http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/format/talk/article_display.jsp

Limbaugh's Loose Lips Lead To On-Air Apology
April 13, 2005
By Tony Sanders


Rush Limbaugh, in a fit of “unbridled passion,” used his self-described “pouty lips” to utter the words “blow jobs” on his April 12 show. The incident occurred during a diatribe about former Vice President Al Gore’s new cable TV network. Limbaugh was responding to a statement made by Gore that his new venture would "reflect the point of view of young people."

"What the hell is that, Al?" Limbaugh asked. "What the hell is the point of view of young people? Blow jobs, that's what they're doing out there. They're out there getting oral sex all day long, that's what they're talking about."

Limbaugh went on to blame former President Bill Clinton for making oral sex "the number one sport in high school today. " He also referred to Gore's venture as "a BJ network" and "the oral sex channel."

Later in his show Limbaugh apologized, sort of. "I am going to apologize not for saying what I said, but I'm going to apologize if it offended anybody," he said. "I never apologize for what I say, but if some of you were offended by a graphic term involving actions committed by Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, that have now spread to America’s high schools, I apologize."

"I meant to say 'oral sex' throughout," he went on to say, "but the guttural term escaped my pouty lips in a moment of pure, unbridled passion. The staff was so stunned and so scared today they didn't dare hit the delete button, the deedle button, and so it got out there. My reaction is, somebody go ahead and turn me into the FCC. I'll be honored to be fined. It's just another government agency with its hand in my back pocket, so go right ahead."

A spokeswoman at Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates Limbaugh's show, confirmed a transcript of Limbaugh's outburst but declined to make any other comments.

Al Gore and the people at the cable channel "Current" claim to be going after youth lifestyle material and not political.

What worries me is that current is bringing back David Neuman to head the endeavor---if Limbaugh only figured that out, he'd be frothing at the mouth about the NAMBLA scandals that brought down DEN....

Someone hooked on hillbilly heroin is rightly named "RUSH"

I call him Rush Limburger...like the cheese, he is yellow and smelly.
http://www.foodreference.com/html/flimburgercheese.html

How on earth would Rush know what a blow job is? Oh, I forget. He gives them.

I really can't stand people like Limbaugh who start arguments over what only an idiot would disagree with. I routinely kick people like that out of my house.

Don't peek under the robe: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is perfectly content to discuss his views on sodomy, but don't ask him about what he does with his wife.

A source who attended a Scalia speech at NYU the other night told Page Six: "The room was packed with some 300 students and there were many protesters outside because of Scalia's vitriolic dissent last year in the case that overturned the Texas law against gay sex ... One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy.

Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia [Maureen] was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."(Page Six) http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm

Mr Limbaugh is not my favorite radio personality. Whereas I believe in conservatism, he espouses Republicanism, which is quite different -- sometimes in opposition to my own positions.

However, I think it would be fair to point out that Mr. Limbaugh uses gutter language on the air on rare occasion, and is sorry for it afterwards. But many others would be in the gutter incessantly, and not be sorry at all. *cough*Howard Stern*cough*

Indecency should be fined, no matter who commits it. But let the most egregious offenders suffer the greatest levy. It is fine to fine Rush.

Any other approach would be hypocritical.

I fail to see why so many people who seem otherwise sane seem to be defending foul language. Our country developed for 200 years with various sanctions against indecency in media -- community standards, state and federal rules, and the voluntary censorship of major media -- radio, TV, and motion pictures. There were no important ill effects and there is no good reason not to return to those policies.

I believe there are more people than not who are fed up with filth. That is why you see support for regulation coming from both the left and the right. The desire for more polite and restrained media and entertainment coming into the home is not exclusive to the right wing. The support of prominent Democrats proves that.

Unless this has anything to do with the RIAA wanting to release a Rush Limbaugh Blow Job album, I don't see what this has to do with the mission here at hand.

