Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Perhaps you can help me shut a co-worker up RE Clinton.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 09:58 PM
Original message
Perhaps you can help me shut a co-worker up RE Clinton.
Edited on Tue May-17-05 09:59 PM by Catch22Dem
I regularly debate my coworker on various topics, but there's one she's always getting me on, and I've never gone back to check her facts (I always forget.)

1. Did Clinton lie UNDER OATH? Ok, so he wasn't upfront about what he did, and I didn't care then and I don't care now, but what are the facts? I was always under the impression that when it came time for a sworn statement, he told the truth.

2. Do people go to PRISON for perjury? I say no way in hell. They might be held in contempt and spend a little time in County or something, but PRISON? Come on. She insists there are people who do hard time for purgering themselves and Clinton should too. I say bullshit to that.

I know this looks like one of those cleverly disguised flamebait posts, but you can go back through 3+ years worth of my posts and you'll know I'm being serious here. I don't do that kind of shit.

Thanks. I'm off to do my own research on this (don't want you people to do ALL my work for me. ;) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tell her Bill's been outof office for a few years now...
maybe she should get some therapy, and move on. We've got a whole slew of liars running the show now, that she can get her knickers in a twist over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree.. tell her to get a life...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. And, when Bill lied, nobody died...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. No, I WANT to burn her on this
I think she's wrong. Look at my post below. I found some good stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Buddy, you're having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent...
You will never convince her of anything else. But, good luck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Ask her if she thinks Bush should go under oath...
Edited on Tue May-17-05 10:02 PM by Dr Fate
She will say "no."

Then say- he must be hiding somthing then- why can't he go under oath and "let the chips fall where they may?" Remind her that he and Cheney refused to go under oath during the Iraq Intellignece hearings.

Then ask - is it okay to lie like Bush does, so long as it is not "under oath?"

The trick is to keep directing the conversation towards Bush. Remind her that Clinton is ancient history.

REDIRECT to conversation to Bush and HIS questionable honesty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes, do the ol' "GOP Two-Step"...turn it around on her...
Avoid blame...make counter-accusations...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. Bush also declined to take an oath when questioned about 9/11.
And refused to speak in public. He & Cheney were questioned together--& no transcript has been released.

How many people did died because of what Monica & President Clinton did?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. I found this...
There is a myth about President Clinton’s testimony before the grand jury. The myth is that the President failed to admit his improper intimate relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I, which accuses the President of lying about “the nature and details of his relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky.

The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to the grand jury that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: “When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate intimate contact.” The President described to the grand jury how the relationship began and how it ended at his insistence early in 1997 -- long before any public attention or scrutiny. He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to testify in the deposition in the Jones case months earlier without having to acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he ultimately admitted to the grand jury -- that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.


http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/answerpr1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. From The Hunting of the President website timeline
http://www.thehuntingofthepresident.com/


"January 17, 1998 President Clinton, testifying under oath to lawyers in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, denies having had an affair with Lewinsky. He reportedly acknowledges having had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, a charge he previously denied."

The above was not perjury. Perjury must be material to the case at hand, and the Monica lie was not material to the Paula Jones sham. It was still a lie under oath.

We do not have to defend Clinton in order to condemn Bush. I am not a big fan of the Moderate/right democrat Bill Clinton.

Go ahead and lay the lie stuff down. Then ask if that all she has. Then, lay in with all the lies of Bushco.

If Bush just had an affair, instead of laying down our counterterror efforts until we got hit, stealing the treasury, stealing our civil rights, stealing our clean air and water, strealin our prominence and legitimacy in the world, and possibly stealing our future and lying about all that AND lying to start a war, I'd give him a pass on it.

I also suggest you get a .wav file of his evil snicker and play it over and over in her direction. Over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. No ... that was a characterization of the PJ question ...
The question was whether or not he had sexual relations with Lewinsky under the definition of sexual relations established in that particular case. He did not, under the definition established.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Tell them they look silly clinging to Clinton's penis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. I agree with Dr Fate
Keep twisting the facts around on Commander Koo-Koo Bananas.

I worked with someone like that a few years ago, before the chimp stole...aahhh, won the first election. Damn, he was annoying. A young 20 something, fresh out of college. Ya know what his college degree was in? Political science. Ya know where he was working? With a subscription agency!!!

They're all 2 bit jerks. IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. Ugh. No offense, but, respectfully,
you can't just drop it? Something like that--an argument with an idiot based on something so insignificant--would be too much aggro for me to tolerate. Save on migraine meds and write her off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. Bill should have told the investigators to go to hell about his
Edited on Tue May-17-05 10:11 PM by Erika
personal life. That was his one big mistake. Government does not belong in the private lives of consenting adults. He should have refused to testify about his personal life.

Clinton did not believe oral sex was the same thing as sexual relations so in his mind he was not lying. I am among the percentage that agrees oral sex is not the same as sexual relations.

