WMDs the final word?

[Utah]

If anything that a Prez does in private is actually a public affair, do you think that (this is a serious question) a President of the United States should engage, for example, in an act of sodomy, under any circumstances?

Depends if she's cute (or "he" for the culturally sensitive)

Although I have no problem with sodomy, he should not do it simply because of the potential adverse effects on the nation (simply put - if found out it would raise a s#$%t storm)- whether those effects are borne out of ignorance or other factors is besides the point. Also, please don't construe my "morality clause" to mean anything to do with morality (which I dont believe in) - its just what they are called.

Lets take away the loaded issues relating to sex. Lets say the president, in his free time, was penning a book called "Why I hate blacks". The book was private and it was somehow stolen from his bedroom. Do you think that these same people who said the sex was a private act would say the same thing about the book, since it was legal, private, and done on his own time? Further, lets say there was no evidence in his public life of this bigotry.

The public/private line is difficult to draw and to be honest, I am not sure of the exact answer. However, I think the overriding principle is that it rests in the public domain if it has the potential to effect the nation. I think his health exams are a good example. Ones health is about a private an issue as you can come by. However, the results of the president's exam are public at a high level (e.g., "The president is in good health". The president needs surgery").

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Perjury is defined as lying under oath about a topic germane to the investigation. The Lewinsky line of questioning was ultimately deemed to not be germane. Therefore, Clinton did not commit perjury.

Just because they put you on the stand and swear you in does not mean they can ask any damn thing they want.

Also, despite my dislike for Clinton, IMO the Supreme Court erred in its decision to allow a sitting President to be tried on a civil matter that occurred before his election.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The obvious answer is that his character and his actions, whether in public or private, do matter.

It does matter, and every 4 years we have the opportunity to act on how those character issues impact the ability to govern.

In the Clinton instance, the constitutional process was followed. He was legitimately impeached by the House, and legitimately acquitted by the Senate. The liberals don't like the first part, the conservatives don't like the last part. Tough. The process was followed, the result is the result. Get over it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If two people start falling in love on the job or campus it would be absurd and wrong to say they can't fall in love or pursue their mutual interest while in that setting.

Whoah. An employer certainly *does* have the right to tell you to not pursue that interest on his time. While you're at work, it's on your employer's time, not your private time.

Hey I knew a restaurant manager who got fired for doing exactly what Bill & Monica did in his office. Doing that at work is conduct unacceptable in a restaurant manager. Are you honestly suggesting that the President of the United States not be held to at least the same standard of workplace behavior as a restaurant manager?

I'll be clear. I think the Paula Jones suit never should have happened during his presidency, I think the Lewinsky line of questioning was flat out wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that his behavior was actionable by his employer (aka We The People).

[MMMMMM]

M: "If two people start falling in love on the job or campus it would be absurd and wrong to say they can't fall in love or pursue their mutual interest while in that setting."

Kurn: "Whoah. An employer certainly *does* have the right to tell you to not pursue that interest on his time. While you're at work, it's on your employer's time, not your private time."

Sorry, but I think you may have misinterpreted my statement.

I wrote "while in that setting", not "while on the employer's time[/i]".

In other words they should have every right to hold conversations (and maybe fall in love) while on coffee break or during lunch hour, for instance. If they date outside of office hours it should not be the employer's concern, more especially the employer should not be making rules forbidding this. That's my dyed-in-the-wool-individual-rights-non-interference perspective [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

That's my dyed-in-the-wool-individual-rights-non-interference perspective

I agree, with the caveat that the business owner is free to set his own standards, and being in a relationship with a co-worker magnifies the possibility of personal issues impacting work.

However, Bill & Monica were doing it in his office while he was conducting government business. Had they gone across the street to a hotel, this would not have been an issue.

[Taxman]

Yes that is a lie because I'm pretty sure he has outright admited (sorry I can't remember a specific source) infidelity in the past. Clinton was one of the most intelligent presidents we've had but sometimes he could be a real idiot.

[elwoodblues]

I think you're slightly changing the definition of perjury. Perjury is, while under oath, giving any false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry. The test for whether something is "material to the issue or matter of inquiry" is whether the perjured testimony could have influenced the tribunal.