ElvisL1ves: I am in awe...

[Liberal]

…of your stupidity and depravity.

In this post, you said:

And it still amazes me how few people who so indignantly proclaim “He lied under oath!” can explain just what the lie was.

In this post, I explained to you what the lie was:

He lied about whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

You perhaps assumed that I had misread you. You posted this:

Lib, read a little more closely.

‘Hmm… I must have misunderstood you’, I thought. And so I looked at your post again. No matter how many times I read it, I came away with you saying that few people can explain what Clinton’s lie was. […shrug…] But I did indeed explain what Clinton’s lie was, so I figured, ‘Well, maybe he misunderstood me.’ So, I posted this:

[…reading carefully…]

Okay, my response:

He lied about whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Not content with the depth of the hole you had already dug for yourself, you posted this:

Lib, read the transcript and point out the lie. Or did you just swallow that particular meme whole, without examination? That’s not what we’re about here, d00d.

Once again, I indulged you your request. I posted a link to the text from the court document, and quoted a pertinent portion:

On two separate occasions, this Court ruled in clear and reasonably specific terms that plaintiff was entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3; Pres. Depo. at 53-55, time frame stat 66, 78.(13) Notwithstanding these Orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. The President acknowledged as much in his public admission that he “misled people” because, among other things, the questions posed to him “were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed.” Although there are a number of aspects of the President’s conduct in this case that might be characterized as contemptuous, the Court addresses at this time only those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this Court’s discovery Orders and which do not require a hearing, namely the President’s sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky

This was your opportunity to do the honorable thing, and admit your error. But you chose to miss that boat. You posted this:

Lib, you’re quoting someone else’s opinion, even if she’s a judge. You’re not stating the facts. We have a higher standard here, even in the Pit. Now, what lie did he tell under oath? Chapter and verse, please. And the judge won’t help; she didn’t either. Note, too, that the statement you’re quoting came well after the impeachment farce, when the meme you’ve swallowed had already made its rounds.

You asked what the lie was. I told you. You dodged the answer. I told you again. You demanded proof. I gave it to you. You then disgraced not only yourself, but the whole board by projecting your completely worthless “standards” upon it.

Now, for the rant…

If ever before I had any shred of doubt, I now know for a certainty that you are a hopeless moron, a consumate jackass, and an intellectual fraud.

I’m not going to bother explaining why you’re so stupid. Anyone who actually reads the transcript can see that plainly enough, and explanations are wasted on you besides.

I just thought that one of the board’s most striking examples, in all of its history, of blatant dishonesty and incorrigible ignorance — namely, the aggregate of your responses to me — deserved to be encapsulated and archived.

That is all.

[jjimm]

It depends what the meaning of “is” is.

[Lilairen]

And the meaning of “sex”.

[slortar]

Reminds me of that Daily Show sketch where…Mo Rocca, I believe?..was interviewing someone and finally told him “If you’re so innocent, why don’t…you…just…admit…you’re guilty?” Or something along those lines.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Lilairen *
**And the meaning of “sex”. **

Yeah, the judge had a conniption over that one!

She summed it up this way:

Simply put, the President’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term “sexual relations”

[ElvisL1ves]

Yep, it’s another Libertarian meltdown, right on schedule.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**Yep, it’s another Libertarian meltdown, right on schedule. **

Thanks for adding one more shit pellet to the archive.

[Hamlet]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Thanks for adding one more shit pellet to the archive. **

If this and the other thread are any indication, there must be a fucking mountain of his shit.

[Jodi]

He right ELVIS, and you’re wrong. But I love the part about having a higher standard of proof “here” than they do in the federal courts.

I’m curious: What is our standard of proof here at the SDMB? Because the judge, far more familiar with the details of the case than anyone here is likely to be, held that there was “clear and convincing evidence” – that’s the standard of proof – that Mr. Clinton gave false answers intended to obstruct justice, which is to say he intentionally answered falsely, which is to say he lied.

Are you looking for more specific citation to what he actually said – that is, where and what the lie really was? Because those specific citations are given in the Court’s order, which LIB cited to and which I’ll also link to here. The Court explains:

At his deposition, the President was questioned extensively about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky . . . .[T]he President testified in response to questioning from plaintiff’s counsel and his own attorney that he had no recollection of having ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky and he denied that he had engaged in an “extramarital sexual affair,” in “sexual relations,” or in a “sexual relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky. Id. [Pres. Depo.] at 52-53, 56-59, 78, 204.

In other words the “lying” parts are on page 52-53, page 56-59, page 78, and page 204 of Mr. Clinton’s deposition. The Court further explains:

On August 17, 1998 . . . the President discussed the matter in a televised address to the Nation. In his address, the President stated that although his answers at his January 17th deposition were “legally accurate,” he did not volunteer information and that he did indeed have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was inappropriate and wrong. See Pres. Addr., 1998 WL 14394084. The President acknowledged misleading people . . . . It was during the President’s televised address that the Court first learned the President may be in contempt.

That citation is to the transcript of Mr. Clinton’s televised address and reads like this: 1998 is the year, “WL” means WestLaw, 14394084 is the document number.

