Who's Going?

[Bob Lanier]

I'd say I'd have to know someone very, very well before I'd be able to make that definitive of a statement about their sexual proclivities.

Yonivore? It's kinda hard to tell whether or not he's a paedophile, you know?

[PixelPusher]

First...

I'm beginning to think Pixel Pusher has sucked that or, vice versa, given how vehemently he defends Slick Willy on this matter and how hard he's trying to change the subject.

then a brief moment of clarity...

I'd say I'd have to know someone very, very well before I'd be able to make that definitive of a statement about their sexual proclivities.

then contradicts himself yet again...

And, Pixel, are you guy-sucking ex? You're taking up for him like he's your or something.

Are you schizophrenic?

[xrayzebra]

Funny, he is coming down to campaign for Ciro, but is using a public college to
give his speech. Can that be right? I thought Colleges were suppose to be
neutral. Can that mean Bush could come down for Ciro's opponent and give
his talk there at Palo Alto? Nawh, he isn't a dimm-o-crap. Not allowed. That would
be partisan politics.

[Yonivore]

The Fayed's are Egyptian. Some of the most radical mother ers in Islam are in or from Egypt. In fact, it has always been the hotbed of radical Islam. Nasser kicked out a load of clerics during his tenure ruling Egypt. Guess where they went? Saudi Arabia. They founded the Wahabi sect.

I think that if the govt is bugging US citizens, a couple of rich somewhat shady Egyptians merit a listen or two.

Kind of paintin' with a broad brush there, ain't'cha?

As for the Bill thing, I've already stated that I think that if such a thing were happening, Star would have dragged it out to daylight. After all, he didn't start out investigating Monica-gate. He was grasping at straws to get ANYTHING when his legitimate mandate (Whitewater) came up dry, and he got lucky that a certain intern dry-cleaned instead of laundered her blue dress. If you want to continue to discuss male -sucking to feed your nasty little fetish, please leave me out of it.

Sure, because you have absolutely no ing idea what you're talking about.

[Yonivore]

First...


then a brief moment of clarity...


then contradicts himself yet again...


Are you schizophrenic?

I'm sure you were trying to make a point there, weren't ya?

[PixelPusher]

I'm sure you were trying to make a point there, weren't ya?

(but I'm gonna pretend I didn't get caught contradicting myself again.)

[smeagol]

"he had no fault in the hold affair?"

No fault at all.
Consenting sex between adults.

So a President of the US, who is married, gets his pole waxed by a woman other than hs wife, and for boutons everything is AOK?

If a Republican did that you would be on his ass faster than bees on honey.

You are a ing hypocrite.

[ChumpDumper]

I have trouble giving much of a about politicians' extramarital affairs, considering some of our better presidents did it--we just never used pretend to make such a big deal about it.

[xrayzebra]

Chump, you never read much history did you. Much ado was made
in some cases.

[ChumpDumper]

Some. Not others. I'm thinking specifically about FDR and Eisenhower. Pretty much the entire press core knew about their affairs.

[smeagol]

I have trouble giving much of a about politicians' extramarital affairs, considering some of our better presidents did it--we just never used pretend to make such a big deal about it.

Not giving a is one thing.

Condoning it for partisan reasons is another.

[Yonivore]

There was no contradiction PeePee.

[PixelPusher]

There was no contradiction PeePee.

You said "I'd say I'd have to know someone very, very well before I'd be able to make that definitive of a statement about their sexual proclivities".

Well you certainly don't know me "very, very well", but that didn't stop you from branding me a "guy-sucking ex" in the very same post anyway.

I'm not a Democrat, or a Clinton fanboy. I thought he was ok. Not great, not terrible. I certainly don't share the level of obsession with Clinton you have, as evidenced by your numerous thread about him you've posted. But you're right in noting I do respond to these thread - not because "Clinton is my hero!", but because I find your continued supposition that Clinton getting a BJ and/or lying to a grand jury about said BJ is the worst thing any president has ever done to be preposterous (especially in conjuction with "history will judge Bush43 the greatest president ever").

[Yonivore]

You said "I'd say I'd have to know someone very, very well before I'd be able to make that definitive of a statement about their sexual proclivities".

Well you certainly don't know me "very, very well", but that didn't stop you from branding me a "guy-sucking ex" in the very same post anyway.

I'm not a Democrat, or a Clinton fanboy. I thought he was ok. Not great, not terrible. I certainly don't share the level of obsession with Clinton you have, as evidenced by your numerous thread about him you've posted. But you're right in noting I do respond to these thread - not because "Clinton is my hero!", but because I find your continued supposition that Clinton getting a BJ and/or lying to a grand jury about said BJ is the worst thing any president has ever done to be preposterous (especially in conjuction with "history will judge Bush43 the greatest president ever").

Look up the word definitive. All my statements about you were suppositive not definitive. And, oh yea, I believe all my suppositive statements were about your relationship with exstatic and the way you jumped to his defense in the thread.

[Yonivore]

Princess Diana wasn't a U.S. citizen.

Ah! But it now appears the other party to her conversations they were interested in was a U.S. citizen; billionaire Teddy Forstmann.

