Will Republicans ‘Ask Questions’ Of Sanford, Rather Than ‘Circle The Wagons For One Of Our Tribe’?
Will Republicans ‘Ask Questions’ Of Sanford, Rather Than ‘Circle The Wagons For One Of Our Tribe’?
After days of speculation and misinformation, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) today admitted that he had spent the past week in Argentina — not on the Appalachian trail, as his staff originally told the press — with a woman with whom he has been having an affair.
As the New York Times notes, the press conference “began rather oddly, with Mr. Sanford rambling about his love for the Appalachian trail, his exhaustion from a legislative battle over the federal stimulus and a need to get away from the public eye.” Sanford, who is married and has four children, eventually admitted that he has been having an affair with an Argentine woman. He also announced that he would be resigning as head of the Republican Governors Association. Watch it:
While serving as a U.S. congressman, Sanford was incredibly critical of his colleagues’ marital misdeeds, including the affairs of former congressman Bob Livingston and President Bill Clinton:
“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]
“We ought to ask questions…rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe.” [Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]
“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
Sanford has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage, saying in 2004, “As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we’ve always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.” [The Post and Courier, 2/11/04]
There will be an effort to impeach Sanford, a Republican strategist with ties to South Carolina tells me. "He's going to have to resign. It's South Carolina." His rivals in the state legislature were among those fanning the flames of "Where the hell is he?"questions yesterday.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a great FATHER’S DAY for those Sanford boys, eh?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pmi think someone is about to get a free dinner, complete with a round of applause from all his GOP buddies.
what a guy!!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pmnoun-verb-9/11 rudy is already saying it is wrong to use this as political fodder.
But sanford did vote to impeach bill clinton…
June 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pmisnt marrital infidelity one of the republican ten commandments – i believe given to saint newt of gingrich on mount bend-over. the lord be praised – the gong show that is the republican party continues
June 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pmanother gop “rising star” goes down in flames. NEXT!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pmThe real story should be that his staff has covered up an international affair for 5 months – there must be some public moneys going towards this.
Of course, there is no saying that what he said today is true – if these are lies to cover the truth, then it must be REALLY bad.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pmWatching the American Taliban commit political suicide is making my week.
Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC)
Let’s top it off with the MN Supremes killing Coleman’s (R-MN)career.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pmI know this news shouldn’t make me grin like the cat who ate the canary but what can I say, it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving hypocritical Governor, except Sarah Palin. Her turn is coming though.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pmThe GOP are all lying hypocrites.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pmGuido the Benevolent Torturer Says:
——————————————————————————–
BTW over at Kos they have already posted that FOX is calling Sanford a Democrat.
surprised? You know, the trolls need to have SOMETHING to use as a talking point.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pmHe spends more time addressing and apologizing to the bimbo than his wife and sons. What a dirtbag. Then he spent the time crying over his own problems rather than worrying about his 4 children fatherless on Father’s Day. A$$hat.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pmAbandoning the state and your Governorship to see your bimbo in argintina is an impeachable offense.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pmHe also announced that he would be resigning as head of the Republican Governors Association
He should be resigning as Governor of South Carolina too!
Those repugnicans crack me up! Is this the guy they were counting on to lead the party into the future? LOL
June 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pmSounds to me that someone was getting ready to drop a dime on the Gov, so he had to run down to Argentina for one last fling. The Gov needed five more days of sin, before he came back to ask god to forgive him. You couldn’t make this kind of stuff up if you tried.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pmAn affair is one thing but to ditch his family, state and staff for Fathers Day weekend to use a state vehicle to drive to an airport for a secret trip to Argentina for an affair is a whole thing entirely. That part about using a state vehicle improperly could result in an ethics probe. I don’t think an affair alone, or even lying about it, is terminable offense but what Sanford did should be — how can any state officials trust him now?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pmHe had to hiking because arguing about the recovery pkg for his state exhausted him….but he really went to Argentina to get his bean waxed, gets caught due to poor planning, comes back, invokes God, and cries. The guy is a weasel! I loved it when he said “I’ve been crying in Argentina.” Sniffle, I need a tissue
June 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pmAt least when the Big Dog got his bj’s in the White House, he was close to his work, not 5,000 miles away.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm…and I’ll bet the Argentine’s name is Woody Lipps!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pmThe thing that got John Edwards in so much trouble was that his wife is suffering with cancer. Well the way he left his wife alone with 4 boys on Father’s Day puts him in contention for biggest jerk of the week.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pmAppalachian trail, Argentinian tail. Easily confused between the two.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pmSanford has always believed that monogamy was defined as sex between two people.
He just didn’t realize that he counts as one of those two people.
Oh, shitskies! I’m having so much fun with this lying hypocrit today! If Bill Clinton were not the man he is, I’d be waiting for a comment from him.
PEACE
June 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pmsomething tells me since this clown needeed to travel to another continent for a pickle tickle, it involved manmeat and his rear end, not a woman as he has claimed.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
something tells me since this clown needeed to travel to another continent for a pickle tickle, it involved manmeat and his rear end, not a woman as he has claimed.
Argentina is well known for having a lot of crazy hot trannies.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm…
“stiry”?
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pmMr. Marriage between a man and woman, Mr. Family values, GOIN’ TO ARGENTINE FOR A BOOTY CALL, Isn’t this special . .
The only thing that could make me happier about this HYPOCRITE cheating on his wife is if he were cheating with a transgendered person . .
No disrespect to transgendered people ’cause I’m sure they have better taste in men!!
Who will call for Sanford’s RESIGNATION??
June 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pmAt least no animals were harmed, and the bootie call involved a woman (of adult age). Former GOP senator Rick Man-Dog-Marriage Sphinctorum can rest easy. Maybe John Ensign can be Sanford’s running mate in 2012.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pmI guess “Hiking the Appalacian Trail” is going to become the newest Internet meme.
Sheesh. There’s FAIL and EPIC FAIL, so what, is this COSMIC FAIL?
Later,
June 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pmanother day another repuglican family value guy caught with his hand is the nookie jar…what else is new?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmAnd the liar wants us to believe this 8 year relationship got sexual only last year WHEN HE GOT BUSTED. Yeah, right. Check his passport. And how many times did he travel to Argentina on the government dime?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmTell us more about these family values you hold so dear Governor Sanford.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmSome idiot on MSNBC was saying that the Gov is a stand up guy for being so upfront about this affair.
Um yeah, it’s been going on for at least a year, his wife has known about it for at least 5 months, and he disappears like a 14 year old having been told he can’t date his step-sister anymore.
I guess that’s the NEW definition of “upfront.”
Sanford is a pontificating hypocrite, and he should resign immediately. The Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer can tell him it’s the right thing to do.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmBozo – only his Bible Study knows for sure…
June 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmFreeMarketLiberal Says:
This radical Left wing agenda smear blog is having a hayday with this stiry. Can you post 10 more articles about this putz please?
Ask and ye shall receive.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmCongrats to the always hypocritical family-values right-wing for yet ANOTHER in a very long list of sex-related scandals over the past decade.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pmQ: What’s more fun that a barrel of Republicans?
A: Two barrels of Republicans.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pm“…rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe.”
wait a second, I thought settlers used to circle the wagons to defend against tribes. am I missing something here?
Or is that what happens when east coast republicans pretend to have a western background. Bush pulled it off slightly better.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pmJust another political nut case who’s winkie was up while he let his family and voter’s down..If he were not in the public eye it would be a clear case of his wife to decide adultry and for her to hand out his punishemnt…Keep the jerk or divorce and keep everything else including the kid’s..I would be for the latter but it’s her decesion….From the voter’s stand point I would demand he resign and appoint a new Gov,,,,Not so much for the affair but his total abandament of the state while off on a romp..Cheating and fooling around while in office do’s not matter to me so long as it do’s not interfere with the job they are suposto take care of…..P. B. & J
June 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pmi would normally never call for someone to have an affair to resign
… what people do in their personal relationships does not neccesarily effect their ability to do their jobs..
however, when someone loudly calls for other people to resign for having an affair, then i will call loudly for that person to resign, for consistencies sake.
i also think his business world comment is ridiculous, what board member in the business world has resigned over an affair?
is he serious?
he can’t possibly be serious
… well maybe its just that he shouldn’t be taken seriously
June 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pmBobbyG Says:
At least no animals were harmed, and the bootie call involved a woman (of adult age).
1. I was writing and working on some back-burner projects.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pm2. I was hiking in the Appalachian trail.
3. I went to Argentina, but it was to see a woman.
4. ???
Fixed News has done it again boy no wonder why their “alternative realist” are such “wackos.” Do they honestly think people will believe that Sanford was a Dem?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pmI guess Mark Sanford needs to amend his family-values to be that marriage is between a man and a woman and another woman; as long as she is in Argentina.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pmI’m sure Sanford is penning his apology to President Clinton, right, RIGHT, RIGHT!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pmI give the Republicans two days before they are applauding Sanford like they did with Ensign.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
And FUX?
Up yours, you bunch of incompetent propanganda-spewing NINCOMPOOPS!!!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pmAnother Joe Says #10:
The real story should be that his staff has covered up an international affair for 5 months – there must be some public moneys going towards this.
Was it not a State SUV that was found at the airport, ergo he spent fuel etc to drive to his rendevous.
I want to make sure the person (male or female) he was having affair with is still alive. In 5 days, a body would decompose using lye)
June 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pmAnother Joe Says
June 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Abandoning the state and your Governorship to see your bimbo in argintina is an impeachable offense.
____________________________________________________________
Is it? That may vary from state to state. But I bet in at least some of the states, it is.
I would think that in all 50 states, being Governor is a full-time job, and the state’s chief executive should be reachable at all times — even when on vacation — just in case of any state emergency.
If the chief executive would not be reachable for any reason (such as having surgery under a general anesthetic, or flying aboard the Space Shuttle, or similar extreme situation), power would normally be handed over to the Lt. Governor temporarily (does anybody know who the Lt. Governor in SC is — or what his role has been in the past few days?).
I can’t imagine any of the 50 states where it would be acceptable for the Governor to simply vanish without a word –whether for a “bimbo in Argentina” or for any other reason.
It will be interesting to see how the people of South Carolina react to this. After all, this piece of work is really their problem.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pmNow if the dems don’t take advantage of this discourse across the aisle to ram meaningful healthcare reform up their @sses, that is proof that they are in cahoots and never intended to deliver on “Yes We Can!”
The public overwhelmingly wants it and the repugs have little or no credibility.
What’s with all this “bipartisan” crap – better not continue to see capitations to this gang.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pmFreeMarketLiberal Says:
“At least this slimeball came out with the truth in front of the cameras”
Hey stupid,
up until this week the “slimeball” to which you refer was one of the “up and coming stars” of your party.
BWBWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
June 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pmOh man I was so right with my check list of things to bring on Sanfords get away in a earlier blog.
BAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
This is why Repugs are such pigs!!! Not becuase they have affairs, it’s becuase they play GOD critizing others (Clinton). That is so christian….BAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
June 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pmWhy on earth do you have to drag in “Sanford has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage.” I love TP but I am tired of the proselytizing on behalf of Gay marriage. I am 100% in support of domestic partner benefits, 100% against discrimination to GLBT individuals and will recognize whatever laws are passed in my state regarding Gay marriage. But your coverage is so slanted to issues regarding Gays that I feel that it is becoming the real focus of TP. I am not homophobic I just want to read unbiased stories about US politics and policies that affect me. I would complain about a site that carried a disproportionate amount of stories about anti Gay marriage news. Please consider those of us who don’t support gay marriage but are not homophobic or bigoted. Yes we do exist.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pmThanks
I respect the way the “little mrs.” did not stand next to him like a doting supportive wife. She did not abet his ridiculous coverup story.
In fact, it seems likely she knew what was going on from the start and, since the timing was over a family holiday, decided ENOUGH IT ENOUGH!
KUDOS to her!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pmThey’re circling the wagons for all their morally challenged members. Diaper Vitter, Tappy McWideStance, Rush, O’Reilly, Newt – and on and on forever. The party is shrinking so badly, they can’t afford to lose even one more.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm*
You have heard me call our battle with the Republicans a war. You have heard me call for the trial and execution of Republican war criminals. You have heard me call for the dissolution of the Republican party as a criminal organization.
Today, you will hear me say something that I never thought that I, as an atheist, would never say. I honestly feel sorry for Sanford and for the entire Republican party as well as for a good part of the Democratic party.
We have created a society that demands success with little or no respect for those who have come in second or who, whether through their own human faults or unlucky circumstances, have just failed. In this “winner-take-all-system”, do we honestly expect anything else other than the destruction of our moral values, our empathy for others or the ability to give on another a second chance and a helping hand? The Republicans and conservatives have spear headed the rush in this direction and bear the majority of the blame for this result.
We should not seek to use this affair as a matter to destroy Governor Sanford. Rather, we should use him and the other Republican miscreants, Vitter – Ensign (WHAT A LIST)as examples of what happens when one loses sight of the principles that their own Christian religion teaches. They need to learn humility, kindness, forgiveness and charity to others. We need to spread the word that the Republicans would avoid these problems if they took the time to honestly help the downtrodden – work in a soup kitchen, build a house with Habitat for Humanity or volunteered in the schools which have the worst educational records. I think we would see a significant change in their outlook and support for a better social safety net, health care, job programs and just a better society.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pmThis is just another example of a pro-life god fearing nut job, who doesn’t give a shit about his kids once they have left the womb.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pmold_norm Says:
Please consider those of us who don’t support gay marriage but are not homophobic or bigoted. Yes we do exist.
Thanks
June 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
__________
Good point.
Just like all of us who hate Jews but aren’t Anti-Semitic.
Or all of us who support separate schools and water fountains and lunch counters for whites and blacks, but aren’t racist.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pmI can see the campaign slogans now….
Sanford/Ensign 2012: Putting their “small government” into your bedroom since 2008.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pmReports are there were 2 state cars parked next to each other at airport.
(1). Anyone that flies knows that did not just happen.
(2). Who was in the other car?
I don’t think we have actually heard the truth, just the best lie they could manufacture – perhaps more will be forthcoming.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pmmethinks stupid@60 is an o’lielly nuthugger using terms like
June 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pm“radical Left propaganda machine”
Does anyone know who the blonde was that was behind him, directly over his shoulder for most of the presser?
She appeared to enjoy this (as perhaps she should). Wonder what she knows…
June 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pmAnother Joe, let me be the first to congratulate you on your renewed ability to discuss the topic at hand. Please keep it up.
no snark
June 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pmThis is OTS (Off The Subject)
Look at what this nutcase said today?
Limbaugh on nudists: “Would you want to see Barbara Mikulski nude on a beach? Would you want to see Nancy Pelosi nude?”
I have to agree with a blogger on Media Matters, what do you call a man who hates women?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pmRush wasn’t on the air Monday,wonder if those two might have hooked up for some salami trading?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pmOh, please Lord, put Haley Barbour on the ticket for 2012. The man is so corrupt that it wouldn’t even take investigative reporters to find his sins – in fact, I’m guessing people will be lining up to rat him out.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm…
i agree with the troll,
he’s a “slimeball”;
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pmNo one has to do a “smear Job” on Sanford.