I also think that the Linda broad who carried the tapes is the scum princess of womanhood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
13. The investigation was about Whitewater...
they couldn't get Clinton on it

so they went fishing and fishing and fishing

What the hell did Monica have to do with Whitewater



I think there should be an investigation on gw*dipshit getting a girl pregnant and forcing her to get an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. Just print out all these msgs and take them into her...
Edited on Tue May-17-05 10:55 PM by larissa
Dear Catch22's Co-worker:

Hope you enjoy all of these messages... Were your ears burning while we were writing them?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. Technically, he did not lie under oath.
He was asked if he had sex with Monica. Clinton asked them what definition of "sex" they were using. They replied intercourse. Since he did not have intercourse, then he did not have "sex" under the definition that was used in the question. Therefore, he did not lie under oath. A lawyer's trick, yes: but the legal, technical truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Thanks
That's pretty much what I was looking for. It's not as though we have arguments about the Big Dawg, it's just what she throws out there when she's got nothin' else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comsymp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
27. The perjury accusation is what pisses me off - It. Never. Happened.
Edited on Wed May-18-05 07:57 AM by comsymp
Perjury is making deliberate false statements in a criminal trial.

The Jones business was civil, not criminal. No perjury occurred.

Now, did Clinton skate too close to the fire? Absolutely. He relied on Judge Wright's definition of "sexual relations" (not "sex", dammit!). Unfortunately for him, she wasn't amused by the distinction, which is why she spanked him for making false statements in a civil trial - not perjury.

Edit: @#$% html tags~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMPLEMINTZ Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. I found
this story about a cop who was sentenced to 5 years for perjury. I'm not sure how long the longest sentence ever was for felony perjury.

http://www.wehaitians.com/ex%20cop%20gets%20five%20years%20in%20louima%20case.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. BUSH TOOK AN...
"oath" to preserve, (meaning not allow to be shreaded) protect (meaning not allow other to destroy the 'rules' we've been attempting to live by for over 200yrs) and DEFEND- not destroy the Constitution of the United States-

Ask your 'co-worker' if he's kept that 'oath' in light of the patriot act(s)- Then ask why his pants are flaming, or hers are if she tried to 'wiggle' out of the reality that he has destroyed the constitution-and the bill of rights- and that he said he was SURE there were WMD's- and has YET to admit his lies-

Clinton didn't take an 'oath' to the American people to remain 'faithful' to his wife- He and his wife entered into a mutual commitment to each other- He apologized to the entire world, for something none of us had any business knowing, and if the sex-crazed 'fundieheads' hadn't been so deceptivly nosey, we would never have needed to know- about cigars, and blue dresses, and things that have NOTHING to do with his 'charge' to keep- which Bush has trashed, and lied, and continues to lie about-

(Technically Clinton has 'scooch' room in his reply- (my oldest son was begining to really 'grasp' sexuality when all this was going on, and i had to admit, that if i had been caught doing anything short of actually having intercourse, and knew i was gonna catch 'hell' for what i HAD done, i could have 'legitimately' answered no- oral sex, mutual gratification, etc,was NOT 'sex' to my generation- stretching the truth? OOOHHHH yeah, but an out and out lie? no- not as clearly as the lies Bush has gotten away with- and applauded by fools for-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radar Donating Member (447 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
20. Eriposte.com has collected stuff you might get to use....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
21. Point out that they investigated the Clinton's for wrongdoing for years.
And all they came up with was that he lied about an affair at the office.

That WhiteWater cost $75 Million and was 3 years long (or more). And that the crime Clinton paid the price for..took place in the last year of the investigation.

They knew he had a roving eye. He and Hillary admitted to the issue before he was even elected. We read in her book that she loves the dumb bumb for his mind. And loves the long, long conversation they have that has been going on their whole time together. Shame on them. They love each other for all their faults.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
23. I only have one response when that crap comes up
I look at my watch or a calander and I look at them and say, "Who"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Or bring up Nixon.
Or Hoover.

Or Harding.

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
25. Notice how they still go on about Clinton?
And Democrats think pushing Hillary with "values voters" is a winning proposal with all that baggage?

It's like pitching Kerry again. A tried and true formula for failure.

One is left to wonder if the Democrats want to lose--or have so little faith in their own identity that they are afraid to put up a real stand to win in any meaningful way. The only way they can win is by default---which is the strategy centrists count on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
26. Ask her to take an oath
Then ask her to explain every sexual act in her past in detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drbtg1 Donating Member (932 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
29. I didn't think it was material, thus NOT perjury
Edited on Wed May-18-05 11:48 AM by drbtg1
1. I thought the matter at hand, to be considered perjury, had to be ruled material, or relevant, to the case. What happened with Lewinsky was immaterial to the Jones case, thus not perjury and not a crime.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

2. When Clinton looked into the television cameras and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", it was certainly sleazy and misleading, but was it a lie? Well, Merriam-Webster's definition of "sexual relations" is intercourse, not oral sex. Starr, as hard as he tried, did not find intercourse.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sexual+relations

3. You might want to remind this person about the "16 words" and other falsehoods in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. Then remind them what the State of the Union Address actually is. Not a campaign speech, but a CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED REPORT from the president to the Congress. The requirements for truth here should be much higher for the SOTU than anything regarding a blowjob. Certainly an impeachable offense, even if the Republicans didn't set the standard so low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
30. Clinton lied under oath, but it was not perjury
Since it was not material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
31. Tell her the real problem with Clinton was that
during Clinton's administration, the Democrats lost:
- 48 seats in the House
- 8 seats in the Senate
- 11 governorships
- 1,254 state legislative seats
- Control of 9 legislatures
In addition 439 elected Democrats joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders went the other way.
While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Among other things, this gave the Republican more control over redistricting.
In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC