• 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!

John boehner sex probe

haymarket said:
You describe this as though you were there.
Click to expand...

Or as someone who followed the news during the 90's regarding the president.

back on your glame I see...
 
Tucker Case said:
what name calling?
Click to expand...
Liars and hacks? Check your own facts as well as your own apologies for the same thing.
Tucker Case said:
you were contradicting my statements with flat out falsehoods. I simply responded that you should check your facts because you were very far form being accurate. Instead of doing so, you continued to make false claims.
Click to expand...
Speaking of complete BS, what a falsehood.

Tucker Case said:
Unless, of course, you can find SOME way to make the claims found in posts 133, 135, and 137 factual.
Click to expand...
Here let me find some way to help you with facts. In #133 I stated that to avoid conviction Clinton entered into agreements with prosecutors that included paying Jones off and losing his license to practice law. CHECK. He did both.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/news-2-0/91656-john-boehner-sex-probe-14.html#post1059270155

Next in #135 and #137 I stated that to in order to avoid obstruction of justice and perjury charges stemming from that case (the Jones case) Clinton entered into an agreement. Oh yes and that those charges would not have been of a civil nature! Somehow you seriously think I'm wrong, even pushing so called falsehoods.:roll:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/news-2-0/91656-john-boehner-sex-probe-14.html#post1059270155
Is it possible you *actually* meant that the reason he entered those agreements with prosecutors was because he was not afraid of being "convicted"? If so, who cares? It would not make you a legal genius now would it?

You're way too defensive and it leaves you unable to read what has actually been stated. But sure, in the land of Fred Rogers I was pushing falsehoods!

Tucker Case said:
I get irritated when I see people argue form a position of ignorance and then pretend that they weren't after getting called on it.
Click to expand...
Looks more like you get irritated and start making poor assumptions and arguments the second someone challenges you! As noted by others. In fact, I just read a thread where one of your "friends" called you out for repeated and nasty illogical arguments that seem to be happening strictly for the sake of argument.:2wave:

You had something to pontificate about regarding honesty and facts ? Only if it involved an erroneous caveat about *which* case it was you were not *up* on the results of? Guess what? I was right about ALL of them. Check your facts.
 
Last edited:
Zaserac said:
Here let me find some way to help you with facts. In #133 I stated that to avoid conviction Clinton entered into agreements with prosecutors that included paying Jones off and losing his license to practice law. CHECK.
Click to expand...

Now you are claiming that you said he entered into agreements (plural).

Hmmm... Let's ACTUALLY check. Did you say agreements or did you say an agreement. If the former, then it was about multiple cases and multiple agreements, but if the latter, then you were doing exactly what I said you were doing.

Let's just take a looky-loo:


Zaserac said:
In order to aviod being convicted Clinton entered into an agrement with prosecutors that included paying Jones and losing his license to practise law. I don't think it was much in the way of justice myself, but rather side stepping it.
Click to expand...

Holy ****! It's exactly how I said it happened!

I guess that just adds the post I'm responding to to your list of lies. Care to add more, or will you have the cajones to admit you had your facts wrong?
 
Tucker Case said:
Now you are claiming that you said he entered into agreements (plural).

Hmmm... Let's ACTUALLY check. Did you say agreements or did you say an agreement. If the former, then it was about multiple cases and multiple agreements, but if the latter, then you were doing exactly what I said you were doing.






Holy ****! It's exactly how I said it happened!

I guess that just adds the post I'm responding to to your list of lies. Care to add more, or will you have the cajones to admit you had your facts wrong?
Click to expand...
Now it is my list of lies? I meant lies is it? So lame it is laughable. I meant laughable. My bad.

I get the impression that this is all a white knuckle, neck vein popping frothing at the mouth chance for you to stroke out. Maybe you should take 5?
 
Last edited:
Zaserac said:
Now it is my list of lies? I meant lies is it? So lame it is laughable. I meant laughable. My bad.

I get the impression that this is all a white knuckle, neck vein popping frothing at the mouth chance for you to stroke out. Maybe you should take 5?
Click to expand...

I have no anger at all. I'm actually quite entertained by your intellectual dishonesty.

I simply chose to use enormous writing to expose the fact that you are actively and purposefully distorting the way that the situation developped.


See, if you were being honest, you would have to admit that you initially portrayed it as a single plea agreement, which either would be an admission of not having your facts correct (which is what I politely informed you about initially), or that you were actively lying when you portrayed it as such.

As you can see, my initial assumption was that you were merely misinformed. But your subsequent willful attempts to distort the reality of what occurred leads me to the conclusion that you must have been purposefully distorting the truth in that reply, as you are when you purposefully distort the truth by pretending that you initially said to "agreements" instead of "an agreement".

Since it's very plain to see that you did not say what you are now claiming you said, I am having fun exposing that dishonesty.
 
ht_chrislee_gawker_ll_110209_main.jpg



Sooooooooooo funny............
 
Well, you know what they say...

Once you go ORANGE, you never go... um... back?
 
USA_1 said:
ht_chrislee_gawker_ll_110209_main.jpg



Sooooooooooo funny............
Click to expand...

Another day, another Republican sex scandal. Sewer rats have more dignity and integrity. Its time for the party to stand-down on the moral issues, as they are immoral lot.
 
upsideguy said:
Another day, another Republican sex scandal. Sewer rats have more dignity and integrity. Its time for the party to stand-down on the moral issues, as they are immoral lot.
Click to expand...

kind of like all the filthy rich dems like Kerry and Gore who whine about how unfair America is to the untalented and unproductive?
 
upsideguy said:
Another day, another Republican sex scandal. Sewer rats have more dignity and integrity. Its time for the party to stand-down on the moral issues, as they are immoral lot.
Click to expand...

