ericb Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 after nearly eight years of investigations the worst crime they could find was that of lying about a blow job... If he doesn't take his marriage vows seriously, why in the world would we believe he took his oath of office seriously. When you don’t take your wedding vows seriously, you hurt your spouse and maybe some other family. When you don’t take your presidential vows seriously thousands of people die……big difference. If you don't give a F$#% about your spouse, why would you give a F>>@!& about your country....or anyone else's for that matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 after nearly eight years of investigations the worst crime they could find was that of lying about a blow job... If he doesn't take his marriage vows seriously, why in the world would we believe he took his oath of office seriously. When you don’t take your wedding vows seriously, you hurt your spouse and maybe some other family. When you don’t take your presidential vows seriously thousands of people die……big difference. Clinton got impeached for something he could have taken care of in 30 seconds with his right hand and a little imagination....again...who's the dumbass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 [ Clinton got impeached for something he could have taken care of in 30 seconds with his right hand and a little imagination....again...who's the dumbass Oh….come on……getting a blow job and jacking off are not the same at all….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) after nearly eight years of investigations the worst crime they could find was that of lying about a blow job... If he doesn't take his marriage vows seriously, why in the world would we believe he took his oath of office seriously. When you don’t take your wedding vows seriously, you hurt your spouse and maybe some other family. When you don’t take your presidential vows seriously thousands of people die……big difference. How many people died in Rwanda becuase Clinton did nothing??? Count em. Plus no one would have died If clinton had balls for taking out Bin Landen intead of having those nuts sucked. Edited July 3, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 .... after nearly eight years of investigations the worst crime they could find was that of lying about a blow job... Matt - I believe that integrity is the single most important quality in a leader. It never ceases to amaze me how people gloss over a little marital infidelity. If he doesn't take his marriage vows seriously, why in the world would we believe he took his oath of office seriously. All of the lies Bush is accused of seem to focus around his protecting wealth and power (his and others), his foisting of his ideological agenda on the Arab World. You can argue whether this is right or wrong....but it's at least behavior befitting a power hungry politician. And Clinton's???....blowing his wad on a stupid chubby little intern's dress....who saved it??? Who's the dumbass? Actually, I believe that Clinton is guilty of behaving like a power hungry politician as well. Just the same as others (both republicans and demorcats) have shot their wad on and in pages, interns, seceretaries. It really is an old tired argument. Neither side is any better than the other when it comes to values. With very few exceptions, they sold out on them early on in the ascension to power. Hell, I'm willing to bet that before Bush got sober (and probably after) he's taken advantage of women that would throw themselves at him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 [ Clinton got impeached for something he could have taken care of in 30 seconds with his right hand and a little imagination....again...who's the dumbass Oh….come on……getting a blow job and jacking off are not the same at all….. Is that a real rocket science degree you have or an honorary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 ...the powerful (usually due to wealth) have little concept of justice, beyond how it can be manipulated. Money = freedom. Just look at OJ. ... But he wasn't pardoned by the president. That is because he was aquitted. NO WAY?! What I'm gonna do wit alla deez naugh!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Matt - first, he commuted his sentence - or more specifically the jail portion....not a pardon - he's still guilty as far as the courts are concerned. Second, how does commuting his jail term protect "his man Cheney" If anything, he's more accessible for book deals now than he would have been in prison? are you really still carrying water for W? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Um, he just said that dems and repubs should both view this issue. And it is an equally big problem to dismiss it or to derail the discussion with "every pres does this" Disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_a_United_States_president You disagree with the fact that he said what I quoted or you disagree with the fact that using the lame "every pres does this waaa waaa waaaa" is a useless derailment of a discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Um, he just said that dems and repubs should both view this issue. And it is an equally big problem to dismiss it or to derail the discussion with "every pres does this" Disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_a_United_States_president You disagree with the fact that he said what I quoted or you disagree with the fact that using the lame "every pres does this waaa waaa waaaa" is a useless derailment of a discussion? This is all politically-motivated crap, just like the endless Clinton investigations. Both sides hate each other, and when they are out of power, use the legal system to take pot shots at eachother ad nauseum rather than try to simply suck it up and wait until the next election and spend their time convincing people of an agenda rather than that their political enemies are evil incarnate. Everyone who lives for this stuff needs to get a life. Especially on a day like this (sun!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyClimber Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Also, Bush wasn't exactly Mr. Straight Shooter in his younger days. What with cocaine usage, DUI, etc? Eric, are you serious that you really think a lie about marital infidelity is worse than a lie which led to a war? Or that someone with questionable morals in regard to sex is worse than someone with questionable morals in regard to torture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 after nearly eight years of investigations the worst crime they could find was that of lying about a blow job... If he doesn't take his marriage vows seriously, why in the world would we believe he took his oath of office seriously. When you don’t take your wedding vows seriously, you hurt your spouse and maybe some other family. When you don’t take your presidential vows seriously thousands of people die……big difference. If you don't give a F$#% about your spouse, why would you give a F>>@!& about your country....or anyone else's for that matter Are you guys serious? Do you really think people are either all good or all bad? You have never known anyone who is just human and not totally consistant. Like maybe they sometimes lie about a sick day to get out of work but would never dream of stealing a candy bar? Who inhabits your world? Simple one-dimensional people who are flawless in their commitment to country, work, and family? Maybe you do. Maybe lots of people are like that. Maybe I just don't know any because they are so fucking boring that I would shoot myself in the head to get away from them. People are just people--warts and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Also, Bush wasn't exactly Mr. Straight Shooter in his younger days. What with cocaine usage, DUI, etc? Eric, are you serious that you really think a lie about marital infidelity is worse than a lie which led to a war? Or that someone with questionable morals in regard to sex is worse than someone with questionable morals in regard to torture? Everyone would have felt better if Clinton had his affair with a hot hollywood movie star, or a peer. What Clinton did would be analogous to W smoking meth and crack rather than snorting high grade coke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 KK has me on ignore, he says, so he won't respond to this. But clearly his post shows once again that he doesn't know how to read a newspaper. The investigation of the Plame leak was not undertaken by the Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 after nearly eight years of investigations the worst crime they could find was that of lying about a blow job... If he doesn't take his marriage vows seriously, why in the world would we believe he took his oath of office seriously. When you don’t take your wedding vows seriously, you hurt your spouse and maybe some other family. When you don’t take your presidential vows seriously thousands of people die……big difference. If you don't give a F$#% about your spouse, why would you give a F>>@!& about your country....or anyone else's for that matter Are you guys serious? Do you really think people are either all good or all bad? You have never known anyone who is just human and not totally consistant. Like maybe they sometimes lie about a sick day to get out of work but would never dream of stealing a candy bar? Who inhabits your world? Simple one-dimensional people who are flawless in their commitment to country, work, and family? Maybe you do. Maybe lots of people are like that. Maybe I just don't know any because they are so fucking boring that I would shoot myself in the head to get away from them. People are just people--warts and all. Everyone here is perfect - perfectly moral, perfectly consistent and never hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Um, he just said that dems and repubs should both view this issue. And it is an equally big problem to dismiss it or to derail the discussion with "every pres does this" Disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_a_United_States_president You disagree with the fact that he said what I quoted or you disagree with the fact that using the lame "every pres does this waaa waaa waaaa" is a useless derailment of a discussion? This is all politically-motivated crap, just like the endless Clinton investigations. Both sides hate each other, and when they are out of power, use the legal system to take pot shots at eachother ad nauseum rather than try to simply suck it up and wait until the next election and spend their time convincing people of an agenda rather than that their political enemies are evil incarnate. Everyone who lives for this stuff needs to get a life. Especially on a day like this (sun!). Sun--that's for sure! I just went for a walk at lunch and actually worked up a sweat in the first two minutes. My new co-workers are gonna love me now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Everyone here is perfect - perfectly moral, perfectly consistent and never hypocritical. it is the internet. btw I've sixpack abs, a BMW, $10 million in the bank and I'm looking for a lovely lady to settle down with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Um, he just said that dems and repubs should both view this issue. And it is an equally big problem to dismiss it or to derail the discussion with "every pres does this" Disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_a_United_States_president You disagree with the fact that he said what I quoted or you disagree with the fact that using the lame "every pres does this waaa waaa waaaa" is a useless derailment of a discussion? This is all politically-motivated crap, just like the endless Clinton investigations. Both sides hate each other, and when they are out of power, use the legal system to take pot shots at eachother ad nauseum rather than try to simply suck it up and wait until the next election and spend their time convincing people of an agenda rather than that their political enemies are evil incarnate. Everyone who lives for this stuff needs to get a life. Especially on a day like this (sun!). Sun--that's for sure! I just went for a walk at lunch and actually worked up a sweat in the first two minutes. My new co-workers are gonna love me now! I biked to work today. It was fine when I was moving, but I dripped sweat at every stop light. When I get home tonight I will reward myself with a nice, ice cold caiparinha, and reading some Hemingway until sunset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 KK has me on ignore, he says, so he won't respond to this. But clearly his post shows once again that he doesn't know how to read a newspaper. The investigation of the Plame leak was not undertaken by the Democrats. Hey KK....this is what Mattp said.....wait...you have me on your ignore as well.....my bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 after nearly eight years of investigations the worst crime they could find was that of lying about a blow job... If he doesn't take his marriage vows seriously, why in the world would we believe he took his oath of office seriously. When you don’t take your wedding vows seriously, you hurt your spouse and maybe some other family. When you don’t take your presidential vows seriously thousands of people die……big difference. If you don't give a F$#% about your spouse, why would you give a F>>@!