He did one to himself.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm*
I’m scared to think of what he might have smeared on himself
June 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pmWhy did NO ONE ask if he traveled along?
Course, his thugs dragged him away before the questioning could really get good.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pmTP on MSNBC
June 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pmFreeMarketLiberal babbles:
North Korea? Iran diplomats invited to 4th of July picnic at White House? NO…progressive Jonestown keeps posting articles on this slimeball as there way to continue their radical Left seeking “social utopia” agenda. Boooooooo
Yes, in my Utopia, you have no right to guns (and we have taken them all) and you have every right to practice the relgion you choose, but it taxed like entertainment.
Oh, and Corporations do not enjoy personhood status, nor enjoy rights protected under the constitution. We are getting there, slowly but surely, and you, the piece of shit puke you are, will use the social programs we create for your benefit and “FREEMARKET” money making. Regulated of course, so that you don’t hurt yourself or others, as we have seen the Free market do within the money market, and the unregulated Derivatives market that was uncontrolled and unregulated, and now is estimated at 600 TRILLION dollars.
Simple
June 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pmold-norm Says: If you want unbiased reporting on issues, you are on the wrong site. This is a biased site, hence its name. This is a left leaning progressive site.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:47 pm,,,
where’s bobby jindal?
:::
June 24th, 2009 at 3:47 pmJoe Scarbourgh was bragging this morning on the Morning Mika show that he was best buddies with Sanford and that Sanford would come back and his office would be in a tizzy and Sanford would just be real cool about it and say “What’s the big deal?”
Scarbourgh was wrong…..again. I guess when a young lady dies in your office under strange circumstances and are able to walkaway from it, a trip to Argentina is no big deal.
I wonder if Scarbourgh knew about his buddy Sanford’s “Hiking the Appalachian tail…errrr trail”?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:47 pmDid Sanford use an alias to travel to Argentina or did is mistress use an alias to come here?
That should be one main focal point in all of this?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:48 pmold_norm Says:
I am not homophobic I just want to read unbiased stories about US politics and policies that affect me. I would complain about a site that carried a disproportionate amount of stories about anti Gay marriage news.
Really? Well then, welcome to the Interwebs. There are lots of advocacy sites that focus on news items relevant to a specific set of issues only. So you should probably go complain at 365Gay.com, because they only focust on LGBT news items. Also The Advocate.
While you’re at it, you can also go whine to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for focusing only on veteran’s issues. Here’s a site that only has news items for dog breeders – better go complain to them too.
Yeah, you have fun with that.
.
old_norm Says:
Please consider those of us who don’t support gay marriage but are not homophobic or bigoted. Yes we do exist.
No you don’t. By definition.
.
FreeMarketLiberal Says:
But this is a radical Left propaganda machine so the slime is partisan.
Just reporting the facts on “slime” spewed by the radical right. Y’all do our propaganda for us. All we have to do is repeat what you say.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pmC’mon, folks,
Working hard to deny one of the poorest States & it’s education department hundreds of millions of Federal dollars is damn hard work.
Using State vehicles to drive for a weekend quickie, not so much…
June 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pmThose Latinas are known to be quite wooly it probably just looked like the Appalachian Trail What is the moon in the proper quarter for out of bounds breeding in the republican species
June 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pm…
old norm,
consider this:
separate but equal.
:|
June 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pmPowkat Says: Oh, please Lord, put Haley Barbour on the ticket for 2012.
Sign him up!
Boss Hogg and the Hockey Grandmom in 2012!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pmFreeMarketLiberal Says:
At least this slimeball came out with the truth in front of the cameras
In any given series of proven lies, never assume the most recent admission is the full truth. After all, all we have to go on at this point is the word of a proven liar.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pmThe “partisan slime” is running down your leg FreeMarketLiberal, your boy Sanford is the poster child for you Repugnicunts.
Hateful hypocrites, to the last man. I for one am having a great time watching these pukes implode.
ESAD Repugs, ESAD.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pmranting – IMHO, we have just gotten to the tip of the iceberg. There is much more here – story doesn’t add up.
And since he was such a self-righteous jerk about the stimulus package (was getting his own overseas), this needs to be kept in the public’s eyes.
But it needs to be about more than the hypocrisy and dereliction of duty.
There is no reason in the world that the dems should strive for “bipartisanship” with this crowd of wackos.
I do fear that some will use the self-destruction of the repugs as an excuse to not fully-advocate for meaningful change. Having fewer sex scandals is not enough – Americans need dems to deliver on the rhetoric of last fall.
But this could start a major reaming that forces some positive change through the repug/neocon’s collective @sses.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pmSo he was “hiking along the trail” or “driving up the coast”.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pmAdultery: while Bill Clinton was excoriated for it, who knew the Republican party had so many MORE adherents? To whit: Giuliani, McCain, Vitter, Craig, Gingrich, Ensign and now Sanford, to name a few.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pmFakeMarkedupLiebarrel is just very uninformed, frightened, cowardly, and hateful.
Best to just ignore it.
PS. It seems Another Joe has changed his style and begun discussing the topic at hand. I believe a reversal of his FnF status should occur.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pmHave you ever even been to Chicago you ignorant knuckle dragging trailer park loser? And President Obama was NEVER A CHICAGO POLITICIAN he was an Illinois politician. And the days of Al Capone and crooked Chicago politicians happened a long time ago. Chicago is one of the most successful cities around and the citizens of the city and suburbs aren’t having any problem finding jobs during this economic downturn. So why don’t you talk about something you understand like the price of Colt 45 Malt Liquor.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pmGee, even chicago politicians know better than to abandon their wife over father’s day to see the object of your sexual desire – especially if you have been trying to resolve these “sinful compulsions” as a couple and going to Bible Study and all…
But these repug Christians are Calvinists – they believe all their temptation and sin is God’s will so they have to enjoy it while the gittin’ is good.
It’s what our Lord wanted them to do…
June 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pmWhy didn’t this conservative, Republican resign last week and not drag his family through this very public humiliation?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pmWelcome back, AJ.
I didn’t disagree with your concept of putting the Dems feet to the fire and making them deliver. My only issue was your insistence on trying to derail every thread that wasn’t about a single issue.
You offer good insights on things when you do respond to the topic. I, for one, am glad that you are now doing that.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pmJeeze, Shayne, don’t bottle it all up! Let us know how you really feel.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pmLooking forward to Fox Comedy Network explaining how Mark Sanford (D) had to be replaced as chair of the REPUBLICAN Governors Association.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pmAbove the Clouds, This asshat doesn’t give a shit about his family, this whole I’m sorry, please forgive me crap is about keeping his power. I think he already has shown us what he thinks of his family.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:58 pmI’ve always felt that the most visibly pious were overcompensating for their secret sins.
In other words: he who smelt it, dealt it
June 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pmOh those Republic Fascist Party Family Values are something, aren’t they.
Happy father’s day boys, I’m fcuking a whore, woohoo, give me the cocaine and a woman on the side, it’s party time.
What scum these people are, and he is still governor…why?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pmI was short on time because I have to run to the grocery store.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm:)
Pennsylvanianne Says:
Adultery: while Bill Clinton was excoriated for it, who knew the Republican party had so many MORE adherents? To whit: Giuliani, McCain, Vitter, Craig, Gingrich, Ensign and now Sanford, to name a few.
After Giuliani and McCain’s numbers in the 2008 R primary, maybe the rest of ‘em realized that cheating on your wife must be an advantage in securing the 2012 nomination.
.
Doodlebug Shayne Says:
And the days of Al Capone and crooked Chicago politicians happened a long time ago.
Oh – here I thought whenever a wingnut referred to “Chicago style” politics, they meant “deep dish.” Didn’t make much sense really. Still doesn’t, come to think of it.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pmok, i think this guitarist is finally done. time to make the $ (I’m on the studio PC)
peace
June 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pmranus69 Says
June 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
This is OTS (Off The Subject)
Look at what this nutcase said today?
Limbaugh on nudists: “Would you want to see Barbara Mikulski nude on a beach? Would you want to see Nancy Pelosi nude?”
___________________________________________________________
Even though it’s OT, this just begs for the obvious response — seeing either Mikulski or Pelosi nude would be far more palatable than seeing Limbaugh nude.
Why is Limbaugh fixated on fantasizing about these women in the nude? Why in the world did this even come up in his diatribe? Why does Limbaugh hate women so much?
And why is it that fat, ugly guys like Limbaugh believe they are a gift to the world, but they constantly put down women as too ugly to live? What kind of double-standard is that?
OK — climbing down from the ranting soapbox. We now return you to the topic of this thread…
June 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pmGiven the expense of an international affair – who has been bankrolling this? Does anyone really believe this came out of the sanford’s joint checking acount?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pmIf you have fidelity problems, I feel bad for you, son; you got 99 values, but family ain’t one.
Hit me!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pmpaleolib Says:
Looking forward to Fox Comedy Network explaining how Mark Sanford (D) had to be replaced as chair of the REPUBLICAN Governors Association.
Honestly, putting a blue-dog Dem in charge of the GOP might be the only thing that could save them at this point.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pmHe has not taken responsibility for his lies – he was testy when he stated that he did not tell anyone he was going to Appalacia – that is just what they assumed based on the information he told them…. yeah, right
June 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pmOT: For those who care, USA just went up 2-0 on Spain in the Confederations Cup in the 73rd minute..
June 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pmCan we be sure it wasn’t Ms Lindsay Graham in the other State car?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pmAbove the Clouds Says:
Why didn’t this conservative, Republican resign last week and not drag his family through this very public humiliation?
It’s called “entitlement.” You can see the same arrogance among pro athletes and other politicians – the conviction that they deserve whatever it is that they want, and that they’re so super-duper that they will never be outed. It doesn’t matter that they can see other athletes/politicians getting busted, because it will never happen to them.
Primarily, it’s the personality that makes everything all about their wants. You know, a sociopath.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pmIf you believe that others should resign due to infidelity, when you have your own infidelity, you’ve got to resign.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pmDidn’t Bart Simpson say that religion was “the last bastion of scoundrels?” Sanford is just another conservative, Republican liar, sinner, and hypocrite.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pm“chiroptera toasterhead says
Good point.
Just like all of us who hate Jews but aren’t Anti-Semitic.
Or all of us who support separate schools and water fountains and lunch counters for whites and blacks, but aren’t racist”
Well now that you have distorted my objection to Gay marriage as equal to antisemitism and racism I guess I’ll have to change my mind…Not! I don’t support polygamy, does that make me a racist? I don’t support marriage between a brother and sister? Racist? I think firearms should be registered. Do I hate gun owners? I support equal pay for equal work. In your world I must hate employers. Rhetoric like yours is exactly what is wrong with the Gay marriage debate. I either believe as you do or I am scum. Perhaps if you stopped using nonsensical attacks against those who disagree with you and resorted to civil debate you might convince more people of your point of view.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pmold_norm Says:
Please consider those of us who don’t support gay marriage but are not homophobic or bigoted.
Why EXACTLY do you not support gay marriage? Please give a reason that will also show you are not homophobic as you claim, as I believe you are probably full of it.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
Even though it’s OT, this just begs for the obvious response — seeing either Mikulski or Pelosi nude would be far more palatable than seeing Limbaugh nude.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
________________
Obviously you haven’t seen those late-night commercials for Too Hot For C-SPAN.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pmAbandoning your governorship to disappear on a sex-holiday, lying to your staff about it, having your staff lie to your constituents about it, and then not making arrangements to ensure that their was a chain-of-command in place is an impeachable offense.
And then there are the issues of who has paid for what during the past 5 months!
Remember, this scum voted to impeach clinton.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pmGOP = Religious hypocrites and still the religious right caters to them.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pmDoodlebug Shayne Says
June 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
The thing that got John Edwards in so much trouble was that his wife is suffering with cancer. Well the way he left his wife alone with 4 boys on Father’s Day puts him in contention for biggest jerk of the week.
________________________________________________________
Is it enough to get Olbermann’s WPITW distinction?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pmBut these types of “Christians” are Calvinists – yes, it may be sociopathic behavior, but to them its the “will of God”.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pmThis was made more then just a private matter, when Sanford went AWOL for a week and had his staff lie aboutit.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
OT: For those who care, USA just went up 2-0 on Spain in the Confederations Cup in the 73rd minute..
I care :)
The US got through by the skin of Italy thanks to Brazil. They are taking advantage of their good fortune. Beating Spain ranks right up there for US football (soccer for those so inclined).
June 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pmSome fun loving terrorists getting their asses handed to them.
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/ilc267558007.html
June 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pmHicking in Appalachians. Good headline. Screwing in Argentina. Bad.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmAt the end of the day, this is a very sad situation. What I have a hard time with is the shot in the back to his kids. What kind of self centered bastard would pick Fathers Day to get a nut?
But that’s the single most distinguishing characterisic of a Republican, to be self centered. I got mine, you get yours.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmIt is not a private matter between his family – the public had a right to know what was going.
There are many more questions – the state has certainly been billed for some of the costs of this transgression and the events of the past 5 months.
And if the state didn’t pay, who did?
No one should wonder where there “family oriented” governor disappeared to over father’s day – especially when it falls into midweek.
Nothing “personal” about this at all – he was AWOL on state time and probably used state money!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmIs it enough to get Olbermann’s WPITW distinction?
Nobody cares, nobody watches.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmAbso-fu(kin’-lutely, angels.
It’s not just the hypocrisy; it’s also the dereliction of duty.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmold_norm Says:
Rhetoric like yours is exactly what is wrong with the Gay marriage debate. I either believe as you do or I am scum.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
_____________
When did I say that? I would never say or even imply such a thing. It’d be totally insulting to scum.
Besides, your very argument defeats itself. You cannot say you are “100% against discrimination to GLBT individuals” and then say that you support discrimination against GLBT individuals by denying them the right to marriage. These two statements are inherently contradictory.
My attack was completely sensical. What’s nonsensical is your ludicrous assertion that you can be pro-discrimination and anti-discrimination at the same time.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmAnother ‘Family Values’ Republican pretender was exposed.
I feel sorry for his family and his loyal voters too.
Republicans impeached Clinton for his involvment with Lewinsky with the biggest noise that ever was made about his cheating on his wife, but then left Bush off the hook on much more important and serious issues to the nation without questioning him.
Republicans supported Bush on his mishandling of the economy and his two -never ending- costly wars.
Will Republicans stop selling themselves as the party of ‘Family Values’…?
My guess is that they will continue to do so,because they have nothing else to sell to the public to get their votes.
Many Democrats also caught cheating on their wives,…but the diffrence here is that Republicans are the ones who continue to claim that they are the ‘Family Values’ protectors (sellers).
June 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pmAnd even his blue-collar base should be outraged – this moron OUTSOURCED HIS SEX TO ARGINTINA because, even though it was HIKE NAKED DAY, the Appalachian Trail was not good enough for him!
