In other words, Kenya is butthurt.

SophT
jungus: The time may well be here to amend that but we can't do it for just one person in mind (Ahnold).

I disagree... This is still relevant to the fact that there are other foreign nationals that don't have the best interest of America at heart.

Here's an abstract example:

Say they allow anyone to run for president of the U.S. what's to stop Vicente Fox from calling on all Hispanics / Latinos / Mexicans / whatever you call them... to write him in on the ballot?

then we have some problems.

That could very well happen. I have seen that happen in various organizations where a group from another org will come in on election day and vote in their buddy. At Masonic lodges there are rules on who can vote (usually current lodge members) but not so much who can run. In your scenario this would allow Mr. Fox to run and any Mexican who is also a U.S. citizen would have full rights to vote for him.
Sadly, we have problems whoever we get.

Schmea: That's one of the reasons why I DO like Obama. I raise my eyebrows at some of his policies, I definitely wasn't a fan of the GM bailout for example, but I look at him as one of the few politicians who is inviting us to judge him by his actions and positions, while the rest of government is focused on outrage and negativity to garner votes.

so, Bush spent a lot of time criticizing Democrats? No, so that means you liked him?

IamAwake: so, Bush spent a lot of time criticizing Democrats? No, so that means you liked him?

Bush didn't need to directly attack Democrats because he had a full time, 24-hour "news" channel doing it for him.

Where do you find Obama? Only in Kenya.... only in kenya we have Obamaaaaaaaaaa

Gato Negro



/hot

Schmea: Animatronik: earlier this year, they criticized Obama for not visiting the cemetery in Normandy. When he DID visit it in June, there were some who criticized him for preventing war vets without a ticket from entering on the days he was there.

/you can't win if you're a famous public figure, especially a politician.

It's manufactured criticism, to manufacture outrage. To me, it's one of the worst things about our political culture: everything the other guy does is painted in a bad light, in the hopes that you shine brighter in comparison. There's no rush to be a better politician, just a rush to point out the failings of your opponents. That's one of the reasons why I DO like Obama. I raise my eyebrows at some of his policies, I definitely wasn't a fan of the GM bailout for example, but I look at him as one of the few politicians who is inviting us to judge him by his actions and positions, while the rest of government is focused on outrage and negativity to garner votes.

I wish I could agree with you, but I think you couldn't be more wrong. The last thing a president should be doing is mentioning Rush Limbaugh by name as a leader of the opposition. It's just politics coming from the guy who's running the show, both parties do it.

Rahm Emmanuel probably learned more from Rove and DeLay than any Democrat. That's not a good thing for anyone.

wait, is criticizing our elected officials un-american again?

SophT: Say they allow anyone to run for president of the U.S. what's to stop Vicente Fox from calling on all Hispanics / Latinos / Mexicans / whatever you call them... to write him in on the ballot?

then we have some problems.

really? First, he'd not win simply because Hispanics voted for him. Second...why would it matter? We're not in danger of British nobility taking over. That issue is gone. What we ARE in danger of is the republican and democrat asshats that are - really - the same party, and are pandering to themselves as a collective group (albeit a group with two faces) while destroying the country. So what is it about where Fox happened to be born that troubles you, exactly? What makes someone more qualified simply because they were born here?

I just want to write "Jehovah's Witnesses" so the trolls google alert will chime...giggity

IamAwake: so, Bush spent a lot of time criticizing Democrats? No, so that means you liked him?

I'll give an honest answer to a question that I think was posed with the assumption that since I said I like Obama, this question would get a rise out of me or display some hypocrisy:

I don't remember Bush himself spending a lot of time criticizing, in fact one praise you could give him was that the man DID take actions, and those actions were often bold. However, just as I said in my comment about Obama, I disagreed with policy decisions... however, in the case of George W. Bush those disagreements became more and more fundamental problems with how I viewed his handling of the political landscape. His painting of any individual or group that disagreed with his policies as being against freedom, the constant cranking up of fear, and major policy decisions that lead to a war that I disagree with... while I went into his presidency with an open mind (actually, far more than an open mind... after 911 I don't think I was ever more prepared to be 100% behind and support a president than I was with President Bush) but over time the decisions he made were too far from what I believe strongly in, and crossed lines that I believe were outright terrible decisions for a president of the United states to make. For those reasons I did not like President Bush as president.

