RE: Clinton got a blowjob!

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 6:46:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity He's already before a partial jury, farglebargle - the U.S. Congress, and they've already said they're not going to pursue any of that nonsense. What's your idea here, to keep trying different venues until you can get one that's SO biased that they would indict even a ham sandwich? CONGRESS is not a Jury. JURIES are part of the Criminal and Civil Procedure used to adjudicate alleged crimes and claim. CONGRESS is the Legislative Branch. Therefore he's NOT been before a "partial jury". Your claim is spurious. That aside, if Bush hasn't done anything wrong, what's he got to fear from testifying under oath for a Grand Jury?

thompsonx -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 7:33:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity He's already before a partial jury, farglebargle - the U.S. Congress, and they've already said they're not going to pursue any of that nonsense. What's your idea here, to keep trying different venues until you can get one that's SO biased that they would indict even a ham sandwich? CONGRESS is not a Jury. JURIES are part of the Criminal and Civil Procedure used to adjudicate alleged crimes and claim. CONGRESS is the Legislative Branch. Therefore he's NOT been before a "partial jury". Your claim is spurious. That aside, if Bush hasn't done anything wrong, what's he got to fear from testifying under oath for a Grand Jury? farbargle: It would seem pretty obvious to me that he is afraid that the same thing will happen to him as happened to slick willie...he will be caught in a lie and impeached. He may not be very bright but I do not think him stupid. thompson

farglebargle -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 7:52:52 AM)
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents By Solomon L. Wisenberg of Solomon L. Wisenberg, PLLC What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents.

Sternhand4 -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 9:58:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella I have no idea if Bill is good in the sack, and have no desire to find out. However, *all ( my emphasis)* these women entered into consensual and continuing relations with him.. This would be a dispute. I would think that we would both agree that a good percentage of victims of sexual harassment/ rape ( I'm not suggesting Clinton raped anyone here) never come forward. But Clinton did have at least 2 come forward for harassment. Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones come to mind. Paula sued and Clinton settled. . And I still have not seen any evidence to support your opinion that he is a rapist.... I suppose that means you have no proof to back that statement up. Which is annoying... if a woman cries false rape, the men go bat-fucking crazy. If a man calls another man a rapist with no proof for it... it is aok? Nope but he is a less than honorable guy for using power to further his sexual needs in a nonconsentual way. ( If he just would set up a profile here I'm sure he'd find more than a few willing partners though.) Which Leads to this question, If rape is about power more than sex, is what he did a kissing cousin to "rape"? Using his power as governer/ president. Go figure.

Sternhand4 -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 10:00:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents By Solomon L. Wisenberg of Solomon L. Wisenberg, PLLC What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Why did you leave out Scooter?

thompsonx -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 10:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents By Solomon L. Wisenberg of Solomon L. Wisenberg, PLLC What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Why did you leave out Scooter? Sternhand4: Ok if it will make you happy I will include the lying little scumbag. thompson

farglebargle -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 10:17:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents By Solomon L. Wisenberg of Solomon L. Wisenberg, PLLC What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Why did you leave out Scooter? I did not leave out anyone from the excerpted first line of Mr. Wisenberg's article. I expect when the article was written Irve wasn't a convicted felon.

luckydog1 -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 10:29:18 AM)
Ok so I did check a dictionary. the first definition of Partisan . an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. So I am absolutly correct, you do not have to be a supporter of a paticular party, and I think the definiton fits you perfectly And I looked up Cholera on the WHO page... Cholera is an easily treatable disease. The prompt administration of oral rehydration salts to replace lost fluids nearly always results in cure. In especially severe cases, intravenous administration of fluids may be required to save the patient's life. Left untreated, however, cholera can kill quickly following the onset of symptoms. Rehydration salts are electrolytes as I staed before. So first, I never limited this to Cholera, Raw sewage can create all kinds of helath problems, Cholera is just one. You want to focus only on Cholera ignoring all the other real health threats, to me that is insane, and evidence you do not give a damn about the suffering. So basicaly you would want to have a slower evacuation, so you could hual in food and water, causing more helath problems, then haul in Rehydration salts, doctors and IVs to save the people who would quickly start dying. Hten evacuate them all later. To me that makes absoltuly no sense. But it is a great way for you to avoid the point I brought into THIS thread. Which you still seem to be afraid to comment on. oh well

thompsonx -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 10:41:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Ok so I did check a dictionary. the first definition of Partisan . an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. So I am absolutly correct, you do not have to be a supporter of a paticular party, and I think the definiton fits you perfectly How does your definition fit anything I have said? And I looked up Cholera on the WHO page... Cholera is an easily treatable disease. The prompt administration of oral rehydration salts to replace lost fluids nearly always results in cure. Which is what I have said repeatedly. In especially severe cases, intravenous administration of fluids may be required to save the patient's life. Left untreated, however, cholera can kill quickly following the onset of symptoms. Rehydration salts are electrolytes as I staed before. So first, I never limited this to Cholera, Raw sewage can create all kinds of helath problems, Cholera is just one. You want to focus only on Cholera ignoring all the other real health threats, to me that is insane, and evidence you do not give a damn about the suffering. Just because you keep repeating things I never said does not make them true. Perhaps you should go back and read your original post. So basicaly you would want to have a slower evacuation, so you could hual in food and water, causing more helath problems, then haul in Rehydration salts, doctors and IVs to save the people who would quickly start dying. Hten evacuate them all later. To me that makes absoltuly no sense. That may be because you do not seem to be able to understand what you have written. But it is a great way for you to avoid the point I brought into THIS thread. Which you still seem to be afraid to comment on. oh well Trying to redirect this discussion of your inability to read and write does not change anything. thompson

