Deaniacs In a Funk, Want to Secede From U.S.

[knuckleboner]

nah, she had her day in civil court. she lost it. part of her evidence was, and i'm not making this up, "she didn't get flowers on secretaries' day."


plus she didn't work in the same office as gov. clinton. even if he did make a pass at her (and let's be honest, while she ain't the greatest looker, clinton definitely made the pass), she alleged nothing that showed that she was agreived in any way due to spurning the advance.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD


I seem to remember a dozen or so states who once left the country over a Hell of a lot less. You live in Virginia and consider yourself a "Southerner". So were they wrong then? And if so, why don't you condemn the use of the Confederate flag?

People continue to think the Civil War was about slavery. That is only partly correct. States rights was the issue, with slavery being the test of that issue. States rights to secede play into focus during your post as well.

Used in the wrong way, the Confederate flag can be a symbol of hate. I also don't think it belongs depicted in any official capacity for any use. That being said, it is not always a symbol of hate. It just depends.

You however, are obviously just a little pissed off your boy Dean quit the team. If you are truly serious about your little post about your stupid little country, you are truly warped.

[Lqskydiver]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
nah, she had her day in civil court. she lost it. part of her evidence was, and i'm not making this up, "she didn't get flowers on secretaries' day."


plus she didn't work in the same office as gov. clinton. even if he did make a pass at her (and let's be honest, while she ain't the greatest looker, clinton definitely made the pass), she alleged nothing that showed that she was agreived in any way due to spurning the advance.

Hypocrisy all over, kb. Women's groups all over would have caused hell if a republican had done such a thing and made it to office. I'm sure Hilary made some promises to quell any uprising in the ranks. Of course, she bitched slapped the two timer more than once on their way to power.

Power corrupts....absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Lqskydiver
Hypocrisy all over, kb. Women's groups all over would have caused hell if a republican had done such a thing and made it to office.

Yup. Arnie is such a case. The gropenator is now the Governator.

Uhu uhu hu hu hu uhu hu hu

Hey, grabbing a woman's tit is only harmless fun. It should be legalized.

[rustoffa]

He found a first lady!

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yup. Arnie is such a case. The gropenator is now the Governator.

Uhu uhu hu hu hu uhu hu hu

Hey, grabbing a woman's tit is only harmless fun. It should be legalized.

sorry if i was a little confusing. i wasn't saying clinton didn't do anything objectionable to jones. far from it.

i was just saying that the civil trial was paula jones saying she was sexually harrassed AND that it cost her X amount of money.

but she lost the civil case because she could demonstrate ZERO monetary damages. she received merit pay increases after the incidents and she could not demonstrate that her job was adversely affected, especially since clinton was not involved in her job.

unwanted sexual advances are not automatically sexual harrassment, though they can be. but even if they are, i.e.: assuming jones' claims, she STILL showed no monetary damages resulting from them.


again, it doesn't mean clinton's behavior wasn't necessarily objectionable. it just caused jones no real damages.


now, like LQ and BBB said, is it fair that certain groups who attacked arnold, by and large, did not do the same thing to clinton as they did arnold? no, it's not. whether jones had any actual damages or not, doesn't really mean that clinton's behavior wasn't still in poor taste. but, the fact that NOW and other groups didn't attack bill as badly doesn't mean that paula jones had any less of a case. she didn't have damages, regardless of who did (or didn't) attack clinton.

[FORD]

Not only did she not suffer any real damages, she got a $50,000 nose job funded by treasonous Anti-American bastard Richard Mellonhead Scaife

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by knuckleboner

unwanted sexual advances are not automatically sexual harrassment, though they can be. but even if they are, i.e.: assuming jones' claims, she STILL showed no monetary damages resulting from them.

Unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, right? And I'm confused... Just because Paula didn't win a monetary award in the civil case excuses the previous perjury and obstruction from Clinton??? Interesting perspective. I wonder if it would work for me if the need ever arose.

