's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Clinton did not lie about having sex(65 posts)

Clinton did not lie about having sexStarliner
Dec 4, 2003 9:29 AM
I just read the Frederico thread, and wanted to make the following observation/point, but honestly didn't know where to effectively break in to it. So, let's start another one.

A recent court decision in New Hampshire found that a husband whose wife had a sexual affair with another woman could not charge her with adultery, because no genital intercourse occurred.

By that definition, it would seem that Clinton was correct in saying he did not have sex with Monica. So, now we can all close the book on this and put it to rest. Right?
anyone who still cares should get help. nmdr hoo
Dec 4, 2003 9:35 AM
Did obsession cause you to open this nm thread? I TOLD you you needed help!
I'm not a psychologist, but I play one on the internet ...HouseMoney
Dec 4, 2003 11:26 AM
I agree with you totally. (which isn't often)

; ^ D
Dec 4, 2003 9:36 AM
and I'm Santa Claus. But by your post, the NH case was woman/woman. Clinton was liar/woman.
Dec 4, 2003 10:09 AM
And GWB is liar/nation... having screwed this country from more directions than Slick Willy ever thought of for a woman...
Dec 4, 2003 10:17 AM
thats good stuff. but jay leno called and said he lost your plane ticket.
These GOP dead-enders will never rest.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 11:28 AM
Funny how they insist that Clinton is our worst president ever, yet they have nothing better to gripe about than a little fooling around with an willing intern.
Steady, czar. You've opened the door for Steam toOldEdScott
Dec 4, 2003 11:31 AM
bury us in links to VRWC websites detailing the Clintons' murderous 30-year reign. Shudder.
Wasn't Oliver North convictedTri_Rich
Dec 4, 2003 12:45 PM
of lying to Congress? Since he is now a GOP posterboy, they clearly take this kind of thing seriously.
Doesn't matter if he did or not...No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 11:32 AM
He committed perjury. A felony.

It's amazing how many hollowheads cannot see the forest through the trees.

Wouldn't matter if he f$%ked a goat or oldedsoldlady. The issue is lying under oath, a critical pillar of our entire civilization.
Uh. . .czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 11:40 AM
. . .the whole point of this thread is that Clinton was not commiting purgery if he did not have sex in the eyes of the law.
Purgery? LOL Semantics and ignorance of legal precedenceNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 11:53 AM
won't change facts.
Neither will avoiding the facts altogether.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 11:58 AM
You get today's gold star for spelling, however.
You're still dealing with a case of lastworditis. nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 12:10 PM
That was lame when the poster you stole it from. . .czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 12:17 PM
. . .came up with it. But at least he didn't panic and drag it out 2 exchanges deep into a disagreement.
Public domain, you're still dealing with it. nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 12:21 PM
LOL!!! 'Panic.' nmBottomBracketShell
Dec 4, 2003 12:24 PM
LOL Good stuff Hardbottom! nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 12:29 PM
When was the White House moved to New Hampshire?HouseMoney
Dec 4, 2003 12:19 PM
OK, this is a silly thread, but here goes anyway:

What a NH court decries now has no legal bearing on what occurred between Clinton & Lewinsky then. But, I hope you'd know that already.

However, "genital intercourse" as referred to by the NH court (according to the original post) was not, by definition, what Clinton perjured himself about. The definition of sexual relations used in Clinton's deposition was "any contact with genitals, anus, buttocks, breasts, or inner thighs for the purpose of gratification". Penetration was not required.

Let's see you obfuscate that one!
Like I said. . .czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 12:28 PM
. . ."Clinton was not commiting purgery if he did not have sex in the eyes of the law".

I don't agree with the NH decision, I think that Clinton had sex, and I think that he lied about it.

I wasn't arguing Clinton's innocence. I was arguing No_sprint's obtuseness.
he argues that which he doesn't believe, just to argue.No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 12:38 PM
That's hardonic/hardbottom. Arguing a big "if" in this case.

The facts are the facts, in the eyes of the law.

It doesn't matter what some provincial court in Sri Lanka decides. Ignorance of legal precedence or jurisdiction won't change the facts.

Wouldn't it be something if one were to be prosecuted for DUI or DWI with a .08 and argues that a small town in Siberia set a limit of .1 therefore "under the eyes of the law", said individual is innocent...