[DarkReign]

All of this because a married man lied about a BJ. First and only time thats ever happened, Im sure.

[xrayzebra]

All of this because a married man lied about a BJ. First and only time thats ever happened, Im sure.

By a President before a Grand Jury, yes!

[Yonivore]

All of this because a married man lied about a BJ. First and only time thats ever happened, Im sure.

Actually, no. There were cases published at the time, and every time this was debated on a national stage, where they interviewed men who were tried, convicted, and put in prison for perjury over extramarital affairs.

[DarkReign]

Actually, no. There were cases published at the time, and every time this was debated on a national stage, where they interviewed men who were tried, convicted, and put in prison for perjury over extramarital affairs.

Are you saying, that because the President lied under oath to a grand jury about a blowjob, the leader of the free world should be tried and convicted of perjury?

You, a conservative, would imprison your President because he lied about a blowjob? Not about campaign financing, or means of war, or voting fraud, or any other litany of serious charges, but....about...a....blowjob.

Seriously? Your President? The Commander in Chief? The spokesman for America, convicted of perjury for lying under oath, about...a.....blowjob.

seriously...

[Yonivore]

Are you saying, that because the President lied under oath to a grand jury about a blowjob, the leader of the free world should be tried and convicted of perjury?

You, a conservative, would imprison your President because he lied about a blowjob? Not about campaign financing, or means of war, or voting fraud, or any other litany of serious charges, but....about...a....blowjob.

Seriously? Your President? The Commander in Chief? The spokesman for America, convicted of perjury for lying under oath, about...a.....blowjob.

seriously...

Perjury is a crime. He is the top executive of the nation, the boss of the Attorney General, the top law enforcement officer in the nation. I don't give a flying over what he perjured himself (and suborned perjury and obstructed justice).

Is he above the law? Seriously...

[turambar85]

"he had no fault in the hold affair?"

No fault at all.
Consenting sex between adults.

And don't bother to play the "morality card", especially with your morality and esp with genetically-immoral national politicians.

His blow-job I am almost fine with. Disappointed, but thats about it.

However, he lied under oath. Defend that Boutons, and you are no better than G-town, X-ray, or Yonivore.

Make your bed.

[Nbadan]

Clinton lied, but it was over a civil matter, the Paula Jones hit-piece completely financed by Texan Bob Perry, (he even gave her a complete makeover with face-lift to get more sympathy) not a matter of State. Big difference.

[Nbadan]

Paula Jones (pre Bob Perry money)



Paula Jones (with Perry Makeover)

[DarkReign]

Perjury is a crime. He is the top executive of the nation, the boss of the Attorney General, the top law enforcement officer in the nation. I don't give a flying over what he perjured himself (and suborned perjury and obstructed justice).

Is he above the law? Seriously...

Hey my man, I wasnt trying to play partisan politics with you. I was just pointing out some obvious points that I am sure you are/were aware of.

Is he above the law? By "he", you are referring to the Presidency, not Bill Clinton.

Is the Presidency above the law? Hmmmm, dont quite know how to answer that one. One could argue the President sets agenda in Congress and can cir vent law as much as the office allows, but thats semantics.

I think you know where I am going with this.

Yoni, as it stands, I think you are obviously a staunch conservative (total reach there, I know). But, as greasy and slimy as it is, I believe Bush may be in a similar position in the next 2 years regarding the rev-up to the invasion of Iraq. He may be under oath, in front of Congress, being grilled about the "hows, whys, and whens".

Now, one could argue that the President should avoid some questions on the basis of national security.

But in the grand scheme of things, which grand jury would be considered more relevant to the actual governing of the nation?

Lets be real for a moment as well, President Bush is prone to Freudian slips. If he slips on that stage, or is found to have been less than truthful (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), should he be subject to the impeachment process or tried for perjury?

I know these are all what-if statements at this point, but the chance of this happening is more-likely, than less-likely.

[Yonivore]

Hey my man, I wasnt trying to play partisan politics with you. I was just pointing out some obvious points that I am sure you are/were aware of.

Is he above the law? By "he", you are referring to the Presidency, not Bill Clinton.

Is the Presidency above the law? Hmmmm, dont quite know how to answer that one. One could argue the President sets agenda in Congress and can cir vent law as much as the office allows, but thats semantics.

I think you know where I am going with this.

Yoni, as it stands, I think you are obviously a staunch conservative (total reach there, I know). But, as greasy and slimy as it is, I believe Bush may be in a similar position in the next 2 years regarding the rev-up to the invasion of Iraq. He may be under oath, in front of Congress, being grilled about the "hows, whys, and whens".

Now, one could argue that the President should avoid some questions on the basis of national security.

But in the grand scheme of things, which grand jury would be considered more relevant to the actual governing of the nation?

Lets be real for a moment as well, President Bush is prone to Freudian slips. If he slips on that stage, or is found to have been less than truthful (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), should he be subject to the impeachment process or tried for perjury?

I know these are all what-if statements at this point, but the chance of this happening is more-likely, than less-likely.

If President Bush commits perjury, he should be prosecuted.