patrick.net

FDR did not damage this country.

Sure he did the amount of hubris filled legislature that kept this country down for 10 years when it did not need to be is without compare.

LBJ escalated the Vietnam War, and that was bad,

LBJ's war spending is what pushed Nixon into taking us off of the gold standard. The other big thing he did that damaged the country was passing medicare.

Obama has done more evil than Nixon

No because taking us off of the gold standard will probably end this country.

Why don't you think O is a liberal? (modern definition)

In any case, your backhanded attempt to appear to be criticizing Nixon while really criticizing Democratic presidents has failed.

Says who?

You are extremely economically illiterate.

69 CDon 2014 Jul 11, 6:03am

indigenous says

Yea I think McCain did that as well, but they were not the President.

That has nothing to do with Clinton's affair being illegal or unethical. Nothing Clinton did was illegal and he did not perjure.

Again - did you read my response to you on this specific point earlier? How do you conclude that he "did not perjure"?

70

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:08am

Everything the republican politicians did were far more unethical and morally despicable than what Clinton did.

Name them

And as for presidents, the atrocities committed by the Bush administration were many orders of magnitude more grotesque and offensive than anything Clinton ever did.

Agreed

71

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:09am

Personally, I think they should have pushed the executive privilege aspect of this case so as to exclude the testimony from congressional review

Personally, I think Clinton should have used the military to execute all the Republicans trying to topple our republic. Had the Republicans not diverted time and resources away from Clinton's Middle East policy, Al Qaeda could have been weakened and 9/11 would have never had happened.

The bottom line is that these Republicans attacking Clinton on bullshit charges for their own personal political gain, alter the course of history that ultimately led to 9/11. So, it's far more reasonable to impeach those Republicans.

72

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:11am

After all, I promote the human rights of gays, and small minded conservatives just can't understand the concept of supporting the rights of persons in groups to which you do not belong. Conservatives only care about themselves and thus cannot grasp the concept of empathy and why a human being would be motivated to help out "an outsider" who belongs to a different tribe, religion, race, class, sexual orientation, or nation.

Yet it is ok for you to say: ?

When that happens, you don't want to be the guy who say, "What are you talking about? I wish I had a dick that big!".

Well, indigenous, you are that guy.

73

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:13am

I know it is hard for you libs to wrap your wits around this idea of integrity, but it IS disrespecting the country.

The lack of integrity is exactly what the Republicans demonstrated by using Congressional hearings for backhanded political manipulation and for attempting to create a sex scandal while hypocritically practicing far worse sexual acts and affairs.

Also, lying about WMDs and connections between Iraq and 9/11 shows a complete lack of integrity.

Also, undermining the Constitution for security theater shows a complete lack of integrity.

Also, polluting the Earth to increase quarterly profits shows a complete lack of integrity.

Also, shutting down the government because you didn't get your way on a health care bill shows a complete lack of integrity.

Also, sabotaging the recovery to make the president look bad shows a complete lack of integrity.

Also, trying to insult a man by calling him gay shows a complete lack of integrity.

74 CDon 2014 Jul 11, 6:14am

There is nothing in that record that gives a specific definition of sexual relations or shows any kind of meeting of the minds. The record does not even use the terms "oral sex" or "fellatio", so how can the record define sexual relations to be those things?

Again, from the specific definition I sent you earlier:

"Definition of Sexual Relations" to the court: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -
(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
(3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Bob Bennett and the President specifically stipulated to this in prior interrogatories - the court took judicial notice of the same.

75

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:14am

Not only can we, but the law demands it. If a business fires a person for having an extramarital affair, that business is liable for discrimination.

Real life doesn't work that way.

Killing 9/11 responders by filibustering a bill needed to save their lives is way the fuck more immoral than getting a blow job from a woman who's not your wife while you are married. It's not even the same ballpark.

What is the rest of the story?