In order for us to be taken seriously as an organization we have to insure that we remain on target.

Now I'm for a fun discussion about something like how Sheryl Crow F'd her old group, but at least that has something to do with this groups purpose.

So please, in order to be effective, we need to be better at slamming those we are really after and keep these sidebar discussions to a minimum.

Respectfully submitted

I think 'ole Rush Limpbaugh just has Clinton-envy!

Aw, c'mon, Robbin!! Lighten up!! Wait--you aren't a ... a ... Rushie, are you???? We all enjoy a good imbecile once in a very long while.

Aww.. for all we know these frothing at the mouth political commentators whether they be right or left are just like the WWF, all show just for the audience.

It sort of reminds me of that old warner brothers cartoon (Evil company but good cartoon) where Wil. E . Coyote and the sheepdog are battling all day and then a whistle blows and they both stop their bashing, calmly walk to a time clock in a tree, punch out and say goodnight with their lunchbuckets in their hand.

This is the true form of dips like Rush Limbowel. It's all an act just to see how many freaks they can whip up into a frenzy.

Did you see any? Where? That's a sight I would really love to see--Rushies in a frenzy all lathered up to do--never mind.

"a graphic term involving actions committed by Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, that have now spread to America’s high schools, I apologize.""

Clinton is responsible for blow jobs in high school? Sheesh. What a loon.

"Mr Limbaugh is not my favorite radio personality. Whereas I believe in conservatism, he espouses Republicanism"

I agree. Limbaugh is a Republican shill. Michael Savage calls him "Hush Bimbo" when he goes on a rant. Did you ever listen to Savage? He's a hoot!

"What the hell is that, Al?" Limbaugh asked. "What the hell is the point of view of young people? Blow jobs, that's what they're doing out there. They're out there getting oral sex all day long, that's what they're talking about."

Dear Rush:

I wish.. but nope.. i work.. i work my arse off.. then i work some more.. i bust my butt for a degree which, if i'm lucky, may allow me to crack the glass ceiling those wealthy 2% plutocrats like yourself sealed over the heads of persons like myself by using corruptions of law and unfair regulation to prevent fair market entry.

I like Savage, mroop. I don't follow any radio guru, but Mr. Savage takes the correct position more often than Mr. Limbaugh, in my view. One of my favorite phrases from Savage: "the stench from the bench" -- i.e. our out-of-control judiciary making unjust and immoral judgments. Wait. Now I'm sounding like Delay. (Though Delay is right on this, though I do not defend ethical lapses of him and his fellow Congresswhores.)

A recent study showed that teens do not think oral sex is sex. Where do you think they heard that? Of course Clinton is not solely responsible for sexual activity in the young, but he sure lowered the bar for what is considered acceptable behavior. I say, if you can get gonorrhea from it, it's sex, Mr. Clinton.

I don't know that Limbaugh is right to blame Clinton for moral rot in our society. They said about Reagan (I don't agree, but...), "He made us comfortable with our prejudices." Maybe Clinton remained so popular because he made us comfortable with our sexual incontinence.

What out of control judiciary? Which Judges? William O. Douglas? Thurgood Marshall? The Alabama Chief Justice who refused a federal order to take down the Ten commandments? Which cases?

The Reichstag is on Fire!!!

Do you really believe teens get their sex education from Bill Clinton?! And what study are you referring to? Take Dubya's sex education test yourself:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/sexed/index.html

And if you don't believe it, here's the real link to the study:

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/

And the best thing I can say about DeLay is--it's going to be fun to watch how Rove takes him down (I know, VLWC stuff, right?)

About "Michael Savage"... His real name is Michael Weiner, and he doesn't even own the name/ trademark... his "wife" Janet Weiner, who was a co-author on the herb book he wrote, owns the rights to "Michael Savage". The company that produces his radio show sued two or three websites, including MichaelSavagesucks.com trying to force them to give up their name, and other sites. The suit was later dropped.