Lunchbox joe should hang him by his balls!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pmI agree, Matt. It just sucks that his family has to take this trip up sh!t creek with him.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pmcentrist, hey tough guy can’t you read? You are way off topic. Try sticking to the issue at hand.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pmDo people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
The attempt to try and show that if one was critical of what Clinton did then later had an affair is some sort of hypocrisy is entirely baseless. Sanford never said under oath that he did not have an affair, he has admitted it after being caught unlike Clinton.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pmcentrist Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmnothing anyone ever takes the least interest in
FreeMarketLiberal Says:
——————————————————————————–
I never had sexual relations with a woman…..
June 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmold_norm Says:
Why on earth do you have to drag in “Sanford has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage.”
He was against it because it would destroy the Sanctity of marriage, something he’s been doing by himself all this time.
But your coverage is so slanted to issues regarding Gays that I feel that it is becoming the real focus of TP.
Dude, everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion and all, but I don’t see the slanted coverage. It’s only one mention in the whole front page of TP.
I am not homophobic I just want to read unbiased stories about US politics and policies that affect me.
Well there are policies that are affecting your fellow countrymen. If you only want to read unbiased stories that affect you, you could always subscribe to a news source which will let you select which kind of stories you’ll receive. Get one of them RSS feeds them youngsters keep talking about.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmold_norm Says
June 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Perhaps if you stopped using nonsensical attacks against those who disagree with you and resorted to civil debate you might convince more people of your point of view.
_____________________________________________________________
Says a poster who just used a very nonsensical argument to explain why denying gay people the same basic rights everybody else gets doesn’t make him “anti-gay”. He doesn’t get it, and probably never will. Moving on…
June 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmThe talking heads for the Republicans are all kowtowing on the cable news stations, saying “it took a real man to admit that” and “we should let this remain a private family matter”.
Guffaw, chortle, hardy har har.
A REAL man would’ve been able to keep it in his pants for the sake of his wife and four kids. And even though those five victims of the governor’s sense of entitlement deserve their privacy, Sanford lost all his credibility when he vanished from the state, leaving it in the lurch while he got his rocks off.
He even talked about Biblical teachings during the press conference. Way to drag your family’s, and God’s name through the mud in order to avoid full responsibility, Sanford.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pmThis from TPM, nice “catch”:
June 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
johnm@141
June 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pmbullshyte, the repuke majority were hell bent on “getting” clinton from word go and by whatever means neccessary
New Rethuglican Presser speech writing service by phone:
Press 1 for “I had an affair and I want to apologize to my faithful wife”
Press 2 for “I had an affair and I want to apologize to my faithful wife and wonderful children”
Press 3 for “I had an affair and I want to apologize to God for my sin”
Press 4 for “I was exhausted from rejecting stimulus money from that spendthrift Obama”
Press 5 for “I’m a Republican politician…..get me the hell out of here!”
June 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pmThe only time anyone should have to say that under oath is in divorce court, dickwad.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pmcentrist, hey tough guy can’t you read? You are way off topic. Try sticking to the issue at hand.
Soccer?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pmNo wonder the group told sanford to go ahead with his sex-holiday! It was all part of God’s plan for him anyhow.
Can’t go against the will of Our Lord
June 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pmJohnM, you are so full of sh*t. Clinton was bashed for his affiars long before the impeachment hearings. You have a very short memory.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pmAnd regardless, shoeless, you, I, and everyone else here knows that it was not the oath bit that was the focus of outrage. It was the sex.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
——————————————————————————–
johnm@141
bullshyte, the repuke majority were hell bent on “getting” clinton from word go and by whatever means neccessary
If Clinton would have owned up to the affair and not lied under oath they wouldn’t have had anything get “get” him with.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pmJohnM Says:
Do people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
_______________
Yes. Totally. In exactly the same way that the Salem Witch Trials weren’t about the women being witches, but lying about it while being stoned to death.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you are so full of sh*t. Clinton was bashed for his affiars long before the impeachment hearings. You have a very short memory.
Sure he was bashed, but he was never asked to resign or was never impeached until he committed perjury.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
If you believe that others should resign due to infidelity, when you have your own infidelity, you’ve got to resign.
I agree. And don’t just resign from the committees that you chair. If you’re in the House or Senate (Federal or State), resign if you have called on others to resign for the same actions. If you are a Governor, resign as well.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pmUh, you sort of missed my point (by 180 degrees.) You recommend specific issue sites when I complain about TP being more and more of a specific issue site. Go back and read my initial post then reread your response and I think you’ll see the problem. If I am looking for a specific issue to learn about or discuss then I’ll search out that specific issue site. My problem is when TP starts to become a specific issue site when I’m looking for general political news and issues.
It’s interesting that the two responses to my original post that I have seen have attacked me and not the substance of the post. Is that really the right way to have an open, honest debate?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pmI’m still trying to figure out what the issue with the affair had to do with Whitewater, which was what Ken Starr was called in to investigate in the first place. I don’t say that to defend Clinton – he was and probably still is a turd of a husband and a man – but I fail to see what the stained blue dress had to do with possibly illegal real estate deals in Arkansas.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pm——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Do people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
_______________
Yes. Totally. In exactly the same way that the Salem Witch Trials weren’t about the women being witches, but lying about it while being stoned to death.
Yet another horribly of point analogy, good job.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pm——————————————————————————–
AllYouNeedIs Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
Do people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
I’m still trying to figure out what the issue with the affair had to do with Whitewater, which was what Ken Starr was called in to investigate in the first place. I don’t say that to defend Clinton – he was and probably still is a turd of a husband and a man – but I fail to see what the stained blue dress had to do with possibly illegal real estate deals in Arkansas.
I’m not sure on the connection either, but when Clinton was caught lying under oath it certainly changed it from just an affair to something bigger.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:21 pmJohnM Says
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Do people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
[...]
Sanford never said under oath that he did not have an affair, he has admitted it after being caught unlike Clinton.
_____________________________________________________________
Oh, please. Do you really expect us to believe that the outrage about Clinton’s affair was that he lied under oath? Yes, that was the legal angle his political enemies used, but the water cooler talk was outrage about Bill cheating on Hillary — not Bill committing perjury. And you know it.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pmJohnM Says:
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you are so full of sh*t. Clinton was bashed for his affiars long before the impeachment hearings. You have a very short memory.
Sure he was bashed, but he was never asked to resign or was never impeached until he committed perjury.
Either your memory is stunted or you think everyone else’s is stunted. The hounds started baying long before there was an impeachment hearing or any opportunity for Clinton to swear to anything under oath – and this included calls for his resignation.
Go make up your bullsh!t somewhere else, where the truly gullible is your audience.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pmYou’re an idiot.
They DIDN’T have anything to “get” him with.
You may be forgetting that Clinton was acquitted by the Senate and served the rest of his term to outstanding approval ratings.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pmJohnM Says:
If Clinton would have owned up to the affair and not lied under oath they wouldn’t have had anything get “get” him with.”
What is truly funny about that statement is i get the feeling you truly believe it? apparently, you don’t remember “the party of values” crowing about the affair for months
June 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pmJohn also has a memory of an alternate reality. Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pmgummble-bee-itch Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you are so full of sh*t. Clinton was bashed for his affiars long before the impeachment hearings. You have a very short memory.
Sure he was bashed, but he was never asked to resign or was never impeached until he committed perjury.
Either your memory is stunted or you think everyone else’s is stunted. The hounds started baying long before there was an impeachment hearing or any opportunity for Clinton to swear to anything under oath – and this included calls for his resignation.
Go make up your bullsh!t somewhere else, where the truly gullible is your audience.
There may have been hounds baying, but do you have any quotes of Sanford saying anything critical before the perjury charges? If not, then the attempt to show hypocrisy on his part has missed poorly.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pmJohnM, People were upset about the perjury not the affiar? The majority of the people in the country didn’t give a shit about either. Most Americans didn’t support what Ken Starr was doing or the repug impeachment.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pmAnother Republican luminary bites the dust.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pmSanford is a hypocrite. He should resign as Governor of South Carolina.
But, I have empathy for him.
His circumstance should be used by those people that want to judge others. The dirty little secret is that we are all fallible. Glass houses, stones, planks, and specks, etc
We should be slow to judge, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because, inevitably, it will prevent this kind of embarrassing public exposé of hypocrisy being cast back at us.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pmJohnM has earned himself yet another OFnF, and in record time.
Second?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:25 pmRantingTommy Says:
Another Joe, let me be the first to congratulate you on your renewed ability to discuss the topic at hand. Please keep it up.
no snark
May I be the second to congratulate you :) It’s nice to see you adding to the discussion. It’s very much appreciated.
Now on topic: I don’t even know what to say that hasn’t already been said. He runs off in a hissy fit cause the mean old SC government made him take the money. He’s cheating on his wife and didn’t tell anyone where he was. PATHETIC!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:25 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
JohnM has earned himself yet another OFnF, and in record time.
Second?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:25 pmsecond!
old_norm Says:
It’s interesting that the two responses to my original post that I have seen have attacked me and not the substance of the post. Is that really the right way to have an open, honest debate?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
______________
The substance of your post was about you, dingbat. You were objecting to the injection of gay marriage into the discussion because of your own anti-gay-marriage bias, following it up with the ludicrous claim that you’re somehow not bigoted.
You forfeited your right to open and honest debate when you revealed your bigotry. Sorry!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pmOk here we go again. Republicans are evil. Democrats do the same thing. Christians are hypocrites, etc. etc. And you all still trust our government to handle health care, the environment, and our retirement when most of them can’t handle their own lives. Why would we ever trust our personal well being and future to a government that is in debt to their eyeballs and can’t literally keep their pants on? Oh well such is the path to socialism!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm…
the trolls are trying.
the trolls are dying.
:)
and it’s fun to watch.
:|
johnm,
keep trying.
:)
centrist?
your turn.
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pmshoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you are so full of sh*t. Clinton was bashed for his affiars long before the impeachment hearings. You have a very short memory.
Sure he was bashed, but he was never asked to resign or was never impeached until he committed perjury.
John also has a memory of an alternate reality. Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.
Is there another word for lying under oath?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pmold_norm Says:
It’s interesting that the two responses to my original post that I have seen have attacked me and not the substance of the post. Is that really the right way to have an open, honest debate?
Oh really, that is your excuse for not answering?
Kindly tell me where I attacked you in a re post of my question
I suggest you answer before making yourself look more stupid than you have already. Or just carry on, making yourself out to be a fool. ( not an attack, just observing that you have already made a fool of yourself with your silly posts. Like saying, “hey your fly is open.” )
June 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pmYou guys are way off topic here, focus on the Argentina Tail please.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pmIn the context of Sanford refusing the federal funds for education (and the money the state had to spend trying to defend this action) ; In the context of Sanford claiming to be the common man, the little man:
What percentage of South Carolinians can afford a spur of the moment trip to see their mistress in Argentina ?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, People were upset about the perjury not the affiar? The majority of the people in the country didn’t give a shit about either. Most Americans didn’t support what Ken Starr was doing or the repug impeachment.
Neither did I, but I still don’t think Sanford being critical of Clinton and then having an affair is hypocritical, because of the perjury.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pmIf my arguments were nonsensical just give me a one reason why Polygamy should be illegal. Or if you are so disposed, why it shouldn’t be.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pmYou should educate yourself before making a fool of yourself. Look it up yourself dumbass.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pmtim.ned Says:
Ok here we go again. Republicans are evil. Democrats do the same thing. Christians are hypocrites, etc. etc. And you all still trust our government to handle health care, the environment, and our retirement when most of them can’t handle their own lives. Why would we ever trust our personal well being and future to a government that is in debt to their eyeballs and can’t literally keep their pants on? Oh well such is the path to socialism!
***
yeah.
***
but wait, didn’t sanford try to
turn down the stimulus package funds?
***
and he’s a socialist?
and we’re on”the path to socialism!”?
…
wtf?
(literally)
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 4:30 pmJohnM Says:
There may have been hounds baying, but do you have any quotes of Sanford saying anything critical before the perjury charges? If not, then the attempt to show hypocrisy on his part has missed poorly.
You’re the one bringing up Clinton, asshat. Sanford could have said nothing at all about that and still be a hypocrite — you know, all that Promise Keeper stuff? All that deeply-held concern about families?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:30 pm…
tim.ned,
let centrist and
johnm have a turn
before you try again, ok?
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pmGot to love these rightwing nutbags like JohnM, for them its always the same line “well Clinton did it”. Bahahahahahahaha!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pmEvery time the Republicans do something bad the trolls bring up Clinton. It’s hilarious. Yes, Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. No, that does not provide carte blanche for Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Foley, etc. to do whatever they want.
If you want to argue someone has been ethical you should be able to do so based solely on their own actions, not on the actions of their political opponents. Everything else is just mudslinging.
Sanford should resign. He has shown that he does not take his duties to the state seriously. By choosing to go to Argentina without warning and without properly notifying the Lt. Governor he has shown where his priorities lie.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pmWhy is Vitter still in office and will Crist come out of the closet along with McConnell, Graham?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pmWhy would we ever trust our personal well being and future to a government that is in debt to their eyeballs and can’t literally keep their pants on? Oh well such is the path to socialism!
Perhaps a better question is why we should ever trust people who feel that all Government is evil and corrupt to govern? Oh well, fine by me… such is the path to continued Republican irrelevance!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmClinton was ACQUITTED of the perjury charge.
Normally, when one is acquitted of a charge, it means he is NOT GUILTY OF THAT OFFENSE.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmA Fox News chyron listed Sanford as a Democrat.
Funny how often Fox does that when a Repub is in big trouble, then swear (as liars often do) that is was an honest mistake. Yet it happens so often, and never happens the other way around.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmIt’s hard not to fall in love with an Argentinian woman, they are classy, sexy, their voice is totally seductive, and are pretty fun to be with.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmMaybe he didn’t say anything critical about Clinton’s perjury charges because there were no perjury charges against Clinton. Gawd you’re stupid.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAh, the classic conservative defense: Blame the other side.
Granted, Clinton and Edwards were slime for their infidelity (moreso for Edwards), but perjury is a false argument against Clinton as a “bigger thing”. Why was he being investigated in the first place? Oh, that’s right! The republican majority led by Gingrinch (having his own affair at the time) got their man-panties in a bunch and tried to take as many potshots at the president as possible. Drummed-up outrage for political reasons is classless, but it didn’t stop the Republicans 10 years ago.
The difference between Clinton and Ensign/Sanford/Vitter/Gingrich is that no Democrat would waste their time (or the court’s) by charging these guys for lying. Sanford might face some heat for ABANDONING HIS STATE, but I think that’s a little more grievous than the Paula Jones lawsuit.
Democrat lies = screws up their own lives.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pmRepublican lies = screws up everyone else’s lives (and in some cases, ends them).
JohnM Says:
Neither did I, but I still don’t think Sanford being critical of Clinton and then having an affair is hypocritical, because of the perjury.
How about his criticism of Livingston?
Sanford: The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife.
Guess what? It’s exactly what he did when he went to get some Argentinian Tail. So, he criticizes someone and then does the same thing. What else would you call it, if not hypocrisy?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pmshoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
Is there another word for lying under oath?
You should educate yourself before making a fool of yourself. Look it up yourself dumbass.
Sorry bud your faulty claim, they burden is on you.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pmOh Johnny M, you are such a honest man. I know without a doubt that you would never lie about getting a BJ and are soooooo outraged that anyone would. What really pissed the R’s off was the BJ for free.