76

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:15am

Dan8267 says

Lying to Congress and the American people about the NSA violating the 4th Amendment is disrespecting the country.

At the end of the day it is not all that important

Wow, that shows a complete lack of integrity and is disrespectful to the country.

77

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:20am

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/i58xmo/worst-responders

Dan8267 says

Blocking a bill to pay for 9/11 responders' medical treatment thus causing those heroes to die is disrespecting the country.

Cite the references.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/nuwe6u/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster

And if you don't have the balls to watch these two videos, you're a scumbag. The second one interviews actual 9/11 responders who were affected by the filibuster, the real heroes.

78

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:23am

http://www.youtube.com/embed/o32tF-S6K60

Dan8267 says

Passing voter ID laws who sole intent and effect is to prevent legitimate voters from voting is disrespecting the country.

Bull Shit prove it.

I've done this many times on this site. Here's one of a hundred videos showing the truth.

79

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:23am

The lack of integrity is exactly what the Republicans demonstrated by using Congressional hearings for backhanded political manipulation and for attempting to create a sex scandal while hypocritically practicing far worse sexual acts and affairs.

So it would be better not have any rules or laws? Especially for the leader of the US?

Also, lying about WMDs and connections between Iraq and 9/11 shows a complete lack of integrity.

Getting good information in war is notoriously hard and inaccurate. Not that I'm defending more lack of integrity.

Also, undermining the Constitution for security theater shows a complete lack of integrity.

SOP in times of war

Also, polluting the Earth to increase quarterly profits shows a complete lack of integrity.

Cut the conjecture examples.

Also, shutting down the government because you didn't get your way on a health care bill shows a complete lack of integrity.

What because they didn't vote on the sequester fast enough for you, fuck off.

Also, sabotaging the recovery to make the president look bad shows a complete lack of integrity.

More conjecture examples

Also, trying to insult a man by calling him gay shows a complete lack of integrity.

That is a two street.

Gawd you are a mouth piece for the democrats. Talking to you is a Waste of time. You are completly economically illiterate, glib, and close minded. It does not matter because this country is not long for this world.

80

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:26am

Dan8267 says

Spreading massive lies about everything on a propaganda network masquerading as a news network is disrespecting the country.

So you mean ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, MSNBC, Public television?

No, I mean Fox News. None of the sources you state lie. Fox News lies every day and is caught every day lying.

Just because you don't like Sesame Street doesn't make Kermit the Frog a liar.

Dan8267 says

Polluting our once great natural resources is disrespecting the country.

Ambiguous, many instances of this, generally it gets cleaned up.

Another example of an actual lie told by someone who lacks integrity and that harms and disrespects our country. Oh, the hypocrisy of the political right.

81

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:27am

varmint says

Just because you're a republican doesn't mean you have to believe everything Rush tells you.

Actually, today it does. Otherwise you get excommunicated by the Republican leadership.

82

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:29am

I've done this many times on this site. Here's one of a hundred videos showing the truth.

That is more conjecture.

My Uncle Buck was a staunch conservative who voted Republican every year until he died that year in Chicago, since then he has voted Democrat.

83

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:31am

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OY3mWJ1Cd0Y

Dan8267 says

Preventing the state from vaginally raping women who want abortions

So this was a big problem?

Pretty much sums up the Republican philosophy on women. Raping them ain't a big problem.

Yes, he really did just say that. And that's the real face of conservatives.

84

Strategist 2014 Jul 11, 6:33am

Again, from the specific definition I sent you earlier:

"Definition of Sexual Relations" to the court: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -

(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

(2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or

(3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

His penis did not jump into her mouth by mistake. Obviously sexual.
That's OK Bill, I forgive you.

85

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:34am

Again - did you read my response to you on this specific point earlier? How do you conclude that he "did not perjure"?

When I go through the thread, I do so chronologically.

I've responded to your post that reference the testimony.

