Sulaco

He was under the same legal obligations as court though. In the sense that he was under oath - yes. But the people questioning him had far fewer limits on what they could ask. Outside of trials far more evidence is admissible. For example hearsay is pretty much completely asmissible in criminal preliminary hearings, or revocations of probation. Grand juries can review enormous amounts of trial inadmissible evidence to determine whether indictments can be filed.

Previous sexual history is not used in other cases. I still don't know why they didn't just base the case on the allegations made and whether there was evidence it took place. It really is intrusive and amounts to a fishing expedition which few people go untouched by. Your are not completely correc t. While evidence of past acts has very limitted use in trial it can still come in for impeachment purposes and other reasons. It cannot be used to show predispositions. However ourtside of trials evidence rules are very much relaxed. In a deposition for instance the only protection a person who is answering questions has has to do with his privileges - doctor, attorney, 5th AMendment. He pretty much has to answer everything else. What is admissible is sorted out only later.

But not in the District of Columbia. It still begs the question of whether asking any President or member of Congress whether they are having an affair under oath is anyone's business. Obviously that depends on context - no?

True, he lied under oath. Are you saying that if he told the truth that he should have been left alone because he acted human? He wouldn't have been impeached. He would have been accused of acting immorally. By Republicans. I don't think any Republican would argue Vitter was acting morally however. What exactly was the point in bringing Clinton up anyway. Seems to be a very uninteresting deflection.

But I have.

Well no one is attacking Vitter's wife or his children. Ok wait... I get it... you are trying to change the topic of this thread by posting inane one-liner troll-bait.

His linguistic theories are very interesting and are only now slowly coming under fire - it will be interesting to see what happens in the near future as the Chomsky consensus begins being challanged. He has certainly made great contributions to his field of expertise. I assume that is what you recommend I read. Because the rest of his writings are on par with Deepak Chopra's spiritualist musings.

Adultery is an atrocity?

His crime was not answering questions about the relationship. The affair itself was not a crime. He didn't refuse to answer questions. Rather, he lied under oath. And that is what he was impeached for. Not for having an extra-marital relationship - as you imply.

Hiring a male prostitute is relevant... why? Was that an attempt at some homophobic remark? Having lived a less than perfect life does not disqualify anyone from anything, IMO. St. Augustine lead a life of debauchery, drinking, prostitution, fornication, yet is one of the most revered of all saints. Why? Because he genuinely walked away from his life of sin, but he never claimed to be what he wasn't. Vitter frequented hookers and cheated on his wife while claiming to be a paragon of virtue. In addition, he tried to burnish his own image by casting others as threats to the very institution he, himself, was trashing. You can keep making apologies for him, but it won't make him any less of a hypocrite. I am not making apologies for him. I am making apologies for hypocrites everywhere. Hypocrisy is usually a sign of a normative world view on matters susbtantial, combined with a desire to impart that worldview, sullied by human falliability. We can disagree on morality but in my humble opinion hypocrisy is but the smallest of sins. Find me a person who's not a hypocrite and I will be worried. He'll be inhuman or amoral. Now please substantiate - did Vitter claim he was a "paragon of virtue"? And in what way did he "trash" the institution of marriage? How does he cheating on hiswife, confessing to her, and her forgiving his past transgrassions (arguably consistently with her vows) undermine the institution. As far as I know they are raising children. So on so forth. Your arguement is silly. I know what you're reselling - homosexual marriage does not undermine the institution, heterosexual misbehavior does. That arguement does not stand up to scrutiny. Though I tend to agree that no-fault divorce has made the vows meaningless in law and perhaps thus less meaningful in society.

I wonder why the Republicans went after Clinton on his affair. There were no prostitutes involved at all. Clinton didn't have to pay for his women. Because he comitted a crime while sitting as POTUS.

My issue with this is that the article takes up the paradigm of those who argue for highly liberal imigration policies. It reduces humans into economic units and plays a utilitarian game with them. That might be intended to undermine the stanadrd arguments within the paradigm but to me it seems overly reductionist.