Sanctimonious pious prick.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pmNo, your ignorance is your burden, not mine, dumbass.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pmThis dungheap needs a nice long stay in:
June 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pmthe William J. Le Petomane memorial gambling casino for the insane.
…
“they burden”?
…
centrist,
your turn.
(make it good!)
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pmCentrist is Johnny$
The Truth is a lie
JohnM is OFnF
Mark Sanford is an adulterous hypocrite who uses God’s name to cover his intolerable behavior
Fools rush in, but Trolls take time
June 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pmtim.ned Says:
Look! A SQUIRREL!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pmUPDATE: A Fox News chyron listed Sanford as a Democrat.
They do this every freakin’ time they cover a Republican scandal! They’re shameless and obviously think their audience is stupid. (As to the latter, I’m nit at all sure they’re wrong.)
June 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pmA Fox News chyron listed Sanford as a Democrat.
Oh.
I thought the D stood for
“Dumas”
June 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pmJohnM, Clinton was found not guilty of prejury, but nice try anyways.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pmNothing says I love you to your young boys than pissing on the family for Father’s Day.
Keep defending him Repugnicunts, he’s yours. Wear him around your neck proudly Johhny M.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pmWhat is it with those Argentines? Remeber, Fanny Foxe, of Tidal Basin Bombshell fame was also Argentinian
June 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pmWill Republicans ‘Ask Questions’ Of Sanford, Rather Than ‘Circle The Wagons For One Of Our Tribe’?
Obviously, JohnM saw a “Third Way”:
Clinton Did It™!!!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pmSo how many here actually believe we got the truth?
I don’t and I think there are many more question, but I also think we will get the ol’ “move on, nothing to see here” routine.
And the repugs will say what a man he was to be honest(NOT!) and how awful it is for the rest of us to put his family through this, blah blah blah…
Someone needs to start looking into this like the story just broke today!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pmJohnM Says:
Do people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Liar. their was no perjury. The judge in his case ruled that since the lie he told had nothing to do with the reason he was under oath, there was no perjury. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v7n2/alt.html
The whole “it was the perjury not the sex” canard you rightietighties spew is nothing more than a very tiny figleaf used to cover up up your tiny erections.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pmSomeone needs to start looking into this like the story just broke today!
Nah, it’s just backwash… remember?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pmZimzone Says:
Centrist is Johnny$
Centrist is johnny redsox? I thought Centrist was a handsome young man…
June 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pmTwo questions. How old was this firecracker. Who paid for the trip.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pmRepublican and hypocrisy, two words, one meaning.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmdasm Says:
A Fox News chyron listed Sanford as a Democrat.
Funny how often Fox does that when a Repub is in big trouble, then swear (as liars often do) that is was an honest mistake. Yet it happens so often, and never happens the other way around.
I think they need more eductaion about chyrons.
Let’s see–Mark Foley, Arlen Specter (back when he was a Republican)…the Fox News Channel apparently is looking to make the Republican Party even smaller than it is!
Thanks for the help, FNC. We don’t need it.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Clinton was ACQUITTED of the perjury charge.
Normally, when one is acquitted of a charge, it means he is NOT GUILTY OF THAT OFFENSE.
There was no trial for a perjury charge his acquittal was from the senate not a court, but you may want to look at this from your own link.
[edit] Contempt of court citation
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[12]
Regarding Clinton’s January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false….” [12]
In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign
June 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pmWayne, if that last sentence isn’t a personal attack I’d hate to see what you consider a compliment. I didn’t reply to your post because you didn’t ask a question (at least in the post I saw.) There are now 185 post on this article. I am responding and then reading the rest. I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. I am against Gay marriage because I believe the institution of marriage is and has been historically, traditionally, morally and biologically about heterosexual couples. That’s it. It’s my belief. I don’t expect this post to change your mind but you could at least quit the, shall we say, “hateful, attacks on me and respect my beliefs. I have no problem with yours (except that you think I’m stupid :-)
June 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pmBob, how is little Johnny going to learn when you do his homework for him?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pmIt’s time to impeach the cheating bastard! No longer can he serve as the Governor of South Carolina! Oh wait. He’s a republican. He gets to stay and will have republicans giving him loud applause now wherever he goes. Spit.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pmI agree with Another Joe, I think the other shoe hasn’t dropped yet. My money is still on Sanford’s indiscretion was with a boy.
Any takers?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:49 pmshoeless Says:
Bobwurst Says:
Bob, how is little Johnny going to learn when you do his homework for him?
Johnny redsox is punk-ass frat rat who is a summer intern at the RNC…
June 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pmDoes Fox have some “policy” that when one of their guys screws up, they automatically kick him out of the party by putting a “D” after the name, or are they just stupid and they think we are too?
My guess is there is some population of Fox watchers that are now thinking Sanford is another immoral Democrat. So at some level with some people it probably works. Its the old you can fool some of the people some of the time.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pmAs a South Carolinian, I’m sort of sad. Mark’s departure from the list of potential Republican nominees for 2012 leaves us Sarah, Mitt, Tim, and Mike. And the bozo, Andre Bauer, who will succeed ole Mark if he resigns is weird.
Maybe Jim DeMint or Lindsay Graham will go for it in ‘12… I hope so, I’d love to see a total dolt ticket.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pmDid you see the word “perjury” in there anywhere dumbass?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pmold_norm Says:
I am against Gay marriage because I believe the institution of marriage is and has been historically, traditionally, morally and biologically about heterosexual couples. That’s it. It’s my belief. I don’t expect this post to change your mind but you could at least quit the, shall we say, “hateful, attacks on me and respect my beliefs.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
_____________
Nope, sorry. You failed. I can’t respect bigotry, sorry.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pmnanlichi Says:
I agree with Another Joe, I think the other shoe hasn’t dropped yet. My money is still on Sanford’s indiscretion was with a boy.
Any takers?
NO.
Don’t even cross that line.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pmHuh. So you’re saying that Clinton was never charged with criminal perjury?
And the only trial in which he faced such charges (on which he was acquitted) doesn’t count?
Seems to me like your accusation of “perjury” is unfounded.
But I’m sure you will find a way to rationalize your delusion.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pmJohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Clinton was ACQUITTED of the perjury charge.
Normally, when one is acquitted of a charge, it means he is NOT GUILTY OF THAT OFFENSE.
There was no trial for a perjury charge his acquittal was from the senate not a court, but you may want to look at this from your own link.
So you admit that there was no perjury. If he wasn’t charged with perjury, then he wasn’t convicted of perjury, then you are a liar for it wasn’t the cheating but the perjury. Are you really this stupid, or are you just a run of the mill republican?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says
June 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
When all else fails, bring up Clinton…even though two prominent reich-wingers have been caught up in affairs in just 2 short weeks. Idiots.
_____________________________________________________________
And Clinton’s was, like, a dozen years ago or more? Sheesh.
You’d think if they wanted to go with the “Democrats do it, too!” angle (which none of us is disputing), they’d at least go with more current sinning Dems, like Spitzer or Edwards (both of whose political careers are finished because of their indiscretions).
June 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pmRUCeriousMaggot! Says:I thought the D stood for
“Dumas”
I believe that’s “Dumbass”.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pm…
not much troll action…
don’t they care?
:::
June 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pmThat should read “Then you are a liar for saying it wasn’t the cheating…”
June 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pmIt’s hard not to fall in love with an Argentinian woman, they are classy, sexy, their voice is totally seductive, and are pretty fun to be with. Oh I believe that, but what in the world did his mistress find in him????? a loof, non caring, speaks with a funny accent, southerners don’t like munching, and he can’t dance. Maybe she’s blind deff and dumb?? Yea thats it!!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pmJohnM, you’ve got to be the king of “ya but”. You come here and make an untrue statement about Clinton, posters bust you on it, so then you give us the “ya but”, how about this shit. When are you nutbags going to wakeup to the fact that Clinton is not President anymore? The people of this country didn’t buy your bullshit when he was President, why do you think it has any meaning now?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm——————————————————————————–
Bobwurst Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Do people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Liar. their was no perjury. The judge in his case ruled that since the lie he told had nothing to do with the reason he was under oath, there was no perjury. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v7n2/alt.html
The whole “it was the perjury not the sex” canard you rightietighties spew is nothing more than a very tiny figleaf used to cover up up your tiny erections.
Please show where the judge ruled that since the lie he told had nothing to do with the reason he was under oath it was not perjury.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pmjoe cantwell, JohnM cares.
Deeply.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pmangels81 Says:
JohnM, you’ve got to be the king of “ya but”.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
____________
Which, coincidentally, is how you address a duck in Arabic. Ya but!
June 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pmNevermind what I said earlier Bobwurst. I now see that Johnny can’t learn anyway.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:59 pmangels, I can’t believe I’m suggesting sympathy for one of our most unpleasant gnats, but consider things from JohnM’s perspective; if he doesn’t blather on with his really lame “But Clinton” crap, then he’s either got to A) discuss Mark Sanford’s hypocrisy, or B) STFU.
Neither option holds much appeal for JohnM.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:59 pmBobwurst Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Clinton was ACQUITTED of the perjury charge.
Normally, when one is acquitted of a charge, it means he is NOT GUILTY OF THAT OFFENSE.
There was no trial for a perjury charge his acquittal was from the senate not a court, but you may want to look at this from your own link.
So you admit that there was no perjury. If he wasn’t charged with perjury, then he wasn’t convicted of perjury, then you are a liar for it wasn’t the cheating but the perjury. Are you really this stupid, or are you just a run of the mill republican?
Becuase he was never charged with perjury does not mean he did not commit perjury. The judge stated that he lied under oath, but no perjury charges followed, but he was fined for lying under oath. So yes he did commit perjury.
The deliberate giving of false or misleading testimony under oath
June 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pmen.wiktionary.org/wiki/perjury
ralph, you crack me up. Funny stuff, but I must admit its true.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pmMan, you are a class act. I think you just proved your status in life.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:02 pmThanks
Sorry, JohnM — we didn’t realize that YOU were the one who decided shit like that about others.
We thought it was a court of law.
Silly us.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:04 pm(BTW, told ya JohnM would find a way to rationalize his delusion.)
June 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you’ve got to be the king of “ya but”. You come here and make an untrue statement about Clinton, posters bust you on it, so then you give us the “ya but”, how about this shit. When are you nutbags going to wakeup to the fact that Clinton is not President anymore? The people of this country didn’t buy your bullshit when he was President, why do you think it has any meaning now?
There is no ya but about this. Clinton clearly lied under oath and committed perjury. That is what made people upset, not the affair. The affair had to be investigated to show that he lied under oath. There is no connection between Sanford and Clinton here.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pmJohnM, you would make a piss poor lawyer. If there was no perjury charge, he can’t be guilty, basic 101 law. And civil hearings are not crimnal, nor do they hold the same weight in law.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pmNo, what most normal people were upset with was the 8 year Inquisition that the Republicans carried out against Clinton. Putting a sitting President under oath to talk about embarrassing sex questions and using that as a basis for impeachment is what we have a problem with. If you’re a Democrat, lying about sex – impeachment! If you’re a Republican, lying about a Casus Belli for war – OK! But only if you’re a Republican.
The last solid voting block for Republicans are the rubes that make up the Religious Right. Seems to me that they are going to start losing the last block that bought their baloney.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Becuase he was never charged with perjury does not mean he did not commit perjury. The judge stated that he lied under oath, but no perjury charges followed, but he was fined for lying under oath. So yes he did commit perjury.
The deliberate giving of false or misleading testimony under oath
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perjury
Sorry, JohnM — we didn’t realize that YOU were the one who decided shit like that about others.
We thought it was a court of law.
Silly us.
Here you go being willfully ignorant again. Please read this, he copped a plea in order to avoid a trial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/us/transition-in-washington-the-president-exiting-job-clinton-accepts-immunity-deal.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Clinton today agreed to a settlement in which he will avoid the possibility of indictment in exchange for admitting that he gave false testimony under oath and agreeing to surrender his law license for five years.
There was no trial and no judge to decide anything, becuase he copped a deal.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pmIt’s not just little Johhny. Whackjob Ken Starr and the lunatic Republican adulterers in Congress also made that decision for another. In little Johnny’s alternate reality, the insane blatherings of those maniacal hypocrites had some sort of mysterious legal standing.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pmJohnM, we know you believe what you believe and we know that this belief is impervious to any assault of fact, reason or logic.
Just don’t pretend that your abysmal, logic-free arguments make any impact on those of us who are part of the Reality-Based Community™.
For instance, you insist that Bill Clinton committed perjury. Yet he was charged with that offense and found not guilty in his impeachment hearings, and he was not charged in any criminal court.
A judge ruled that he had not committed perjury.
You can ignore all these facts (and you will) but those of us who recognize the value of objective evidence take them into account and find your simplistic attempts at distraction really laughable.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you would make a piss poor lawyer. If there was no perjury charge, he can’t be guilty, basic 101 law. And civil hearings are not crimnal, nor do they hold the same weight in law.
I may have been a piss poor lawyer, but you clearly cannot read. There was no perjury charge because he copped a deal to avoid a criminal perjury charge.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pmIN the rush to discuss the affair, don’t forget that Sanford apparently left the state without letting anyone know where to reach him in time of crisis.
In short, even if I believe what Sanford has said without reservation, he traded his responsibilities to the state for a quickie.
And all he had to do is leave a phone number where he could be contacted.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pmNice try deflecting Juanita, but the issue is about Governor Sanford. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00. Go directly to the irrelevant box.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm…
ralph,
not about “sandy” sanford.
johnm doesn’t care about him at all.
:(
:(
June 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pmFrom yesterday’s Sanford thread:
Jane E. Schneider Says:
Sanford had better avoid my neck of the Appalachian Trail-it passes about a mile away from our house.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Wow, I had no idea that Argentina was so close to NY!
June 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pmSo you say.
And that is all the evidence you have to present.
Why should anyone believe you? Why should anyone ever believe anything you ever say?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pmLittle Johnny M is a sanctimonious pious prick. And a liar. Aren’t you Johnny?
Read you like a book with BIG font.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pm“And all he had to do is leave a phone number where he could be contacted.”
Maple Street, I had heard that Sanford had ditched his cell phone (along with his SS protection, the Lieutenant Governor, the citizens of SC, his wife, his kids, and his “values”.)
June 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pmSasdly, you’re right about that, joe.
Poor Mark Sanford. Even JohnM throws him under the bus.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pm…
sandy’s girlfriend.
ahhh, the beaches of buenos aries!
:)
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pmJohnM, Clinton made a deal, hence no crimnal charges of perjury. In the aggreement he admitted to making a false statement, not perjury. So once again, no perjury charges were brought. The law is the law. He did not commit perjury.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pmJohnM Says:
There is no ya but about this. Clinton clearly lied under oath and committed perjury. That is what made people upset, not the affair. The affair had to be investigated to show that he lied under oath. There is no connection between Sanford and Clinton here.
Fine. Clinton has nothing to do with it. I’m fine with that.
