[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

There are many ways to lie without breaking the law. Why would there be any charges if he lied about something where a law wasn't broken, particularly if there is no way this can be proven in a court of law?

Politicians lie all the time - plain and simple. Some are what you might call "white lies", but lies are lies. There is very little fundamental difference between Clinton's lie and any other lie with exception to the fact that he carried it on for a long time thinking that it would blow over or that he would get away with it. Big deal, politicians carry on lies when it is in their best interest to do so.


Why is this still an issue? Really? This is completely a non-issue. He lied under oath about an insignificant issue... okay... why are we still tearing our hair out about this? And more importantly, why is this non-issue split down partisan lines?

So then, what YOU are saying is that it is OK to lie to a grand jury when you don't like the questions being asked?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

So then, what YOU are saying is that it is OK to lie to a grand jury when you don't like the questions being asked?

No, but it's also not okay to download illegal music, to speed, smoke pot, etc. but people do these things anyway for purely selfish self-serving reasons.

When you do stuff that actually affects people, that's when I become the most concerned. Otherwise, my concern level is greatly diminished. In the case of Clinton, given the nature of politicians, my concern level is even less (unfortunately), making my overall concern just about ziltch.

[Cody Dawg]

besson3c:

You are really crude and offensive.

Do you realize that kids read these forums sometimes?

I feel sorry for the people around you - you and your language are vulgar and offensive.

[Chuckit]

Where did that come from?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Do you realize that kids read these forums sometimes?

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

The fact is that you probably shouldn't be posting here and in conversation with a tall strawberry blonde long-haired American woman who is laying on her bed all naked with nothing more than some very nice black lace underwear on

[besson3c]

Kids flock to Bill Clinton political threads like they are going out of style!

Cody Dawg, you seemed slightly more reasonable prior to your pregnancy. I wish you the best with it, and look forward to you returning to putting some more thought into your posts.

[Cody Dawg]

besson3c

He got his ---- ------, it's really not that glamorous a story.

THAT was very offensive.

I'll edit it after I make it a point.

[paul w]

I dunno cody, I respect your opinion and everything, but I think you tend to get a bit too worked up over these things.

Sometimes adults use language that you'd find inappropraite when discussing serious subjects. You can't ban it all can you?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Railroader

What the heck does that mean? You've "been around a long time"? Does that mean your old? Does that mean you've had a membership with 'NN a long time? Does that mean you've been sitting in the same place for a long time and your butt is sore?

It means, that I've seen you pick enemies before. You do that from time to time. Ca$h and some other kid who lost it with you. I'm just telling you I can't be bothered having you on my tail, so go pick someone else.

Originally Posted by Railroader

You start obsessing about your own little country and I'll stop taking you to task on your attacks on Americans. Deal?

I'll make it even more simple for you: stop obsessing about me. End of story.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I just called my Mom, and apparently she has a bruise on her arm.

Please join me in praying for her safety. I call upon you to call upon God and Jesus (or whomever you prefer or think would do a better job) to heal her.

Grow up.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

So you're sayin you are more or less the Herpes of the Internet™.

More irritating than harmful.


Seek treatment.

Judging by the stupidity of the quoted post, the odds are 1:1 that the poster is American.

Predictable crap to the end.

Oh well.

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Judging by the stupidity of the quoted post, the odds are 1:1 that the poster is American.

Predictable crap to the end.

What is even more predictable is xenophobic comments about America coming from this part of the forum.

Put that large brush away.

[Cody Dawg]

It wasn't just a crude word, it was offensive.

Put a 13-year old kid in here and it's not very pleasant for him to read, is it?

NO.

This place has been going downhill for a long time. The wrong people get banned in here because the moderators just don't care about what is going on. They jump in here and there but for the most part don't care.

Comments about hijacking planes to fly into buildings and houses. Comments about crude sexual innuendo. Threats to physically harm people.

Maybe someday soon we'll wake up and MacNN will be gone...or at least the readers that once mattered will be.