Au contraire, Pierre. I firmly believe in the strength of family and there absolutely need to be paths, regardless of the fact that people sometimes stray. In the case of Vitter, the man was an insulting homophobe and a hypocrite who campaigned on a platform that positioned him as someone who embodied traditional values -- meanwhile, he's being unfaithful to his wife (a moral shortcoming) and paying hookers (a crime last time I checked). When someone like that puts himself out there as a powerful symbol and is shown to be the exact opposite of what he claims to be, he's a hypocrite. Do you think the man is not a hypocrite? As far as we know he did not hire male prostitutes. If straying disqualifies one from propounding the path one strays on who teaches the path. if ghandi shouted at his retainers - and he did - does that mean he was no longer qualified to preach the twaddle path he did?

Really - has he? And then I repeat the above with "family values" inserted for marriage. Let's admit it - neither of you have a strong attachment to either concept or its aspirational nature. Rather, this is the standard "hypocrisy" stick that permits you to bash that which you don't really believe. Human's stray therfore there should not be paths. That kind of deal. Right?

Really - has he? Because for centuries before men were getting caught cheating on their wives but the institution of marraige did pretty well for itself. Now this one man has done that much damage to it? Amazing.

You and millions more. I get it all the time. What blows my mind is how many people think my assertions are laughable. You must be proud. Strange where people find pride.

One small difference... Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services. Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion. But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible. Except that is incorrect. Same claims could have been made about banning DDTs. Since no bombs will be involved now will die. And yet what Gore is calling for will have undeniable consequences for the world's economic systems. These consequences are liekly to be engative and drastic. Have you reviewed all the possible consequences of the GW alarmists' plans? Even if today we stopped ALL burning of fossil fuels on Earth, it would take a century to stop the changes now coming. We're doomed. Stick that in your economic theories. And so then - why change anything. I ask this seriously. What you are saying is that if our civilization collapsed compeltely today the world would still warm. Given that isn't it more important at this point to continue expanding wealth in order to have resources to battle consequences that are coming no matter what. Another way to look at what you say is that what humans do has very little effect on climate. A claim that is made by us "insane denialist". Whether the world is warming is irrelevant to deciding whether we cut emissions if cutting emissions will do nothing to stop "The Warming".

One small difference... Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services. Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion. But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible. Except that is incorrect. Same claims could have been made about banning DDTs. Since no bombs will be involved now will die. And yet what Gore is calling for will have undeniable consequences for the world's economic systems. These consequences are liekly to be engative and drastic. Have you reviewed all the possible consequences of the GW alarmists' plans?

Why would you say that? GB is the closest thing to the future dictated by Orwell in 1984 and it has been under labour rule. please do explain. The OP was a critique of the left - accusing the left of being 'Orwellian' regarding environmentalism. Thus, it is a 'rightwing' critique and thus, my amusement, given that it is the rightwing that has such a long history of actualy acting Orwellian. The right wing acting Orweillian? Why is it that left wing countries have governments that creep further into individual lives than do right wing governments? I think your pre-conceived notion of the right wing being closer to orwellian needs to be re-examined. Ask a libertarian. What is really going to blow your mind is that the 'left' and the 'right' in the government are the same. Both sides play the rest of the population for fools. And what is really going to blow your mind is that I find your assertion to be laughable.

