|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2006 : 19:58:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
The problem with trying to generate the fury is the way we end up pointing it. It was a sad day when they voted no in the impeachment of Clinton, as you or I could be sitting in jail for what he did.
I got a short attention span. What was it again that he did that warranted impeachment? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 21:57:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
The problem with trying to generate the fury is the way we end up pointing it. It was a sad day when they voted no in the impeachment of Clinton, as you or I could be sitting in jail for what he did.
I got a short attention span. What was it again that he did that warranted impeachment?
He lied under oath about a blowjob. Well, that's the jist of it anyway... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 23:01:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
He lied under oath about a blowjob. Well, that's the jist of it anyway...
Well, whether he lied at all is a matter of interpretation and requires more than a little scrutiny of the legal language involved.
quote:
During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones' lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
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;
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."
A lengthy debate followed between the two teams of lawyers. It turned out points 2 and 3 were too broad: anyone accidentally brushing their hips against another person could be accused of having "sex." Judge Susan Webber Wright therefore eliminated points 2 and 3. However, notice that point 3 would have clearly included oral sex performed on Clinton. Its removal set the stage for the controversy to follow.
The Jones' lawyers then asked Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on the remaining definition.
Unfortunately, the definition still contained ambiguities. Who are the "persons" mentioned in the definition? Clinton interpreted it this way:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:
1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.
Original_Intent, with a decent lawyer, there is no reason to assume you would be in jail for doing what Clinton did.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 02:45:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It was a sad day when they voted no in the impeachment of Clinton, as you or I could be sitting in jail for what he did.
It was a sad day when a bunch of asshole religious zealots masquerading as politicians decided to define a blowjob, and possibly lying about getting one, as an impeachable offense.
Seriously, Ken Starr had years, millions of dollars, hundreds of FBI man-hours... and the only thing his investigation turned up was an a lie about a blowjob?
Yeah... that was totally something a president should be impeached over.
So tell me OI, do you think Bush has done anything worthy of impeachment?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 06:46:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
He lied under oath about a blowjob. Well, that's the jist of it anyway...
Well, whether he lied at all is a matter of interpretation and requires more than a little scrutiny of the legal language involved.
quote:
During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones' lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
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;
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."
A lengthy debate followed between the two teams of lawyers. It turned out points 2 and 3 were too broad: anyone accidentally brushing their hips against another person could be accused of having "sex." Judge Susan Webber Wright therefore eliminated points 2 and 3. However, notice that point 3 would have clearly included oral sex performed on Clinton. Its removal set the stage for the controversy to follow.
The Jones' lawyers then asked Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on the remaining definition.
Unfortunately, the definition still contained ambiguities. Who are the "persons" mentioned in the definition? Clinton interpreted it this way:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:
1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.
Original_Intent, with a decent lawyer, there is no reason to assume you would be in jail for doing what Clinton did.
Sad, sad, sad...... Perjury is perjury is perjury. Just another case of a government failure. One of the few purposes of government is to establish justice. I guess we can break down into what the definition of justice was...... However, the mere fact that a person needs a lawyer to navigate the legal system means that the legal system has turned into "who has the better lawyer" and is not based on guilt or innocence. H |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 07:39:16 [Permalink]
|
| Just as Nixon was not indicted for illegal bombings, Clinton was not indicted for his attacks on the people of Iraq and Yugoslavia, and we'll never know how many people suffered due to the destruction of the pharmaceutical company in Sudan. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 08:47:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
It was a sad day when they voted no in the impeachment of Clinton, as you or I could be sitting in jail for what he did.
It was a sad day when a bunch of asshole religious zealots masquerading as politicians decided to define a blowjob, and possibly lying about getting one, as an impeachable offense.
Seriously, Ken Starr had years, millions of dollars, hundreds of FBI man-hours... and the only thing his investigation turned up was an a lie about a blowjob?
Yeah... that was totally something a president should be impeached over.
