Worker's sex diaries too hot for Capitol Hill

[radhak]

congressional aide sacked (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=22&art_id=qw1085560742280U214&set_id=1)

interesting. and i thought DC was a boring place to work in ;)

[virividox]

sheesh as if politics wasnt sleezy enough

[kgarner]

congressional aide sacked (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=22&art_id=qw1085560742280U214&set_id=1)

Should be modified to Congressional aide sacked for being in the sack. Actually now that i see it in print it looks rather lame, but oh well.

[musicpyrite]

Her jauntily written Internet diary includes lurid descriptions of sexual encounters on Capitol Hill and other venues in official Washington

I don't want to start a political flame-war here but could sombody please explain to me why somone who WRITES about having sex gets fired, but sombody (if you know what I'm talking about) who gets accused of having sex isn't fired?


polotics confuse me...

[wdlove]

This kind of thing has been going on for centuries. Those in power never being satisfied. :eek:

[Makosuke]

I don't want to start a political flame-war here but could sombody please explain to me why somone who WRITES about having sex gets fired, but sombody (if you know what I'm talking about) who gets accused of having sex isn't fired?
Well, assuming this story is even true (with some of the hoaxes getting distributed as "news" these days, I'm begining to wonder how many of the legit stories are, let alone lurid fringe stuff like this), if I'm picking up your implications correctly, many people tried very hard to get the person you're thinking of fired for his sexual exploits, though it's a lot easier to dump an aide, especially if she's posting stories about her activity (which, unless prostitution is legal in DC, is also illegal) on the internet, and from a work computer no less.

There's also the possibility, of course, that she got the bag because somebody (or somebodies) that are powerful and having some fun with her were afraid something might slip out. Seems like keeping her on the payroll would be a better strategy, but who knows.

[leftbanke7]

I don't want to start a political flame-war here but could sombody please explain to me why somone who WRITES about having sex gets fired, but sombody (if you know what I'm talking about) who gets accused of having sex isn't fired?


polotics confuse me...

Eh, I think I'd much rather have a dude who lied about staining a dress than a dude lying about the reasoning 800 men & women have stained the ground with their blood. But that's just me.


Flame away.

[jsw]

I don't want to start a political flame-war here but could sombody please explain to me why somone who WRITES about having sex gets fired, but sombody (if you know what I'm talking about) who gets accused of having sex isn't fired?


polotics confuse me...

What confuses me is why we as a nation even care about whether or not someone is having sex and, if so, with whom. Seems like there are more important things - i.e., almost anything - to worry about.

[Mr. Anderson]

I work in DC (not on the Hill, though) and haven't heard anything about this.

Sad really - and at the end of the article she says she wants to get a 'fun' job next.... :rolleyes:

Scary,

D

[musicpyrite]

What confuses me is why we as a nation even care about whether or not someone is having sex and, if so, with whom. Seems like there are more important things - i.e., almost anything - to worry about.

People talk about it becaues it was the ONLY thing on CNN at the time.

What you would you rather hear a story about:

A little boy scout helping an old granny across the street

or

The president sticking his d!ck in every hole he can find


Personally, I'd take the scout.

[zimv20]

could sombody please explain to me why somone who WRITES about having sex gets fired, but sombody (if you know what I'm talking about) who gets accused of having sex isn't fired?

since when is consensual sex a crime?

[numediaman]

Old news: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=856285#post856285

You guys are reading the wrong blogs!

[KingSleaze]

Eh, I think I'd much rather have a dude who lied about staining a dress than a dude lying about the reasoning 800 men & women have stained the ground with their blood. But that's just me.


Flame away.
Do you have proof that he lied about the reason as opposed to not having accurate information, compared to the other gentleman who knew he was lying. And reason for trying to fire him was, if he'd lie about that, what else was he going to lie about? He wound up not getting fired because members of his political party wouldn't see the truth, and voted to protect him.

[Neserk]

Did someone get banned again?