Michael Weiner...he's a Weiner.

"And what study are you referring to?"

Shadow Mom, the study I was referring to was this: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7378833/

I don't make this stuff up.

Michael Savage is Michael Weiner.

Yes, and John Wayne's name was Marion. He was a fine Iowa boy, from Winterset.

What's in a name?

Which judges are out of control? The judge who sentenced Terry Schiavo to death (ignoring a great deal of evidence that would have called into question the statements and reliability of her "husband") is one example.

Here's a judge who was out of control. Fortunately he's out of a job now. He was using a penis pump underneath the bench which cases were in session. Courtroom witnesses said he "seemed distracted." LOL http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1000008.html?menu=news.quirkies

What about the judges who force property tax hikes to pay for school improvements the judge deems necessary? Shouldn't that be the community's decision? What about judges who invalidate legal referenda, when residents vote to deny welfare benefits to illegal immigrants? If one is paying attention at all, it is not hard to find examples of justice run amok. Just as Thomas Jefferson said it would. Again and again judges are thwarting the laws passed directly by the people and by their elected representatives, for the thinnest of excuses.

John Wayne did not serve in the Armed Forces of the USA (bad knees)

Since Michael Savage is an assumed name, and not his real name, Michael Weiner really is not Michael Savage, he plays a character named Michael Savage.

http://www.michaelsavagesucks.com/michaelsavagesucksresponse.htm
" The trademark, “Michael Savage” did not exist at that time. The trademark was first filed on January 12,1998, but was abandoned on March 1, 1999. The trademark at that time never reached a registered status, because applicant, Michael Weiner, failed to respond to an office action. The trademark was filed again by Janet Weiner, on March 20, 2002, but at this time has still not reached the status of “registered”. "

That's a fairly small number of kids to survey, autodidact, though I don't doubt they are representative of most kids in this country. But I don't get the connection between Clinton and our "sexual incontinence." These kids are only 14 years old--and too young to be influenced by Clinton. And I think the bar's been pretty much removed in this country for quite a while...

Is oral sex really sex?
Even before Clinton, I never equated BJ's with actual intercourse.

When I was in high school, back in the 80's, there was plenty oral stimulation happening,( 'sigh'...memories...).

But if I were to have been sucked off by a girl and then claimed to have sex with her, I would be slapped and called a dirty liar.

A good round of head is better than nothing, quite enjoyable actually, but it still doesn't equate with real sex, which has more serious potential consequences.

So I'm with the kids on this one, and come on...you think Clinton was the first president to get a big ol' hummer in the oval office? The only difference here is the media circus surrounding it. If it weren't for conservatives desperately seeking a way to discredit an otherwise popular president, the media wouldn't have been interested, the kids wouldn't have heard about it and teens across America would still be content with holding hands,(well, maybe a finger-bang during the slow dance on prom night but that's it, until the honeymoon).

"If it weren't for conservatives desperately seeking a way to discredit an otherwise popular president..."

Clinton discredited himself when he submitted a perjurious deposition in the Paula Jones case.

Personally, I despise the lying...for the other, who cares?

Diogenese: That still doesn't excuse the republican party from arranging that question, which had nothing to do with the case, being asked in the first place.

Don't defame clinton unless youre willing to defend the actions of those who attacked him.

The paula jones case was an ultra right wing scam, and that was obvious to anyone with a brain.

The lewinsky affair had absolutely nothing to do with the paula jones case and had no business being brougt up in court. I say if neocon scum are gonna pull that kind of dirty trick he's allowed to lie, and I cheer for him.

And if you're going to contest me on that one.. i merely need point out how the paula jones case conveniently "went away" as soon as they used the rock and hard place approach (making him choose between the grand jury and his family) to produce, under duress, and impeachable offense.

"That still doesn't excuse the Republican party from arranging that question, which had nothing to do with the case, being asked in the first place."