Are you willing to agree that someone who claims to be a Promise Keeper while having an extramarital affair is a hypocrite?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
I may have been a piss poor lawyer, but you clearly cannot read. There was no perjury charge because he copped a deal to avoid a criminal perjury charge.
So you say.
And that is all the evidence you have to present.
Why should anyone believe you? Why should anyone ever believe anything you ever say?
I provided a link to the NY Times article discussing his deal.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, Clinton made a deal, hence no crimnal charges of perjury. In the aggreement he admitted to making a false statement, not perjury. So once again, no perjury charges were brought. The law is the law. He did not commit perjury.
No he was not convicted of perjury, that does not mean he did not commit perjury. You say that he admitted to making a false statement but not perjury, what exactly is it when somebody knowingly makes a false statement under oath?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pmMissed my point. My point is who cares about this issue? You shouldn’t because it’s only important to the haters, on both sides. I care about a two party system, not what party is the most evil. Our greatest right is the right to vote. And every American should accept the results of the vote. I didn’t vote for Obama but he is my president and since I travel extensively overseas I find myself defending him just as I did other presidents. Who cares how Fox or MSNBC handles this! It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we have a huge debate between large or small government and since I am older, I won’t have to live with the results! But I’m worried about our young people. The American government is not evil or corrupt but why on earth would you ever believe that they have our interest involved. It is obvious that they don’t. They disappear to Argentina or have cigar parties in the oval office. And while the bloggers argue who’s more evil and the networks play this out, more bills will go through congress unread because you believe in Republican irrelevance. I am a conservative who understands relevance of both parties, not irrelevance of either.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pmnanlichi Says:
——————————————————————————–
Little Johnny M is a sanctimonious pious prick. And a liar. Aren’t you Johnny?
Read you like a book with BIG font.
What have I lied about?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you would make a piss poor lawyer. If there was no perjury charge, he can’t be guilty, basic 101 law. And civil hearings are not crimnal, nor do they hold the same weight in law.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pm Recommend (2) | Report Abuse
——————————————————————————–You really think he could pass the law bar exam?
I don’t think he could pass Logic 101 in college.
You can’t rationalize away the fact Sanford is a hypocrite no matter how many Clinton red herrings you throw up?
Of course anyone who says diabetes isn’t a disabilty is a nitwit, anyway. Yep. I’m going to mention that all the time JohnnyM.
tony and lido
June 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
JohnM Says:
There is no ya but about this. Clinton clearly lied under oath and committed perjury. That is what made people upset, not the affair. The affair had to be investigated to show that he lied under oath. There is no connection between Sanford and Clinton here.
And then there’s the gaping hole in your “logic.” If the Republicans weren’t making a big deal about the bj and weren’t upset, why did Clinton have to testify about it in the first place? If no one cared about the infidelity, why not just leave it alone?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmA Fox News chyron listed Sanford as a Democrat.
Once is an accident, twice is culpable negligence … but three times? Three times?!?!? Three time is intentional malice.
Cheers,
June 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmSince yesterday on my blog, I’ve been saying he had an affair with Rush Limbaugh because Rush was also not at work the last two days! LOL I thought maybe the two had gone to the Dominican Republic. Turns out, it was Argentina! LOL
June 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm——————————————————————————–
RUCeriousMaggot! Says:
——————————————————————————–
Nice try deflecting Juanita, but the issue is about Governor Sanford. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00. Go directly to the irrelevant box.
I did not bring Clinton into the discussion.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sanford-affair/comment-page-6/#comment-5700981
While serving as a U.S. congressman, Sanford was incredibly critical of his colleagues’ marital misdeeds, including the affairs of former congressman Bob Livingston and President Bill Clinton:
June 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmJohnM, Are you really that dumb? IN the law in this country if you are not charged with a crime, you are not guilty of that crime. He never admitted to perjury and was never charged of it either. He admitted to a false statement in a civil proceeding and the special prosecutor agreed with that.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pmClif on my blog pointed out that Fox News is reporting Sanford as a DEMOCRAT. Let the right wing Ahmadinejad propaganda begin!
June 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
A judge ruled that he had not committed perjury
Please show which judge said this.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Did you see the word “perjury” in there anywhere dumbass?
Yes I did see the word perjury in there, are we looking at the same thing. Try cntrl f to find the word perjury that may help you find it.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:34 pmI like to see Bush and Cheney quizzed about the war in Iraq under oath,and in front of a grand jury.
Clinton was asked about sex under oath.
Which is more important war or sex..? !!
June 24th, 2009 at 5:34 pmHow long will it be before we here about the love-child that he spent Fathers Day with?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pmJohnM Says
June 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
There is no ya but about this. Clinton clearly lied under oath and committed perjury. That is what made people upset, not the affair. The affair had to be investigated to show that he lied under oath. There is no connection between Sanford and Clinton here.
____________________________________________________________
I’m still having some confusion over why you’re bringing up Clinton as some sort of defense for Sanford (you DO know Clinton hasn’t been President in quite some time, and his extracurricular activities were years ago?).
But since you’re in this groove, let’s recap.
Yes, Clinton lied under oath. Or, at the very least, stretched the truth a long way. In response to a question he should never have been asked in the first place. That came about because of an investigation into allegations of financial wrongdoing that turned out to be baseless. (Contrast this to Republicans, who refuse to be even PUT under oath, even when subpoenaed.)
Were people really upset about it? Some were. But Clinton’s approval ratings went UP during the time his sexual activities were exposed — not because people were cheering for intern diddling, but because they felt he was the object of a witch hunt.
Now let’s look at Sanford. Personally, I think that a guy who would cheat on his wife and duck out on his family over Father’s Day is a skunk. But as vulgar as I find his behavior, it’s not illegal — nor is it grounds for impeachment or resignation.
Sanford, as far as I know, has done no lying about his sex life under oath. But he did use state resources for his trip (at the very least, he drove a SC government vehicle to the Atlanta airport).
Driving a government vehicle for personal use is kind of a small thing, and that might be forgiven (I wonder how many other government employees do that, after all?). What the citizens of SC might not be so forgiving about is that the Governor of South Carolina completely vanished and was unreachable for a few days. You don’t leave your post. Even when you go on vacation, you must be reachable if you’re the chief executive. And if you can’t be reachable, you follow the appropriate procedure to hand the reins over to the Lt. Governor while you’re gone.
This is a far more serious offense. One that Sanford could be impeached on. And this is an offense Bill Clinton never committed.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, Are you really that dumb? IN the law in this country if you are not charged with a crime, you are not guilty of that crime. He never admitted to perjury and was never charged of it either. He admitted to a false statement in a civil proceeding and the special prosecutor agreed with that.
He made a deal to not have to go to trial and he admitted to lying under oath, which is perjury. He was never found not guilty in a court of law because he knew he would lose, so he agreed to plea. Lying under oath is perjury.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pmcorrection:
we hear about
June 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pmJohnM, I also saw the word perjury in the NYT peice, but maybe you would like to put in context. Clinton and his lawyers said they wern’t worried about a perjury charge from the independent prosacutor. Both sides wanted to end this ordeal before bush came to office. The civil trial gave both sides a way out of this long drawn out affiar.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pmHere’s a good source for background on the various claims of “perjury”:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html
Lotsa readin’ ahead of ya, JohnM. Sure to raise your blood pressure, too, so take precautions.
Enjoy.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pm——————————————————————————–
misscoleopteramolly Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says
June 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
There is no ya but about this. Clinton clearly lied under oath and committed perjury. That is what made people upset, not the affair. The affair had to be investigated to show that he lied under oath. There is no connection between Sanford and Clinton here.
____________________________________________________________
I’m still having some confusion over why you’re bringing up Clinton as some sort of defense for Sanford (you DO know Clinton hasn’t been President in quite some time, and his extracurricular activities were years ago?).
My point here, since you have not been following is that the critical comments Sanford made about Clinton do not make him a hypocrite because lying under oath is what got Clinton in hot water. It was not the affair, but lying under oath. Sanford has not lied under oath, he admitted his affair. So the attempt to show that Sanfor is hypocritical from his comments about Clinton misses the mark.
I did not bring Clinton into this discussion, thinkprogress did.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:41 pmFrom the link provided above:
Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts. The law requires either another witness or some other evidence that supports the accusation of lying under oath. Furthermore, not all lying under oath is perjury. The lie must be material – that is, important or relevant to the case. A murder suspect who falsely testifies that he ate cereal in jail that morning cannot be prosecuted for perjury over that irrelevant lie.
Methinks JohnM clings fast to an overly expansive definition of the legal term “perjury”.
big surprise.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pmJohnM Says:
How many times did Dick Cheney lie to the grand jury that was inverstigating the Valerie Plame affair?
And if my memory hasn’t failed me, he was not charged with perjury because he recanted the original false testimony.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pmJohnM Once again you would make a lousy lawyer. Admitting to making a false statement does not mean he committed perjury. Also in the NYT peice you sighted, Clinton and his lawyer both said they where not worried about a perjury charge, and thought if there was one they would beat it. Did you even read the whole NYT peice? Both sides wanted this to come to an end for political reasons.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:43 pmAt least he didn’t have his wife and family to stand by his side like that cheat Gov. Spitzer and the gay NJ Gov Greevy who admitted he prefers men, while his wife was in a trance standing next to him. Did you know that democratic wives all wear blue when attending news conference where their lying, cheating spouses admit having affairs. And Hounddog Clinton should have been impeached for LYING about his dirty deeds.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:44 pmA bit off topic, but just to get something off my chest and to defend old norm and his right to express his views about gay marriage — as an openly gay man who is for all intents and purposes married (for 8 years thank you) to another dude, I do not think old norm is necessarily bigoted because he does not support gay marriage — as “marriage” has been commonly understood. Now obviously if he thinks, however, that a gay “marriage” (cannot think of another term) is somehow any less meaningful or socially beneficial than a straight marriage, particularly as to the rights bestowed by the state, then I definitely would have a REAL problem with that and would argue that, yes, such a view is biased and bigoted.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:46 pmold_norm Says:
I am against Gay marriage because I believe the institution of marriage is and has been historically, traditionally, morally and biologically about heterosexual couples. That’s it. It’s my belief. I don’t expect this post to change your mind but you could at least quit the, shall we say, “hateful, attacks on me and respect my beliefs. I have no problem with yours (except that you think I’m stupid :-)
Historically according to what history?
The early catholic church and even many other early christian churches actually married same sex couples before the 5th century.
Polynesian cultures, traditional marriage was between and man and a woman and a man and a woman and so on. Many other cultures traditional marriages were a man and many women.
That excuse is just a fallacy and your real excuse I suspect is bigotry.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:47 pm——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
A judge ruled that he had not committed perjury
Please show which judge said this.
Here’s a good source for background on the various claims of “perjury”:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html
Lotsa readin’ ahead of ya, JohnM. Sure to raise your blood pressure, too, so take precautions.
Enjoy.
You said that a judge ruled that he had not committed perjury, was that a lie?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pmYour point would only have a grain of truth if Sanford did not criticize Clinton for the affair, only for the alleged perjury.
That does not appear to be the case:
Sanford’s complaints were directed primarily, although not entirely, at Clinton’s lying about the affair rather than the affair itself. At one point, however, he proclaimed that Clinton was likely to get away with his infidelities and indiscretion because he already had the perception of someone who was untrustworthy.
“In politics you can get away with anything as long as it’s what’s expected,” he was quoted saying in a Boston Globe article published in December 1998. “If people expect you to be a rascal, you can be a rascal.”
Was Sanford speaking specifically of Clinton’s alleged lying under oath? Perhaps his response to the Bob Livingston (R-LA) scandal shortly afterwards provides some illumination:
Sanford said:
“The bottom line is that he lied under a different oath -the oath to his wife.”
Sounds to me like Sanford’s concern was deeper than simply lying under questioning in a civil case.
Oh, and Sanford called for Livingston to resign his seat: “We as a party want to hold ourselves to high standards, period,” Sanford said.
Hypocrite?
yes.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Once again you would make a lousy lawyer. Admitting to making a false statement does not mean he committed perjury. Also in the NYT peice you sighted, Clinton and his lawyer both said they where not worried about a perjury charge, and thought if there was one they would beat it. Did you even read the whole NYT peice? Both sides wanted this to come to an end for political reasons.
Do you think he would say that he thought he would lose even if he did? You have got to be kidding. His lies have been exposed and the fact that he continues to lie does not change that. He settled because it was clear he knowingly lied under oath and he did not want a criminal trial to go on. You obviously would make a piss poor lawyer as well, your clients would certainly find themselves in a great deal of trouble.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pmDid you read the material in the linked pages, JohnM?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pm…
compare and contrast
the number of times johnm
has mentioned sanford with
clinton. why can’t he bring himself
to write “sandy” sanford ’s name?
why does he hide
from what “sandy” sanford
has done?
,,,’
“shame is contagious.”
– martin luther
:|
June 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pmBut the question about Monica Lewinsky wasn’t even relevant to the case so why was it asked? Because they had nothing else and if he’d admitted immediately they’d have accused him of throwing his family under the bus for his career. Was it reason enough to impeach a President? No it was not.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:56 pmIn all honesty, I think we can stick a fork in Sanford now — he’s not just done, he’s burned to a crisp. Let’s face it…there aren’t many ways in which he could have done more damage to his career while still remaining on the right side of the law!
Let’s recap, shall we?
He impulsively decided to play hooky from work in order to go off for a five-day weekend, failed to give his staff members much or any advance notice of his intentions, neglected to transfer authority to the Lieutenant Governor while he was gone, refused communication, essentially forced his staff members to choose between lying and exposing a scandal, abandoned his wife and four sons on Father’s Day…all so that he could run away from his troubles and have a little fun with his mistress! And to top it all off, he reportedly did all this thinking that nobody would notice! The only way in which I can imagine this possibly being any worse while still remaining legal would be if it involved kinky sex, a gay/transgendered lover, or an illegitimate child. If it comes to that, it’s possible that there’s still more to this story which we haven’t yet heard…
Sanford has f****d up so monumentally that there’s really no way for the Republicans to defend him without casting doubt on his mental health…because quite frankly, Sanford’s behavior suggests that he’s on the edge of a psychological breakdown. If he tries to return — if that’s even possible now — he has no reason whatsoever to believe that things will get better, and especially not after all the attention that he’s drawn to himself with these shenanigans of his. Sanford needs to concede his seat to the Lieutenant Governor for the good of the people of South Carolina — because it seems all too clear that at least for the present, he’s not up to the demands of the office.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pmJeebus, why is John M invoking the “but Clinton did it” defense — That is a shallow and lame distraction from the fact that Mark Sanford is a blithering hypocrite who is a pi$$ poor governor.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
You said that a judge ruled that he had not committed perjury, was that a lie?
Did you read the material in the linked pages, JohnM?
I did, but I am not too concerned with a page from huppi.com that does not show any legal opinions from anybody within the case or even cite any lawyers/judges.
I am curious about the claim you made regarding a judge ruling he did not commit perjury. Can you back that claim up or was it a lie?
June 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pmNoMoreBush Says:
——————————————————————————–
Jeebus, why is John M invoking the “but Clinton did it” defense — That is a shallow and lame distraction from the fact that Mark Sanford is a blithering hypocrite who is a pi$$ poor governor.