[skunk]

Do you have proof that he lied about the reason as opposed to not having accurate information, compared to the other gentleman who knew he was lying.
Maybe, maybe not. But the unfolding (or should I say unravelling?) of the Iraqi fiasco, proves that his selective use of intelligence was at the very least negligent, and probably incompetent. You don't go and kill ten thousand people on the basis of inaccurate and improperly checked information.

And reason for trying to fire him was, if he'd lie about that, what else was he going to lie about?
If you're going to exclude all liars from the political landscape, you will have a political desert. You PAY these guys to lie for you.

[Neserk]

I doubt there is a person alive who wouldn't lie when they found out they were caught cheating on their spouse, under oath or not.

To be quite honest it wasn't anybody's business! They had no right to ask him what he had done with whom.

[skunk]

Did someone get banned again?
Why, you pining for some juicy links to rabid Republican rags? ;)

[Neserk]

Why, you pining for some juicy links to rabid Republican rags? ;)

LOL. No, we just seemed to have a duplicate poser, I mean poster.

[Desertrat]

Seems like the threshold for the word "scandal" is dropping. Used to be, "scandal" would be some Rep or Sen paying some chippie $50K a year, whether she could type or not, so long as the horizontal recreation factor was to his liking. (Which started the buttons with "I'm not just a pretty face; I can type!") Or Barney Frank's little sweetie-boy bringing "clients" home with him to Barney's house.

But, hey! What's a girl to do when her pay is so low? D.C. is an expensive place to live. She was just following the old routine: "Hey, I'm sittin' on a gold mine! I can sell it and I still got it! Such a deal!"

"Sir, prostitution involves sex and free enterprise. To which do you object?"

:), 'Rat

[Voltron]

Seems like the threshold for the word "scandal" is dropping. Used to be, "scandal" would be some Rep or Sen paying some chippie $50K a year, whether she could type or not, so long as the horizontal recreation factor was to his liking. (Which started the buttons with "I'm not just a pretty face; I can type!") Or Barney Frank's little sweetie-boy bringing "clients" home with him to Barney's house.

But, hey! What's a girl to do when her pay is so low? D.C. is an expensive place to live. She was just following the old routine: "Hey, I'm sittin' on a gold mine! I can sell it and I still got it! Such a deal!"

"Sir, prostitution involves sex and free enterprise. To which do you object?"

:), 'Rat
How is a president suppose to get any poontang if he has to worry about the girl selling her life story afterwards. There use to be honor on the hill, where women would tell their stories 50 or more years afterwards. After all what good is being president if you can't get a little strange from time to time?

[Neserk]

Voltron: lol

[Desertrat]

"Selectivity" is one applicable word. My only bumrap about Clintoon and Moniker was that he was cradle-robbing. Mature skill beats youthful and enthusiastic ignorance every time. Who the heck wants "Insert Tab A into Slot B; repeat as necessary"? And a worthwhile grownup gal doesn't go yakking.

"Two things one does not do in bed: Point, and laugh."

'Rat

[Neserk]

"Selectivity" is one applicable word. My only bumrap about Clintoon and Moniker was that he was cradle-robbing. Mature skill beats youthful and enthusiastic ignorance every time. Who the heck wants "Insert Tab A into Slot B; repeat as necessary"? And a worthwhile grownup gal doesn't go yakking.

"Two things one does not do in bed: Point, and laugh."

'Rat

I had problems with him cheating on his wife. I had problems with him cheating with someone who was not a peer. The second one can be grounds for being fired in certain jobs (professor, police officer, etc.) where one is not to have any kind of sexual relationship with an "inferior" in the sense of rank. However, it was hardly grounds for an impeachment or trial. What a waste of time, energy, and money. :rolleyes:

[Stelliform]

However, it was hardly grounds for an impeachment or trial. What a waste of time, energy, and money. :rolleyes:

If you or I lie under oath then we will be put in jail. It doesn't matter how he got under oath. If he didn't want to lie, just refuse to answer the question. That is perfectly within his rights. Since he committed a felony by lying under oath he should be put in jail. Since everyone agrees that you don't want your elected president in jail, then you have to impeach him. The fact that he lied under oath and got away with it means that the president is above the law. It is a sad and dangerous precedent.

