patrick.net

CDon says

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?).

CDon says

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?

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 “perjury traps,” 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.

CDon says

(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.

CDon says

(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?

indigenous says

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.

indigenous says

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.

indigenous says

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?

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

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

indigenous says

The examples please...

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

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

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.

CDon says

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.

Strategist says

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.

Dan8267 says

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. . . .

CDon says

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.

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!).

Strategist says

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

Hardly. Clinton can legally practice law. He doesn't because he's an ex-president who's rich, so why the hell would he?

Clinton was only banned from arguing cases as a lawyer at the Supreme Court, and that judgement was purely political like almost everything the Supreme Court does.

The fact that he wasn't barred from practicing law in general just supports the case that the perjury accusations are bullshit.

Philistine says

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.

When making an accusation of perjury, one must show that the alleged perjure willfully making a statement he understood to be false. A miscommunication between the questioner and the witness does not constitute "a statement understood to be false". So if Clinton thought the term "sexual relations" even might mean "sexual intercourse" than he did not perjure, plain and simple.

Furthermore, by the jury trap principle, if the prosecution asked Clinton the question for the purpose of forcing him to commit perjury or become engaged in a sex scandal, then it's still not perjury according to the law. And we know this is exactly the case.

The fact is that the only people who called for Clinton to be impeached are the same people who called for Obama to be impeached under bullshit reasons. They are simply trying to abuse the legal system for political gain. That should not be tolerated, and that is why I'm defending Clinton against these lies.

Hell, Clinton only looks like a good president in contrast to the two vile scumbags we had since him. I considered him a mediocre president, but he's really irrelevant to this subject.

The fact is that we the people cannot tolerate scumbag Republicans abusing Congress or the courts for creating political witchhunts. In every country that this was tolerated, a tyrant rose to power and committed atrocities against his people. The Republicans are playing the same games that Vladimir Putin plays.

So it's not about protecting Bill Clinton. It's about protecting us.

Dan8267 says

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.

The fuck you did. And you did not answer the question... typical. You are a chattie cathy doll.

Dan8267 says

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.

You are a fucking asshole for endorsing public union members for stealing hard earned dollars from the taxpayer. Who are well taken of no matter what the outcome is. I might add that they have greatly contributed to the demise of this country. Spare me the propaganda, like I said my brother is retired fireman I know all the bullshit.

Dan8267 says

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?

Fox news verses ABC,NBC,CBS,NPR,MSNBC, Public TV. Yea that makes sense. You are saying only Fox lies? Meanwhile you spew Stewarts horse shit that is as manipulated as it gets. Schiff talked about doing 4 hr of video so this disingenuous asshole could put together a few minutes of out of context propaganda. He is an entertainer if you consider him to be anything else you are a dumb ass.

As to your endless disasters, the alternative would be to do without oil, or at least not make them drill many thousands of feet down, do without cheap agricultural products. Or let the technology evolve.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

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.

The fuck you did. And you did not answer the question... typical. You are a chattie cathy doll.

Bitch all you want. The videos show exactly what the Republicans did and it shows the effects of their action on the 9/11 first responders. The bottom line is that the Republicans literally killed 9/11 first responders by filibustering a bill that would have saved their lives by paying for essential medical treatment for the illness they got from all the toxins they were exposed to while saving lives.

The videos speak for themselves. I have given concrete evidence while you offer none and simply lie. That's disrespectful to the 9/11 heroes, their families, New York City, and America.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

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.

You are a fucking asshole for endorsing public union members for stealing hard earned dollars from the taxpayer. Who are well taken of no matter what the outcome is. I might add that they have greatly contributed to the demise of this country. Spare me the propaganda, like I said my brother is retired fireman I know all the bullshit.

Is your brother a 9/11 first responder whose nose literally fell off? I doubt it. You don't know jack.

And to equate having our nation pay for medical treatment to the men who risked their lives saving others on 9/11 and then got terminal diseases with "stealing taxpayer dollars" just shows how despicable you and other conservatives are.

It's bad enough Republicans filibustered the bill for purely political gain, but for you conservatives to support them when some of these heroes died as a result is utter inexcusable.

Your posts illustrate why no one should ever vote Republican again.

indigenous says

You are saying only Fox lies?

Yes.

indigenous says

Meanwhile you spew Stewarts horse shit that is as manipulated as it gets.

Conservatives constantly assert things like the above because they have no real arguments against what is shown on The Daily Show.

Just take a look at the two videos I posted and tell me if there are any untruths in them. Here's the links again.

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

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

Does anyone believe the interview with the 9/11 first responders was "fake" in any way? Does anyone believe that those responders were lying?

