Starr’s brief, pal. A political document. Not the same as fact.
But those who know the truth, and don’t need facts, will believe it anyway. People such as yourself, that is.
Now, do what you’re told and look up the meaning of “consensual”. Then explain to us your understanding of it significance.
bolding mine.
Bolding yours, and dodging the fucking point yours too, jackass. The point of my post was to compare the sexual aspects of the two cases. I’m going to assume that you were too stupid to understand that, because if you did understand it then that would mean that you deliberately distorted the portion of my post you did quote in order to avoid addressing the actual substantive portion of it. I’d rather think you were stupid than dishonest.
California Penal Code section 234.4 (e)
So, no, based on the descriptions of the alleged victims, I don’t think “sexual battery” is overstating the case at all.
Do what Im told? Youre a funny man.
The consensual part of the problem only lasted for five minutes or so. He had to drag the thing out for several months because he was afraid to admit to it. If it was such a harmless act then why the major cover-up?
This is what Clinton was prepared to do to prevent the impeachment hearings.
Otto relax, if anyone wanted to read your entire post they could have done so. I attacked the portion of your post that I felt was stupid.
Usually when someone feels an argument doesn`t hold water, they resort to anger and emotionalism and name calling rather than a level-headed discussion. I realize this is the pit, but try to contain yourself.
Otto, then place the word misdemeanor in front of the phrase from now on. So we don`t think you intend to mean a Criminal act, like Purjury.
A very appropriate user name you have, there, whuckfistle/ Why the major cover-up, you ask? Well, why the major investigation? Answer that, and the answer to the first will become obvious.
Perhaps I can save you some time - it was the latest round of a Get Him For Something campaign. He had no obligation to help it.
But to your other “point”, where was the nonconsensual activity? Where was the assault, and on what facts (not paid allegations) is it based? What crime was committed, and how do we know? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you on that, though.
Um, no, what you did was ignore the part of the post which dealt with the direct comparison between Arnold and Clinton. The thread’s about why Clinton’s sexual misconduct was treated by Republicans so much more seriously than Arnold’s sexual misconduct. Since the right-wing apologists have been squawking in unison “CLinton lied under oath” and since Clinton’s lying under oath is not the topic of this thread, I posted a comparison of the conduct of the two minus the “lying under oath” part since his lying under oath is not germane to a discussion of a comparison of the sexual misconduct of the two men.
And sometimes, when one’s argument is completely sound and some jackass distorts and ignores it for his own purposes, said distorting person is rightfully tagged a jackass.
In other words, whuck off.
Perjury.
And last I heard, misdemeanors were criminal acts.
Naw man, it’s more of a “whatever sticks” attitude. If someone kills 47 people and they are able to get him on one murder that they can prove, it’s good enough. If they couldn’t bust Al Capone for being a gangster but were able to put him away on tax evasion, it was good enough. If Clinton lying under oath was able to get him impeached, that’s good enough. When there are lots of crimes (at least in the minds of people) any one that gets justice is…good enough. 
The only reason partisan Democrats are trashing “der gropenfuhrer”, because he ran as a Republican.
There’s absolutely nothing in AS’s declared agenda that Dems can possibly be against: he is pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-environment, pro-you-name-it and pro-fiscal-responsibility, as every politician is going to be in post-Davis US, at least for the time being.
Q. How many of AS-bashing Dems will shut up like clams if he were to switch to DNC tomorrow?
A. 100%
Q. How many will start hailing him to the skies the day after tomorrow, if he were to do that?
A. 100%
Arnold is not pro-gay. He is tolerant at best, but calling him pro is a stretch.
Esprix
Otto, sorry, I got carried away. I forgot that the topic was strictly relating to the sexual allegations, and not the post drama that ensued. Forgive me for going over the top. I`ll watch myself.
If the topic is strictly the acts themselves, and not how the men handled the aftermath, then Arnold may have been the worse of the two. However the extenuating circs. and the atmosphere which the men engaged in the sexual wrongdoings must be taken into account here. If Arnolds acts were truely in the party atmosphere and in plain view of others and mixed in with other playful banter then it becomes harder to say this. Clinton was more direct, probably, in his ways- and who really knows what went on behnd those doors. Well never know who was the worse offender, we can only speculate. I do think, however, that we can judge the men by how they handled the aftermath. That is the point I was chasing earlier. Sorry I got you all flustered.
Isnt that all we can ask for? When it comes to these fringe issues, isnt tolerance what those in favor of the cause are looking for?
Actually I was hoping for equality. Am I allowed for that, or do I have to sit at the back of the bus?
Esprix
So, is he going to talk about it now, as he said he would during the election?
I’m waiting here.
Still waiting.:rolleyes:
Personally I like how Arnold has called upon Davis not to exercise his constitutionally-appointed duties for the remainder of his administration.
Congratulations California. Your incoming chief executive doesn’t understand how a bill becomes a law. Will somebody be getting Schoolhouse Rock DVDs for Christmas?
Im thinking tolerance leads to equality. You cant put the cart in front of the horse. It`ll happen in due time.
Gotta love the equal treatment of millions of people being dismissed as a “fringe issue”…
Really? Could you let me know when? I’ve been waiting for some time now, and I never realized there was a timeline for equal protection under the law. You think I might be able to get that before I die?
“Now sit down, you uppity negro, and maybe if you toe the line someday you might be able to sit in the next to last back seat of the bus.” :rolleyes:
Esprix
Otto, it is a fringe issue. When a small minority of the people are affected by it and when politicians dont run on it then I consider it a fringe issue. Not that it isnt an important issue, I never said that.
Esprix, Im not trying to debate wether or not you should have more rights as a gay person, Im just being honest about the nature at which these things evolve. To you it might seem like forever. You have to change the mindset of millions of people. To those millions, it may seem like a sudden change - one that came about rather recently at that.
One of my best friends is a lesbian. Ive worked with her for two years now. I accept her lifestyle, but I wouldnt say that I am Pro-Gay (as a straight person, Im not sure what that would mean). Im indifferent. If everyone had the same feelings as me there wouldnt be any pressure on the gay community. If youre looking for everyone to be Pro-Gay, then I think the bar is set too high. I`m willing to discuss this further if you think that one of us needs to clarify our thougts more.
Hope that helps.