[Neserk]

Of course there is the matter of rather or not he actually lied. The term "sexual relations" is a euphemism for intercourse. He did not have intercourse. So he misled, but technically didn't lie. :D

[Voltron]

Of course there is the matter of rather or not he actually lied. The term "sexual relations" is a euphemism for intercourse. He did not have intercourse. So he misled, but technically didn't lie. :D
Or how about how he redefined the word alone and is. :p

That prosecuting attorney was an idiot. They don't ask questions like that, they know how to ask solid question like ---> "Are you now or have you ever been in any sexual relations with that woman?" But now he said "now" and Clinton took it as "you mean right this minute inside of this courtroom," or in his words after the fact "depends on how you interprete is as."

Bah, Clinton was a looser, but then so was that prosecuting attorney.

[Neserk]

Or how about how he redefined the word alone and is. :p


I missed the whole "is" thing. Can someone please explain? I didn't watch TV during all this so I only got glimpses.


That prosecuting attorney was an idiot. They don't ask questions like that, they know how to ask solid question like ---> "Are you now or have you ever been in any sexual relations with that woman?" But now he said "now" and Clinton took it as "you mean right this minute inside of this courtroom," or in his words after the fact "depends on how you interprete is as."


If I were going to ask I would have asked: Have you had any sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky. And if I were Clinton I would have answered: none of your beeswax :D



Bah, Clinton was a looser, but then so was that prosecuting attorney.


looser? Is that a Freudian slip? ;)

[Stelliform]

Of course there is the matter of rather or not he actually lied. The term "sexual relations" is a euphemism for intercourse. He did not have intercourse. So he misled, but technically didn't lie. :D

Hence the name Slick Willy, which really has a double connotation in this context. ;)

(However he did Mislead enough to get disbarred.)

[Voltron]

He claimed he didn't perjure himself in court because he interpreted "is" as meaning right now, right this minute inside the court room. He also reinterpreted being alone in the oval office with her as not really being alone because he's never really alone there are people in the other office and thus he meant that he included them even tho they weren't in the same office as him.

Clinton talks with fork tongue.

[Neserk]

He claimed he didn't perjure himself in court because he interpreted "is" as meaning right now, right this minute inside the court room.

okay. What was the question and what was the response? After the whole "Al Gore claimed to invent the internet" thing I want more info.

[Voltron]

okay. What was the question and what was the response? After the whole "Al Gore claimed to invent the internet" thing I want more info.
Did he have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Also some other girl who accused him of rape.
Big controversy about how he tried to get her to lie in court for him.
I'm shocked anyone didn't hear or read about it.

[mcfudd]

What is the point of being President of the United States if you cannot abuse your power???

I thought the whole point of running for Congress or President is the fine selection of beautiful interns in Washington. Many of whom are willing to engage in "sexual relations" (whatever the current definition of that is) with powerful lawmakers.

Clinton was just following in the footsteps of JFK and every other leader who has ever held a seat of power in a major civilization.

Rather than lie about it, Clinton should have told all of the self-serving "Gingrich wannabees" to buy some Viagra and shut-up. Female companionship and perjury go together like peas and carrots.

What hypocrisy to impeach a President for enjoying one of the best perks of office. :)

[Neserk]

Did he have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Also some other girl who accused him of rape.
Big controversy about how he tried to get her to lie in court for him.
I'm shocked anyone didn't hear or read about it.

no, no, no. What does the transcripts say?

[Voltron]

no, no, no. What does the transcripts say?
You are as capable as I am of looking that information up.

[Desertrat]

Neserk, I'm pretty straitlaced when it comes to marriage vows and philandering. However, in Clinton's case, philandering is understandable. If I'd ever screwed up and married something like Hillary, I'd either be a suicide or in prison. Lordy! That woman could give a sick bobcat lessons in "mean".