No, but two wrongs don't make a right. A question that the Republicans may have arranged is not to be answered with a sworn lie (especially by the President himself).

"Don't defame Clinton unless you're willing to defend the actions of those who attacked him."

??
Uh, excuse me, but how is reporting a fact that someone lied under oath tantamount to defaming? Anyone committing perjury has defamed himself.

"The paula jones case was an ultra right wing scam, and that was obvious to anyone with a brain."

Getting personal in your attack mode?
(Methinks the gentleman protesteth too much.)

"The Lewinsky affair had absolutely nothing to do with the Paula Jones case and had no business being brought up in court. I say if neocon scum are gonna pull that kind of dirty trick, he's allowed to lie, and I cheer for him."

It's okay for the President of the United States to lie under oath?
Come on, Alexander, get a grip.
It's wrong for ANY acting President to lie, and Bush would be no exception either.

Look, I don't give a crap if anyone wants to be an apologist for some wrong things Clinton did or for some evil things that neocons have done -- what bothers me is the notion of getting out of tune with the essence of reality.

"Don't defame Clinton unless you're willing to defend the actions of those who attacked him."

Is that an order?

I might very well choose to rebuke both Clinton AND the neocons.
What's the penalty for disobeying your order?

lying is an essential part of politics, all polititians do it, every president has done it. Expecting a polititian to do his job without lying is like asking a mechanic to fix your car without tools.

Clinton shouldn't have been on that stand in the first place, if we judged our leaders based on their adherence to traditional moral values we would have to re-write all of the history books.

History's most brilliant leaders, thinkers, artists have all done things that would shock middle-American prudish assholes. Part of what makes them brilliant is their tendency to challenge traditionally held values, assumptions and mores. They are also usually subjected to higher levels of temptation.

the moral outrage over Clinton's alleged sexual exploits was bogus and contrived, and it's even more absurd to blame him for the fact that teenagers are horny.

If we can blame Clinton for sexual promiscuity among teenagers than we should also blame Dr. Laura for pornography, Jimmy Swaggart for prostitution and Rush Lardass for drug abuse.

Blaming Clinton for lowered moral values is something I haven't done, nor will do. I agree, as you pointed out, that it would be unsupportable.

Unfortunately, the guy who did the blaming in this case, Rush Limbaugh, is supported, by thousands of slack-jawed retards who unquestioningly accept his opinions as truth.
He wasn't the only one either, I remember Dr. Laura saying the same thing.

I, too, pity people who aren't discerning enough to think for themselves; and, unfortunately, it likely reflects negatively on many Limbaugh me-too's who adore him and his program just because he seems to push their buttons and often says what they want to hear.

The man is more of an entertainer for a certain audience than a genuinely balanced truth-detector.

Jim Rome is more of an entertainer than anything else, too, and I don't mean to lambast that role per se; it's just that avid adherents of someone like Rush can become entrenched in a mindset that gets reinforced almost daily -- and, as you mentioned, may cause them to become too unquestioning and accepting.

...of what he says.

Now you see why these political extremists are slowly eating away at america's society. They use politically useless issues to divide people who would normally get along....as do most people on this site. What's that bit about what not to discuss at work? Sex, religion and politics? Three subjects these radio pinheads thrive on.

Lying is what politicians do for a living. I think we're all agreed on that.



No, Clinton didn't cause the loosening of moral standards in America. However, as a President, you can be for or against the tide. If the authority figures in a society don't stand up for morality, in their personal lives and in their public statements and pronouncements, that does have an effect, at least at the margins.

pinemikey, religion and religion-derived sexual mores may have no meaning for you, but they are the bedrock of life for tens of millions of Americans. Yes, talk show hosts play to that, because people like to have their beliefs validated. And yes, they rally to action against people promoting moral values and political values that are against their cherished beliefs. What's wrong with that? This is America. People have just as much right to agitate for a return to the old values as "progressives" have a right to agitate for throwing them aside!

