"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote in message
thlink.net...



"Capt. JG" wrote in message




He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.


It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea
I believe.

Wrongwtongwtong...that's quid pro quo sexual harassment ...if they had

been peers at work then it would have been a consenting adult situation
where the worplace rules (and I'm sure the Federal Government rules
state that secual activity on the job is a fireable offense) would take
over. In quid pro quo events, though, it does not matter who starts it.
It is implied that because one person is in a position of power that
that supercedes anything else and causes a situation where the other
may not be able to control what happens. The on;y reason Clinton didn't
get nailed for that was because Monica did not pursue that avenue and
there was no supervisor to investigate. His staff, though, were bound
by law that if they knew it was going on, to report it to someone, I
suspect the Judiciary in this case, and to investigate. There is no
such thing as consenting secual acts in the workplace between an
superior and employees.



I have a great idea! We should impeach him. Oh wait, that happened and
during the trial in the Senate, Clinton was more popular than Bush now.
So, please compare and contrast how Bush's lies are in any way the equal
of Clinton's lie about a blow job. For heaven's sake, let's not impeach
him or Cheney for the lies. That would be wrong, wrong, wrong.



Were they lies? Or were they mislead by the Pentagon or CIA? You have
the definitive answer for that? There's been a trial or hearing that has
decided that? I thought the American way was to pronounce innocence
until proven guilty...what court of law has decided that? Or have they
appointed you a Supreme Court Justice and we just haven't heard about it?
I'm not SAYING i LIKE THE WAR. i'M NOT Aying I like Bush. But your
auppositions are based on the media and not on proven fact..yet...So..if
you want to hold on to those veliefs, you'd better be calling for
impeachment so that your OPINIONS are validated. Until then, all you can
say us "I think Bush lied" You cannot say "Bush lied". You don't have
that power as a citizen.



Sorry to tell you, but a trial is supposed to discover the facts and
bring the guilty party to justice or set the not guilty free. I'm asking
for a trial. Clinton got one.

I can say Bush lied, because I believe it to be the case. There is a lot
of smoke pointing to both him and Cheney lying. Sure from the media...
like all the major books written about it... from well-respected authors.
You're saying they've all been mislead, that the facts don't add up. Have
you read any of them?

FYI, I am calling for impeachment, and I'm sorry Pelosi "took it off the
table."

If Pelosi, who hates his guts, took it off the table, there must ve some
underlying facts that she has become privy to since her acceptance as
Speaker...maybe you should trust your own party leaders?


Sorry, but I'm not a democrat. Perhap Pelosi took it off the table for the
good of the country? Oh wait, she's a democrat, so that can't be.


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

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...



Capt. JG wrote:



"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...




"Capt. JG" wrote in message





He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.


It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea
I believe.

Wrongwtongwtong...that's quid pro quo sexual harassment ...if they had

been peers at work then it would have been a consenting adult situation
where the worplace rules (and I'm sure the Federal Government rules
state that secual activity on the job is a fireable offense) would take
over. In quid pro quo events, though, it does not matter who starts it.
It is implied that because one person is in a position of power that
that supercedes anything else and causes a situation where the other
may not be able to control what happens. The on;y reason Clinton didn't
get nailed for that was because Monica did not pursue that avenue and
there was no supervisor to investigate. His staff, though, were bound
by law that if they knew it was going on, to report it to someone, I
suspect the Judiciary in this case, and to investigate. There is no
such thing as consenting secual acts in the workplace between an
superior and employees.



I have a great idea! We should impeach him. Oh wait, that happened and
during the trial in the Senate, Clinton was more popular than Bush now.
So, please compare and contrast how Bush's lies are in any way the equal
of Clinton's lie about a blow job. For heaven's sake, let's not impeach
him or Cheney for the lies. That would be wrong, wrong, wrong.