But, I will hold Obama to these same standards. So far I have liked the man and his attitude towards his role and the people, but have raised eyebrows at certain decisions. I will not, just as i did with President Bush, leap to condemn or praise him just because he has a (D) or (R) beside his name... in the end, I'll judge him for what he does. It's early days - I hope he does well, since why would you hope otherwise?

So what?

Pechorin: Even if Obama was born in Kenya (which he was not) he would be eligible to be president because his mom was a citizen.

OBAMA HAZ AN ANCHOR MOMMY!!!1!

opiumpoopy: globalwarmingpraiser: Came for birth of Muslim to white woman certificate. Leaving satisfied.

It's a fake.

I can tell, because you can't measure the length of a baby three days after birth, because they're still too curled up.

Plus their eyes aren't even open yet. But those tiny little claws are so cute!

Linguine: Link (new window)

It clearly says, "Any alterations invalidate this certificate". And the certificate number has been blacked out.

Therefore, it is invalid.

Therefore, Obama was born in Kenya. Or Indonesia. I forget.

jungus: I suppose that free speech thing that is little too outdated as well. Look, it is a law, and there are many laws that we may not agree with. If what I wrote (I thought it was a not so clever joke) caused you to cry and call me an elitist troll, then ok. Queue picture for elitist troll is elite.

so you're not going to defend your stand? And you're honestly going to compare a right (Freedom of Speech) to a restriction (anti-democracy clause to prevent British nobility from becoming president)? You really think you've got a good argument there? Seriously?

I said it was in the Constitution, but that it was outdated, and asked why people think it matters now. Your response was to merely repeat what I had already said - that it was in the Constitution. I know what's in there, and I know how much BS has been allowed the federal government via the commerce clause. I also know that the intent of what was written was not to exclude people who were born of US citizens, and may or may not (and it shouldn't matter) have been on US soil the moment they were born. If someone had been born in Ohio before it was part of the US, and then a year later it became part of the US, would you say that somehow - magically - makes them less able to fulfill the role of President?

Do you agree, or disagree, that it is no longer relevant?

IamAwake:

really? First, he'd not win simply because Hispanics voted for him. Second...why would it matter? We're not in danger of British nobility taking over. That issue is gone. What we ARE in danger of is the republican and democrat asshats that are - really - the same party, and are pandering to themselves as a collective group (albeit a group with two faces) while destroying the country. So what is it about where Fox happened to be born that troubles you, exactly? What makes someone more qualified simply because they were born here?

Look I'm aware that that was a flawed example, but it's just to point out why that still remains, let me give you a different example, Say that that is ammended in 2012- it won't have any major ramifications in the 12 or even 16 election. But say that a week after that passes that the Ayatollah calls on all muslims in the world to move to the U.S. and gain citizenship and that in 2020 they should all vote for him.

I'm not trying to get into a Republican / Democrat debate. I realize that the threat of British nobility taking over has disappeared, and that, for the time being we're not in any serious threat of a different group overthrowing us policically, but I tend to think the founding Father's has enough wisdom to have foresight that the British may not have ever been America's only enemy, that's why the constitution doesn't say "No British born person" can be president instead of saying only U.S. can.

Linguine: Link (new window)

I just noticed the text underneath that says "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

Will these birthers accept anything or will they just continue being that stupid?

IamAwake: And you're honestly going to compare a right (Freedom of Speech) to a restriction (anti-democracy clause to prevent British nobility from becoming president)?

It's complicated, I know, but- rights cannot exist without restrictions. That 'restriction' is kept in there to keep other groups from coming in and stripping away the other 'rights'.

You keep hanging on the whole "british nobility" thing - I believe that it doesn't specifically address British nobility because they didn't want American being overrun by ANYONE (british, french, Italian, or any other 'unknown' future threat).

U.S. citizens hold certain, inalienable rights, that non-citizens do not. One of those rights is the right to pursue the office of the Presidency. Another is voting. Citizen's rights exist, whether you like it or not, with the sole interest of protecting citizens - not everyone.

