Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 25
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 25 template Next
  • #151
    Originally posted by Boris Godunov

    Since the thread is about Lott, this is saying that what Lott did didn't deserve criticism, but Clinton did. Hence a comparison.
    Nope, that's just what you are reading into it.

    No, because it was his private sex life. "Disgraceful" is a nice word to use if you're a Victorian matron with a moral axe to grind, but when it comes to his sex life, it's meaningless.
    So only victorian matrons would consider cheating on your wife with an intern disgraceful? You have a strange set of morals.


    Since you later say that being president is a 24/7 job, you're saying he has no right to privacy whatsoever. That's a crock of ****. Put it simply: His conduct relating to public policy is our business. His conduct relating to sexual affairs is not our business.
    It is our business because we are paying him to be president, not get bjs. He has a right to privacy, but not on public property.

    No different from other sexual conduct in the past in the White House, which is also none of our business. Again, there's a difference between abuse of presidential authority in matters of public policy and matters of sexual conduct. A huge huge huge difference.
    Improper sexual conduct on public property is everyone's business.

    No, pointing out that those who saw fit to judge his moral character were no better. That certainly is relevant to the issue. And again you were the one who said "Clinton deserved it," in an implication that he is worse than others.
    Nope, just saying he deserved it.

    And as I said, crock of ****. Being a politician does not mean one forfeits a private life. There is NOTHING prohibiting him leading his sex life as he wants. I don't recall a constitutional provision that says the president won't boink interns or else he loses his job.
    Sorry, it's not his private life when it's on public property.

    Fault? I'm not saying she's at fault, because I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY DID WAS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS. The fault of the whole scandal was, IMO, those who were going around digging up any salacious dirt they could find. I think Ken Starr is at fault.

    Monica and Bill were mutually consenting partners. She wasn't a victim of sexual harassment, so her relevance to the Jones suit was NIL.

    And again, how does this negate Lott's comments as being sorely inappropriate?
    This has nothing to do with Lott.
    ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
    ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

    Comment

    • #152
      What exactly is "improper sexual conduct"?
      "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed. But they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
      —Orson Welles as Harry Lime

      Comment

      • #153
        Originally posted by MosesPresley
        What exactly is "improper sexual conduct"?
        I think cheating on your wife with an intern comes under that heading, don't you?
        ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
        ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

        Comment

        • #154
          I'm sorry, adultery is not against the law.
          "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed. But they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
          —Orson Welles as Harry Lime

          Comment

          • #155
            Originally posted by MosesPresley
            I'm sorry, adultery is not against the law.
            Are we talking about what is against the law, or what is improper?
            ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
            ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

            Comment

            • #156
              If you are investigating an illegal land deal with a special prosecutor, you better come up with something that is against the law and not something "improper". Don't be a prude. Consensual BJ's in the White House are not against the law. Since it may have been on "company" time, you could dock his pay for the amount of time that both of them were not working.

              "Improper", subjective at best, since many politcians engage in adultery, is not illegal and is not grounds for impeachment, but it worked.
              "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed. But they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
              —Orson Welles as Harry Lime

              Comment

              • #157
                Originally posted by Caligastia
                Nope, that's just what you are reading into it.
                So please explain why you mentioned it all in a thread about Lott. Please make sure it isn't as lame as Lott's rationales.

                So only victorian matrons would consider cheating on your wife with an intern disgraceful? You have a strange set of morals.
                Yeah, because I can distinguish between private and public conduct. How strange, huh?

                It is our business because we are paying him to be president, not get bjs. He has a right to privacy, but not on public property.

                Improper sexual conduct on public property is everyone's business.

                Sorry, it's not his private life when it's on public property.
                Again, crock of ****. So if a reporter were able to secretly get photos of Bush going down on Laura and whatever else they may do sexually, under your logic they could publish those pictures and make it all public since a president doesn't have a right to privacy.

                You look so silly with that buckeled hat and shoes, Cali.

                Nope, just saying he deserved it.
                Matter of opinion, then. I say Lott deserves what he's getting.

                This has nothing to do with Lott.


                This thread is about Lott. So why bring it up? If your comments aren't about Lott, get out of my thread, you threadjacker.
                Tutto nel mondo è burla

                Comment

                • #158
                  Originally posted by MosesPresley
                  If you are investigating an illegal land deal with a special prosecutor, you better come up with something that is against the law and not something "improper". Don't be a prude. Consensual BJ's in the White House are not against the law. Since it may have been on "company" time, you could dock his pay for the amount of time that both of them were not working.

                  "Improper", subjective at best, since many politcians engage in adultery, is not illegal and is not grounds for impeachment, but it worked.
                  It's not illegal, but because I consider it improper, I'm glad he got impeached for lying about it (which is illegal under oath).
                  ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                  ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                  Comment

                  • #159
                    Originally posted by Caligastia


                    It's not illegal, but because I consider it improper, I'm glad he got impeached for lying about it (which is illegal under oath).
                    However, the standard for impeachment is far higher than lying about a blowjob under oath in a civil suit. Ergo it was Congress that disgraced the Constitution by impeaching him for such a trivial matter, as it lowered the bar for impeachment to a ludicrous level.
                    Tutto nel mondo è burla

                    Comment

                    • #160
                      Originally posted by Boris Godunov


                      So please explain why you mentioned it all in a thread about Lott. Please make sure it isn't as lame as Lott's rationales.
                      The thread was getting jacked, so I thought I'd join in..

                      Yeah, because I can distinguish between private and public conduct. How strange, huh?
                      Public property, public property.

                      Again, crock of ****. So if a reporter were able to secretly get photos of Bush going down on Laura and whatever else they may do sexually, under your logic they could publish those pictures and make it all public since a president doesn't have a right to privacy.
                      Strawman alert!

                      Matter of opinion, then. I say Lott deserves what he's getting.
                      Possibly. He certainly should have thought a bit more about what he was saying.


                      This thread is about Lott. So why bring it up? If your comments aren't about Lott, get out of my thread, you threadjacker.
                      Someone mentioned Clinton, so I thought I'd chip in. Sorry for the threadjack. I guess we'd better get back to the original topic, that way you don't have to fight this losing battle any longer.
                      ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                      ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                      Comment

                      • #161
                        The question should never have been asked. The question was irrelevant. What does a private affair have to do with Whitewater? I am still not sure why the question was allowed.

                        [end threadjack] I promise.
                        "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed. But they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
                        —Orson Welles as Harry Lime

                        Comment

                        • #162
                          Originally posted by Boris Godunov


                          However, the standard for impeachment is far higher than lying about a blowjob under oath in a civil suit. Ergo it was Congress that disgraced the Constitution by impeaching him for such a trivial matter, as it lowered the bar for impeachment to a ludicrous level.
                          I don't consider lying and cheating "trivial". Funny that.
                          ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                          ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                          Comment

                          • #163
                            Originally posted by MosesPresley The question should never have been asked. The question was irrelevant. What does a private affair have to do with Whitewater? I am still not sure why the question was allowed.
                            Well, he was stupid to answer it then, wasn't he.
                            ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                            ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                            Comment

                            • #164
                              George Bush the first said "No new taxes". He lied. Should he have been impeached?
                              "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed. But they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
                              —Orson Welles as Harry Lime

                              Comment

                              • #165
                                Originally posted by Caligastia


                                Well, he was stupid to answer it then, wasn't he.
                                Agreed.
                                "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed. But they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
                                —Orson Welles as Harry Lime

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 25 template Next
                                Working...
                                X