Were they lies? Or were they mislead by the Pentagon or CIA? You have
the definitive answer for that? There's been a trial or hearing that has
decided that? I thought the American way was to pronounce innocence
until proven guilty...what court of law has decided that? Or have they
appointed you a Supreme Court Justice and we just haven't heard about it?
I'm not SAYING i LIKE THE WAR. i'M NOT Aying I like Bush. But your
auppositions are based on the media and not on proven fact..yet...So..if
you want to hold on to those veliefs, you'd better be calling for
impeachment so that your OPINIONS are validated. Until then, all you can
say us "I think Bush lied" You cannot say "Bush lied". You don't have
that power as a citizen.



Sorry to tell you, but a trial is supposed to discover the facts and
bring the guilty party to justice or set the not guilty free. I'm asking
for a trial. Clinton got one.

I can say Bush lied, because I believe it to be the case. There is a lot
of smoke pointing to both him and Cheney lying. Sure from the media...
like all the major books written about it... from well-respected authors.
You're saying they've all been mislead, that the facts don't add up. Have
you read any of them?

FYI, I am calling for impeachment, and I'm sorry Pelosi "took it off the
table."


If Pelosi, who hates his guts, took it off the table, there must ve some
underlying facts that she has become privy to since her acceptance as
Speaker...maybe you should trust your own party leaders?



Sorry, but I'm not a democrat. Perhap Pelosi took it off the table for the
good of the country? Oh wait, she's a democrat, so that can't be.


The good of the country? I don't think so..if he is truly culpable for
all those crimes then he should be brought to trial just like anyone
else...that would be fore the good of the country..to realize that our
leaders cannot hide behind their Office...

"katy" wrote in message
...

If Pelosi, who hates his guts, took it off the table, there must ve some
underlying facts that she has become privy to since her acceptance as
Speaker...maybe you should trust your own party leaders?



Sorry, but I'm not a democrat. Perhap Pelosi took it off the table for
the good of the country? Oh wait, she's a democrat, so that can't be.


The good of the country? I don't think so..if he is truly culpable for
all those crimes then he should be brought to trial just like anyone
else...that would be fore the good of the country..to realize that our
leaders cannot hide behind their Office...

I agree! Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.

It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea I
believe.

Doesn't matter. When a person in an ultimate power position makes or
accepts advances from a bottom dweller, it's harassment. Check out some of
the court's decisions on such cases. If Monica had filed sexual harassment
charges against him, he'd likely have been convicted. My guess is that she
was paid off to forget the whole thing.


So, now you're saying it was ok to out an agent? I believe that's a
federal offense.

The evidence today points to someone else--neither Libby nor Cheney. Where
have you been? The charges against Libby are for obstruction of justice,
not outing Plame.


Your Bush-hating bias clouds your "thinking" to the point of being a
redundant, hateful mantra, Jon. Lighten up.

Come on. We all know they lied. You're just trying to justify it by
talking about Clinton's foibles. He was found not guilty by the Senate
dude.

He was found guilty by a federal court for lying to a federal grand jury.

Show me one piece of evidence that Bush lied about WMDs prior to the Iraq
war? Hint: you can't, because he didn't. He was misinformed by the intel
community. And no doubt he was happy to have a reason to invade Iraq, but
he expected to find WMDs in Iraq and was just as puzzled as the rest of us
why none were uncovered.

Responding to bad intel is not lying, no matter how you spin it. It may
have been stupidity, but not deception.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.


It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea I
believe.

Wrongwtongwtong...that's quid pro quo sexual harassment ...if they had
been peers at work then it would have been a consenting adult situation
where the worplace rules (and I'm sure the Federal Government rules state
that secual activity on the job is a fireable offense) would take over.
In quid pro quo events, though, it does not matter who starts it. It is
implied that because one person is in a position of power that that
supercedes anything else and causes a situation where the other may not
be able to control what happens. The on;y reason Clinton didn't get
nailed for that was because Monica did not pursue that avenue and there
was no supervisor to investigate. His staff, though, were bound by law
that if they knew it was going on, to report it to someone, I suspect the
Judiciary in this case, and to investigate. There is no such thing as
consenting secual acts in the workplace between an superior and
employees.


I have a great idea! We should impeach him. Oh wait, that happened and
during the trial in the Senate, Clinton was more popular than Bush now.
So, please compare and contrast how Bush's lies are in any way the equal
of Clinton's lie about a blow job. For heaven's sake, let's not impeach
him or Cheney for the lies. That would be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Once again, when Jon is proven wrong, he turns the discussion to something
else.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.