Only a conservative would be so despicable as to watch that video and call the 9/11 responders the bad guys out to steal money and defraud the government.

corntrollio says

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!).

I wouldn't be implying I was familiar with ear sex on a public forum if I were you. Then again everyone knows size doesn't matter.

Dan8267 says

The videos show exactly what the Republicans did and it shows the effects of their action on the 9/11 first responders. The bottom line is that the Republicans literally killed 9/11 first responders by filibustering a bill that would have saved their lives by paying for essential medical treatment for the illness they got from all the toxins they were exposed to while saving lives.

Stewart takes things out of context. The context indicates that the Ds were ignoring the Rs tax bill and the Rs stated they were going to filibuster if they did not consider the Rs bill. The reality is that the D's caused this.

Secondly the correlation is no more than conjecture.

The fireman are wrapping themselves up in the flag. What about veterans who are not being taken care of at the VA? are they less deserving?

But at the end of the day the Ds have caused this EVERY BIT as much as the Rs

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

You are saying only Fox lies?

Yes.

You have got to be fucking kidding. You are truly a zombie.

Dan8267 says

Does anyone believe the interview with the 9/11 first responders was "fake" in any way? Does anyone believe that those responders were lying?

All Stewart shows are one sided, intended to entertain and incite it is taken out of context.

I hope you are not typical... You have been main lining kool aid so much that you are irrational.

indigenous says

Stewart takes things out of context.

Prove it. Prove that those interviews are "out of context". The Daily Show has all of its interviews in full online for the public to believe.

Plus, there is independent confirmation that the Republicans filibustered the first responder healthcare bill.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/09/senate.9.11.responders/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/12/17/135565/jon-stewart-911-bill/

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/gop-senators-block-vote-on-9-11-health-bill-1.2529933

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/gop_filibuster_defeats_911_res.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyregion/10health.html?_r=0

http://www.politicususa.com/2010/12/20/gop-soul.html

Five seconds on Google. Oh shit, did you think that Jon Stewart was the only person covering this story. You just got owned. What are you going to claim now, every news agency except Fox takes things out of context and therefore people should only listen to Fox?

Honey, you don't get to choose what evidence is accepted by the criteria of whether or not it supports your lies.

And for you to lie about the bill to save first responders lives is far worse than had Clinton lied about sexual relations with Lewinsky, you hypocrite.

indigenous says

But at the end of the day the Ds have caused this EVERY BIT as much as the Rs

Actually, it was 100% the Republicans as proven by the fact that the bill did get passed after The Daily Show humiliated the Republicans by airing that interviewer with the First Responders.

ABC News

Comedian Jon Stewart put the stalled 9/11 health bill center stage on his final show of the year, lambasting Senate Republicans for holding up passage of a bill that would provide billions of dollars in health care for sick 9/11 first responders.

"This is an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11," Stewart said. "The party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase are now moving suspiciously into a convenient pre-9/11 mentality when it comes to this bill."

Now that Republicans are no longer bound to their pledge to avoid voting on anything except issues of taxes and funding, some GOP senators are considering voting in favor of the 9/11 measure.

Republicans did a 180 on their filibuster when Jon Stewart brought this outrage to the attention of the American people. The interview went viral and all those Republicans new they would be kicked out of office if they didn't pass the bill. Not too bad for someone whose "just a comedian".

indigenous says

You have got to be fucking kidding. You are truly a zombie.

Even for someone who demands evidence and then refuses to look at it, this is a weak argument.

80% of the country would laugh at you if they read your posts, especially about Fox News.

The fact is you cannot come up with an intelligent response to the videos in which Fox News was shown to outright lie and manipulate their audience. And that says everything.

Leave it to Bill Maher to sum up this thread perfectly. It's like he's talking specifically about indigenous's posts.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/dgiiZP4Rnac

Dan8267 says

Prove it. Prove that those interviews are "out of context".

Google Peter Schiff on that subject. The hatchet job of Napolitano's comments on Lincoln

Yup he definitely takes shit out of context. He is fucking entertainment, why would any one consider him anything else. Are you really that stupid?

Dan8267 says

Five seconds on Google. Oh shit, did you think that Jon Stewart was the only person covering this story. You just got owned. What are you going to claim now, every news agency except Fox takes things out of context and therefore people should only listen to Fox?

Re read my previous post, this time read for comprehension.

Dan8267 says

Honey, you don't get to choose what evidence is accepted by the criteria of whether or not it supports your lies.

Suck my dick you little bitch.

Dan8267 says

Republicans did a 180 on their filibuster when Jon Stewart brought this outrage to the attention of the American people. The interview went viral and all those Republicans new they would be kicked out of office if they didn't pass the bill. Not too bad for someone whose "just a comedian"

Of course they are politicians, and the voters are stupid enough to listen to Stewart's bullshit. Mutts like you should not be allowed to vote.

