 |
| |
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Since the thread is about Lott, this is saying that what Lott did didn't deserve criticism, but Clinton did. Hence a comparison. |
Nope, that's just what you are reading into it.
quote:
No, because it was his private sex life. "Disgraceful" is a nice word to use if you're a Victorian matron with a moral axe to grind, but when it comes to his sex life, it's meaningless. |
So only victorian matrons would consider cheating on your wife with an intern disgraceful? You have a strange set of morals.
quote:
Since you later say that being president is a 24/7 job, you're saying he has no right to privacy whatsoever. That's a crock of ****. Put it simply: His conduct relating to public policy is our business. His conduct relating to sexual affairs is not our business. |
It is our business because we are paying him to be president, not get bjs. He has a right to privacy, but not on public property.
quote:
No different from other sexual conduct in the past in the White House, which is also none of our business. Again, there's a difference between abuse of presidential authority in matters of public policy and matters of sexual conduct. A huge huge huge difference. |
Improper sexual conduct on public property is everyone's business.
quote:
No, pointing out that those who saw fit to judge his moral character were no better. That certainly is relevant to the issue. And again you were the one who said "Clinton deserved it," in an implication that he is worse than others. |
Nope, just saying he deserved it.
quote:
And as I said, crock of ****. Being a politician does not mean one forfeits a private life. There is NOTHING prohibiting him leading his sex life as he wants. I don't recall a constitutional provision that says the president won't boink interns or else he loses his job. |
Sorry, it's not his private life when it's on public property.
quote:
Fault? I'm not saying she's at fault, because I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY DID WAS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS. The fault of the whole scandal was, IMO, those who were going around digging up any salacious dirt they could find. I think Ken Starr is at fault.
Monica and Bill were mutually consenting partners. She wasn't a victim of sexual harassment, so her relevance to the Jones suit was NIL.
And again, how does this negate Lott's comments as being sorely inappropriate? |
This has nothing to do with Lott.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
What exactly is "improper sexual conduct"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MosesPresley
What exactly is "improper sexual conduct"? |
I think cheating on your wife with an intern comes under that heading, don't you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
I'm sorry, adultery is not against the law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MosesPresley
I'm sorry, adultery is not against the law. |
Are we talking about what is against the law, or what is improper?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
If you are investigating an illegal land deal with a special prosecutor, you better come up with something that is against the law and not something "improper". Don't be a prude. Consensual BJ's in the White House are not against the law. Since it may have been on "company" time, you could dock his pay for the amount of time that both of them were not working.
"Improper", subjective at best, since many politcians engage in adultery, is not illegal and is not grounds for impeachment, but it worked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
Nope, that's just what you are reading into it. |
So please explain why you mentioned it all in a thread about Lott. Please make sure it isn't as lame as Lott's rationales.
quote:
So only victorian matrons would consider cheating on your wife with an intern disgraceful? You have a strange set of morals. |
Yeah, because I can distinguish between private and public conduct. How strange, huh?
quote:
It is our business because we are paying him to be president, not get bjs. He has a right to privacy, but not on public property.
Improper sexual conduct on public property is everyone's business.
Sorry, it's not his private life when it's on public property.
|
Again, crock of ****. So if a reporter were able to secretly get photos of Bush going down on Laura and whatever else they may do sexually, under your logic they could publish those pictures and make it all public since a president doesn't have a right to privacy. 
You look so silly with that buckeled hat and shoes, Cali.
quote:
Nope, just saying he deserved it. |
Matter of opinion, then. I say Lott deserves what he's getting.
quote:
This has nothing to do with Lott. |
This thread is about Lott. So why bring it up? If your comments aren't about Lott, get out of my thread, you threadjacker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MosesPresley
If you are investigating an illegal land deal with a special prosecutor, you better come up with something that is against the law and not something "improper". Don't be a prude. Consensual BJ's in the White House are not against the law. Since it may have been on "company" time, you could dock his pay for the amount of time that both of them were not working.
"Improper", subjective at best, since many politcians engage in adultery, is not illegal and is not grounds for impeachment, but it worked. |
It's not illegal, but because I consider it improper, I'm glad he got impeached for lying about it (which is illegal under oath).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So please explain why you mentioned it all in a thread about Lott. Please make sure it isn't as lame as Lott's rationales. |
The thread was getting jacked, so I thought I'd join in..
quote:
Yeah, because I can distinguish between private and public conduct. How strange, huh? |
Public property, public property.
quote:
Again, crock of ****. So if a reporter were able to secretly get photos of Bush going down on Laura and whatever else they may do sexually, under your logic they could publish those pictures and make it all public since a president doesn't have a right to privacy. |
Strawman alert!
quote:
Matter of opinion, then. I say Lott deserves what he's getting. |
Possibly. He certainly should have thought a bit more about what he was saying.
quote:
This thread is about Lott. So why bring it up? If your comments aren't about Lott, get out of my thread, you threadjacker. |
Someone mentioned Clinton, so I thought I'd chip in. Sorry for the threadjack. I guess we'd better get back to the original topic, that way you don't have to fight this losing battle any longer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
The question should never have been asked. The question was irrelevant. What does a private affair have to do with Whitewater? I am still not sure why the question was allowed.
[end threadjack] I promise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
George Bush the first said "No new taxes". He lied. Should he have been impeached?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
From the Washington Post:
Bush Denounces Lott's Remarks
Calls Comments 'Offensive' and 'Wrong'
Thursday, December 12, 2002; 1:15 PM
PHILADELPHIA - President Bush, in rare criticism of a fellow Republican, said Thursday it was offensive and wrong for Senate Republican leader Trent Lott to have said a segregationist candidate for president should have won in 1948.
"Any suggestion that a segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive and it is wrong," Bush said to loud and long applause in a speech about his faith-based agenda.
"Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country," Bush said.
Lott said Wednesday he made "a mistake of the head, not the heart" by saying last week the nation would have been better off if 1948 segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had been elected president.
He admitted the comment, made during a 100th birthday tribute to the South Carolina Republican senator, could be seen as offensive and asked for forgiveness.
"He (Lott) has apologized and rightly so. Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals," Bush said. "And the founding ideals of our nation and in fact the founding ideals of the political party I represent was and remains today the equal dignity and equal rights of every American."
Seems that even he thought Lott was referring to the segregation issue. Hmm. does that change anyone's thinking? Or was this just typical WH spin?
edit: link wasn't working exactly correctly, so I pasted instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
No. |
Ah, ok. I didn't think it would. After all, its all spin anyway.
Hey DD, how is that Trent Lott Leadership Institute coming along at Ole Miss? Wonder if they're rethinking that one. UM gets enough crap as it is, I would hate to see them get bad pub for having a school named after Lott. sigh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
Boris, you just don't know what your talking about.quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov Neither meets the Constitutional standard of impeachment. The House Republicans made a mockery of that standard. |
"Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Perjury is a Misdemeanor, Clinton admited he lied under oath in his deposition, thus commited perjury, a Misdemeanor.
That's what Clinton was Impeached for, it was the Democrats who spit of the Constituition, which I quoted in part above, you can read it yourself if you like, Article II section 4 of the US Constitution.
http://www.rosanna.com/constitution/constit_.htm#con2.4
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I wonder how many people here were alive when Strom ran for President.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2002 22:38
|