'Rat

[mcfudd]

Neserk, I'm pretty straitlaced when it comes to marriage vows and philandering. However, in Clinton's case, philandering is understandable. If I'd ever screwed up and married something like Hillary, I'd either be a suicide or in prison. Lordy! That woman could give a sick bobcat lessons in "mean".

'Rat

Be careful what you say. This chick will be President in 2008. You watch!

[Sayhey]

Neserk, I'm pretty straitlaced when it comes to marriage vows and philandering. However, in Clinton's case, philandering is understandable. If I'd ever screwed up and married something like Hillary, I'd either be a suicide or in prison. Lordy! That woman could give a sick bobcat lessons in "mean".

'Rat

I've never understood the venom directed toward Hillary. I've never had much sympathy for the First Ladies of the country. Pat Nixon, Lady Bird, Roselyn Carter, Barbara Bush, and worst of all Nancy Reagan, always were rather loathsome individuals in my estimation, but why waste time targeting them for political attacks? My only guess for why people on the right hate Hillary so much is that she has become a symbol of an independent woman for a conservative movement raised on "feminazi" propaganda. Well, I hope that conservative nightmare continues and women like Hillary continue to attain positions of power. Whether or not it is Hillary or someone else, there will be a independent thinking woman who someday wins the Presidency. Might as well get used to it now, 'Rat.

[skunk]

I've never understood the venom directed toward Hillary. I've never had much sympathy for the First Ladies of the country. Pat Nixon, Lady Bird, Roselyn Carter, Barbara Bush, and worst of all Nancy Reagan, always were rather loathsome individuals in my estimation, but why waste time targeting them for political attacks? My only guess for why people on the right hate Hillary so much is that she has become a symbol of an independent woman for a conservative movement raised on "feminazi" propaganda. Well, I hope that conservative nightmare continues and women like Hillary continue to attain positions of power. Whether or not it is Hillary or someone else, there will be a independent thinking woman who someday wins the Presidency. Might as well get used to it now, 'Rat.
You wouldn't believe the personal attacks Margaret Thatcher was subjected to by leftish intellectuals. Really nasty, bitchy stuff. There are an awful lot of unreconstructed people out there. And not just in Terlingua, either... ;)

Pace, 'Rat :rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

You wouldn't believe the personal attacks Margaret Thatcher was subjected to by leftish intellectuals. Really nasty, bitchy stuff. There are an awful lot of unreconstructed people out there. And not just in Terlingua, either... ;)

Pace, 'Rat :rolleyes:

Ah, but the difference is that Maggie was elected. Every Prime Minister or President has to expect that their will be opponents that will get nasty. Hillary got all of this venom without the office. No doubt, some of those lefty intellectuals went after Thatcher in ways that you and I would agree were unjustified, especially since there were soooo many very important things to criticize her about.

Peace to both you and 'Rat ;)

[Desertrat]

Sorry, folks, but my preference has always been for independent and intelligent women. They're a helluva lot more fun to be around, whether in a guy/gal relationship or just beer-drinking buddies. What I despise in any person is meanness. Petty henhouse ways in treatment of others. That woman is just plain mean. She makes Lady Bird look just real gentle, and I and my family have been around the Johnsons since Lyndon first leaned on a shovel on my uncle's highway job in 1933.

Couple that with my opposite views as to political philosophy with La Clinton, and you can write me down as always-opposed.

I don't care if somebody disagrees with my own notions of political philosophy. That's an absolute right. If they are of good heart, I'll work hard at being very mild, courteous and constructive in any criticism. But, mean? Shame on'em.

'Rat

[bella]

"feminazi" - LMAO - TOO FUNNY!! :D

[mactastic]

I don't care if somebody disagrees with my own notions of political philosophy. That's an absolute right. If they are of good heart, I'll work hard at being very mild, courteous and constructive in any criticism. But, mean? Shame on'em.

'Rat

So you're saying Bush is a 'nice guy'? 'Cause his ads don't suggest that, nor do the fates of people who have crossed him.

