[Vision2020] Re: The issue was FELONY PERJURY with Clinton, not sex, got it?

[Chasuk]

On 3/22/06, ToeKneeTime at aol.com <ToeKneeTime at aol.com> wrote:

> The next time you tour Europe, why don't you try hanging out with some folks
> who know the difference between right and wrong?

Clinton was unwise to have gotten head in the Oval Office, although I
doubt he was the first.  However, his real lack of judgement was in
allowing the self-righteous to hound him about it.  He should have
said: "Any infidelities are between myself and Hilary.  All of the
rest of you voyeurs will just to wait for the Kitty Kelly expose."

The question should never have been asked.  It was within Clinton's
rights to lie about it, though if he was going to lie, he should have
done a better job of colluding with Monica, and just kept on lying. 
Me, I wouldn't have lied.  I would have just told the collective
population (all with their cocks in their hands, wishing that they'd
boinked Monica) to go fuck themselves.

Joan's European friends do know the difference between right and
wrong; they just understand that lying about fellatio don't quite rate
on the same scale as Bush's rather larger and more serious lies.

If Bush plays his cards right, he might be known as the President
responsible for pitching us into a new Crusades... while Clinton will
be known as the president who got his dick sucked.  I know which I'd
rather be known for, but apparently you don't.