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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is not fine. Depends on the situation. But lying and lying under oath are as different as renting a car, and abusing it while you have it, and stealing a car.

Aw, c'mon -- that's just silly. Not to mention dead wrong on the law. People go to jail for fraud, for much longer than anyone has ever proposed sending people to jail for perjury in a civil case, even when their lies were not told under oath.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well, thats the only reason Bush hasn't been impeached now, isn't it? That, and the fact that the Dems are impotent chickenshits. Were people not afraid to sink us into a new Watergate during a time of national uncertainty, Bush might find himself under oath, and lying just like Bubba did.

Lying to the American people is not a crime, but its a lot worse than lying under oath about a blow job. Bush might be the greatest thing for Clinton's legacy. If iraq goes badly, people will remember him, not Clinton, as the man who set a new standard for lying.

In the silly, warped minds of people who support Bush but hate Clinton, its ok to lie anywhere but the courthouse. Thats about as cynical and senseless a viewpoint as I've ever heard.

Your disrespect for the rule of law takes your cynicism to a new low. If perjury is fine, then you, as a beacon of the profession, should be out beating the bushes to do away with laws against lying under oath instead of bad mouthing the greatest wartime president of this century!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No, I got outed with the other one. See the FB. sorry. I hope this does not impact our "relationship" pookie, such as it is.

Well, now they will know that this one is the same as the person outed. So how does switching logins help?

What's a "'relationship' pookie"?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not at all. But I've never read Don Quixote, and I think this summer is the time to jump into the new translation.



I categorically decline to drink wines from Oz and NZ, for arbitrary and capricious reasons, but you are not the first to tell me to reconsider lately, so perhaps I shall.

I am all about PacNW wines generally. I dabble in CA. Up until not too long ago I had avoided for the down unders for no particular reason other than I did not want to develop a new learning curve yet, but then I was exposed and it is good. It is all good. Even the French is good, what the hell! Que sera sera and pop the cork.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well, now they will know that this one is the same as the person outed. So how does switching logins help?

What's a "'relationship' pookie"?

I meant "relationship cookie".

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So? Is the criminal code your sole moral compass? One instance of perjury is worse than 50 instances of lying to the public to ram through a policy a large portion of the country did not, and if given the true information re: WMD, would not have supported? Is that honestly what you're saying?

The criminal code is not my sole moral compass. Where did you get that? You may detest what Bush did but there is no clear legal solution. You can't prosecute someone for something if they have not broken the law, even if you don't like what they did. Once you start saying that your political beliefs are more important than the system, that is when the system collapses. If you ignore the rules because you don't like the outcome, then you get anarchy. Clinton committed perjury, and in my mind there is no doubt that perjury falls under high crimes and misdemeaners. Those were the rules when Clinton entered office. Maybe the suit should have been dismissed, but that is irrelevent when determining perjury.

As far as what Bush has done, even if what you say is true, I don't see if there are any crimes he has committed. If you don't like that then you can pass laws making what Bush did a crime. But Bush did not break any laws and Clinton did.

So it is OK to lie under oath if you disagree with the validity of the case you are involved in? Of course not because almost any defendent disagrees with the validity of the case brought against them. Once Clinton took that oath of lying under the penalty of perjury everything tha that happened up to that point was irrelevant. He was under oath and had to tell the truth. I can't believe that you can't see that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Aw, c'mon -- that's just silly. Not to mention dead wrong on the law. People go to jail for fraud, for much longer than anyone has ever proposed sending people to jail for perjury in a civil case, even when their lies were not told under oath.

Do you think perjury should be considered a serious offence?

What laws did Bush break?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I meant "relationship cookie".

"relationship" quickie? Maybe Friday at lunchtime.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Your disrespect for the rule of law takes your cynicism to a new low. If perjury is fine, then you, as a beacon of the profession, should be out beating the bushes to do away with laws against lying under oath instead of bad mouthing the greatest wartime president of this century!

That really does not mean much because we are only five years into the century. In addition, accept for the twenty one days of Clinton in 2001, he is the only president we have had this century.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
The criminal code is not my sole moral compass. Where did you get that? .

the 10 Commandments are my moral compass. Except for the sex ones.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
That really does not mean much because we are only five years into the century. In addition, accept for the twenty one days of Clinton in 2001, he is the only president we have had this century.

Way to nitpick. You may as well have pointed out the split infinitives.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
That really does not mean much because we are only five years into the century. In addition, accept for the twenty one days of Clinton in 2001, he is the only president we have had this century.

Good god. Does Spanky know what the word "whiff" means? I was willing to accept the 21 days of having Clinton as our President. I'm having a harder time accepting the 5 years of Bush.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
If Clinton had been kicked from office we would have Al Gore. The "need" for a president would never have gone unfufilled. The ironic thing is that if Clinton had left office, Gore would have been an incumbent in 2000 and would most likely have won the election.

Congress would have kicked from office a president elected by the people, Gore would have been viewed as an appointee, like Ford. Congress dramatically increases its power at the expense of the Executive Branch. This is a rather drastic result just to set an example to would-be future perjurers.

It is also a crime to lie to law enforcement. Is impeachment warranted if a president were stopped for speeding (yeah, yeah, I know. Go with the hypo.) and misrepresented how fast she (go with the hypo) was going? And what of the underlying crime of speeding*? Impeachable?

*Before answering that speeding is a relatively insignificant and benign offense, please consider the number of speeding-related deaths with the number of perjury-related deaths.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you think perjury should be considered a serious offence?

Well, according to the good Senator from Pennsylvania, it's not Clinton's fault. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. We are all at fault.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Good god. Does Spanky know what the word "whiff" means? .

An original whiff? I don't think so.