Auto...I'm a roman catholic brought up in the old irish style with boy's only high school (what a drag).

The only reality today is that old rush and his buddies (I include left wing nuts, too) could care less for ANY values except the value of the dollars they are getting from these frothing at the mouth disciples they are creating.

If you think otherwise on their intentions then you may as well get in line with the other mindless minions. They could always use someone else who loves to lay it on thick with false piety.

Diogenese:

Actually, I don't look at things in black and white, and YES, i think in this case clinton was right to lie under oath.

I think he had a right to use tactics as dirty as those directed toward him, i'm only sad that the democratic party is not as good at hiding or burying it like the republican party.

And I do consider it defaming him because there are always circumstances in which normally despicable acts are considred better than the alternative, and i resent the idea that you would hold it against a man for trying to save his family and preserve his reputation by uttering a lie rather than telling a truth which would have destroyed his family while not even doing the prosecution any good.

Awehr:
What was the initial cause of him having to be faced with the dilemma of trying to save his family vs. preserving his reputation? What circumstance caused him to be vulnerable to that unhappy choice?

How did it occur that he found himself in such a situation where, as you say, a despicable act could be considered better than the alternative?

Choices?
a) save his family & preserve his reputation by lying under oath
b) admit the truth and deal with it

Attempted cover-up didn't help Nixon; in fact, that's what led to the beginning of the end for him.

I just don't understand your rationale.
And, again, I need you to tell me how he got in this precarious predicament in the first place.

See, now you get to the heart of it... you don't actually hold the lie against him, you hold the adultury against him, even though 30% of the population commits it, and that doesn't count the non-wed cheating which ends the vast majority of relationships.

The truth is it's common place, and he as an american citizen should be allowed to keep that within the family rather than on the public record. Since when did that have anything to do with his job anyway.

You wrote: "I think in this case Clinton was right to lie under oath."
Actually, that disqualifies you right there for being worthwhile to be engaged in any more disussion about this issue. Who gives you the right to decide when it's okay to commit perjury? You've got a convoluted sense of values!

What I CAN hold against you and him is the rationalization that it's okay to lie under oath in certain circumstances (as long as the reason is presumably good enough)? Give me a break.

What did you expect from me? My username reflects the search for truth and a respect for it.

What did I expect from you? Something besides standing up for false testimony.

Let me see now; maybe it goes like this:
It's okay to lie under oath for a reason that I think is good enough. I'm placing myself and my rationalization above the law of the land and above what's right or wrong.

Wow. As I said, a convoluted sense of values.

That position should be relegated to the realm of never-never land . . . to join the presence of those citizens of same who defend it.
Goodbye.

I'll even go another step further: Maybe I don't need to participate along with you in any endeavor whatsoever, and I don't mean just this distressing discussion.
You and I are from different worlds; it is vexing to diminish the value of truth...both the search for it and the defense of it extend beyond individual subjectivity.
The essence of truth, and a respect for it...well, it is evidently more far-reaching and significant than you can grant.

The archives have Leflaw once saying there are some people he can't put up with.
I'm with him on that.

I need to leave you behind ... to the company of your convoluted sense of values.

Epilogue:

Which is worse — the indiscretion of adultery, or the disdain for truth and lying under oath?

"Actually, I don't look at things in black and white."

You don't have to, if you've arranged yourself in a realm of subjectivity where you reserve the right to decide what's right...even in matters that extend beyond yourself.

Shades of gray sweep truth away!

well here's a touch of grey!

What really is a convulted set of values? are you an american? Well i am from canada so my set of values is completely suited to my lifestyle as a canadian. How can adultery be performed by so many people but only the president has to take shit for it?

not that this has anything to do with the passion of Rush of course! Rush lardass is truly a hilarious character, i'd even throw some vic's back with him and debate useless political garbage. If you can completely miss the point in a debate and still have people thinking that you won, well that is some sort of skill at least. I find it hilarious that anyone would even consider a connection between bill clinton and the rise of oral sex in teenagers LOL

morals and values are up to the individual as far as i am concerned and no shortage of replies will make that any different to me, personally.