86

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 6:39am

His penis did not jump into her mouth by mistake. Obviously sexual.

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not Clinton committed perjury. In order to make that case, you have to prove that Clinton's interpretation was unreasonable, i.e. no reasonable person would have interpret the term "sexual relations" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Otherwise, it's not perjury.

The prosecution could have easily asked a follow up question to clarify what they meant if they got a response that contradicted what they believed to be the truth. They didn't because the whole hearing was a political setup. The prosecution was not interested in criminal behavior or upholding the law. The prosecution was interested in manipulating public opinion of the president. And 9/11 is the price we paid for distracting the country during a critical time when we were making progress in the Middle East. I say prosecute all those who misused our government for personal gain.

87 CDon 2014 Jul 11, 6:40am

I've responded to your post that reference the testimony.

But you did not respond to the specific agreed upon definition of "Sexual Relations" which brought about the charge of perjury. Again:

"Definition of Sexual Relations" to the court: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -

(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

(2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or

(3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Given this agreed upon definition, how do you conclude he did not commit perjury?

88

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:41am

And if you don't have the balls to watch these two videos, you're a scumbag. The second one interviews actual 9/11 responders who were affected by the filibuster, the real heroes.

Yea yea , like Stewart is unbiased, what the fuck is the rest of the story.
It is not like these union members are destitute with out the help.

My brother is a retired fireman. Like all good public employees they go out on disability to further enhance their retirement benefits, like not getting taxed on pensions received. Of course the disability claim is as dubious as can be.

89

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:43am

No, I mean Fox News. None of the sources you state lie. Fox News lies every day and is caught every day lying.

Are you really that blind, gawd.

Another example of an actual lie told by someone who lacks integrity and that harms and disrespects our country. Oh, the hypocrisy of the political right.

The examples please...

90 CDon 2014 Jul 11, 6:43am

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not Clinton committed perjury. In order to make that case, you have to prove that Clinton's interpretation was unreasonable, i.e. no reasonable person would have interpret the term "sexual relations" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Otherwise, it's not perjury.

And again Dan, that is just wrong. The two parties agreed upon the definition of "sexual relations", and per that agreed upon definition, he perjured himself.

91

indigenous 2014 Jul 11, 6:44am

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Preventing the state from vaginally raping women who want abortions

So this was a big problem?

Pretty much sums up the Republican philosophy on women. Raping them ain't a big problem.

No dumb ass read your own comment

92

Strategist 2014 Jul 11, 6:45am

Strategist says

His penis did not jump into her mouth by mistake. Obviously sexual.

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not Clinton committed perjury. In order to make that case, you have to prove that Clinton's interpretation was unreasonable, i.e. no reasonable person would have interpret the term "sexual relations" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Otherwise, it's not perjury.

He did not state the "whole truth" isn't that what he was supposed to do?

The prosecution could have easily asked a follow up question to clarify what they meant if they got a response that contradicted what they believed to be the truth. They didn't because the whole hearing was a political setup. The prosecution was not interested in criminal behavior or upholding the law. The prosecution was interested in manipulating public opinion of the president.

I would even go further then that. They were only interested in humiliating a popular President with an awesome track record. They could not bear his success and decided to try and bring him down this way, but the public did not buy.

93 CDon 2014 Jul 11, 7:03am

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

His penis did not jump into her mouth by mistake. Obviously sexual.

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not Clinton committed perjury. In order to make that case, you have to prove that Clinton's interpretation was unreasonable, i.e. no reasonable person would have interpret the term "sexual relations" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Otherwise, it's not perjury.

He did not state the "whole truth" isn't that what he was supposed to do?

More than that, he consciously and deliberately decided in that moment to lie under oath. When the question came up, Bennet screwed up by objecting, so as to cause the Judge to have the agreed upon definition handed to the President. He looked at it, and then immediately thereafter lied under oath. I was in lawschool when this was going on - and we discussed it at length in Civil Procedure.