[Neserk]

I've never understood the venom directed toward Hillary. .

Me either. I've always liked her.

[mactastic]

Couple that with my opposite views as to political philosophy with La Clinton, and you can write me down as always-opposed.


Also, does that mean we can put you down as opposed to an expansion of the US military? Since we can take you at your word and write you down as 'always-opposed' to anything Sen. Clinton thinks?

[Neserk]

You are as capable as I am of looking that information up.


Then how do you know what he actually did and what was said? I wasn't trying to make a point, but it appears that maybe I did. :eek:

[Neserk]

Neserk, I'm pretty straitlaced when it comes to marriage vows and philandering. However, in Clinton's case, philandering is understandable. If I'd ever screwed up and married something like Hillary, I'd either be a suicide or in prison. Lordy! That woman could give a sick bobcat lessons in "mean".

'Rat

You can like or dislike who you want. WHy do you say she is "mean."

[Sayhey]

"feminazi" - LMAO - TOO FUNNY!! :D

I probably shouldn't have brought the term up, but it is what Rush Limbaugh and the "ditto head" fools who listen to him call anyone who believes in the radical notion of the equality of men and women.

As to Hillary, there has been a cottage industry, funded by people like Richard Mellon Scaife, to put out lies and distortions about the Clintons. Unfortunately, if you throw enough mud some of it sticks. It looks like it does for 'Rat anyway. Mean? Compared to Pat Nixon or Nancy Reagan? Not even close.

[Desertrat]

mac, I don't follow your point. There's a lot of stuff that I don't like about the way the Bushies are handling things, as I've sometimes commented. That doesn't mean I gotta "slam" him. I don't particularly like Kerry's views on a lot of stuff, but I don't get all irate about him.

Bush, himself, is not a mean person. He never has been. From the little I know of them, it seems that some of the second echelon advisors--sorry, the names escape me--are indeed on the mean side. IMO, Cheney and Rumsfeld could get mean if opposed.

I don't think Aldrich was lying in his "expose" book with his comments about "Mrs. Two For The Price Of One", although his biases were obvious. The various bits and pieces from time to time from non-Scaife newspaper comments supported Aldrich' view.

Sen. Clinton favors expansion of the military? Hmmm. So now she thinks Slick's drawdown was wrong? I thought the drawdown was wrong; glad she's found righteousness. But, even a blind hog finds the occasional acorn.

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, I don't follow your point. There's a lot of stuff that I don't like about the way the Bushies are handling things, as I've sometimes commented. That doesn't mean I gotta "slam" him. I don't particularly like Kerry's views on a lot of stuff, but I don't get all irate about him.

You've called Kerry's honesty and integrity into question on many an occasion, and yet you want to get on the high horse about 'slamming' people. I seem to recall you calling was it Waxman? a piece of filth or something along those lines, yet when someone from the left criticizes Bush you accuse them of 'slamming' Bush. You say there are legitimate criticisms of 'the Bushies' yet it seems that anyone who voices any of them draws your ire for attacking.

Bush, himself, is not a mean person. He never has been. From the little I know of them, it seems that some of the second echelon advisors--sorry, the names escape me--are indeed on the mean side. IMO, Cheney and Rumsfeld could get mean if opposed.

Now you go around saying Hillary Clinton is 'mean'. That sounds like a 'slam' to me. Somehow you are able to justify saying that Sen. Clinton is 'mean' yet when the same is said about Bush you say that it must be his underlings, and you assure me that Bush himself isn't like that, he just surrounds himself with people who are. Yet Hillary Clinton is definetly the mean one. No surrogates possible there, right? No sir, that's the anti-christ we're talking about huh?

Sen. Clinton favors expansion of the military? Hmmm. So now she thinks Slick's drawdown was wrong? I thought the drawdown was wrong; glad she's found righteousness. But, even a blind hog finds the occasional acorn.

:), 'Rat

You just can't even bring yourself to admit she's on the same side of an issue as you are without saying it must be dumb luck on her part. No possibility of an opinion of her own? Or is wanting to relieve the strain on our military 'mean' now?