I am a libertarian. The only difference between my view of libertarianism and that of US libertarianism is that I believe in liberty for individuals is a goal in itself. US libertarians generally believe in liberty for capital, and only incidentially support liberty for individuals - though only when it doesn't conflict with liberty for capital. Btw, the term 'Orwellian' is all about reversing the meanings of words to convey opposite meanings to what the words themselves mean. It has NOTHING to do with authoritarianism itself. Many can be authoritarian without being Orwellian. Indeed, many can be Orwellian without being authoritarian (though this is likely to be rare). Umm no... usually one would use the term "doublespeak" for what you describe. Orwellian is pretty much a word for "totalitarian" with additional connotations of a highly surveiled society. Since you decided to throw "right-wing" about as a term applicable here dare I point out that Orwell's model for his society was the Soviet Union. Many a proponent of left wing ideologies has walked down the path of totalitarianism. Your understanding of American Libertarianism is also sorely lacking. I've had the misfortune, recently while in NY, of picking up a libertarian weekly pamphlet. The topics? A defense of the right of children to exhibit themselves through pornographic images, the standard railing against the war on drugs, a badly written polemic about Big Brother - aka - the American government. Oh - and an anti-anti-smoking article. Very little regarding freedom a capital. Although most libertarians in the US have the wherewithall to realize that property rights and the freedom to exercise them is fundamental to the libertarian programme and without that right few others can be exercised. Who is this pseudo-intellectual anyway?

No, I'd be calling the police to have you arrested. The alternative, the one you apparently propose is that I'm supposed to fight with some violent idiot on my doorstep. That of course would only land ME in jail. I'd prefer to put YOU in jail. It isn't. You seem to have a problem with "assuming". And apparently a problem with 'projecting' too! And that's the crux of the problme. Mad Michael believes there is a "policeman". Thus the negotiated treaties will be enforced by some policing body. And "unreasonable" (who defines reasonablness) demands will also be dealt by that very same body. Who is the policeman?

Don't be an idiot. Before and during the war there were supposed to be 100,000 - 200,000 civilians allegedly killed and planted in "mass graves." Almost a decade later, they have managed to uncover less than 1000, most of who turned out to be combatants buried in battlefield graves. Read Momo's article again, slowly, aware that there are a few holes in it. Do you see the words "civilian" anywhere in connection with the mass graves? How come no one talked about these piles of bodies behind every bush that we were supposed to find as soon as the war ended? What happened? 800 is about the harvest from a good week of Muslim atrocities in Iraq, or two weeks in Indonesia, but I didn't see Clinton bombing the Musselman, did you? Here's what we were all told to expect: Link Morris' link tells you what we found. Really, read up on things before you spout off. Hmm... Kosovo was a quick intervention. Bosnia was the pattern that the US picked to predict likely outcomes of further Serb intervention in a region where the native population was viewed as something less than the Serbs. As predictions go it wasn't very irrational. Certainly no less irrational than predictions that Saddam would continue kjilling thousands per year if he were to remain in power.

Or something even less sensational like regional stability? FRY had the potential to escalate ionto a wider regional european war drawing in nations like Albania and greece to the south and Hungary to the north. On top of that the refugee problem was critical. NATO or the UN should have drawn theline when FRY tried to invade Slovenia, they should have drawn the line after Croatia......that is their shame.....but that doesn't mean that failling to draw ther line that they never should have afterwards......as I said earlier.....Montenegro and Macedonia are still peaceful, mainly because of NATO and the UN. As always I agree. As always I miss the part were you reasonably distinguish intevention in the Balkans from intervention in Iraq.

Wrong century, wrong continent, wrong enemy, and it's quite likely it was never said. But nice try. The phrase was "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset," (kill them all. God will know his own) and it was supposedly, but not very likely, said by the Abbot of Citeaux during the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar heresy in Southern France. Oh, and today is 2007, btw. Yes and the old saying is the he who does not know and understand history will have to relive it. I did not bring up the subject of the 6th century terrorists. So like an American do you know the world history, it was always my favourite subject in school. I have heard that story but I also followed the history of the Crusades. Grade school? Junior High? When exactly was it your favorite subject. It may be true that he who does not know and understand history will have to relive it. It is also true that he who does know history will get to relive it - but he'll be bored.

Except one the chidren boasts to be the champion of liberty peace and democracy while having the biggest army on this planet. Well it would be a bit of an empty boast to be claim to be a champion of anything without having a big army. The little twerp in the schoolyard can claim to champion the cause of the underdog but in the end he will get a lot of nosebleeds unless he finds a reasonable, strong, protector. An anti-bully with a heavy fist.