I guess obtuse is equivalent to realistic and intelligent and logical.
Not at all. I believe you are obtuse.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 12:44 PM
And that is precisely what I argued.
If you want to hear the truth, don't go to court.Turtleherder
Dec 4, 2003 12:31 PM
This may be a sad thing to say but if you want to hear the truth don't go to a courtroom, especially about adultery. And if you believe that the very pillars of western civilization hinged on Slick admitting to a hummer or that the politicians on the other side of the aisle were seeing blood because another politician lied about something, well than we might have to have a talk about what is know as the "big picture".
LOL! LOL! LOL! The problem is, the big picture's on theBottomBracketShell
Dec 4, 2003 12:36 PM
inside, and you can't see it when you're on the outside.
I'd be curious as to what the supreme court justicesNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 12:47 PM
have to say about your opinion of perjury.

I'd also like to see your opinion of the subject if let's say, your wife, daughter and mother were in court, victims of a group of drug riddled psychos burglary that turned into one sick weekend long fullbore multiple gangrape of said loved ones... I guess nobody knows nothing and nobody did nothing is alright with you huh? How bout if they lie up a storm and get a light sentence or perhaps an acquittal?

I guess you might be alright with lots of lying on the stand, however, I'm still for punishment of those who do. One must realize what many don't, laws like this do not prevent individuals from committing heinus acts, they do however, put a price up for doing so. The price for a felony should be large.

Any society would completely fail it's citizens without law. It is indeed a critical pillar whether you choose to see it or not.
How many people are prosecuted for lying about adultery?czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 1:19 PM
That should be your cue to how seriously any judge would take your gonzo peevishness over this trivial matter.

No charge for the clue, as always.
I don't know, how many? How many people are prosecutedNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 1:23 PM
for lying about kidnapping?
Try to stay on topic.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 1:39 PM
We know that Clinton commited perjury. How many years in prison did he recieve for committing this heinous felony? Maybe we can draw a few conclusions from the way that his case was prosecuted.
Maybe we can.No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 1:49 PM
He certainly did less time than he would have if I were to prosecute him. I bet a liberal conspiracy saw to light punishment. That's somewhat typical of the rich and powerful.
I guess no conservatives were interested in nailing Clinton!czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:00 PM
That must be it.
Overloaded with compassion and mercy. :) nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:03 PM
There is no "list of acceptable lies" while under oath.No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 1:26 PM
It's a damn simple concept that you cannot seem to understand.
Dec 4, 2003 1:33 PM
because a liberal will always rationalize everything to fit his agenda. it doesnt matter the subject. in his mind, he has superior intellect and is "owed". all rules apply except to them when they dont want them to.
Good of you to chime in on behalf of your floundering comrade.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 1:45 PM
There is no list of acceptable lies. (There is also no list of acceptable limmericks -- and equally relevant bit of trivia).

Nonetheless, prosecutors pick their battles based on the seriousness of a crime, not its technical designation. There are rare exceptions where prosecutors do not have this discretion, but perjury is not one of them.

Surely you are not also so stupid as to assert that our courts take perjury about adultery seriously.
Serious enough to impeach, it doesn't get much more serious. nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 1:50 PM
That explains the serious-as-a-heart attack consequences.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:07 PM
Or it would have if the perjury article hadn't been defeated.

Otherwise, I'm sure he would be in prison to this day with the kidnappers and rapists for his heinous crime.
Good of you to chime in on behalf of your floundering comrade.bill105
Dec 4, 2003 1:55 PM
comrade is an interesting choice of words. and from what i have seen NS doesnt need any help.
Maybe not from you, after all. (nm)czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:08 PM
But what was Clinton's motivation for perjuring himself?HouseMoney
Dec 5, 2003 1:02 PM
It wasn't about adultery, per se. As you correctly implied, the "courts" didn't depose Clinton solely because they took seriously the matter of his cheating on Hillary. (heck, look at Hillary, can you blame him?)