"Morals and values are up to the individual..."

Morals may be the purvue of an individual except where another individual's rights are adversely affected.

What about a criminal's values? He may think it is okay to take something from a person's car, but does his opinion count?
No, there is a right and a wrong when it comes to some things. Lying under oath is not right either.
The criminal may think of many reasons why he should be justified to do certain illegal things, but that won't change the unfair effect he has on others (and that's why his value system is one that can be called 'convoluted' or 'twisted').

Cultures all over the world have made the determination that intentionally not telling the truth, especially when under sworn testimony to do so, is wrong because of the effect it can have on individuals and on society as a whole.

Historically, societies had decided that anarchy is not a good thing, and in came the theory of government and laws — to protect people and institutions. Sadly, government nowadays has drifted out of control and trampled on individual rights, and that in itself is not right!
But there should be rights, and violating a person's rights is wrong.

Telling a lie is wrong.
(Sometimes can't it be allowed? Maybe to protect someone else from a consequence of indiscretion?)
No. Intentionally not telling the truth under oath is inherently and intrinsically wrong per se.
Per se.
(What about Mr. Gray, whose perspective involves few areas of pure black or white?
Shouldn't he be permitted to make his own decisions of right or wrong based on situational ethics?)
Not in every situation — see example of criminal above.

(You mean there should be such things as -- gasp! -- absolute values? I think I need the smelling salts...)
Absolutely; see the Preample to the Declaration of Independence.

As an aside, thirty to forty years ago, when some university professors began to postulate that there are no moral absolutes, it's unfortunate that precious few students had the presence of mind (or guts) to ask one of the following questions:

"Professor, are you absolute-ly sure?"

"Sir, how can a negative withstand the rigor of proof? (Example: Currently there are no living two-headed animals in the world.) Verifiying all possibilities is out of the question, isn't it, sir?)"

Once the distinguished professor regained his composure, I wonder what he would have had to say.
Perhaps: "(Ahem!) Mr. Wilson, will you please see me after class? Students, now about today's lecture . . ."

There are rights, and there are limits to rights. Haven't we all heard the following?
The right to swing one's fisted hand ends where another's body begins.
The right to say what one pleases ends where defamation damages another's reputation, or where yelling "Fire!" without basis in a crowded theater is a nuisance at the least and a danger to safety at the worst.
And so on.

It's likely that there is common ground here that we can agree upon without resorting to shades of gray vs. black or white.

There are rights, and there are limits to rights.
There is truth, and there are lies.
Some things are inherently right, and some things are inherently wrong.

Rights of other people (or groups of people - i.e., our society at large) are to be respected as well an individual's own rights.
That's a tough one to take sometime, but it should stand anyhow. Anything less is to travel down the road to anarchy.
Question: The ACLU, if allowed to have free reign, might it tend to take us too far down such a road?
That would be an interesting subject to debate.

Question: A federal government that is ever-expanding in power and control, might it tend to take us too far down a road of tyranny? That's an even better subject to discuss!

Diogenes2 — on a quest for truth

Diogenese:

How can you claim to seek the truth when you completely disregard an entire side of a situation.

You disregard the truth that in that case the "law of the land" was used as a tool not for justice, not for governance, but to screw someone out of their career.

You disregard the truth that this man was being hunted by a witch, and you disregard the truth that NO RULE can be tailored to be one size fits all.

"Some things are inherently right, and some things are inherently wrong."

So it's "inherently right" to engineer a false accusation and an equally false kangaroo court of your political enemies, then condemn a man for lying to his enemies?

I suppose if bin-laden asked you questions about key us infrastructure you'd tell him the truth?