[Voltron]

Then how do you know what he actually did and what was said? I wasn't trying to make a point, but it appears that maybe I did. :eek:
I don't keep everything I run accross as links on an internet. There is way too much information to bother doing so. So your point is moot.

[Neserk]

I don't keep everything I run accross as links on an internet. There is way too much information to bother doing so. So your point is moot.


How is my point debatable? :confused:

[zimv20]

How is my point debatable? :confused:
the problem:

1. sly makes assertion A
2. you ask for source of assertion A
3. sly proclaims citing sources is too hard
4. sly declares your request irrelevent
5. nothing is solved or proven
6. no exchange of ideas has occurred
7. the signal to noise ratio has decreased
8. sly moves on to assertion B

the solution:

1. the ignore feature

[Voltron]

the problem:

1. sly makes assertion A
2. you ask for source of assertion A
3. sly proclaims citing sources is too hard
4. sly declares your request irrelevent
5. nothing is solved or proven
6. no exchange of ideas has occurred
7. the signal to noise ratio has decreased
8. sly moves on to assertion B

the solution:

1. the ignore feature
Dude several people on this forum if they wanted to could recall the court hearing where Clinton lied under oath. Its not something worth arguing about because its not something whose validity is in doubt by anyone who bothers to keep track of this stuff. So why are we arguing about whether or not Clinton lied under oath when it is a fact. Why do I have to come up with proof when you already know it is a fact. I am not going to prove every freaken thing to every freaken person just because they didn't read earlier posts where such links were posted. This merry go around of having to review stuff over and over again is bull. I am not going to retain every stinkin little link just so I can prove to someone who either don't remember previous posts or wasn't around for previous post that it is true. Especially not undisputed facts that Clinton lied under oath.

Besides other than what they televised why do you think I would have my hands on the loussy court documents. Why should I go thru the work and effort to gather thse court documents about such a minor minute point that doesn't really matter in the overall scope of things. This is what you call a red hering. His testimony was broadcasted over live tv. If you did not watch it don't expect me to do your homework for you. Especially about somethign that is a really minor part of the conversation.

[Voltron]

What is the point of being President of the United States if you cannot abuse your power???

I thought the whole point of running for Congress or President is the fine selection of beautiful interns in Washington. Many of whom are willing to engage in "sexual relations" (whatever the current definition of that is) with powerful lawmakers.

Clinton was just following in the footsteps of JFK and every other leader who has ever held a seat of power in a major civilization.

Rather than lie about it, Clinton should have told all of the self-serving "Gingrich wannabees" to buy some Viagra and shut-up. Female companionship and perjury go together like peas and carrots.

What hypocrisy to impeach a President for enjoying one of the best perks of office. :)
Why don't you demand that Mcfudd come up with transcripts?
don't bug me about such piddly crap look it up yourself.

[Neserk]

1. the ignore feature

But I usually enjoy talking with him. We just got stuck on this one detail.

[Neserk]

Why don't you demand that Mcfudd come up with transcripts?
don't bug me about such piddly crap look it up yourself.

No need to get testy. I *thought* we were having a conversation. I asked a general question for what was said, you shared. I didn't want a summary, I wanted verbatim. Then you got all pissy with me.

[Voltron]

here a google search you could've done yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=clinton+sex+scandal
Clinton lieing under oath is common knowledge I am not going to waste time proving common knowledge for every body who want proof every single time they want the proof. Too big of a pain.

If you are bored here is Starr's report and other transcripts.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/factindex.htm
The fact that Clinton committed perjury is not in doubt.
The fact that I came up with a link is immaterials because now someone will brush it under the table is if oh well doesn't really matter anyhow. And if it didn't really matter anyhow why did folks insist I get the material in the first freaken place. It is not my job to gather crap for you, I do not work for YOU. I am not going to waste my time finding stuff everyone already knows to be true. If you want further elaboration about stuff do your own damn work.

