1
   

Thanks W

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 07:59 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
at the time, purchasing a slave was not considered immoral by many.

True, and at the time, what happened with Clinton was not considered immoral by many.

Quote:
Now with regards to purely buying one for sex...thats a grey area

Grey area? Whew...that is one sharp moral compass.
I would call cheating on one's wife is immoral and wrong. You have an oath to your wife and when that is broken due to lack of self-control, then you are wrong.

To lie about it in court and to also lie about trying to get that person a job is also a lie, there was more but that is the jest of it. Perjury is wrong and can be punished. He was punished accordingly. He was impeached and also removed from the BAR.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:04 pm
http://www.pjcomix.com/images/beaver9.gif

Gladnick: Monica's pet beaver...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:06 pm
baldimo

Rather obviously, I was addressing the consistency problems in our friend's moral philosophy.

As to your particular set of moral notions, it's certainly proper for you to have them.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:13 pm
Baldimo wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
at the time, purchasing a slave was not considered immoral by many.

True, and at the time, what happened with Clinton was not considered immoral by many.

Quote:
Now with regards to purely buying one for sex...thats a grey area

Grey area? Whew...that is one sharp moral compass.
I would call cheating on one's wife is immoral and wrong. You have an oath to your wife and when that is broken due to lack of self-control, then you are wrong.

To lie about it in court and to also lie about trying to get that person a job is also a lie, there was more but that is the jest of it. Perjury is wrong and can be punished. He was punished accordingly. He was impeached and also removed from the BAR.


That's almost missing the point. Basically, the dickhead did this arrogant finger-wagging thing in front of the world...

Quote:

I want all you ignorant mother....ers to know that I never porked that teenage intern, not even once, why I never even THOUGHT about it, I never even had lust in my heart like that asshole Jimmy Carter.....


and then, three weeks later, when forensics shows the guy to be a total liar, he comes out on worldwide TV again and with a straighface:

Quote:

It all depends on what the definition of is is...


I mean, that to me was an unbelievable insult to the intelligence of the entire world. In his place, before I said that, I'd have gone out on primetime TV and said

Quote:

People, I'm really sorry about that bullshit lie I told the other day, about not porking the teenage intern and what not, but the honest truth is that we'd been having a sort of a party at the whitehouse that day and Hillary, I, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, Paul Begala, Wesley Clark and a number of other people had been smoking a lot of reefer and snorting cocaine and I was basically just so ****ed up I really didn't have any idea what I was saying...


Even that would have sounded better than trying to talk about the definition of 'is'.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:13 pm
Frankly, it's regrettable but hardly surprising that someone engaging in an affair might actually lie about it under oath. It's positively stunning, on the other hand, that a band of partisan zealots would put the business of government on hold while trying to short circuit the electoral process in order to exact their petty revenge.

Well, maybe not so stunning.....
0 Replies
 
smog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:17 pm
Don't you guys watch Law & Order? Even if your intern gets murdered, you don't have to discuss the details of your sexual affair in court.

And yes, I know what you're thinking, and you're right: L&O is the best source of legal fact, ever.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:20 pm
This is such a silly silly bit of Americana. There are interesting and complicated moral questions involved in Clinton's actions, Starr's actions, the actions of those who set out from day one to get Clinton out of office, and the actions of the Congress. But these moral questions are not about to be plumbed by the two chaps posting up above.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:23 pm
Baldimo wrote:

To lie about it in court and to also lie about trying to get that person a job is also a lie, there was more but that is the jest of it. Perjury is wrong and can be punished. He was punished accordingly. He was impeached and also removed from the BAR.


okay. let's say thay we agree that cheating on the wife is bad. btw, i do agree with you there.

but tell me, since it was a private matter until it got spread by a sleazy self promoter named tripp and wound into a failing investigation by the republican extremists, just how did it hurt the country?

by the way, didn't just come out that a former lt. governor of texas kinda lied a little to get "W" into the air guard?

perjury. now on this one, from some of the analysis that i've read, clinton didn't lie when he stated that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman". it would seem that the prosecution team was the side that typed up the definitions of what constituted "sexual relations".

as i recall, they had a long list of "things done to give another person arousal or gratification". i can't remember for sure, but i think they didn't even mention oral. either way, it seems like monica was doin' all the work and bill was just kinda diggin' it. apparently he felt no need to give her anything. hense, by the prosecution's own definition of sexual relations, bill did not HAVE sexual relations with monica, she had them with him!

so he didn't lie.

if only gingrich and company had spent the time they wasted on this crap (and distracting the dems from their work) thinking about what was going on in the middle east...
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:37 pm
swolf wrote:

I mean, that to me was an unbelievable insult to the intelligence of the entire world. In his place, before I said that, I'd have gone out on primetime TV and said


funny.. that's how i felt after bush's big speech last night.

first of all, what the hell was with that whole " i ac-cept your nom-i-nay-shun for pres-i-dent" thing. did rove tell him to speak ;oudly and slowly so the ol' codgers would get it?

and what about " we're gonna do a whole bunch of great stuff and it's gonna cost a whole gang o' money, you won't have to pay for it cuz we're gonna make the tax cuts permanent".

what the hell part of that ain't a "pig in a poke?????
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:47 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
Interesting set of values you've got yourself there.

It's okay-- natural, in fact-- to sexually use (rape, essentially) unconsenting women because you "own" them, but it's perversion for consenting adults to engage in an act of sensuality...

Fascinating!
Very Happy Laughing
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 09:25 pm
That blacksmith guy sure is a clever bloke!
0 Replies
 
johnbelushi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 09:50 pm
sfdfds
come on I'd bang a nice booty sister if i owned her and so would you!

He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man!
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 09:58 pm
Assuming facts not in evidence, to wit, that I would in fact choose to own another human being. Further, and solely for the sake of argument, that doing so I would then choose to force myself upon her.

Here's a better line for you:

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil." Shakespeare
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 10:11 pm
To quote the first Republican President:

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Abraham Lincoln, August 10, 1858.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:29 pm
Re: fdgh
Harper wrote:


Since when is receiving oral sex a perversion?


Well, for quite a long time on some places, but that's beside the point. Personally, I don't see it as a perversion, but then I never really had much of a problem with the fact that Bill Clinton might want to insert a cigar into a woman's vagina and then smoke it.

Trouble is, the vagina didn't belong to Hilary, and the vagina did belong to a young White House intern.

Shrug off adultery. For all we know, the Clinton's had an "open marriage," but how does a woman (even a transgendered one) shrug off the clear and unequivocal sexual harassment of, arguably, the most powerful man in the world of a young and impressionable woman?

Is it because the fat slut wanted it?

Poor Bill, seduced by a nymphomaniac intern.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:58 pm
Yup, that's the thing to point to...sexual favors from a position of power and trust.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 12:00 am
blacksmithn wrote:
Frankly, it's regrettable but hardly surprising that someone engaging in an affair might actually lie about it under oath. It's positively stunning, on the other hand, that a band of partisan zealots would put the business of government on hold while trying to short circuit the electoral process in order to exact their petty revenge.

Well, maybe not so stunning.....


Sounds like you need it explained...

Slick could have had his choice of several hundred thousand women living in and around the D.C. area, on his own time, his own dime, or even in the whitehouse after business hours, and nobody would have given a rat's ass. Slick was porking a teenage intern in the oval office during business hours while keeping visiting dignitaries waiting in the outer office. There is no walk of life in which you could get by with that in America, and no management job from which you would not get fired for it.

That's aside from making the whole country look bad by porkling a pig like monica of course...


If there's anything I find hard to believe in the crap I read coming from
democrats and liberals it's this claim that Slick is somehow a cool stud or
something like that for getting his geriatric, crooked tally sucked off by a
cool, teenage Lolita intern like Monica.

I mean, the first time I ever saw a picture of Monica Lewinsky, I was almost in
a state of shock. I mean, picture the European heads of state standing there
with their actresses and super models looking at a picture of the leader of
what's supposed to be the most powerful nation since Chengis Khan, standing
there with a little pig like that. I mean, they must have laughed themselves silly.

I mean, Monica Lewinski is the sort of thing I'd anticipate seeing on the centerfold
of some livestock journal.

It may in fact actually be that democrats and liberals can't tell the
difference. If that's the case, then you might could devise a simple test for
weeding out democrats and liberals in a manner similar to that which they used to
tell Japanese from Chinese during WW-II by having them try to pronounce something like
'lallapolooza' with a lot of 'l's in it, i.e. show the job applicant or whatever
two pictures, e.g.:


Test:

One of the pictures below is of a super-model, the other of a pig; which is which?

A.

http://www.cinema-stars.com/milla/images/8.jpg

B.

http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~eric/images/humor/monical.jpg

If somebody guesses wrong, or if they honestly can't tell the difference, then
they are probably a democrat and a liberal, and can be weeded out from whatever it is
you're testing for.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 12:03 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
swolf wrote:

I mean, that to me was an unbelievable insult to the intelligence of the entire world. In his place, before I said that, I'd have gone out on primetime TV and said


funny.. that's how i felt after bush's big speech last night.

In that case your education is in serious need of upgrading. Most normal people who heard and watched that speech saw it as a grand slam. Dick Morris saw it as one of the truly great political speeches:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/morris.html

0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 12:11 am
Re: fdgh
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:


Shrug off adultery. For all we know, the Clinton's had an "open marriage," ...


I don't think "adultry" is the right word there. Slick and Monica weren't adulterers; they were fornicators. There's a difference. Humans commit adultery and have affairs; animals fornicate. The notion of having an affair incorporates what the founding fathers termed a decent respect for the opinions of one's fellow man and some minimal effort to keep whatever one is doing within reasonable and rational bounds and out of sight of others. Fornicating means just going at it whenever the lust arises, and screw the consequences. Slick and Monica were doing the later and not the former.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 04:13 am
Hmmm - I would rather such actions, than such thoughts as you two revel in here, John B and Swolf, with your sickening comments about other human beings, faulty and fallible as we all are.

I shall happily leave you two to play in the sad prisons of your own skulls.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Thanks W
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 01:39:20