars of aggression as an excuse to not care about the integrity of our court system.....simply because it was your guy.....and you need to rationalize a way to give him a pass.

(November 16, 2014 at 5:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are using your disdain for wars of aggression as an excuse to not care about the integrity of our court system.....simply because it was your guy.....and you need to rationalize a way to give him a pass.

I'm not even partisan, since Obama is a douche and I'm not even American. But lying about receiving a blowjob and lying to get the nation into a war of aggression seem to be two very different kinds of puppies.

(November 16, 2014 at 5:31 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 5:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are using your disdain for wars of aggression as an excuse to not care about the integrity of our court system.....simply because it was your guy.....and you need to rationalize a way to give him a pass.

I'm not even partisan, since Obama is a douche and I'm not even American. But lying about receiving a blowjob and lying to get the nation into a war of aggression seem to be two very different kinds of puppies.

They are two different things that have nothing to do with one another. Suppose Minimalist murders someone. On the stand he exclaims..."Well Bush murdered hundreds of thousands Iraqis....and your worried that I cut up and ate one measly 5 year old girl?.....you guys are ridiculous".

Bush's crimes are Bush's crimes....and Clinton's crimes are Clinton's crimes. You can't justify Clinton's crimes using Bush's. It is patently stupid and idiotic to try to do so. But that is exactly what we see the lefties trying to do here.

(November 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its obvious that you've been suckered into the leftwing revisionist history on the matter.

Congress did not ask this question....GOP investigators did not ask the question. During a sexual harassment lawsuit Clinton was asked under oath by a plaintiff's attorney if he had sexual relations with a subordinate.

Of course, the group behind the laswsuit had no bias at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/18/us/gro...-fame.html

(November 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: If Clinton refused to answer, it would be the judge presiding over the sexual harassment trial who would determine if having sex with a subordinate was germane to a sexual harassment case. It would have been the judge in the sexual harassment trial who would have sanctioned Clinton for refusing to answer the question...not Congress.

Fair enough. Then he would have been the recipient of the "none of your business" statement.

(November 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: Congress did not get involved in the matter at all until it became woefully apparent that the President of the United States was attempting to usurp the order created by the courts and perhaps even create a miscarriage of justice by engaging in perjury.

Actually, they got involved because they wanted to use an irrelevancy -- a lie about a sexual relationship -- in order to oust a charismatic, popular President who was able to stymie their aims and even roll back their advances in the 1994 misterms. They knew Gore would be a much easier target because, well, Al Gore, and they would much have preferred the Wooden Titan in the Oval Office.

(November 16, 2014 at 5:45 pm)Heywood Wrote: They are two different things that have nothing to do with one another. Suppose Minimalist murders someone. On the stand he exclaims..."Well Bush murdered hundreds of thousands Iraqis....and your worried that I cut up and ate one measly 5 year old girl?.....you guys are ridiculous".

I like how you have to inflate the crime in your hypothetical situation so that it's the same crime on an individual scale. It means that even you understand on some level how fucking stupid your viewpoint is.

(November 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm)Heywood Wrote: [quote='Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬' pid='797538' What does Minimalist's hygiene have to do with Clinton's impeachment?.....nothing. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice actions have nothing to do with Clinton's crime and subsequent impeachment. It is silly to bring them up. It is a red herring employed to steer the conversation in a different direction hoping that perhaps now....you might do better in the argument.

I think his point is that you're applying a double-standard. I can understand why you'd want to deflect attention.

(November 16, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Fair enough. Then he would have been the recipient of the "none of your business" statement.

I would think that in a work place sexual harassment lawsuit, Clinton's work place sexual escapades would be the courts business. While you could be forgiven for you ignorance....As a lawyer...Clinton would know this and would not be forgiven(although he might get a pass because he is the POTUS).

Your advice about how to give a deposition reminds me of this guy. Make sure you're not at work or around innocent ears when you watch it.

(November 16, 2014 at 5:45 pm)A Hypocritical Fucktard Wrote: They are two different things that have nothing to do with one another.

I just thought of a way to explain it to you in a way even you would understand. I'm going to let Jesus do the talking to Republicans who are so piously upset that Clinton lied about a blow job but look the other way with W Bush's lie.

Jesus speaking on hypocrisy Wrote:Matthew 7:3-5 Why do you notice the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye? How dare you say to your brother, "Let me take that speck of sawdust out of your eye." When, look! There is a plank of wood in your own. Hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye first. Then you will see clearly enough to take the speck of sawdust out of your brother's eye.

In case your slow with the metaphors:
Clinton's lie about a blow job = speck of sawdust
Bush's lie tricking us into Iraq = plank of wood

Hope this helps.

I know it won't.

(November 16, 2014 at 6:53 pm)DumbshitPaladin Wrote: In case your slow with the metaphors:
Clinton's lie about a blow job = speck of sawdust
Bush's lie tricking us into Iraq = plank of wood

Hope this helps.

I know it won't.

Bush's crimes are Bush's crimes....and Clinton's crimes are Clinton's crimes. It is simply idiotic and stupid to use Bush's crimes to excuse Clinton's.....which is exactly what lefties like you try to do.....in addition to re-writing history so people believe Clinton got impeached because he got a blow job.

(November 16, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Heywood Wrote: I would think that in a work place sexual harassment lawsuit, Clinton's work place sexual escapades would be the courts business. While you could be forgiven for you ignorance....As a lawyer...Clinton would know this and would not be forgiven(although he might get a pass because he is the POTUS).

Were I his lawyer, I would've argued that the suit was motivated by the bias of Jones's backers and was a political grandstand. I would ask that the line of questioning be struck, as the pertinence to Jones's case wasn't shown.

You're right that I'm not a lawyer. But so what? I've got a pretty good political sense ... and given the inherently political nature of this case -- a fact that you've already acknowledged -- a good lawyer would have advised WJC to keep his trap shut and let the judge ponder jailing a sitting President for contempt.

Personally, I was just happy that we finally had a president who was young enough, and relaxed enough, to enjoy a good blow job, after twelve years of superannuated would-be prudes who would nowadays constitute a Viagra market unto themselves, given their hypocrisy.