luckydog1 -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 8:41:37 PM)
Sorry thompson, you tried to focus soley on Cholera, and said that water was the cure. Not Prompt administration of rehydration salts ( electrolytes), and an Iv for serious cases. Thats what I said. I get it you wanted a slower evacuation, for the life of me I have no idea why, except for partisanship. I can not fathom why you would have wanted them to stay there suffering and hungry for even 5 minutes longer, and risk a lot more death. But you do for some reason.... And you are still afraid to comment on my original post on this thread. The reason is quite apperant. But you are the best little sniper on the site, My hats off to you. there is none better at changing the subject than you

dcnovice -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 9:22:10 PM)
quote: The primary difference between slick willie and king george the first is that slick willie could look you in the eye and lie to you better than a used car salesman. Two other wee differences are that (a) Clinton didn't land us in a hopeless and apparently endless Mideast war and (b) Clinton's fiscal policies (with, let us be fair, much pushing from deficit hawks on both sides of the aisle in Congress) led to a surplus rather than record deficits.

dcnovice -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/9/2007 9:25:34 PM)
quote: And I looked up Cholera on the WHO page... Well, I always applaud research, but can't help wondering how we got from Clinton to cholera. I'm pretty sure the disease predates him.

NorthernGent -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/10/2007 1:36:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella You, Sir, are a confirmed flirt! I pick and choose my targets carefully ;-)

NorthernGent -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/10/2007 1:53:43 AM)
By the way, on the Clinton blowjob issue: People in other countries (Britain) could warm to him. He appeared (reality could be different) to reflect the positives about the US and he had a knack of presenting himself as compassionate and more of a bloke-down-the-street character than a politician. In truth, these people are only the talking heads, but clinton's administration was not considered to be the destructive, tyrannical lot currently in government. Again, this is perception - for all I know, the policies of the two regimes may not be that different. The man gets a blowjob - not impressive in terms of projecting family values, but this act alone does not make him a sub-standard president. I mean, it seems like every other couple of months, one of our politicians is found dead with an orange in his gob and stockings over his head, or has been visiting rent boys, or has been photo'd in miss lash's dungeon, or has been banging the secretary etc. It's not even news here, anymore - part and parcel of political life and, frankly, providing they do the job of running the country for all of the people, I couldn't care less about their private lives and vices. It's not reasonable to expect them to act like saints.

luckydog1 -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/10/2007 4:43:59 AM)
Northern Gent but is it reasonable to expect them to to tell the truth when under oath? He did not have to lie, and attempt to get people to destroy evidence, and suborn purjury. He could have said "yeah she gave me head so what", like they do in England.

meatcleaver -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/10/2007 4:56:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Northern Gent but is it reasonable to expect them to to tell the truth when under oath? He did not have to lie, and attempt to get people to destroy evidence, and suborn purjury. He could have said "yeah she gave me head so what", like they do in England. Newt Gingrich was fucking some woman other than his wife when he was leading the way on impeaching Clinton. Hypocrisy or what? Though everyone knows this wasn't about a blow job but the Republicans trying for a putsch. The Republicans were angry, bitter and smarting because the US electrate had elected a Democrat and slick Willy of all people! Republicans? I've shit more democratic turds. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1495077.ece

luckydog1 -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/10/2007 5:05:03 AM)
Meat, hypocrisy is not a crime. Suborning purjury, evidence tampering, and lying under oath are crimes. Actually Clinton got the lowewst vote % in history, and most of the electorate did not want him to be president either time. Most of the voters chose someone other than Clinton. He got sued for sexuall Harrasment, and attempted to lie about it. He settled the court case because he knew he would lose.

puella -> RE: Clinton got a blow job! (3/10/2007 5:08:35 AM)
You know what I always found interesting? They focus so much on the blow job.. and don't get me wrong, head, both giving and getting is a glorious thing... but... I really think the vignette with the cigar has much more deliciously erotic and creative masturbatory umph to it.. much more kinky! heh... and then there is the second glorious mind fuck from it all... what did he do with that cigar, the tobacco leaves soaked with her sex... did he taste it wet? Did he let it dry and smoke it later, trying to note any differences to be savored in the mixture of heady smoke and woman? Did he put it back and offer it to a guest? Would he offer it to a friend or a foe?

NorthernGent -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/10/2007 5:17:13 AM)
Agreed, but he should not have been in that position in the first place, so, in my mind, I'll discount his lies on the issue. It is unreasonable to take a politician to task over his private life and there's no reason to put it in the public domain. If we expect privacy as a right, then politicians should have the same right. Also, if any of us had been forced into such a situation would we have done it differently? Would others have given up their job as one of the most powerful men in the world? I doubt it very much. If the lie was akin to blair's deliberate misinformation about a public issue such as WMDs, then I would agree with you, but not one of a private nature which does not belong in the public domain. It's between the three of them.

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Clinton got a blowjob! (3/10/2007 5:25:27 AM)
He did more for the country than both the Bush presidents. Clinton getting oral sex never killed anyone. Meanwhile the Bush administration still rape and pillage the lands exposing us to more enviromental issues that will be around for generations to come. The two Bush administrations have done more harm to the enviroment in the history of the United States. The Bush administration is ingrained with ex lobbyist of special interests groups like big biz and oil. People that live in glass houses should not throw stones about sexual indiscressions when the world is going to hell in a handbasket and the clown is at the helm with his rich coharts. Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875