Clinton had been charged with sexual harrassment, something that is normally near & dear to the heart of a liberal (ref Anita Hill). His perjury was an attempt to hide his skirt-chasing ways, especially as it pertained to subordinates, which was a relevant matter in the case. And then there was the witness tampering (another serious offense) with Betty Currie ...
The blowhards will just try to spin it off. Thanks for moreNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 2:24 PM
good information.
Big picture, no sprint, big picture, remember?Turtleherder
Dec 4, 2003 1:51 PM
Lying about a private consensual act and lying about murder, rape and other vile deeds are not the same thing. Life is not that simplistic or black and white, it is a shade of gray from one side of the spectrum to the other. I also did not say that it was "right" to lie under oath, I said that it was not uncommon. That's the real world, people lie when cornered. But, you also have to look at that lie in it's context in "the big picture" and met out appropriate punishment. And I stand by my opinion that the impeachment had nothing to do with lying under oath. That may have been the pretext for the hearings but it was not the reason for them.
Not so sure about that.No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:01 PM
I'm no prosecutor, however, I don't think there are classes of perjury like many other crimes. I believe the courts look at perjury in quite a black and white manner.

You won't find a judge handing out a life sentence for perjuring yourself about murder as opposed to freeway cleanup for perjuring yourself while under oath for changing relevant facts that are not a crime.
Your really aren't are you.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:09 PM
If this post reflects your knowledge of the law, you should really quit while you are behind.
Useless lastworditis, thanks for nothing.No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:18 PM
Are you a specialist in matters of perjury? LOLOLOL You can't even f&*king spell it!!!! Talk about quitting while behind, take your own advice.

I've had as much criminal law schooling as Johnny Cochran. I simply don't work with it every day. Contracts, business affairs, etc.
I see. So you never had a clue what you were talking about.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:42 PM
Just as I suspected.
We've come full circle, back to the beginning... IgnoranceNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:44 PM
of legal precedence and semantics do not change the facts.
I didn't realize we were both talking about your ignorance. . .czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:48 PM
. . .of legal precedence, semantics and the facts of this case.
Not classes of perjury, range of punishment.Turtleherder
Dec 4, 2003 2:27 PM
After a conviction for a criminal offense the judge usually has an option as to the range of punishment. This can be from a fine or community service up to incarceration or even death. Again, not every offense or "felony" is worthy of capital punishment. No Sprint, you shall now have a new montra, and it will be "big picture". Say it over and over again when you feel your urge to smite someone rising.
and yours is "preaching to the choir"No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:31 PM
There was never any debate about this.
What was all that talk for at the impeachment hearing?Turtleherder
Dec 4, 2003 2:38 PM
Never any debate about this? Why did they have a hearing that lasted weeks? Seems Slick wasn't convicted at the impeachment hearing so there must have been some disagreement on the issue. As for preaching to the choir, I'll leave that to Rushbo.
We're on different pages, I thought you wereNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:43 PM
referring to a discussion with me about it, in this thread.
You're on a different page all right! (nm)czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:44 PM
I'm in non-fiction, an entirely different book than you! nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:46 PM
Yep. I have been browsing in Legal Reference: Federal (nm)czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 2:50 PM
You're so predictable, I already figured you would.No_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:54 PM
It's not helping you! LOL
I take it you don't believe in researching your arguments.czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 3:01 PM
Shoulda known.
Who said that? I didn't. nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 9:20 AM
I said it about you. (Thought that was pretty obvious) (nm)czardonic
Dec 5, 2003 10:58 AM
No need to worry about my beliefs, they are beyondNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:03 AM
your ability to understand. Don't bother guessing.
That is also pretty obvious. (nm)czardonic
Dec 5, 2003 11:19 AM
Good luck, no pictures, big words. A problem for you :) nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:56 PM
Everyone is entitled to their own goofy opinion.Turtleherder
Dec 4, 2003 2:53 PM
Everyone's free to make up their own mind on an issue and it's not like a few sentences strung together on an internet forum are going to change anyones way of thinking. It's just somewhat entertaining to get the other guys view of the world from time to time and engage in a little good natured soap box speech-a-fying on the issues. Someone sort of famous once said "I may not agree with what he says but I will defend his right to say it."
Indeed. nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2003 2:55 PM
serious questiongtx
Dec 4, 2003 2:00 PM
I'm loving this thread, btw. But where was the actual lie? I can't remember and can't seem to find it on google. What was the EXACT wording of the question and the exact wording of the answer where he lied. Thanks. I seem to recall it centered around a definition of "sexual relations." Or was it the meaning of 'is' is thing?
Dec 4, 2003 2:04 PM
found this

forgot how boring all this stuff was...