Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by radhak, May 26, 2004.
congressional aide sacked
interesting. and i thought DC was a boring place to work in
sheesh as if politics wasnt sleezy enough
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.
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...
This kind of thing has been going on for centuries. Those in power never being satisfied.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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
The president sticking his d!ck in every hole he can find
Personally, I'd take the scout.
since when is consensual sex a crime?
Old news: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=856285#post856285
You guys are reading the wrong blogs!
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.
Did someone get banned again?
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.
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.
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.
Why, you pining for some juicy links to rabid Republican rags?
LOL. No, we just seemed to have a duplicate poser, I mean poster.
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?"
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?
"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."
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.
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.
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.