This is a bunch of simplified crap. The real story is told here:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm
He was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice in a civil trial brought against him while he was president by Paula Jones. As the executive charged with upholding the laws of the US, he violated Jones civil rights (to a fair trial) by lying and encouraging others to lie as well. I think this is an impeachable offense. There was proof he lied under oath. It was not all over Monica and a BJ. A president can not be allowed to get away with obstructing justice. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 04:54:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice in a civil trial brought against him while he was president by Paula Jones. As the executive charged with upholding the laws of the US, he violated Jones civil rights (to a fair trial) by lying and encouraging others to lie as well. I think this is an impeachable offense. There was proof he lied under oath. It was not all over Monica and a BJ. A president can not be allowed to get away with obstructing justice.
Then you would agree that G.W. Bush should be impeached on several dozen counts of obstructing justice? Afterall, he has denied some classified number of people(in the hundreds) their right to due process, authorized torture (clearly illegal under US laws), asserted that he has the right to declare even US citizens "enemy combatants" and strip them of any and all rights guaranteed by our constitution... I could go on.
Since you see the obstructing of justice by lying about a blowjob as an impeachable offense, surely you must be filled with ire at the current president?
Or do you, Robb, perhaps hold W to a different standard?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 08:03:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Then you would agree that G.W. Bush should be impeached on several dozen counts of obstructing justice? Afterall, he has denied some classified number of people(in the hundreds) their right to due process
The supreme court ruled that the people in guantanamo bay can bring legal action challanging their status. Bush cannot deny their right to due process.
quote:
authorized torture (clearly illegal under US laws),
It seems he authorized sleep deprevation, the use of dogs, sensory overload or deprevation. I do not think tis amounts to torture. There is no proof that he authorized some of the tactics at Abu Ghraib prison. If he did he should be impeached.
quote:
asserted that he has the right to declare even US citizens "enemy combatants" and strip them of any and all rights guaranteed by our constitution... I could go on.
Why don't you go on and find something that he did was illegal. An appeals court has ruled in 2005 that he can do this and last April the supreme court opted not to take the case. You may not like it but it appears to be legal.
quote:
Since you see the obstructing of justice by lying about a blowjob as an impeachable offense, surely you must be filled with ire at the current president?
Or do you, Robb, perhaps hold W to a different standard?
Once again, Clinton lied under oath in a civil trial brought against him and encouraged others to do so to obsruct justice. This is a crime. It was proven that he did this. I beleive this to be an impeachable offense for a President. It was not that he just lied about sex.
I do not hold Bush to a higher standard, I do require evidence that he has committed a crime to impeach him. I am filled with ire at the current president for not protecting our borders, not vetoing an outrageous spending bill, letting the war in Iraq go on as long as it has and increasing the size of government. However these are not crimes.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 09:23:53 [Permalink]
|
Yes, Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice.
Now will someone please explain to me what a hummer in the Oval Office has to do with a land deal in Arkansas?
As for crimes by Bush, Violation of the fourth, eighth, and 14th Amendments, Violation of Article I, Section 9, endangering the common defense. Anybody remember him taking an oath to uphold the Constitution? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 09:43:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Yes, Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice.
Now will someone please explain to me what a hummer in the Oval Office has to do with a land deal in Arkansas?
As for crimes by Bush, Violation of the fourth, eighth, and 14th Amendments, Violation of Article I, Section 9, endangering the common defense. Anybody remember him taking an oath to uphold the Constitution?
This is your opinion, the courts have had a different opinion. Where is your proof that a court has found him in violation of any of these articles or amendments that was not overturned. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 10:16:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
It seems he authorized sleep deprevation, the use of dogs, sensory overload or deprevation. I do not think tis amounts to torture.
Say that to the face of someone who has been subjected to it!
While these methods do not leave physical scars, their minds and souls are dammaged just the same.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 10:54:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Yes, Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice.
Now will someone please explain to me what a hummer in the Oval Office has to do with a land deal in Arkansas?
As for crimes by Bush, Violation of the fourth, eighth, and 14th Amendments, Violation of Article I, Section 9, endangering the common defense. Anybody remember him taking an oath to uphold the Constitution?
This is your opinion, the courts have had a different opinion. Where is your proof that a court has found him in violation of any of these articles or amendments that was not overturned.