I would even go further then that. They were only interested in humiliating a popular President with an awesome track record. They could not bear his success and decided to try and bring him down this way, but the public did not buy.

Agree. There are about 100 different ways you can defend Clinton and I have no problem with any of them, but please for the love of god, don't claim that he didn't perjure himself when it is even to this day a textbook example of perjury.

94

Strategist 2014 Jul 11, 7:19am

Agree. There are about 100 different ways you can defend Clinton and I have no problem with any of them, but please for the love of god, don't claim that he didn't perjure himself when it is even to this day a textbook example of perjury.

I believe he was disbarred and can't practice law anymore. Was it for perjury? If so, then that settles it.

95 corntrollio 2014 Jul 11, 7:33am

Agree. There are about 100 different ways you can defend Clinton and I have no problem with any of them, but please for the love of god, don't claim that he didn't perjure himself when it is even to this day a textbook example of perjury.

What's odd is that Congress chose to impeach him not regarding his deposition in the Jones trial, but on the grand jury testimony. If the Jones testimony was really "textbook," you'd think they would have done the reverse (that's what she said?).

96

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 9:49am

Given this agreed upon definition, how do you conclude he did not commit perjury?

Because I have no reason to believe it was "agreed upon". You are asserting that. The Washington Post article you are citing says

Editor's Note: The Jones legal team submitted the following "Definition of Sexual Relations" to the court

Submitting a definition does not imply that both parties agreed to this or that Clinton had this definition in mind at the time he answered the prosecution's question. First off, Bill Clinton is a human being, not a computer, so it is quite reasonable that during a cross-examination, especially a hostile one, he would not have a perfect memory of the definition submitted by the Jones team, and that's assuming he even agreed to their definitions anyway.

Now had the prosecution actually recited the definition to Clinton before asking their question and said, "Given that definition, did you have sexual relations with Lewinsky", then you'd have a point. However, they didn't.

You are still assuming that Clinton had that particular definition in mind when he answered the question. I don't see how that assumption is reasonable under even the best circumstances. Fuck, I just read the definition and I don't even remember all the shit it includes. Imagine being in front of Congress for hours and then being grilled on extremely personal issues and still being able to remember exactly how some lawyer defined some term. That's ridiculous.

I'd use the common definitions of words if under those circumstances. And if the lawyers can't clearly communicate exactly what they are asking in terms that a layman can understand, it's their fault.

You still haven't shown me any evidence that Clinton deliberately misinterpreted their question as opposed to simply answering what a reasonable person would think they have asked.

In contrast, we know for certainty that James Clapper committed perjury. What you need to do is show a smoking gun that's as clear as in the Clapper case. You haven't done that.

Not to mention, this whole damn issue is mute. The perjury by government officials like Clapper are going unpunished and that perjury actually matters. What sex acts Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky consensually did to each other in private is not relevant to any government business whatsoever. Hell, Congress should never even had the authority to call Clinton up on his personal sex life. That abuse of power should have been prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law.

Meanwhile, James Clapper is getting away with perjury and undermining our legal system. Where the flying fuck is the outrage over that?

97

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 9:52am

By the way, even if Clinton had lie -- which he didn't -- it would not be perjury.

From the Clapper article

As a matter of federal law, a witness commits perjury if he knowingly makes a false material statement under oath. The materiality requirement is intended to eliminate so-called â€œperjury traps,â€ in which a witness is asked a question for no other reason than to try to get him to perjure himself.

And the prosecution was painfully obviously trying to get Clinton in a perjury trap.

98 corntrollio 2014 Jul 11, 10:07am

(2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or

(3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

This is not a very good legal definition. If you knee someone in the dick as a defensive measure, you can be construed to have had sexual relations with them. Similarly, if someone touches you in the junk, it's intentional touching by them, but not by you. In addition, usually you use the modifier that's in #1 in the definition, "with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person," or something similar in these sorts of definitions.

