Bush caught off guard in chat with Blair

[GameSnake]

Getting a BJ or cussing, Mr.President? I don't care unless its effecting how your running this country.

[Rule]

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82369#msg82369 date=1153238312]

How is that embarrassing to the United States? You can't honestly tell me that because he is President he is going to use cute words instead of cussing when he is having a private conversation with friends? Atleast he didn't go around saying he hates certain people and calling them bastards like that one Canadian politician.

No, but there's a better and more professional ways of saying things that you would expect.
I laughed when I saw it on the news.

It's not like it was in a press conference or something.

I hope you were being sarcastic there.

Um, I wasn't. He wasn't sitting there answering questions with a reporter and saying that. It was in a private conversation.

Yes but they were all around, and he said it to the Prime Minister of the UK.

ZOMG HE SAID "SHITE" HE SHOULD HAVE JUST GOTTEN A FUCKING BLOWJOB UNDER HIS DESK!!!!!!

Please don't tell me you think that was a big deal.  :P

[MyndFyre]

Please don't tell me you think that was a big deal.  :P

I don't think that getting a BJ under the desk was a big deal.  I think that lying about it under oath was a big deal.  It *was* material to the case, and while it was not relevant per se to the nation's operations, nobody has an excuse to lie under oath.

[GameSnake]

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82578#msg82578 date=1153265049]

Please don't tell me you think that was a big deal.  :P

I don't think that getting a BJ under the desk was a big deal.  I think that lying about it under oath was a big deal.  It *was* material to the case, and while it was not relevant per se to the nation's operations, nobody has an excuse to lie under oath.

I agree, but then again alot of presidents lie, Clinton got caught.

[Rule]

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82578#msg82578 date=1153265049]

Please don't tell me you think that was a big deal.  :P

I don't think that getting a BJ under the desk was a big deal.  I think that lying about it under oath was a big deal.  It *was* material to the case, and while it was not relevant per se to the nation's operations, nobody has an excuse to lie under oath.

It was an error in judgement, but he should never have been put in a position where he was having to talk about his personal relationships under oath.  That is something wrong with the system, and it is much more of a problem in government than the details of Clinton's sex life, which are quite unrelated to his job as a president.  There are a lot of Clinton-haters out there, but I'm sure if he had been a republican president those same people would be Clinton-lovers.  It's all just a childish game.

[GameSnake]

If anything the president deserves a BJ for such a stressfull job he does, makes him work better.

[Blaze]

Oh no!  Someone cursed over a bad issue, this has NEVER happened before.  I am going to stop respecting any decisions from that person now.  </stupidity>

Even being a leader of a country it does not change the way I view that country/leader at all.  They SHOULD stop that shit.

I watched the news this morning and it seems that all the people they interviewed on the streets of Toronto seemed to agree that it isn't a big deal.

Atleast he didn't go around saying he hates certain people and calling them bastards like that one Canadian politician.

I laughed hard when I saw that on the news.  I laughed harder when she stepped on a bush doll.

It was an error in judgement, but he should never have been put in a position where he was having to talk about his personal relationships under oath.  That is something wrong with the system, and it is much more of a problem in government than Clinton's sex life, which doesn't affect how he governs.  

I agree to a certain extent. It was pretty close in the work enviornment though.

[MyndFyre]

he should never have been put in a position where he was having to talk about his personal relationships under oath. 

WHAT?!?

He lied under oath in a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment of former employees.

Civil lawsuits have a different burden of proof and commonly have what are called character witnesses to establish patterned behaviors.  If someone repeatedly sexually harasses someone, it's found that the person is more likely to have sexually harassed the person in question.  It's kind of like how car insurance works, Rule.  I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.

They SHOULD stop that shit.

Holy shit Blaze!  You cursed!  Canadians must be bad people!

Holy shit!  I cursed!  x86 must be a bad clan!

[Rule]

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82603#msg82603 date=1153266413]

he should never have been put in a position where he was having to talk about his personal relationships under oath. 

WHAT?!?

He lied under oath in a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment of former employees.

Civil lawsuits have a different burden of proof and commonly have what are called character witnesses to establish patterned behaviors.  If someone repeatedly sexually harasses someone, it's found that the person is more likely to have sexually harassed the person in question.  It's kind of like how car insurance works, Rule.  I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.

Don't give me that patronizing crap.  I really dislike how you bold various words to make what you're saying sound more official.  I somehow doubt that Clinton was sexually harassing those women; the case should have been thrown out ::).  It was a publicity case -- Kenneth Star and his buddies even paid for some of these women to get cosmetic surgery.  The US should not have been on the edge of its seats while they waited to watch Clinton answer questions about his sexual relations.  That is screwed up.

[MyndFyre]

Don't give me that patronizing crap.  I really dislike how you bold various words to make what you're saying sound more official. 

I bold certain words to emphasize what I'm saying, not to make things "sound official," whatever that means.  I use it to express the inflection in my voice as if I were saying it IRL.

I somehow doubt that Clinton was sexually harassing those women; the case should have been thrown out ::).

I don't remember the outcome of the case, but I don't think that you're a judge, and I'm also fairly certain YANAL.  I don't see how your opinion has any bearing whatsoever on it.

[Rule]

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82610#msg82610 date=1153266722]

Don't give me that patronizing crap.  I really dislike how you bold various words to make what you're saying sound more official. 

I bold certain words to emphasize what I'm saying, not to make things "sound official," whatever that means.  I use it to express the inflection in my voice as if I were saying it IRL.

I somehow doubt that Clinton was sexually harassing those women; the case should have been thrown out ::).

I don't remember the outcome of the case, but I don't think that you're a judge, and I'm also fairly certain YANAL.  I don't see how your opinion has any bearing whatsoever on it.

You know damn well what I mean when I say "trying to sound official": it's a bully-like way of trying to shut people down. You often bold borderline technical words.  Also, who cares if I'm not a lawyer.  I don't see how your opinion has any bearing either, by the same flawed logic.  That's like saying Faraday's opinion on electricity is irrelevant, because he had no formal education whatsoever.  Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it irrelevant. 

[iago]

"Sexual Harassment"?  Who ever claimed that Clinton had sexually harassed her?  I'll admit that I wasn't glued to my TV to watch the case, but I don't seem to think that it was sexual harassment...

[MyndFyre]

You know damn well what I mean when I say "trying to sound official": it's a bully-like way of trying to shut people down. You often bold borderline technical words.  Also, who cares if I'm not a lawyer.  I don't see how your opinion has any bearing either, by the same flawed logic.  That's like saying Faraday's opinion on electricity is irrelevant, because he had no formal education whatsoever.  Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it irrelevant. 

/whine, you bolded "no" and are trying to bully me down.  ::)

I'm not saying that my opinion had any impact on the outcome of the case.  Your statement that the case should have been thrown out is equally irrelevant.  I wasn't arguing for a position, though; I was stating fact.

"Sexual Harassment"?  Who ever claimed that Clinton had sexually harassed her?  I'll admit that I wasn't glued to my TV to watch the case, but I don't seem to think that it was sexual harassment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones.  Following an initial dismissal, an appeal was avoided via an $850,000 settlement.

[Rule]

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82617#msg82617 date=1153267843]
I'm not saying that my opinion had any impact on the outcome of the case. 

Um, where am I saying this?  Just artifically relating something stupid you thought of to what I was saying doesn't make my comment irrelevant, and neither does me not being a lawyer, lol.

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82617#msg82617 date=1153267843]
Following an initial dismissal...

:D

[CrAz3D]

x86] link=topic=6720.msg82617#msg82617 date=1153267843]
Following an initial dismissal...

:D

...came a settlement, which means he did something wrong obviously.

Clinton cheated on his wife, broke the sacred bond of marriage, whats to say he didnt screw over the rest of the country somehow?
Clinton was an ass of a man...so far it seems he did good by us, though...except the whole letting terrorists infiltrate the U.S. thing.