SophT: But say that a week after that passes that the Ayatollah calls on all muslims in the world to move to the U.S. and gain citizenship and that in 2020 they should all vote for him.

This is exceedingly unlikely. Even France, who begged immigrants from the neighboring Muslim countries to move in after WW2 to rebuild the country, and who doesn't have have such a provision, isn't in any danger of this. What would make you think that the US would be?

brigid_fitch: Just for the hell of it, I've been arguing w/some Birthers over on the YouTube comments. My God, there's some grade-A stupid on there. They're worse than the Truthers.

I know arguing w/them is pointless, but it's an amusing time-waster.

Don't know if it's been said before, but birthers are the furries of politics.

Pechorin: jso2897: zabadu: badhatharry: zabadu: badhatharry: Doctor Funkenstein: Behold! The Birthers website! (new window)

Please check your sanity at the door.

Don't these idiots know that Obama's birth certificate and the hospital records are Classified Top Secret National Security documents. You can't go around showing your birth certificate to people as proof of birth. What a bunch of morans!

Please see BadHatHarry's comments in the aforementioned link. The man is a turd stirrer.

I have switched my position. I have since learned that birth records in Hawaii are stored in a room much like the one in Mission Impossible. Only high clearance people are allowed to look at them. And there is absolutely no photocopying of such records. Much less disseminating them.

badhatharry: Sabyen91: badhatharry: Lagrange: badhatharry:
I don't care if he releases it or not. I do care about the truth. I think this has become an issue because of his name and Kenyan heritage more than the color of his skin. If he was born in Chicago to two black Americans, nobody would care.

Bullshiat.

Of course you care, or you wouldn't be bothering.

I am just fascinated that so many people think I am a lunatic for pointing out the simplest fact. It is like everybody is farking brainwashed. Sitting here stating the obvious, I am probably the one being trolled.

You are making a pointless point. You admit he has proven he is a citizen and then say people are afraid to talk about it. Anybody not on his ignore list want to make that point?

For me, it is not about his citizenship. It is about the media avoiding the fact that he has not released the original. If that was ever explained to people clearly, my statements on this thread would not seem so unusual.

The media avoids reporting a lot of things. Why, just last week, they avoided reporting on the fact that I had a large, annoying pimple on my ass. Why?
Because NOBODY FARKING CARES!!!

Look, we just want to know why you haven't released the doctor's records showing you had a pimple. I got an email that said that it wasn't a pimple, but rather a secrit muslin growth tumor. If you just release the doctor's records, you can clear this right up.

I tried releasing a photo of the pimple, but my detractors insisted it was a shooped MRI of George Bush's brain.

SophT: U.S. citizens hold certain, inalienable rights, that non-citizens do not. One of those rights is the right to pursue the office of the Presidency. Another is voting. Citizen's rights exist, whether you like it or not, with the sole interest of protecting citizens - not everyone.

please don't use "inalienable rights" that way without re-reading the Declaration of Independence, from which the term holds the most meaning in this context. I don't think you'll find mention of "US Citizens" being who holds such rights.

IamAwake:

This is exceedingly unlikely. Even France, who begged immigrants from the neighboring Muslim countries to move in after WW2 to rebuild the country, and who doesn't have have such a provision, isn't in any danger of this. What would make you think that the US would be?

Exceedingly unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. I'm just saying that those are the reasons that that part of the constitution exists and is still valid - it's a protection, insurance, just in case.

As far as France (and Europe) goes - that's arguable, things have changed drastically over there in the last 5 decades, look at sharia law, which would be in direct contradiction of the spirit of American law.

Animatronik:
I wish I could agree with you, but I think you couldn't be more wrong. The last thing a president should be doing is mentioning Rush Limbaugh by name as a leader of the opposition. It's just politics coming from the guy who's running the show, both parties do it.

Rahm Emmanuel probably learned more from Rove and DeLay than any Democrat. That's not a good thing for anyone.

I agree with you completely that both parties do it. When I said it's one of the worst parts of politics, I meant both side, the whole spectrum.

Though I'm not going to wager a guess as to whether Obama himself was involved in Rahm Emmanuel's choice to paint Limbaugh as head of the opposition... that we don't know. But I think the fact that Obama had a built in campaign of "look how bad Bush has been" and instead campaigned on "hey we're awesome but let's work and be awesomer!" gave me hope. Sure, there were criticisms, and some negative aspects, but the entire campaign could have been negative, instead it was a very positive one. That's what make me stand up and take note, and i would have done it regardless of the party. I personally wish McCain's campaign had stuck to the positives they could have brought to the country too, as in my view McCain had a lot going for him, and let himself be turned to the dark side of politics to win.

I also think it's interesting that we started out with television working with the government to help make the president and our government as an extension look good (see FDR wheelchair), and has progressed all the way to the actual creation of television stations with the intent of making the government (at least your opponents) look bad. Public tastes changes and being reflecting in television, or greedy powerful men getting more and more bold and shaping what we accept?

IamAwake:
please don't use "inalienable rights" that way without re-reading the Declaration of Independence, from which the term holds the most meaning in this context. I don't think you'll find mention of "US Citizens" being who holds such rights.

Ok, contextually speaking, U.S. citizens have rights that cannot be stripped of them, and that also only belong to U.S. citizens.

IamAwake: SophT: But say that a week after that passes that the Ayatollah calls on all muslims in the world to move to the U.S. and gain citizenship and that in 2020 they should all vote for him.

This is exceedingly unlikely. Even France, who begged immigrants from the neighboring Muslim countries to move in after WW2 to rebuild the country, and who doesn't have have such a provision, isn't in any danger of this. What would make you think that the US would be?

Not on topic, but Which neighboring Muslim countries are you talking about? Germany? Italy? Spain? Oh right, Luxembourg...

France had (has) a strong colonial presence in more than a few Muslim countries. Which is were they likely courted immigrants.

SophT: IamAwake:

really? First, he'd not win simply because Hispanics voted for him. Second...why would it matter? We're not in danger of British nobility taking over. That issue is gone. What we ARE in danger of is the republican and democrat asshats that are - really - the same party, and are pandering to themselves as a collective group (albeit a group with two faces) while destroying the country. So what is it about where Fox happened to be born that troubles you, exactly? What makes someone more qualified simply because they were born here?

Look I'm aware that that was a flawed example, but it's just to point out why that still remains, let me give you a different example, Say that that is ammended in 2012- it won't have any major ramifications in the 12 or even 16 election. But say that a week after that passes that the Ayatollah calls on all muslims in the world to move to the U.S. and gain citizenship and that in 2020 they should all vote for him.

That's a VERY grave concern, but I think you are overlooking the real danger. The minute we repeal the constitutional requirement that every U.S. president produce his "original" birth certificate, like all the others were always made to do, the Lizard People are going to come boiling out of the ground and TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

jso2897:
That's a VERY grave concern, but I think you are overlooking the real danger. The minute we repeal the constitutional requirement that every U.S. president produce his "original" birth certificate, like all the others were always made to do, the Lizard People are going to come boiling out of the ground and TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!


/Ross perot is gonna be pissed

SophT: Ok, contextually speaking, U.S. citizens have rights that cannot be stripped of them, and that also only belong to U.S. citizens.

Such as?

Doc Daneeka:
Such as?

voting?

SophT: As far as France (and Europe) goes - that's arguable, things have changed drastically over there in the last 5 decades, look at sharia law, which would be in direct contradiction of the spirit of American law.

and such was put in place by legislative and judicial bodies of government, so it is not relevant to this convo about a restriction that is wholly focused on one exact, precise, limitation?

Ok, contextually speaking, U.S. citizens have rights that cannot be stripped of them, and that also only belong to U.S. citizens.

"inalienable rights" - as described by the Declaration of Independence (and never mentioned in the Constitution" are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In the post I was responding to, you said:

U.S. citizens hold certain, inalienable rights, that non-citizens do not. One of those rights is the right to pursue the office of the Presidency. Another is voting. Citizen's rights exist, whether you like it or not, with the sole interest of protecting citizens - not everyone.