"You disregard the truth that this man was being hunted by a witch,"

hunted "as" a witch..

my bad

the truth is that while some men are corrupt... ALL men are fallible.

Clinton was fallible, you are fallible, i am fallible, code is fallible.

You disregard this fundamental truth when demanding our president be somehow infallible and flawless.

Some principles that apply, or should apply (I say 'should', taking an assumption here of 'good' laws that serve the best interests of society):

1. Law-abiding people should not have to fear the law if the law is a just one.
That includes telling the truth under oath, which is an essential 'per se' requirement for one of society's basic foundations to function properly.

2. Potential damage to the structure of society is likely inevitable when situational ethics is deemed by individuals to be a more noble cause than respecting the rules per se for the ultimate (pre-determined, agreed-upon) benefit of the culture at large. By any standard, a person's right to his own value system ends where the rights of others are involved.
You wrote: "NO RULE can be tailored to be one size fits all." I think I've given fair response to that, here and elsewhere.
Additionally:
If a large enough number (or vocal enough segment) of the public think a rule is unfair, or needs amending, there are procedures available. In the meantime, the law is there to be followed, or be prepared to face the consequences.

3. Some things are inherently right, and some things are inherently wrong.
I stand by that.
You wrote: "So it's 'inherently right' to engineer a false accusation and an equally false kangaroo court of your political enemies, then condemn a man for lying to his enemies?"
Misuse of laws can occur. Lately, people have been discussing possible 'abuse' of judicial authority. (Should there be rulings which are tantamount to legislating from the bench?) I don't actually want to get into that topic, but my point is: Yes, it's possible for the legal system to be inappropriately applied in certain instances. That does not justify lying under oath. Some alternate remedy should be sought.
Didn't one of your parents tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Not intending to be condescending here; merely pointing out how it's common sense to follow rules if the rules themselves that are in place are worthy and if society (of which we're all citizens) has agreed to follow them.

One of your thrusts seems to be: If someone does something wrong to 'you', it may be okay to do wrong in return. Now, that's getting into ethics, and I don't think we want to go there. But the law per se is the issue here. If someone takes something that belongs to you, will the law support you if you steal something from him to get even? You know the answer to that.
Also, note this: What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right.

4. You wrote: "I suppose if Bin-laden asked you questions about key US infrastructure, you'd tell him the truth?"
You'd suppose incorrectly.
A higher law applies: It is a crime to give aid and comfort to a criminal or to an enemy or your nation.
Other than that, this issue you brought up wouldn't apply. In a practical sense, how could Bin-laden get into a position of having anyone placed on a witness stand to answer under oath a question that the presiding judge would be obliged to disallow anyway?

5. Citizens or government officials have no prerogative in casting stones at sinners.

You wrote: "The truth is that while some men are corrupt... ALL men are fallible."
Clinton was fallible; you are fallible; I am fallible; Code is fallible.
You disregard this fundamental truth when demanding our President be somehow infallible and flawless."

Your first two statements are based in fact. Personally speaking, I'm imperfect just like everyone else.
Your third statement is unsupportable. I don't demand that a President be infallible or flawless.
We might not be able to avoid wading in 'treacherous' waters here.
I know it's sometimes difficult to try to avoid issues of ethics and morality, but in a very practical sense:
Remember back in school, the teacher explained the set of rules that would govern his/her classroom.
Then came the pronouncement: You may have the choice to disobey a rule, but not a choice in facing the consequences. This concept applies throughout life; it's the nature of things. I can choose to go out in the rain without an umbrella, and I just have to expect to deal with the result of getting wet.
If I choose to jaywalk, I should obviously be aware of breaking a law and taking on unnecessary personal risk.
Do you see where I'm headed with this? You probably do, so I can refrain from directly applying this kind of principle to the original issue we started with.
Seems fairly logical. . .

Diogenes2

This was an inadvertent error on my part:
"It is a crime to give aid and comfort to a criminal or to an enemy or your nation."