(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

However, #1 doesn't quite work either as a good legal definition. If you jack off to a person (who's not even in the room), have you had sexual relations with them? Unclear.

Seems like they may have been trying to cover threesomes too (e.g. touching one person's junk to turn on a third person would still be "any person"), but they went overboard. For example, if two people groped each other in front of you with an intent to turn you on, have they engaged in sexual relations with you?

99

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 10:13am

Yea yea , like Stewart is unbiased, what the fuck is the rest of the story.

Your opinion on Stewart is irrelevant. It does not change the facts that you have just chosen to ignore. You wanted proof that the scumbag Republicans murdered 9/11 responders by filibustering a bill that would have provided the necessary medical care to save their lives from disease they got responding to the terrorist attack. I gave you unassailable proof of that. Now you are trying to change the subject.

It is not like these union members are destitute with out the help.

You are a fucking asshole. To say such a thing about the dying heroes of 9/11 is just utterly despicable and disrespectful to the country.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/w7EvBxRYNME

Dan8267 says

No, I mean Fox News. None of the sources you state lie. Fox News lies every day and is caught every day lying.

Are you really that blind, gawd.

Do you really think that in this day of everything being recorded that it would be at all difficult to show examples of Fox's lying and manipulating their audience? Are you really that stupid?

Of course, no matter how many examples I give you, you'll pull some bullshit excuse out of your ass to defend Fox's lies.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Polluting our once great natural resources is disrespecting the country.

Ambiguous, many instances of this, generally it gets cleaned up.

Another example of an actual lie told by someone who lacks integrity and that harms and disrespects our country. Oh, the hypocrisy of the political right.

Mercury pollution from coal power plants
25 Years After Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Recovery Plan Still Needed
The BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico
which by the way Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, committed felonies by destroying evidence
Big Farm pollution
Pesticide pollution

The examples please...

You honestly need examples of pollution that hasn't been cleaned up?

Hell, I could give a thousand more examples. I need to start charging you for them.

And all of these things are reasons to never vote Republican since that party is pro-pollution.

100

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 10:16am

The two parties agreed upon the definition of "sexual relations"

Show me that. Specifically show me the part that says Clinton read the definition and was fully aware of it during the questioning.

You are ignoring everything I've said and just restating the same thing over and over. Well, I've responded to that clearly and concisely. Until you meet me halfway by actually responding to my criticisms of your assertion, you're going to convince me that your assertion is correct. You have to address my specific objections to that assertion and you haven't even tried.

101

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 10:18am

He did not state the "whole truth" isn't that what he was supposed to do?

The term the whole truth does not mean that one has to volunteer irrelevant information to the other side just so that a sex scandal can be created. Sure, that's all the other side wanted, but that's not what the law is about.

Our court system is not supposed to be used for political games. Doing so is an abuse of power, unethical, and indicative of a party that should not be in power.

102 Philistine 2014 Jul 11, 10:19am

the part that says Clinton read the definition and was fully aware of it during the questioning.

I think the crux of this squabble is if it's too precious an assertion that "sexual relations" couldn't possibly refer to any kind of relation which is sexual outside of the ol' hot beef injection.

Some people classify any activity with sexual reproductive areas as "sexual relations". Other people (apparently) only classify one kind of activity as such. Either way, though, his willy was slick. . . .

103

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 10:20am

don't claim that he didn't perjure himself when it is even to this day a textbook example of perjury.

Actually, it's a textbook example of a perjury trap, which does not constitute perjury.

If you want a textbook example of perjury, it's James Clapper.

104 corntrollio 2014 Jul 11, 10:23am

Philistine says

outside of the ol' hot beef injection.

Urban Dictionary says that there's no precise definition for that. Some definitions suggest intercourse, while others suggest other orifices are fine (including ears!).

105

Dan8267 2014 Jul 11, 10:24am