Growing GOP Pedophile List

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Two questions for you wreckless, did billy boy commit purjory? and do you think that was okay?

What say you.

I don’t he think he did.[/quote]

Actually, he did.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=perjury
Perjury

Main Entry: per?ju?ry
Pronunciation: 'p&r-j&-rE, 'p&rj-rE
Function: noun
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing

[quote]
In my opinion, getting a blowjob from some intern at work is a private matter. And as such no grand jury should be allowed to “look into it”. And if they are, they’re no longer a grand jury, but a nosy neighbour. It’s ok to lie to a nosy neighbour to protect your personal life.[/quote]

Just because you don’t want it to be legal and appropriate doesn’t make it so.

Nice try.

The last time I checked your personall opinion doesn’t count in the matters of the law. This is a classic case of you spinning the facts. The facts are that Clinton commited perjury. The above statement makes you look very foolish, and blindly partisan.

[quote]
Return question: do you think it was ok for the Republican leadership to lie they didn’t know they had a sexual predator among them?[/quote]

Again, you are ignoring the fact that this is not a proven fact yet. But I realize that you are just dying for this to be true. The fact is, we all need to wait on the investigation to be completed to know for sure.

But.

In an effort to answer your question as completely as I can, I will say this. If Hastert is proven to have covered this up, then he should be out on his ass. However, I think that this whole situation is deserving of a full investigation prior to making judgement.

162

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:

CLinton’s crime was not a blowjob, however. It was lying to a grand jury. That’s called perjury. That’s why Willie’s not a lawyer anymore. That’s why he was impeached.

Note that’s the same crime for which a lot of folks would like to see Scooter Libby do jail time…

Great point. Anyone that supported Clinton for his foolishness should extend the same support for Foley and Libby.

And anyone that attacked Clinton should extend the same support for Foley and Libby?[/quote]

Yup. I think Libby and Foley should lose their jobs over their actions.

Wait, they already did.

163

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Yup. I think Libby and Foley should lose their jobs over their actions.

Wait, they already did.[/quote]

Yup, I believe Libby needed to go for perjury. And, I hope there is criminal action taken against him. Dems, you guys feel the same about elected officials and perjury?

164

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yup, I believe Libby needed to go for perjury. And, I hope there is criminal action taken against him. Dems, you guys feel the same about elected officials and perjury?
[/quote]
I can’t fault a guy for trying to cover-up his sexual extracurricular activities when his wife is standing right there. But there has to come a time when it’s time to say “I’m busted.”

Lying under oath is pretty bad. I had a cop lie under oath just to make me look bad when I was giving testimony in court once. It pissed me off, but the judge thought I was more believable. That cop ended up losing his job a month later when he set off a bunch of tear gas grenades as a prank and a bunch of kids had to go to the hospital. What a douche.

165

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Yup. I think Libby and Foley should lose their jobs over their actions.
[/quote]

And Rice, don’t forget Rice.

Rice to testify in public, under oath
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/rice.testimony/index.html

166

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Two questions for you wreckless, did billy boy commit purjory? and do you think that was okay?

What say you.

I don’t he think he did.

Actually, he did.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=perjury
Perjury

Main Entry: per?ju?ry
Pronunciation: 'p&r-j&-rE, 'p&rj-rE
Function: noun
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing

In my opinion, getting a blowjob from some intern at work is a private matter. And as such no grand jury should be allowed to “look into it”. And if they are, they’re no longer a grand jury, but a nosy neighbour. It’s ok to lie to a nosy neighbour to protect your personal life.

Just because you don’t want it to be legal and appropriate doesn’t make it so.

Nice try.

The last time I checked your personall opinion doesn’t count in the matters of the law. This is a classic case of you spinning the facts. The facts are that Clinton commited perjury. The above statement makes you look very foolish, and blindly partisan.

[/quote]

No, actually he didn’t it.
You can blame Starr for his silly definition of sexual relations (did not include oral). Clinton technically told the truth based on the definitions GIVEN him—but of course you know this…

167

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Yup, I believe Libby needed to go for perjury. And, I hope there is criminal action taken against him. Dems, you guys feel the same about elected officials and perjury?

I can’t fault a guy for trying to cover-up his sexual extracurricular activities when his wife is standing right there. But there has to come a time when it’s time to say “I’m busted.”

Lying under oath is pretty bad. I had a cop lie under oath just to make me look bad when I was giving testimony in court once. It pissed me off, but the judge thought I was more believable. That cop ended up losing his job a month later when he set off a bunch of tear gas grenades as a prank and a bunch of kids had to go to the hospital. What a douche.[/quote]

Again, as you surely know,Clinton did not commit perjury…
but yes otherwise lying under oath is pretty bad…

168

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I don’t he think he did.
In my opinion, getting a blowjob from some intern at work is a private matter. And as such no grand jury should be allowed to “look into it”. And if they are, they’re no longer a grand jury, but a nosy neighbour. It’s ok to lie to a nosy neighbour to protect your personal life.+

I know you are a dipshit - but are you really going to sit there with a straight face and be THIS big of one?

The blowjob is indeed a private matter. BUT - he was being sued for sexual harassmment. And in sworn testimony he lied.

I really don’t know why this is such a hard concept for the left wing Clintophiles to grasp. Lying under oath is what we call perjury.

He was asked about the blowj0ob because it was pat if the case against him. Had Slickster said - “Hell yeah - she sucked me off like a drunk prom date” there would have been no impeachment charges. But Billy had to lie under oath. That is a crime.

Return question: do you think it was ok for the Republican leadership to lie they didn’t know they had a sexual predator among them?

You are making assumptions and placing blame WAYYYYYY before the horse here. It’s a pretty long leap from lying under oath to calling the republican leadership liars when you don’t even lknow all the facts of the case.

But - being the blinded partisan you are - I can see how y9ou will throw the rule of law out the window to get to the decision you need to support your ass-licking love of the pro-terrorist party.

[/quote]

Would this blowhard diatribe be helped if Clinton actually committed perjury?

Comes off a little psycho, considering reality and all…

169

[quote]100meters wrote:
Would this blowhard diatribe be helped if Clinton actually committed perjury?

Comes off a little psycho, considering reality and all…[/quote]

I don’t know what planet you are living on but the ABA took Willy’s license. The USHOR imnpeached him.

Like it or not - Slick lied. He got caught and he was punished.

I think reality is but a novel concept to you.

This is over the edge even for a head kool-aid drinker/cheerleader like you.

170

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Would this blowhard diatribe be helped if Clinton actually committed perjury?

Comes off a little psycho, considering reality and all…

I don’t know what planet you are living on but the ABA took Willy’s license. The USHOR imnpeached him.

Like it or not - Slick lied. He got caught and he was punished.

I think reality is but a novel concept to you.

This is over the edge even for a head kool-aid drinker/cheerleader like you. [/quote]

It is amazing the level of denial 100meters shows about these things.

I wonder if he is employed by the DNC.

171

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
I’ll ask again: does anyone know how old this kid is? Congressional pages are usually highschool juniors, right? I turned 17 my junior year, as did most of the people I knew; no one was under 16, as far as I can remember anyways. The age of consent in DC is 16, right (I think it’s 16 in Florida also)? So, did he actually commit a crime? Unethical and sick, yes–but a crime?[/quote]

I have a nephew that is 16 and if a congressman sent my nephew messages such as these I would have more than a huge problem with it.

Put a family member in the shoes of the pages.

You are a criminal if you can still make excuses for Foley after putting a family member that is 16 or 17 at the other end of Foley’s IMs.

172

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:

CLinton’s crime was not a blowjob, however. It was lying to a grand jury. That’s called perjury. That’s why Willie’s not a lawyer anymore. That’s why he was impeached.

Note that’s the same crime for which a lot of folks would like to see Scooter Libby do jail time…[/quote]

They should both be sharing a cell right now.

173

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Would this blowhard diatribe be helped if Clinton actually committed perjury?

Comes off a little psycho, considering reality and all…

I don’t know what planet you are living on but the ABA took Willy’s license. The USHOR imnpeached him.

Like it or not - Slick lied. He got caught and he was punished.

I think reality is but a novel concept to you.

This is over the edge even for a head kool-aid drinker/cheerleader like you. [/quote]

Still, he did not commit perjury. Facts are facts, no?

And I’m pretty sure the senate voted against the PERJURY charges what 55-45?
(shorter: US senate to rainjack: you’re wrong)

apology accepted in advance.

(you do have access to google, newspapers, etc. right?)

anyway back to Foley:

"A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe’s press secretary, Korenna Cline.

? More politics news
The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley’s questionable behavior. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of “over-friendly” e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board."

But still no coverup/ dems fault.

174

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

How long did this democrat have this communication? And how many more democrats “knew” about Foley? Hmm, Hmm.

Then there is this, now that the IM Page has been IDed.

“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.”

Well okay, I think everybody is entitled to believe in at least one conspiracy theory. So pick a good one.

An elaborate prank gone awry, that fell into enemy hands. Huh. Is that it?

Do you know it’s being reported that people knew Foley was a perv going back to '95?

Psst, this isn’t a conspiracy theory. The Page was ID’ed. Jordan Edmund is his name. And people have contacted and interviewed friends close to him. Like I said, he’s lawyered up. So, it might be some time before we find out more.

[/quote]

Jordan accounts for one of numerous documented perverted electronic communications from Foley to teenage boys.

Either you are a right wingnut and/or a want to be pedophille.

Nice try but the GOP leadership dropped the ball on this one a long time ago.

175

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.

Quite possibly the most blindly partisan person on this forum, left or right.

No, that would be the morons that had their briefs in a not over Clintons blowjob. Do you remember how old that young lady was at that time?
And now cry left wing bitch job when the tables are turned.

What are you saying? You’re moral outrage then was fake?
Or you hold democrats to higher standards then republicans.

Which one do you choose?

Two questions for you wreckless, did billy boy commit purjory? and do you think that was okay?

What say you.

I don’t he think he did.
In my opinion, getting a blowjob from some intern at work is a private matter. And as such no grand jury should be allowed to “look into it”. And if they are, they’re no longer a grand jury, but a nosy neighbour. It’s ok to lie to a nosy neighbour to protect your personal life.

Return question: do you think it was ok for the Republican leadership to lie they didn’t know they had a sexual predator among them?[/quote]

You are out of your F’ing mind!

Grand Jury = nose neighbor

ROTFLMFAO!!!

176

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Would this blowhard diatribe be helped if Clinton actually committed perjury?

Comes off a little psycho, considering reality and all…

I don’t know what planet you are living on but the ABA took Willy’s license. The USHOR imnpeached him.

Like it or not - Slick lied. He got caught and he was punished.

I think reality is but a novel concept to you.

This is over the edge even for a head kool-aid drinker/cheerleader like you.

It is amazing the level of denial 100meters shows about these things.

I wonder if he is employed by the DNC.[/quote]

He didn’t commit perjury. That’s a fact.
The senate voted against those charges to boot. That’s a fact.

To deny proves you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about(again).

Had Starr not gotten cute with his definitions of “sexual relations” perhaps you’d have a different outcome, but alas…the definitions given (oral wasn’t there, mouth wasn’t there, recieving pleasure wasn’t there) gave Clinton all the cover he needed to say emphatically “I did not…”

Since none of this questionable, comments like:

It is amazing the level of denial 100meters shows about these things.

are truly hilarious( at the least ironic)

177

[quote]100meters wrote:
Had Starr not gotten cute with his definitions of “sexual relations” perhaps you’d have a different outcome, but alas…the definitions given (oral wasn’t there, mouth wasn’t there, recieving pleasure wasn’t there) gave Clinton all the cover he needed to say emphatically “I did not…”
[/quote]

So blame Starr for “confusing” Clinton into lying?

You are admitting that Clinton was out-smarted by Starr? I thought Clinton was a genius. I guess when it’s convenient - you will blame anyone for Clinton’s misdeads. I especially like the way you paint a sexual predator as a victim. You are truly a piece of work.

He was convicted by the House of Perjury. He was impeacehed. He had his law license taken from him. Those things don’t happen because Starr out smarted him. Just because the Senate were too big of pussies to do the right thing doesn’t mean Clinton came anywhere near the truth.

No spin will take away the fact that Clinton lied under oath, was caught, and was taken to task on it.

178

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Would this blowhard diatribe be helped if Clinton actually committed perjury?

Comes off a little psycho, considering reality and all…

I don’t know what planet you are living on but the ABA took Willy’s license. The USHOR imnpeached him.

Like it or not - Slick lied. He got caught and he was punished.

I think reality is but a novel concept to you.

This is over the edge even for a head kool-aid drinker/cheerleader like you.

It is amazing the level of denial 100meters shows about these things.

I wonder if he is employed by the DNC.

He didn’t commit perjury. That’s a fact.
The senate voted against those charges to boot. That’s a fact.

To deny proves you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about(again).

Had Starr not gotten cute with his definitions of “sexual relations” perhaps you’d have a different outcome, but alas…the definitions given (oral wasn’t there, mouth wasn’t there, recieving pleasure wasn’t there) gave Clinton all the cover he needed to say emphatically “I did not…”

Since none of this questionable, comments like:

It is amazing the level of denial 100meters shows about these things.

are truly hilarious( at the least ironic)[/quote]

You are pathetic. He perjured himself. He was impeached. He was disbarred.

The Senate voted to allow him to stay in office. That does not mean he did not commit perjury.

179

[quote]100meters wrote:
No, actually he didn’t it.
You can blame Starr for his silly definition of sexual relations (did not include oral). Clinton technically told the truth based on the definitions GIVEN him—but of course you know this…[/quote]

100m, did billy boy lie while under oath?

Yes or no will do.

180

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Had Starr not gotten cute with his definitions of “sexual relations” perhaps you’d have a different outcome, but alas…the definitions given (oral wasn’t there, mouth wasn’t there, recieving pleasure wasn’t there) gave Clinton all the cover he needed to say emphatically “I did not…”

So blame Starr for “confusing” Clinton into lying?

You are admitting that Clinton was out-smarted by Starr? I thought Clinton was a genius. I guess when it’s convenient - you will blame anyone for Clinton’s misdeads. I especially like the way you paint a sexual predator as a victim. You are truly a piece of work.

He was convicted by the House of Perjury. He was impeacehed. He had his law license taken from him. Those things don’t happen because Starr out smarted him. Just because the Senate were too big of pussies to do the right thing doesn’t mean Clinton came anywhere near the truth.

No spin will take away the fact that Clinton lied under oath, was caught, and was taken to task on it.

[/quote]

But didn’t commit perjury.
And Starr didn’t confuse anyone he simply outsmarted himself by defining sexual relations in the way that he did.