• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House passes resolution criticizing Wilson

What is really criminal is these retards waste time and our money on a useless resolution when they should be doing important things like running our country.

That is exactly the way I felt when the Republicans spents millions on investigating Bill Clinton and then spent more millions on his attempted impeachment for a blowjob..instead of caring for our country.
 
What is really criminal is these retards waste time and our money on a useless resolution when they should be doing important things like running our country.

Running it where? The goal of our politicians is to make the other side look bad at every corner. You don't fit into the plan anymore. You are just along for the ride.
 
First show me a link saying the President (a civilian) falls under the UCMJ....You are wrong.

As if this has not been pointed out already. :roll:

2nd
Your own links defines adultery as:
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

"Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong." - Bill Clinton

"The president's confession follows months of denial. On 26 January this year, Mr Clinton categorically denied having sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky." - BBC ON THIS DAY | 17 | 1998: Clinton admits Lewinsky affair

It was an affair, and you can (much like Clinton) try and play the semantics game but It did not float then, and it does not float now.

If they were facts/truth...prove it with links...& I mean PROVE.

This children is an example of hypocrisy.

Does the irony of this strike anyone else? :lol::lol::lol:
 
What is really criminal is these retards waste time and our money on a useless resolution when they should be doing important things like running our country.

.....running our country...correctly...which means impeaching Obama....
 
.....running our country...correctly...which means impeaching Obama....

Running our country correctly involves people who are in fact concerned about our country's interests first and not impeaching the President.
Remember the last time the Republicans played this sick game, putting their interests in front of America's interests we ended up getting attacked on 9-11Because the people that wanted too do harm to our country could see plain as day that the Republicans had taken their eye off the ball.
 
Remember the last time the Republicans played this sick game, putting their interests in front of America's interests we ended up getting attacked on 9-11Because the people that wanted too do harm to our country

Lets keep the blame for 9/11 squarely where it belongs, on the Muslims who attacked us.
 
Wow, 7 Republicans actually voted for the resolution. I'm surprised.
 
Last edited:
Running our country correctly involves people who are in fact concerned about our country's interests first and not impeaching the President.
Remember the last time the Republicans played this sick game, putting their interests in front of America's interests we ended up getting attacked on 9-11Because the people that wanted too do harm to our country could see plain as day that the Republicans had taken their eye off the ball.
I want you to provide sources right now to prove Republicans caused 9/11. Come on, let's see it. If you can't then you need to apologize for being a troll.
 
"Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong." - Bill Clinton


I looked everywhere & I can't find a definition of Adultery that says any "Inappropriate Act" or anything that was "Wrong"

Have a link?


Legal Definition of Adultery
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not their married spouse. ... Adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not their married spouse. In most countries, adultery is a legal ground for divorce (the other being, generally, cruelty).
254k - 36 sec @ 56k
Legal Definition of Adultery

 
This children is an example of hypocrisy.

Does the irony of this strike anyone else? :lol::lol::lol:

If I claim something is a FACT I either provide a link or stand ready to provide one if asked.
When someone demands I prove my opinion...I just laugh.

Claimed FACTS need proof ........ OPINIONS don't.


Examples:

Claimed Fact requiring proof:
Pearl Harbor was attacked on 12/7/1941 (I should provide links to prove that claim if asked)

Opinion requiring no proof:
I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla.




See the difference?;)
 
Last edited:
There are actually four. Have you read the contempt ruling?

Yes I have read Judge Wright's ruling and never once did she mention perjur or perjury in her ruling. Also the whole lewinsky fair was thrown out of the Jones case for not being material to the case and the case was dismissed. So again when Clinton lied during that case about "sexual relations" it was using the prosecution's established definition of sexual relations that were agreed upon by both sides. So they got Clinton on an lie that was immaterial to the jones case.

Perjury has three conditions: it must be a lie, the speaker must know it to be false, and it must be material to the case. The lewinsky affair no matter how salacious it was was not deemed material to the jones case. It is why they couldn't charge clinton with perjury.
 
Yes I have read Judge Wright's ruling and never once did she mention perjur or perjury in her ruling. Also the whole lewinsky fair was thrown out of the Jones case for not being material to the case and the case was dismissed. So again when Clinton lied during that case about "sexual relations" it was using the prosecution's established definition of sexual relations that were agreed upon by both sides. So they got Clinton on an lie that was immaterial to the jones case.