I meant to write:
"It is a crime to give aid and comfort to a criminal or to an enemy of our nation."

(Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever get an edit button.)

P.S. Concerning what you wrote about "demanding our President be somehow infallible and flawless":
There is no expectation of perfection on my part. Just a kind of melancholy observation of how humans don't seem to learn that one mistake, compounded by another, doesn't solve problems. It's fairly axiomatic.
Nixon failed to see the truth of that. (Rather than being candid and likely pulling though the crisis in a reasonably unscathed manner, he opted for a cover-up tactic, thus sealing his doom.) Clinton, who had specific awareness of the Watergate scandal, didn't learn its lessons. (He persisted on backpedaling, denying, parsing words -- saying that oral sex isn't sex, etc. He should have known that all that stuff would finally catch up with him.)
However:
It's probably tempting to revert to denial or obfuscation when faced with career-threatening charges; it may have something to do with an essence of brute defensiveness getting the better part of wisdom.
My guess is that most of us, including myself, can look back over our lives and see signs a wise man heeds.
Someone once observed how the applying of empirical knowledge is cumulative, but that of ethical knowledge is not. That was a philosopher with great insight.

Even going back to one of the first things I alluded to yesterday, Clinton chose to do something that had the potential for disgracing his family (a common type of mistake many of us have made), but he really crossed a line when he submitted a perjurious deposition in the Paula Jones case and then embarked on other unhelpful paths as well.
Of course, we can be sympathetic to this type of plight and its unhappy outcome.
But, as you pointed out, we can also be disgusted with the attitude of some his enemies.
Both reactions are valid.

oh i see.. so it's OK for paula jones to levvy false accusation, but it's NOT OK for the president to lie under oath to prevent that false accusation from causing true damage.

I don't see that as valuing the truth.. the truth includes the WHOLE truth of a situation.

The oaths, the grand jury, the whole case, was a fraud, a lie, why should only one man be blamed ?

"It is a crime to give aid and comfort to a criminal or to an enemy of our nation."

there are two opposing political parties because each party believes the other to be an enemy of our nation. the Palua jones case was rigged up and foisted upon clinton by the adversaries of his party. This rule firmly applies, they wanted coup-de-tat by framing.

In regards to: "...so, it's OK for Paula Jones to levvy false accusation..."

Where can I find reliable documentation about Paula Jones' accusation being false?

"There are two opposing political parties because each party believes the other to be an enemy of our nation."

You have a firtile imagination, my friend.

...because the concept of an enemy of our nation cuts deeper than the vigorous opposition of political parties against one another. Supporting a genuine enemy of our nation would be tantamount to treason.

w...o..w!! Can we get offa clinton's PENIS!!! The more you pay attention to.. what.. happened.. five.. years.. ago.. and look at us all getting F#CK@D NoW!!! The Paris Hilton Tax break, the bankruptcy law.. the cutting back of money for services for veterans.. and you guys are going on and on and on.... more proof of the "porn sex" level of awareness.. this is what happens when you have a one-party country. All talk and no action!!!

"Supporting a genuine enemy of our nation would be tantamount to treason. "

so it's agreed then, clinton was avoiding committing treason =)

Well, at least things can get closed off with a humorous smile. That's not too bad.

You know, the spread of bj's in teen culture has a lot more to do with inadequate sex ed than Bill Clinton. Teens rarely give a damn what the president has to say, but they're getting the stupid abstainance-only/wait till you're married message and thinking "Well, if I have to wait till I'm married to have sex, I'll just give the guy a hummer."

Nobody talks about the dangers of oral to teens because nobody wants to "give them ideas". And forget about giving away flavored condoms. So we've got new clusters of STDs running wild now because nobody cares enough to arm teens with solid information.

Blame it on George, not Bill.

"Is oral sex really sex?"

Ten out of ten hookers say it is.

gdz...