Note that first - none of those are "inalienable rights" that you list, since they can in fact be removed. Second, ask the Governor of California whether there is a difference between "U.S. citizens" and "Natural Born Citizens." The convo isn't about whether non-citizens should be allowed to be president, the convo is about whether the "natural born" part is outdated. I'm not arguing that non-citizens should be allowed to be president.

The only distinction of which I am aware between a "Natural born Citizen" and a non-natural born citizen is that the non-natural born citizen cannot be Pres or in the immediate line of succession to pres (within the context of rights and limitations, assuming both are citizens). That has little to do with Sharia law being enacted in Europe - such a provision wouldn't have stopped that (but fortunately, other provisions do stop it).

So again - why would it matter if Obama was born in Kenya? Would that really affect his ability to fulfill the role of President?

SophT: Doc Daneeka:
Such as?

voting?

Voting a right that "cannot be stripped" of citizens?

You never heard of convicted felons before?

Poo - "and such was put in place by legislative and judicial bodies of government, so it is not relevant to this convo about a restriction that is wholly focused on one exact, precise, limitation?" got wargarbled. Should end "one exact, precise, limitation on one particular office of the executive branch, with none on the legislative and judicial branches that caused this to occur."

Schmea: I also think it's interesting that we started out with television working with the government to help make the president and our government as an extension look good (see FDR wheelchair), and has progressed all the way to the actual creation of television stations with the intent of making the government (at least your opponents) look bad. Public tastes changes and being reflecting in television, or greedy powerful men getting more and more bold and shaping what we accept?

I think both sides have become more heavily entrenched in the media, because the proliferation of media has increased the public taste for blood.

Kind of like if you were a Roman, you might go to see a play on a holiday for entertainment. But then they started throwing games that lasted for days. It just got bloodier and bloodier with the gladiators. The more media there is, the more they compete for your attention.

/Didn't someone named Drew write a book about something like this?
//Maybe I should buy it.

IamAwake: So again - why would it matter if Obama was born in Kenya? Would that really affect his ability to fulfill the role of President?

I don't think that it would matter if Obama was born in Kenya - if the law provides that a "natural born citizen" can be born in another country. I have no quarrel with that - and I'm defiantly not arguing that Obama needs to show his birth certificate or that he can't be President.

My whole point was a response to those saying that that part of the constitution was no longer relevant in the U.S. and should be ammended/repealed.

I hope President Obama the best in his term, and in his second if he runs and wins again, for the sake of his political career, and for the sake of all U.S. citizens.

/thanks for keeping it civil - makes it more fun.

Doc Daneeka: Such as?

Like such as, and?

40 watt range: Not on topic, but Which neighboring Muslim countries are you talking about? Germany? Italy? Spain? Oh right, Luxembourg...

Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt...

You need to go study a bit of post WW2 history, methinks. France was decimated during the war. The reason there are so many Muslim youth in France - the ones that have been in the riots the last few years - is because the French were unable/unwilling to rebuild their country themselves after the war. Point is, they have decades and decades of Muslim influence there now, and are still not in danger of what was suggested. Which is proof we would also not be.

Nobody really cared whether Clinton had a blow job while serving as president. The fact he lied about it formed the basis of the outrage.

I can see the same happening for the O man if that Kenyan BC ever makes a public appearance. Again, nobody really and truly cares where he was born, particularly his ardent supporters. But the fact he and his campaign put a great deal of effort into persuading the majority of us to believe he was born in Hawaii, if in fact he was not, suddenly makes this renowned constitutional scholar a ... what's the word? Oh yea, a fraud.

acchief: Nobody really cared whether Clinton had a blow job while serving as president. The fact he lied about it formed the basis of the outrage.

funny, few people I know cared that he lied about it. Instead, they cared that he was a sexual predator, and getting BJs in the oval office from girls barely out of their teens.

Doc Daneeka: SophT: Doc Daneeka:
Such as?

voting?

Voting a right that "cannot be stripped" of citizens?

You never heard of convicted felons before?

I would consider that 'forfeited' - as a result of their own actions, but I digress. Perhaps beyond life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness no one has any inalienable rights - citizen or not.