Well, there is the ones concerning the detainees access to legal counsel (4th Amendment). But clearly your contention is that since he hasn't been CHARGED, therefore he hasn't actually broken the law.
Hell, I speed quite often. I am breaking the law by doing it. I haven't been CHARGED with it, therefore I must not have done it.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 11:21:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Yes, Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice.
Now will someone please explain to me what a hummer in the Oval Office has to do with a land deal in Arkansas?
As for crimes by Bush, Violation of the fourth, eighth, and 14th Amendments, Violation of Article I, Section 9, endangering the common defense. Anybody remember him taking an oath to uphold the Constitution?
This is your opinion, the courts have had a different opinion. Where is your proof that a court has found him in violation of any of these articles or amendments that was not overturned.
Well, there is the ones concerning the detainees access to legal counsel (4th Amendment). But clearly your contention is that since he hasn't been CHARGED, therefore he hasn't actually broken the law.
Hell, I speed quite often. I am breaking the law by doing it. I haven't been CHARGED with it, therefore I must not have done it.
No. What I am saying is that the courts have agreed with him on these issues.
The only proof that the government has that you were speeding is your admission. You may have broken the law, but nobody can prove you did it to convict you of speeding. You may have broken the law but without proof, nothing can be done about it. We need proof that Bush broke these laws and I don't see enough to convict him.
I am uneasy that the detainees are ther indefinitely and I think they should get some kind of trial in the future. But the courts have said that they can be there indefinitely. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 11:23:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The supreme court ruled that the people in guantanamo bay can bring legal action challanging their status. Bush cannot deny their right to due process.
Yeah, but that doesn't alter the fact that Bush deprived them, FOR YEARS, of their right to due process.
It is amazing.
The insanity that has afflicted so many people here in my country, that allows them to remain pissed off at Clinton for such a minor thing, and sit back and make up excuses for W and rationalize away anything he does.
Maybe a better word would be surreal.
Robb-
You want an example of W directly breaking a very clear law?
He failed to inform congress, in the manner set out explicity in the law, which he and his people were more than aware of, of his warrantless wiretapping program and the newly revealed NSA program being carried out with the help of some of the major telecom companies.
He deliberately circumvented this law because he knew that there would be opposition on the appropriate comittee.
One clear law, deliberately broken, by G.W. Bush. One crime that, imo, is far more serious than any criminal act ever done by Clinton.
Yet I bet you will make up some excuse to forgive Bush this one also. Cite the lone ultra-noeconservative legal scholar who claims it isn't a criminal act and rationalize away a serious crime by your president.
quote:
It seems he authorized sleep deprevation, the use of dogs, sensory overload or deprevation. I do not think tis amounts to torture.
See what I mean? You will forgive this guy anything. You, and thoe like you, have invested yourselves into this president. You have done it so fully that if you admit he is a slimebag criminal it ammounts to YOU having to admit that your judgement is seriously flawed. Something that no person does easily.
Sleep deprivation, Robb, is hardcore torture. Try to stay awake for 48 hours, no stimulants allowed. At the 20-26hour mark when you decide trying to stay awake for 48 hours is a stupid idea and head for you bed, imagine what it would be like being forced to remain awake at that point.
quote:
I do not hold Bush to a higher standard, I do require evidence that he has committed a crime to impeach him.
No ammount of evidence, short of video of him strangling small children, will be enough to convince you. You DO hold Bush to a different standard, because you voted for him, and you have to first be capable of admitting that you made a mistake before you will admit that Bush need to be impeached for his numerous crimes.
There is ample evidence of his violation (crime) of the law that requires him to notify congress of his intel gathering activities. Ample evidence that he did it on purpose, in order to evade any and all oversight of his actions.
There is ample evidence that he, by executive order, denied hundreds of people the right to due process.
There is ample evidence that he has authorized the use of torture on these same people whom he is denying due process.
You just refuse to see it Robb.
Any thin excuse to impeach Clinton is ok, but no ammount of crime is enough to impeach Bush, apparently.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
