Didn't you answer the first question? So if it comes down to a he said, she said and there is that blue dress, who you gonna believe?

you are spitting in the gusty winds here .......

Actually, it hasn't been a bad thread thus far. I made the point about the lack of materiality defeating a perjury case, made the point that the Jones lawyers definition did exclude oral sex and also that Clinton had not acknowledeged anything that would constitute sexual relations, although there is a dispute as to what actually happened.

How did this thread about something BO said end up rehashing Bill's dirty laundry? Can we get back to the original topic or please...please just let this dang thread die already?

I wouldn't say it has been the best thread since my innocous post got deleted...

It is amazing what lengths a person will go to when they truly believe something so obviously untenable.

No, you were focused on defending your boy at any cost, up to and including total forfeiture of any reputation that you held on such matters. I didn't say it was a lie that the definition didn't cover oral sex. The lie is that it was because of that reason that Billy Boy didn't lie under oath. He did lie, because they had quite certainly done OTHER things that were covered under that definition, and, by the way, when he testified before the grand jury, he did not deny that.

As I recall, with his cigar, no less.

i may have to double check, but i didn't find God and guns on the list...

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-economy

So Barry was just making excuses? Or what?

Yoss, what part of "any person" is unclear???? Under this definition, if she gives him oral sex, he's engaging in sex, because she is touching (with her mouth) one of the named parts of the body for his gratification. He is "any person" . . . so he engaged in sex. He wouldn't have gotten sanctioned if he'd had any real basis for the argument you're putting forth.

Reverend, I believe the argument at the time was that she was having sex with him, but he wasn't having sex with her. LOL - how very postmodern!

Well, unfortunately for you anyone can go back and look at your post 946220.

First you quoted my statement that



And you specifically said "I wish you'd quit telling this lie.[underlinng added]"

Still seems to me that the definition did include oral sex. Someone was touching someone else in a designated spot for his (and her????) gratification. That fits the definition. Under the definition, if one of them was engaging in sex, they both were.

And I hope everybody does. Straw had said, "The POTUS [made] false statements, (not misleading, he flat out lied) in a deposition." You responded:


As you noted, I responded that I wished you would quit telling that lie. The lie, as I've said before, was NOT that the definition didn't include BJs. The lie is in the fact that they engaged in OTHER activity that WAS covered by the definition, and yet you want to pretend that it was technically a truthful response. Get over the man-crush, Yoss.

Is Yoss seriously arguing that this

"a person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia"

doesn't fit the activities that the President of the United States and an intern engaged in?

LOL You sure get irritated when you're proven wrong.

Haven't you all figured it out yet??!!!

Yoss is not a BOL individual, but an actual member of Bill Clinton's Cabinet during his presidency.

TA DHA!!!

Do you mean Bill or Hillary?

straw: No, as I said before by its language it does apply to what Lewinsky did. But it's a definition that was specifically approved as defining the term for purposes of the deposition. It doesn't matter what the conventional definition might be.

So you are saying that Lewinski had sexual relations according to the defintion, but Clinton did not?

Thousands of parents of middleschool girls kindly thank you for this distinction.

I think you all need to look up the UCMJ(uniformed Code of military Justice) and see that no matter how you spin it as commander and chief of the armed forces what he/she did was wrong..

Forget my prior post. I forgot you were talking about Jones, not Lewinski. Clinton has had so many extra-marital affairs, it is difficult to keep track.

I'm not trying to be cute.
802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
Could someone, honestly, explain to me whether or not the POTUS is subject to the uniformed code? I don't think the POTUS can be held under the uniformed code, as he is not a uniformed member of the armed services.

POTUS is not. Although Commander in Chief, POTUS is a civilian, thus civilian control over the military.