I have never once said but Clinton did it. Please actually read what I stated, I did not bring Clinton into this.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:05 pmI’ve gotta go, but I want to respond to JohnM:
JohnM Says:
Lying under oath is perjury.
Not necessarily. This is ONE criteria. Additionally, the lie must be “substantial”, “intentional”, and “relevant to the issue”. The prosecution in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial defined “sexual intercourse” and by that definition Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica. Further, his relationship with her was consentual and, therefore, irrelevant to the harassment issue. Finally, Clinton did answer in a “lawyery” way but this was as much a result of really poor questions from the Jones’ attorneys and, in case it went unnoticed, this was a “lawyery” situation.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pmFamily Research Council’s Values Voters Summit 2009 NoMoreBush Says:
Jeebus, why is John M invoking the “but Clinton did it” defense — That is a shallow and lame distraction from the fact that Mark Sanford is a blithering hypocrite who is a pi$$ poor governor.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
…
yeah but to be fair to johnm
many our folk rose to the bait.
…
the topic here is “sandy” sanford,
the boys and his lovely wife jenny.
please try to remember that people.
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pmJohnM, This is the last I will comment on this BS. Clinton and his lawyers thought they had a pretty good case for a perjury trap. Considering that the the case was supposed to be about whitewater and he got ambushed in his deposition, plus the Senate found him not guilty, they thought they could beat the perjury rap. It was decided by Clinton, his lawyers and the independent consul to end this mess before bush came into office. Clinton was never going to practice law again so they made the deal. Everybody won politicaly, and it didn’t end up on bushes plate.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:10 pm——————————————————————————–
Doodlebug Shayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you are so full of sh*t. Clinton was bashed for his affiars long before the impeachment hearings. You have a very short memory.
Sure he was bashed, but he was never asked to resign or was never impeached until he committed perjury.
But the question about Monica Lewinsky wasn’t even relevant to the case so why was it asked? Because they had nothing else and if he’d admitted immediately they’d have accused him of throwing his family under the bus for his career. Was it reason enough to impeach a President? No it was not.
You don’t think having an affair with an intern would be relevant to a sexual harassment case? I would think propositioning an employee would certainly be relevant, the fact that she accepted does not matter, it shows a pattern on his behavior.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, This is the last I will comment on this BS. Clinton and his lawyers thought they had a pretty good case for a perjury trap. Considering that the the case was supposed to be about whitewater and he got ambushed in his deposition, plus the Senate found him not guilty, they thought they could beat the perjury rap. It was decided by Clinton, his lawyers and the independent consul to end this mess before bush came into office. Clinton was never going to practice law again so they made the deal. Everybody won politicaly, and it didn’t end up on bushes plate.
If he were innocent, he would not have made a deal. You really trust his spin. They were confident? They were thankful that there was deal and he could end it without jail time.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pmYou are right, joe cantwell.
I am guilty of this offense, even after I called for an OFnF on JohnM.
We do want to be fair to JohnM, so I will hereby abide by the terms of the OFnF.
I will cease to respond to JohnM, as his contribution to this thread has basically been to litter it with his usual refuse.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pmA Fox News chyron listed Sanford as a Democrat.
*********************************************************
No surprises there…if memory serves, didn’t they do the same thing during the Mark Foley scandal?
June 24th, 2009 at 6:14 pmBaloney Says:
At least he didn’t have his wife and family to stand by his side like that cheat Gov. Spitzer and the gay NJ Gov Greevy who admitted he prefers men, while his wife was in a trance standing next to him. Did you know that democratic wives all wear blue when attending news conference where their lying, cheating spouses admit having affairs. And Hounddog Clinton should have been impeached for LYING about his dirty deeds.
Yeah the stepford wives of vitter, craig, bush, haggert, allen, and i”d include newtie’s but she was stuck in a hospital bed when she found out that newt had been cheating on her….
And Clintonw WAS impeached you inbred idiot, he was not convicted however…
June 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pmJohnM Says:
When you get back to the stalker blog, tell Twajie he has mail. This BS has got to stop.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:17 pmYes John M I have read your lame-a$$ed posts, particularly the laugher about the public being outraged about the perjury, not the affair — WRONG — the public was outraged about the witch hunt perpetrated by the ideological prig, Ken Starr, and the fire-breathing, knuckle-dragging Republican-controlled Congress led by Tom Delay — if you recall, Clinton’s popularity rose during the course of that wasteful and time-consuming fiasco.
The only people who cared where the 25 percenters and flat earthers, such as yourself, who apparently did not understand the memo (you sure as hell got it because the GOP’s strategy was as transparent as glass) that the perjury charge was merely a means to end such that, after 8 years of trumped up BS, they were finally convinced they would get Bubba on a technicality, on a charge that had everything to do with marital infidelity and NOTHING, NOTHING to do with the dead-end witch hunt called Whitewater, which was the issue at hand. May Henry Hyde, Kenn Starr, Tom Delay burn in Hell for putting the country through that. Stupid fool.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:19 pmJohnM, by the way, #141 is were you brought Clinton into this thread. Nobody before you used Clinton in their argument about Sanford.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:20 pmSays the troll with such a man-crush on Olbermann, he trolled here under the name Rebecca Lobo.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:22 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, by the way, #141 is were you brought Clinton into this thread. Nobody before you used Clinton in their argument about Sanford.
Really, maybe you should read the post by thinkprogress. I did not bring Clinton into it thinkprogress did.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:23 pmJohnM, You don’t get it do you? For one thing it was the bush people who were putting pressure on both sides to end this before he came into office. You really are ignorant of politics aren’t you? Clintons term was coming to an end. He had nothing to gain by drawing this thing out. Wake the F**k up to reality.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:24 pm——————————————————————————–
NoMoreBush Says:
——————————————————————————–
Yes John M I have read your lame-a$$ed posts, particularly the laugher about the public being outraged about the perjury, not the affair — WRONG
I never said the public was outraged. The outrage I was referring to was from the republicans like Sanford. Maybe when you read my posts you should actually read them.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:24 pmJohnM, god! you are dumb.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:26 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
joe cantwell Says:
NoMoreBush Says:
Jeebus, why is John M invoking the “but Clinton did it” defense — That is a shallow and lame distraction from the fact that Mark Sanford is a blithering hypocrite who is a pi$$ poor governor.
yeah but to be fair to johnm
many our folk rose to the bait.
You are right, joe cantwell.
I am guilty of this offense, even after I called for an OFnF on JohnM.
We do want to be fair to JohnM, so I will hereby abide by the terms of the OFnF.
I will cease to respond to JohnM, as his contribution to this thread has basically been to litter it with his usual refuse.
So I guess this means you cannot provide any proof that a judge ruled that Clinton did not commit perjury as you stated? Since you were called out on your lie, you might as well run along.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pmMonica Lewinsky never suggested he propositioned her. She was the one knocking on his door. And the sexual harassment charges were all a setup. Are you ready to defend Senator Ensign of the sexual harassment charges being made by the husband of the woman he had an affair with? First he nailed the man’s wife and then he fired them both. Abuse of power anybody?
June 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, You don’t get it do you? For one thing it was the bush people who were putting pressure on both sides to end this before he came into office. You really are ignorant of politics aren’t you? Clintons term was coming to an end. He had nothing to gain by drawing this thing out. Wake the F**k up to reality.
Your ignorance on the subject is quite amazing. His lies have been exposed and both sided accept this, but you think he plead just because he wanted it to end. Of course he wanted it to end, because there would be no chance of winning in a trial when the lies were so blatant. You are the one that needs to wake up to reality.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:28 pmThey will circle. Two Presidential contenders bite the dust in just one week. The party that keeps on giving. He was a bad governor. His state is drowning in unemployment. And the schools are falling apart. But still he postures and refuses to take stimulus funding that would help. He had to be forced. He has no common sense. None. Now we don’t have to wonder about his bid for being President.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pm——————————————————————————–
Doodlebug Shayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
You don’t think having an affair with an intern would be relevant to a sexual harassment case? I would think propositioning an employee would certainly be relevant, the fact that she accepted does not matter, it shows a pattern on his behavior.
Monica Lewinsky never suggested he propositioned her. She was the one knocking on his door. And the sexual harassment charges were all a setup. Are you ready to defend Senator Ensign of the sexual harassment charges being made by the husband of the woman he had an affair with? First he nailed the man’s wife and then he fired them both. Abuse of power anybody?
Did the judge state that the Lewinsky questioning was not relevant?
June 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pmThat Sanford scumbag was just on Morning Joe two weeks ago, responding to a speaker who called for the repiggies to lose the “morality” stuff. “Certain things are just wrong,” huffed and puffed our little morality dragon. I think Pat Buchanan got sexually excited just reacting to Sanford’s sin scolding.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:33 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, god! you are dumb.
Fleeting words of somebody that clearly lost the debate, thanks for playing!
June 24th, 2009 at 6:34 pmJohnM, It is you who doesn’t get it. First off you don’t know the difference between a perjury charge and giving a false statement in a deposition in a civil case. No judge had to rule on a perjury charge because there was no perjury charge. Clinton did not admitt to perjury in any case. He admitted to giving a false statement in the Paula Jones civil suite. He agreed to give up his law license which hadn’t used in years, and refused to admit he committed perjury. The special consul agreed. The special consul never said you admit to perjury or we charge you, it never happenend.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:38 pmJohnM says:So I guess this means you cannot provide any proof that a judge ruled that Clinton did not commit perjury as you stated? Since you were called out on your lie, you might as well run along.
Anyone with a 1st grade education knows you can’t prove a negative, Johnny, you need to prove that he was charged and convicted of perjury, or else stop lying about it, or keep being a good little running dog lackey of the bourgeoisie.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:39 pmJohnM Says:
angels81 Says:
JohnM, god! you are dumb.
Fleeting words of somebody that clearly lost the debate, thanks for playing!
Says the troll arguing with the voices in his head.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:41 pmJohnM,
Its not up to you to determine who won or lost the debate. That is up to the voters, and they said you lose.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:43 pmJohnM says: angels81 lost the debate. How can I lose a debate with someone who doesn’t even understand the law? Someone who doesn’t even know the difference between a perjury charge and giving a false statement in a civil suite. Keep dreaming fool.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:44 pmJohn (the M stands for Moran):
Really, maybe you should read the post by thinkprogress. I did not bring Clinton into it thinkprogress did.
In the context of pointing out Sanford’s hypocrisy, are you agreeing that sanford is a pious, phoney?
June 24th, 2009 at 6:44 pm…
johnm,
maria,
i’ve just met a girl
named maria…
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pmBobwurst Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM says:So I guess this means you cannot provide any proof that a judge ruled that Clinton did not commit perjury as you stated? Since you were called out on your lie, you might as well run along.
Anyone with a 1st grade education knows you can’t prove a negative, Johnny, you need to prove that he was charged and convicted of perjury, or else stop lying about it, or keep being a good little running dog lackey of the bourgeoisie.
He said that a judge ruled he had not committed perjury. I asked him to show which judge ruled this and he did not because he could not. It was a lie, I called him on it and he ran away.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pmJohnM, And I answered that question for you. No judge ruled on any perjury charge, because there never was one.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:49 pm…
johnm,
NSFW!
…
“You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light – but hey, that would be going into sexual details …”
:)
even a republican
can love…
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 6:49 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM says: angels81 lost the debate. How can I lose a debate with someone who doesn’t even understand the law? Someone who doesn’t even know the difference between a perjury charge and giving a false statement in a civil suite. Keep dreaming fool.
I understand the law much more than you do obviously. Clinton was fined for his lies under oath and did not want to face perjury charges so he copped a deal. His lies have been exposed and since his words say it was merely a false statement you accept this. That is funny. You did read what this judge said didn’t you? You believe Clinton and I will believe this judge. Wonder who would be more likely to lie?
Contempt of court citation
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[12]
Regarding Clinton’s January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false….” [12]
June 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, And I answered that question for you. No judge ruled on any perjury charge, because there never was one.
So you agree that ralph the wonder locust was lying, thanks for backing me up.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm…
johnm,
maria,
say it softly and
it’s almost like praying…
NSFW!
“In the meantime please sleep soundly knowing that despite the best efforts of my head my heart cries out for you, your voice, your body, the touch of your lips, the touch of your finger tips and an even deeper connection to your soul.”
***
earthy,
yet so very passionate…
(wouldn’t you agree?)
:)
:0
June 24th, 2009 at 6:56 pm…
johnm,
trying to find some
bible quotes for you…
i’ll see what i can do.
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 6:57 pmjohnM you show how dumb you are, the Paula Jones case was a civil case not a crimnal case. There was no crimnal perjury complaint envovled in the case. Even if he hadn’t went with an agreement, it still would have been a civil case. The charge would have been civil contempt, it would have never made it to a crimnal charge. If not for the agreement the fine could have been higher and he could have lost his law license for life.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:58 pmAnd the b!tch on the side…screw you hypocrite
June 24th, 2009 at 6:58 pm…
johnm,
this is kind of boring,
(he likes big shovels).
“Got back an hour ago to civilization and am now in Columbia after what was for me a glorious break from reality down at the farm. No phones ringing and tangible evidence of a day’s labors. Though I have started every day by 6 this morning woke at 4:30, I guess since my body knew it was the last day, and I went out and ran the excavator with lights until the sun came up. To me, and I suspect no one else on earth, there is something wonderful about listening to country music playing in the cab, air conditioner running, the hum of a huge diesel engine in the back ground, the tranquillity that comes with being in a virtual wilderness of trees and marsh, the day breaking and vibrant pink coming alive in the morning clouds – and getting to build something with each scoop of dirt.”
:|
June 24th, 2009 at 7:00 pm…
johnm,
you have a fan!
trackere Says:
My,,,,,,,,,, I guess we all forgot about billy oh boy and his cuming on monica! Wasnt he a democrap!!!Guess u guys forgot ab out one of ur own…. here is a little poem i came across u pin heads will like……lmaoTHE FIRST BOOK OF DEMOCRAT
PSALM 2008-2012
OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.
HE LEADETH ME BESIDE THE STILL FACTORIES.
HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY OF THE BREAD LINE,
I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY.
OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES.
MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME.
SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME
ALL THE DAYS OF HIS TERM.
FROM HENCE FORTH, WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES
IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD.
BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN,
I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE.
BUT I WISH I WAS A DOG
AND OBAMA WAS A TREE.
:::
(bible quotes, too!)
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 7:02 pmJohnM Says:
Bobwurst Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM says:So I guess this means you cannot provide any proof that a judge ruled that Clinton did not commit perjury as you stated? Since you were called out on your lie, you might as well run along.
Anyone with a 1st grade education knows you can’t prove a negative, Johnny, you need to prove that he was charged and convicted of perjury, or else stop lying about it, or keep being a good little running dog lackey of the bourgeoisie.
He said that a judge ruled he had not committed perjury. I asked him to show which judge ruled this and he did not because he could not. It was a lie, I called him on it and he ran away.
At post 141 you say</strong
JohnM Says:
Do people realize that what made people upset with Clinton was not the affair in itself, but the perjury that followed?
