"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?

It was David, not Solomon. Solomon was the child of David and Bathsheba. The
killing of Uriah was the one sin (of David's many) that was considered crossing
the line. See 1 Kings 15:5.



"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?

"Vito" wrote in message ...
"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?


I dont know about your little warped world, but the USA says:

Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another
human being, without lawful excuse. When an illegal death was not
caused intentionally, but was caused by recklessness or negligence (or
there is some defense, such as diminished capacity), the crime
committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent
homicide, which are considered to be less serious than murder. In the
United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories:
involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.

A difficult issue in defining murder is what counts as causing death.
It is impossible to give a precise definition of this, but some legal
principles have been developed to help. For example, many common law
jurisdictions abide by the year and a day rule, which provides that
one is to be held responsible for a person's death only if they die
within a year and a day of the act. Thus, if you seriously injured
someone, and they died from their injuries within a year and a day,
you would be guilty of murder; but you would not be guilty if they
died from their injuries after a year and a day had passed.

It is not murder to kill someone with lawful excuse; lawful excuses
include killing enemy combatants in time of war (but not after they
surrendered), killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the
lives of ones self or others (i.e., in self-defence), and executing a
person in accordance with a sentence of death (in those jurisdictions
which use capital punishment). Sometimes extreme provocation or duress
can justify killing another as well. These cases of killing are called
justifiable homicide.

Under English law (and the law of other countries, such as Australia,
which pay close heed to the decisions of British courts), it is murder
to kill another human being for food, even if without doing so one
would die of starvation. This originated in a case of three
shipwrecked sailors cast adrift off the coast of South Africa in the
1920s; two of the sailors conspired to kill the other sailor, and
having killed him ate his flesh to survive.

Most countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind"
to be regarded as mitigating circumstances against murder. This means
that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter on the basis of
diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved
that they were suffering from a condition that affected their
judgement at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and
medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken
into account when assessing responsibility.

Also, some countries, such as Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and
Australia, allow post-partum depression, or 'baby-blues', as a defense
against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less
than a year old.

Hope this helps Veto.

Joe

So, Bush is a murder. Thanks for the clarification.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's
responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into
battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?


I dont know about your little warped world, but the USA says:

Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another
human being, without lawful excuse. When an illegal death was not
caused intentionally, but was caused by recklessness or negligence (or
there is some defense, such as diminished capacity), the crime
committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent
homicide, which are considered to be less serious than murder. In the
United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories:
involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.

A difficult issue in defining murder is what counts as causing death.
It is impossible to give a precise definition of this, but some legal
principles have been developed to help. For example, many common law
jurisdictions abide by the year and a day rule, which provides that
one is to be held responsible for a person's death only if they die
within a year and a day of the act. Thus, if you seriously injured
someone, and they died from their injuries within a year and a day,
you would be guilty of murder; but you would not be guilty if they
died from their injuries after a year and a day had passed.

It is not murder to kill someone with lawful excuse; lawful excuses
include killing enemy combatants in time of war (but not after they
surrendered), killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the
lives of ones self or others (i.e., in self-defence), and executing a
person in accordance with a sentence of death (in those jurisdictions
which use capital punishment). Sometimes extreme provocation or duress
can justify killing another as well. These cases of killing are called
justifiable homicide.

Under English law (and the law of other countries, such as Australia,
which pay close heed to the decisions of British courts), it is murder
to kill another human being for food, even if without doing so one
would die of starvation. This originated in a case of three
shipwrecked sailors cast adrift off the coast of South Africa in the
1920s; two of the sailors conspired to kill the other sailor, and
having killed him ate his flesh to survive.

Most countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind"
to be regarded as mitigating circumstances against murder. This means
that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter on the basis of
diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved
that they were suffering from a condition that affected their
judgement at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and
medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken
into account when assessing responsibility.

Also, some countries, such as Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and
Australia, allow post-partum depression, or 'baby-blues', as a defense
against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less
than a year old.

Hope this helps Veto.

Joe

What about those killed in Bosnia, under Bill Clinton's raign? I guess Bill
murdered them! :-o
I guess he is guilty of murder for every police officer killed in the line
of duty also.....
If your wife is killed in a car accident, because you asked her to buy you
something from the store, I guess you are guilty of murder.
If you put your child in the hospital and they die in surgery, I guess you
are guilty of murder, because you sent them there.
I guess George Washington falls under that line of thinking also and every
president, govenor, fire chief, police chief, captain, general, we have ever
had.

What a liberal crock!

Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
What about those killed in Bosnia, under Bill Clinton's raign? I guess
Bill
murdered them! :-o
I guess he is guilty of murder for every police officer killed in the line
of duty also.....
If your wife is killed in a car accident, because you asked her to buy you
something from the store, I guess you are guilty of murder.
If you put your child in the hospital and they die in surgery, I guess you
are guilty of murder, because you sent them there.
I guess George Washington falls under that line of thinking also and every
president, govenor, fire chief, police chief, captain, general, we have
ever
had.

What a liberal crock!

Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied.... That "IS" the reason we went into Iraq.
That is the reason everyone who voted to go, voted that way. You sound like
my 12 year old daughter. My wife said to her that she could go out and play
after she cleaned her room, but after she finished cleaning her room a
thunderstorm developed and it was pouring down and lightning outside. When
her mom told her she could not go outside, she accused her mother of lying
to her. Now the weather man said it was not going to rain, and my wife did
not tell the weatherman to say that. But, as it turned out and that time it
was raining. The rain happened despite the evidence compiled to the
contrary. Now I got upset with my little 12 year old daughter for calling
her mother a liar. You see she was just an ignorant little child, who
hopefully has learned what a lie is and what is not a lie. I explained to
her that her mother did not lie, When she told her she could go outside it
was based on what she honestly believed would be going on after she cleaned
her room. How old are you? Maybe I need to get my little girl to talk to you
and explain to you what is and what is not a lie.

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied.... That "IS" the reason we went into Iraq.
That is the reason everyone who voted to go, voted that way. You sound
like
my 12 year old daughter. My wife said to her that she could go out and
play
after she cleaned her room, but after she finished cleaning her room a
thunderstorm developed and it was pouring down and lightning outside. When
her mom told her she could not go outside, she accused her mother of lying
to her. Now the weather man said it was not going to rain, and my wife did
not tell the weatherman to say that. But, as it turned out and that time
it
was raining. The rain happened despite the evidence compiled to the
contrary. Now I got upset with my little 12 year old daughter for calling
her mother a liar. You see she was just an ignorant little child, who
hopefully has learned what a lie is and what is not a lie. I explained to
her that her mother did not lie, When she told her she could go outside it
was based on what she honestly believed would be going on after she
cleaned
her room. How old are you? Maybe I need to get my little girl to talk to
you
and explain to you what is and what is not a lie.

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied....

I agree. Saying things that are not true is not necessarily lying unless
one KNOWS that what (s)he is about to say is false. Bush's statements about
WMDs fall into that catagory. He either knew Saddam had no meaningful
amount of WMDs or he didn't. If he knew, then he is a liar, and should be
replaced. If he didn't, as I suspect, then he is far to ignorant and stupid
to remain President. Which is it?

But that's water over the dam. Question is what to do now we know better.
Do we stay in and bleed our own country and our military white like LBJ did
in 'nam or do we cut our losses and leave Iraq to become like Iran.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:38:46 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.


President George W. Bush did not lie about anything. Reports now show
that the intelligence on Iraq was exaggerated.

All you liberal whackos who screamed, "Bush lied," owe him an apology.

BTW, WMDs have been found.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!