It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea
I believe.

Wrongwtongwtong...that's quid pro quo sexual harassment ...if they had
been peers at work then it would have been a consenting adult situation
where the worplace rules (and I'm sure the Federal Government rules
state that secual activity on the job is a fireable offense) would take
over. In quid pro quo events, though, it does not matter who starts it.
It is implied that because one person is in a position of power that
that supercedes anything else and causes a situation where the other may
not be able to control what happens. The on;y reason Clinton didn't get
nailed for that was because Monica did not pursue that avenue and there
was no supervisor to investigate. His staff, though, were bound by law
that if they knew it was going on, to report it to someone, I suspect
the Judiciary in this case, and to investigate. There is no such thing
as consenting secual acts in the workplace between an superior and
employees.


I have a great idea! We should impeach him. Oh wait, that happened and
during the trial in the Senate, Clinton was more popular than Bush now.
So, please compare and contrast how Bush's lies are in any way the equal
of Clinton's lie about a blow job. For heaven's sake, let's not impeach
him or Cheney for the lies. That would be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Once again, when Jon is proven wrong, he turns the discussion to something
else.

Max



How's that? Do you believe Bushco has never lied to the American people?
Seems kind of close-minded to me.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.

It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea I
believe.

Doesn't matter. When a person in an ultimate power position makes or
accepts advances from a bottom dweller, it's harassment. Check out some
of the court's decisions on such cases. If Monica had filed sexual
harassment charges against him, he'd likely have been convicted. My guess
is that she was paid off to forget the whole thing.

You're just plain wrong:
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when
submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects
an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's
work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work
environment.

So, now you're saying it was ok to out an agent? I believe that's a
federal offense.

The evidence today points to someone else--neither Libby nor Cheney.
Where have you been? The charges against Libby are for obstruction of
justice, not outing Plame.


There's a trial. Are you not willing to wait until the verdict??

Your Bush-hating bias clouds your "thinking" to the point of being a
redundant, hateful mantra, Jon. Lighten up.

Come on. We all know they lied. You're just trying to justify it by
talking about Clinton's foibles. He was found not guilty by the Senate
dude.

He was found guilty by a federal court for lying to a federal grand jury.


He was also found not guilty by the Senate. Or, do you deny that? Were the
senators paid off?


Show me one piece of evidence that Bush lied about WMDs prior to the Iraq
war? Hint: you can't, because he didn't. He was misinformed by the
intel community. And no doubt he was happy to have a reason to invade
Iraq, but he expected to find WMDs in Iraq and was just as puzzled as the
rest of us why none were uncovered.

Responding to bad intel is not lying, no matter how you spin it. It may
have been stupidity, but not deception.


I'm not a prosecuter nor a judge. There's plenty of evidence out there, and
it should be vetted in court. Are you afraid of that?

Are you claiming Bush has never lied?

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.

It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea I
believe.

Doesn't matter. When a person in an ultimate power position makes or
accepts advances from a bottom dweller, it's harassment. Check out some
of the court's decisions on such cases. If Monica had filed sexual
harassment charges against him, he'd likely have been convicted. My
guess is that she was paid off to forget the whole thing.

You're just plain wrong:
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when
submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly
affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an
individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or
offensive work environment.

Such definitions are irrelevant in light of redundant court decisions. You
can quote them all you like, but they mean nothing. Law is more a matter of
legal precedent than definitions written in some book. At least two other
people have told you this as well, but you refuse to acknowledge the truth
of the matter. That, however, is nothing new.


So, now you're saying it was ok to out an agent? I believe that's a
federal offense.

The evidence today points to someone else--neither Libby nor Cheney.
Where have you been? The charges against Libby are for obstruction of
justice, not outing Plame.


There's a trial. Are you not willing to wait until the verdict??

The trial has nothing to do with blowing Valerie Plame's cover. Libby has
virtually been acquitted of that. The trial is now an anti-Bush/Cheney
witch hunt. It is about obstruction, not outing an agent. In light of new
information that exonerates Libby and the White House, the prosecutor is
running with the only thing he has--an obstruction charge. It's strictly
political now.

He was found guilty by a federal court for lying to a federal grand jury.


He was also found not guilty by the Senate.

No, he wasn't. He was impeached, but the Senate refused to remove him from
office. That was probably a good decision for the welfare of the country.
But it's rather like the decision in the O.J. Simpson case--he was
acquitted, but that is a far cry from stating that he is innocent. He's
not, nor was Clinton. A president who lies for political purposes is a
liability to the country and a denegration to the office of the President.
Show me some evidence that Bush lied about WMDs and I'll be the first to
call for his impeachment.

Show me one piece of evidence that Bush lied about WMDs prior to the Iraq
war? Hint: you can't, because he didn't. He was misinformed by the
intel community. And no doubt he was happy to have a reason to invade
Iraq, but he expected to find WMDs in Iraq and was just as puzzled as the
rest of us why none were uncovered.

Responding to bad intel is not lying, no matter how you spin it. It may
have been stupidity, but not deception.


I'm not a prosecuter nor a judge. There's plenty of evidence out there,
and it should be vetted in court. Are you afraid of that?

Not in the least. I'm under the impression that Bush has handled the Iraq
situation with incompetence and stubborn ignorance. But I've seen no
evidence that he deliberately falsified information in order to further his
agenda. Show me that, and I'll call for his ouster.

Are you claiming Bush has never lied?

Every human being lies. Even you, difficult as that may be to accept. g
But as to the WMDs, I don't believe he lied. He knew well that if the WMDs
weren't found, his ratings would be in the basement. He took the risk,
believing WMDs were a good sell to the American public for the elimination
of Saddam Hussein. And I believe he had ulterior motives for taking Saddam
down. But I don't believe he *knew* there were no WMDs. IF he is impeached
for lying about WMDs, the case will never fly. There is simply no evidence
that he deliberately falsified such info. There IS a preponderance of
evidence that he was given faulty intel. THAT is probably why Pelosi took
impeachment off the table--she's a good attorney and knows a non-case when
she sees it.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
Doesn't matter. When a person in an ultimate power position makes or
accepts advances from a bottom dweller, it's harassment. Check out some
of the court's decisions on such cases. If Monica had filed sexual
harassment charges against him, he'd likely have been convicted. My
guess is that she was paid off to forget the whole thing.

You're just plain wrong:
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when
submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly
affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an
individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or
offensive work environment.

Such definitions are irrelevant in light of redundant court decisions.
You can quote them all you like, but they mean nothing. Law is more a
matter of legal precedent than definitions written in some book. At least
two other people have told you this as well, but you refuse to acknowledge
the truth of the matter. That, however, is nothing new.

So, please show us the "precedence" of these redundant court decisions. The
passage I quoted is what is used as a guideline for businesses. Are you
saying that they're not valid? How did you come to that conclusion. Should
we alert the media? Basically, what you're saying is that it's not ok for
two consenting adults who happen to work with each other to have an affair.
And, further, you're saying that this should be investigated and prosecuted
for lying about it. Is that what you're really saying??? Seems kind of like
a lot of gov't intrusion into someone's private life to me. But, you're the
conservative not me.

He was also found not guilty by the Senate.

No, he wasn't. He was impeached, but the Senate refused to remove him
from office. That was probably a good decision for the welfare of the
country. But it's rather like the decision in the O.J. Simpson case--he
was acquitted, but that is a far cry from stating that he is innocent.
He's not, nor was Clinton. A president who lies for political purposes is
a liability to the country and a denegration to the office of the
President. Show me some evidence that Bush lied about WMDs and I'll be the
first to call for his impeachment.

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

In any case, you're understanding of the impeachment process is flawed:

During Clinton's presidency, the world continued to transition from the
political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the
longest period of economic expansion in its history. In 1998, he became the
second president to be impeached by the United States House of
Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate
and remained in office to complete his term.

Read up before you type further:

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-go...tonimpeach.htm

Show me one piece of evidence that Bush lied about WMDs prior to the
Iraq war? Hint: you can't, because he didn't. He was misinformed by
the intel community. And no doubt he was happy to have a reason to
invade Iraq, but he expected to find WMDs in Iraq and was just as
puzzled as the rest of us why none were uncovered.

Responding to bad intel is not lying, no matter how you spin it. It may
have been stupidity, but not deception.


I'm not a prosecuter nor a judge. There's plenty of evidence out there,
and it should be vetted in court. Are you afraid of that?

Not in the least. I'm under the impression that Bush has handled the Iraq
situation with incompetence and stubborn ignorance. But I've seen no
evidence that he deliberately falsified information in order to further
his agenda. Show me that, and I'll call for his ouster.

How am *I* supposed to show you that? I'm calling for an investigation.

Are you claiming Bush has never lied?

Every human being lies. Even you, difficult as that may be to accept.
g But as to the WMDs, I don't believe he lied. He knew well that if the
WMDs weren't found, his ratings would be in the basement. He took the
risk,

He knew that based on the intelligence or he should have known. For a guy
with an MBA, he sure didn't check to carefully or have his minions check.

You don't believe. Well, that's an opinion and we need a full investigation.
What if he DID lie? Do you really want someone who lies and 1000s die to
remain in office?

believing WMDs were a good sell to the American public for the elimination
of Saddam Hussein. And I believe he had ulterior motives for taking
Saddam down. But I don't believe he *knew* there were no WMDs. IF he is
impeached for lying about WMDs, the case will never fly. There is simply
no evidence that he deliberately falsified such info. There IS a
preponderance of evidence that he was given faulty intel. THAT is
probably why Pelosi took impeachment off the table--she's a good attorney
and knows a non-case when she sees it.




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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

So, please show us the "precedence" of these redundant court decisions.
The passage I quoted is what is used as a guideline for businesses. Are
you saying that they're not valid?

That's precisely what I'm saying. If you're using and abiding by them,
you're leaving yourself open for litigation.

How did you come to that conclusion. Should we alert the media?

The media are well aware of it. Where have you been?

Basically, what you're saying is that it's not ok for two consenting
adults who happen to work with each other to have an affair.

Not if they are at the opposite ends of the power spectrum. Today a CEO who
has an consensual affair with his secretary is leaving himself open to
charges if she all of a sudden decides she doesn't like the guy anymore. It
especially happens if he dumps her for another tryst.

And, further, you're saying that this should be investigated and
prosecuted for lying about it. Is that what you're really saying??? Seems
kind of like a lot of gov't intrusion into someone's private life to me.
But, you're the conservative not me.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Better show that evidence to Nancy Pelosi. Maybe she'll put impeachment
back on the table. ;-)

In any case, you're understanding of the impeachment process is flawed:

During Clinton's presidency, the world continued to transition from the
political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the
longest period of economic expansion in its history. In 1998, he became
the second president to be impeached by the United States House of
Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate
and remained in office to complete his term.

Thanks for the history lesson, Jon, but now tell me something I don't
already know.

How am *I* supposed to show you that? I'm calling for an investigation.

No problem with that. If an investigation is warranted, it should happen.
But I could probably retire if I had a dollar for every time you've called
Bush a liar. You seem to have some evidence to which no one else is privvy.
I don't like Bush, but I like left-wing dogmatic garbage even less.

He knew that based on the intelligence or he should have known. For a guy
with an MBA, he sure didn't check to carefully or have his minions check.

Really? When some of the top intel people in the country are telling him
there is a strong possibility of WMDs, and a couple of others are saying
'probably not,' does he opt for the naysayers while taking the risk that
they may be wrong? Bush's only mistake, IMO, is staying in Iraq to help
nation-build. He once said he would not do that, but he has done exactly
that. And it's become a quagmire in which we are embroiled and losing
American lives, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that
have been lost in the process.

You don't believe. Well, that's an opinion and we need a full
investigation.
What if he DID lie? Do you really want someone who lies and 1000s die to
remain in office?

I don't want him to remain in office, regardless. I'm predicting he'll be
out of the White House in, oh, I don't know, less than two years.

Max