Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I think we get the difference.

The question isn't the relative legality. The question is, Is lying under oath about a personal sexual matter between two consenting adults a greater wrong, a more serious matter, rising to the level of an impeachable offense, than lying about the presence of WMDs in Iraq to ensure public support needed to pursue a war?

Republicans say yes. Democrats say no.

Wrong. Its apples and oranges. Regardless of the subject matter of the case, perjury is a crime. Perjury by a lawyer on his own behalf, while not a separate statutory defense (I don't think, but I am not really a lawyer so why would i know) is somewhat more viscerally shocking to the conscience, for obvious reasons. Perjury by the Chief Executive Officer of the Country a bit more so. But at the end of the day, its a legal process question and there is no question he should have suffered the consequences of his scofflawism at the hands of the process.

If y'all are so convinced that Bush lied, and I am not sure it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise, take it the appropriate forum, which in this case is the American electorate. Actually, that's a great idea. Next time Bush runs for re-election you democrats and your comrades in the liberal party should make Bush's alleged lies about WMDs and justification for the war a major campaign issue. The American people will surely see the convincing righteousness of your assertions and he will be voted out of office. Then maybe you convince the Hague to indict for War Crimes.

Good luck with this approach, no need to thank me.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think he was afraid of anything. But if you think that Clinton could have unilaterally decided to invade Afghanistan, you are in la-la land. For one, the military didn't want to do it.

.

1. Not invade, surgically remove.

2. Commander.in.Chief. Chain.of.Command. What part of those two concepts gives the military the option to pick and choose which Presidential directives to follow?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Wrong. Its apples and oranges. Regardless of the subject matter of the case, perjury is a crime. Perjury by a lawyer on his own behalf, while not a separate statutory defense (I don't think, but I am not really a lawyer so why would i know) is somewhat more viscerally shocking to the conscience, for obvious reasons. Perjury by the Chief Executive Officer of the Country a bit more so. But at the end of the day, its a legal process question and there is no question he should have suffered the consequences of his scofflawism at the hands of the process.

If y'all are so convinced that Bush lied, and I am not sure it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise, take it the appropriate forum, which in this case is the American electorate. Actually, that's a great idea. Next time Bush runs for re-election you democrats and your comrades in the liberal party should make Bush's alleged lies about WMDs and justification for the war a major campaign issue. The American people will surely see the convincing righteousness of your assertions and he will be voted out of office. Then maybe you convince the Hague to indict for War Crimes.

Good luck with this approach, no need to thank me.

Too bad the election isn't today. The Democrats could run a Moore/Dean ticket and win. Seen the poll numbers lately?

Also, I just saw this.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
Too bad the election isn't today. The Democrats could run a Moore/Dean ticket and win. Seen the poll numbers lately?

Also, I just saw this.

So those 2 do speak for the majority of the party. Got it.

eta:

Rove was speaking precisely about these 2 clowns. Here's a much longer quote from his actual remarks:

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to... submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding...

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It's not a penske sock.

Who's penske?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Too bad the election isn't today. The Democrats could run a Moore/Dean ticket and win. Seen the poll numbers lately?

Also, I just saw this.

Wow! that's compelling. You should petition for a new election.

Speaking of which, how's the recount in the Ohio coming?

[Spanky]

I have to say - this is really fun - I felt like the only Republican on the board and now the cavalry has arrived. I am having trouble keeping up let alone posting.

Anyway - for all you that think Clintons lies were not a big deal. Back in 98 I came up with a Syllogism for the Impeachment. I am just curious which questions on this syllogism the Democrats on this board would answer no to.

1) Can an employee bring a sexual harassment suit against their current or former employer?
2) During the discovery period of a suit concerning sexual harassment can the employee ask the employer (defendant) questions about his or her sexual relations with past and current employees in a deposition under oath?
3) If the employer refuses to answer questions under oath can the plaintiff ask the judge to order a defendant to answer a question under oath?
4) Can a judge order a defendant or a witness to answer questions under oath that the judge deems relevant to the case?
5) If the employer lies under oath to a question the court ordered him to answer should that lie be considered perjury (remember the court has already ruled that the question is relevant and ordered him to answer)?
6) Should perjury be considered a felony?
7) Should a President that commits a felony while in office be impeached?

[SlaveNoMore]

Iron Steve
Wow! that's compelling. You should petition for a new election.

Speaking of which, how's the recount in the Ohio coming?

I'd leave that rotting corpse alone, Dino.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
1. Not invade, surgically remove.

If you would read Ghost Wars, you would understand why that was never possible. Believe me, they were trying.

2. Commander.in.Chief. Chain.of.Command. What part of those two concepts gives the military the option to pick and choose which Presidential directives to follow?

That's a fine question, but the people who should be answering it are in the military. You could also ask them why the Apache helicopters sent to Albania never performed any combat missions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Who's penske?

You mean, who's penske now?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Rove was speaking precisely about these 2 clowns.

He meant to tar everyone who currently opposes the war in Iraq with the same brush and you know it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Can an employee bring a sexual harassment suit against their current or former employer?

Depends on what's alleged.

2) During the discovery period of a suit concerning sexual harassment can the employee ask the employer (defendant) questions about his or her sexual relations with past and current employees in a deposition under oath?

Depends on whether the questions are relevant to what's alleged.

3) If the employer refuses to answer questions under oath can the plaintiff ask the judge to order a defendant to answer a question under oath?

A plaintiff can always ask.

4) Can a judge order a defendant or a witness to answer questions under oath that the judge deems relevant to the case?

Usually.

5) If the employer lies under oath to a question the court ordered him to answer should that lie be considered perjury (remember the court has already ruled that the question is relevant and ordered him to answer)?

Probably so.

6) Should perjury be considered a felony?

Probably so.

7) Should a President that commits a felony while in office be impeached?

Depends on the felony.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Probably so.

Probably so.

Depends on the felony.

OK Final questions

8) If a public figure commits perjury and is not penalized, won't that make it more difficult to convince people that there could be negative consequences if they commit perjury?

9) Isn't getting people to tell the truth under oath an important element in our judicial system?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So those 2 do speak for the majority of the party. Got it.

I think he was saying that even though those two don't speak for the majority, they could be elected now.

Rove was speaking precisely about these 2 clowns. Here's a much longer quote from his actual remarks:

His longer quote doesn't make any more sense. Bush did act with restraint, at least relative to the calls by some conservatives to occupy Mecca, etc. The suggestion that conservatives wanted to use force while liberals wanted to draft a petitition or try to "understand" the enemy instead is -- of course -- a smear and a lie.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
8) If a public figure commits perjury and is not penalized, won't that make it more difficult to convince people that there could be negative consequences if they commit perjury?

Perhaps, although you would have to be insane to think that Clinton did not suffer negative consequences from what he did. And the decision to impeach the President ought to be based on quite a bit more than the desire to disincent future perjury.