It is up to you to prove that Clinton committed perjury, you idiot. You are the one who says he committed perjury, you idiot. Prove it or shut up, you idiot. As has been stated numerous times in this thread, lying is not necessarily perjury, perjury is always lying but lying is not always perjury, just like a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square, you idiot. You have proven however, that republicans are always sodomites. Some are in the closet, and some are out, but they are all sodomites, you idiot.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:03 pmIs that what the kids are calling it these days?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate, in this case, to say:
Mr.Sanford was rambling about his love for the Argentinian tail…
June 24th, 2009 at 7:04 pmJohnM , also to have a criminal charge of perjury it must have something to do with breaking crimnal law. Giving a false statement in a civil sexual harrasment suite does not meet the standards of a criminal perjury case. That is why the judge in the case did not use the words perjury.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:04 pm——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
johnM you show how dumb you are, the Paula Jones case was a civil case not a crimnal case. There was no crimnal perjury complaint envovled in the case. Even if he hadn’t went with an agreement, it still would have been a civil case. The charge would have been civil contempt, it would have never made it to a crimnal charge. If not for the agreement the fine could have been higher and he could have lost his law license for life.
It is fun watching you wiggle. First he only gave false statements (which I clearly debunked) now he can’t be charged with perjury from testimony in a civil case. Well let me set you straight once again. While it says that perjury prosecutions are rare from civil cases, the crime of perjury clearly can be committed in a civil case.
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/perjury.html
June 24th, 2009 at 7:05 pmWhile the crime of perjury can be committed in both civil and criminal cases, perjury prosecutions arising from civil lawsuits are extremely rare.
JohnM is a bottom republican,
June 24th, 2009 at 7:05 pmAngels81, this has been explained to St John the Sodomite numerous times on this thread, he’s just to stoopid to understand it.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:07 pmJohnM, It is true that perjury can be used in a civil case, but that civil case would have to stem from a crimnal case first. The OJ civil case would be an example. There was no criminal case connected to the Paula Jones civil suite, but nice try anyways.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:10 pmCome on St John the Sodomite, show us where Clinton was convicted of perjury. Or keep dancing around your lie, you idiot.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:10 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM , also to have a criminal charge of perjury it must have something to do with breaking crimnal law.
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/perjury.html
When a person testifies in a civil or criminal case, they will first be sworn under oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To intentionally lie or misrepresent the truth in your testimony is a criminal offense.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:10 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, It is true that perjury can be used in a civil case, but that civil case would have to stem from a crimnal case first.
Please prove this.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm——————————————————————————–
Bobwurst Says:
——————————————————————————–
Come on St John the Sodomite, show us where Clinton was convicted of perjury. Or keep dancing around your lie, you idiot.
He copped a plea so he did not have to go to trial. He knew he would not be able to win a criminal case, so he made the wise move to plea.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:13 pmWords of a hypocritical adulterer. Oooh…let’s see how we can blame Clinton…
June 24th, 2009 at 7:13 pmJohnM, once again nice try, but the judge in the case never said he committed perjury, she said he gave a false statement in a deposition to the Paula Jones lawyers. He never committed perjury on the stand in that case.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:14 pmJohnM, it is you who is saying Clinton committed perjury, it is you who needs to show me a case were a crimnal perjury charge was laid down in a sexual harrasment civil suite. I know of none.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:17 pmJohnM Says:
He copped a plea so he did not have to go to trial. He knew he would not be able to win a criminal case, so he made the wise move to plea.
Prove it, you idiot. He copped a plea because he wanted to case to be over. He copped a plea because he was tired of sleeping on the couch and Hillary cop a plea. he copped a plea because he was afraid that the truth about Vince Foster was about to come out. he copped a plea because his Space Insect overlords told him too.
See how easy it is to come with fanciful explanations?
June 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pmJohnM, so you admit that it is only your opinion as to why Clinton coped a plea. You admit you would make a piss poor lawyer, so your laypersons opinion is just that.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:20 pm…
meanwhile sean hannity’s
friend, hal turner, has been busted for
threatening to murder three judges.
more about that here.
:::
June 24th, 2009 at 7:20 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, it is you who is saying Clinton committed perjury, it is you who needs to show me a case were a crimnal perjury charge was laid down in a sexual harrasment civil suite. I know of none.
I have shown that civil cases can carry perjury charges and you made the claim that only if the case stems from a criminal trial so it is on you to prove it.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:22 pmhal turner, has been busted for
threatening to murder three judges.
That should make our friend jurassic pork very happy, he’s been blogging about that bastard turner for a long, long time.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:23 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, once again nice try, but the judge in the case never said he committed perjury, she said he gave a false statement in a deposition to the Paula Jones lawyers. He never committed perjury on the stand in that case.
You keep saying false testimony, but I have shown that the judge believed it was willful lying.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pmJohnM, nice try, and you can play that game with someone else. I made the statement and I stand by it. Prove me wrong.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pmJohnM
This ain’t about Clinton…it’s about sanctimonious Sanford who threw his wife of 20 years to the side for a little Latin Lovin’…he has 4 children who are now affected…Clinton’s BJ didn’t cause that to happen…what about personal responsiblity…oh that’s right — IOKIYAR
June 24th, 2009 at 7:25 pmHow sad and lame to see the right wing trolls trying to justify what Sanford did by bringing up, once again, ex President Clinton.
What Sanford did was way worse than what Clinton ever dreamed of doing. And he did it on South Carolina’s dime.
I wonder if his wife is going to be the typical Republican wife and “stand by her man”.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:26 pmJohnM , don’t ever go into court and try and defend yourself. Willful lying and false statement in legal terms is no different.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:26 pm——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, nice try, and you can play that game with someone else. I made the statement and I stand by it. Prove me wrong.
How about you prove yourself right? You don’t feel any need to back up your claims? I backed up my claim that a civil trial can have perjury charges, but you seem to be unable to back up your claim that it must stem from a criminal trial. As stated before it is impossible to prove a negative, so grow a pair and prove your claim.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:37 pmI assume JohnM is talking about me here, so I’ll break the OFnF briefly to address this bullshit one more time.
The judge whose ruling is in question is Susan Webber Wright, who ruled on September 1, 1998 that the testimony regarding Monica Lewinsky (the testimony on which your bogus cries of “perjury” are based) was immaterial to the civil case for which the deposition had been taken.
Given that the legal definition for perjury requires that a knowing false statement be material to the proceedings, and given that in the Paula Jones case this condition was not met, there is no perjury. In a technical sense the judge did not explicitly rule that no perjury had been committed, which had been my mistaken claim, but her ruling effectively dismissed that possibility.
I know that this will not satisfy you, JohnM, as you have a remarkable elasticity in the boundaries of your fantasy world, but it should give you the answer you were seeking, and demonstrate that I neither lied nor “ran away”.
The fact that you are incapable of honest debate will always escape your ken, and will lead to so much energy expended on your part to prop up the sagging walls of your illogical constructs that I suspect you will never need a Stairmaster™.
Good day sir.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:38 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
He said that a judge ruled he had not committed perjury. I asked him to show which judge ruled this and he did not because he could not. It was a lie, I called him on it and he ran away.
I assume JohnM is talking about me here, so I’ll break the OFnF briefly to address this bullshit one more time.
The judge whose ruling is in question is Susan Webber Wright, who ruled on September 1, 1998 that the testimony regarding Monica Lewinsky (the testimony on which your bogus cries of “perjury” are based) was immaterial to the civil case for which the deposition had been taken.
Given that the legal definition for perjury requires that a knowing false statement be material to the proceedings, and given that in the Paula Jones case this condition was not met, there is no perjury. In a technical sense the judge did not explicitly rule that no perjury had been committed, which had been my mistaken claim, but her ruling effectively dismissed that possibility.
I know that this will not satisfy you, JohnM, as you have a remarkable elasticity in the boundaries of your fantasy world, but it should give you the answer you were seeking, and demonstrate that I neither lied nor “ran away”.
The fact that you are incapable of honest debate will always escape your ken, and will lead to so much energy expended on your part to prop up the sagging walls of your illogical constructs that I suspect you will never need a Stairmaster™.
Good day sir.
Of course it won’t fly becuase it does not show that a judge ruled that it was not perjury. Show me where the judge said this. Until you do this, the lie title will remain squarely on you.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:55 pm——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, nice try, and you can play that game with someone else. I made the statement and I stand by it. Prove me wrong.
How about you prove yourself right? You don’t feel any need to back up your claims? I backed up my claim that a civil trial can have perjury charges, but you seem to be unable to back up your claim that it must stem from a criminal trial. As stated before it is impossible to prove a negative, so grow a pair and prove your claim.
I didn’t think you would back up your claim. It’s pretty much par for the course here. Oh well, have a good night.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:07 pmLet me clarify my sources:
Here, in the April 1, 1998 ruling dismissing the Paula Jones case, Judge Wright said the following:
III.
One final matter concerns alleged suppression of pattern and practice evidence. Whatever relevance such evidence may have to prove other elements of plaintiff’s case, it does not have anything to do with the issues presented by the President’s and Ferguson’s motions for summary judgment, i.e., whether plaintiff herself was the victim of alleged quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment, whether the President and Ferguson conspired to deprive her of her civil rights, or whether she suffered emotional distress so severe in nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed, does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury. Reduced to its essence, the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party and the Court therefore finds that there are no genuine issues for trial in this case.
Not material to the case.
Ergo, does not meet the legal standard for perjury.
As I predicted, JohnM is neither gracious enough nor honest enough to accept this as a demonstration that my claim has a factual basis, and says essentially what I claimed it said — that President Clinton’s false statements about Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case do not meet the standard for perjury.
JohnM is happy to sit in his soiled trousers and insist that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he is right.
And all he does is provide us with some entertainment, as a sad, right-wing clown, pretentious, arrogant and always, always wrong.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:13 pm…
johnm,
thanks for sticking
up for sandy.
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 8:19 pmAt least the wife didn’t have to parade herself in front of everyone to help her husband take the blame for his infidelity…this time
June 24th, 2009 at 8:29 pmI don’t care about his wife’s feelings. She knew he was a cheater and said nothing. gotta keep the money rolling in.
she went around the world and kept his secret while her cad/sham of a husband was lying to his constituents.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:46 pmUsing JohnM’s standards, JohnM must know that he’s been pwned and has run away.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:04 pmFrom today’s AP story:
If it’s John Edwards (or Billl Clinton), they are libertines, scum, wanton defilers of their sacred marriage vows. But if it’s a Republican, he’s a “real man” for admitting it after he was busted anyway. And what of Glenn Beck’s contention that Sanford was being victimized by the liberal media – will Beck “get up and honestly, from his heart, confess that he was wrong.”?
That last question, of course, was rhetorical…
June 24th, 2009 at 9:28 pmWayne, please, please cite a reference for your claim that the Catholic Church married same sex couples before the 5th century. Please. Or anyone else, please.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pmTo JohnM,
You can keep on quibbling about the fine points whether Clinton perjured himself over a blow job. The fact that Sanford went AWOL from his governmental duties, without even telling his lieutenant governor of his whereabouts, is serious negligence of the duties he was elected to fulfill. What if there had been a hurricane, or–Republiscum favorite–terrorist attack, while he was secretly cavorting or crying in Argentina?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:45 pmLook at the demographics. Gay marriage is the next leap forward incivil rights. I am glad I am living to see it and that my children have minds which are open…
June 24th, 2009 at 9:49 pmOf course the repugs will protect their own. They will allways lie or make up lame excuses for their fckups.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:56 pmIm willing to bet that Sanford will go to church on sunday and ask his lord to forgive him, for he has sinned.
That will make it OK for the cons.
Nothing like a grown man confessing to his imaginary friend.
Cons=Morals and Ethics. What a fcking joke.
Great. First the Republicans ruin the economy, now they are outsourcing adultery.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/gop-governor-outsources-adultery/
June 24th, 2009 at 11:45 pmWhere’s Dr. Laura to claim that Mrs. Sanford isn’t woman enough to hold onto her man, and it’s all her fault?
June 24th, 2009 at 11:45 pmHow interesting to see all the calls for Sanford’s resignation from the VERY SAME people who said Bubba’s BJ was “private” and “none of our business”.
Typical liberal hypocrisy.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:50 pmdbadass Says:
Look at the demographics. Gay marriage is the next leap forward incivil rights. I am glad I am living to see it and that my children have minds which are open…
Amen bro.
People are like flowers, they come in all colors, shapes, sizes etc. That is how I explain it to my little ones.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:07 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
“I don’t GIVE A SH*T what he does, except that he USED TAXPAYER MONEY TO DO IT (a CRIME) and he *PRETENDS* to be one of those *VALUES* REPUBLICANS”
===================================
You’ll be shocked to find that I totally agree with the above comments.
But once you launched into your “I hate Republicans” rant, you lost me. Try to calm down.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:14 amIndependentMinded Says:
How interesting to see all the calls for Sanford’s resignation from the VERY SAME people who said Bubba’s BJ was “private” and “none of our business”.
Typical liberal hypocrisy.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
First, “Typical liberal hypocrisy” doesn’t sound very independent-minded to me.
Second, I think most of us also believe that Sanford’s affair itself was none of our business, but his using taxpayer money, along with his actions this weekend in leaving his state without an acting governor (irresponsible at best, against SC laws at worst), is the public’s business. As you would realize had you read even some of the comments here, although I realize that wading through hours of trollshit isn’t fun.
And third, how can you not recognize Sanford’s own “family values” hypocrisy in calling for Clinton’s impeachment?
BTW, rhf IS being calm. You should see him when he’s really upset. ;)
Have a good night. And goodnight to everyone.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:35 amPerhaps if Clinton had neglected his duties as President for six days, or for any amount of time at all, in order to pursue an affair…
OR if Clinton had established a political reputation of sanctimoniously scolding others who fell short of his purported “family values” agenda…
THEN you might have an argument.
But, as it happens, Clinton was guilty of neither of those sins. And the real problem with Gov. Sanford’s antics, aside from the hypocrisy of calling for the resignation of others for “breaking the vow to his wife”, is his irresponsible dereliction of duty to his constituents.
You would know that this was the position of most of the progressives here, if you’d bothered to actually read and digest the comments instead of ripping a “typical liberal hypocrisy” line like a loud a wet fart.
Oh yeah, i get it: Mark Sanford calls for others to resign over extramarital affairs, then jets off to Buenos Aires with his Argentine mistress, and we’re the ones who are hypocrites.
Got it.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:35 amJane, we are saying pretty much the same thing, but you said it better.
Well done, my dear.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:37 amThe Gov. needs to go.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:40 amI don’t care about his wife’s feelings. She knew he was a cheater and said nothing. Gotta keep the money rolling in.
She went around the world and kept his secret while her cad/sham of a husband was lying to his constituents. — Game Of Life
***********************************************************
Hate to burst your little misogynistic bubble, GOL…but the news reports indicate that his wife is not only an heiress, she was apparently the one who bankrolled most of his first gubernatorial campaign.