[Neserk]

here a google search you could've done yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=clinton+sex+scandal
Clinton lieing under oath is common knowledge I am not going to waste time proving common knowledge for every body who want proof every single time they want the proof. Too big of a pain.

Did you look at your results?

[Voltron]

Did you look at your results?
yeah allot of those links were joke sites.
The point is it is not my job to go thru all these sites to find the one or two that are worth posting just to prove something to you that is already general knowledge. You want the proof you go find it yourself. Clinton lied about having sexual relations in a court of law and then tried to pass it off via excusses. He was helped with a bad prosecuting attorney who asked bad questions. Now knowing this is 100% true what does it matter? It doesn't it is only a small part of the conversation at large and thus why are people trying to make moutain out of it?

[Voltron]

No need to get testy. I *thought* we were having a conversation. I asked a general question for what was said, you shared. I didn't want a summary, I wanted verbatim. Then you got all pissy with me.
Sorry it isn't you I got testy with but Zimv20's comments like everything I say isn't true unless I have a link to a left wing liberal web site that says it is true. That is complete bull.
Neserk you didn't upset me he did.

I don't have a link to the court transcripts, other than that starr report crap which I didn't read completly either tho it might have it. And I dont' have the time to go researching on the link especially knowing that it may take me hours to find and you minutes to read and think about it. Just isn't worth the effort to me.

[Neserk]

I looked. I did several searches including: "What is is" + Clinton +lewinsky; Clinton +transcripts +testimony +lewinsky, etc. I can't find any quotes related to "what is is" so at this point I'll put it in the "who knows" pile and not the true fact file.

[Neserk]

Neserk you didn't upset me he did.

I don't have a link to the court transcripts, other than that starr report crap which I didn't read completly either tho it might have it. And I dont' have the time to go researching on the link especially knowing that it may take me hours to find and you minutes to read and think about it. Just isn't worth the effort to me.

not a problem. See above.

[Neserk]

yeah allot of those links were joke sites.
The point is it is not my job to go thru all these sites to find the one or two that are worth posting just to prove something to you that is already general knowledge. You want the proof you go find it yourself. Clinton lied about having sexual relations in a court of law and then tried to pass it off via excusses. He was helped with a bad prosecuting attorney who asked bad questions. Now knowing this is 100% true what does it matter? It doesn't it is only a small part of the conversation at large and thus why are people trying to make moutain out of it?


I guess my point is that Gore supposedly claimed he invented the internet -- that was also "common knowledge" as are many untrue things. Until I can see the transcripts I can't make a judgement on what Clinton said and what he meant from context.

[Voltron]

I looked. I did several searches including: "What is is" + Clinton +lewinsky; Clinton +transcripts +testimony +lewinsky, etc. I can't find any quotes related to "what is is" so at this point I'll put it in the "who knows" pile and not the true fact file.
Clinton Swore on TV he did not have sex with Lewinsky.
That ugly broad I forget her name swore under oath that he did and it about ruined her career but she managed to get plastic surgery and turn it into a plus.
During some rape trial as reported on tv Clinton swore under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky. He also swore he was never alone with here.

Later under oath with Starr he stated that he didn't consider oral sex or playing with cigars as being sexual relations. He also stated that when he said he wasn't alone with her it was because other people were in the building and didn't bother to elaborate oh you mean alone in the office. He tried to twist words around to make it look like he didn't lie under oath and used another excuss that "he wasn't going to do the prosecutors job for him." This was big news back then and Zimv20 knows it was big news and knows I wasn't lieing about it.

[Voltron]

I guess my point is that Gore supposedly claimed he invented the internet -- that was also "common knowledge" as are many untrue things. Until I can see the transcripts I can't make a judgement on what Clinton said and what he meant from context.
that wasn't under oath, and everryone knows what he meant when he said it but it was funny to quote him literally. It is true Gore said he was "responsible for the creation of the internet." Same as it was true that Kerry said "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."

