Honestly, I don't have any idea what international laws he may have violated.Originally Posted by Weekend Reports
Honestly - I have no idea what you are talking about right now. I am not going to pretend that I can converse intelligently on the sexual habits of your former president. However I feel on reasonably firm ground asserting that the perjury that was referred to earlier had to do with being sucked off by M.L. So I don't see how that is ignoring the facts of which you speak - it is simply limiting its scope to the the elements of the impeachment. If it makes you feel any better, I am firmly against Presidents using their position to sexually harrass their interns. Or anyone else. Not just interns. And I am firmly against all forms of rape, no matter which party affiliate - really I think even our Conservative Party is pretty left wing by your guys's standards, so to us you all look the same.But to write off WJC's perjury because it was about getting his cock sucked ignores the fact that he denied Paula Jones due process under a law that WJC himself signed into existence two years earlier! And yet, women continue to be WJC's biggest defenders! They defended his "right" to violate, abuse and, if Kathleen Wiley and others vilified in the press corps are to be believed, rape other women!
That being said - since I don't know. The issue surrounding Clinton's perjury was specifically related to M.L. and oral sex - yes? And surely we can agree that although all (or most) lying is bad, some lies are worse than others? Like a man lying to his wife about having consensual sex with a prostitute is perhaps not as bad as him lying to his wife about killing small boys?




Bookmarks