“Gotta keep the money rolling in”? With all due respect, it sounds to me as if he might have been using her just as much as — or possibly even more than — she might have been using him! Sanford also claims that this is the first time he’s been unfaithful to her, which seems to contradict your claim that “she knew he was a cheater”. True, maybe this is just another lie on his part — only he and his wife know that for certain. Granted, I find it hard to fathom why any woman — and especially a woman who would appear to have her own means of support — would willingly choose to stay with a man who’s been unfaithful, but the fact that she seems to have a very traditional belief system probably has something to do with it. In any event, it’s her life and she was the only one who was entitled to decide what was best for her to do in this case — as well as being the one who would have to accept the consequences of those decisions (which may have included the decision to deny the existence of the affair until this was no longer possible). I agree that she’s probably not quite the innocent victim that the reports seem to depict her as being — I happen to believe that nearly everyone contributes to their own suffering in at least some small way, even if only by being too passive or too trusting — but the facts seem to dispute your apparent insinuation that she’s nothing more than a gold-digger.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:47 amralph the wonder locust Says:
Why, thanks, sweetie! ;) Goodnight!
June 25th, 2009 at 12:50 amTwo things stand out for me here:
His private life is his private problem. I don’t care if he was in argentina or on pluto thats his and his wife’s problem, and making it another trivial moral issue isn’t going to put a dent in the greater problems that are the real incumbents.
Politicians don’t get what this means to the average person I think. They are intoxicated with their power, and think we don’t notice. We do, and we need to know that their personal moral problems aren’t going to affect their judgment when it comes to non trivial not central to the beltway issues. The beltway is the hollywood of government, today’s parties are little more than film studios with marketing aspirations well beyond their competencies. The stuff the next few generations are going to be facing are going to require sterner stuff than were seeing so far. Conservatives with their ‘god, blind respect for the institution, and childish morality’ don’t get it. Liberals with their ‘trivial progress, mindless change, and simplistic morality’ don’t get it.
Its not about character anymore, its about aptitude, but without character the aptitude may not be there.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:56 amThe sad part is that the people who live in these Red States would vote again for people like “Vitter the Shitter”, Mark ‘don’t cry for me Argentina’ Sanford, Larry ‘Wide Stance’ Craig, and John ‘the promise keeper’ Ensign.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:36 amold_norm Says:
I am against Gay marriage because I believe the institution of marriage is and has been historically, traditionally, morally and biologically about heterosexual couples. That’s it. It’s my belief. I don’t expect this post to change your mind but you could at least quit the, shall we say, “hateful, attacks on me and respect my beliefs. I have no problem with yours (except that you think I’m stupid :-)
Your rhetoric is not as open and accepting as you would have us believe. “the institution of marriage is and has been historically, traditionally, morally and biologically about heterosexual couples” is the precise stance of the conservative christians, and particualrly the fundamentalists. Precisely the same. That does not mean of necessity that you are a fundamentalist, but it does mean that you espouse the same position for the same reasons.
It would be enlightening as to what you mean by “The institution” of marriage. What does that qualifier mean? Why is it there? Why could you not just say “marriage”? Why “Intsitution”? The qualifier is completely nonsensical without an explanation of what you mean by it.
However, you claims to historically and traditionally are BOTH incorrect: whose history, whose tradition (and traditions are actually relevant to sub-cultures within greater cultures, and divergent among them)? Neither history nor tradition indicate that something is correct (indian suttee for one example, female castration at puberty in parts of Africa, as another, but one could create quite an extensive list of ‘traditional’ or ‘historical’ activities and ideas that are, clearly, not ‘good’ things, yet were carried on and on based on the “tradition and history” argument).
“Biologically” only has merit for the sake of procreation. Is your contention that the purpose of marriage is to procreate? If that is the case, then you MUST be against ANY marriage that does not and specifically CANNOT produce children (for example, infertile people should not marry under this definition, as they cannot procreate). Also, any marriage that is not producing children out of choice is also breaching this requirement.
And that leaves us “morally”. Hmmmm.. WHOSE morals are you referring to? I believe that I have already indicated the likely source of your opinion here (and it IS just your opinion). Morals are NOT something that are accepted as absolutes. Cultures have differing morals, and all the sub-cultures within any culture follow different morals. And to some, morals are even flexible (see current republican politicians and murderers for some examples). Even within a religion there are differences in morals (the Catholics vs the Mormons vs the Babtists vs every other christian sect — in fact, it is MORALS that tend to be THE dfining differences between the various christian sects). So — it is a particular religious view that you hold that makes the determination.
Do you believe that because your opinion on marriage is based on your religious beliefs that it, somehow, simply cannot be bigotry (since it is religiously based)? Is THAT the position you are coming from?
June 25th, 2009 at 8:38 amHis private life is his private problem. I don’t care if he was in argentina or on pluto………
June 25th, 2009 at 10:55 am————————————–
I agree, it should be his private problem, but he is a Governor and a public person. It wouldn’t really matter what he does in private if he wasn’t preaching one thing and doing another. Republicans always think they won’t get caught. With them it’s my way or the highway and their highway usually leads them to hell — or in this case, Argentina.
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Let me clarify my sources:
Here, in the April 1, 1998 ruling dismissing the Paula Jones case, Judge Wright said the following:
III.
One final matter concerns alleged suppression of pattern and practice evidence. Whatever relevance such evidence may have to prove other elements of plaintiff’s case, it does not have anything to do with the issues presented by the President’s and Ferguson’s motions for summary judgment, i.e., whether plaintiff herself was the victim of alleged quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment, whether the President and Ferguson conspired to deprive her of her civil rights, or whether she suffered emotional distress so severe in nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed, does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury. Reduced to its essence, the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party and the Court therefore finds that there are no genuine issues for trial in this case.
Not material to the case.
Ergo, does not meet the legal standard for perjury.
As I predicted, JohnM is neither gracious enough nor honest enough to accept this as a demonstration that my claim has a factual basis, and says essentially what I claimed it said — that President Clinton’s false statements about Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case do not meet the standard for perjury.
JohnM is happy to sit in his soiled trousers and insist that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he is right.
And all he does is provide us with some entertainment, as a sad, right-wing clown, pretentious, arrogant and always, always wrong.
Wow you really have a hard time reading your own quotes, you are not very bright. She is not saying that his behavior with others is not material, she is saying that the plaintiff did not prover her individual case. At no point did she it was not material. Your inability to admit you were lying when you clearly have been caught is very much like Clinton. good job.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:56 amAlso Ralphy boy you may want to read the quotes from judge Wright.
Contempt of court citation
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[12]
Regarding Clinton’s January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false….” [12]
You see she never ruled that he did not commit perjury (which you said she did)she referred it to the Arkansas Supreme Court for possible disciplinary actions. You have been owned and shown to be a proven liar, just admit it.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:06 amI think what Sanford did was really shameful, that will obviously distroy his family and reputation, however i think he did ok by stepping forward and telling the truth ending his coward behavior, unlike some other politicians. I really don’t think he should be impeached becuase it wouldn’t fit with actions taken in similar cases, it should be up to him to resign or if he chooses to stay he’ll have to deal with more than a stimulus package, he’s going to have to deal with his ethic and moral principles.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:28 amJohnM, you are fond of claiming that others are “not very bright”.
You fail to realize that since your credibility is near zero, this assessment does nothing to bolster your arguments.
You also failed to note that I acknowledged that my earlier claim that Judge Wright ruled on perjury was mistaken. Perhaps you failed to note this on purpose, because it gives you dubious leave to continue criticizing that claim, or perhaps you simply suffer from poor reading comprehension. Either way, your utter lack of both graciousness and honesty come shining through once again. The funny thing is, when you say,
you expose your own… what should we call it? Lies? Nah, let’s be more charitable than you are capable of being and say it’s a mistake. Because you obviously missed it when I recognized my mistaken claim above — otherwise you wouldn’t keep pretending that I “lied” about my claim. And you certainly wouldn’t claim that I was unable to admit it.
Because that would essentially mean that YOU have been pwned. But rather than make a bold, self-aggrandizing claim to that effect, I’ll leave that judgment to other observers of this exchange.
But as for your original, elaborate web of distraction you spent most of yesterday afternoon building…
All you have to back up your accusation of perjury is your own interpretation of the testimony and the cases. You have no court ruling in the affirmative, no conviction, nothing but your own spin and paranoia.
In interpreting President Clinton’s testimony the way you do, you are forced to ignore the critical requirement that such false testimony be material to a proceeding in order to be considered perjury, and you are forced to ignore it time and time again as it’s been presented to you over and over. This sloppiness, again, may be intentional or it may be simply a reflection of what passes for your intellectual activity.
Your cherry-picked quotes from Judge Wright say nothing about the false statements being material, simply that they were false. So to recap: in the statements you pulled, you read things that aren’t there, yet in the statements I pulled, you fail to read things that ARE there.
Interesting type of selective reading comprehension you exhibit there, JohnM.
But nice try at revisiting the thread the next day to try to get in the last word.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:02 pmYou keep clinging to the testimony not being material, but the problem is that was never stated by the judge. Whatever relevance such evidence may have to prove other elements of plaintiff’s case, it does not have anything to do with the issues presented by the President’s and Ferguson’s motions for summary judgment. What you think is the proof you are looking for is only the fact that she stated it was not relevant to the summary judgement (whether or not it would go to jury).
The judge showd that she clearly felt that it was material because she sent the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Your inablility to grasp this borders on delusion.
She did not say it was not material, she said that Jones did not provide enough evidence to prove her own case so it would not go to a jury. The Lewinski information was material to the Paula Jones case. The only reason Clinton never had to go to court on this was becuase we plead to a lesser charge and agreed to surrender his ability to practice law.
By the way your, I was mistaken claim I guess that can be considered an acceptable admission of lying.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:49 pmI get it, JohnM; you’re just gonna keep saying the same thing, over and over and over and over, regardless of the evidence anyone else brings to your attention.. Nothing will ever penetrate the shield you’ve built around your cherished beliefs, and because they’re so delusional, no one outside of your head will ever see the sense in them that you apparently see.
For instance, you insist that a judge’s explicit order — worded the way you demand — would be required for you to accept that the Lewinsky testimony was immaterial to the Paula Jones case (despite that being the almost universal interpretation of the Summary judgment) yet no such explicit pronouncement is required for you to decide that the testimony amounted to perjury, despite a complete lack of judicial statements to that effect.
So I get it. You see what you want to see, and you’re comfortable picking and choosing which standards of proof apply, and when, in order to rationalize them.
If that was the point you were trying to make, congrats. you made it.
Oh, and…
No, you stupid prick. A lie is a knowing falsehood. A mistaken understanding is not the same thing. To try to conflate the two concepts is to demonstrate further your disingenuous approach to what you term “debate”.
Let’s see… JohnM is not only fully bead-welded to his beliefs, however deluded they may be, he’s also dishonest and prone to moral relativism.
Great all-around package there.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:09 pmIt has become sadly clear that you are unwilling to accept the facts of this. Evidence means nothing to you as you can even understand the quotes you post yourself. The judge never said that the Lewinski questioning was not material to the Jones case, she simply said that it was not material to deciding whether or not the case would go to jury.
You were caught in a lie and you tried to backpeddle your way out of it, but we both know that you were trying to win an argument that you thought I would not call you on. When I did you played that you were mistaken, how convenient.
Bottom line, your boy lied under oath and you continue to defend those lies trying to find technicalities. You can try and argue it was not material all you want, but Clinton decided to plea out of the charges so it would not go to trial. He would not have done this innocence were on his side. Since the judge referred it to the Arkansas Supreme Court she obviously felt that he should be tried for perjury.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pmThank you for responding with a serious and well thought out post. You make a valid observation that since my views on Gay marriage would suit a fundamentalist Christian that doesn’t necessarily make me a fundamentalist Christian. My support for domestic partner benefits, hate crime legislation and stricter gun laws doesn’t necessarily make me a Progressive. So taking the precise stance on an issue as another group doesn’t necessarily make you a proponent of that group.
I use the term “institution” simply as a common usage. I had no hidden meaning. If you remove institution from my original post and just use the word marriage my post still has my original intent. If “institution” is used as a code word by certain groups I have no knowledge of it.
I think you are getting pretty far afield from the Gay marriage argument by using traditions from other countries that are not related to marriage. But since you brought it up: traditions develop because a society determines that a particular practice or value is the correct way of doing things. We may, and in the cases you cite, do look at some traditions around the world with abhorrence. But are you seriously trying to equate female castration to laws against Gay marriage? No, you are saying some traditions are horrible so we can’t rely on tradition as a supporting argument. I have never heard anyone say, ” You can’t have a traditional best man or matron of honor at a wedding because women are castrated in Africa”. Since this discussion involves Gay marriage in the United States why don’t we stick with traditions in this country?
You took my biological comment out of context. If I wanted to say marriage should only be for procreation I would have said so. My biological reference was to the fact that marriages are, in the main, a method for heterosexual couples to have children in a family environment sanctioned by religious and or Government entity. I have absolutely no problem with heterosexual couples getting married and having no intent to have children. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain that.
You say, “Morals are NOT something that are accepted as absolutes. Cultures have differing morals, and all the sub-cultures within any culture follow different morals.” I couldn’t agree more. Why then are those who morally disagree with Gay marriage attacked as bigots and compared to antisemitism and racists? As long as my religious beliefs don’t violate the law then of course they can be non-bigotry, non-racists, etc. You make an crucial error in your morality argument, however. Morality is not the sole property of Religion. Unless of course you believe an atheist can not be moral. Your assumption that a moral belief is a religious belief is overly broad.
Now let me ask you a few questions. Is it your belief that the Government should never pass a law against some people marrying each other? Is the law against polygamy bigoted? Is it akin to antisemitism? Should a mother and adult son, who cannot biologically have children, be allowed to marry? I am extremely interested in your answer to these questions.
Thank you again for providing a serious response to my post. I hope you take mine in the same light.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:54 pmJOhnM says::
More of the same.
Thanks, JohnM. Tell us again how you are right and everyone else is ignorant, stupid and uneducated.
And again and again.
I think you’ve got a winning argument there, so keep flogging it.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:01 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JOhnM says::
More of the same.
Thanks, JohnM. Tell us again how you are right and everyone else is ignorant, stupid and uneducated.
And again and again.
I think you’ve got a winning argument there, so keep flogging it.
You do realize you are doing the same thing don’t you? The only problem is you don’t have facts or any rational argument on your side.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pmNo, JohnM, I have offered you the facts of the cases, the statements of the judge, and legal opinions from qualified authorities, while all you have offered is your own spin and copious personal insults.
The only reason you don’t see facts or rational argument on my side is because you are incapable of recognizing it.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
No, JohnM, I have offered you the facts of the cases, the statements of the judge, and legal opinions from qualified authorities, while all you have offered is your own spin and copious personal insults.
The only reason you don’t see facts or rational argument on my side is because you are incapable of recognizing it.
You have not offered any facts. I on the other hand have shown where the judge said he knowingly lied and have shown where the judge said that his testimony was relevant to the case (just not in deciding whether or not it goes to jury). I have also shown where the judge elevated it to the Arkansas Supreme Court. There is no spin there. He was facing perjury charges, but decided to plea. You really have nothing left to stand on as each of your points have been debunked.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pm