Everyone knew Gore meant that he was part of the legislation process that updated regulations for the use of the internet and helped formed the way it is today. Course he tried to make it look like he was a controlling factor when he was only a peon in the process. In both of these cases they need to fire their speach writers. Same as making fun of how Dukakis spells potatoe. Its funny and thats why they, and I bring it up.

Clinton on the other hand made his statements under oath in a court of law. Kind of different.

[Voltron]

I looked. I did several searches including: "What is is" + Clinton +lewinsky; Clinton +transcripts +testimony +lewinsky, etc. I can't find any quotes related to "what is is" so at this point I'll put it in the "who knows" pile and not the true fact file.
Clinton said the quote depends on what is is on the starr report. that link I put up has it. That wasn't in court of law.

ie Clinton was asked question about are you now having a sexual relationship with Monika Lewinsky. ---> A badly formed question by an idiot prosecutor.

He answered no.

When he was asked if he lied about it during Starr's interview of him, which is on that transcripts he stated that he didn't want to do the prosecutors job for him, he wasn't having sexual relationship with her in the court room, or for that matter currently because it was a past thing, he didn't consider oral sex or playing with cigars as sexual relations, and the quote it all depends on how you define is as. notice no quote marks because I'm typing this from memmory as I watched it proceed on TV they reported his entire testimony on tv back then and I watched most of it.

[mcfudd]

Sorry it isn't you I got testy with but Zimv20's comments like everything I say isn't true unless I have a link to a left wing liberal web site that says it is true. That is complete bull.
Neserk you didn't upset me he did.

I don't have a link to the court transcripts, other than that starr report crap which I didn't read completly either tho it might have it. And I dont' have the time to go researching on the link especially knowing that it may take me hours to find and you minutes to read and think about it. Just isn't worth the effort to me.

You want Lewinsky proof ---- YOU GOT IT BABY!!!!!

Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/)
April 12, 1999
Web posted at: 7:24 p.m. EDT (2324 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) -- U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition. :D

[zimv20]

sly -

neserk asked for clinton's testimony, in transcript form. no one asked you to prove he was lying. nice straw man you destroyed there.

i'm a big fan of fresh air.

[Voltron]

sly -

neserk asked for clinton's testimony, in transcript form. no one asked you to prove he was lying. nice straw man you destroyed there.

i'm a big fan of fresh air.
and I told her she could as easily look up the information herself as I could.

Then you got on there implying I was lieing since I was unwilling to take the time and get the transcript for her. And suggested she put me on the ignore list.

the problem:

1. sly makes assertion A
2. you ask for source of assertion A
3. sly proclaims citing sources is too hard
4. sly declares your request irrelevent
5. nothing is solved or proven
6. no exchange of ideas has occurred
7. the signal to noise ratio has decreased
8. sly moves on to assertion B

the solution:

1. the ignore feature

[blackfox]

Same as making fun of how Dukakis spells potatoe.

If memory serves, I believe it was VP Quale{sp?} that you are speaking of...or two similar instances...
As far as this whole argument about Clinton/Bush, what is trying to be accomplished?

Yes, Clinton probably did something illegal and escaped punishment for it...and the media was all over him like white-on-rice at the time, but now we have a new President and bigger fish to fry...
Bush has also probably done some illegal things, and they are arguably more serious and definitely more expensive than Clinton indiscretions...but why compare them? Does Bush deserve to be let off the hook because Clinton managed to? Where is the logic in that? Yes, the media is all over Bush now, but he deserves it, as did Clinton in his time...why does it always have to be a partisan argument?
You are welcome to defend Bush, if you feel it is warranted, but not with irrelevant comparisons. As far as your complaint with only "left-wing" sources cutting the mustard in this forum, you have to bear in mind that in relation to far-right souces, everything is left-wing. When many credible sources are saying the same thing, and yours is not, you might have to wonder how credible your sources might be, instead of retreating to a left-wing bias/conspiracy sort of thing...

[Sayhey]

But I usually enjoy talking with him.

Neserk, you've got to work on those masochistic tendencies! ;)