Thank God for these 2 little words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Doc Daneeka: SophT: Ok, contextually speaking, U.S. citizens have rights that cannot be stripped of them, and that also only belong to U.S. citizens.

Such as?

important to repeat.

The "inalienable rights" were rights that the Founding Fathers felt belonged to all men (gender non-specific, arguably) regardless of where they were born. Not a single one of those rights were stated to have been reserved to only US Citizens.

The rights (more like "responsibilities") given to US citizens are instead things that can actually be removed. Every right a US citizen has that a non-US citizen doesn't have can in fact be removed - some of them, quite easily. Some would suggest that non-citizens don't have the right to be in the US without first being screened, but I would argue they're wrong - they have the right, it is just being withheld from them by short-sighted people at this current time. For the bulk of US history, they made use of that right with much less resistance.

It is really important to understand what the Founding Fathers did. They made 3 categories of people. Each category has the benefits of the proceeding.

1) "all men" - who have various "inalienable rights."
2) "citizens" - who are able to vote, run for office, receive government assistance
3) "natural born citizens" - able to run for president.

Everyone on the planet is in the first category. Anyone on the planet that isn't a felon or otherwise a known danger can, if they put in the effort, achieve the second category - assuming they weren't automatically a citizen when they were born. The third category is something you either are, or you aren't.

IamAwake: acchief: Nobody really cared whether Clinton had a blow job while serving as president. The fact he lied about it formed the basis of the outrage.

funny, few people I know cared that he lied about it. Instead, they cared that he was a sexual predator, and getting BJs in the oval office from girls barely out of their teens.

So the impeachment ordeal we all suffered through was over a blow job afterall? Thanks for clearing up that confusion.

Fat and Nasty 86: His grandma said he was born in Kenya and mysteriously died less than a week before the election?

DUN DUN DUN

Actually, his paternal grandma was the one who said he was born in Kenya, his honkey grandma was the one who dies before the election.

IamAwake: The "inalienable rights" were rights that the Founding Fathers felt belonged to all men (gender non-specific, arguably) regardless of where they were born. Not a single one of those rights were stated to have been reserved to only US Citizens.

Not just the Declaration. Looking over the Bill of Rights, I see that pretty much all the rights that are enumerated and guaranteed belong, not to Citizens, but to "the people."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

An awful lot of rights guaranteed to "the people," and nary a mention of citizenship status anywhere.

Is Obama's deadbeat aunt still in the states illegally? Deport her ass.

acchief: IamAwake: acchief: Nobody really cared whether Clinton had a blow job while serving as president. The fact he lied about it formed the basis of the outrage.

funny, few people I know cared that he lied about it. Instead, they cared that he was a sexual predator, and getting BJs in the oval office from girls barely out of their teens.

So the impeachment ordeal we all suffered through was over a blow job afterall? Thanks for clearing up that confusion.

No, it was about lying under oath to tank a sexual harassment case brought against him by Jennifer Flowers. The perjury was the impeachable offense. The media tried to redefine the issue as simply about a BJ to try to mitigate the damage. Nice try at revisionist history though. Keep repeating a lie often enough people who do not payt attention will see it as the truth.

acchief: IamAwake: acchief: Nobody really cared whether Clinton had a blow job while serving as president. The fact he lied about it formed the basis of the outrage.

funny, few people I know cared that he lied about it. Instead, they cared that he was a sexual predator, and getting BJs in the oval office from girls barely out of their teens.

So the impeachment ordeal we all suffered through was over a blow job afterall? Thanks for clearing up that confusion.

Was pointing out your "nobody" argument was wrong. Take it how you wish, though.

/that is all

jdmac: No, it was about lying under oath to tank a sexual harassment case brought against him by Jennifer Flowers. The perjury was the impeachable offense. The media tried to redefine the issue as simply about a BJ to try to mitigate the damage. Nice try at revisionist history though. Keep repeating a lie often enough people who do not payt attention will see it as the truth.

"Lying under oath" and "perjury" aren't the same thing.

While Bill Clinton did lie under oath about Monica Lewinsky, it wasn't perjury.