[DBursey]

MacNN: #1 on the 13YO's internet terror training list. Right up there with vampires.com and jihad.org

[itai195]

Cody Dawg, self-righteous since 2004

If you don't like sexual comments, what have you been doing on the MacNN Lounge for the past few years?

[vmarks]

Actually, this is MacNN, and it IS intended to be PG13, erring on the PG side. The fact that leniency is the order of the day when it comes to enforcement does not mean that's the intended nature of the Lounge.

Straighten up and fly right.

[itai195]

In that case, can this thread be locked now? I don't know how many more pages of off-topic-ness we can handle

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by voodoo

It means, that I've seen you pick enemies before. You do that from time to time. Ca$h and some other kid who lost it with you. I'm just telling you I can't be bothered having you on my tail, so go pick someone else.


I'll make it even more simple for you: stop obsessing about me. End of story.

V

Dude, do you notice how you have to re-explain all of your posts? Either your communications skills suck or you are weaseling out of what you previously said.

i'll call weaseling out.

If you are referring to previous "showdowns" I had with other people, I'll acknowledge previous feuds. With cash it's is bashing anyone who doesn't agree with his opinions. With logic it was his attacking Christians. With Salty it was his illegible posts and rambling. With Sek I used to get into it with him about pot. With athens it was his bashing of the USA and Christians. With RollingBones it is his racist comments and abrasive posting with EVERYONE.

Cash and I have called a truce a few times but then he loses it and starts bashing and swearing. Iv'e lost my respect for cash though because he flaunts the rules around here.

Logic and I have mutual respect.

Salty and I are pretty good friends on here now.

Sek and I have mutual respect now.

Athens and I have respect for each other. A pretty good friendship.

I have no respect for a racist person nor one who attempts to weasel out of what he said. RollingBones does that.

Who knows, maybe you and I will eventually send each other Christmas cards.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Put a 13-year old kid in here and it's not very pleasant for him to read, is it?

CATS seemed to enjoy it well enough.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

It wasn't just a crude word, it was offensive.

Put a 13-year old kid in here and it's not very pleasant for him to read, is it?

Cody,

Have you ever heard 13-year-old kids talk? This forum is tame compared to what those kids talk about. I've heard 11 and 12-year-old girls on the bus talking about lesbianism, group sex, and anal sex. Nothing here will shock kids today.

[Cody Dawg]

Thanks, vmarks.

Spliff, yes SOME 13-year olds are making out the the Debra Lafavres of the world.

Not ALL of them.

My son is pretty sophisticated with some of his jokes - he's not sheltered in the least.

But I don't need my son to come here and read someone's comments that are clearly intended ONLY for an adult audience and I'm sure other parents - who care - would feel the same way.

Whether you (or others) realize it, there ARE kids that visit MacNN for various reasons. They might wander in here by accident because they intended to end up at another forum and then read this crap just to see MacNNers go at each other.

They don't need to be reading besson3c's version of Clinton's sexual prowess.

Personally, the thought that any guy/besson3c talks that way is just disgusting. I feel sorry for his wife. "Hey, honey, will you ___k my ___k?"

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You show me some real charges and we'll talk.



Yet again, are we talking about Bush or Clinton? So if Bush is WORSE that would somehow excuse Clinton? If not then why even bring Bush into this? Nevertheless, the last time a checked there have been no charges against Bush.

And as I said, I don't really care that he lied about a blow job or ten. We are talking about perjury. Answer my earlier question: Is it OK for a sitting President to lie to a grand jury simply because he doesn't like the question?

And why do we always forget about the FACT that this question came up during a LEGITIMATE investigation into real, SEX related accusations? In the context of a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case, inquiries into an inappropriate sexual relationship are perfectly justified IMO.

Let's do a bit of background here, ok?

FACT: During the Clinton administration Congress passed a law giving the President a line-item veto.

FACT: As soon as it was used, it was challenged as unconstitutional.

FACT: The Supreme Court overturned the law as being unconstitutional.

Now, with Bush, he's been appending signing statements to bills he signs stating his intent to deliberately not enforce certain provisions he disagrees with. This is functionally the exact same thing as using a line-item veto.

He has violated his oath of office, in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.

He has been taking clearly unconstitutional actions when signing laws .

He has abrogated his duty as President, as the head of the Executive branch of the government -- a large part of which is to make sure that the laws of the land as passed by Congress are fully enforced.

I call that malfeasance.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by DBursey

So it wasn't all a republican witch-hunt?

No, it wasn't.

The Grand Jury was convened in the first place because of a criminal and civil case brought against Clinton by Paula Jones and 14 other women for being a sexual predator.

Beyond the obvious case of committing perjury before the Grand Jury, there is also the fact that a sitting President attempted, through his commission of perjury, to dodge prosecution and deny fellow American citizens their Constitutional rights.

The "Republican witch hunt" and "it was just a blowjob" spin, and the successful application thereof, simply goes to prove the weakmindedness of the Left and its willingness to be led down the garden path by a "leader" who was personally responsible for absolutely nothing good in eight years of presidency.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Thanks, vmarks.

Spliff, yes SOME 13-year olds are making out the the Debra Lafavres of the world.

Not ALL of them.

My son is pretty sophisticated with some of his jokes - he's not sheltered in the least.

But I don't need my son to come here and read someone's comments that are clearly intended ONLY for an adult audience and I'm sure other parents - who care - would feel the same way.

Whether you (or others) realize it, there ARE kids that visit MacNN for various reasons. They might wander in here by accident because they intended to end up at another forum and then read this crap just to see MacNNers go at each other.

They don't need to be reading besson3c's version of Clinton's sexual prowess.

Personally, the thought that any guy/besson3c talks that way is just disgusting. I feel sorry for his wife. "Hey, honey, will you ___k my ___k?"

What would be an appropriate kid friendly way to describe what Lewinski did? Blowjob is cool? She sucked his penis? She put his penis in his mouth? She gave him a hummer? She participated in that unspeakable act that we will not mention?

Why is it that you seem okay with members using the word "blowjob" but you have a problem with me using a slang word for penis and using a phase that has the same semantic meaning as "blowjob"?

When I'm talking to my wife I say "hey baby, will you kindly insert my penis into your mouth please? I'd appreciate it!" I'm very polite, you'd be proud of me!

[Cody Dawg]

You're just a pig is what you are.

Just get up?

Maybe some day you'll get a job, right? Or are you at work writing your drivel on a forum?

[Dakar]

For some reason I'm reminded of the pre-med student from Van Wilder when he's having sex with Tara Reid.

[Cody Dawg]

Tara Reid.

Ah, yes. She's a has-been. Just besson3cs type.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

You're just a pig is what you are.

What if an orthodox Jew or Muslim is reading this board?

[Dakar]

Yeah she's also the type that always elicits a reaction when mentioned around females. They just can't resist.

Edit: Jacked.

[Cody Dawg]

Sorry, itai.



Tara Reid is a drunk. End of story.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Sorry, itai.



Tara Reid is a drunk. End of story.

Blah blah blah.

Anyway, the more important part is she has some nasty looking areolas. No thank you, ma'am.

Edit: Mac OS X dictionary doesn't know the word areola. How could leave such an important word out?

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Judging by the stupidity of the quoted post, the odds are 1:1 that the poster is American.

Predictable crap to the end.

Oh well.

W-Y

Don't you have a bus to blow up or something?

[DBursey]

The "Republican witch hunt" and "it was just a blowjob" spin, and the successful application thereof, simply goes to prove the weakmindedness of the Left ...

If proof were a pudding yours'd be a thin gruel indeed.

[Cody Dawg]

Mark Larr: Thanks for the

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by G Barnett

And yet you're willing to let six years of malfeasance in office slide, eh?

All those signing statements Bush's made, in which he's basically said "I'll sign the law, but you can't make me enforce it!" are a gross dereliction of duty, thus, malfeasance.

And yet one lie about a quickie in the Oval Office is somehow worse?

More like 6 years of accusations of malfeasance - all of which remain unproven, vs. the proven act of perjury and the attempt to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights?

The proof is a matter of record, for anyone other than yourself, who seems to be standing in a corner with your hands over your ears yelling "lalalalalala" at the top of your lungs.

[itai195]

I think the point is that you're blowing it out of proportion. I'd rather take the guy who lied about sex, despite the fact I think that's a serious error of judgement, over the guy who possibly lied about the reasons for war.

Who do you think is more trustworthy, Martha Stewart or OJ Simpson?

[Dakar]

Oh wow. I like that question.

[Sky Captain]

Yeah, one man is solely responsible.

And someone lied under oath to congress.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

No, it wasn't.

The Grand Jury was convened in the first place because of a criminal and civil case brought against Clinton by Paula Jones and 14 other women for being a sexual predator.

Baldfaced lie. It was a CIVIL case (not a criminal one) brought by Paula Jones ALONE for sexual harrassment. And the case was dismissed, and then settled on appeal.

I get hating Clinton. What I don't get is making up LIES to further your hate. Hate hate hate. I'm actually glad Cody Dawg started this thread because it's a perfect response to the popular "Bush-hating" talking points the right wingers use. Yeah, some libs hate Bush. But nobody hates like the seething Clinton-haters, as this thread once again proves.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Yeah, one man is solely responsible.

Well 'the buck stops here' is a presidential motto I enjoy.

*Reads your sig*

On the other hand, you don't seem to like Truman

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

More like 6 years of accusations of malfeasance - all of which remain unproven, vs. the proven act of perjury and the attempt to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights?

The proof is a matter of record, for anyone other than yourself, who seems to be standing in a corner with your hands over your ears yelling "lalalalalala" at the top of your lungs.

And you're doing the exact same thing, watching Bush use signing statements as defacto line item vetos -- a patently anticonstitutional act. The proof is right there in his own handwriting, and it's far, far more egregious than one lie.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Tara Reid.

Ah, yes. She's a has-been. Just besson3cs type.

You're really quite funny you know, without you even realizing it. Your thoughts and little jabs are so disorganized and all over the place, it really is quite amusing to watch you unravel.

Here's one for you: I'm a racist too.... A racist has-been pig who speaks with a potty mouth in front of little children that can't get up and has no job! Sounds like an interesting picture that you can build on, have at it

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Blah blah blah.

Anyway, the more important part is she has some nasty looking areolas. No thank you, ma'am.

Edit: Mac OS X dictionary doesn't know the word areola. How could leave such an important word out?

Dakar, there are children here who might look up that word. What do you think this is, some sort of porno place?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by saddino

Baldfaced lie. It was a CIVIL case (not a criminal one) brought by Paula Jones ALONE for sexual harrassment. And the case was dismissed, and then settled on appeal.

Yup. Clinton cut Ms. Jones a check for $850,000.00 to settle.

I get hating Clinton. What I don't get is making up LIES to further your hate. Hate hate hate. I'm actually glad Cody Dawg started this thread because it's a perfect response to the popular "Bush-hating" talking points the right wingers use. Yeah, some libs hate Bush. But nobody hates like the seething Clinton-haters, as this thread once again proves.

Wow. You either lack reading comprehension skills, or you are delusional and paranoid.

Nobody here called Clinton evil, which is what we've heard a million and one times from the left about Bush. Nobody is calling him Hitler (like the left w/ Bush). Nobody is calling him stupid (like the left w/Bush).

When people call a person evil, Hitler, and stupid, that is hate. When people argue Clinton policies, his penchant for passing the buck, or mention documentated cases of Clinton sexual assaults, that's just disagreement with the man or finding fault with his character.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

When people argue Clinton policies, his penchant for passing the buck, or mention documentated cases of Clinton sexual assaults, that's just disagreement with the man or finding fault with his character.

Thanks for the humorous post. I'm sure Scaife funded the Arkansas Project because he "disagreed" with the man.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by itai195

Well 'the buck stops here' is a presidential motto I enjoy.

*Reads your sig*

On the other hand, you don't seem to like Truman

Zing!


And actually that's the point I'm trying to make.
Truman wasn't the only person on making that decision.

[marden]

Originally Posted by G Barnett

Let's do a bit of background here, ok?

FACT: During the Clinton administration Congress passed a law giving the President a line-item veto.

FACT: As soon as it was used, it was challenged as unconstitutional.

FACT: The Supreme Court overturned the law as being unconstitutional.

Now, with Bush, he's been appending signing statements to bills he signs stating his intent to deliberately not enforce certain provisions he disagrees with. This is functionally the exact same thing as using a line-item veto.

He has violated his oath of office, in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.

He has been taking clearly unconstitutional actions when signing laws .

He has abrogated his duty as President, as the head of the Executive branch of the government -- a large part of which is to make sure that the laws of the land as passed by Congress are fully enforced.

I call that malfeasance.

Since you have such a thing for Bush, let's take a closer look at your paregon of virtue...

Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2003

Newly declassified documents show that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat. The documents show that in 1996 Clinton approved the export of radiation hardened chip sets to China. The specialized chips are necessary for fighting a nuclear war.

"Waivers may be granted upon a national interest determination," states a Commerce Department document titled "U.S. Sanctions on China."

"The President has approved a series of satellite related waivers in recent months, most recently in November, 1996 for export of radiation hardened chip sets for a Chinese meteorological satellite," noted the Commerce Department documents.

These special computer chips are designed to function while being bombarded by intense radiation. Radiation hardened chips are considered critical for atomic warfare and are required by advanced nuclear tipped missiles.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, a Washington-based political watchdog group.

Several documents were withheld from release by the U.S. Commerce Department for commercial and personal privacy exemptions, but none of the documents were withheld for national security reasons. Judicial Watch is expected to appeal the withholdings.

Decade of Betrayal

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...29/25139.shtml

While we are all worrying about China's intent, Clinton is giving them our secrets. But I dunno. Maybe in that case conspiring with the enemy bought us more time than doin nothing. In that case maybe he should have given/sold our military secrets to bin Laden, too. Maybe that would have prevented 9/11.

[Sky Captain]

I wonder is that's the technology they're using for their space program?

[saddino]

Originally Posted by marden

Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War
Charles R. Smith

Touché.

High-Tech Transfers To China Continue
Zoli Simon
Insight Magazine

The Bush administration has been "as bad, if not worse" than the Clinton administration when it comes to the transfer of sensitive technologies to the People's Republic of China (PRC), claims Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan public-interest law firm. Fitton says the Bush administration even has "relaxed the rules put in place during the Clinton years." Specifically, he tells INSIGHT, the administration has allowed the transfer of "computer technology [whose] only practical purpose is for nuclear-weapon design." Fitton says that from the beginning the administration went "full-speed ahead" with China trade and efforts to get the PRC into the World Trade Organization (WTO), which Fitton tells INSIGHT only gives China more opportunities to modernize its military and "get cash" with which to buy high-tech weapons elsewhere.

While few have gone so far as Fitton with such complaints, criticism of U.S. transfers of sensitive technology to China is growing. Accuracy in Media, another Washington watchdog group, echoes Fitton on computer-technology transfers: "President Bush seems to have no clearer vision of what constitutes a strategically sensitive export than did Clinton. For example, Republicans harshly condemned Clinton for exporting high-performance computers to China, but President Bush has more than doubled the control threshold on these computers despite existing intelligence estimates that demonstrate how China's national security benefits from such acquisitions."

I wonder is that's the technology they're using for their space program?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What the....

Talk about pent up sexual aggression...

BTW Clinton was in the news the other day shaking his finger and turning all red. That is why he is being talked about. Just in case you didn't know.

Don't forget the hyperbole.

That justifies one thread, sure. But another entire thread? That smacks of obsession - a trait that is either sexual/love or insane.

BG