& about your country....or anyone else's for that matter Are you guys serious? Do you really think people are either all good or all bad? You have never known anyone who is just human and not totally consistant. Like maybe they sometimes lie about a sick day to get out of work but would never dream of stealing a candy bar? Who inhabits your world? Simple one-dimensional people who are flawless in their commitment to country, work, and family? Maybe you do. Maybe lots of people are like that. Maybe I just don't know any because they are so fucking boring that I would shoot myself in the head to get away from them. People are just people--warts and all. Everyone here is perfect - perfectly moral, perfectly consistent and never hypocritical. oh oh oh me too me too!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Everyone here is perfect - perfectly moral, perfectly consistent and never hypocritical. it is the internet. btw I've sixpack abs, a BMW, $10 million in the bank and I'm looking for a lovely lady to settle down with How flexible are you on the "lovely" and the "settle" parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 When I get home tonight I will reward myself with a nice, ice cold caiparinha, and reading some Hemingway until sunset. Cross Country Snow :tup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Christopher Hitchens apparently couldn't remember his password, so he's asked me to pass along his thoughts and share them with the forum. He's apparently especially anxious to see if mattp can summon the zeal necessary to conjure up a point-by-point rebuttal. "If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place? Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions. * Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. * Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place. * The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak—his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally—was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that). * In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count. * The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary. * The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove. Click Here! Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim? I know of a senior lawyer in Washington who is betting very good money that if the case is heard again on appeal, the conviction will be reversed. This is for three further reasons, which I call to your attention. 1) There is an important constitutional question regarding Fitzgerald's original jurisdiction. It is a rather nice legal question, having to do with whether, as U.S. attorney for the northern district of Illinois, Fitzgerald is a "principal" or "inferior" officer under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A dozen senior legal scholars have filed an amicus brief, arguing that the authority under which the original prosecutorial investigation was conducted was itself dubious. I have no expertise in this very important matter, but in granting them leave to file, Judge Walton made the following hair-raising comment, which I reproduce in full because it is longer than his order and needs to be read in full: It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it. 2) This low sarcasm displays not so much bias against the defendant, but actual animus. What does the number of days have to do with it? In how many cases involving poor defendants is an issue of constitutional law involved? Does the judge not know that Libby has already been almost ruined financially and faces incarceration? Would he have adopted the same tone if 12 experts ranging politically from Robert Bork to Alan Dershowitz had filed a brief arguing the opposite position? It's difficult to see how an appeals court can avoid these questions. 3) The judge refused to let the jury hear from a memory expert and would not admit much of the evidence about Libby's extremely heavy workload on matters of pressing national security. An amazing collection of testimonials has been prepared, from all points of the political compass, regarding particularly Libby's concern about inadequate troop levels in Iraq and his work in strengthening the country's defense against bio-warfare terrorism. It seems to some legal observers that the judge's exclusion of some of this exculpatory evidence was a payback for Libby's decision not to take the stand, which is his constitutionally protected right. The rush to prejudge the case and pack Libby off to prison seems near universal. (Patrick Fitzgerald has denounced him for failing to show remorse; a strange charge to make against a man who has announced that he intends to appeal.) Given the unsoundness of the verdict, the extraordinary number of other witnesses who admitted to confusion over dates and times, and the essential triviality of the original matter (an apparently purposeless coverup of a nonleak, in private and legal conversations, involving common knowledge of information that was not known to be classified), it is unlikely that the verdict at present can stand scrutiny, let alone the sentence. But why go through all this irrelevant and secondhand hearsay again? Those who want to "get" someone for "lying us into war" have picked the wrong man and failed to identify a crime. Let them try to impeach the president, who should in the meantime step in to avoid any more waste of public money and time and pardon Libby without further ado" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Everyone here is perfect - perfectly moral, perfectly consistent and never hypocritical. it is the internet. btw I've sixpack abs, a BMW, $10 million in the bank and I'm looking for a lovely lady to settle down with How flexible are you on the "lovely" and the "settle" parts? how flexible is the lady? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Post deleted by wirlwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.