Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How badly as the US lost the plot?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1 of 17 (144033)
09-23-2004 8:45 AM


Best Hosting Providers
The highest ever TV fine is levelled at CBS. Why? Because you saw part of Janet's tit? Does this strike anyone else as badly, badly out of whack?

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 5:50 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 17 (144052)
09-23-2004 10:20 AM


Yes, but consider: they tried to impeach clinton for a blowjob, but theres no prospect of bush being impeached for lying to the whole state and the world and starting an illegal war.
So far so consistent. Insane, but consistently insane.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-23-2004 10:23 AM contracycle has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 17 (144056)
09-23-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by contracycle
09-23-2004 10:20 AM


quote:
they tried to impeach clinton for a blowjob
Actually, they tried to impeach Clinton for lying to a grand jury. It may have been over a trivial matter, the question perhaps should not have been brought up, but the actual fact is that Clinton broke a law that would have sent you or I to jail. The fact that the American media made it sound like it was all about consensual sex was part of a propaganda effort by the establishment to keep certain upstarts in Congress in line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by contracycle, posted 09-23-2004 10:20 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by contracycle, posted 09-23-2004 10:39 AM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 5:47 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 09-23-2004 7:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 17 (144060)
09-23-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
09-23-2004 10:23 AM


Point taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-23-2004 10:23 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 17 (144183)
09-23-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
09-23-2004 10:23 AM


Actually, they tried to impeach Clinton for lying to a grand jury.
exactly. but lying to congress when not under trial conditions isn't perjury, unfortunately, even if the lie is much, much more serious.
it makes sense, sort of. someone should fix it so that use of emergency powers under false pretenses is a crime. i'd vote for the congressman who voted for that amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-23-2004 10:23 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 17 (144185)
09-23-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
09-23-2004 8:45 AM


remember, this country was founded by puritans chased out of england.
nudity = sex. sex = evil.
although, it is ridiculous, considering the vast amounts of (american made) porn i can find on the internet, at any given second, that show much more appealing although less famous nipples. hell, i have to fight to keep it out of my mailbox.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 09-23-2004 8:45 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 6:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 17 (144209)
09-23-2004 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
09-23-2004 5:50 PM


nudity = sex. sex = evil.
You know, though, in the Puritan colonies, a man could be pilloried for failing to have enough sex with his wife.
It's a misapprehension to say that the Puritans were universally negative about sex. They were just strict about it. They knew where babies came from, and that you needed a lot of them to make a colony work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 5:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 17 by tsig, posted 10-09-2004 7:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 17 (144226)
09-23-2004 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
09-23-2004 10:23 AM


Not to start a debate, but he didn't really lie. They never defined fellatio as "sexual relation". Besides, it wasn't their place to ask him such a personal question in the first place.

The Laminator
B ULLS HIT
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-23-2004 10:23 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 7:08 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 09-23-2004 9:38 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 17 (144229)
09-23-2004 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict
09-23-2004 7:00 PM


Besides, it wasn't their place to ask him such a personal question in the first place.
Well, they asked him a question that they knew he would lie about.
Me, I would have told the truth. "Yeah, guys, she totally gave me oral sex. But hell, Ken, I know you're getting some on the side, and you too, whats-your-name. Of course Bob's equipment hasn't worked since the civil war."
Oh, well. Seems every time I turn around, some Republican is dropping out of a race for weird sexual proclivities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 09-23-2004 7:00 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 9:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 17 (144273)
09-23-2004 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
09-23-2004 6:41 PM


You know, though, in the Puritan colonies, a man could be pilloried for failing to have enough sex with his wife.
it was only a facetious comment? i didn't mean that's seriously why america is so uptight about nudity on tv. i could find a million reasons that might have to do with it (and legal standards, even), but i honestly don't know a real, singular reason for it.
so i thought a joke would be better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 6:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 9:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 17 (144274)
09-23-2004 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
09-23-2004 7:08 PM


Me, I would have told the truth. "Yeah, guys, she totally gave me oral sex. But hell, Ken, I know you're getting some on the side, and you too, whats-your-name. Of course Bob's equipment hasn't worked since the civil war."
why would that be such a big deal?
hell, we all know jfk was tapping marilyn on the side, and everybody still likes him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 7:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 17 (144286)
09-23-2004 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict
09-23-2004 7:00 PM


quote:
Besides, it wasn't their place to ask him such a personal question in the first place.
I don't quite agree. The questioning was about the Paula Jones sexual harrassment suit which was a legitimate suit against Clinton. I think that it was relevant to ask questions about his relations with his employees in order to determine whether there was a pattern that would confirm Jones' allegations.
On the other hand, Jones' suit was an entirely separate affair that should never have been mixed up with Starr's witch hunt. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons that Jones' suit was thrown out was because the whole Starr investigation was tainting everything so badly that it was impossible to get a fair trial on it based on its merits.
Thanks, Kenneth Starr. You completely botched the one legitimate legal complaint against Clinton.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 09-23-2004 7:00 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 17 (144290)
09-23-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
09-23-2004 9:02 PM


it was only a facetious comment?
I know. I just thought it would be fun to relate some little-known history about the Puritans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 9:02 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 09-24-2004 12:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 17 (144323)
09-24-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
09-23-2004 9:45 PM


ah i see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 9:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 17 (144336)
09-24-2004 12:30 AM


i had trouble reading the title and tying it to the thread... until i read it with a fake british accent. then i got it. i'm ok now. just thought i'd share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 10-08-2004 5:56 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024