His contention that his anwers were “legally accurate” is laughable; a factual question calls for a factual answer, and in that context there’s no such thing as an answer that is both factually inaccurate and “legally accurate.” In sum: in a sworn deposition, under oath, in a federal court proceeding, he denies he’s had sexual relations with Monica Lewinisky. In a televised address, he admits to the nation he’s had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Importantly, since he made that address, he has never again denied that he had a sexual relation with her.

You have a transcript of him saying one thing on one occasion. You have a transcript of him saying the opposite on another occasion. What more proof do you need? What more proof could you possibly want?

I couldn’t give a shit about Bill Clinton or the apparently endless debate about whether the legal and political maneuverings against him were proper. I do care about lying under oath. Regardless of whether you think he’s a genius or a sinner, or believe he should be admired or reviled, there really is no reasonable argument to be made that he didn’t lie under oath. You might argue that it wasn’t important; you might argue that he did it because the questions were inappropriate and intrusive; but you simply cannot argue that he didn’t do it.

[hawthorne]

those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this Court’s discovery Orders

This is obviously pretty thin stuff. I mean, what about an unreasonable person in a silly hat?

[Sauron]

ElvisL1ves: I am well and truly amazed that you’d try to fight this particular battle. As Jodi has so eloquently pointed out, even Clinton acknowledged that he didn’t tell the truth in his testimony.

[Beagle]

Clinton started lying when he said that he understood and intended to comply with the oath of affirmation that he took when he put his hand on the Bible. It went downhill from there. Why he went there at all, much less with the intent to obfuscate, I’ll never know.

That’s what happens when you start believing your own lies, I think.

[Binarydrone]

In the name of all things good and pure, what is it going to take for us to stop hearing about how Clinton was a baby eating antichrist because he got his cock sucked and then lied about it!? What do you fucking Republicans want from us?

How about this; I will hunt the man down, chop off his penis and then attach it to my forehead with a nail gun. You guys can then burn me at the stake, and then grind the ashes under your fucking jackboots. I will do this for Liberals everywhere if you guys will
Shut the fuck up about it already!NOW!

[Binarydrone]

In the name of all things good and pure, what is it going to take for us to stop hearing about how Clinton was a baby eating antichrist because he got his cock sucked and then lied about it!? What do you fucking Republicans want from us?

How about this; I will hunt the man down, chop off his penis and then attach it to my forehead with a nail gun. You guys can then burn me at the stake, and then grind the ashes under your fucking jackboots. I will do this for Liberals everywhere if you guys will
Shut the fuck up about it already!NOW!

[lucwarm]

For what it’s worth, I’ve tangled with a lot of different posters here, including december, collounsbury, sam stone, minty green and many others.

Elvisl1ves is by far the most dishonest, deliberately ignorant poster I’ve seen here. It’s not even close. He’s the king of strawmen; the ayatollah of evasion; the prime minister of prevarication; the czar of weaseling; the CEO of misrepresenting his opponents’ positions; and the emporer of wilful ignorance.

As someone else pointed out, he makes James Carville seem like a reasonable guy.

[Cheesesteak]

Binarydrone, the issue is not whether he got a bj, the issue is that he lied under oath. The man, who is supposed to be the leader of this country, decided that the laws of this country didn’t apply to him because it would be embarassing. The questions were completely legal, and he had sworn an oath to truthfully answer the questions he was asked, and he broke his oath.

BJ’s are nothing. Lying in a press conference is BAU. Lying under oath violates the sanctity of our legal system.

[Max_Carnage]

Binary, this wasn’t a thread about whether or not Clinton lied, but why ElvisL1ves can’t believe the fact that he did. Calm down a bit, bud. Not all of us Republicans are out to get Clinton. Some of us think it’s a dead horse.

[Liberal]

Quite frankly, Elvis’s sort of dishonesty and fraud is far worse than another topic of much recent discussion — bigotry. An honest bigot can be debated fairly in a public venue. But a lying weasel like ElvisL1ves makes any and all genuine debate impossible.

If anything should be a bannable offense at Straight Dope, it is willful and deliberate spreading of ignorance.

[Binarydrone]

*Originally posted by Max Carnage *
**Binary, this wasn’t a thread about whether or not Clinton lied, but why ElvisL1ves can’t believe the fact that he did. Calm down a bit, bud. Not all of us Republicans are out to get Clinton. Some of us think it’s a dead horse. **

I get that, and in a lot of ways my post was intended as a joke. However, behind that joke is a pretty serious issue. While I am glad to hear that you think the issue is a moot one, I don’t think that I would be wrong in stating that many of your brethren do not.

And, see, here is why this particular issue is upsetting to me. It still seems to be making people on both sides of the spectrum behave like idiots. On my side of the aisle, you have otherwise smart folk that are taking logically ridiculous positions because they feel that they have to defend Clinton (for whatever reason). On yours, from my point of view, you have folks that, even though their side is in charge and setting the addenda, seem as if they will be content with nothing short of grinding their opposition in to dust.

The whole thing just makes me sad. Our country is sharply divided and no one seems to be willing to suck it up and extend to olive branch. So I shout a little and double post.

[Liberal]

For the record, I think the issue of Clinton’s lies is a dead horse. Always have. Politicians lie. It’s what politicians do. Bush lies also. I was just answering Elvis’s question about what the lie was.