Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Come on, let's get back on topic. I'm tired of bickering about events long past, for either side of the political spectrum. What matters is the here and now, and the commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence.

Personally, even though the Constitution allows such uses of power, I think history will judge George Bush harshly for his decision, perhaps as a greater struggle to silence those who dissent with his war. The CIA agent who was identified had a husband who spoke out strongly against the war. By pardoning Libby, Bush is demonstrating his belief that ruining careers is A-Okay as long as the careers you ruin are anti-war.

Here's a question to anyone who knows: Is there any way to overturn a presidential pardon by supreme court / congress vote, or is it final and absolute?

At 7/3/07 01:05 AM, Bolo wrote: Hey, if we're gonna talk old-time presidential pardons, let's talk about Caspar Weinberger, almost a casualty of the Iran-Contra affair, but pardoned in a rather timely manner by another one of the active participants in the affair—Geroge Bush. I guess spur-of-the-moment, unwarranted pardons run in the family.

Okay, let's dance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_par dons_controversy

I personally find it hilarious that people mindlessly follow a political party, of course that is what the political parties WANT, to keep the nation divided to maintain control over the people.

politicians do things like this to keep the nation divided, as you can plainly see by the bickering. some illuminati controlling the world? nah, just 2 political parties working together to maintain their stranglehold on america. If the people were to unite, we could cast out both political parties and have true democratic elections, rather than this column A or column B voting system. Nothing would shaft both democrats AND republicans more than a 3rd, independent party emerging and taking control of the government.

At 7/2/07 09:01 PM, Bolo wrote: Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States.

100 million dollars is exactly 400 times as much money as Scooter Libby is now required to pay under the bargain.

Marc Rich also committed a crime. Scooter Libby didn't.

In fact, that's exactly what the jurors for his case said too.....hmmm.

At 7/2/07 09:09 PM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote: If a CIA agent did this, he would be convicted of treason, which they EXCUTE you for...
They went to damn easy on him, and Bush is being an asshole trying to back up his dickhead friends...

Children are funny.
Except Joe Wilson blabbed his wife's status to everone who listened. And Richard Armitage is the jerk who fed her name to the papers. Are either of them on trail?
Spare me your ignorant outrage.

At 7/2/07 10:38 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: So are you saying that the president should have the right to pardon his friends? Yes or no answer and why, can you atleast give me that?

The President has a right to pardon pretty much whomever he pleases. Which, while no matter how corrupt Clinton's process was, the Republicans didn't have anything on him for pardoning scum like Marc, and known terrorists.

At 7/2/07 11:59 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 7/2/07 11:53 PM, JakeHero wrote:
How does that Clinton cock taste, Bolo?

Wait, are you guys saying it's cool that Bush commuted Libby's sentence because Clinton did it for Rich? Or are you saying we can't be annoyed with it because a previous pres who shares our party did it?

We're saying that if political partisan hacks don't care when the President commutes a real criminal after being given political contributions, that said same political hacks have nothing to say that we care to listen to when the president throws out jail time on a man who committed no crime whatsoever.

At 7/3/07 01:05 AM, Bolo wrote: Hey, if we're gonna talk old-time presidential pardons, let's talk about Caspar Weinberger, almost a casualty of the Iran-Contra affair, but pardoned in a rather timely manner by another one of the active participants in the affair—Geroge Bush. I guess spur-of-the-moment, unwarranted pardons run in the family.

Either criticize Clinton or shut up. Otherwise this is just "I'm against it when Republicans do it, and for it when Democrats do it!"

At 7/3/07 02:43 AM, Bolo wrote: Come on, let's get back on topic. I'm tired of bickering about events long past, for either side of the political spectrum. What matters is the here and now, and the commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence.

Come on guys, I can criticize Bush Sr...but Clinton is OFF TOPIC!
Ridiculous.

And either present a case for why commuting Libby's sentence was wrong..e.g, show a crime was committed (you can't), or shut up about it. You are just pissed that a Republican got a reduced sentence for not breaking the law.

Personally, even though the Constitution allows such uses of power, I think history will judge George Bush harshly for his decision, perhaps as a greater struggle to silence those who dissent with his war. The CIA agent who was identified had a husband who spoke out strongly against the war. By pardoning Libby, Bush is demonstrating his belief that ruining careers is A-Okay as long as the careers you ruin are anti-war.

Silence? Plame and Wilson are FUCKING FAMOUS. They go on talk shows and have a book coming out.
Jesus, liberals are morons.

Oh, and by the way, Richard Armitage, the man who told everyone about non-covert Valerie Plame...is a Bush administration and Iraq war critic.
Try again!

Here's a question to anyone who knows: Is there any way to overturn a presidential pardon by supreme court / congress vote, or is it final and absolute?

It's final. Thank god in this case.

At 7/3/07 06:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Marc Rich also committed a crime. Scooter Libby didn't.

In fact, that's exactly what the jurors for his case said too.....hmmm.

Children are funny.
Except Joe Wilson blabbed his wife's status to everone who listened. And Richard Armitage is the jerk who fed her name to the papers. Are either of them on trail?
Spare me your ignorant outrage.

Spare me your smearing and lies. Source? (bonus points if not on Fox site)

At 7/3/07 06:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Marc Rich also committed a crime. Scooter Libby didn't.

Sorry for double. Scooter committed a crime, and was legally convicted for it. Also, if anyone says Clinton, I'll go 923 pardon Nixon on your ass.

At 7/3/07 09:00 AM, SlithVampir wrote:

Sorry for double. Scooter committed a crime, and was legally convicted for it.

Just like how Clinton was caught lying under oath. But he was found "not guilty" anyway.

Libby wasn't convicted for reveiling a covert agent. He was convicted for "lying", and by lying I mean: him claiming to not remember.

At 7/3/07 02:43 AM, Bolo wrote: Come on, let's get back on topic. I'm tired of bickering about events long past, for either side of the political spectrum. What matters is the here and now, and the commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence.

Yep, I love that excuse too.

"here and now". haha, what a joke.

Personally, even though the Constitution allows such uses of power, I think history will judge George Bush harshly for his decision, perhaps as a greater struggle to silence those who dissent with his war.

That certainly explains history being harsh to Clinton for it... Oh wait.

Personally, since America suffers an IQ problem, certain people should be silenced.

The CIA agent who was identified had a husband who spoke out strongly against the war.

Should be silenced. C'mon. Using your status as "covert" in order to smere the Administration.

By pardoning Libby, Bush is demonstrating his belief that ruining careers is A-Okay as long as the careers you ruin are anti-war.

THE ONLY THING BUSH DID WAS LOWER HIS ALREADY LOW SENTENCE.

Libby did not get this wonderful pardon doused in sprinkles that smelled like rasberry, that got him out scot free.

At 7/3/07 06:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Marc Rich also committed a crime. Scooter Libby didn't.

In fact, that's exactly what the jurors for his case said too.....hmmm.

You took the words right out of my mouth, man.

(from the link HighlyIllogical provided earlier)

Libby was found to have lied to investigators about conversations where he mentioned Ms Plame but he was not convicted of having directly leaked her name.

They never once proved that he was guilty of actually leaking her name to the press, they just found him guilty of lying about it to investigators. That's about as stupid as Martha Stewart never being found guilty of insider trading, just being found guilty of lying about it to investigators, and hell, she only got 5 months in prison with 5 months house arrest and two years of probation.

At 7/3/07 02:43 AM, Bolo wrote: Come on, let's get back on topic. I'm tired of bickering about events long past, for either side of the political spectrum. What matters is the here and now, and the commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence.

Yep, I love that excuse too.

"here and now". haha, what a joke.

A joke? it is happening here and now, and all of us were wrong to go back and pull examples from history when the situations were completely different then. Seriously, let's try to keep this discussion to current events.

Personally, even though the Constitution allows such uses of power, I think history will judge George Bush harshly for his decision, perhaps as a greater struggle to silence those who dissent with his war.

That certainly explains history being harsh to Clinton for it... Oh wait.

Coupled with an unpopular war, I think it'll be viewed as yet another is a long line of power-demonstrations during his presidency. But hey, think whatever you want. This is just my opinion.

Personally, since America suffers an IQ problem, certain people should be silenced.

Good lord.

The CIA agent who was identified had a husband who spoke out strongly against the war.

Should be silenced. C'mon. Using your status as "covert" in order to smere the Administration.

It's a crime to reveal the identity of an operative whose status IS covert. It's not a smear, it's the law.

THE ONLY THING BUSH DID WAS LOWER HIS ALREADY LOW SENTENCE.

Bush commuted Libby's sentence to an excessive degree, and in doing so he undermined the courts' conviction of him on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Just for perspective, you guys wanted Clinton to burn on the cross for perjury.

Libby did not get this wonderful pardon doused in sprinkles that smelled like rasberry, that got him out scot free.

I disagree. Two years probation instead of jailtime hardly seems an adequate substitute. How hard is it to check in with a probation officer every few days, in comparison with prison?

At 7/3/07 01:09 PM, Bolo wrote: and all of us were wrong to go back and pull examples from history when the situations were completely different then. Seriously, let's try to keep this discussion to current events.

"Completely different?"

You're right, the two situations are completely different; I at least can say with a clean concious that President Bush pardoned someone who genuinly did no wrong, you can't say that about Clinton.

I disagree. Two years probation instead of jailtime hardly seems an adequate substitute. How hard is it to check in with a probation officer every few days, in comparison with prison?

So... instead of two years in prison, what would YOU have sentenced him too?

At 7/3/07 01:09 PM, Bolo wrote:

A joke? it is happening here and now, and all of us were wrong to go back and pull examples from history when the situations were completely different then.

Kind of like the previous Bush.

Seriously, let's try to keep this discussion to current events.

I'am. And i'm saying that it's legal and when compared to previous pardons by multiple presidents, but was the least "sleazy" out of all them since Libby was not convicted of leaking her name.

He still gets 30 days in prison. He still has to pay a $250,000 fine. He still gets 2 years probation after prison.

Coupled with an unpopular war, I think it'll be viewed as yet another is a long line of power-demonstrations during his presidency.

And that's exactly why America sucks.

Good lord.

Well, we've seen it in the 60's and we see it now.

Example (and this was on the news).

Anti-War activists protesting to bring troops home. How do they do this? They block shipments of supplies from being shipped to the troops in Iraq so they can defend themselves.

I want to know why these people vote.

It's a crime to reveal the identity of an operative whose status IS covert. It's not a smear, it's the law.

See above.

He was not convicted of leaking her name.

He was convicted of lying although never proven of him to be lying.

Bush commuted Libby's sentence to an excessive degree, and in doing so he undermined the courts' conviction of him on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Just for perspective, you guys wanted Clinton to burn on the cross for perjury.

ALMOST EVERY DAMN PRESIDENT GIVES A FUCKING PARDON.

Reagan did it. Bush sr. did it. Clinton did it. Bush jr. did it.

They also give pardons to many more cases than this. Once again, if I had your logic, I'd have been bitching a whole lot sooner because the president gave a pardon to a man sentenced to the death penalty because it "undermines the court".

Here's the whole problem. Clinton lied under oath and everyone saw it. This man just said something to the effect of "I have no recollection..." and was not proven to be lying to the investigators.

The difference here is that Clinton outright lied and Libby who probly did outright lie could not be proven to have outright lied.

I disagree. Two years probation instead of jailtime hardly seems an adequate substitute. How hard is it to check in with a probation officer every few days, in comparison with prison?

He still gets 30 days in jail you fucking idiot! Then 2 years probation.

Damnit, do you listen?

Also, I would like to point out that because 2 of the 10 jurors were tainted (One was removed ). And the fact that they both write books and both could receive more payment for a guilty verdict. The jury should've practically been removed anyway.

At 7/3/07 01:46 PM, Memorize wrote:

but was the least "sleazy" out of all them since Libby was not convicted of leaking her name.

I mean that Bush was the least sleazy in this case as he did not give Libby a free pass on everything. The ONLY thing Bush did was reduce the 2 year sentence to 30 days, but left everything else including the fine. He did not give a full pardon and then continue working with him.

At 7/3/07 01:46 PM, Memorize wrote:

He still gets 30 days in jail you fucking idiot! Then 2 years probation.

Bah! What the hell was I thinking?

He serves no prison sentence BECAUSE they would not allow Scooter Libby to be free on bail or Bush would've left the sentence stand.

Scooter is a criminal, plain and simple. Anyway, though, here's some interesting info.

At 7/3/07 06:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Marc Rich also committed a crime. Scooter Libby didn't.

Again, perjury isn't a crime? Obstruction of justice isn't a crime?

We're saying that if political partisan hacks don't care when the President commutes a real criminal after being given political contributions, that said same political hacks have nothing to say that we care to listen to when the president throws out jail time on a man who committed no crime whatsoever.

Right... and the fact that the crime in question was the same one that said president committed has absolutely nothing to do with your righteous outrage, no?

And either present a case for why commuting Libby's sentence was wrong..e.g, show a crime was committed (you can't), or shut up about it.

Perjury and obstruction. Oh, and I don't have to prove him guilty... the jury did it for me.

You are just pissed that a Republican got a reduced sentence for not breaking the law.

Considering the frequency with which you all throw terms like "traitor" at people like Pelosi and Cindy Sheehan for relatively minor Faux Pas and daring to question our government, that something like this is so easily overlooked... Well it seems to me like you're just pissed that we dems are audacious enough to be annoyed that a possible traitor (for real) got pardoned.

Silence? Plame and Wilson are FUCKING FAMOUS. They go on talk shows and have a book coming out.

Sure, they're famous NOW. After the whole scandal... after the White House (allegedly, thanks Scoot) leaked her name as retaliation for a senator's outspoken resistance to the war effort. Yeah, they totally weren't trying to strongarm anyone into line there.

It's final. Thank god in this case.

Yeah, heaven forbid people who lie to get out of treason be held accountable or anything.

At 7/3/07 11:27 AM, Memorize wrote: Just like how Clinton was caught lying under oath. But he was found "not guilty" anyway.

Stings when that whole "legality" thing comes back and bites you in the ass, don't it?

That certainly explains history being harsh to Clinton for it... Oh wait.

Yeah, you right wingers are being far to soft on him. You hardly criticize him for ANYthing!

Personally, since America suffers an IQ problem, certain people should be silenced.

Whoo! Facism for all!

At 7/3/07 01:20 PM, Proteas wrote: You're right, the two situations are completely different; I at least can say with a clean concious that President Bush pardoned someone who genuinly did no wrong, you can't say that about Clinton.

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice aren't wrong?

At 7/3/07 01:46 PM, Memorize wrote: He was convicted of lying although never proven of him to be lying.

Hmmm... guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but it wasn't proven. Interesting take on the situation. With your omniscience, you should have been on the jury.

The difference here is that Clinton outright lied and Libby who probly did outright lie could not be proven to have outright lied.

Wait, wait, waitwaitwait. You're saying that Clinton is WORSE because he came out and admitted the truth (exposing the lie), while Libby is better because he's continued to lie, thus keeping the truth (which would reveal the lie for what it is) hidden!?

Wow, that's hypocrisy on a level astounding even for you.

He still gets 30 days in jail you fucking idiot! Then 2 years probation.

OOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhh. Thirty WHOLE days!? Man, that'll be rough. And you get 2 years probation for carrying a joint, so don't act like that's anything important. Like Proteas said, Marth Stewart got a worse sentance for insider trading (excuse me, lying about insider trading)... which is WAY worse than lying about treason.

Wow... and you accuse left wingers of being blind to Clinton's flaws...

At 7/3/07 06:26 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Again, perjury isn't a crime? Obstruction of justice isn't a crime?

Apparently only when it suits whoever is in office and how much of the senate is controlled by a particular party.

Perjury and obstruction. Oh, and I don't have to prove him guilty... the jury did it for me.

I really, really don't want to bring up anything from you saying differently about Clinton.

Considering the frequency with which you all throw terms like "traitor" at people like Pelosi and Cindy Sheehan for relatively minor Faux Pas and daring to question our government, that something like this is so easily overlooked...

Considering that Pelosi went behind the president's back without permission to do something that isn't her job to do, can be considered illegal. But I don't hear any complaints from your side.

Sure, they're famous NOW. After the whole scandal... after the White House (allegedly, thanks Scoot) leaked her name as retaliation for a senator's outspoken resistance to the war effort.

Considering he wasn't found guilty for leading her name nor proven guilty for lying to investigators.

Yeah, heaven forbid people who lie to get out of treason be held accountable or anything.

Please... please don't.

Stings when that whole "legality" thing comes back and bites you in the ass, don't it?

Not really. I want Libby in prison.

Yeah, you right wingers are being far to soft on him. You hardly criticize him for ANYthing!

No. It's just that Bush has yet to do anything illegal, unlike Clinton, even if Clinton did something small.

Whoo! Facism for all!

I was clearly speaking about you wasn't I?

Hmmm... guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but it wasn't proven. Interesting take on the situation. With your omniscience, you should have been on the jury.

Because it wasn't proven that Libby leaked her name to the press.

Wait, wait, waitwaitwait. You're saying that Clinton is WORSE because he came out and admitted the truth (exposing the lie), while Libby is better because he's continued to lie, thus keeping the truth (which would reveal the lie for what it is) hidden!?

First you have to prove that Libby leaked her name.

Libby was convicted because of he "couldn't remember... ect", not because it was proven that he did.

So until you prove to me that he did leak her name to the press, i'm going to say that under the legal system, Clinton is worse.

Wow, that's hypocrisy on a level astounding even for you.

Uh... no. You're assuming that i'm defending Libby, and i'm not. I'm mere stating the facts.

Fact: Libby was not convicted for leaking her name to the public.
Fact: Clinton lied under oath and was found "not guilty" due to political control in congress.

You even admitted what Clinton did was illegal.

OOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhh. Thirty WHOLE days!?

Actually none if you re-read further down.

Man, that'll be rough. And you get 2 years probation for carrying a joint, so don't act like that's anything important.

If anything, Bush ONLY commuted his prison term because they refused to let him free on bail until his appeals ran out.

Which makes me wonder why a Clinton Administration Official is still running around after pleading guilty to stealing government documents and shredding them.

Like Proteas said, Marth Stewart got a worse sentance for insider trading (excuse me, lying about insider trading)... which is WAY worse than lying about treason.

First of all, Plame was using her covert status specifically against the administration to begin with.

She's the traitor.

Ravariel, do you think Clinton should of got jail time for what he did?

At 7/3/07 07:22 PM, JakeHero wrote: Ravariel, do you think Clinton should of got jail time for what he did?

What did he do again?

Because he didn't perjure himself. And I'm dead serious.

Clinton? for lying in a court.

I really dont care that he lied about that... There are much worse things you can do to a celebrity than ask for jail time.

At 7/3/07 07:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/3/07 07:22 PM, JakeHero wrote: Ravariel, do you think Clinton should of got jail time for what he did?

What did he do again?

Because he didn't perjure himself. And I'm dead serious.

Lying under oath and perjury + obstruction of justice.

At 7/3/07 07:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Because he didn't perjure himself. And I'm dead serious.

Even if you want to act stupid like Bolo and be technical saying "oral sex isn't... sex" ( I just love how the word "sex" is in there, yet not sex. PARADOX!).

But you still have obstruction of justice.

At 7/3/07 08:06 PM, Grammer wrote: Why would the president commute the sentence of a White House aide but not do the same if not pardon the Border patrol agents who were sentenced for shooting an illegal alien in the ass? Special treatment, perhaps?

Yep. I thought that was fairly apparent a few presidents back.

Just the people would hope on this thread for me not to become president, if I did then the Justice system wouldn't like me very much.

*flicks tv/sees border agents being sued by illegal*
Me: Fuck this. *pulles out pardon/throws illegals into mexico*

*dances*

At 7/3/07 01:46 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/3/07 01:09 PM, Bolo wrote:

A joke? it is happening here and now, and all of us were wrong to go back and pull examples from history when the situations were completely different then.

Kind of like the previous Bush.

Exactly. And Clinton.

Seriously, let's try to keep this discussion to current events.

I'am. And i'm saying that it's legal and when compared to previous pardons by multiple presidents, but was the least "sleazy" out of all them since Libby was not convicted of leaking her name.

Libby was convicted of lying to a judge. Same as Martha Stewart, for godsake, and she had to serve her five months, too.

He still gets 30 days in prison. He still has to pay a $250,000 fine. He still gets 2 years probation after prison.

I just saw on the evening news, that Libby has been exempted from ALL jailtime. I believe the exact quote is "The action is different from a pardon, which would have reversed Libby's conviction and wiped his record clean. Unless his conviction is overturned on appeal, Libby still must pay a $250,000 fine and serve two years of probation."

No prison. Just probation and the fine. Bush also said today that he hadn't ruled out he full pardon. I'm taking this to mean that we'll probably see that happen in a few days.

The jury should've practically been removed anyway.

Why, because they disagree with your opinions?

At 7/3/07 07:48 PM, Memorize wrote:

Even if you want to act stupid like Bolo and be technical saying "oral sex isn't... sex" ( I just love how the word "sex" is in there, yet not sex. PARADOX!).

But you still have obstruction of justice.

As "sex" was legally defined in the proceedings, oral sex as Clinton had it was not "sex," because it was defined in the proceedings as

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

As per that definition, oral sex is not sex because the mouth isn't included. ALSO, you have to review whether Clinton was attempting to gratify HER by recieving oral sex, so, yeah...

Common sense definitions are not common sense...for example, generational differences, etc. Plus, phone sex is certainly not sex...

At 7/3/07 08:53 PM, Bolo wrote:

Libby was convicted of lying to a judge. Same as Martha Stewart, for godsake, and she had to serve her five months, too.

And yet Libby gets 2.5 years?

Fascinating.

I just saw on the evening news, that Libby has been exempted from ALL jailtime.

I believe I corrected myself if you just look on up.

No prison.

See above!

Bush also said today that he hadn't ruled out he full pardon. I'm taking this to mean that we'll probably see that happen in a few days.

If he does, i'll laugh and be angry at the same time.

Why, because they disagree with your opinions?

Because not only were 2 jurors biased from the beginning, they went ahead with an 11 juror vote with 1 of them still on the jury.

Funny. When they're selecting jurors in cases of child molestation, they will absolutely refuse to put anyone who's worked in a child daycare on that bench, yet they'll allow these people who will gain possibley millions on a guilty verdict to there.

Point is: Tainted Jury.

At 7/3/07 09:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

As "sex" was legally defined in the proceedings, oral sex as Clinton had it was not "sex," because it was defined in the proceedings as

Yes, exactly. It's a technicality.

Kind of like that story I posted in that suing thread where a rich man crashed his mini-plane into the back of a motorist, then sued the motorist for the damages on his plane and won because due to the State's No Fault Insurance Policy, the plane was not on the ground when it collided into the pick-up, making it not a vehicle, therefore the blame is one the driver of the vehicle.

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Are you trying to tell me that have your wacker blown isn't sexually arousing for the person doing it?

But then... why would they do it?

But then by that very definition, Lewinsky was engaged with sexual relation with Clinton for "touching" his genitals making it a sexual relation.

How can a case where there are 2 people have only 1 having a sexual relation with the other?

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

I'd consider the mouth as pretty direct.

Common sense definitions are not common sense...for example, generational differences, etc. Plus, phone sex is certainly not sex...

Even so, see above. It clearly makes no sense, and you are just exploiting a loophole.

Haha, worthless piece of shit.

So HighlyIllogical, let's say I get married or any other schmoe. While we're married I get a receptionist to blow me, my wife finds out I was getting a bj. Would she have the right to be mad at me because fellatio is sexual or is she in the wrong since sematics dictate oral sex isn't sex, according to you?

She has the right to be mad, but if it's not sex and it doesn't fit the label of sex in a court of law then she's still capable of pressing charges; but the chance of winning the case is extremely low.

At 7/3/07 06:26 PM, Ravariel wrote: Perjury and Obstruction of Justice aren't wrong?

Let me see... "I do not recall" versus "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." No definitive evidence to say the guy was lying versus jizz stained blue dress. I'm going to have to think long and hard about that one.

Yeah right.

Personally, I think this is nothing more than a liberal's wet dream interuppted before climax. You had a nice judicial hard-on at the thought that SOMEBODY in the Bush Administration was going to be sent to prison after all this time, and now you've got blue balls because the President excercised his right per his office as such to pardon the guy. You acuse the conservatives on this board of playing partisan politics by bringing up Clinton's doing the same of Marc Rich, yet play yourselves off as being "fair and balanced" for wanting Libby sent up the river for the rest of his life on tenous-at-best charges.

which is WAY worse than lying about treason.

... "treason?"

You can't even definitively prove that Libby was the leak, and you want the guy tried for TREASON?

Again, who's being biased here, me or you?

At 7/3/07 09:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: As per that definition, oral sex is not sex because the mouth isn't included.

Yet the mouth is used to give satifaction, and is used to stimulate one of the aformentioned.. wait, am I really about to debate wether oral SEX is really sex?

ALSO, you have to review whether Clinton was attempting to gratify HER by recieving oral sex, so, yeah...

Yeah, Monica Lewinsky just so happens to be the real life version of Debbie from "Debbie Does Dallas" with a clitoris in the back of her throat, he was just letting her suck him off for HER pleasure with no perceived benefits to himself. He was just being a good samaritan and helping the poor sexually frustrated woman get off.

Do you honestly believe that pile of horse shit, highly?

I don't believe it per se, but I don't think that it's provable that he perjured himself.