I ageee. Its very humorous how they defend "Christian" matters and get their votes when there are so many gay republicans and cheaters in congress. And on top of that I dont see ANYTHING repubs do for Christians.
 
I actually don't care about sex scandals. As long as they didn't break the law, I don't mind.
He could have 7 mistresses for all I care. Let it break up his marriage. As long as it doesn't affect his job performance, shouldn't matter.


Oh, and this is the enquirer we're talking about. About as reliable as fake science monthly. If they get something right, it's by accident.
 
TurtleDude said:
kind of like all the filthy rich dems like Kerry and Gore who whine about how unfair America is to the untalented and unproductive?
Click to expand...

OK, so I will give you credit for trying to find equivalence with a contemporary argument, but it still falls short. As an attorney and a student of precision in language surely you understand the argument is about hypocrisy. Many (to most) conservatives want you to believe they are the champions of family values. Correct me if I am wrong, but cheating on your wife is universally considered contrary to upholding family values. Thus, if you run on a family value platform and then cheat on your wife, you are a hypocrite.

You suggest Kerry and Gore are hypocrites because they are rich. I challenge you for find any cite by either that suggests being rich is wrong, immoral or otherwise undesirable. They work to defend those that are not rich. They are arguing the system is not fair to the less privileged. One does not have to be poor to look out for those that are, no more than one has to have cancer to adequately speak on behalf those that do.

Certainly a more creative argument of equivalence, but with no better result. (short answer: nice try; no cigar)
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I have no anger at all. I'm actually quite entertained by your intellectual dishonesty.

I simply chose to use enormous writing to expose the fact that you are actively and purposefully distorting the way that the situation developped.


See, if you were being honest, you would have to admit that you initially portrayed it as a single plea agreement, which either would be an admission of not having your facts correct (which is what I politely informed you about initially), or that you were actively lying when you portrayed it as such.

As you can see, my initial assumption was that you were merely misinformed. But your subsequent willful attempts to distort the reality of what occurred leads me to the conclusion that you must have been purposefully distorting the truth in that reply, as you are when you purposefully distort the truth by pretending that you initially said to "agreements" instead of "an agreement".

Since it's very plain to see that you did not say what you are now claiming you said, I am having fun exposing that dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Another fact is that typing in all caps on the internet is SCREAMING. You prefer YELLING? OK. Either way you don't come across as calm or entertained when you do it. Nobody does. You go right ahead pretending that is not the case. I bet you have a bridge in Arizona to sell too.

So I've supposedly presented a list of lies! I'm being dishonest and this is all because you are fixated on an argument I never made. I was not rebutting you, you leapt to the conclusion that I was. I commented on the outcome of the Jones case. I was correct and the only thing you have is to call me a liar a hack and to insist that is the case. Despite the fact you can't point to a single lie or dispute what I said. The hang up on I was presenting the case that the outcome was a "single" plea agreement is yours. I never did so and you can't produce where I did so. Everything I said is factual, I even provided the link to the post you claimed I was lying in. Only they don't say what you pretend they did.

If you really get your yayas off calling members names, SCREAMING in all caps and actually bragging that this is all fun to you? Well let us just say that maybe you might not want to brag too loudly about that. :shock:
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
kind of like all the filthy rich dems like Kerry and Gore who whine about how unfair America is to the untalented and unproductive?
Click to expand...

This comment has nothing at all to do with the thread topic. It is a weakly disguised attempt to divert from the actions of Boehner and shift the spotlight on the posters favorite targets.
 
Zaserac said:
Another fact is that typing in all caps on the internet is SCREAMING. You prefer YELLING? OK. Either way you don't come across as calm or entertained when you do it. Nobody does. You go right ahead pretending that is not the case. I bet you have a bridge in Arizona to sell too.

So I've supposedly presented a list of lies! I'm being dishonest and this is all because you are fixated on an argument I never made. I was not rebutting you, you leapt to the conclusion that I was.
Click to expand...

Check your facts: Large fonts are not all caps.

I commented on the outcome of the Jones case. I was correct and the only thing you have is to call me a liar a hack and to insist that is the case. Despite the fact you can't point to a single lie or dispute what I said.
Click to expand...

This is total nonsense. The outcome of the Jones case had nothing to do with the agreement about criminal charges. I've proven that out and you've since changed your wording from the singular to plural to reflect that.



The hang up on I was presenting the case that the outcome was a "single" plea agreement is yours. I never did so and you can't produce where I did so.
Click to expand...

I've already produced it. If you want to deny it, then explain to me which variant of the English language allows the words "an agreement" to mean something other than a single agreement.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
This comment has nothing at all to do with the thread topic. It is a weakly disguised attempt to divert from the actions of Boehner and shift the spotlight on the posters favorite targets.
Click to expand...

Another frantic panic response. When the left whines about hypocrisy its the pot and kettle syndrome
 
haymarket said:
This comment has nothing at all to do with the thread topic. It is a weakly disguised attempt to divert from the actions of Boehner and shift the spotlight on the posters favorite targets.
Click to expand...

yes, but they are such easy, deserving, targets

and boner has done nothing illegal. and if his wife does not mind his escapades, why should we

complete non-issue ... unless he is found pontificating about living up to commitments and social mores
 
haymarket said:
This comment has nothing at all to do with the thread topic. It is a weakly disguised attempt to divert from the actions of Boehner and shift the spotlight on the posters favorite targets.
Click to expand...

ummm ... and what actions of Boehners are you refering to ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom