|
"Deep Throat" to be re-released... | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 10:41:47 |
| "previously" "considered taboo"? |
by McNutcase |
2005-02-08 10:45:50 |
Geez. No wonder Americans are so dang uptight.
And what's this about "previously"? Didn't they try to get Clinton sacked for it? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
No - he was brought under impeachment for lying... | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 10:47:34 |
|
Even stupider. | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 10:49:30 |
|
Because he lied under oath during a sexual | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 10:51:02 |
|
From what I heard, it wasn't him should've been... | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 10:52:13 |
|
Huh? | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 10:55:59 |
|
If he was on trial for Lewinsky... | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:00:11 |
|
It wasn't the Lewinsky trial | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 11:01:18 |
|
I believe it was a pattern of behavior | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:02:29 |
|
We are talking about stuff that happened AFTERWARD | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:04:41 |
|
hmmm... I would think that afterwards habits | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:10:11 |
|
Bang. Mistrial. | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:11:31 |
|
and that's setting aside the original scope too | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:12:49 |
|
You've forgotten... | by niwikki | 2005-02-08 11:13:00 |
|
Durn straight. I've seen plenty of cases | by Evil_Minion | 2005-02-08 11:54:01 |
|
In the state of California previous misdeeds are | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 11:26:52 |
|
Monica came after Paula and Jennifer (n/t) | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:29:39 |
|
But the case was developed after Monica... | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 11:33:52 |
|
Nyet. "After the fact". | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:36:07 |
|
was it Jennifer, Paula, Monica? | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:37:46 |
|
Monica was not evident at the time of Paula. | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:41:00 |
|
we must agree to disagree then | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:47:33 |
|
He. Should. Never. Have. Been. Asked. | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:50:33 |
|
When.Asked.He.LIED. | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:53:03 |
|
You'd have condemned him even harder... | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:56:26 |
|
heh, see my post. | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:57:45 |
|
I wonder how he could weasel out of it... | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:56:51 |
|
WHen he lied, he lied to the press. | by kelli217 | 2005-02-08 12:13:47 |
|
makes me wonder why | by niwikki | 2005-02-08 11:06:33 |
|
Impeachment trials dont involve lawyers. | by joecrouse | 2005-02-08 11:40:28 |
|
I wasn't talking about impeachment trials | by niwikki | 2005-02-08 12:08:36 |
|
ahhh. Missed the distiction. | by joecrouse | 2005-02-08 13:51:11 |
|
yeah, it's a tricky one | by niwikki | 2005-02-08 17:12:19 |
|
Then Lewinsky was completely irrelevant. | by McNutcase | 2005-02-08 11:02:50 |
|
She was dragged into it because HE opened the door | by Sweethart | 2005-02-08 11:06:22 |
|
not WITH, IIRC, but LIKE (n/t) | by plblark | 2005-02-08 11:08:21 |
|
Not exactly... | by dire_lobo | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
The difference is... | by Illiad | 2005-02-08 11:28:24 |
|
brought under impeachment - and found NOT guilty. | by dire_lobo | 2005-02-08 11:29:34 |
|
Convicted in the court of public opinion | by Kickstart | 2005-02-08 11:35:35 |
|
Found Guilty in court of perjury and fined | by DesertRat66 | 2005-02-08 11:53:21 |
|
(that's why I was careful to state it as | by dire_lobo | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Another thing I found Ironic | by DesertRat66 | 2005-02-08 12:13:28 |
|
I think it was a family thing | by Kickstart | 2005-02-08 12:15:51 |
|
I have reason to believe that is a smoke screen | by DesertRat66 | 2005-02-08 12:33:15 |
|
I gotta agree (about the "truth" thing) | by dire_lobo | 2005-02-09 07:43:24 |
|
And yet, | by Blackbyrd2 | 2005-02-08 12:24:58 |
|
And note that he refuses to be under oath | by Kickstart | 2005-02-08 12:29:11 |
|
That's what I meant by slicker. | by Blackbyrd2 | 2005-02-08 13:22:04 |
|
No, that's not why they are uptight. | by JPaganel | 2005-02-08 10:47:43 |
|
PART of America was settled by them... | by dire_lobo | 2005-02-08 11:55:19 |