Oh, and many military men have served time for perjury. In fact, from what I've seen, it's almost always followed by jail time when a military member gets caught lying under oath. You're saying the Commander in Chief is somehow above the law?

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, right?

what do you mean? if memory serves, thomas was approved as justice. (he spoke at my law graduation. good speaker.) congressional hearings are always a bit goofy. but in the end, they confirmed him.

And I'm confused... Just because Paula didn't win a monetary award in the civil case excuses the previous perjury and obstruction from Clinton??? Interesting perspective. I wonder if it would work for me if the need ever arose.

Oh, and many military men have served time for perjury. In fact, from what I've seen, it's almost always followed by jail time when a military member gets caught lying under oath. You're saying the Commander in Chief is somehow above the law?

not at all, mr. AG. i'm talking 100% about just the civil case.

here's what i said earlier:

again, i'm not saying he shouldn't have been tried at all. hell no. try him as soon as he leaves office. make him an example for perjury (since they don't for most people.)

i would've been in favor of a perjury/obstruction of justice trial. to be perfectly honest, i don't remember enough about those 2 charges to be able to say right now whether i think he should be found guilty. but by all means, i think there was enough for a grand jury investigation. and if they found enough, send him to trial. absolutely.


and when i said that most people don't get tried for perjury in civil cases (which i assume is equally as true for military men in civil trials), i did not mean that going after clinton would've been bad or unfair.

i was simply trying to say that since it was a common, often un-tried crime, i personally didn't think it met the "high crimes and misdemeanors" test to impeach clinton. but i DO think i would've tried him after he left office. most people aren't tried for civil perjury because it happens so much that it would be a tremendous financial burden for the courts to try them all criminally. i don't like that argument, though. the law should be applied as uniformly as possible.

i would NEVER argue that someone who broke the law shouldn't be tried. and the beauty of trying clinton it would've also been a visible example to everyone else of the perils of lying in court.

[John Ashcroft]

Nah, I like the impeachment option better. It was immediate, and sent the same message. I just wish the Senate would've taken their balls with them to work when it came to their turn. I've gotta tell ya, It's not that I hate Clinton, and it's not that I feel there should be some kind of new legislation making the penalty for perjury ridiculously high. It's the selective enforcement of such crimes I have a real problem with. I'm telling you the military goes after people furiously for crimes like perjury. I believe the Commander in Chief should be held to equal standards. It's that simple. I'm taking this from a strictly ex-military man perspective, which I know is partly wrong. But damn, we're not supposed to have rules for the powerful and a separate set of rules for the weak. That's my problem with the whole ordeal.

[knuckleboner]

no, dude, i agree with you 100% on trying him. absolutely, no question.

as far as impeachment, i'm just saying that since it wasn't really a serious crime, i didn't think the impeachment was proper. which, as you know, of course, still leaves the option of trying him criminally the second he steps down from office.

i just think that if the framers wanted impeachment to be available for ANY crime, they'd have said, "any crime, whatsover," instead of, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

i mean, i know that perjury in a civil case is more of a serious crime than jaywalking. but at some point, there needs to be a line drawn. if it's really, "any" crime then bush could be impeached if he misses the trash can when he's trying to toss a tissue during a parade.

it can't be ANY crime. and personally, and this is truly an opinion and not a fact, i just don't think that civil perjury, unrelated to presidential duties, is above that standard.

though i'd fully support going after the bastard the sceond he leaves office.

[John Ashcroft]

Really, don't you see undermining the judicial system as at least a high misdemeanor? I certainly don't equate perjury with jaywalking (and I know you weren't either), and I don't equate it with treason (although that term apparently has no meaning anymore), but I do see it as a serious enough offense to remove any public official from office.

[knuckleboner]

eh...you make a solid point there. to be honest, i looked at the issue more from an overall, how serious is civil perjury/obstruction of justice in a civil case, standpoint. but you've got a decent angle.

i don't know. i THINK i'd still vote against impeachment. but it's food for thought.