Perjury has three conditions: it must be a lie, the speaker must know it to be false, and it must be material to the case. The lewinsky affair no matter how salacious it was was not deemed material to the jones case. It is why they couldn't charge clinton with perjury.

Federal Judge Wright Finds Clinton in Contempt of Court - The Tech

Monitor: The American press comments on the ruling which finds Clinton in contempt of court - Arts & Entertainment - The Independent

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin1120.htm

Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused

http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/lewinsky/appf.pdf

Nevertheless, he lied.
 
And how exactly does this have to do with someone's claim that he commited perjury which is what I was talking about
Because you want to make this a legalistic argument because that's all you have. We feel the President lied throughout his administration on many things, while you defend him on one point. It's the most silly thing I've ever seen, and you're not the first and probably not the last. You're just new around here.

This man was President of the US, and you play legalese to demonstrate some sort of innocense? :doh
 
Because you want to make this a legalistic argument because that's all you have. We feel the President lied throughout his administration on many things, while you defend him on one point. It's the most silly thing I've ever seen, and you're not the first and probably not the last. You're just new around here.

This man was President of the US, and you play legalese to demonstrate some sort of innocense? :doh

Legalistic argument? Someone stated he committed perjury I stated he did not. Then you go off on contempt of court which I never said he wasn't sanctioned for. If you're going to state information at least try to be accurate. Did I try to demonstrate some sort of innocence or did I state that he didn't commit perjury. You might want to reread what I wrote before making accusations.
 
Back to Joe Wilson any thoughts on Joe voting for the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 which contained section 1011 which gave money to pay for emergency care of undocumented immigrants
 
Back to Joe Wilson any thoughts on Joe voting for the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 which contained section 1011 which gave money to pay for emergency care of undocumented immigrants
I ask, does anyone on the RIGHT have a problem with this? I don't. Any other concerns, sonny?
 
I ask, does anyone on the RIGHT have a problem with this? I don't. Any other concerns, sonny?

Seems a little hypocritical of wilson fearing Illegals would get health coverage while voting to provide care for illegals.
 
Seems a little hypocritical of wilson fearing Illegals would get health coverage while voting to provide care for illegals.
No, he voted to give them E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y healthcare, not healthcare insurance. The man is humanitary, not a fool.
 
No, he voted to give them E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y healthcare, not healthcare insurance. The man is humanitary, not a fool.

Oh so he's for paying more money in emergency coverage than some non-existent plan to give illegals healthcare coverage gotcha makes so much more sense now
 
Yes I have read Judge Wright's ruling and never once did she mention perjur or perjury in her ruling. Also the whole lewinsky fair was thrown out of the Jones case for not being material to the case and the case was dismissed. So again when Clinton lied during that case about "sexual relations" it was using the prosecution's established definition of sexual relations that were agreed upon by both sides. So they got Clinton on an lie that was immaterial to the jones case.

Perjury has three conditions: it must be a lie, the speaker must know it to be false, and it must be material to the case. The lewinsky affair no matter how salacious it was was not deemed material to the jones case. It is why they couldn't charge clinton with perjury.

There's a fourth -- it must be under oath.

Yes, in the ruling, she said his intent was to "obstruct justice," which is hard to do if it's not material.

Still, materiality is a matter for a jury, and no, it was never charged.

But if you want to hang on a legal technicality, then so be it.
 
There's a fourth -- it must be under oath.

Yes, in the ruling, she said his intent was to "obstruct justice," which is hard to do if it's not material.

Still, materiality is a matter for a jury, and no, it was never charged.

But if you want to hang on a legal technicality, then so be it.

It's not a technicality it didn't fit the legal definition. Apparently it wasn't material as the Jones information was deemed by wright to be immaterial to the case and the Jones case was dismissed. If he committed perjury the judge would have stated such.
 
It's not a technicality it didn't fit the legal definition. Apparently it wasn't material as the Jones information was deemed by wright to be immaterial to the case and the Jones case was dismissed. If he committed perjury the judge would have stated such.

Such a ruling would not be within the scope of a contempt finding. It would have to be a matter for trial.
 
Such a ruling would not be within the scope of a contempt finding. It would have to be a matter for trial.

So then he didn't commit perjury. Once again being as the lewinsky affair was deemed immaterial to the case his lie was a lie under oath and not perjury. The lie under oath was what got him the contempt.
 
Back
Top Bottom