Dan8267 says

The fact is you cannot come up with an intelligent response to the videos in which Fox News was shown to outright lie and manipulate their audience. And that says everything.

Again stupidly is required to be such a dumb ass to think he is demonstrating anything.

Dan8267 says

Leave it to Bill Maher to sum up this thread perfectly. It's like he's talking specifically about indigenous's posts.

Do you consider this mutt to be a pundit, do society a favor and get a vasectomy.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

The great part about fucking Sarah Palin in the ass is the way she shouts the editorials of Julius Streicher by heart.

That implies that Nazism was/is right wing, it is not. You would be more likely to hear Julius Streicher recited while fucking Hillary in the ass. If you could get a hard on looking at her.

indigenous says

That implies that Nazism was/is right wing, it is not.

Bwhahahahaha. This nonsense goes all the way back to HL Hunt, the oilman who financed the "Wanted for Treason: JFK" ad and had several families going at once.

Read more about HL Hunt and his whackadoodleness here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/YOU-THINK-YOU-ARE-A-CONSUMER-BUT-MAYBE-YOU-HAVE-BEEN-CONSUMED

thunderlips11 says

This nonsense goes all the way back to HL Hunt, the oilman who financed the "Wanted for Treason

"The socialist roots of Nazism doesn't require any digging; it's right there in the groups official title "The National Socialist German Workers Party." Sometimes this is waved off by saying they were "right wing socialists." As Jonah Goldberg wrote in Liberal Fascism, that remark is justified by the warmongering nature of fascism, not by its economic policies."

http://www.younghipandconservative.com/2012/06/yes-nazis-were-socialists.html

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

is the way she shouts the editorials of Julius Streicher by heart.

It's strange also, but I'd swear they're even in a Gothic, Fraktur font as the words tumble from her mouth with each rhythmic bump.

indigenous says

Suck my dick you little bitch.

And on that, we can end this discussion as you clearly have run out of useless things to say.

The Professor says

Dan8267 says

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.

So a blowjob led to 3 towers being demolished?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/

History is connected in ways that most people don't bother to see.

You forgot impotent.

Dan8267 says

I've listen to Peter Schiff's response and he didn't state what was taken out of context or how.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2014/02/05/libertarian-conservative-peter-schiff-slams-daily-show-dishonest-hit-job

http://ricochet.com/archives/putting-away-the-daily-show-and-other-childish-things/

Dan8267 says

History is connected in ways that most sane people don't bother to see.

True words

sbh says

He's indignorant, indidiotic, indipotent, and indiompetent.

Said the illiterate tree fucker

Dan8267 says

That's all he's done this entire thread.

When you register as a democrat do they only allow dumb fucks like yous in?

The Professor says

Dan8267 says

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.

So a blowjob led to 3 towers being demolished?

Must have been one helluva blowjob. The heavens came down.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

History is connected in ways that most sane people don't bother to see.

True words

Typical conservative, not above deliberately misquoting someone.

Dan8267 says

History is connected in ways that most people don't bother to see.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

You forgot impotent.

Want to tell us how you know that??

I've seen his porno.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6R3BYCT5oWw

I for one, love Camille Paglia - a foreign born lesbian half wit who is a role model according to my lesbian professor at cal state. My friend Sarah also thinks this and she can't figure out why men want to have absolutley nothing to do with her. must be 'patriarchy's fault.

but yes Sarah Palin is THE ENEMY. ENEMYP ENEMYENMEY

also- how do you embed vidoes?

The Original Bankster says

also- how do you embed vidoes?

Just copy-n-paste the URL, removing the (s) from https since Patrick.net doesn't check for that pattern.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/5zVVKXT8Vi0

did that work?

indigenous says

As Jonah Goldberg wrote in Liberal Fascism, that remark is justified by the warmongering nature of fascism, not by its economic policies."

Right. Because fear-mongering, antisemitism, gay bashing, jingoism, war-mongering and religious zealotry don't follow wherever right-wing philosophy grows.

This revisionism reminds me of the conservative efforts to disown Hoover, then rehabilitate Hoover, then disown him again. Naziism is yours.

Now, Communism is yours too. If there's anything to Schlesinger's political spectrum, it's that the left can be easily co-opted and turned into fascism with only a little effort.

Dan8267 says

The Original Bankster says

also- how do you embed vidoes?

Just copy-n-paste the URL, removing the (s) from https since Patrick.net doesn't check for that pattern.

The fact that even the above post got disliked tells you how petty conservatives are.